To engage or not to engage in organisational citizenship behaviour: that is the question!

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rero20 Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rero20 To engage or not to engage in organisational citizenship behaviour: that is the question! Paula Vázquez-Rodríguez, Noelia Romero-Castro & Ada M. Pérez-Pico To cite this article: Paula Vázquez-Rodríguez, Noelia Romero-Castro & Ada M. PérezPico (2021) To engage or not to engage in organisational citizenship behaviour: that is the question!, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 34:1, 2506-2521, DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2020.1833743 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1833743 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 16 Oct 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 4801 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles SI: ACIEK 2020 ESIC To engage or not to engage in organisational citizenship behaviour: that is the question! Paula V azquez-Rodr ıguez a , Noelia Romero-Castro b and Ada M. P erez-Pico a a Department of Business Administration, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain; b Department of Finance, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain ABSTRACT Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) can be defined as discretional, voluntary and useful informal behaviour that is not directly acknowledged by the organisation’s formal reward system. Such behaviour refers to actions that go beyond performing the tasks defined as part of one’s job. Previous studies have shown that organisations that promote OCB can notably improve their productivity and efficiency. It is therefore important to know what causes employees to engage in OCB rather than just limiting themselves to doing what is strictly expected at work. However, it is more important to know why they do not engage in OCB. Using a sample of public prison employees and the fsQCA method, this study examines how the combined effects of organisational characteristics, leadership behaviours and individual characteristics lead to the absence of OCB. The results indicate that the absence of affective commitment, or job satisfaction, or interactional justice is a necessary condition for the absence of OCB. Four conditions are identified as sufficient, and the absence of affective commitment and the presence of laissez-faire leadership are found to be the most relevant conditions for the absence of OCB. Managerial implications and directions for future studies are discussed at the end of the paper. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 17 June 2020 Accepted 4 October 2020 KEYWORDS Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA); organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB); affective commitment; laissez-faire leadership; bullying at work JEL CLASSIFICATIONS M12; M50; C83 1. Introduction In recent years, the scientific community has devoted considerable attention to organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB), which is defined as ‘individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization’(Organ, 1988, p. 4). ‘These behaviors include any of those gestures (often taken for granted) that lubricate the social machinery of the organization but that do not directly inhere in the usual notion of task performance’(Bateman & Organ, 1983, p. 588). CONTACT Paula V azquez-Rodr  ıguez [email protected] ß2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 2021, VOL. 34, NO. 1, 2506–2521 https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1833743 But what leads employees to go beyond the call of duty at work? According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when workers perceive good will from the organisation, they respond in kind, engaging in positive behaviours that yield benefits for both parties (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Such behaviours, which often go beyond the scope of the tasks defined to perform a certain job, include helping overloaded co-workers, voluntarily taking on additional responsibilities, developing additional skills that are beneficial to the organisation, working overtime, or publicly championing the organisation (Allen et al., 2011; Organ et al., 2006). Scholars have defined OCB and have identified its main antecedents as well as the positive effects of OCB on organisations (LePine et al., 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000,2009). These positive effects range from improvements at the organisational level, such as greater productivity, efficiency and profitability as well as cost reductions (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Walz & Niehoff, 2000), to improvements at the individual level, such as strong performance evaluations (Allen & Rush, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 2009), reward recommendation decisions (Allen & Rush, 1998), and low or decreasing levels of turnover, turnover intentions (Chen, 2005) and absenteeism (Podsakoff et al., 2009). In general, the study of OCB is a prominent theme in academic research, although not in the context of prisons. Prison staffs are civil servants in Spain. They have welldefined roles, but they are exposed to unique working conditions in that they have to interact on a daily basis with people who are held in prison against their will (Brough & Williams, 2007). Thus, in recent decades, scholars have undertaken major efforts to determine the positive and negative effects of these working conditions on prison staff (Lambert & Hogan, 2013). Few studies have examined what leads prison staff to engage in OCB or, more importantly, what causes employees not to engage in OCB and instead limit their actions to what is strictly expected of them at work. These studies have tended to focus on workers’attitudes. Under the assumption that OCB has a major voluntary component, researchers have focused on analysing the individual attitudes that encourage prison staff to adopt OCB. These attitudes include the worker’s commitment to the organisation (Allen et al., 2011; Frank et al., 2020; Lambert et al., 2008,2017), job satisfaction, (Frank et al., 2020; Ingrams, 2020; Lambert, 2010) and even the perception of interactional justice (Lambert, 2003; Lambert & Hogan, 2013). However, few studies have examined how variables that are not related to workers’ attitudes (e.g., an unsuitable leadership style or bullying at work) might be responsible for preventing prison staff from engaging in OCB. And even fewer studies have examined the combined effect of these antecedents on the absence of OCB; almost all studies have focused on investigating which individual variables lead to the presence (rather than the absence) of OCB. Thus, the use of fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) can help provide a better understanding of the factors that lead prison staff not to engage in OCB, offering an alternative approach that complements conventional practice (Ragin, 2008). In light of the above, this study examined three of the principal antecedents of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000) to observe how the combined effects of individual characteristics (absence of affective commitment, perceptions of interactional justice and ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 2507 job satisfaction), leadership behaviours (presence of laissez-faire leadership) and organisational characteristics (presence of bullying at work) can lead to the absence of OCB among prison staff. The results contribute to the advancement of knowledge of OCB in two ways. First, they provide a more complete overview of this phenomenon by considering the attitudinal perspectives not only of workers but also of superiors and the organisation itself. Second, they provide insight from the analysis of the absence of OCB. The results thus shed light on the reasons why prison staff do not engage in this type of behaviour. The results of this study thereby provide prison managers with information on strategies that can be adopted to encourage OCB through the management and control of work-related variables that might hinder such behaviour. The article is divided into several sections. Section 2 presents a review of the general literature with a focus on the links between OCB and the five antecedents used to explain why prison staff do not engage in OCB. Section 2 also states the propositions tested in this study. Section 3 describes the data, method, measurement scales and procedure followed in this study. Section 4 presents the results of the analysis. Section 5 discusses these results, framing them in the existing literature. Section 6 presents some of the limitations of the study as well as offering suggestions for future research. Section 7 briefly outlines the conclusions of the study. 2. Literature review 2.1. OCB and affective commitment The study of the positive effects of workers’OCB has elicited growing interest from the scientific community as a means of understanding what leads workers to perform tasks that go beyond any formal requirements (LePine et al., 2002). A pillar of the OCB literature is that OCB is driven by positive work attitudes such as organisational commitment (Frank et al., 2020; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Shahjehan et al., 2019). Organisational commitment is the emotional bond that leads employees to accept the organisation’s goals (Porter et al., 1974). It is considered an attitudinal indicator of the degree to which workers perceive a high-quality social exchange relationship with the organisation (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The organisational commitment literature discusses three forms of commitment: affective, normative and continuance. The present study focuses on affective commitment, which refers to the emotional bond, identification and involvement of the individual with the organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment is more strongly related to OCB than either normative or continuance commitment is (Ch^ enevert et al., 2015; Meyer et al., 2002). When the emotional bond that links an individual to the organisation is strong, the worker becomes fully committed to the goals of the organisation (Allen et al., 2011) and engages in behaviours that, without being explicitly stated by the organisation, actually benefit it (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Furthermore, affective commitment is the most widely studied form of commitment in the context of prisons because this type of commitment best reflects the exchange relationship between a worker and the organisation in this context. 2508 P. VÁZQUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL. Although prison employment is stable, it also entails considerable complexity, danger and the obligation to work in a crowded, inefficient system (Dur an, 2007). In this context, employees who develop emotional bonds with the organisation tend to go beyond the call of duty, displaying a greater level of OCB (Allen et al., 2011; Lambert et al., 2008,2017) because they are likely to feel a relational obligation to engage in behaviours that have positive consequences for both parties (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2008). But what happens when prison staff does not develop affective ties with the organisation? By the same logic, these employees are unlikely to engage in OCB because they perceive a need to meet only the formal requirements of their jobs. Thus, the following proposition was tested: P1: The absence of affective commitment leads to the absence of OCB. 2.2. OCB and interactional justice Another antecedent of OCB is the perception of organisational justice (Colquitt et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Organisational justice refers to an individual’s perception of and reactions to, how the organisation treats that individual (L opez-Cabarcos et al., 2016). As Greenberg notes (1993, p. 250), ‘people will behave altruistically toward the organization in which they work if they believe they have been fairly treated by that organization’. According to social exchange theory, if employees deem that fair treatment by the organisation is beneficial, they will be more motivated to reciprocate, adopting positive attitudes and behaviours (Moorman & Byrne, 2005). Organisational justice has three components: distributive, procedural and interactional justice. This study focuses on interactional justice, which relates to the importance of the perceived quality of interpersonal relationships (i.e., treating employees with respect, truthfulness and propriety and offering suitable justifications) when the organisation implements procedures (Bies & Moag, 1986). Some scholars have argued that the perception of interactional justice triggers more intense emotional and behavioural responses in workers than the perception of other forms of justice (Bies & Moag, 1986). Furthermore, when the outcome is the intention to engage in OCB, interactional justice is the only type of justice capable of predicting that intentionality (Williams et al., 2002). For this reason, the scientific community also requires for more research on interactive justice in the prison context (Lambert et al., 2020). In a context such as the prison system, where the working conditions are established in many countries by the state, the perception of fair, equal and respectful treatment by superiors and colleagues is likely to be especially important and is likely to lead to OCB that enriches the immediate working environment and the organisation as a whole (Chiaburu, 2007; Masterson et al., 2000; Moorman & Byrne, 2005). Conversely, however, unfair treatment may force employees into the economic exchange relationships stipulated in contracts, making the presence of OCB less likely (Moorman & Byrne, 2005). Thus, the following proposition was tested: P2: Absence of perceptions of interactional justice leads to the absence of OCB. ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 2509 2.3. OCB and job satisfaction Early research on OCB examined job satisfaction as one of OCB’s first antecedents (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Job satisfaction is defined as an individual’s positive emotional reaction to work (Oshagbemi, 2000). Most meta-analyses have shown the existence of a direct positive relationship between job satisfaction and OCB (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Ingrams, 2020; LePine et al., 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000). This relationship can also be explained using social exchange theory as follows: To the extent that employee satisfaction derives from the efforts of the organisation and these efforts are perceived as volitional rather than manipulative, the worker will tend to reciprocate these efforts (Bateman & Organ, 1983). In the context of the prison system job satisfaction is a possible antecedent of OCB (Lambert, 2010), although studies examining this relationship are scarce. As discussed earlier, workers with high job satisfaction tend to interact reciprocally with the organisation by engaging in OCB. But what happens when employees are dissatisfied? Is this dissatisfaction enough to prevent OCB from flourishing? Thus, the following proposition was tested: P3: The absence of job satisfaction leads to the absence of OCB. 2.4. OCB and Laissez-Faire leadership According to Podsakoff et al. (2000), the next group of antecedents of OCB consists of leadership behaviours. Leadership is defined as the art or process of influencing people so that they voluntarily and enthusiastically meet their goals (Koontz & Weihrich, 1998). It refers to the interactions among the members of a group, where the leaders are the agents of change. In other words, leaders are people whose actions affect the other members of the group (Bass, 1990). Leadership studies have traditionally focused on analysing the factors associated with effective management, implicitly assuming that leadership ineffectiveness simply reflects an absence of leadership (Ashforth, 1997). However, scholars have recently drawn attention to the effects of negative leadership on workers’attitudes and behaviours and on organisational performance (Skogstad et al., 2007). One of the negative forms of leadership is laissez-faire (passive) leadership, which has been described by Bass and Avolio (1995, p. 20) as ‘the absence of leadership, the avoidance of intervention, or both. With laissez faire leadership, there are generally neither transactions nor agreements with followers. Decisions are often delayed; feedback, rewards and involvement are absent; and there is no attempt to motivate followers or to recognize and satisfy their needs’. This type of leadership entails a lack of effective leadership. Moreover, when superiors adopt a passive leadership style, they are unable to mobilise all the resources that the organisation places at employees’ disposal to forge relationships that encourage organisational commitment and, ultimately, OCB (Ch^ enevert et al., 2015). Thus, workers who feel isolated and ignored by those above them in the hierarchy –and, consequently, by the organisation itself – may not feel the obligation to reciprocate that arises when the organisation looks after workers’interests and well-being. This situation may undermine any chances of 2510 P. VÁZQUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL. developing OCB (Al-Khasawneh & Futa, 2013). Thus, the following proposition was tested: P4: The presence of laissez-faire leadership leads to the absence of OCB. 2.5. OCB and bullying at work The third group of antecedents of OCB relates to organisational characteristics (Podsakoff et al., 2000). One element of this group of antecedents is perceived organisational support, which vanishes when the organisation allows, or at least fails to avoid, bullying at work (L opez-Cabarcos et al., 2017). Bullying at work means, ‘harassing, offending, or socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work. It is an escalating process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts’ (Einarsen et al., 2011, p. 22). Some scholars have suggested that social exchange theory can provide a useful theoretical framework for investigating bullying at work in the context of worker–organisation exchange relationships because such a framework can help explain how intimidation affects the attitudes and organisational behaviour of victims and witnesses (Parzefall & Salin, 2010). Intimidated workers might perceive a psychological contract breach, which might negatively influence their attitudes and behaviours towards the organisation in general by leading them to the conclusion that the organisation does not look after their safety or well-being, especially when bullying continues even after the organisation is made aware of it (Parzefall & Salin, 2010). Thus, the following proposition was tested: P5: The presence of bullying at work leads to the absence of OCB. 3. Method Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) refers to a series of techniques that combine a qualitative approach such as the use of case studies with a quantitative, variablebased approach (Ragin, 2008; Ragin & Fiss, 2008). QCA makes it possible to establish asymmetrical configurations (causal conditions and/or combinations of them), which means that the fact that a certain cause leads to a certain outcome does not mean that the presence of the outcome implies the presence of the cause (Ordanini et al., 2014). It also applies the principle of equifinality, which means that different combinations of conditions can lead to the same outcome (Roig-Tierno et al., 2016). Of the different types of QCA, fuzzy-set QCA (fsQCA) enables various degrees of categorisation of the conditions and is a suitable method when studying causally complex social phenomena that can be articulated as groups and explained in terms of necessity and sufficiency (Woodside, 2016). This method is particularly suitable for studying small and medium-sized samples (Fiss, 2011) but is equally valid for larger samples (Vis, 2012), such as the one in this study. The fsQCA method was applied following the steps proposed by Schneider and Wagemann (2010)–that is, calibration, analysis of necessity and analysis of sufficiency. ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 2511 3.1. Participants and instruments Data were obtained through a self-administered questionnaire to employees at all levels of five Spanish prison facilities. A questionnaire together with an explanatory cover letter was distributed to 1,545 employees, yielding 486 (31.4% response rate) useable questionnaires. Of these employees, 82.9% were men and 17.1% women, and 80.5% were aged between 35 and 49 years. The 25-item Coyle-Shapiro scale (2002) was used to measure OCB (advocacy participation, helping, functional participation, loyalty and obedience) on a 5-point scale (1 ¼not at all; 5 ¼to a very great extent). Based on reviews of the nature of the OCB construct (LePine et al., 2002; Organ, 1997), the measurement used in this study was consistent with that of an aggregate construct, with dimensions that each added to the overall value of OCB (a¼0.90). The 7-item Allen and Meyer scale (1990) measured affective commitment (AC a¼0.88) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼strongly disagree; 5 ¼strongly agree). The 4item scale designed by Moliner et al. (2003) was used to measure interactional justice (IJ a¼0.87), and the 15-item scale designed by Cellucci and DeVries (1978) was used to measure job satisfaction (WS a¼0.72). Both instruments used a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼strongly disagree; 5 ¼strongly agree). The 4-item scale designed by Bass and Avolio (1995) from MLQ-5X (short form) was used to measure laissez-faire leadership (LF a¼0.87) on a 5-point scale (1 ¼never; 5 ¼always). The 29-item version of the Hoel and Cooper (2000) Negative Acts Questionnaire was used to measure bullying at work (BULL a¼0.89). This instrument used a 5-point scale (0 ¼never; 4 ¼daily). 3.2. Procedure After evaluating the psychometric properties of the scales, the values of all items in the scale were multiplied to obtain the value of each construct (Palacios-Marqu es et al., 2017). A process of calibration was then applied to transform the data into fuzzy sets. Three anchors were established for calibration: full membership, maximum ambiguity, and full non-membership (Ragin, 2008). The thresholds were set at the 90th, 50th and 10th percentiles, respectively (Misangyi & Acharya, 2014). 4. Results The outcome of the model was the absence of OCB. The five conditions were affective commitment, interactional justice, job satisfaction, laissez-faire leadership and bullying at work. To conduct a more thorough analysis and provide greater insight into the proposed model, the analysis was conducted considering both the absence and the presence of OCB. Tables 1 and 2present the results of the analysis of necessary conditions for the absence (and presence) of OCB among prison employees. The results indicate that none of the five conditions considered herein on its own leads to the absence of OCB. Although the presence of one of the two negative conditions (BULL þLF) was found not to be a necessary condition, the absence of one of the three positive conditions of the model (IJþACþWS) was a necessary 2512 P. VÁZQUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL. condition for the absence of OCB. The absence of negative conditions (BULLþLF) and the presence of positive conditions (IJ þAC þWS) were quasinecessary for the presence of OCB because their consistency value was close to .90 (Schneider et al., 2010). Analysis of sufficient conditions was also conducted to identify causal configurations that lead to the outcome, again considering the absence and presence of OCB. The following models were studied: OCB ¼f AC, IJ, WS, LF, BULLðÞ OCB ¼f AC, IJ, WS, LF, BULLðÞ Intermediate solutions are presented for both models in Table 3. Four solutions lead to the absence of OCB among prison employees, which explain more than 51% Table 1. Analysis of necessary conditions (absence/presence of OCB). OCB OCB Conditions Consistency Coverage Consistency Coverage IJ 0.502360 0.618911 0.719136 0.616950 IJ 0.689085 0.778923 0.555793 0.437482 LF 0.606538 0.788155 0.511201 0.462563 LF 0.586406 0.632735 0.765880 0.575453 BULL 0.500437 0.767581 0.493634 0.527236 BULL 0.691774 0.662378 0.782394 0.521666 WS 0.482569 0.620673 0.675966 0.605417 WS 0.693215 0.754434 0.576470 0.436874 AC 0.472697 0.596939 0.752387 0.661628 AC 0.732054 0.732054 0.541647 0.417008 Source: Elaborated by the authors. Table 2. Analysis of necessary conditions (absence/presence of OCB). Outcome Conditions Consistency Coverage OCB BULL þLF 0.705664 0.751649 OCB IJþACþWS 0.901319 0.727496 OCB BULLþLF 0.883104 0.506698 OCB IJ þAC þWS 0.892577 0.542034 Note: () means absence of the condition; (þ) is the logical operator ‘OR’. Source: Elaborated by the authors. Table 3. Analysis of sufficient conditions. OCB OCB 1231234 Interactional justice 䊉䊉 䊉 䊊 Affective commitment 䊉䊉䊉䊊䊊䊊䊊 Work satisfaction 䊉䊉 䊊䊊䊉 Bullying at work 䊊䊉䊊䊊 Laissez-faire leadership 䊊䊊 䊉䊉 Consistency (incl.) 0.7842 0.7842 0.8630 0.9039 0.9012 0.8906 0.9045 Raw coverage (cov.r) 0.5151 0.4784 0.2610 0.4016 0.3455 0.3214 0.2385 Unique coverage (cov.u) 0.0579 0.0384 0.0364 0.0254 0.0122 0.0285 0.0109 Solution coverage: 0.5901 0.5132 Solution consistency: 0.7721 0.8795 Note: 䊉denotes the presence of the condition and 䊊denotes the absence of the condition. Large circles denote core conditions, and small circles denote peripheral conditions (Fiss, 2011). Consistency cut-off: 0.79 and 0.90. Frequency cut-off: 5.00. Vector of expected directions (1,1,1,0,0) and (0,0,0,1,1) (Ragin & Sean, 2016). Source: Elaborated by the authors. ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 2513 L opez-Cabarcos, M. A., V azquez-Rodr ıguez, P., & Pi~ neiro-Chousa, J. R. (2016). Combined antecedents of prison employees’affective commitment using fsQCA. Journal of Business Research,69(11), 5534–5539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.167 Luu, T. T. (2017). Knowledge sharing in public organizations: The roles of servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(4), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1113550 Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment of work relationships. Academy of Management Journal,43(4), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556364 Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review,11(3), 299–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S10534822(00)00053-X Meyer,J.P.,Stanley,D.J.,Herscovitch,L.,&Topolnytsky,L.(2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior,61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842 Misangyi, V. F., & Acharya, A. G. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal,57(6), 1681–1705. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0728 Moliner, C., Mart ınez-Tur, V., & Carbonell, S. (2003). >Cu antas dimensiones tiene la justicia organizacional? [How many dimensions does organizational justice have?]. Revista de Psicolog ıa Social Aplicada,13(3), 91–106. Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). How does organizational justice affect organizational citizenship behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 355–380). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Notelaers, G., Vermunt, J. K., Baillien, E., Einarsen, S., & De Witte, H. (2011). Exploring risk groups workplace bullying with categorical data. Industrial Health,49(1), 73–88. doi: 10. 1177/0143831X12438742 Ordanini, A., Parasuraman, A., & Rubera, G. (2014). When the recipe is more important than the ingredients. A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations. Journal of Service Research,17(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670513513337 Organ, D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.LexingtonBooks. Organ, D. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance,10(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2 Organ, D., Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. SAGE. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology,48(4), 775–802. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university teachers. Women in Management Review,15(7), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420010378133 Palacios-Marqu es, D., Roig-Dob on, S., & Comeig, I. (2017). Background factors to innovation performance: Results of an empirical study using fsQCA methodology. Quality & Quantity, 51(5), 1939–1953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0414-2 Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations,63(6), 761–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726709345043 Pastor- Alvarez, A., Molero-Alonso, F., Bardera-Mora, M. P., & Moriano-Le on, J. A. (2019). Authentic leadership and its relationships with work engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors in military units: The role of identification as a mediating variable. Military Psychology,31(5), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2019.1646078 Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individualand organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology,94(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079 2520 P. VÁZQUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ ET AL. 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/10.1016/ S0149-2063(00)00047-7 Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology,59(5), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037335 Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press. Ragin, C. C., & Fiss, P. C. (2008). Net effects analysis versus configurationally analysis: An empirical demonstration. In C. C. Ragin (Ed.), Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond (pp. 190–212). University of Chicago Press. Ragin, C. C., & Sean, D. (2016). Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 3.0. Department of Sociology, University of California. Roig-Tierno, N., Huarng, K. H., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016). Qualitative comparative analysis: Crisp and fuzzy sets in business and management. Journal of Business Research,69(4), 1261–1264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.089 Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology,9(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10. 1163/156913210X12493538729793 Schneider, M. R., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. (2010). Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies,41(2), 246–266. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.36 Shahjehan, A., Afsar, B., & Shah, S. I. (2019). Is organizational commitment-job satisfaction relationship necessary for organizational commitment-citizenship behavior relationships? A meta-analytical necessary condition analysis. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istra zivanja, 32(1), 2657–2679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1653784 Shim, D. C., & Faerman, S. R. (2017). Government employees’organizational citizenship behavior: The impacts of public service motivation, organizational identification, and subjective OCB norms. International Public Management Journal,20(4), 531–559. https://doi. org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1037943 Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of Laissez-Faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,12(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80 Testa, F., Corsini, F., Gusmerotti, N. M., & Iraldo, F. (2020). Predictors of organizational citizenship behavior in relation to environmental and health & safety issues. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,31(13), 1705–1738. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1423099 Vis, B. (2012). The comparative advantages of fsQCA and regression analysis for moderately large-N analyses. Sociological Methods & Research,41(1), 168–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0049124112442142 Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,24(3), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634800002400301 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 Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior intentions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment. The Journal of Social Psychology,142(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603883 Woodside, A. G. (2016). The good practices manifesto: Overcoming bad practices pervasive in current research in business. Journal of Business Research,69(2), 365–381. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.008 ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAŽIVANJA 2521