| Literature DB >> 35682221 |
Jae-Geum Jeong1, Seung-Wan Kang2, Suk Bong Choi1.
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to examine the effects of team level Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) promotion climate on work happiness of team members. Furthermore, we investigate the mediating role of organizational identification at individual level and the moderating role of leader-follower value congruence at the team level in the relationship between CSR promotion climate and work happiness, thus overcoming the limitations of previous studies which mainly focused on a unitary level of analysis. To this end, a multilevel analysis was used, dealing with team- and individual-level relationships; the sample comprises 70 teams and 336 employees from 23 Korean firms. Our empirical analysis revealed that a team CSR promotion climate positively influenced team members' happiness at work and organization identification. Furthermore, organization identification partially mediated the relationship between team CSR promotion climate and happiness at the workplace. By interacting with team CSR promotion climate, leader-followers value congruence positively regulated the influence of team CSR promotion climate on happiness at work. In this process, for a group with high leader-follower value congruence, the team CSR promotion climate strengthens team members' happiness at the workplace. The study utilizes a multilevel analysis method to simultaneously verify team- and individual-level elements positively affecting team members' happiness at work. Through this method, it confirmed that CSR promotion climate and team organization identification positively influence happiness at work. The theoretical and practical implications are presented, and directions for future research with limitations of the study are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: happiness at work; leader–followers value congruence; organization identification; team’s CSR promotion climate
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35682221 PMCID: PMC9180225 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116637
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Study Model.
Comparison of measurement models.
| Model | CFI | TLI | IFI | RMR | RMSEA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four-factor(proposed) model | 1220.86 (647) | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.03 | 0.05 |
| Three-factor model | 1658.95 (650) | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| Two-factor model | 3297.37 (663) | 0.73 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.05 | 0.10 |
| One-factor model | 4583.97 (665) | 0.60 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.06 | 0.13 |
Notes: CSR= Team’s CSR promotion climate; OI = Organizational identification; VC = Leader–followers value congruence; and WH = Work happiness.
Aggregation Test Results for Group-Lever Variables.
| Variables | rwg(j) | ICC (1) | ICC (2) | F ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team’s CSR promotion climate | 0.98 | 0.44 | 0.79 | 4.82 ( |
| Leader–followers value congruence | 0.88 | 0.25 | 0.62 | 2.63 ( |
Notes: rwg(j) = Average interrater reliability; ICC (1) = Interclass Correlation Coefficients assessing the interrespondent reliability; ICC (2) = Interclass Correlation Coefficients assessing the mean reliability of a group.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.
| (a) Individual(Level 1) Variables | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Gender | 1.35 | 0.47 | - | |||||||
| 2. | Age | 2.46 | 1.04 | −2.23 ** | - | ||||||
| 3. | Education | 2.58 | 0.90 | −0.18 | −0.21 ** | - | |||||
| 4. | Organization identification | 3.92 | 0.62 | −0.02 | 0.29 ** | 0.06 | (0.86) | ||||
| 5. | Happiness at work | 3.82 | 0.65 | −0.05 | 0.11 * | 0.12 * | 0.58 ** | (0.94) | |||
|
| |||||||||||
| 6. | Team size | 5.36 | 1.99 | 0.30 ** | −0.12 * | −0.02 | −0.00 | 0.04 | |||
| 7. | Team’s CSR promotion climate | 3.88 | 0.60 | −0.00 | 0.06 | 0.17 ** | 0.52 ** | 0.61 ** | 0.01 | (0.95) | |
| 8. | Leader–followers value congruence | 3.53 | 0.74 | −0.00 | 0.07 | 0.18 ** | 0.61 ** | 0.61 ** | 0.01 | 0.57 ** | (0.91) |
Notes: N = 336 for level-1 variables and 70 for level-2 variables. Values in parentheses are alpha coefficients. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01, Two-tailed tests; SD = standard division.
Hierarchical linear model predicting: direct, mediating, and moderating effects.
| Variables | Organization | Happiness at Work | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Null Model | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
|
| |||||
| Intercept | 3.90 *** | 3.811 *** | 3.844 *** | 3.84*** | 3.83 *** |
| Gender | –0.01 | −0.098 | −0.10 | −0.08 | |
| Age | 0.21 *** | −0.043 | −0.05 | −0.05 | |
| Education | 0.03 | −0.004 | −0.00 | −0.00 | |
| Organization identification | 0.503 *** | 0.50*** | 0.50 *** | ||
|
| |||||
| Team size | −0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 | ||
| Team’s CSR promotion climate | 0.39 *** | 0.48*** | 0.50 *** | ||
| Leader–followers value congruence | 0.36*** | 0.34 *** | |||
|
| |||||
| Team’s CSR promotion climate × Leader–followers value congruence | 0.25 *** | ||||
|
| Variance | Variance | Variance | Variance | Variance |
| Group-level variance(τ) | 0.0511 ** | 0.1460 *** | 0.1928 *** | 0.0244 *** | 0.0161 *** |
| Individual-level variance(σ2) | 0.2449 | 0.2935 | 0.2073 | 0.2007 | 0.1995 |
| Deviance | 578.66 | 626.52 | 563.51 | 496.59 | 491.58 |
|
| 224.28 | 23.61 | 22.18 | 22.20 | |
Note: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Moderating effect of leader–followers value congruence.
Team’s CSR promotion climate.
|
| Team leaders and members recognize, agree and are encouraged within the team to pursue profits through honest and correct corporate activities and engage in economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibility activities to contribute to the community. |
|
| Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455–469. [ |
|
|
Our business has a procedure in place to respond to every customer complaint. We continually improve the quality of our products. We use customer satisfaction as an indicator of our business performance. We strive to lower our operating costs. Top management establishes long-term strategies for our business. Managers are informed about relevant environmental laws. All our products meet legal standards. The managers of this organization try comply with the law. Our company seeks to comply with all laws regulation hiring and employee benefits. Internal policies prevent discrimination in employees’ compensation and promotion. Members of our organization follow professional standards. Top managers monitor the potential negative impacts of our activities on our community. We are recognized as a trustworthy company. Fairness toward coworkers and business partners in an integral part of our employee evaluation process. Our salespersons and employees are required to provide full and accurate information to all customers. Our business encourages employees to join civic organizations that support our community. Our business gives adequate contributions to charities. A program is in place to reduce the amount of energy and materials wasted in our business. We encourage partnerships with local businesses and schools. Our business supports local sports and cultural activities. |
Organizational Identification.
|
| A member of an organization perceives himself and the organization as a concept and considers it a common destiny. |
|
| Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. [ |
|
|
When someone criticizes (name of company), it feels like a personal insult. I am very interested in what others think about (name of company). When I talk about this company, I usually say “we rather than ‘they’ This company’s successes are my successes. When someone praises this company, it feels like a personal compliment. If a story in the media criticized the company, I would feel embarrassed. |
Leader–followers value congruence.
|
| It means that the values of the leader and followers match. |
|
| Cable, D, M, & Judge, T, A, (1996), Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294–311. [ |
|
|
The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my team leader values. My personal values match my team leader’s values and culture. My team leader’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life. |
Happiness at Work.
|
| Happiness at work refers to a positive feeling or emotion that satisfies one’s job and organization through positive experiences at work and predicts optimistically about the future. |
|
| Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person × Situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(3), 580–592. [ |
|
|
I’m satisfied with the job I belong to. I am satisfied with the conditions of my job. My job is very helpful in realizing the ideal of my life. My working life was generally happy. My work life was generally enjoyable. My work life was generally positive. My work life was generally unpleasant. My work life was generally sad. My work life was generally upsetting. |