| Summary: | Qi He,1 Jingtao Fu,2 Wenhao Wu,3 Sabeeh Pervaiz4 1School of Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, 212013, People’s Republic of China; 2School of Management, Hainan University, Haikou, 570228, People’s Republic of China; 3Overseas Education College, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, 212013, People’s Republic of China; 4School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, 212013, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Jingtao Fu Tel +86 18252586527 Email fujingtao_hnu@126.comPurpose: On the basis of previous research results, the opinion that compulsory citizenship behavior (CCB) leads to negative impacts over employees and organizations prevails. However, the latest researches negate the absence of rewards and favorable evaluation from organizational system for CCB. Instead, CCB is likely to be awarded by incentive allocation and recognitive affirmation. In the case of the resource compensation based on CCB, will the expected utility of CCB still show the consistence with the traditional CCB researches, imposing negative effects over employees and organizations?Methods: This research explored the mechanism and boundary condition based on self-determination theory (SDT) and relative deprivation theory (RDT) to avert the negative effects of CCB, hoping to explain the above question. Time-lagged survey data from 227 employees tested the moderated mediation model, and the results verified the hypotheses.Results: With resource compensation after the delivery of CCB, employees will not feel relative deprivation caused by reluctant false citizenship behaviors. In addition, relative deprivation expresses the gap between expectation and reality, low psychological discrepancy will not deeply undermine employees’ work well-being.Keywords: CCB, relative deprivation, work well-being, resource compensation based on CCB
|
|---|