Abstract
Orientation: Organisational citizenship behaviour is crucial for increasing organisational effectiveness, particularly in healthcare settings.
Research purpose: This research analyses the influence of two forms of organisational justice on OCB among healthcare workers. Affective commitment is used as a mediating variable, while passive leadership acts as a moderating variable.
Motivation for the study: Previous research has demonstrated the critical role of organisational justice in OCB, but empirical evidence that specifically explains how procedural and distributive justice influence OCB through affective commitment, particularly in healthcare, is lacking.
Research approach/design and method: This research employed a quantitative approach with a positivist paradigm. Data were collected by using a survey with a questionnaire from 400 hospital employees. Analysis was conducted by using Structural Equation Modelling Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS).
Main findings: The results indicate that procedural justice has a direct effect on OCB, while distributive justice has only an indirect effect through affective commitment. Affective commitment proved to be a significant mediator in the relationship between organisational justice and OCB. Passive leadership was found to negatively moderate the effect of organisational justice on affective commitment.
Practical/managerial implications: Hospitals need to ensure the implementation of fair procedures, transparent distribution of resources, and implement proactive leadership to increase employee emotional engagement and encourage OCB.
Contribution/value-add: This research provides theoretical contributions by confirming the role of affective commitment as a mediating mechanism in the relationship between organisational justice and OCB and demonstrating the moderating effect of passive leadership.
Keywords: organisational citizenship behaviour; procedural justice; distributive justice; affective commitment; passive leadership; healthcare personnel.
Introduction
Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) refers to employee behaviour that involves taking on additional roles beyond their formal roles in the organisation (Chu et al., 2005; Donglong et al., 2020). Organisational citizenship behaviour is crucial for increasing organisational effectiveness because employees, through self-awareness, feel engaged and are a part of the organisation, thus taking actions beyond their job descriptions (Idris et al., 2021; Jahani et al., 2021; Sidin et al., 2020). The importance of OCB is also felt in healthcare settings, including hospitals (Basu et al., 2017; Yusuf et al., 2024). Organisational citizenship behaviour can improve the quality of patient care, teamwork, and employee engagement (Idris et al., 2021; Jahani et al., 2021; Rahman & Karim, 2022; Sidin et al., 2020). Organisational citizenship behaviour also has an impact on workplace conflict, thereby enhancing a conducive work environment. Given the importance of OCB’s impact on workers, researchers sought to further examine the factors influencing OCB, particularly in healthcare settings.
Hospital employees, such as doctors and nurses, significantly influence the quality and image of the hospital. Therefore, hospitals require employees with high levels of OCB, which are behaviours that benefit the organisation but are not included in the employee’s job description (Rahman & Karim, 2022). This behaviour is highly desirable because it supports organisational effectiveness and survival, especially in a highly competitive environment.
Previous studies have attempted to explain factors that can increase OCB, including dimensions of organisational justice (Rahman & Karim, 2022; Wulansari et al., 2017; Zayed et al., 2022), perceived organisational support (Chênevert et al., 2015; Gupta et al., 2016; Peelle, 2007), and affective and normative commitment (Jehanzeb & Mohanty, 2020; Kazemipour & Mohd Amin, 2012; Ratiu et al., 2021). The implementation of organisational justice, including in the hospital environment, has an impact on OCB. Organisational justice, including procedural and distributive justice, indicates fair treatment in the distribution of resources and decision-making processes in the organisation. The emotional attachment of employees generated by affective commitment can motivate them to reciprocate fair treatment with OCB behaviours (Vagharseyyedin et al., 2018). Employee behaviour that benefits the organisation can also be determined by the leader’s role in managing employees (Sepeng et al., 2020). Leaders are considered successful if they can provide fairness and support to employees, resulting in high levels of commitment and OCB. However, not all leaders can motivate their employees in a positive direction. Some leaders expect jobs to be performed well by their employees, based on assigned responsibilities, but without supervision. This leadership style is called passive leadership (Kelloway et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2021). Passive leadership negatively impacts the organisation, employee affective commitment, and OCB (Chênevert et al., 2015).
Although previous research has focused on demonstrating the importance of organisational justice in enhancing OCB, empirical evidence remains limited regarding how various dimensions of justice (particularly procedural and distributive justice) specifically influence OCB in healthcare settings. Furthermore, the role of affective commitment as a mediator in the relationship between organisational justice and OCB requires further study. Hence, this research analysed the influence of organisational justice on organisational citizenship behaviour, with affective commitment as a mediating variable and the passive role of leaders as a moderating variable.
Literature review
Organisational citizenship behaviour
Organisational citizenship behaviour is employee behaviour indicated by voluntary actions undertaken even though not explicitly recognised by formal reward systems, but essential for organisational effectiveness (Uçanok & Karabati, 2013). In healthcare settings, particularly hospitals, OCB can improve the quality of service, such as patient-centred care, by fostering a supportive and collaborative environment (Mahooti et al., 2018). Organisational citizenship behaviour, which is voluntary, out-of-role actions that support organisational functions, is regarded as an essential driver of healthcare quality, patient safety, and team effectiveness. In high-risk healthcare settings, OCB among personnel (e.g. nurses, physicians, and other healthcare professionals) enhances collaboration, reduces errors, and improves patient outcomes. The importance of OCB is magnified by the complexity and interdependence of healthcare work, in which discretionary behaviours such as helping colleagues, sharing knowledge, and going beyond formal duties directly impact organisational effectiveness and the quality of patient care (Basu et al., 2017).
According to Organ et al. (2006), OCB has five indicators: altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, courtesy, and sportsmanship. Altruism refers to employee behaviourthat voluntarily helps co-workers experiencing difficulties, such as providing solutions to coworkers’ work problems. Civic virtue shows employees actively participating in organisational activities and demonstrating loyalty and wise responsibility for the condition and development of the organisation. Consciousness shows employees’ awareness and concern for using organisational time and resources efficiently, as well as complying with organisational regulations and standards. Courtesy refers to employee initiatives to prevent and resolve problems in the organisation, such as paying attention and maintaining courtesy to colleagues or subordinates to avoid conflict. Meanwhile, sportsmanship shows employee tolerance for less-than-satisfactory work conditions and a tendency to avoid negative behaviour that can damage the work environment.
Organisational justice
Organisational justice encompasses employee perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice within the organisation (Sheeraz et al., 2020). Organisational justice significantly impacts OCB. Positive perceptions of organisational justice are associated with higher levels of OCB towards the organisation, including conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. In healthcare settings, fair treatment and equitable distribution of resources can increase the commitment and willingness of employees to go beyond their formal duties (Yeşilada & Denizgil, 2020).
Procedural justice, which refers to the perception of a fair decision-making process, has a strong positive relationship with OCB. According to social exchange theory, when employees perceive procedures to be fair, consistent, and transparent, they are more likely to feel respected (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The perception of justice would increase employee trust in the organisation and ultimately lead to voluntary actions that benefit the organisation beyond their formal responsibilities (Moorman et al., 1998). When organisations implement fair and transparent procedures, they create an environment in which employees feel valued and respected, leading to increased trust and a greater willingness to contribute to the organisation’s success through voluntary actions (Rahman & Karim, 2022). The higher the perceived procedural justice, the greater the perceived support from the organisation.
Distributive justice refers to employees’ perceptions of the fairness of the outcomes and rewards that employees receive from the organisation (Rahman & Karim, 2022). Components of distributive justice include pay, promotions, and recognition. Social exchange theory suggests that employees who perceive greater distributive justice are more likely to exhibit OCB. They are more likely to engage in voluntary actions that go beyond formal job duties and contribute to creating a positive work environment. When employees perceive that the rewards they receive are fair and commensurate with their contributions, they are more likely to reciprocate to the organisation through OCB (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005):
H1: Procedural justice has a positive and significant effect on employee OCB.
H2: Distributive justice has a positive and significant effect on employee OCB.
Affective commitment
Affective commitment is the emotional attachment felt by employees to their organisation (Meyer et al., 2012). Previous research suggests that affective commitment is a strong predictor of OCB (Chênevert et al., 2015; Gupta et al., 2016). In the healthcare context, fostering affective commitment can increase levels of OCB, which in turn improves patient care and organisational performance. Affective commitment in this study was measured through three indicators: emotional attachment, identification, and participation (Meyer et al., 2015). Building emotional attachment through supportive leadership and work environment can increase OCB (Kazemipour et al., 2012). The relationship between affective commitment and OCB is based on the principles of social exchange theory, in which positive actions from the organisation are reciprocated with positive employee behaviour (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In a hospital environment, fair processes and outcome distribution of resources can increase the commitment and willingness of employees to go beyond their formal duties (Yeşilada & Denizgil, 2020).
Procedural justice influences affective commitment by building a foundation of trust, respect, and fairness within an organisation (Zayed et al., 2022). When employees perceive that decision-making and resource allocation processes are transparent, consistent, and fair, they are more likely to develop strong emotional bonds with the organisation. Employees who feel heard and respected by their organisation, and who perceive that decisions are made impartially, develop trust in the organisation’s management and systems. This perceived trust makes employees feel secure and confident in their relationship with the organisation, thereby strengthening their emotional bonds.
Distributive justice, which is employees’ perceptions of the fairness of resource allocation, is positively and significantly correlated with affective commitment (Jehanzeb & Mohanty, 2020; Yeşilada & Denizgil, 2020). This relationship means that when employees believe the distribution of outcomes (such as pay or promotions) is fair, their emotional bond and commitment to the organisation tend to strengthen. Employees who perceive fair outcomes tend to feel emotionally connected to their organisation:
H3: Procedural justice has a positive and significant effect on employee affective commitment.
H4: Distributive justice has a positive and significant effect on employee affective commitment.
H5: Affective commitment has a positive and significant effect on employee OCB.
H6: Affective commitment mediates the relationship between procedural justice and employee OCB.
H7: Affective commitment mediates the relationship between distributive justice and employee OCB.
Passive leadership
Passive leadership is characterised by a lack of proactive leadership behaviour and avoidance of decision-making (Chênevert et al., 2015). In this research, passive leadership negatively moderated the relationship between perceived support and affective commitment. High levels of passive leadership weakened the positive impact of support from colleagues and physicians on affective commitment and, subsequently, on OCB. This research suggests that reducing passive leadership behaviour and encouraging active and supportive leadership can increase the positive impact of organisational support on OCB in healthcare settings:
H8: Passive leadership moderates the relationship between distributive justice and employee affective commitment.
H9: Passive leadership moderates the relationship between procedural justice and employee affective commitment.
Research methods and design
This research uses the positivist research paradigm, a research approach that emphasises objectivity, quantitative measurement, and empirical observation, and can be replicated (Lim, 2023). Data collection was carried out using the simple random sampling method. The instrument used is a questionnaire containing statements, using a Likert scale of 1 to 5. The research instrument was adapted from previous research with the following explanations: (1) OCB consists of 20 statement items adapted from Organ et al. (2006), (2) Procedural justice consists of six statement items adapted from Colquitt et al. (2012), (3) Distributive justice consists of five statement items sourced from Colquitt et al. (2012), (4) Passive leadership consists of five statement items adapted from Kelloway et al. (2006), and (5) Affective commitment consists of eight statement items adopted from Meyer et al. (2015).
The research sample consisted of 400 people. This number was based on the concept proposed by Hair et al. (2015) that the minimum sample size is 10 times the number of research variables or question items, and the maximum sample size is 400 to achieve good results.
Instrument testing
Instrument testing is used to measure the validity of a questionnaire. A questionnaire is considered valid if its questions adequately reveal what it is intended to measure (Cooper & Schindler, 2011). Instrument validity in this research is evaluated based on the convergent and discriminant validity of its indicators, processed using Partial Least Squares (PLS). Convergent validity is considered high if the loading value or the correlation between the indicator and construct scores is above 0.70. Indicators with loadings below 0.70 are dropped from the analysis and re-estimated. Discriminant validity, on the other hand, is used to demonstrate that a construct or latent variable predicts measures in its own block better than measures in other blocks. Discriminant validity can be measured from the cross-loading value. The correlation value of an indicator with its construct must be greater than the correlation value between that indicator and other constructs. Construct reliability in this study was measured by using composite reliability. Composite reliability, also known as internal consistency, is translated similarly to Cronbach’s alpha. Hair et al. (2015) argued that composite reliability measures are more reliable than Cronbach’s alpha because Cronbach’s alpha estimates the lower bound of internal consistency.
Data analysis
The data in this study are primary data collected by using survey techniques. This research used Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) analysis with an alternative method, PLS. This research variable consists of five items, all of which are first-order: procedural justice (six items), distributive justice (five items), affective commitment (eight items), passive leadership (five items), and organisational citizenship behaviour (20 items).
The model proposed in this study has a standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) value of 0.092, which is between 0.08 and 0.10, indicating a marginal fit. The normed fit index (NFI) value is 0.649, which is greater than 0.50, indicating a good fit.
In the initial estimation stage, six indicators with factor loadings below 0.50 were excluded, after which the measurement model was re-estimated. As shown in Figure 2, all items that exceeded the minimum loading of 0.50 are retained.
 |
FIGURE 3: Structural equation modelling partial least squares model. |
|
Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity in research uses the square root of average (AVE) value and correlation coefficients between constructs to test whether items are valid in explaining or reflecting latent variables. In addition to meeting convergent validity, a reflective measurement model must have discriminant validity.
Discriminant validity is achieved when the square root of a construct’s average variance extracted exceeds its correlations with other constructs. As shown in Table 1, all of the variables meet this condition, confirming that the measurement model demonstrates discriminant validity.
Composite reliability
Composite reliability was used to assess the internal consistency, in which values exceeding 0.70 are acceptable (Hair et al., 2015). As indicated in Table 2, all constructs met this threshold, confirming that the measurement model demonstrated satisfactory reliability.
The reliability assessment indicated that five constructs used in this research achieved composite reliability values above 0.70, confirming internal consistency (Hair et al., 2015).
Convergent validity
Convergent validity was examined by inspecting the outer loading of each reflective indicator. Higher loading coefficients reflect stronger contributions of individual items in representing the latent constructs, with statistically significant values indicating adequate indicator relevance within the model (Cooper & Schindler, 2011).
Model fit
Model fit was assessed by using the SRMR, which reflects the average discrepancy between the observed and model-implied correlations. The SRMR obtained in this research was 0.092, placing the model within the marginal acceptance range, and the NFI reached 0.649, surpassing the minimum benchmark and supporting model adequacy (Hair et al., 2015).
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, Universitas Negeri Padang, Faculty of Economics and Business (No. 492/UN35/LT/2023).
Results
This research used the Structural Equation Modelling Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) model and was processed with SmartPLS version 3.2.7 to evaluate the research model. The inner model test aimed to determine the path coefficient and inner model T-statistic, which indicate the level of significance of changes in the independent variable on the dependent variable (Hair et al., 2015; Ahmad & Afthanorhan, 2014). Hypothesis testing is based on the results of the SEM-PLS model analysis, containing all supporting variables for the hypothesis test. The hypothesis model was calculated by using SmartPLS version 3.2.7 to determine the significance of the path coefficients in the model or the significance of the hypothesis support.
The model in this research proves the significance of the influence of procedural justice, distributive justice, and affective commitment on organisational citizenship behaviour, as well as the moderating influence of passive leadership.
The moderation pattern of passive leadership on the influence of procedural and distributive justice on affective commitment will be explained through a graph of the interaction of the three variables. This graph consists of three lines: blue, red, and green. The blue line represents the effect on affective commitment without passive leadership moderation. The green line represents the effect on affective commitment under conditions of high passive leadership. The red line represents the effect on affective commitment under conditions of low passive leadership.
The interaction pattern of passive leadership and procedural justice on affective commitment, as shown in Figure 4, provides several insights. Firstly, under conditions of high or low passive leadership, higher procedural justice increases affective commitment, as seen in both lines with an upward slope to the right. Secondly, under conditions of low passive leadership, affective commitment is higher than under conditions of high passive leadership. Thirdly, the effect of procedural justice on affective commitment is more substantial under conditions of low passive leadership, as evidenced by the steeper slope of the lines. Fourthly, under conditions of low passive leadership, high procedural justice increases affective commitment more rapidly.
 |
FIGURE 4: Passive leadership moderation pattern on the influence of procedural justice on affective commitment. |
|
The interaction pattern of passive leadership and distributive justice on affective commitment, as shown in Figure 5, provides several meanings. Firstly, under both high and low passive leadership conditions, higher distributive justice will increase affective commitment, as seen in both lines with an upward slope to the right. Secondly, under low passive leadership conditions, affective commitment is higher than under high passive leadership conditions. Thirdly, the effect of distributive justice on affective commitment is more substantial under low passive leadership conditions, as seen in the steeper slope of the lines. Fourthly, under low passive leadership conditions, high distributive justice will increase affective commitment more rapidly (Wang et al., 2021).
 |
FIGURE 5: Passive leadership moderation pattern on the influence of distributive justice on affective commitment. |
|
In this research, procedural and distributive justice indirectly affect organisational citizenship behaviour through affective commitment. The procedural and distributive justice variables in the model are depicted as first influencing affective commitment, followed by a direct influence of these variables on organisational citizenship behaviour.
All indirect effects were tested significantly (p < 0.05). The results of the indirect effect test demonstrate the significant mediating role of affective commitment in the influence of procedural justice (b = 0.106; p = 0.000) and distributive justice (b = 0.108; p = 0.000) on organisational citizenship behaviour (Zayed et al., 2022).
Hypothesis testing results
This research identified nine hypotheses. Based on the results of the inner model coefficient test, a detailed explanation of each hypothesis is presented.
Hypothesis 1 states that procedural justice influences employee organisational citizenship behaviour. The path coefficient of procedural justice (b = 0.225; p = 0.000) was found to be significant, indicating that the hypothesis is supported.
Hypothesis 2 states that distributive justice influences employee organisational citizenship behaviour. The path coefficient of distributive justice (b = 0.030; p = 0.681) was not found to be significant, indicating that Hypothesis 2 is not supported.
Hypothesis 3 states that procedural justice influences employee affective commitment. The calculated path coefficient of procedural justice (b = 0.263; p = 0.000) was found to be significant on employee affective commitment, thus supporting Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4 states that distributive justice influences employee affective commitment. The calculated path coefficient of distributive justice (b = 0.268; p = 0.000) was found to be significant on employee affective commitment, thus supporting Hypothesis 4.
Hypothesis 5 states that affective commitment influences employee organisational citizenship behaviour. The calculated path coefficient of affective commitment (b = 0.404; p = 0.010) was found to be significant on employee organisational citizenship behaviour, thus supporting Hypothesis 5.
Hypothesis 6 states that affective commitment mediates the relationship between procedural justice and employee organisational citizenship behaviour. The indirect effect of procedural justice on employee organisational citizenship behaviour through affective commitment (b = 0.106; p = 0.000) is significant; thus, this test result indicates that hypothesis 6 is supported.
Hypothesis 7 states that affective commitment mediates the relationship between distributive justice and employee organisational citizenship behaviour. The indirect effect of distributive justice on employee organisational citizenship behaviour through affective commitment (b = 0.108; p = 0.000) is significant; thus, this test result indicates that hypothesis 7 is supported.
Hypothesis 8 states that passive leadership moderates the relationship between distributive justice and employee affective commitment. The moderating effect of passive leadership on the influence of distributive justice on employee affective commitment (b = −0.105; p = 0.026) is significant; thus, this test result indicates that hypothesis 8 is supported.
Hypothesis 9 states that there is a moderating role of passive leadership between procedural justice and employee affective commitment. The moderating effect of passive leadership on the influence of procedural justice on employee affective commitment (b = −0.148; p = 0.004) is significant, so the results of this test explain that hypothesis 9 is supported (Chênevert et al., 2015).
Discussion
In healthcare settings, procedural and distributive justice have a positive and significant influence on OCB (Chang, 2014). In this study, procedural justice was found to have both direct and indirect effects on OCB. In contrast, distributive justice had only an indirect effect, with affective commitment acting as a mediator. Employee perceptions of the fairness of procedures within the organisation have a positive and significant effect on OCB. A work climate created by procedures perceived as fair in the organisation can increase employee OCB (Al Afari & Abu Elanain, 2014; Moorman et al., 1998). In accordance with social exchange theory, the implementation of procedural justice increases employee identification with the organisation (Rahman & Karim, 2022). These findings demonstrate the importance of implementing fair and transparent processes and procedures in organisations in encouraging positive employee attitudes and behaviours, including OCB (Schilpzand et al., 2013; Wulansari et al., 2017). Procedural and distributive justice have been found to have a positive and significant effect on affective commitment. These two forms of organisational justice help build emotional bonds between the employees and their organisation, ultimately increasing affective commitment (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013; Poon, 2012). Implementing fair reward practices and procedures is a key strategy for enhancing affective commitment in healthcare settings (Zayed et al., 2022). Ensuring fair processes and distributing rewards to employees will increase their willingness to contribute to the organisation and foster OCB (Donglong et al., 2020). The findings of this study demonstrate the importance of creating a work environment that fosters perceptions of fairness among employees (Koodamara et al., 2019).
Affective commitment is an essential antecedent in creating OCB because employees who are emotionally attached to their organisation tend to exhibit positive behaviours, one of which is OCB (Kazemipour et al., 2012). The mediating role of affective commitment in the relationship between organisational justice and OCB is essential because employee perceptions of justice will increase emotional attachment to the organisation, and ultimately increase OCB (Cho & Treadway, 2011; Kwak, 2016; Zayed et al., 2022).
This research found that passive leadership weakens the relationship between organisational justice and affective commitment. Passive leaders can make employees feel less engaged with their organisation, even if the organisation has implemented fair reward sharing (Chênevert et al., 2013). A similar finding applies to the effect of procedural justice on affective commitment. Non-proactive leaders can weaken employees’ perceptions of procedural fairness within the organisation, including in healthcare, thereby reducing employee engagement (Mousa & Puhakka, 2019; Wang et al., 2021).
Theoretical implications
This research contributes to organisational citizenship behaviour in several ways. Firstly, it reinforces social exchange theory by demonstrating that employee perceptions of procedural and distributive justice enhance the OCB through affective commitment as a key socio-emotional mechanism in the organisational justice and OCB relationship. Secondly, this research found that only procedural justice exerts a direct influence on OCB, while distributive justice operates entirely through affective commitment. This finding contributes to a more specific understanding of how different dimensions of organisational shape employee behaviour. Thirdly, the moderating effect of passive leadership weakens the relationship between organisational justice and affective commitment. This research extends the leadership literature by imposing passive leadership not merely as an absence of leadership but also as an active inhibitor of employee reciprocity.
Managerial implications
For hospital administrators and human resource policymakers, this research highlights three urgent priorities. Firstly, improving procedural fairness is the most direct route to fostering OCB. Secondly, fair distribution of reward is insufficient unless accompanied by efforts to cultivate emotional attachment. Thirdly, reducing passive leadership is critical; leaders who avoid decision-making or provide minimal engagement risk reducing the positive effects of justice. Embedding fairness and proactive leadership into institutional culture may substantially enhance cooperation and OCB among healthcare personnel.
Limitations and future research
Despite the contribution, this research also has limitations. Firstly, the cross-sectional design restricted causal inference. Hence, for future research, a longitudinal or experimental design would better capture the temporal dynamics relationship among organisational justice, affective commitment, and OCB. Secondly, this research used self-reported data, which can lead to common method bias. Thirdly, the focus on passive leadership excludes comparison with constructive leadership styles such as transformational or ethical leadership, which could offer complementary insight. Future studies can explore comparative studies across leadership styles to determine whether active leadership merely strengthens justice effects or fundamentally changes the pathway from justice to OCB.
Conclusion
The impact of organisational justice (distributive and procedural justice) on OCB is significant. In this research, only procedural justice was found to have a direct influence on OCB, while distributive justice had only an indirect influence, through affective commitment as a mediator. Meanwhile, passive leadership was found to moderate the influence of distributive and procedural justice on affective commitment. By addressing passive leadership, organisations can create more engaged employees, who ultimately volunteer to contribute to the organisation by doing extra work beyond their job description.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to Universitas Negeri Padang and Research and Community Service Institutions for their support and valuable insights throughout the preparation of this article.
Competing interests
The authors reported that they received funding from Universitas Negeri Padang, which may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The authors have disclosed those interests fully and have implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated University in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.
CRediT authorship contribution
Rini Sarianti: Conceptualisation, Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing – original draft. Mega A. Zona: Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. Henni Muchtar: Formal analysis, Validation. Whyosi Septrizola: Data curation, Visualisation. Yunita Engriani: Investigation, Writing – original draft. Armida Armida: Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Funding information
This research was funded by Universitas Negeri Padang in accordance with contract No: 492/UN35/LT/2023.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Rini Sarianti, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Ahmad, S., & Afthanorhan, W.M.A.B.W. (2014). The importance–performance matrix analysis in partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 2.0 M3. International Journal of Mathematical Research, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.24/2014.3.1/24.1.1.14
Al Afari, T.S., & Abu Elanain, H.M. (2014). Procedural and distributive justice as mediators of the relationship between interactional justice and work outcomes: An empirical study of the UAE public health care sector. Journal of Applied Business Research, 30(4), 1091–1108. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v30i4.8657
Basu, E., Pradhan, R.K., & Tewari, H.R. (2017). Impact of organisational citizenship behavior on job performance in Indian healthcare industries: The mediating role of social capital. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(6), 780–796. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2016-0048
Chang, C.S. (2014). Moderating effects of nurses’ organisational justice between organisational support and organisational citizenship behaviors for evidence-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(5), 334–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12054
Chênevert, D., Vandenberghe, C., & Tremblay, M. (2015). Multiple sources of support, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors: The moderating role of passive leadership. Personnel Review, 44(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2012-0144
Chênevert, D., Vandenberghe, C., Doucet, O., & Ben Ayed, A.K. (2013). Passive leadership, role stressors, and affective organisational commitment: A time-lagged study among health care employees. Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee, 63(5), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2013.07.002
Cho, J., & Treadway, D.C. (2011). Organisational identification and perceived organisational support as mediators of the procedural justice-citizenship behaviour relationship: A cross-cultural constructive replication. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 20(5), 631–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.487363
Chu, C.I., Lee, M.S., Hsu, H.M., & Chen, I.C. (2005). Clarification of the antecedents of hospital nurse organisational citizenship behavior – An example from a Taiwan regional hospital. Journal of Nursing Research: JNR, 13(4), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1097/00134372-200512000-00009
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A., Piccolo, R.F., Zapata, C.P., & Rich, B.L. (2012). Explaining the justice-performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025208
Cooper, D.R., & Schindler, P.S. (2011). Business research methods (11th edn.). McGraw Hill.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An Interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
Donglong, Z., Taejun, C., Julie, A., & Sanghun, L. (2020). The structural relationship between organisational justice and organisational citizenship behavior in university faculty in China: The mediating effect of organisational commitment. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(1), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09617-w
Gupta, V., Agarwal, U.A., & Khatri, N. (2016). The relationships between perceived organisational support, affective commitment, psychological contract breach, organisational citizenship behaviour and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(11), 1624–1624. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13043
Hair, J., Wolfinbarger, M., Money, A.H., Samouel, P., & Page, M.J. (2015). Essentials of business research methods, Routledge.
Idris, Nanang, A.S., Soetjipto, B.E., & Supriyanto, A.S. (2021). Predicting factors of organisational citizenship behavior in Indonesian nurses. Heliyon, 7(12), e08652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08652
Jahani, M.A., Rostami, F.H., Mehdizadeh, H., Mahmoudjanloo, S., Nikbakht, H.A., & Mahmoudi, G. (2021). Does the job category affect employments’ organisational citizenship behavior in hospitals? Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science, 20(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v20i1.50349
Jehanzeb, K., & Mohanty, J. (2020). The mediating role of organisational commitment between organisational justice and organisational citizenship behavior: Power distance as moderator. Personnel Review, 49(2), 445–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2018-0327
Kazemipour, F., & Mohd Amin, S. (2012). The impact of workplace spirituality dimensions on organisational citizenship behaviour among nurses with the mediating effect of affective organisational commitment. Journal of Nursing Management, 20(8), 1039–1048. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12025
Kazemipour, F., Mohamad Amin, S., & Pourseidi, B. (2012). Relationship between workplace spirituality and organisational citizenship behavior among nurses through mediation of affective organisational commitment. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44(3), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2012.01456.x
Kelloway, E.K., Mullen, J., & Francis, L. (2006). Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.76
Koodamara, N.K., Rao, M.U., Prabhu, S., Noronha, S.F., & Rao, R. (2019). Role of procedural justice and organisational trust on organisational citizenship behavior among IT employees. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 28(20), 218–230.
Kwak, S. (2016). The effects of organisational justice and job characteristics on organisational citizenship behavior in the Korean Civil Service. Information (Japan), 19(3), 751–757.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Grohmann, A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Promoting multifoci citizenship behavior: Time-lagged effects of procedural justice, trust, and commitment. Applied Psychology, 62(3), 454–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00488.x
Lim, W.M. (2023). Philosophy of science and research paradigm for business research in the transformative age of automation, digitalisation, hyperconnectivity, obligations, globalisation and sustainability. Journal of Trade Science, 11(2/3), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTS-07-2023-0015
Mahooti, M., Vasli, P., & Asadi, E. (2018). Effect of organisational citizenship behavior on family-centered care: Mediating role of multiple commitment. PLoS One, 13(9), e0204747. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204747
Meyer, J.P., Morin, A.J.S., & Vandenberghe, C. (2015). Dual commitment to organisation and supervisor: A person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.02.001
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, L.J., & Parfyonova, N.M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.002
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L., & Niehoff, B.P. (1998). Does perceived organisational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organisational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.2307/256913
Mousa, M., & Puhakka, V. (2019). Inspiring organisational commitment: Responsible leadership and organisational inclusion in the Egyptian health care sector. Journal of Management Development, 38(3), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2018-0338
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Organisational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage.
Peelle, H.E. (2007). Reciprocating perceived organisational support through citizenship behaviors. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(4), 554–575.
Poon, J.M.L. (2012). Distributive justice, procedural justice, affective commitment, and turnover intention: A mediation-moderation framework. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1505–1532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00910.x
Rahman, M.H.A., & Karim, D.N. (2022). Organisational justice and organisational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of work engagement. Heliyon, 8(5), e09450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09450
Ratiu, L., Trif, S.R., & Meslec, N. (2021). Knowledge hiding in emergency ambulance healthcare settings: Its mediating role in the relationship between organisational support and affective commitment and organisational citizenship behaviours. Nursing Reports, 11(4), 965–980. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep11040088
Schilpzand, M.C., Martins, L.L., Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., & Chen, Z.X. (2013). The relationship between organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviour: The role of cultural value orientations. Management and Organisation Review, 9(2), 345–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/more.12014
Sepeng, W., Stander, M.W., Van der Vaart, L., & Coxen, L. (2020). Authentic leadership, organisational citizenship behaviour and intention to leave: The role of psychological capital. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 46, a1802. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1802
Sheeraz, M.I., Ahmad, U.N.U., Ishaq, M.I., & Nor, K.M. (2020). Moderating role of leader–member exchange between the relationship of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 14(3), 635–660. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/224958
Sidin, A.I., Basman, M.H., Anggraeni, R., & Irwandy. (2020). Description of organisational citizenship behavior dimension in nurses at Labuang Baji Hospital. Enfermeria Clinica, 30(6), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcli.2020.06.004
Uçanok, B., & Karabati, S. (2013). The effects of values, work centrality, and organisational commitment on organisational citizenship behaviors: Evidence from Turkish SMEs. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24(1), 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21156
Vagharseyyedin, S.A., Zarei, B., & Hosseini, M. (2018). The role of workplace social capital, compassion satisfaction and secondary traumatic stress in affective organisational commitment of a sample of Iranian nurses. Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(5), 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987118762974
Wang, C.H., Liu, G.H.W., & Lee, N.C.A. (2021). Effects of passive leadership in the digital age. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, a701047. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701047
Wulansari, N.A., Ranihusna, D., Putri, V.W., & Wijayanto, G. (2017). The effects of organisational justice on organisational citizenship behavior using perceived organisational support as mediation. Advanced Science Letters, 23(8), 7306–7308. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.9358
Yeşilada, T., & Denizgil, T. (2020). Effects of intra-organisational justice and personality traits on organisational commitment: A study on health-care employees. International Journal of Management, 11(5), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.34218/IJM.11.5.2020.014
Yusuf, Z.F.A., Yusuf, F.A., Nuryanto, U.W., & Basrowi. (2024). Assessing organisational commitment and organisational citizenship behavior in ensuring the smoothness of the supply chain for medical hospital needs towards a green hospital: Evidence from Indonesia. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 12(1), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2023.10.006
Zayed, M., Jauhar, J., Mohaidin, Z., & Murshid, M.A. (2022). The relation of justice and organisational citizenship behaviour in government ministries: The mediating of affective commitment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 34(2), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-021-09383-1
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
