Employee Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR),

Impact on Employee Outcomes: Mediating Role of

Organization Based Self Esteem.

Research Project

Submitted By:

Syeda Raazia Rehman (1511126)

M. Haseeb Javed (1511117)

Contents

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 1........................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2
1.1 Background of the Study...........................................................................................2
1.2 Research Objectives...................................................................................................3
1.3 Research Questions....................................................................................................3
1.4 Gap Analysis..............................................................................................................4
1.5 Aim of the Study........................................................................................................4
1.6 Significance of the Study...........................................................................................5
Theoretical significance...............................................................................................5
Practical Significance..................................................................................................5
1.7 Delimitations of the Study.........................................................................................6
CHAPTER 2........................................................................................................................7
LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................................7
2.1 Social Media Marketing............................................................................................7
2.2 E-Word of Mouth......................................................................................................9
2.3 Customer Loyalty....................................................................................................12
2.4 Social Media Marketing and E-Word of Mouth......................................................14
2.5 E-Word of Mouth and Customer Loyalty................................................................16
2.6 Social Media Marketing and Customer Loyalty......................................................17
2.7 eWOM, SMM and CL.............................................................................................18
FRAMEWORK/MODEL..................................................................................................19
CHAPTER 3......................................................................................................................20
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................20
3.1 Population Frame.....................................................................................................20
3.2 Sample Selection.....................................................................................................20
3.3 Unit of Analysis.......................................................................................................20
3.4 Type of Study/ Time Horizon..................................................................................21
3.5 Instrument Development/Selection.........................................................................21
3.6 Data Collection Procedure.......................................................................................22
3.7 Data Analysis Techniques.......................................................................................22
 3.7.1 Regression.............................................................................................................22
3.7.2 Correlation............................................................................................................22
3.7.3 Mediation..............................................................................................................23
CHAPTER 4......................................................................................................................24
PRESENTATION ANALYSIS.........................................................................................24
4.1 Frequency Analysis.................................................................................................24
4.2 Reliability Analysis.................................................................................................26
4.3 Descriptive Analysis................................................................................................27
4.4 Correlation Analysis................................................................................................27
4.5 Regression Analysis.................................................................................................28
4.6 Mediation Analysis..................................................................................................30
4.7 Interpretation of Results..........................................................................................31
CHAPTER 5......................................................................................................................34
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................34
5.1 Findings...................................................................................................................34
5.2 Conclusion...............................................................................................................36
5.3 Limitations and Recommendations.........................................................................36
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................37
APPENDICES...................................................................................................................47
 ABSTRACT

This research was carried out in order to examine the impact of Employee Perceived
CSR on Employee’s In-role Behavior and Employee’s Extra role Behavior with the
mediating role of Organization Based Self-Esteem. We proposed that the employee
perceived CSR have a positive relationship with employee in-role behavior. Similarly
employee perceived CSR have a positive relationship with employee extra role behavior
and organization based self-esteem mediates the relationship between Employee
Perceived CSR, Employee’s In-role Behavior and Employee’s Extra role Behavior A
sample of 228 employees personnel’s working in different small medium enterprises
(SME‟s) of Islamabad and Rawalpindi participated in the study and recorded their
responses through questionnaires. The data which was obtained was analyzed using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) which included a correlation,
regression and mediation analysis. Three out of our seven hypotheses were accepted.

The highlight of the research was that Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) was found
positively mediating relationship between employees perceived CSR and employee in
role behavior (IRB) which was also supported by literature, a huge question mark and
gap for the future studies is that in Pakistani context is that (OBSE) doesn’t mediates the
relationship between employee perceived CSR and employee extra role behavior (OCB)
positively which is contradicting to the literature available. An in-depth study has to be
conducted to find out the true reason for the negative association between OBSE and
OCB in Pakistan.

The direct relations of Perceived CSR with In-role behavior and extra role behavior were
also rejected but remarkably CSR‟s relation with Organization based Self Esteem
(OBSE) was found positive which we have concluded in support of literature that CSR
does not matter in Pakistan’s office culture no matter how much they are paid or treated,
to some it matters and are ready to sacrifice their monetary terms with the organization
for CSR but to some, what all matters is their own monetary health despite of any CSR
activity.

4
 Chapter -1

Introduction

1.1 Background of the study

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is considered as one of the hotly debated topic of
today’s world. It contributes to an organization in a variety of ways; it can develop and
enhance employee attitudes, also influence employee’s performance and productivity,
ultimately contributing in firm’s profitability. Normally investing in this domain (CSR)
is usually considered as an expense to most of the organizations; however it is not
actually an expense because it is ultimately contributing to the firm’s profitability.
Though, it is actually allocating one’s resources for the purpose of strengthening
relationships with all of the stakeholders and secondly, in order to strengthen one’s
source of competitive advantage. The enhanced attention and importance to Corporate
Social Responsibility resulted in increased organizational practicing of it which not only
benefited organization’s interest but also enabled them to contribute back to their
stakeholders (Shiun, 2012).CSR acts have always been given consideration but mostly in
the context of the external group of stakeholder (customers), while the internal group of
stakeholders have given the least consideration, how employees perceive CSR acts and
how it effects them is area given attention by very few. (Ellis, 2009, Rupp, Ganapathi,
Aguilera, & Williams, 2006). These internal groups of stakeholders are the one because
of whom the whole organization is working and this is why they are said to be the life
blood of an organization, they are the core function parts of the organization and they
classify themselves in accordance with the firm in which they are employed (Rupp, et al.,
2006). In this way, they are the once who has direct relationship with firm’s business
status, meaning that they are directly affected by firm’s success and its failure and are
also dependent on them for building their self-identity (Greenwood & Anderson, 2009).

CSR has been growing as since 1930‟s (Carroll, 1979). The main purpose of performing
CSR activities is to gain the trust of the stakeholders by treating them fairly or in such a

5
manner that is most accountable. According to Lord Holmes and Richard Watts, CSR is
more like a commitment done by a business that they will act virtuously an uprightly
towards their workforce and society. While doing this they will also contribute to its
economic development.
Due to the various initiatives taken by many NGO‟s including International Standard
Organization and United Nations, have changed the global trends in business standards
and norms as a result of which Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has now
progressively become a major part of prevailing business practices (Godfrey & Hatch,
2007). Its main purpose is to treat the stakeholders of the firm fairly or in the most
accountable manner. CSR is an idea whereby associations think about the interests of
society by assuming liability for the effect of their exercises on stakeholders and also the
earth (Soukupová et.al, 2008).Organizations give more consideration regarding their
social duty through their four measurements, Economic, Legal, Ethical & Philanthropic
expectations (Carroll, 1979), these measurements are defined as the corporate behaviors
through which stakeholders are being affected in a positive manner and also go beyond
the economic interest of organization (Turker, 2009a). According to Turker (2009a),
there are in total of four types of stakeholders that a company faces. Firstly comes the
non- government organizations (NGO‟s), secondly the employees, third comes the
customers and lastly the government. As cited earlier, that the impact of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) on insiders (employees) have been overlooked. The foremost
reason of this is because general public (external stakeholders or customers) are
perceived to have more significance and influence on firm than the internal stakeholders
(Stuart, 2002).

This research will upgrade the writing about the hypothesis of how employees feel
towards CSR and how they perceive it, and its effect on their performance outcomes (In-
role Behavior and Extra-role Behavior) CSR has four layers which are Economical (Be
profitable), Ethical (Be ethical), Legal (Obey the law) and philanthropic (Be a good
corporate citizen) responsibilities.

6
1.2 Research Objectives

• To understand the effect of perceived CSR on employee’s in-role behavior (IRB).

• To explain how perceived CSR impacts on employee’s extra-role behavior
(OCB).

• To determine the impact of organization based self-esteem (OBSE) employee’s

in-role behavior (IRB).
• To determine the impact of organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) employee’s
extra RRole behavior (OCB).
• To understand the impact of perceived CSR on employee’s in-role behavior
(IRB) with mediating role of organization based self-esteem (OBSE) of the
employees.
• To analyze the impact of perceived CSR on employee’s extra-role behavior
(OCB) with mediating role of organization based self-esteem (OBSE) of the
employees.

1.3 Research Questions

• What is the impact of employee’s perception of CSR on their in-role behavior

(IRB)?

• What is the impact of employee’s perception of CSR on their extra-role behavior

(OCB)?

• What is the impact of organizational based self-esteem on their in-role behavior

(IRB)?

• What is the impact of organizational based self-esteem on their extra-role

behavior (OCB)?
• How organization based self-esteem mediates the relationship between
employee’s perception of CSR and their in-role behavior (IRB)?
• How organization based self-esteem mediates the relationship between
employee’s perception of CSR and their extra-role behavior (OCB)?

7
1.4 Gap Analysis

A number of studies have been done on the theme of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) and how it affects the performance behavior of internal group of stake holders. All
these previous researches have been done to examine the impact of CSR activities with
respect to employee outcomes that can be: employee satisfaction (Brammer, Millington,
Rayton, 2007), turnover intention (Sarfraz, Qun, Abdullah &Alvi, 2018), employee
organizational commitment (Brammer, Millington, Rayton, 2007) employee motivation
and employee performance (Shiun, 2012) etc. But in our study we want to add another
variable organization based self-esteem as a mediator. In his study (Sarfraz, Qun,
Abdullah & Alvi, 2018) stated that the role of corporate social responsibility and its
psychological symptoms can be examined on a number of different variables. So, we
attempted to incorporate organization based self-esteem as a mediator, in order to see its
mediating role on our variables. Self-esteem is a point of view about one’s self-worth in
a specific setting where a person works as studied by (Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Pierce et
al., 1989) in his study. We want to conduct our research on small medium enterprises
(SMEs) in Pakistan. Moreover we are analyzing the role of organization based self-
esteem as a coping mechanism while dealing with these issues. A coping strategy refers
to a person’s attempt to change environmental conditions or to control his feelings
through his behavior and thought in order to handle a stressful condition (Arnold et al.,
2017; Augusto & Montes-Berges, 2018). Selfesteem as a psychological resource can
help to cope more effectively with such kind of stressful events (Kogler , Seidel, Metzler,
Thaler, Boubela & Pruessner, 2017).

Furthermore, we want to validate this model in Pakistani context. CSR practices in

developing countries are still at under developed phase. However, multinationals are
paying a good attention towards this concept and are reaping from its fruits (Sarfraz,
Qun, Abdullah & Alvi, 2018). The major portion of Pakistan’s business sector consists
of SMEs. According to small and medium enterprises development authority
(SMEDA)every 9 out of 10 businesses have its place in SMEs, similarly, 4 out of 5
employment opportunities are provided by the small and medium enterprises sector and
contributing a major portion in our GDP (Sarfraz, Qun, Abdullah &Alvi, 2018).

8
Therefore, we want to analyze the impact of employee’s perception about corporate
social responsibility on employee’s performance behaviors (both in-role and extra role
behaviors) in the context of Pakistan’s small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with a
mediation role of organization based self-esteem.

1.5 Aim of the Study

This study aims to achieve the above mentioned research objectives and examine
answers to the research questions. The study aims to find the impact of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) on employee’s in-role behavior (IRB) and employee’s extra-role
behavior (OCB)i.e. how they negatively and positively correlate to employee’s in-role
behavior (IRB) and employee’s extra role behavior (OCB) respectively. This study also
aims to examine the role of organization based self-esteem (OBSE) as a mediator in the
above model.

1.6 Significance of the Study

1.6.1 Theoretical significance

There are a number of studies which tells the impact of corporate social responsibility on
external stakeholders but fewer studies are conducted in context of internal group of
stakeholders (Stuart, 2002). Further, among those fewer studies very little contributions
by using organization based self-esteem as a mediator has been made. This study would
enrich the existing literature and will provide readers to understand how organization
based self-esteem could help them increase their performance (which is a common issue
faced by many firms in now a days) through having a significant impact on employee’s
in-role and extra-role behaviors.
1.6.2 Practical Significance

Managers as well as executives of all professions face the issue of poor performance
behavior by employees due to poor working conditions or they perceived injustice and
also, they classify themselves in accordance with the firm in which they are employed
(Rupp, et al., 2006). If the business is underperforming or facing some poor situation, so
they are not willing to build their identity with them and as a result they will not exhibit a

9
good, effective and efficient performance behavior (Greenwood & Anderson, 2009).The
small medium enterprises (SMEs ) requires making their internal stakeholders aware
about their core values and utilize the concept of their company in an effective way
through their active engagement in routine works in order to increase their business
interest and also the good will of the company as they are the representatives of their
organizations (Fox, Ward, Howard, 2002). But most of our people are not of a nature of
walking an extra mile for organizations and our organization are not of a nature of
providing their employees with good reasons of performing such behavior. So, this study
will help the organizations to adopt such practices that will aim at boosting organization
based self esteem of employees at small medium enterprises (SMEs) so that they may be
able to cope with employee’s behavioral issues in a better way and also, it will also
provide the professionals and the business practitioners with the insight about how they
can influence and motivate their employees through the practices of CSR.

1.7 Delimitations of the Study

Every study is subjected to some kind of limitations, so does ours. This study was limited
to the people working in the small medium enterprises (SMEs) specifically in Islamabad
and Rawalpindi only. Our sample size consisted of 250 participants who were working at
various private organizations of the twin cities. Our study did not incorporate the
responses of individuals who are working at organizations outside Islamabad and
Rawalpindi. Thus, the study does not serve as a representative of the views of all
organizations working under the umbrella of small medium enterprises (SMEs) of
Pakistan. Secondly, because of the sampling method that we intended to use affected our
study by selection biasness inevitably. This situation of biasness occurs mainly because
the respondents that are selected were not utterly random (Shiun, 2012). Because the
questionnaires that we circulated were through my friends, who helped me by
distributing questionnaires to those whom they had reference to and because of this,
respondents who participated did not accurately represent the opinions of the entire
population of Islamabad and Rawalpindi.

10
 Chapter- 2 Literature Review

In this chapter \we will look into the already existing literature for all of our variable in
order to give a backup to our proposed hypothesis. Further, we have explained some of
the theories i-e social identity one and the stakeholder approach so that we can explain
our how one variable impacts the other one. Moreover, this chapter consists of the frame
work of our study and the hypothesis that we have proposed in accordance with our
framework.

2.1 Theoretical Reflection:

2.1.1 Stakeholder’s Theory

A theoretical support of corporate social responsibility (CSR) ascends from the

stakeholder theory of organizations (Freeman, 1984). In the view of stakeholder
approach, business corporations have the responsibility to take interests of all the people
who are going to get affected by their business activities (their stakeholders) on board,
instead of only taking care about the interests of the shareholders of the business
(Freemman, 1984). Further, Freeman, (1984) also identified the groups of stakeholders in
which they were divided, he not only described those groups and provided ways in his
study with the help of which our management can get a fair about how they can regard
and protect the interests of their stakeholders. This theory attempts to evaluate the groups
of people towards whom the firm is responsible for. The organizational stakeholders are
generally divided into two distinct groups: the internal stake holders and the external
stakeholders. Internal stakeholders comprises of employees, managers and owners and
all the other reaming comes under the roof of external stakeholders. Boatwright (2003),
states that corporations should operate themselves in the benefit of all those who have a
stake in that organization. As, shareholders tends to participate in the firm’s activities
through their money and because of this reason their say is considered to be important in
every decision in order to protect their interest. Similarly, employees‟ working in the
organization tends to participate in firm’s activities through investing their time and
intellectual capital and therefore their interest should also be protected. As said by,

11
Neville an Menguc (2016) that: all the stakeholders of an organization are very important
because each one of them has some intrinsic value, and therefore their interest should be
protected and it is not right to treat them like a tool for maximizing shareholder’s returns.

2.1.2 Social Identity Theory:

Henry Tajfel (1982) defined the social identity theory that: an individual derives his self-
identity on the basis of the social group to which he/she belongs. All these social groups
are the reason of individual’s vanity and pride. Social identity theory articulates that
individuals are willing to get them categorizes into some social group in order to
recognize themselves as a part of that particular crowd and to establish and upkeep that
self-identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). While talking about specifically in context of
organization individuals attempt to fall into these categorizations not only to create and
upkeep that self-identity but also to develop and ripe strong and durable relationship and
then describe themselves through the lens of that particular firm for which they work
(Samanta et al., 2013). Every employee, try to get themselves associated with the firm
which is illustrious because of its positive and good repute (Brammer et al., 2007).
Correspondingly, if an employee perceives that the particular firm for which they work
has a positive status in the society then this situation generates results in the favor of that
organization because then they will be successful in attracting more and retaining the
current employees and accordingly, will be able to influence the work behaviors and
attitudes of their employees constructively (Peterson, 2004). Hence, this positive image
can be portrayed through a number of activities and CSR is one among them. So, when a
firm indulge itself in CSR activities, this represent that they actually care about their
surrounding and stakeholders this is why they are putting efforts for their betterment, this
straight away portray their positive image to both the internal (employees) and external
(public) stakeholders. Thus, these activities can be used for underpinning a more and
better sense of self esteem in the employees, because they are the one who will identify
themselves with these acts, and eventually making them to feel good and satisfied
(Riordan, Weatherly, Vandenberg, & Self, 2001). This theory attempts to make
employees to develop a sense of prestige and feel proud for being a part of it (Turban &
Greening, 1997; Tyler & Blader, 2000). However, many scholars have stated that when

12
employees develop more organization based self esteem then they will be inclined to
perform better and fulfill their works tasks and will show organizational citizenship
behavior in short will exhibit extra role behavior (Bowlinng, et al., 2010; Jon L. Peirce &
Gardener, 2004). Thus, all these studies demonstrate, how social identity theory proves
to be helpful in explaining how corporate social responsibility shape the employees‟
work behaviors through establishing self-esteem in them (Turker, 2009a).
2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility:

CSR is not a new notion; it has its ancestries back in 1960s, when industrial revolution
took place. Although it formulation was started in 1950s when different scholars started
working on this thought, since then this notion started to dig down its ways to enter the
modern world. Though during its earlier phase, the literature available was not
satisfactory for study purpose but with the passage of time more and more research came
forward and this theme began to get mature. Thus the concept of CSR entered into its
transformational phase and still it is used as an essential construct in a number of studies,
(Carroll, 1991).

1970s is considered to be the peak period because; it was the time when most of the
researches were rolled out on this theme. Corporate social behavior was distinguished
into three different dimensions, which were: the social responsibility of the organization,
the social obligation of an organization in terms of fulfilling the legal requirements and
lastly the social responsiveness of a firm (Sethi, 1975). But soon it was realized that
these dimensions are upright as far as the assessment of corporate social performance is
concerned. This work does not provide the core concept of corporate social responsibility
(Wood, 1991). Then after this research, the time came where studies about corporate
social responsibility entered the right direction and work started on CSR in a new
context, where corporate social responsibility is being viewed as a mean of solving the
social issues (Fitch, 1976).

Then, a new model was proposed by Carroll in 1979, in which corporate social
responsibility was demonstrated through four distinct dimensions which were: the
economic one, the legal one, the ethical one and last the philanthropic one. From these

13
four responsibilities the economic and legal one has been discussed many times by a
number of researchers but the latter two were the actual contribution to the previously
done work (Shiun, 2012). Latterly these dimensions of corporate social responsibility
were depicted with a new distinction, which was through a pyramid. In this pyramid the
economic dimension was the base of it and then comes the legal responsibility, which
was further followed by the ethical responsibility and lastly, come the philanthropic
responsibility at the topmost block (Carroll, 1991). This structure of CSR is the most
extensively used framework, and is being widely used by a number of scholars. Hence,
later in our study we are also going to use this framework for the sake of examining
effect of employees perceived CSR.

Carroll’s model (1991) is basically a mix of four dimensions i-e economical, ethical,
legal and philanthropic. Economic responsibility emphasizes on how an organization is
going to generate its profits. These proceeds must be generated while remaining under
the legal boundaries. All business operations should abide the regulations that the
government has imposed. A company’s profit should not be generated through illegal
means (Carroll, 1991).Because if such situation occurs then it will have a negative
impact on its employees and as well as on the image of the business. Second aspect is the
Ethical one which fundamentally is a dimension which focuses on what society is getting
back from a business. It emphasizes on doing thing that does not harm the society. Ethics
is always associated with the values, customs and norms (Carroll, 1991). So, when an
organization has these constructive value systems, they act in accordance with it, this
will lead to effect employees positively and they tend to identify themselves with their
organization. Furthermore, it is also argued by Carroll (1991) that the Ethical dimension
is equivocal and more thought provoking than the Legal ones. The next dimension of
corporate social responsibility is the Legal responsibility which concentrates that all
businesses which are in game should always play by the rules. Because anything that is
in the don’ts list of the government can damage the image of business and ultimately the
business too (Carroll, 1991). And thus, with the increase in this negative image one can
also lose the self-esteem of their employees and eventually results in decline in the
employee’s performance behavior. Shortly, the organization is free to generate profit but

14
while doing so are expected and supposed to stay under the umbrella of laws to get them-
selves protected from any sort of harm (Carroll, 1991). Finally comes the Philanthropic
aspect of Corporate Social Responsibility. It includes the voluntary activities of a firm
which reflects that an organization is involved in community welfare work through
providing sponsorships and donations. Difference between the Ethical responsibility and
the philanthropic one is that philanthropic is more flexible one and if not performed
cannot be titled as unethical or irresponsible one (Carroll, 1991). The philanthropic
activities done by the firm results in depicting the positive image of the firm because of
which employees will associate themselves with their organization and feel proud to be a
part of it.

All these activities which an organization performs in order to become socially

responsible is being directly observed by employees, infect their perception actually
arises from these events. This is because they are the insiders and the core part of that
particular firm besides this they are also the executers and performers of all the events of
both social responsibility and social irresponsibility (Shiun, 2012). So being a part of that
firm these employees keenly observe these acts undertaken by their organization and
after discerning re-join and contribute towards that stand point taken by their
organization (Shiun, 2012). As we know that cognitive process plays an important role in
shaping our perceptions and these perceptions of each individual differs from the other
one (Ellis, 2009). So, we can say that each employee will hold a different and dissimilar
view about all those activities performed under the umbrella of corporate social
responsibility. Taking initiative in order to exhibit these social responsibilities can lead to
a successful achievement of organizational objectives. These initiatives are then
considered to be effective strategy, but again which is effective for employees of one
organization cannot be necessarily same for the others (Ellis, 2009). For some employees
it can be a source of satisfaction as per their values while on the other hand for some
employees it might not be a proper way of utilizing one‟s resources. Therefore, it shows
that every view of an employee is built upon his or her own perception. What is
perceived to be a satisfaction by one employee does not mean that same activity is going
to be equally effective and useful by the other employee. Eventually, it will not going to

15
impact all employees in the same way. Thus either the perception of an employee is
going to be negative or it will be positive. And these resulting perceptions will affect the
behavior of employees and ultimately shaping their successive behavior (Rupp,etal.,
2006; Turban & Greening, 1997). Thus it is concluded that by performing CSR, both
external and employee-focused CSR, organizations are sending signals to their
employees that they approve of and care for them. With such positive feedback,
employees can be expected to develop a greater sense of organization-based self-esteem
(J. Lee & Peccei, 2007).

2.3 Organization based self esteem

Before starting our discussion about organizational based self-esteem, we will have a
brief introduction of what is self-esteem? Self-esteem is basically defined as a person’s
own judgment about himself (Rosenberg, 1965). It is an individual’s insight about
himself and what a he aims to be. And on the basis of these self-evaluations and self-
concepts people develop a sense of prestige for themselves. So, in this context, self-
esteem is an individual’s own evaluation about himself, which is reflected by how other
people perceived them. The construct self-esteem is very much complex because it is
classified into a number of other dimensions. That is why it is considered as a
multifaceted variable (Horberg & Chen, 2010; Korman, 1970; Marsh, 1986; Wells &
Marwell, 1976). Among all those dimensions, one of the pitches on which self-esteem
plays is in the context of organization. Thus, resulted in the introduction of new concept;
Organization based self-esteem (Peirce, Gardener, Cuming and Dunnhaam, 1989). They
defined the notion of organization based self-esteem as the level to which a person thinks
that he or she is significant enough, efficient and earnest as a member of that
organization in which he/she works (Chan etal, 2013).

Organization based self esteem (OBSE) is all about how an employee of a particular
organization feels prestige and valued within their work environment (Payne, 2007).
Organization based self esteem revolves around the perception of an employee about
themselves that they are actually a valuable, respected, and significant part of their
organization. Having this self-perception is very much essential for the organization in

16
order to make their employee more effective and efficient in their day to day task (Chan
et al., 2013). This perception of employees about themselves is not an easy thing to
obtain neither it develops instantly. It takes a lot of time and experience regarding:
organizational work interactions with fellow men, interpersonal experiences and other
history of their work routine, to develop (Piercee et al., 1989).

The phenomenon of organization based self-esteem revolves around self concept as it

generally refers to person belief in his own sight. It actually is the assessment that
individuals normally uphold about themselves, this assessment ultimately establish their
own view about their aptitude and in turn this view about themselves leads to their self-
liking (Broackner, 1988; Tafarodi & Swann, 2001).

The concept of organization based self-esteem has been treated to a plethora of educated
and refined definitions with every one of them offering a new insight as to what it truly
is, however the general idea of organization based self-esteem is defined as the level to
which a person thinks that he or she is significant enough, efficient and earnest as a
member of that organization in which he/she works (Dunham, 1989).Especially self-
esteem refers to the „individual’s own evaluation about himself, which is reflected by
how other people perceived them (Pierrce, Gardener, Cuming, & Dunham, 1989).
Furthermore OBSE is more like a state in which an employee feel himself/herself an
integral part of the organization or be aware of his/her contributions in a particular
organization. (Campbell, 1990) .Research in past years has shown self-esteem as a wide
phenomenon which almost related and required in almost every type of organization.
Furthermore it (SE) is an important part of personality traits of any individual, if an
individual is not good in his personal deeds, and then it will be hard to consider him /her
as a good employee at any work station. On many occasions, investigators (e.g., Simpson
& Boyle, 1975; Song & Hattie, 1985; Tharenou, 1979) have spoken concern about the
aptness of a self-esteem measure included in an investigation. Research conducted on the
relationship between behaviors and attitudes (Epstein, 1979). The results came as they
were expected such as attitude of a person have a significantly loud impact on his/her
behavior in others and simple word we can say “attitude serve as the foundation to shape
up the behavior”. It has been found through a number of studies that those employees

17
who have relatively high level of self-esteem tends to possess a stronger sense of self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1977). So, employees who have high sense of self-esteem are, more
likely to have more expectations and their expectations leads them to execute that
behavior which is required for task performance. Korman (1970, 1976), and Brockner
(1988) put forward as a fact that in order to elucidate the work performance of an
employee, his sense of self-esteem plays a very dominant and essential role. Furthermore
adding to their work Judge and Bono’s (2001) performed a study in which they described
that there exists a strong correlation between self-esteem of the employees and their
performance, which was about .26, indeed a very strong one. It is our common
observation that individuals with high self-esteem urged themselves to keep maintaining
a positive self-perception. (Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Locke, McClear, & Knight, 1996), it
is the process of continuous reinforcement which means reminding themselves as a
positive self-image. Different experiences in life can have different type of impact on the
same individual as the same way an individual can response to a same situation
differently at same time.

Organizational experiences have different impact on employee’s attitude and behavior;

many researchers argued that an individual’s self-esteem can be effect by three type of
organizational experiences e.g. past achievements that encourage a sagacity of efficacy)
behaviors of coworkers at workstation; and lastly workspace structure that must urge
employee’s ability to excel. It is a matter of common understanding that self esteem is
directly linked with employee performance; the phenomenon of self-worth was
introduced and has been used in various researches so far as it is supported by number of
theories as well. In light of the theory of self-consistency described by Korman, 1970 and
Swann, 1996, individuals tends to have a strong aspiration of holding beliefs about their
own self and later on they act consistently according to those beliefs. Folks with greater
OBSE usually build up and keep constructive work attitudes and tend to behave
prolifically because such mind-set is consistent with their self-belief (Pierce et al., 1989).
This is an example of employee with greater OBSE because these are the people who
engage themselves in organization citizenship behavior while on the other hand

18
employee with low self-efficacy keep holding their energies and don’t put much effort
into work because this attitude is similar or matched with their self-beliefs.

Similarly, the theory of self-enhancement postulated by Dipboyee, 1977 and Korman,

2001 says that almost every individual has a desire to develop and improve themselves in
order to become better Thus, those individuals who possess a relative higher sense of
organizational based self-esteem will strive to improve themselves in order to make
themselves perform in a more better way an get themselves fit into the frame of
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) while on the other hand those individuals
with lower sense of will be found putting efforts in protecting themselves form
undergoing organization citizenship behavior. And refuse to put efforts in order to to
justify low performance (Korman, 2001). (J. Lee & Peccei, 2007) the authors have stated
that higher CSR leads in building a high organization based self-esteem of employees
and due to higher OBSE the employee’s IRB increases. Which means OBSE plays a
positive mediating role between the two variables so the previous two theories can be
concluded at one single stance i.e. employees with greater level of OBSE are tend to
have positive attitude towards workplace and performance. In short they also undergo
organization citizenship behavior (Carson, Landford, & Roe, 1997).

2.4 In role behavior

In role behavior (IRB) of an employee is considered as the behavior that take place
because of any projected reward or punishment in order to reinforce or avoid that
particular behavior. These behaviors are normally considered as general compliance ones
because these behaviors are the one that are going to provide the organization the desired
advantage from fulfilling these behaviors (Organ & Kanovsky, 30 1989; C. A. Smith,
Organ, & Near, 1983). In order to explain it in more simpler terms, we can say that these
are the conventional tasks and duties that are performed by the employee in the
organization. Some of the common example of these activities is that employee should
complete the task at hand within the given time frame; he or she should not exceed the
deadlines. Similarly another example includes that while performing a task at hand
employee should follow all the legal compliances and do not perform anything that does

19
not violates the rules and regulations of that organization (Williams & Anderson, 1991).
All of these behaviors, tasks and duties that are necessary to be performed by the
employee and are specifically mentioned and required by their job description because
these are the behaviors whose fulfillment leads to attain some value on the part of
organization. In short when an individual completes his/her duties they are actually
adding some value to their organization and fulfilling these duties are called performing
your in-role behavior (Organ & Kanovsky, 30 1989; C. A. Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).

A number of previous studies have presented that those people who actually are good
performers. Performing good means that an individual is fulfilling all his/her duties that
are stated in his / her job description. So, if he/she is a good performer according to
his/her job description only then that individual is able to improve his/her in-role
performance. Many researches have cited that personalities that are proactive in nature
are expected to possess a higher level of in role performance (Ashrod; Grant, 2008).

In order to understand the direct interaction of in role behavior of an employee or

employees in an organization’s participation in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), it
is important that we have a clear idea of the set guidelines of a proper in role behavior in
the organization. According to a comprehensive article published by Sciedu Press, the
concept of role theory is to be given heed which is a correlated branch of social
psychology. If it is understood well, the relation of CSR and in-role behavior of an
employee would be justified in detail. The content of the article elaborates the theory in
discrete parts where they mention that the role theory itself is devised from a central
concept of role. Now the term is extracted from theater where the role describes the task
and responsibilities of an actor; similar to a guideline for them to act as the role
expresses. This simple explanation has led the psychologists into determining that the
concept itself can help a lot in understanding the behavior of individuals inside an
ecosystem; which is an organization in our case. The psychologists strongly believe and
theorize the statement that an individual’s position in a place or organization expresses
their behavior, on why they act a certain way. An initial theory which had roughly
described this concept claimed that different people of contradictory mindsets can have
similar behaviors in similar circumstances (George Herbert Mead, 1966).

20
Similarly, another scholar added to the theory and explained that when individuals fulfill
their duty in a set environment, then it considered an appropriate role (R. Linton.2007);
this is an important part of determining their behavior when they have successfully
achieved something be it a small or big milestone. The crux of the matter is that the in-
role behavior is the behavior which molds an individual’s behavior based on the level of
position or role they are entitled to. It is a core-task behavior (Katz et al. 1966) which is
effected by the decisions of an enterprise; such decisions involve Corporate Social
Responsibility. There is a common question that revolves around the concept of CSR
especially when the in-role behavior of employees is given a thorough view; is the effect
positive or negative? The answer can be a straight yes or no but the study incurs a lot of
research before justifying how and why CSR is good or bad for the in-role behavior of
the employees within an organization. Many organizations construct their own version of
a business model for Corporate Social Responsibility which has different sectors to work
on. These sectors jointly impact the society in a positive way. Some examples are
Employees, Environment, Business, and Society, etc. These sectors, bringing positive
impact can impact employees‟ behavior in determining if the organization is good
enough for them to invest their time and skill into. One of the sectors of Employees has
usually everything planned for the employees by the organization; this can include
several benefits such as annual bonuses, vacation plans, subsidies, etc. According to a
general opinion, these kind of perk which count in the CSR of an organization builds
trust and develops long-term relation for the employee which can boost their
performance. This is one of the ways for organizations to make a lot of employees stay
under their employment. The previous elaboration takes us towards the justification of
the relation between in-role behavior and CSR. The evaluation standard set by the
experts has helped the organizations in determining if the employee is fulfilling his
obligations. These standards of evaluation are divided into four categories, i.e The
quantity standard, the quality evaluation, rating, and the data record of document such as
record of absence, work safety or delay of work, etc. (Williams and Anderson, 1991).
Additionally, three primary types of behaviors were studied by Katz in order to
determine the effective operations of the company. These are listed as follows:

21
(i) When entering an organization, an individual must understand the requirement
(job description) from the organization and should fulfill these requirements without any
distractions (independence).

(ii) The employee will participate in different activities which are not specified in the
job description.

(iii) Those organizations that only pay attention to the employees‟ job descriptions
create a fragile social system inside their workplaces.

Looking into the third and the most important point of Katz’s findings, it explains that
the organization has to take care of their employees in order to make them take care of
the organization’s business. For that purpose, the in-role behavior of the individuals
within an organization gets impacted by the involvement of Corporate Social
Responsibility. There are some challenges in the process also which is discussed in the
paper by (Gao, Y and He, W. 2017). This study emphasizes on the importance and
correlation of corporate social responsibility and employee organizational citizenship
behavior within an organization. The whole study has circulated around the behavior of
the individuals under CSR and determined that the offered welfare by CSR had positive
impact on in-role behavior of employees in majority. Since this effect was a result of
mediation by leadership of the organization, the challenges of the process were
noticeable when the mediation relationship between leaders and employees was
analyzed. The findings justified that the mediation relationship was found to be stronger
when Distributive Justice within the organization was lower and it was weaker when the
Distributive Justice within the organization was noticeably higher than expected (Gao, Y
and He, W. 2017).

The concept of distributive justice, which counts under the Corporate Social
Responsibility, when disrupted for the employees basically impacted the whole process
of CSR which affected their in-role behavior in a negative way. The policies and
decisions taken by an organization are usually designed in a way which benefits the
organization ultimately. If the decisions perk the employees and individuals connected to
the organization, then it is definitely a win-win situation for them as they will benefit in

22
their own capacities. In a meta-analysis of the predictors and the consequences of OBSE
(Bowling, 2010). It was concluded that organization-based self-esteem has a positive
relationship with in role behavior job (Riordan, et al., 2001; Tan & Albright, 1998).

2.5 Extra role behavior

Extra role behavior refers to the kind of behavior that is not demanded in the job
description, meaning that an employee is not obliged to perform this behavior. However,
its optional for an individual to undergo this behavior. Extra role behavior is commonly
referred as Organization citizenship behavior (OCB), this behavior is voluntary in nature
as it is not demanded by one's job description (Organ, 1988). Organization citizenship
behavior takes place when an individual is determined to walk an extra mile for his/her
organization. These behaviors are not directly linked with the set reward system of an
organization. Meaning that performing such behavior will not result in any compensation
for you, that is why it is commonly labeled as “altruism"
(Organ & Kanovsky, 1989; C. A. Smith, et al., 1983). Performing this behavior not only
promotes individual's benefits but also foster organization's effective and efficient
functioning. this effective and efficient working by the employees leads to multifaceted
use of the resources and in turn benefits the organization by increasing its ability to
innovate and become more adaptable (Williams & Anderson, 1991).

Organization citizenship behavior (OCB) is defined extensively by a number of authors,

who says that this behavior (OCB) is however not a significant one to be performed by
the employee because it is not specified in their descriptions (Organ, 1988, 1990). But in
case any of the employee is undergoing this behavior that can be considered as cherry on
the cake , because performing that behavior will facilitate the organization to function
smoothly (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988, 1997). Some of the examples of
organization citizenship behavior (OCB) are: attending different event of your
organization and willingly participating in them in order to serve your organization,
providing your assistance to other workers in your organization helping them to complete
their tasks etc (Farah, Podskoff, & Orgaan, 1990; Morman, 1991; Organ & Konovsky,
1989).

23
Corporate social responsibility is exhibited by those organizations that have economic,
legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. Initiatives regarding corporate social
responsibility are devised by the firms in such a way that they intend to takes care of
interest of their stakeholders both external and internal in order to meet their expectations
(Aguenis, 2011) and by social performance they take institutional legitimacy which
ultimately leads to long term performance and competitiveness by enticing and
fascinating the customers (Larson, Flaherthy, Brown, Zaablah, & Weiner, 2008). Other
than the CSR initiative directed toward general stakeholder, one dimension is the policies
made for the sake of caring out CSR activities. These strategies are concentrating on the
organizational workforce and this phenomenon refers to socially responsible human
resource management (SRHRM). SRHRM is not the fundamental part of
CSR initiatives rather it’s a successful tool of implementation as aim of CSR is on real
terms achieved through employees. So, overall engagement of organization in CSR
activities has a positive impact on employee’s behaviors (Ruppe et al, 2006) although
there is no empirical evidence in literature. SRHRM is positively related with many
functions of the organization such as it may have positive impact on range of employee’s
outcome. It is mainly dependent on the organizational climate.

Now a day CSR has become a social norm and employee may judge their organization
by its CSR behavior, organizational policy must favorably accepted by employees thus it
will result in stronger employee identification with their organization (Drumwright,
Berger & Cunningham, 2009). This has been projected by social identity theory that
employees of the organization attempt to affiliate and recognize themselves with the
organization in which they work. This identification has a positive effect on their work
related behavior both in role & extra role behavior (Turker, 2008) and later on these
work attitudes are categorize as task performance and contextual performance, including
extra role helping behavior (Motovidlow, 1993).

In modern era it is quite difficult to confer Corporate Social Responsibility (hereafter

CSR) without reference to the stakeholders of companies. The term stakeholder has
become an important phenomenon after the work of Freeman (1984) in management

24
literature, furthermore it greatly impact the in role and extra role behavior of stakeholders
and their importance and legitimacy (Mitchell et al., 1997). In given convolution nature
of work in the existing workplace it is often essential for employees to go beyond their
formal job descriptions and to work cooperatively with coworkers (Koopmans et al.,
2011). A number of studies shows that employee who prefer to identify themselves as a
part of organization are tend to devote extra effort to strengthen the organization’s
collective interest. Previous studies theorized, employee’s behavior into two different
and dissimilar domains which are his / her in role behavior and extra role behavior.
These dissimilar domains are because of the fact that these behaviors are carried into
different situations and have an independent effect on the employee’s and overall
organization’s performance (Carmeeli & Jossman, 2006; Motowiedlo, 2000). It has been
argued by Bergeron 2007a little too much of helping behavior (extra role behavior) can
have an unfavorable effects on employee’s performance, this effected performance in
turn will have impact on organization as a whole and also on the employee’s own career
(Upham, 2006).

Research in human resource management often refers to socially responsible

organizations. CSR Initiatives are with two kind of motives e.g. to remain in the good
books of all stakeholders to acquire their trust and loyalty and identification. CSR
initiatives can be helpful for companies to harvest different financial benefits including
goodwill, tax evasion and legitimacy from institutional investors (Kurpataskie and
Darnal, 2012) while human capital is one of the key precursors to gaining success in
CSR (Ramachandra, 2011). Many multinationals consider CSR practices as a key
determinant of employee extra role behavior. Many researchers tried to prove CSR
initiatives are directly linked with employee commitment with the particular
organization.

In today’s world for an organization its reputation matters more than what they are
offering to the customers (Internal and external). Moreover an employee considers his
organization as an lifelong partner with which he/she engage in co-creation of value. In
the light of the previous investigations, impudence of employee’s perception of CSR
towards his / her work attitude (Carmelie et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2014), on basis of the

25
literature available we are able to put forward our reason that whenever an employee fins
it out that his / her organization is actually putting efforts in order to contribute in the
society and become socially responsible entity then employees then they attempts to
identify themselves with the organization and the process of promoting behaviors both
in-role and extra-role automatically starts to take place and will augment the CSR
practices of the employer.

Many previous studies have elucidated that why people are willing to undergo these
citizenship behaviors (i-e OCB). When organization performs corporate social
responsibility (CSR) both external and internal this makes their employees to feel
honored, as they are affiliated with an organization that is putting an effort for its society
well being (Organ, 1988, 1990). Through this they become a proud part of that particular
organization. So, when an employee perceives that CSR is taking place in their
organization, this very thing results in employees affiliating themselves with their
organization and in turn increasing their organization based self esteem. As a result this
self esteem leads them to put efforts for their organization, the same way they are putting
in and hence, an employee willingly and deliberately undergoes OCB in order to
maintain balance their organizations and themselves. On the other hand, when the
perception of an employee about its organization corporate social responsibilities (CSR)
is not positive then those employees will fail to develop self esteem with their
organization and as a result they will keep themselves back from performing
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). This shows that organization citizenship
behavior is explicitly controlled and influenced by our cognitive abilities (Farah,
Podsikoff, & Orgaan, 1990; Morman, 1991; Orgaan & Konovseky, 1989).

26
 2.6 Theoretical framework

H1
In-Role
Behavior
H4 (IRB)

H3
Perceived Organization based
CSR self-esteem (OBSE)

H5 Extra-Role
Behavior
(OCB)

H2

2.7 Proposed hypothesis

H1Employee perceived CSR has a positive influence on employee in role behavior

(IRB).

H2 Employee perceived CSR has a positive impact on employee extra role behavior
(OCB).

H3 Employee perceived CSR has a positive impact on organization based self-esteem

(OBSE)

H4 Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) is positively related to employee in role

behavior (IRB).

H5 Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) has a positive impact on employee extra role
behavior (OCB).

27
H6 Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) positively mediates the relationship between
employee perceived CSR and employee in role behavior (IRB).

H7 Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) positively mediates the relationship between

employee perceived CSR and employee extra role behavior (OCB).

28
 Chapter-3 Methodology

This chapter consists of all the aspects and details of the procedures that we used in order
to carry out the research. The population that is under study and the size of our sample is
described in detail. Then we developed our scales. Accordingly the design of our
questionnaire (which was developed to carry out our study) is described. Lastly the data
collection and the analysis methods which are used to scrutinize the data that we
collected are described.

3.1 Population Frame

The population on which we are going to conduct our study comprises of the employees
working in the SME sector of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. The population includes both
males and females working over there.

3.2 Sample Selection

A sample was taken out from the population comprising of male and female staff
employed in the SME sector of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. We used non-probability
convenience sampling technique for the purpose of this study. The cost and time required
to carry out a convenience sample is less which helps in achieving the sample size
relatively fast and inexpensive way. Sample sizes more than 30 and less than 500 are
required for most research (Roscoe, 1975). So we distributed 240 questionnaires for the
purpose of our study. Out of those 240 we got responses from 228 respondents.

3.3 Unit of Analysis

For this study, the unit of analysis was individual as it focused on individuals
(employees) working in the SME sector of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

3.4Type of Study/ Time Horizon

The study is quantitative in nature because a quantitative approach has been used for
collection of data through questionnaires. The study conducted for this research paper
was cross-sectional because we were time bound and this techniques is not time

29
consuming. Cross-sectional study helps in getting data on many variables in a minimum
possible time.

3.5 Survey Method

In the field of research gathering data is one of the most essential parts of the whole
process which cannot be ignored. So, in order to gather data most of the researchers use
surveys, this process encompasses, examining the sample that one selected through
asking questions. This can be done in comparatively less time. Consequently,
questionnaire was developed in order to obtain data because it consists of verified
questions that people can answer directly without any assistance (Monette, Sullivan, &
Dejong, 2008). Further, we can record individual’s feelings by mailing or sending it to
respondents online and this in return makes all the process of data gathering more
efficient, easy and inexpensive. Moreover, questionnaires make us to obtain data more
accurately and eliminating the biasness of interviewer (Cannell & Kahn, 1968).

3.6 Questionnaire Design

The study is being formally conducted among the employees working in different SMEs
in Rawalpindi and Islamabad, from January 2018 to May 2018. This study was being
carried out with the help of questionnaire which was developed to examine the impact of
perceived CSR on employee’s performance behaviors. Our questionnaire consists of 5
sections. Section A, B, C and D comprised of the scale that we used to measure
perceived CSR, organization based self-esteem, employees in role behavior and
employee’s extra role behaviors (OCB). Additionally, there was another section which is
named as demographics. The questionnaire consisting of items for each of the four
variables was adopted from Inn.theorizeit.org and Google Scholar. A 5 point Likert
scale, (Likert, 1960) was used to answer the statements in the questionnaire, where 1
represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree.

30
3.7 Instrument Development

3.7.1 Perceived CSR scale

Corporate social responsibility is a multi-faceted construct first developed by Carroll. So,

our scale was also developed on the basis of Carroll‟s pyramid of corporate social
responsibility developed on 1991. In order to measure CSR and its dimensions we
adopted Maiignan and Ferrell’s (2001) scale (Sarfraz, Qun, Abdullah &Alvi, 2018).
Maignman and Ferrell’s (2001) scale best suits our study because it comprises of 12
items. And covers all the four dimensions of corporate social responsibility, which
Carroll (1991) proposed.
3.7.2 Organization based self-esteem scale

In order to measure organization based self-esteem we adapted the scale proposed by

Pierce, Gardner, Cummings and Dunham (1989). Piercie et al. (1989) scale encompasses
of 10 items that record response of people and assess the extent to which they thinks that
they are significant enough, efficient and earnest as a member of that organization in
which they work (Piercee, Gardener, Cum\mings and Dunham, 1989).

3.7.3 In role behavior scale

To measure employees in role behavior (IRB) we adopted scale used by Huang and You,
(2011).(Huang &You, 2011) scale consist of 4 items that was measured on a 5 point
Likert scale, in order to evaluate that weather the employee is meeting their regular
performance standards.

3.7.4 Extra role behavior scale (OCB)

OCB discusses the behavior performed by individuals that is not in response of any
reward system but is performed by that individual discretionarily (Organ, 1988). In order
to measure OCB, we adopted proposed by Leeand Allen (2002). This scale consists of 8
items that was measured on a 5 point Likert scale.

31
3.8 Data Collection Procedure

In order to collect the data a Questionnaire was developed that contained the items and
scales mentioned above for Employee Perceive CSR, Organization Based Self-Esteem,
Employee In-role Behavior and Employee Extra role Behavior.

3.9 Data Analysis Techniques

The data collected through questionnaires for the purpose of this study was arranged and
analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20;
Release 20.0.0). We conducted several tests that included: Regression, Correlation,
Normality and Reliability along with a Mediation Analysis.

3.9.1 Correlation

The correlation analysis is used to determine if any associations between the variables
exist or not. It also tells us about the direction of the relationship between the variables.
Our research is quantitative in nature for which correlation analysis is frequently used.

3.9.2 Regression

The regression analysis tells us about the change that occurs in a dependent variable due
to a one unit change in an independent variable while keeping all other variables
constant. Regression analysis is helpful when two variables are related to each other in
such a way that a change in one variable bring about a significant change in the other
variable. In case of our research the regression analysis will be useful in order to find out
the strength of the relationship among the variables.

3.9.3 Mediation:

Mediation analysis is a process of introducing a new hypothetical variable between the

two (i-e dependent and independent variable) in order to find out the relationship
between these two. So, for the purpose of finding it out that weather that variable have
any impact on the two through the process of mediation regression analysis.

32
 Chapter-4 Presentation Analysis

This chapter consists of all the analysis we have performed on our results i-e Frequency
analysis results, descriptive statistic (skewness, kurtosis, means etch). Further, presented
the results of our correlation analysis and mediation regression analysis. And lastly
presented the table which shows the hypothesis which are accepted and rejected
according to our investigation.

4.1 Frequency Analysis

Table 4.1
Gender

Valid Cumulative

Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Male 131 57.5 57.5 57.5

Female 97 42.5 42.5 100.0

Total 228 100.0 100.0

In order to conduct the study a total of 228 samples were collected from Small medium
enterprises present in Islamabad and Rawalpindi, out of which male ratios is 131 and
female ratio is 97.

33
Table 4.2
Age

Valid Cumulative

Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Under 30 38 16.7 16.7 16.7
30-39 Years old 91 39.9 39.9 56.6
40-49 Years old 54 23.7 23.7 80.3

45 19.7 19.7 100.0

50 & above
Years old Total
228 100.0 100.0

In order to conduct the study a total of 228 samples were collected from different SME‟s
of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, 38 people fall in (Under 30), 91people fall in the bracket
of (30-39), 54 people fall in (40-49) age bracket and 45 people fall in (50 & above) age
bracket.

Table 4.3

34
Income Level

Valid Cumulative

Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Below 30,000 29 12.7 12.7 12.7
30,000-50,000 71 31.1 31.1 43.9
50,000-70,000 68 29.8 29.8 73.7

Above 70,000 60 26.3 26.3 100.0

Total 228 100.0 100.0

In order to conduct the study a total of 228 samples were collected from different SME‟s
of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, 29 people fall in (Below 30,000) income level bracket, and
71 people had an income level between (30,0000-50,000), 68 people fall in (50,000-
70,000) and 60 people had income level above (70,000).

Table 4.4
Designation

Valid Cumulative

Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Front Line 70 30.7 30.7 30.7
Middle 97 42.5 42.5 73.2
Higher 61 26.8 26.8 100.0
Total 228 100 100
In order to conduct the study a total of 228 samples were collected from different SME‟s
of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, out of which 70 were Front line managers, 97 people were
Middle managers and 61 were in the higher management category.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

Table 4.5

35
 Descriptive
Statistics
M S.D Skewness Kurtosis
Perceived CSR 3.9934 .73391 .655 1.470
Organization based 4.3482 .51278 .255 -1.180

self esteem
In role Behavior 4.3607 .55637 -.412 -.459
Extra roll behavior 3.7467 .86943 -1.413 .876

(OCB)

The descriptive statistics are displayed in the above table. The mean value for Perceived
CSR is 3.9934 with a standard deviation of .73391. For Organizational based self-esteem
the values are 4.3482 and .51278 respectively. For In role behavior values are 4.3607
with a standard deviation of .55637. For Extra roll behavior (OCB) the values are 3.7467
and .86943 respectively.

The values of skewness and kurtosis for all the variables are within the acceptable ranges
i.e. (-1 to +1) and (-3 to +3) which means that the data is normal and appropriate for
regression analysis.

4.3 Reliability Analysis

Table 4.6

Reliability statistics N= (228)

36
Variables No. of Items Cronbach Alpha (α)

Perceived CSR 12 0.891

Organization based self
10 0.832
esteem
In role behavior 04 0.854
Extra roll behavior (OCB) 08 0.961

As seen in table 4.6 all 4 variables are having a cronbach Alpha (α) above than 0.7, In
role behavior had a total 4 items while Perceived CSR had 12, Organizational based self-
esteem had 10, Extra roll behavior (OCB) had 08.

(Hinton, 2004) has divided value of reliability into four categories i.e. excellent
reliability (0.90 or more), highly reliable (0.70-0.90), direct reliable (0.50-0.70) and low
reliable (0.50 or below). Also, (William, 2006) has suggested that if the value of
Cronbach alpha is above 0.50 then it is satisfactory. So, according to these rules there
reliability test clearly indicates that the data is reliable as all the values are above 0.60.

4.4 Correlation Analysis

Table 4.7

37
 Correlation Matrix

PCSR OBSE IRB OCB

PCSR 1

OBSE .673** 1

IRB -.184** .143* 1

OCB -.018 -.103 -.103 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Correlation analysis (SPSS 2.0) has been used to determine if any associations between
the variables and the moderator exist or not. It also tells us about the direction&
significance between the variables. The association between Perceived CSR and in role
behavior is highly significant but weak to mediate in nature with a magnitude of .184 and
a negative direction, The relationship between Perceived CSR and Extra role behavior
(OCB) is not significant also very weak to mediate in nature with a magnitude of .018 in
a negative direction, The association between Organization based self-esteem and In-role
behavior is weakly significant with a very weak mediation having magnitude .143 in a
negative direction, the association of Organization based self-esteem and Extra role
behavior is not significant with a very weak mediation having a magnitude of .103 in a
negative direction.

4.5 Regression Analysis

Table 4.8
Co-eff se t p LLCI ULCI R² F

38
 IRBM
OBSEM .5282 .0895 5.9049 .0000 .3519 .7045 .1634 21.980
2
CSR -.3878 .0625 -6.204 .0000 -.5109 -.2646
OBSEM

CSR .4703 .0344 13.680 .0000 .4025 .5380 .4530 187.15

4

Results:

Table 4.8 shows the results of hypothesis one H1, hypothesis three H3and hypothesis
four H4.

This table shows that prediction power of this model for H1 is resulted to be 45.30% (R²
= .4530). It tells that 45.30% of the variance observed in the dependent variable (IRBM)
can be expressed by the model. The proposed model also has a fitness value (F) of
187.154 (F>4) which means that the model is fit for the data. Our H1 which is CSR has a
positive impact on OBSEM is path (c) for the model. From the results above it is seen
that the value of co-efficient is not positive (-.3878), the value of p is .0000 (p<0.05),
also the value of LLCI and ULCI have the same signs. This data tells that the results are
significant but still H1 is rejected because we proposed that the relationship of CSR with
IRBM is positive but the results shows that there is a negative relationship between the
two variables.

The same table also shows the result of our proposed H3. This is path (a) of the model.
H3 is accepted as the value of co-efficient is positive (.4703) and we also proposed that it
should be positive. The value of p is .0000 (p<0.05), it is at 95% confidence interval.
Also, LLCI (.4025) and ULCI (.4530) has same sign which indicates the acceptance of
our proposed hypothesis. So our H3 which is CSR has a positive relationship with OBSE
stands accepted.

39
Our proposed hypothesis is H4 OBSE has a positive relationship with IRBM. This
hypothesis which is path (b) is also accepted as all the values are in the range. As co-
efficient value is .5282 which is positive and our proposed direction is also positive. The
value of p is .0000 (p<0.05) so it is favorable. The value of LLCI is .3519 and the value
of ULCI is .7045, which tells that both have same sign so H4 is accepted. This table
shows that prediction power of this model for hypothesis five is resulted to be 16.34%
(R² = .1634). It tells that 16.34% of the variance observed in the dependent variable
(Employee Creativity) can be expressed by the model. The proposed model also has a
fitness value (F) of 21.9802 (F>4) which means that the model is fit for the data.

Table 4.9
Co-eff se t p LLCI ULCI R² F
OCB
OBSEM
-.2806 .1517 -1.850 .0656 -.5795 .0182 .0153 1.750
5

CSR .1102 .1060 1.0400 .2995 -.0986 .3190

OBSEM

CSR .4703 .0344 13.680 .0000 .4025 .5380 .4530 187.15

4

Table 4.9 shows the results of hypothesis two H2 and hypothesis five H5, this table
shows that prediction power of this model for H2 is resulted to be 45.30% (R² = .4530).
It tells that 45.30% of the variance observed in the dependent variable (IRBM) can be
expressed by the model. The proposed model also has a fitness value (F) of 187.154
(F>4) which means that the model is fit for the data. Our H2 which is CSR has a positive
impact on Extra role behavior (OCB) is path (c) for the model. From the results above it
is seen that the value of co-efficient is positive (.1102), the value of p is .2995 (p<0.05)

40
which determines rejection, also the value of LLCI and ULCI are not having same signs
so this shows that H2 is rejected.

The same table also shows the result of our proposed H5. This is path (b) of the model.
H5 is also rejected as the value of co-efficient is not positive (-.2806). The value of p is .
0656 (p<0.05), it is at below 5% confidence interval. Also, LLCI (-.5795) and ULCI
(.0182) are not having same sign which indicates the rejection of our proposed
hypothesis. So our H5 which is Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) has a positive
impact on employee extra role behavior (OCB) is rejected.

4.6 Mediation Analysis

Table 5.1: Direct and Indirect Effects
Effect SE T p LLCI ULCI

Direct effect of X on Y

-.3878 .0625 -6.2044 .0000 -.5109 -.2646

Indirect Effect of X on
Y

OBSEM .2484 .0418 .1715 .3385

Results

Table 5.1 shows that direct effect is rejected but indirect path is accepted. For direct path
the value of p is .0000 (p<0.05) which is favorable as it shows significance but both the
values of LLCI (-5109) and ULCI (-.2646) are negative which opposes are proposed
hypothesis. All these values makes direct path rejected. The indirect effect which is the
mediating path is accepted as both LLCI (.2484) and ULCI (.0.418) have the same sign
which indicates the acceptance of our proposed hypothesis H6 that is OBSEM positively
mediates the relationship between CSR and IRBM. Also from the above table we can

41
deduce that as direct is rejected and indirect path is accepted so full mediation is taking
place. This means that OBSEM is fully mediating the relationship between CSR and
IRBM.

Table 5.2: Direct and Indirect Effects

Effect SE T p LLCI ULCI

Direct effect of X on Y

.1102 .1060 1.0400 .2995 -.0986 .3190

Indirect Effect of X on
Y

OBSEM -.1320 .0475 -.2344 -.0419

Results

Table 5.2 shows that direct effect and the indirect effect both are rejected. For direct path
the value of p is .2995 (p<0.05) which is not favorable as it shows insignificance also
both the values of LLCI (-.0986) and ULCI (.3190) are negative which opposes the
proposed hypothesis. All these values makes direct path rejected. The indirect effect
which is the mediating path is also rejected as both LLCI (-.2344) and ULCI (-.0419)
have the same sign negative sign which indicates the rejection of our proposed
hypothesis H7 that is Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) positively mediates the
relationship between employee perceived CSR and employee extra role behavior (OCB).
Also from the above table we can deduce that as direct and indirect path both are rejected
so no mediation is taking place. This means that OBSEM is not mediating the
relationship between CSR and OCB.

42
Final Results

Hypothesis Status

H1: Employee perceived CSR has a positive impact on employee in role Rejected
behavior (IRB).
H2:Employee perceived CSR has a positive impact on employee extra role Rejected
behavior (OCB).

Accepted
H3 Employee perceived CSR has a positive impact on with organization
based self-esteem (OBSE)
Accepted
H4 Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) is positively related to
employee in role behavior (IRB).
Rejected
H5 Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) is positively associated with
employee extra role behavior (OCB).
Accepted
H6 Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) positively mediates the
relationship between employee perceived CSR and employee in role
behavior (IRB).
H7 Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) positively mediates the Rejected
relationship between employee perceived CSR and employee extra role
behavior (OCB).

43
 Chapter-5 Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Findings

According to our hypothesis one (H1) Employee perceived CSR is positively associated
with employee in role behavior (IRB) which stands rejected in our findings, this rejection
is aligned with the findings of (Sarfraz, Qun, Abdullah & Alvi, 2018), they state that in
Pakistan’s case majority of the SME‟s are unable to fulfill the basic rights of their
employees which is an exploitation of their moral due to which employee’s perception
about CSR falls and their in role behavior is affected negatively.

According to our hypothesis two (H2) Employee perceived CSR is positively related to
employee extra role behavior (OCB) which stands rejected in our findings and the
rejection is aligned with (Organ et al., 1990) the authors state that some of the time
organization fails to fulfill the basic rights of their employees but invest hard on
corporate social responsibility, so the employees lose their self-esteem and then are not
be able to play an extra role behavior for the organization.

According to hypothesis three (H3) Employee perceived CSR is positively associated

with organization based self-esteem (OBSE) which stands accepted in our findings and is
aligned with the findings of (J. Lee & Peccei, 2007) according to them when any
organization conducts CSR activities it builds a positive reputation in front of both the
internal and external stakeholders which devastatingly increases the organization based
self-esteem of employees.

According to our hypothesis Four (H4) Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) is

positively related to employee in role behavior (IRB) which stands accepted in our
findings and is again aligned with the findings of (J. Lee & Peccei, 2007) according to
the authors If self-esteem of any individual is high specially the organization based
which only happens when the organization makes the employee feel proud and satisfied,
the in-role behavior of the individual increases.

According to our hypothesis Five (H5) Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) is

positively associated with employee extra role behavior (OCB) which stands rejected in

44
our findings and contradicts with the findings of (Pierce et al., 1989) according to
literature, high OBSE has a positive impact on OCB, but as our study has been
conducted in Pakistan it is quite possible that due to restricted culture and other scenarios
no matter how much an individual is having high OBSE still he doesn’t wants to go an
extra mile for the company OCB is not related to any kind of rewards, one of the major
reason for this rejection in Pakistan can be the low wages in SME‟s. Still a proper
research needs to be conducted in Pakistan to find out the true reason.

According to our hypothesis Six (H6) Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) positively
mediates the relationship between employee perceived CSR and employee in role
behavior (IRB) which stands accepted in our findings and is aligned with the findings of
(J. Lee & Peccei, 2007) the authors have stated that higher CSR leads in building a high
organization based self-esteem of employees and due to higher OBSE the employee’s
IRB increases. Which means OBSE plays a positive mediation role between the two
variables

According to our hypothesis Seven (H7) Organization based self-esteem (OBSE)

positively mediates the relationship between employee perceived CSR and employee
extra role behavior (OCB) the mediation stands rejected in this case although CSR has a
positive impact on OBSE but still OBSE is not mediating between the OBSE and OCB
here and is contradicting with the findings of (Pierce et al., 1989) who stated that a
positive mediation exists between these two variables, but our findings are showing no
mediation between the variables.

5.2 Conclusion

The highlight of the research was that Organization based self-esteem (OBSE) was found
positively mediating relationship between employees perceived CSR and employee in
role behavior (IRB) which was also supported by literature, a huge question mark and
gap for the future studies is that in Pakistani context is that (OBSE) doesn’t mediates the
relationship between employee perceived CSR and employee extra role behavior (OCB)
positively which is contradicting to the literature available. An in-depth study has to be

45
conducted to find out the true reason for the negative association between OBSE and
OCB in Pakistan.

The direct relations of Perceived CSR with In-role behavior and extra role behavior were
also rejected but remarkably CSR‟s relation with Organization based Self Esteem
(OBSE) was found positive which we have concluded in support of literature that CSR
does not matter in Pakistan’s office culture no matter how much they are paid or treated,
to some it matters and are ready to sacrifice their monetary terms with the organization
for CSR but to some, what all matters is their own monetary health despite of any CSR
activity.

5.3 Limitations

A major limitation of our study was not considering the bigger firms and the corporate
sector Islamabad and Rawalpindi the results are purely based on SME‟s which can bring
intuitions in the results. The corporate sector’s aspect remains to be studied. Furthermore
the questionnaire was filled during the working hours so it may be possible that our
audience did not respond effectively due to shortage of time.

5.4 Recommendations

We recommend that the future studies should incorporate other aspects of

psychographics and demographics and combine their role in the CSR impact. We purely
recommend for a study on the negative impact of organizational based self-esteem and
extra role behavior in Pakistani context to find out the true reason for the contradictions
with the available literature. Advanced techniques like SME (structured equation
modeling) can be applied in future to obtain more accurate and reliable results. Future
research should also incorporate and examine others industries like telecom, service, etc.
A cross culture comparative analysis can also be conducted to examine the effect of
Organizational based self-esteem in collectivist and individualistic societies.

46
 References

Amarsaikhan, Z. (2014). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee

Organizational Commitment: A Study in Ireland (Doctoral dissertation, Dublin,
National College of Ireland).

Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2017). Organisational stressors, coping, and
outcomes in competitive sport. Journal of sports sciences, 35(7), 694-703.

Arshadi, N., & Damiri, H. (2013). The relationship of job stress with turnover intention
and job performance: Moderating role of OBSE. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 84, 706-710.

Arshadi, N., & Hayavi, G. (2013). The effect of perceived organizational support on
affective commitment and job performance: mediating role of OBSE. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 739-743.

Ashforth, B. E. and Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy
of management review, 14 (1), pp. 20--39.

Beckman, T., Colwell, A., & Cunningham, P. H. (2009). The emergence of corporate
social responsibility in Chile: The importance of authenticity and social
networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 191.

Blom, V., Richter, A., Hallsten, L., & Svedberg, P. (2018). The associations between job
insecurity, depressive symptoms and burnout: The role of performance-based
selfesteem. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 39(1), 48-63.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations; San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 71.
Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., Wang, Q., Kirkendall, C., & Alarcon, G. (2010). A
Meta Analysis of the Predictors and Consequences of Organization-Based Self-
Esteem. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 601-626

47
Brammer, S., Millington, A. and Rayton, B. 2007. The contribution of corporate social
responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 18 (10), pp. 1701--1719.

Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational
performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance.
Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 972-992.

Cannell, C. F., & Kahn, R. L. (1968). Interviewing. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
The Handbook of Social Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Reading, Mass: Addison-
Wesley.

Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social

performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the

Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4),
39-48.

Chaudhry, N. I., Ashraf, Z., & Jaffri, A. M. (2012). Mediation effects of political skills
dimensions on employee performance. International Journal of Business and
Management, 7(9), 120.

Dentale, F., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., &Barbaranelli, C. (2018).Investigating the

protective role of global self-esteem on the relationship between stressful life
events and depression: A longitudinal moderated regression model. Current
Psychology, 1-12.

Ellis, A. D. (2009). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee

Attitudes and Behaviors. In G. T. Solomon (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixtyeighth
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (CD).

48
Farah, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for Organizational
Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Management, 16.

Feng, D., Su, S., Wang, L., & Liu, F. (2018). The protective role of self esteem,
perceived social support and job satisfaction against psychological distress among
Chinese nurses. Journal of nursing management, 26(4), 366-372.

Fitch, H. G. (1976). Achieving Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of

Management Review, 1, 38-46.

Foote, D. A., & Li-Ping Tang, T. (2008). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) does team commitment make a difference in self-directed
teams?. Management Decision, 46(6), 933-947.

Fox, T., Ward, H., & Howard, B. (2002). Public sector roles in strengthening corporate
social responsibility: A baseline study. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., & Relyea, C. (2003). A social identity perspective
on the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational
commitment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(6), 789-791.

Godfrey, P. C., & Hatch, N. W. (2007). Researching Corporate Social Responsibility: An

Agenda for the 21st Century. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1), 87-98.

Greenwood, M., & Anderson, E. (2009). 'I used to be an employee but now I am a
stakeholder':

49
Implications of labelling employees as stakeholders. [Article]. Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 47, 186-200.

Ho, A. T. S. (2012). The Impact of Perceived CSR on Employee Performance and

Turnover Intention: An Examination of the Mediating Effect of Organizational
Justice and Organization-Based Self-Esteem.

Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the
criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of
Applied psychology, 92(2), 555.

Horberg, E. J., & Chen, S. (2010). Significant others and contingencies of self-worth:
Activation and consequences of relationship-specific contingencies of self-
worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 77–91. doi:10.1037/
a0016428

Huang, C. C., & You, C. S. (2011). The three components of organizational commitment
on in role behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors. African journal of
business management, 5(28), 11335-11344.

Hui, T., Yuen, M., & Chen, G. (2018). Career Adaptability, Self Esteem, and Social
Support Among Hong Kong University Students. The Career Development
Quarterly, 66(2), 94-106

Johnson, S., Robertson, I., & Cooper, C. L. (2018).Work and Well-Being.In WELL-
BEING (pp. 89-108). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Jurado, M. D. M. M., del Carmen Pérez-Fuentes, M., Linares, J. J. G., & Martín, A. B. B.
(2018). Burnout in Health Professionals According to Their Self-Esteem, Social
Support and Empathy Profile. Frontiers in psychology, 9.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1996). Procedural justice and managers' in-role and
extra-role behavior: The case of the multinational. Management Science, 42(4),
499-515.

50
Kogler, L., Seidel, E. M., Metzler, H., Thaler, H., Boubela, R. N., Pruessner, J. C., ...
&Habel, U. (2017). Impact of self-esteem and sex on stress reactions. Scientific
reports, 7(1), 17210.

Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 54, 31–41. doi:10.1037/ h0028656

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of applied psychology,
87(1), 131.

Maignan, I.; Ferrell, O.C. (2001) Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: An
investigation of French businesses. J. Bus. Res. 2001, 51, 37–51

Monette, D. R., Sullivan, T. J., & Dejong, C. R. (2008). Applied Social Research: A Tool
for the Human Services. (7th ed.). California: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H., Den Hartog, D. N., &Belschak, F. D. (2018). Narcissistic
leaders and their victims: followers low on self-esteem and low on core self-
evaluations suffer most. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 422.

Organ, D.W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Book). Pers. Psychol. 1988, 41, 862–
865.

Peterson, D. K. 2004. The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and

organizational commitment. Business & Society, 43 (3), pp. 296--319.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. 1989. Organization-
based self esteem: Construct definition measurement and validation. Academy of
Management Journal, 32: 622–648

Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-Esteem Within the Work and Organizational
Context: A Review of the Organization-Based Self-Esteem Literature. Journal of
Management, 30(5), 591-622.

51
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., & Crowley, C. (2016). Organization-based self-esteem and
well being: Empirical examination of a spillover effect. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(2), 181-199.

Pourkiani, M., & Askaripoor, M. (2015). Organization-Based Self-Esteem and

Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Banking Sector of Iran. Asian Journal of
Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(2), 282-293.

Riordan, C. M., Weatherly, E. W., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2001). The Effects
of Pre Entry Experiences and Socialization Tactics on Newcomer Attitudes and
Turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 159-177.

Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-
esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes.
American sociological review, 141-156.

Rosse, J. G., Boss, R. W., Johnson, A. E., & Crown, D. F. (1991).Conceptualizing the
role of self-esteem in the burnout process. Group & Organization Studies, 16(4),
428-451.

Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee
Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Organizational Justice
Framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537-543.

Samanta, I., Kyriazopoulos, P. and Pantelidis, P. 2013. "Exploring the Impact of CSR on
Employee's Perceptions of their Company and their Working Behavior", paper
presented at International Conference on Technology and Business
Management, March 18-20. pp. 826-32.
Sarfraz, M., Qun, W., Abdullah, M., & Alvi, A. (2018). Employees‟ perception of
corporate social responsibility impact on employee outcomes: Mediating role of
organizational justice for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Sustainability,
10(7), 2429.

52
Satuf, C., Monteiro, S., Pereira, H., Esgalhado, G., Marina Afonso, R., &Loureiro, M.
(2018).The protective effect of job satisfaction in health, happiness, well-being
and selfesteem. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics,
24(2), 181-189.

Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Analytical

Framework. California Management Review, 17, 58-64.
Shafir, R., Guarino, T., Lee, I. A., &Sheppes, G. (2017). Emotion regulation choice in an
evaluative context: the moderating role of self-esteem. Cognition and Emotion,
31(8), 1725-1732.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature and antecedents. Journal of applied psychology, 68(4), 653.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools:

The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers‟ extra-
role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 649-659.

Spiliotopoulou, G. (2009). Reliability reconsidered: Cronbach's alpha and paediatric

assessment in occupational therapy. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal,
56(3), 150-155.

Stuart, H. (2002). Employee identification with the corporate identity. International

Studies of Management & Organization, 32(3), 28-44.

Tajfel, H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual review of psychology,

33 (1), pp. 1 -39.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate Social Performance and

Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(3), 658-

53
 672.

Turker, D. (2009a). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development

study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 411-427.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social
Identity and Behavioral Engagement. New York: Psychology Press.

Van Dick, R., Van Knippenberg, D., Kerschreiter, R., Hertel, G., & Wieseke, J. (2008).
Interactive effects of work group and organizational identification on job
satisfaction and extra-role behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 388-
399.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (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.

Wells, L. E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem. London: Sage.

Werner, J. M. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human

resource management. Human resource management review, 10(1), 3-24.

Wiesenfeld, B. M., Swann Jr, W. B., Brockner, J., & Bartel, C. A. (2007). Is more
fairness always preferred? Self-esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1235-1253
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.

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. [Article]. Academy of

Management Review, 16(4), 691-718.

54
Yang, Z., Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., & Chen, S. (2018). Crossover effects of servant
leadership and job social support on employee spouses: The mediating role of
employee organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3),
595-604.

Zafar, F.; Farooq, M. (2014) Corporate social responsibility in small and medium
enterprises to achieve organizational benefits. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2014, 5,
2276–2283.

Zeinabadi, H. (2010). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of

organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 5, 998-1003.

Zhou, J., Yang, Y., Qiu, X., Yang, X., Pan, H., Ban, B., ...& Wang, W. (2018). Serial
multiple mediation of organizational commitment and job burnout in the
relationship between psychological capital and anxiety in Chinese female nurses:
A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies,
83, 75-82.

55
 Appendix

Employee Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Impact

on Employee Outcomes: Mediating Role of Organization Based Self
Esteem

“Survey Questionnaire”

Dear Participant, the objective of conducting this survey is to measure the impact of
corporate social responsibilities (CSR) on employee’s behavior: In-role behavior and
extra-role behavior. Corporate Social Responsibility is basically a commitment by
business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving
the quality of life of the workforce and society at large. We ensure that the details
provided by you will be kept confidential.

Demographics

1) Gender: Male Female

2) Age: Under 30 30-39 years old 40-49 years old

Above 50

3) Tenure: Less than 1 years 1-3 years 4-6 years

7 years and above

4) Income Level: Below 30,000 31,000 - 50,000 51,000 -70,000

Above 70,000

5) Designation Frontline managers Middle managers Higher managers

56
Please mark your answer on the scale of 1 to 5 where 1 represents strongly disagree
and 5 represents strongly agree. (Key: SD= Strongly Disagree, D= Disagree,
N=Neutral, A=Agree, SA= Strongly Agree)

Sr Statement SD D N A SA
. 1 2 3 4 5
no

A Perceived CSR

1 Our business has a procedure in place to respond to every

customer complaint.

2 We continuously improve the quality of our products.

3 The managers of this organization try to comply with the

law and regulations.

4 Top management establishes long-term strategies for

business.

5 Our company seeks to comply with all laws regulating

hiring and employee benefits.
6 We have programs that encourage the diversity of our
workforce.
7 Our business has a comprehensive code of conduct.

8 Members of our organization follow professional

standards.
9 Top managers monitor the potential negative impacts of
our activities on our community.
10 Our business encourages employees to join civic
organizations that support our community.
11 Flexible company policies enable employees to better
coordinate work-personal life.
12 Our business gives adequate contributions to charities.

Sr. Statement SD D N A SA

57
no 1 2 3 4 5

B Organization Based Self-Respect

1 I count around here, in my organization.

2 I am taken seriously in my organization.

3 I am an important part of my organization.

4 I am being trusted by the people of my organization.

5 There is faith in me around here

6 I can make a difference over here.

7 I am valuable part of this organization.

8 I am helpful around here.

9 I am efficient part of my organization.

10 I am cooperative around here.

Sr. Statement SD D N A SA
no 1 2 3 4 5

C In-Role Behavior (IRB)

1 I believe that adequately completes assigned duties.

2 I always attempt to fulfill the responsibilities that are

specified in my job description.

3 I believe that I perform tasks that are expected out of me.

4 I attempts to meet formal performance requirements of my

job.

Sr. Statement SD D N A SA
no 1 2 3 4 5

D Extra Role Behavior (OCB)

58
1 I willingly give my time to help others who have work-
related problems.

2 I adjust my work schedule to accommodate other employees’

requests for time off.

3 I have time to help others who have work or non-work

problems.

4 I assist others with their duties.

5 I attend functions that are not required but promote the

organizational image.

6 I offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization.

7 I take actions to protect the organization from potential

problems.

8 I defend the organization when other employees criticize it.

59