The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Antecedents
The antecedents and and
consequences of psychological consequences
of PsyCap
capital: a meta-analytic approach
Wann-Yih Wu 435
Program of International Business, Nanhua University, Chiayi, Taiwan, and
Received 25 June 2018
Khanh-Van Ho Nguyen Revised 9 January 2019
12 April 2019
Department of Business Administration, Nanhua University, Chiayi, Taiwan Accepted 13 April 2019

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on psychological capital (PsyCap) – one of the emerging
topics of human resource management, by examining its antecedents and outcomes through the lens of social
exchange theory.
Design/methodology/approach – A meta-analytic approach was applied to validate the proposed
hypotheses. Altogether, 105 primary studies published between 2000 and 2018 were collected and used.
Findings – Results show that leadership styles (authentic leadership, ethical leadership, abusive leadership)
and organizational support are antecedents and desirable work attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, organizational citizenship behavior) are consequences of PsyCap. Employee’s characteristics
significantly moderated the relationship between PsyCap and work attitudes.
Originality/value – This was the first attempt to examine PsyCap in a theoretical framework with its
antecedents and outcomes and furthermore, to apply a meta-analytic method. The moderating role of
employee characteristics in the relationship between PsyCap and work attitudes is also explored.
Keywords Psychological capital, Work attitudes, Leadership styles, Perceived organizational support
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Positive psychology emerged as a new research topic nearly 20 years ago. Distinct from
traditional psychology, which concentrated on the negative aspects of human health,
positive psychological researchers investigate what it is that is good in people, that makes
them more productive (Luthans et al., 2004). A positive mind-set and belief has a critical
value in people’s relationships, well-being and work life (Avey et al., 2011). Organizational
behavior argues that positive behavioral features are the result of a positive psychological
state (Rego et al., 2016). In organizational contexts, psychological capital (PsyCap) has
drawn increasing attention from researchers because it goes beyond traditional economic,
human and social capital (Luthans et al., 2004). Specifically, PsyCap focuses on “who you
are” rather than “who you know” (social capital), “what you know” (human capital) or “what
you have” (economic capital) (Luthans et al., 2004).
The amount of organizational research on individual PsyCap has increased since it was
acknowledged. Researchers have attempted to examine where it comes from, what it leads
to, and its processes. However, studies investigating its antecedents are limited. Hence, it
leaves a gap in the literature in that we do not understand PsyCap as a whole theoretical
concept. For example, Avey et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis study to investigate the
outcomes of employee’s PsyCap. The integrative results of empirical studies show that there
is a meaningful positive relationship between PsyCap and desirable subordinate attitudes,
behaviors and performance, as well as a significant negative relationship between PsyCap
Leadership & Organization
and undesirable attitudes and behaviors. In that study, Avey et al. (2011) revealed a gap in Development Journal
the theoretical development of PsyCap (i.e. the antecedents of PsyCap). Later, Avey (2014) Vol. 40 No. 4, 2019
pp. 435-456
responded to the call for further research from Avey et al. (2011) by addressing the need to © Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
understand what predicts PsyCap. Avey (2014) conducted two field studies (respondents DOI 10.1108/LODJ-06-2018-0233
LODJ from the USA and China) to find that individual differences, leadership, job characteristics
40,4 and demographics significantly predict levels of PsyCap at work. This study recognized
that those four predictors and PsyCap can be classified into two groups, the one being
individual factors (i.e. individual differences and demographics) and the other being
organizational factors (i.e. leadership and job characteristics). As for organizational factors,
this study found only leadership to be an “active predictor,” which means it is about the
436 interaction between people and people (i.e. leader and subordinate). Hence, leadership is one
of the interests in this current study. In addition, these studies that addressed PsyCap
lacked a strong theoretical basis (e.g. theories to support why leadership should be an
antecedent of PsyCap). As a result, this study attempts to respond to the call for more
research by Avey et al. (2011) and Avey (2014) by exploring how the theory of social
exchange can provide valuable insights to explain how employee PsyCap can develop from
organizational factors and how it consequently produces positive work outcomes which are
of great interest of in much organizational research.
This study found that the level of PsyCap, which fluctuated according to leadership style
and PsyCap positive work outcomes, produced could be explained by social exchange theory
(SET). SET refers to “two-sided, mutually contingent, and mutually rewarding processes
involving ‘transactions’ ” (Emerson, 1976, p. 336). In accordance with SET, this study assumes
that if a leader gives benefits, subordinates will be motivated and respond positively in
reciprocity. In contrast, if a leader does not treat an employee well, the subordinate can
respond negatively by decreasing his or her desirable attitudes and behaviors.
In the context of this study, leadership is the first antecedent of PsyCap. Leadership is
considered to have impact on subordinate’s PsyCap (Avey, 2014; Gooty et al., 2009). Leaders
can influence the mood, motivation, behaviors and performance of their subordinates (Celik
et al., 2015). Research on positive organizational behavior theory has focused on PsyCap and
its relationship to leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Luthans et al., 2004) and employee
well-being (Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman, 2007; Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007).
Drawing from many leadership theories, this study chose authentic leadership, ethical
leadership and abusive leadership as types of leadership. The choice was based on the
following reasons: among value-based leaders, authentic, ethical and transformational
leadership have drawn a great amount of attention from prior research that investigated
effective leaders (Copeland, 2016). However, authenticity is considered a “root construct” out
of which forms transformational leadership and other positive leadership (Avolio and
Gardner, 2005), so this study chose authentic leadership over transformational leadership to
avoid replication. That is, authentic leadership and ethical leadership were included in this
study as types of positive leadership. To highlight the different effects between positive and
negative leadership styles, abusive leadership was chosen because it represented a
conceptually opposite style (Palanski et al., 2014) which has emerged as an issue to be
noticed in the workplace. This narrowed this study down to a similar idea as that of Avey
(2014) in that those three leadership styles were among the leadership styles investigated in
that study.
This study focused on organizational factors that affect employees and, based on SET,
took the second antecedent of PsyCap into account, perceived organizational support (POS).
POS is determined as employees “develop beliefs concerning the extent to which the
organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger et al.,
1986). Following organizational support theory, this study assumed that as the employees
perceive that they are receiving support from the organization, they will be motivated,
confident, optimistic and able to produce desirable work outcomes. Studies that investigated
the relationship between POS and PsyCap indicated that employees who perceive
recognition, appreciation and fair treatment from their organization experience a higher
level of PsyCap (Liu et al., 2015; Sihag and Sarikwal, 2015).
 To observe the positive consequences of PsyCap, job satisfaction, organizational Antecedents
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) were included in this study. and
Previous research by Avey et al. (2011) concluded that there is a meaningful positive consequences
relationship between PsyCap and desirable attitudes in subordinates (job satisfaction,
organizational commitment) and behavior (citizenship). Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman of PsyCap
(2007) found those high in PsyCap are more satisfied with their jobs. Luthans et al. (2008)
further recognized a higher commitment to the organization from them. 437
In summary, the literature of positive psychology opens available space for those studies
that combine both the “left and right side” of PsyCap and explains it based on a theoretical
basis – through the lens of SET. Although PsyCap is still being explored, this study
suggests a meta-analysis approach to have an overview on PsyCap’s antecedents and their
impact on work attitudes, and to search for moderators that may condition the relationship
between PsyCap and its outcomes. This study intends to contribute to the literature in the
following three ways: it is the first attempt to explain PsyCap and its antecedents and
outcomes through the lens of SET and to apply a meta-analytic method to test hypotheses, it
examines the moderating role of employee characteristics on the relationship between
PsyCap and positive work outcomes and it provides insight into the role of PsyCap in
producing pleasing employee work outcomes in the context of each type of leadership and
support from an organization.

Literature review
Social exchange theory (SET)
As the proposed model in this meta-analysis, SET has a foundational aspect in that it
provides a theoretical framework for investigating the antecedents and consequences of
PsyCap. SET proposes that human behaviors are driven by reciprocity and expectation
of rewards (Blau, 1964). According to Emerson (1976), social exchange connects a chain of
interactions that generate obligations to reciprocate. In other words, when a person gives
another person a reward, the former expects a return from the latter in the future. Most
social interactions associate some level of social or economic exchange (Blau, 1964). It is said
that social exchange is a primary determinate which drives, influences and mediates POS,
job involvement and job satisfaction within organizations (Blau, 1964; Locke, 1976). Van
Knippenberg and Sleebos (2006) have defined job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as social exchange outcomes resulting from the two constructs – reciprocity
and reward – playing off each other, which creates the perception of the exchange quality
within which the employee and the organization are required to fulfill their obligation to
each other and establish ongoing reciprocity.

Psychological capital – PsyCap

Luthans et al. (2004) defined positive PsyCap as a new movement that goes beyond
traditional economic capital, human capital and social capital. Traditional economic capital
addresses what you have; human capital addresses what you know; social capital expresses
whom you know, and positive PsyCap addresses who you are (Luthans et al., 2004). PsyCap
is known at individual and organizational levels to create competitive advantage by
enriching knowledge and human capital (Luthans and Youssef, 2004; Luthans, Avolio, Avey
and Norman, 2007; Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007). At an organizational level, PsyCap
is measured and managed by human resource specialists who work to give employee’s
opportunities to maximize this kind of capital (Youssef and Luthans, 2012). At an individual
level, PsyCap is described as a positive psychological state (Avey et al., 2011) including the
four capacities of self-efficacy (or self-confidence), hope, optimism and resilience, which
contribute to better workplace performance (Luthans et al., 2004). These four positive
psychological resources identify PsyCap as a multi-dimensional construct (Law et al., 1998).
LODJ Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s sentiment of ability to take on and put forth effort to
40,4 successfully execute challenging duties (Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007). Hope is
characterized by having a consistent goal-orientation and planning paths to succeed
(Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007). Optimism refers to the positive style of explaining the
good and bad events in an individual’s work and life. Specifically, optimism individually
interprets good events as being permanent and attributed to the internal whereas bad
438 events are interpreted as situational and attributed to the external (Luthans, Youssef and
Avolio, 2007). Optimism is considered the capacity more closely associated with overall
positive psychology than are the other capacities (Luthans et al., 2004). Resilience is the
capacity to recover from difficulties or even from positive changes (Luthans et al., 2004).

Antecedents of PsyCap – leadership styles and POS

Considered the root construct of leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005), authentic leadership
is a combination of the moral and ethical components of leadership. Authentic leaders are
those who care about other people and society. Jensen and Luthans (2006) demonstrated
three characteristics of authentic leaders: first, they are motivated by personal beliefs rather
than by attaining personal benefits; second, they are originals rather than the replication of
someone else; finally, their actions are based on personal values. Avolio and Gardner (2005)
defined authentic leadership as having the following components: positive PsyCap, a
positive moral perspective, leader self-awareness, leader self-regulation, leadership
processes or behavior, subordinate self-awareness or regulation and follower development.
Ethical leadership is defined by Brown et al. (2005) as “the demonstration of normatively
appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the
promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and
decision-making” (p. 120). Although authentic leadership also has an ethical perspective,
researchers differentiate these two forms of leadership. Ethical leadership concentrates
entirely on the ethical dimension rather than on ethics as an aspect of leadership (Mayer et al.,
2009). Further, Brown et al. (2005) mentioned that ethical leadership incorporated two
dimensions: traits (i.e. honesty, fairness, morality) and behavior (i.e. making balanced
decisions, promoting workplace ethicality, managing morally) dimensions.
In contrast with positive leadership, a “dark side” of leadership, that of abusive
leadership, has emerged as a serious problem in today’s workplace. Abusive leadership is
the verbal and non-verbal hostile behaviors that a manager performs toward a subordinate
(Tepper et al., 2008). It can be expressed in a wide range of actions such as being
disrespectful, ridiculing other people, using offensive names, being rude, being threatening,
screaming at subordinates, holding back needed information and even threatening
somebody with the loss of their job (Keashly, 1998). While managers can facilitate a positive
emotional environment that benefits in increased performance, abusive leadership does not
have the same effect because it does not produce positive emotions in the subordinates.
Abusive leadership is a phenomenon for which prior studies have shown noteworthy
consequences: greater job and life dissatisfaction in subordinate, role conflicts, intention to
quit the job and distress (Zellars et al., 2002). If a subordinate were to suffer at the hand of an
abusive leader, how would he/she respond? It would possibly be with bad manners,
preserving a sense of autonomy, or withholding OCBs (Zellars et al., 2002). Avey (2014)
found that abusive supervision reduces the subordinate’s PsyCap. This study will argue
that the abusive leader does not motivate positive PsyCap in their followers.
In the literature, there is not much evidence to prove the antecedents of PsyCap (Avey,
2014). Although many prior studies have focused on the ability of PsyCap in anticipating
workplace attitudes and behaviors, still there is a silence concerning the antecedents of
PsyCap (Avey, 2014). Leadership is commonly explored as one of the antecedents of PsyCap.
Forms of leadership explored include transformational leadership (Gooty et al., 2009), the
combination of transformational and transactional leadership (McMurray et al., 2010), Antecedents
authentic leadership (Amunkete and Rothmann, 2015; Rego et al., 2012, 2016), ethical and
leadership (Bouckenooghe et al., 2015) and abusive leadership (Liao and Liu, 2015). consequences
Accordingly, this study proposed the following hypothesis:
of PsyCap
H1a. Leadership styles are related to subordinate’s PsyCap. Specifically, authentic
leadership and ethical leadership are positively related to subordinates PsyCap,
whereas abusive leadership is negatively related to subordinate PsyCap. 439
POS is the degree to which the employees perceive that the organization values their
contribution and is concerned with their well-being (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). PsyCap
is an individual’s positive psychological state that links to work, so organizational factors may
have an effect on PsyCap. An employee’s perception that he/she is supported by the
organization, that his/her contributions are recognized, and that his/her well-being is cared
about, may enhance his/her positive psychology at work, thus increasing his/her PsyCap. Liu
et al. (2015) stated that those who perceive that they have high support from the organization
would feel hopeful about attaining their desires and goals, and that this, in turn, would
promote an optimistic perception of success. In fact, other studies have proven the existence of
a positive relationship between POS and PsyCap (Hui et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2015; Sihag and
Sarikwal, 2015; Wang et al., 2017). Accordingly, this study proposed the following hypothesis:
H1b. POS is positively related to a subordinate’s PsyCap.

Outcomes of PsyCap – work attitudes and behaviors

Job satisfaction is the result of the degree to which job needs are perceived as being fulfilled on
the job (Morse, 1953; Porter, 1962). In the industrial literature, job satisfaction is the pleasant
emotional state that comes from the employer’s appraisal of the achievement of their job
values (Locke, 1969). In other words, it is recognized as the positive emotion of an employee
when he/she gets a job assessment (Locke, 1976). Weiss (2002) defined job satisfaction as a
positive measurable judgment of an individual on his or her working conditions. Additionally,
Weiss (2002) regarded job satisfaction as an internal state, which is “a positive (or negative)
evaluative judgment one makes about one’s job or job situation” (p. 175).
Organizational commitment is the behavior that connects employees to the organization
(Mowday et al., 1979). Organizational commitment refers to the degree that an individual
takes on organizational values and goals, and coordinates with them to complete their job
responsibilities (Tanriverdi, 2008). Meyer and Allen (1991) introduced three components of
commitment, these being affective, continuance and normative organizational commitment.
Affective commitment seems to be the most positive. It describes the commitment of an
employee who feels attached to the organization and is pleased to be a member of that
organization. Those who are engaged in a continuance commitment are aware of the high
cost of leaving, and that they have no better choice whereas a normative commitment refers
to the obligatory feeling of an employee to continue employment with the organization
(Meyer and Allen, 1991).
OCB was originally defined by Organ (1988) as a combination of an individual’s
discretionary actions that were not part of an employee’s official duties nor recognized by
reward systems, but promoted organizational effectiveness. Employees who attend to OCBs
perform extra work without objection, help their co-workers to solve work-related problems,
provide them with psychological support or share positive aspects of the organization with
outsiders. As mentioned above, withholding OCBs is a choice of subordinates reacting to
abusive supervision. Zellars et al. (2002) showed that abusive supervision decreased OCBs.
In other words, abused subordinates perform fewer OCBs than those who are not suffering
from hostile behaviors.
LODJ Research on leadership has argued that leaders influence the perception, values and
40,4 OCBs of their group members (Abbott et al., 2006). Due to a leader sensitively demonstrating
and positively responding to the individual needs of their group members, there would be an
improvement in members’ satisfaction that would then lead to a willingness to express
greater effort to work for the organization (Dick et al., 2007). Brown et al. (2005) also proved
that ethical leadership predicts important follower outcomes including subordinates’
440 satisfaction with the leader, perceived leader effectiveness, follower willingness to utilize
extra effort on the job and follower willingness to report problems to management. In
addition, low-level job satisfaction is the consequence of abusive supervision. For this
reason, this study proposed the following hypothesis:
H2a. Leadership styles are related to subordinate’s work attitudes. Specifically,
authentic leadership and ethical leadership are positively related to subordinate
work attitudes whereas abusive leadership is negatively related to subordinate
work attitudes.
POS can generate employee satisfaction, commitment and willing behaviors that are rooted
in SET. Employees who believe they are supported and valued by their organization will
generate an enjoyable, good mood at work and fewer complaints. Furthermore, they are
likely to be more attached to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Chi et al., 2018),
satisfied with their job (Chi et al., 2018) and display OCB (Bukhari and Kamal, 2017).
Accordingly, this study proposed the following hypothesis:
H2b. POS is positively related to subordinate’s work attitudes.

PsyCap and work attitudes

The studies of the consequences of PsyCap focused on employee work attitudes. Prior studies
have found a relationship between PsyCap, work attitudes and performance in areas such as
job satisfaction, work commitment, organizational commitment, job involvement, well-being,
OCB, stress, turnover intentions, cynicism for change, deviance and work–family conflict
(Avey et al., 2011; Bukhari and Kamal, 2017; Chi et al., 2018; Gooty et al., 2009; Larson and
Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2008; Pradhan et al., 2016). The principal reason to explain the
impact of PsyCap on employees’ work attitude is this, the higher PsyCap an individual is
associated with, the more optimistic he or she is (i.e. optimism), believing that he or she can
take on new challenges and creating the path to success (i.e. hope and efficacy), and being able
to recover from change (i.e. resilience), according to Avey et al. (2011). Additionally, Avey and
his colleagues further indicated that PsyCap is related to organizational commitment because
the organization meets the needs for efficacy and achievement for those with a high PsyCap
level. They are more enthusiastic and engaged in their work. For that reason, this study
proposed the following hypothesis:
H3. PsyCap is positively related to a subordinate’s work attitudes.

The potential moderator effect of subordinate’s characteristic

Avey et al. (2011) suggested that moderator testing would help to explain when PsyCap is
more or less useful in the workplace. It could be job type, country culture, work–life balance
and even gender that impact PsyCap. In this study, due to the limitations of the information
provided in the primary studies, only demographics could be used to test their moderating
impact on PsyCap and its outcomes. This study proposes the following hypothesis:
H4. Gender, age and tenure moderate the relationship between subordinates’ PsyCap
and their work attitudes (Figure 1).
 Characteristics Antecedents
Gender and
Leadership Age
Authentic Leadership H2a Tenure consequences
Ethical leadership of PsyCap
Abusive Leadership
H4
H1a Work Attitudes
Psychological Job Satisfaction 441
Capital Organization Commitment
H3 Organizational Citizen Behavior
H1b

Perceived Figure 1.
Organizational H2b
The conceptual
Support framework

Method
The number of studies on positive psychology had grown so rapidly that Avey et al. (2011)
indicated that the time had come to conduct a meta-analysis concerning to PsyCap.
Meta-analysis “reviews critically and combines statistically the results of previous research
in an attempt to summarize the totality of evidence relating to a particular medical issue”
(Spector and Thompson, 1991, p. 89). For this study, meta-analytic approach provides an
overall estimate to clarify the empirical landscape of PsyCap. To achieve the purpose of this
paper, the following process was established.

Literature search and i1nclusion criteria

The terms “PsyCap,” “authentic leadership,” “POS” and other variables included in the
conceptual framework were entered into various scientific databases. Empirical studies
were collected electronically from ProQuest, JSTOR, SAGE, Emerald, ScienceDirect, Google
Scholar and WileyInterScience.
The following criteria should be met for an article to be eligible for inclusion in this study:
only empirical and quantitative studies that applied hypotheses testing qualified. Sample
size had to be included in the chosen studies. Those studies needed to present either a
correlation coefficient, or standardized regression coefficient for each of the research
hypotheses. For studies with multiple time points, one-time estimates were selected.

Variable coding
The study coded PsyCap when all of its four core components (hope, optimism, efficacy,
resilience) were included in a primary study and the aggregate reported. Those studies
reporting only one to three of the core components would not be coded. The antecedents of
PsyCap are leadership (authentic leadership, ethical leadership, abusive leadership) and
POS. The consequence of PsyCap was coded as positive work outcomes (job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, OCB). In line with the prior meta-analytic review (Avey et al.,
2011), if a study provided multi-faceted level effect sizes of a construct, this study created a
single effect size. Due to differences in presenting demographic information of participants
in each of the selected papers, three general characteristics of each sample were coded as
potential moderators: gender (male/female), age (under 40/40 and older) and tenure (less
than five years/five years or more) of the participants.
To ensure accuracy, each of chosen articles was independently coded by one person on
the coding team comprised of the authors and a subject-relevant doctoral student. Before
coding, the team reviewed the coding scheme together and discussed any related questions.
LODJ Then, each of them individually conducted data extraction and coding. After that, all coding
40,4 discrepancies that came out from the coding results were discussed until 100 percent
agreement was reached among the coders. Based on the above coding process, 105 articles
were included in this meta-analysis (see Table I).

Analytical techniques
442 The study utilized the correlation coefficients (r) as the primary effect size and those studies
that presented standardized regression coefficients (β) were transformed to r for further
analysis. After collecting and integrating all the correlation coefficients (r) that were needed,
the study computed the 95% confidence interval (CI) to evaluate the statistical significance
of each effect size. Effect sizes were considered statistically significant when the 95% CI did
not contain 0. Q-statistics, which were proposed by Lipsey and Wilson (2001), were applied
to analyze homogeneity of the effect size distribution. The criterion was that the Q-value had
to be higher than χ2 ( χ2 with degree of freedom equals (n−1), where n ¼ number of studies).
It makes the null hypothesis of homogeneity meaningful. If the null hypothesis of
homogeneity were rejected, heterogeneity between the variance would exist. In other words,
differences in effect size might be attributed to factors other than sampling.
To test for moderators, a Q-test was performed. According to Hedges and Olkin (1985),
homogeneity tests were conducted utilizing the Q significance test statistic to assess the
potential effects of moderators. A significant Q-statistic indicates the observed effect is
heterogeneous and that there is a need to search for moderators to explain further variance
in the findings. After that, the z-test that was developed by Hunter and Schmidt (1990) were
performed to evaluate the statistical significance of between-group differences.

Results
Results of main and moderator effects
Table II displays the results for the main effects. Concerning the effect between the three
types of leadership and PsyCap, the mean value of correlation coefficients among the
selected studies shows that authentic leadership and ethical leadership had a significant
positive influence on subordinates’ PsyCap (r ¼ 0.495 and r ¼ 0.449, respectively) in that the
corrected 95% CIs did not contain 0. Abusive leadership was negatively associated with
subordinates’ PsyCap and the corrected 95% CI ranged from −0.290 to −0.218, which did
not contain 0. Hence, H1a is supported. POS was positively associated with PsyCap
(r ¼ 0.486) and 95% CI did not contain 0, showing that H1b is supported.
About the effect between the three types of leadership and work attitudes, the study
found that authentic leadership was positively related to job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.376),
organizational commitment (r ¼ 0.370) and OCB (r ¼ 0.684). This finding was supported by
the 95% CIs having non-zero values. Similarly, ethical leadership had a positive influence on
job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.470), organizational commitment (r ¼ 0.553) and OCB (r ¼ 0.244) and
the corrected 95% CIs did not contain 0. However, abusive leadership had a negative
influence on job satisfaction (r ¼ −0.319), organizational commitment (r ¼ −0.345) and OCB
(r ¼ −0.229) and the corrected 95% CIs did not contain 0. Therefore, H2a is supported.
POS was positively associated with job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.346), organizational
commitment (r ¼ 0.493) and OCB (r ¼ 0.244) and none of the corrected 95% CIs included
0. Accordingly, H2b is supported. Finally, the results found that 95% CIs for job satisfaction
(r ¼ 0.511), organizational commitment (r ¼ 0.424) and OCB (r ¼ 0.565) did not contain 0,
denoting that H3 is supported.
It was noted that the Q-value was higher than χ2 for each relationship between PsyCap
and job satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCB, which means that the effect is
significantly heterogeneous. This suggested the potential existence of moderators (Hedges
and Olkin, 1985).
 Studies alphabetically by source and codes for hypotheses testsa,b
Antecedents
Ahmad et al. (2016), 8, (AbL-JS) Liu et al. (2015), 46, (POS-PsyCap) and
Ali and Ali (2014), 55, (PsyCap-JS) Luthans et al. (2008), 48, (PsyCap-JS, PsyCap-OC) consequences
Amunkete and Rothmann (2015), 49, Mathieu and Babiak (2016), 57, (AbL-JS) of PsyCap
(AuL-PsyCap, PsyCap-JS, AuL-JS)
Arshadi (2011), 59, (POS-OC) McMurray et al. (2010), 52, (PsyCap-OC)
Aryee et al. (2007), 32, (AbL-OC) Mohammadpour et al. (2017), 25, (AuL-PsyCap) 443
Avey (2014), 42, (AuL-PsyCap, EL-PsyCap, Munyaka et al. (2017), 63, (AuL-PsyCap),
AbL-PsyCap)
Azanza et al. (2013), 51, (AuL-JS) Nafei (2015a, b), 19, (PsyCap-OCB)
Badran and Youssef-Morgan (2015), 44, Nafei (2015a, b), 20, (PsyCap-JS, PsyCap-OC, PsyCap-OCB)
(PsyCap-JS)
Beal et al. (2013), 63, (PsyCap-OCB) Neubert et al. (2009), 35, (EL-JS, EL-OC)
Bergheim et al. (2015), 64, (PsyCap-JS) Niemeyer and Cavazotte (2016), 72, (EL-OCB)
Bilgin and Demirer (2012), 59, (POS-JS) Olaniyan and Hystad (2016), 51, (AuL-PsyCap,AuL-JS, AuL-
PsyCap, PsyCap-JS)
Bitmiş and Ergeneli (2013), 59, (PsyCap-JS)
Bouckenooghe et al. (2015), 35, (EL-PsyCap) Palanski et al. (2014), 35, (EL-JS, AbL-JS)
Bouzari and Karatepe (2017), 21, Peng et al. (2013), 58, (PsyCap-OC)
(PsyCap-OCB)
Bowling and Michel (2011), 74 (AbL-JS) Penger and Černe (2014), 11, (AuL-JS)
Breaux et al. (2008), 42, (AbL-JS) Peus et al. (2012), 35, (AuL-OC)
Bukhari and Kamal (2017), 55, (POS-JS, Piccolo et al. (2010), 48, (EL-OCB)
POS-OCB)
Pillay et al. (2014), 62, (PsyCap-OC)
Celik et al. (2015), 12, (EL-OC), (EL-JS) Pouramini and Fayyazi (2015), 18, (PsyCap-OCB)
Cheng and O-Yang (2018), (POS-OC) Pradhan et al. (2016), 9, (PsyCap-OCB)
Chi et al. (2018), 2, (POS-JS, POS-OC) Qadeer and Jaffery (2014), 55, (PsyCap-OCB)
Chiang and Hsieh (2012), (POS-OCB) Read and Laschinger (2015), 31, (AuL-JS)
Choi and Ahn (2016), 40, (AuL-JS, AuL-OC) Rego et al. (2012), 36, (AuL-PsyCap)
Coxen et al. (2016), 63, (AuL-OCB) Rego et al. (2016), 39, (AuL-PsyCap, AuL-OC)
Demirtas and Akdogan (2015), 71, (EL-OC) Sahoo and Sia (2015), 5, (PsyCap-OC)
Fakhar (2014), 29, (AbL-OCB) Shin (2012), 35, (EL-OCB)
Fu et al. (2013), 60, (POS-JS) Shukla and Rai (2015), 15, (PsyCap-OC, POS-PsyCap, POS-OC)
Giallonardo et al. (2010), 45, (AuL-JS) Shaheen et al. (2016), 27, (PsyCap-OCB, POS-PsyCap, POS-OCB)
Gregory et al. (2013), 44, (AbL-OCB) Sihag and Sarikwal (2015), 13, (POS-PsyCap)
Gupta et al. (2017), 43, (POS-PsyCap) Simons and Buitendach (2013), 63, (PsyCap-OC)
Haggard et al. (2011), 34, (AbL-JS) Singh et al. (2015), 50, (POS-OCB)
Han and Chung (2015), 1, (PsyCap-OC) Suifan (2016), 20, (PsyCap-OCB)
Hystad et al. (2013), 70, (AuL-PsyCap) Tepper (2000), 67, (AbL-JS)
Jain and Kumar (2017), 30, (PsyCap-OC) Tepper et al. (2004), 32, (AbL-JS, AbL-OC)
Jain et al. (2013), 24, (POS-OCB) Tepper et al. (2008), 32, (AbL-OC)
Jung and Yoon (2015), 21, (PsyCap-JS) Totawar and Nambudiri (2014), 73, (PsyCap-JS, PsyCap-OC)
Karatepe and Karadas (2015), 21, Velez and Neves (2017), 61, (AbL-JS)
(PsyCap-JS)
Kernan et al. (2011), 10 (AbL-JS) Walumbwa et al. (2008), 53, (EL-OC, EL-OCB)
Kernan et al. (2016), 42, (AbL-JS, AbL-OC) Wang et al. (2017), 6, (POS-PsyCap)
Khan et al. (2017), 8, (AuL-JS) Wang et al. (2014), 48, (AuL-PsyCap)
Kim et al. (2015), 41, (PsyCap-OC) Wen et al. (2016), 54, (POS-OCB)
Kim and Brymer (2011), 22, (EL-JS, EL-OC) Wong and Laschinger (2013), 31, (AuL-JS)
Kim et al. (2019), 66, (AuL-JS, AuL-PsyCap, Woolley et al. (2011), 42, (AuL-PsyCap)
PsyCap-JS)
Kiyani et al. (2013), 17, (AuL-OCB) Wu and Lee (2016), 44, (AbL-PsyCap)
Kwak et al. (2010), 23, (POS-OC) Yang and Wei (2018), 52, (EL-OCB, EL-OC)
Kwok et al. (2015), 38, (PsyCap-JS) Yanik (2018), 37, (EL-JS, EL-OC, EL-OCB)
Table I.
The studies included
(continued ) in the meta-analysis
LODJ Larson and Luthans (2006), 42, (PsyCap-JS, Yates (2014), 71, (EL-JS, EL-OC, EL-OCB)
40,4 PsyCap-OC)
Laschinger and Fida (2014), 7, (AuL-PsyCap) Zaabi et al. (2016), 26, (AuL-OCB)
Laschinger and Fida (2015), 69, (AuL-JS) Zamahani and Rezaei (2014), 28, (PsyCap-OCB)
Lather and Kaur (2015), 68, (PsyCap-OC, Zellars et al. (2002), 32, (AbL-OCB)
PsyCap-OCB)
Lee et al. (2016), 16, (EL-OC, EL-OCB) Zhang et al. (2017), 3, (POS-OCB)
444 Li et al. (2016), 47, (AbL-PsyCap) Zhang et al. (2017), 65, (AbL-PsyCap)
Liao and Liu (2015), 14, (AbL-PsyCap) Zubair and Kamal (2015), 33, (AuL-PsyCap)
Lin et al. (2013), 4, (AbL-JS)
Notes: aCodes in parentheses: AbL, abusive leadership; AuL, authentic leadership; EL, ethical leadership; JS,
job satisfaction; OCB, organizational citizen behavior; OC, organizational commitment; POS, perceived
organization support; PsyCap, psychological capital; bjournals are footnoted in alphabetical order: (1) Advanced
Science and Technology Letters, (2) Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, (3) Advances in Economics,
Business and Management Research, (4) Applied Psychology: An International Review, (5) Asia-Pacific Journal of
Management, (6) BioMed Research International, (7) Burnout Research, (8) City University Research Journal,
(9) Cogent Business & Management, (10) Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, (11) Economic
Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, (12) Ege Academic Review, (13) Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and
Organization Studies, (14) Frontiers of Business Research in China, (15) Global Business Review, (16) Health Policy
and Management, (17) Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, (18) International
Business Research, (19) International Journal of Business Administration, (20) International Journal of Business
and Management, (21) International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, (22) International Journal
of Hospitality Management, (23) International Journal of Nursing Studies, (24) International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, (25) International Journal of Organizational Leadership, (26) International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, (27) International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology,
(28) International Review of Management and Business Research, (29) IOSR Journal of Business and
Management, (30) IOSR Journal Of Humanities and Social Science, (31) Journal of Advanced Nursing, (32) Journal
of Applied Psychology, (33) Journal of Behavioral Sciences, (34) Journal of Business and Psychology, (35) Journal of
Business Ethics, (36) Journal of Business Research, (37) Journal of Business Research-Türk, (38) Journal
of Happiness Studies, (39) Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, (40) Journal of Korean Academy of
Nursing, (41) Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration, (42) Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, (43) Journal of Management Development, (44) Journal of Managerial Psychology,
(45) Journal of Nursing Management, (46) Journal of Occupational Health, (47) Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, (48) Journal of Organizational Behavior, (49) Journal of Psychology in Africa, (50) Journal of the Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology, (51) Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, (52) Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, (53) Management Department Faculty Publications, (54) Nankai Business
Review International, (55) Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, (56) Pakistan Journal of
Psychological Research, (57) Personality and Individual Differences, (58) PLoS ONE, (59) Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, (60) Public Health, (61) Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée, (62) SA Journal of Human
Resource Management, (63) SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, (64) Safety Science, (65) Social Behavior
and Personality, (66) Sport Management Review, (67) The Academy of Management Journal, (68) The
International Journal of Indian Psychology, (69) The Journal of Nursing Administration, (70) The Journal of
Positive Psychology, (71) The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, (72) The Mackenzie Administration Journal,
(73) Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, (74) Work and Stress: An International Journal of Work,
Table I. Health and Organizations

Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990) z-test was performed to assess moderator effects by
examining the statistical significance of between-group differences. Table II displays the
results for moderator effects on the relationship between PsyCap and work attitudes.
With respect to gender, there was no significant difference in the PsyCap–job satisfaction,
PsyCap–organizational commitment and PsyCap–OCB relationships. The results show
that age significantly affected the relationship between PsyCap and job satisfaction
(r ¼ 0.518 for group of younger employee and r ¼ 0.389 for the other group), but was not
significant regarding to the relationship between PsyCap–organizational commitment and
PsyCap–OCB.
 Effect size and 95% confidence Antecedents
Variables interval Heterogeneity and
Hyp. Independent Dependent n k r LCI UCI p-value χ2 Q I2
consequences
H1a AuL PsyCap 5,780 13 0.495 0.475 0.515 0.000 32.91 356.114 96.630 of PsyCap
EL 2,491 3 0.449 0.417 0.480 0.000 13.82 68.186 97.067
AbL 2,632 5 −0.255 −0.290 −0.218 0.000 18.47 4.981 19.702
H1b POS PsyCap 4,268 6 0.486 0.463 0.509 0.000 20.52 46.162 89.169 445
H2a AuL JS 3,806 11 0.376 0.351 0.400 0.000 29.59 82.417 87.867
OC 739 3 0.370 0.306 0.431 0.000 13.82 33.401 94.012
OCB 1,105 3 0.684 0.651 0.714 0.000 13.82 833.495 99.760
EL JS 3,343 7 0.470 0.443 0.496 0.000 22.46 180.609 96.678
OC 3,369 9 0.553 0.529 0.576 0.000 26.13 265.618 96.988
OCB 8,597 8 0.244 0.224 0.264 0.000 24.32 167.832 95.829
AbL JS 4,019 12 −0.319 −0.347 −0.291 0.000 31.26 91.556 87.985
OC 1,046 4 −0.345 −0.398 −0.290 0.000 16.27 28.693 89.545
OCB 935 3 −0.229 −0.289 −0.167 0.000 13.82 7.517 73.393
H2b POS JS 1,980 4 0.346 0.307 0.385 0.000 16.27 317.833 99.056
OC 1,740 5 0.493 0.457 0.528 0.000 18.47 150.637 97.345
OCB 2,589 7 0.355 0.321 0.388 0.000 22.46 24.123 75.127
H3 PsyCap JS 4,488 14 0.511 0.483 0.538 0.000 26.13 86.407 91.899
OC 3,187 14 0.424 0.395 0.452 0.000 34.53 37.151 65.008
OCB 1,779 10 0.565 0.530 0.598 0.000 24.32 53.766 86.981
Notes: AbL, abusive leadership; AuL, authentic leadership; EL, ethical leadership; JS, job satisfaction; OCB, Table II.
organizational citizen behavior; OC, organizational commitment; POS, perceived organization support; Meta-analysis results
PsyCap, psychological capital of main effects

Tenure was a significant moderator of all three relationships (PsyCap–job satisfaction,

PsyCap–organizational commitment and PsyCap–OCB). Specifically, in the case of high
PsyCap, those who had been working in the organization for more than five years (r ¼ 0.547)
were more satisfied with their job than their less-than-five-year-tenure counterparts
(r ¼ 0.402). For the PsyCap–organizational commitment relationship, in the case of high
PsyCap, those who had been working in the organization for more than five years (r ¼ 0.474)
were more committed to the organization than their less-than-five-year-tenure counterparts
(r ¼ 0.380). However, for the PsyCap–OCB relationship, “shorter” tenured employees
(r ¼ 0.559) performed more OCB than “longer” tenured employees (r ¼ 0.394). Thus, H4 is
partially supported (Table III).

Discussion
PsyCap has emerged as a new topic in organizational behavior research. Because of its
advantages, more and more studies have been unceasingly searching for PsyCap
antecedents, outcomes and other external factors to enhance the PsyCap of employees. The
purpose of the present study is to explain PsyCap and its antecedents and outcomes
through the lens of SET, to strengthen prior empirical findings by presenting an overall
estimate, and to identify the moderators affecting the relationship between PsyCap and
work attitudes. The present study made four theoretical contributions as follows.
First, meta-analytic results support the idea that leadership and POS are the antecedents
of PsyCap. Consistent with the findings of Avey (2014), leadership is at “the left side” of
PsyCap. The integrated results of primary studies show that all three types of leadership (i.e.
authentic, ethical and abusive leadership) have a significant impact on subordinates’
PsyCap. A relatively new aspect of PsyCap considered in this study is POS. Although both
constructs were studied together in only limited studies, the integrated results confirm the
results of the chosen studies, that is, that employees who perceive that they get recognition
LODJ Effect size and
40,4 Variables
95% confidence
interval Heterogeneity
Significant
Independent Dependent n k r LCI UCI p-value χ2 Q I2 difference

PsyCap JS 4,488 14 0.511 0.483 0.538 0.000 26.13 86.407 91.899

446 Gender
Male 2,286 7 0.486 0.454 0.517 0.000 12.59 66.329 92.462 N
Female 1,469 6 0.514 0.476 0.551 0.000 11.07 22.660 77.935
Age
Less than 40 2,296 8 0.518 0.487 0.547 0.000 14.07 47.344 85.215 Y
Higher than 40 951 2 0.389 0.333 0.441 0.000 3.84 3.149 68.240
Tenure
Less than 5 years 1,483 4 0.402 0.358 0.444 0.000 7.82 8.439 64.453 Y
Higher than 5 years 1,143 4 0.547 0.505 0.587 0.000 7.82 29.576 89.857
PsyCap OC 3,187 14 0.424 0.395 0.452 0.000 34.53 37.151 65.008
Gender
Male 1,440 5 0.410 0.366 0.453 0.000 9.49 19.049 79.002 N
Female 1,747 9 0.435 0.396 0.472 0.000 15.51 17.407 54.041
Age
Less than 40 2,271 10 0.417 0.382 0.450 0.000 16.92 34.115 73.619 N
Higher than 40 719 3 0.447 0.387 0.504 0.000 5.99 2.256 11.341
Tenure
Less than 5 years 750 6 0.380 0.317 0.440 0.000 11.07 18.181 72.499 Y
Higher than 5 years 1,051 4 0.474 0.426 0.520 0.000 7.82 1.913 0.000
PsyCap OCB 1,779 10 0.565 0.530 0.598 0.000 24.32 53.766 86.981
Gender
Male 1,294 7 0.529 0.489 0.568 0.000 12.59 51.856 88.429 N
Female 377 2 0.614 0.547 0.674 0.000 3.84 8.947 88.823
Age
Less than 40 1,337 6 0.555 0.516 0.591 0.000 11.07 53.709 90.691 N
Higher than 40 334 3 0.528 0.446 0.602 0.000 5.99 11.360 82.395

Table III. Tenure

Meta-analysis results Less than 5 years 1,434 7 0.559 0.522 0.594 0.000 12.59 54.586 89.008 Y
of moderator Higher than 5 years 295 2 0.394 0.293 0.487 0.000 3.84 0.134 0.000
effects (H4) Notes: Y, yes; N, no

and appreciation for their devotion, and who get support and fair treatment from their
organization, will attain higher PsyCap (Sihag and Sarikwal, 2015).
Second, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and OCBs are significant outcomes of
PsyCap. PsyCap was found to be positively correlated with work outcomes such as work
performance, employee engagement, commitment, positive mood, OCB and satisfaction (Sihag
and Sarikwal, 2015). Also, the results from this study are in line with the results from previous
studies on the value of PsyCap to employee work attitudes (Amunkete and Rothmann, 2015;
Avey et al., 2011; Larson and Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2008).
Third, there is a relationship between antecedents and outcomes of PsyCap. The results
showed that positive leadership (i.e. authentic and ethical leadership) positively related to
desirable work attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCBs).
An ethical leader as a moral person can foster positive employee attitudes and behavior
through the ability to influence followers (Yates, 2014). This conclusion is in line with prior
studies (Palanski et al., 2014; Yanik, 2018; Yates, 2014). Employees who perceive their Antecedents
supervisors as displaying abusive behaviors were less satisfied with their jobs and this led and
to job search behavior (Palanski et al., 2014), reduced levels of affective organizational consequences
commitment and the performance of fewer OCBs (Aryee et al., 2007; Zellars et al., 2002). For
POS, the integrated results show the favorable impact of organizational support on the of PsyCap
employee’s job satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCB. Based on the significant
relationship among constructs in the model, the results of this study suggest a potential 447
mediating mechanism of PsyCap on leadership and POS on employee work outcomes, which
might be taken into consideration for future research.
Fourth, besides the main effects of the study, respondents’ characteristics constructed as
moderators indicated that gender is not, tenure is, and age partially is a moderator to the
relationship between a subordinate’s PsyCap and his/her work attitudes. With respect to
gender, when an individual’s PsyCap is high, male and female employees are no different in
how they feel; both have high job satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCB. Age
moderates the relationship between PsyCap and job satisfaction. Younger employees with
high PsyCap have positively higher job satisfaction than older employees. There is no
significance regarding the relationship between PsyCap–organizational commitment and
PsyCap–OCB. Tenure is a significant moderator of all three relationships (PsyCap to job
satisfaction, to organizational commitment and to OCB). Specifically, in the case of high
PsyCap, those who have been working in the organization for more than five years (r ¼ 0.547)
will be more satisfied with their job than their less-than-five-year-tenure counterparts
(r ¼ 0.402). For the PsyCap–organizational commitment relationship, in the case of high
PsyCap, those who have been working in the organization for more than five years (r ¼ 0.474)
will be more committed to the organization than their less-than-five-year-tenure counterparts
(r ¼ 0.380). This suggests that organizations should implement more actions to increase their
employees’ PsyCap (e.g. positively supervising and supporting them) and human resource
management should focus more on maintaining the longevity of the employee in the
organization. However, “shorter” tenured employees performed more OCB than “longer”
tenured employees. It might be that the employee who has been in the organization for a
shorter time needs to work harder to finish his/her assigned duties and so is willing to work
overtime. They also help other people to connect and form good relationships with them.

Practical implications
From the results of this study, there are some practical implications. The first may benefit
firms and organizations. Increasing the PsyCap of the employee is important, and in order to
do that, appropriate leadership styles and a supportive workplace environment should be
more highly desired in certain organizations. An appropriate system and structure should
be designed to enhance employee PsyCap (Avey, 2014). Leadership development programs
should be implemented to train leaders to practice or adjust their style of supervision to
create a comfortable working context and improve follower PsyCap. Policies that discourage
abusive supervision should be established to make sure abusers are dealt with harshly
(Tepper et al., 2008). Supervisors and leaders should be aware that since they have the power
to lead and influence other people, their treatment of their subordinates shapes the mood,
performance and consequent behaviors of their followers. Therefore, leaders should behave
ethically, avoid abusing others and express themselves positively in order to enhance
follower PsyCap and work attitudes. Besides, the right candidates should be chosen for
the suitability of their supervision of a wide range of managerial levels within the whole
operating system. In recruiting, employees should be selected and hired based on their
individual differences such as optimism or self-esteem to acquire a potential high level of
PsyCap. Age and tenure also deserve consideration when hiring as well as in taking care of
the current employees.
LODJ Further, the cultural context of each organization should be considered when the
40,4 organization is about to implement a specific strategy to enhance employee PsyCap and
work attitudes. For example, the primary studies used in this study indicated that abusive
leadership reduced follower’s PsyCap and their desirable work attitudes and behaviors.
However, Gregory et al. (2013) concluded that subordinate reactions to abusive supervision
could differ by national culture since some societies are more tolerant of negative
448 supervisor behavior than others. In such cultures, employees might not react against
negative behaviors for fear of supervisor retaliation.
Finally, support from the organization and the supervisor helps enrich followers PsyCap
such that followers are more confident in themselves, more strategic and successful in
reaching their goals, more optimistic and recover more quickly from bad situations.
However, it should be acted upon with caution since Gooty et al. (2009) mentioned the
negative effects of PsyCap. For instance, the employee may become over confident or overly
hopeful, which are not totally good as well.

Limitations and future directions

There are certain limitations of this study that need to be noted. First, although PsyCap has
recently become a topic of interest resulting in a fast-growing body of research related to it,
there were still a relatively small number of studies examined for some of the hypotheses.
Second, this study examined only leadership (authentic, ethical and abusive leadership) and
POS as antecedents of PsyCap. There are many suggested antecedents of PsyCap such as
other types of leadership (e.g. transformational leadership), individual differences (e.g. self-
esteem, proactive personality), job characteristics and demographics that need to be tested
(Avey et al., 2011; Avey, 2014). This is a fruitful area for future research conducted in any
systematic method. Third, due to the limits of the information provided in primary studies,
this study did not test the cultural context of the organization in each sample, as mentioned
in practical implications. Future research could examine the cultural aspect to see its effect
on employee PsyCap, work attitudes and behaviors.

Conclusions
By examining one more construct (i.e. POS), this study has responded to Aveys’ (2014) calling
for more antecedents of PsyCap. Results of this meta-analysis provide evidence-based support
for the role of a new employee capital in anticipating employee attitudes. A major contribution
of the study is to combine both the “right and left side” of PsyCap and provide meta-analytic
evidence from relevant research to confirm these previous propositions. Although the research
on PsyCap is still emerging, at least we can conclude there are advantages to PsyCap in
producing desirable work attitudes (Avey, 2011). In and of itself, this is a useful reference for
practical human resource development.

References
Abbott, J.B., Boyd, N.G. and Miles, G. (2006), “Does type of team matter? An investigation of the
relationship between job characteristics and outcomes within a team-based environment”, The
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 146 No. 4, pp. 485-507.
Amunkete, S. and Rothmann, S. (2015), “Authentic leadership, psychological capital, job satisfaction
and intention to leave in state-owned enterprises”, Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 271-281.
Avey, J.B., Reichard, R.J., Luthans, F. and Mhatre, K.H. (2011), “Meta-analysis of the impact of positive
psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 127-152.
Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive Antecedents
forms of leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 315-338. and
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. consequences
Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. (2005), “Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective of PsyCap
for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 117-134.
Bukhari, I. and Kamal, A. (2017), “Perceived organizational support, its behavioral and attitudinal work 449
outcomes: moderating role of perceived organizational politics”, Pakistan Journal of
Psychological Research, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 581-602.
Copeland, M.K. (2016), “The impact of authentic, ethical, transformational leadership on leader
effectiveness”, Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 79-97.
Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M.V. and Wieseke, J. (2007), “Relationships between leader and follower
organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behavior”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 133-150.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.
Emerson, R.M. (1976), “Social exchange theory”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 335-362.
Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P.D., Frazier, M.L. and Snow, D.B. (2009), “In the eyes of the beholder:
transformational leadership, positive psychological capital, and performance”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 353-367.
Gregory, B.T., Osmonbekov, T., Gregory, S.T., Albritton, M.D. and Carr, J.C. (2013), “Abusive
supervision and citizenship behaviors: exploring boundary conditions”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 628-644.
Hedges, L. and Olkin, I. (1985), Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Hui, Q., Cao, X., Lou, L. and He, H. (2014), “Empirical research on the influence of organizational
support on psychological capital”, American Journal of Industrial and Business Management,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 1015-1027.
Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L. (1990), Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research
Findings, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Jensen, S.M. and Luthans, F. (2006), “Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: impact on employees’
attitudes”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 646-666.
Keashly, L. (1998), “Emotional abuse in the workplace: conceptual and empirical issues”, Journal of
Emotional Abuse, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 85-117.
Kim, M., Kim, A.C.H., Newman, J.I., Ferris, G.R. and Perrewé, P.L. (2019), “The antecedents and
consequences of positive organizational behavior: the role of psychological capital for promoting
employee well-being in sport organizations”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 108-125.
Kiyani, K., Saher, N., Saleem, S. and Iqbal, M. (2013), “Emotional intelligence (EI) and employee
outcomes: the mediating effect of authentic leadership style”, Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 394-405.
Kwok, S.Y.C.L., Cheng, L. and Wong, D.F.K. (2015), “Family emotional support, positive psychological
capital and job satisfaction among Chinese white-collar workers”, Journal of Happiness Studies,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 561-582.
Law, K.S., Wong, C. and Mobley, W.H. (1998), “Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 741-755.
Liao, Z. and Liu, Y. (2015), “Abusive supervision and psychological capital: a mediated moderation
model of team member support and supervisor-student exchange”, Frontiers of Business
Research in China, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 576-607.
LODJ Lin, W., Wang, L. and Chen, S. (2013), “Abusive supervision and employee well-being: the moderating
40,4 effect of power distance orientation”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 62 No. 2,
pp. 308-329.
Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (2001), Practical Meta-Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Liu, L., Wen, F., Xu, X. and Wang, L. (2015), “Effective resources for improving mental health among
Chinese underground coal miners: perceived organizational support and psychological capital”,
Journal of Occupational Health, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 58-68.
450
Locke, E.A. (1969), “What is job satisfaction?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 309-336.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-1349.
Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2004), “Human, social, and now positive psychological capital
management: investing in people for competitive advantage”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 143-160.
Luthans, F., Luthans, K.W. and Luthans, B.C. (2004), “Positive psychological capital: beyond human
and social capital”, Business Horizons, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 45-50.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2007), Psychological Capital: Developing the Human
Competitive Edge, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B. and Norman, S.M. (2007), “Positive psychological capital:
measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60
No. 3, pp. 541-572.
Mayer, D.M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M. and Salvador, R. (2009), “How low does ethical
leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component model conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Journal of Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Morse, N.C. (1953), Satisfaction in the White-Collar Job, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 224-247.
Niemeyer, J.R.L. and Cavazotte, F.D.S.C.N. (2016), “Ethical leadership, leader-follower relationship and
performance: a study in a telecommunications company”, Revista de Administração Mackenzie,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 67-92.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Porter, L.W. (1962), “Job attitudes in management: I. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a
function of job level”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 375-384.
Pouramini, Z. and Fayyazi, M. (2015), “The relationship between positive organizational behavior with
job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and employee engagement”, International
Business Research, Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 57-66.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Shaheen, S., Bukhari, I. and Adil, A. (2016), “Moderating role of psychological capital between
perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior and its dimensions”,
International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 41-50.
Spector, T.D. and Thompson, S.G. (1991), “The potential and limitations of meta-analysis”, Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 89-92.
Tanriverdi, H. (2008), “Workers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: mediator variable
relationships of organizational commitment factors”, Journal of American Academy of Business,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 152-163.
Van Knippenberg, D. and Sleebos, E. (2006), “Organizational identification versus organizational Antecedents
commitment: self-definition, social exchange and job attitudes”, Journal of Organizational and
Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 571-584.
consequences
Wang, X., Liu, L., Zou, F., Hao, J. and Wu, H. (2017), “Associations of occupational stressors, perceived
organizational support, and psychological capital with work engagement among Chinese female of PsyCap
nurses”, BioMed Research International, Vol. 2017, 11pp., available at: www.hindawi.com/
journals/bmri/2017/5284628/cta/
451
Weiss, H.M. (2002), “Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective
experiences”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 173-194.
Wong, C.A. and Laschinger, H.K.S. (2013), “Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction: the
mediating role of empowerment”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 947-959.
Youssef, C.M. and Luthans, F. (2012), “Psychological capital: meaning, findings, and future directions”,
in Cameron, K.S. and Spreitzer, G.M. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational
Scholarship, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 17-27.
Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), “Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1068-1076.
Studies included in the meta-analysis
Ahmad, W., Khattak, A.J. and Ahmad, G. (2016), “Impact of abusive supervision on job satisfaction and
turnover intention: role of power distance as a moderator”, City University Research Journal,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 122-136.
Ali, N. and Ali, A. (2014), “The mediating effect of job satisfaction between psychological capital and
job burnout of Pakistani nurses”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 399-412.
Arshadi, N. (2011), “The relationships of perceived organizational support (POS) with organizational
commitment, in-role performance, and turnover intention: mediating role of felt obligation”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 30, pp. 1103-1108.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z.X., Sun, L. and Debrah, Y.A. (2007), “Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision:
test of a trickle-down model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 191-201.
Avey, J.B. (2014), “The left side of psychological capital: new evidence on the antecedents of PsyCap”,
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 141-149.
Azanza, G., Moriano, J.A. and Molero, F. (2013), “Authentic leadership and organizational culture as
drivers of employees’ job satisfaction”, Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 45-50.
Badran, M.A. and Youssef-Morgan, C.M. (2015), “Psychological capital and job satisfaction in Egypt”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 354-370.
Beal, L. III, Stavros, J.M. and Cole, M.L. (2013), “Effect of psychological capital and resistance to change on
organisational citizenship behavior”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Bergheim, K., Nielsen, M.B., Mearns, K. and Eid, J. (2015), “The relationship between psychological
capital, job satisfaction, and safety perceptions in the maritime industry”, Safety Science, Vol. 74,
pp. 27-36.
Bilgin, N. and Demirer, H. (2012), “The examination of the relationship among organizational support,
affective commitment and job satisfaction of hotel employees”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 51, pp. 470-473.
Bitmiş, M.G. and Ergeneli, A. (2013), “The role of psychological capital and trust in individual
performance and job satisfaction relationship: a test of multiple mediation model”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 99, pp. 173-179.
Bouckenooghe, D., Zafar, A. and Raja, U. (2015), “How ethical leadership shapes employees’ job
performance: the mediating roles of goal congruence and psychological capital”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 251-264.
LODJ Bouzari, M. and Karatepe, O.M. (2017), “Test of a mediation model of psychological capital among hotel
40,4 salespeople”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 8,
pp. 2178-2197.
Bowling, N.A. and Michel, J.S. (2011), “Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions regarding
the cause of abuse in subordinates’ responses to abusive supervision”, Work & Stress, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 309-320.
452 Breaux, D.M., Perrewé, P.L., Hall, A.T., Frink, D.D. and Hochwarter, W.A. (2008), “Time to try a little
tenderness? The detrimental effects of accountability when coupled with abusive supervision”,
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 111-122.
Celik, S., Dedeoglu, B.B. and Inanir, A. (2015), “Relationship between ethical leadership, organizational
commitment and job satisfaction at hotel organizations”, Ege Academic Review, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 53-63.
Cheng, J.-C. and O-Yang, Y. (2018), “Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: the
moderating role of perceived organizational support”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 72, pp. 78-85.
Chi, H., Yeh, H. and Nguyen, K.H. (2018), “How job involvement moderates the relationship between
organizational commitment and job satisfaction: evidence in Vietnam”, Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 136-148.
Chiang, C. and Hsieh, T. (2012), “The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological
empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 180-190.
Choi, H. and Ahn, S.H. (2016), “Influence of nurse managers’ authentic leadership on nurses’
organizational commitment and job satisfaction: focused on the mediating effects of
empowerment”, Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 100-108.
Coxen, L., Van der Vaart, L. and Stander, M.W. (2016), “Authentic leadership and organisational
citizenship behaviour in the public health care sector: the role of workplace trust”, SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Demirtas, O. and Akdogan, A.A. (2015), “The effect of ethical leadership behavior on ethical climate,
turnover intention, and affective commitment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No. 1,
pp. 59-67.
Fakhar, F.B. (2014), “Impact of abusive supervision on organizational citizenship behavior: mediating
role of job tension, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention”, IOSR Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 70-74.
Fu, J., Sun, W., Wang, Y., Yang, X. and Wang, L. (2013), “Improving job satisfaction of Chinese doctors:
the positive effects of perceived organizational support and psychological capital”, Public Health,
Vol. 127 No. 10, pp. 946-951.
Giallonardo, L.M., Wong, C.A. and Iwasiw, C.L. (2010), “Authentic leadership of preceptors: predictor of
new graduate nurses’ work engagement and job satisfaction”, Journal of Nursing Management,
No. 8, pp. 993-1003.
Gupta, M., Shaheen, M. and Reddy, P.K. (2017), “Impact of psychological capital on organizational
citizenship behavior: mediation by work engagement”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 973-983.
Haggard, D.L., Robert, C. and Rose, A.J. (2011), “Co-rumination in the workplace: adjustment trade-offs
for men and women who engage in excessive discussions of workplace problems”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 27-40.
Han, K. and Chung, K. (2015), “Positive psychological capital, organizational commitment and job
stress of nurses in small and medium-sized hospitals”, Advanced Science and Technology Letters,
Vol. 88, pp. 208-211.
Hystad, S.W., Bartone, P.T. and Eid, J. (2013), “Positive organizational behavior and safety in the
offshore oil industry: exploring the determinants of positive safety climate”, The Journal of
Positive Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 42-53.
Jain, A.K., Giga, S.I. and Cooper, C.L. (2013), “Perceived organizational support as a moderator in the Antecedents
relationship between organisational stressors and organizational citizenship behaviors”, and
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 313-334.
Jain, S. and Kumar, S. (2017), “Examining organizational commitment and psychological capital in
consequences
Indian bank employees”, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 14-22. of PsyCap
Jung, H.S. and Yoon, H.H. (2015), “The impact of employees’ positive psychological capital on job
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1135-1156.
453
Karatepe, O.M. and Karadas, G. (2015), “Do psychological capital and work engagement foster frontline
employees’ satisfaction? A study in the hotel industry”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1254-1278.
Kernan, M.C., Racicot, B.M. and Fisher, A.M. (2016), “Effects of abusive supervision, psychological
climate, and felt violation on work outcomes: a moderated mediated model”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 309-321.
Kernan, M.C., Watson, S., Chen, F.F. and Kim, T.G. (2011), “How cultural values affect the impact of
abusive supervision on worker attitudes”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 464-484.
Khan, S., Muhammad, B., Afridi, G.W. and Sarwar, I. (2017), “Effect of authentic leadership on
job satisfaction and employee engagement”, City University Research Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 151-166.
Kim, I.S., Seo, R.B., Kim, B.N. and Min, A.R. (2015), “The effects of positive psychological capital,
organizational commitment, customer orientation in clinical nurses”, Journal of Korean
Academy of Nursing Administration, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 10-19.
Kim, W.G. and Brymer, R.A. (2011), “The effects of ethical leadership on manager job satisfaction,
commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm performance”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1020-1026.
Kwak, C., Chung, B.Y., Xu, Y. and Cho, E. (2010), “Relationship of job satisfaction with perceived
organizational support and quality of care among South Korean nurses: a questionnaire
survey”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 1292-1298.
Larson, M. and Luthans, F. (2006), “Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work
attitudes”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 45-62.
Laschinger, H.K.S. and Fida, R. (2014), “New nurses burnout and workplace wellbeing: the
influence of authentic leadership and psychological capital”, Burnout Research, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 19-28.
Laschinger, H.K.S. and Fida, R. (2015), “Linking nurses’ perceptions of patient care quality to job
satisfaction”, The Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 276-283.
Lather, A.S. and Kaur, S. (2015), “Psychological capital as predictor of organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior”, The International Journal of Indian Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 103-112.
Lee, K.H., Lyu, J., Chang, Y.C. and Shin, Y. (2016), “The effect of ethical management and positive
psychological capital on organizational effectiveness in hospitals”, Health Policy and
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 155-171.
Li, Y., Wang, Z. and Yang, L. (2016), “The crossover of psychological distress from leaders to
subordinates in teams: the role of abusive supervision, psychological capital, and team
performance”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 142-153.
Luthans, F., Norman, S.M., Avolio, B.J. and Avey, J.B. (2008), “The mediating role of psychological
capital in the supportive organizational climate–employee performance relationship”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 219-238.
McMurray, A.J., Pirola‐Merlo, A., Sarros, J.C. and Islam, M.M. (2010), “Leadership, climate,
psychological capital, commitment, and wellbeing in a non‐profit organization”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 436-457.
LODJ Mathieu, C. and Babiak, P. (2016), “Corporate psychopathy and abusive supervision: their influence on
40,4 employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intentions”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 91, pp. 102-106.
Mohammadpour, S., Yaghoubi, N.M., Kamalian, A.R. and Salarzehi, H. (2017), “Authentic leadership: a
new approach to leadership (describing the mediatory role of psychological capital in the
relationship between authentic leadership and intentional organizational forgetting)”,
International Journal of Organizational Leadership, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 491-504.
454 Munyaka, S.A., Boshoff, A.B., Pietersen, J. and Snelgar, R. (2017), “The relationships between authentic
leadership, psychological capital, psychological climate, team commitment and intention to
quit”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 1, 11pp., doi: 10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1430.
Nafei, W. (2015a), “Meta-analysis of the impact of psychological capital on quality of work life and
organizational citizenship behavior: a study on Sadat City University”, International Journal of
Business Administration, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 42-59.
Nafei, W. (2015b), “The effects of psychological capital on employee attitudes and employee
performance: a study on teaching hospitals in Egypt”, International Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 249-270.
Neubert, M.J., Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Roberts, J.A. and Chonko, L.B. (2009), “The virtuous
influence of ethical leadership behavior: evidence from the field”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 157-170.
Olaniyan, O.S. and Hystad, S. (2016), “Employees’ psychological capital, job satisfaction, insecurity,
and intentions to quit: the direct and indirect effects of authentic leadership”, Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 163-171.
Palanski, M., Avey, J.B. and Jiraporn, N. (2014), “The effects of ethical leadership and abusive
supervision on job search behaviors in the turnover process”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 121
No. 1, pp. 135-146.
Peng, J., Jiang, X., Zhang, J., Xiao, R., Song, Y., Feng, X., Zhang, Y. and Miao, D. (2013), “The impact of
psychological capital on job burnout of Chinese nurses: the mediator role of organizational
commitment”, PLoS One, Vol. 8 No. 12, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084193.
Penger, S. and Černe, M. (2014), “Authentic leadership, employees’ job satisfaction, and work
engagement: a hierarchical linear modelling approach”, Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istraživanja, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 508-526.
Peus, C., Wesche, J.S., Streicher, B., Braun, S. and Frey, D. (2012), “Authentic leadership: an empirical
test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 331-348.
Piccolo, R.F., Greenbaum, R., den Hartog, D.N. and Folger, R. (2010), “The relationship between ethical
leadership and core job characteristics”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3,
pp. 259-278.
Pillay, K., Buitendach, J. and Kanengoni, H. (2014), “Psychological capital, job demands and
organizational commitment of employees in a call centre in Durban, South Africa”, SA Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, 13pp., available at: https://sajhrm.co.za/index.php/
sajhrm/rt/captureCite/599/0/ApaCitationPlugin:
Pradhan, R.K., Jena, L.K. and Bhattacharya, P. (2016), “Impact of psychological capital on
organizational citizenship behavior: moderating role of emotional intelligence”, Cogent Business
& Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, available at: www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=
10.1080%2F23311975.2016.1194174.
Qadeer, F. and Jaffery, H. (2014), “Mediation of psychological capital between organizational climate
and organizational citizenship behavior”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 453-470.
Read, E.A. and Laschinger, H.K. (2015), “The influence of authentic leadership and empowerment on
nurses’ relational social capital, mental health and job satisfaction over the first year of practice”,
Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 71 No. 7, pp. 1611-1623.
Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C. and Cunha, M.P. (2012), “Authentic leadership promoting employees’ Antecedents
psychological capital and creativity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 429-437. and
Rego, P., Lopes, M.P. and Nascimento, J.L. (2016), “Authentic leadership and organizational consequences
commitment: the mediating role of positive psychological capital”, Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 129-151.
of PsyCap
Sahoo, B.C. and Sia, S.K. (2015), “Psychological capital and organisational commitment: nature,
structure and relationship in an Indian sample”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research 455
and Innovation, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 230-244.
Shin, Y. (2012), “CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and collective organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 299-312.
Shukla, A. and Rai, H. (2015), “Linking perceived organizational support to organizational trust and
commitment: moderating role of psychological capital”, Global Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 6,
pp. 981-996.
Sihag, P. and Sarikwal, L. (2015), “Effect of perceived organizational support on psychological capital –
a study of IT industries in Indian framework”, Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and
Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 19-26.
Simons, J. and Buitendach, J. (2013), “Psychological capital, work engagement and organizational
commitment amongst call centre employees in South Africa”, SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, 12pp., available at: https://sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/rt/captureCite/10
71/0/ApaCitationPlugin
Singh, A.K., Singh, A.P., Kumar, S. and Gupta, V.K. (2015), “Role of perceived organizational support in
the relationship between role overload and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of the
Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 77-85.
Suifan, T.S. (2016), “The impact of organizational climate and psychological capital on organizational
citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 224-230.
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, The Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 178-190.
Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Hoobler, J. and Ensley, M.D. (2004), “Moderators of the relationships between
coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 455-465.
Tepper, B.J., Henle, C.A., Lambert, L.S., Giacalone, R.A. and Duffy, M.K. (2008), “Abusive supervision
and subordinates’ organization deviance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4,
pp. 721-732.
Totawar, A.K. and Nambudiri, R. (2014), “How does organizational justice influence job satisfaction
and organizational commitment? Explaining with psychological capital”, Vikalpa: The Journal
for Decision Makers, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 83-97.
Velez, M.J. and Neves, P. (2017), “The relationship between abusive supervision, distributive justice and
job satisfaction: a substitutes for leadership approach”, Revue européenne de psychologie
appliquée, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 187-198.
Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S. and Peterson, S.J. (2008), “Authentic
leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 89-126.
Wang, H., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D. and Wu, Y. (2014), “Impact of authentic leadership on
performance: role of followers’ positive psychological capital and relational processes”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Wang, X., Liu, L., Zou, F., Hao, J. and Wu, H. (2017), “Associations of occupational stressors, perceived
organizational support, and psychological capital with work engagement among Chinese female
nurses”, BioMed Research International, Vol. 2017, 11pp., available at: www.hindawi.com/
journals/bmri/2017/5284628/cta/
LODJ Wen, J., Li, Y. and Hou, P. (2016), “Customer mistreatment behavior and hotel employee organizational
40,4 citizenship behavior: the mediating role of perceived organizational support”, Nankai Business
Review International, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 322-344.
Woolley, L., Caza, A. and Levy, L. (2011), “Authentic leadership and follower development: psychological
capital, positive work climate, and gender”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 438-448.
Wu, W. and Lee, Y. (2016), “Do employees share knowledge when encountering abusive supervision?”,
456 Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 154-168.
Yang, Q. and Wei, H. (2018), “The impact of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior:
the moderating role of workplace ostracism”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 100-113.
Yanik, O. (2018), “The mediating role of trust in the effect of ethical leadership on employee attitudes
and behaviors”, Journal of Business Research Turk, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 447-464.
Yates, L.A. (2014), “Exploring the relationship of ethical leadership with job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior”, The Journal of Values-Based Leadership,
Vol. 7 No. 1, Article No. 4, available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol7/iss1/4/
Zaabi, M.S.A.S.A., Ahmad, K.Z. and Hossan, C. (2016), “Authentic leadership, work engagement and
organizational citizenship behaviors in petroleum company”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 811-830.
Zamahani, M. and Rezaei, F. (2014), “The impact of managers’ self-awareness, positivity and
psychological ownership on organizational citizenship behavior”, International Review of
Management and Business Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1355-1368.
Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), “Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 6,
pp. 1068-1076.
Zhang, J., Li, Y. and Liu, Q. (2017), “Research on influence of abusive supervision and psychological
capital on team members’ tacit knowledge sharing”, 3rd Annual 2017 International Conference
on Management Science and Engineering (MSE 2017), Atlantic Press, Beijing, pp. 148-152.
Zhang, L., Qiu, Y. and Teng, E. (2017), “Cross-level relationships between justice climate and
organizational citizenship behavior: perceived organizational support as mediator”, Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 387-398.
Zubair, A. and Kamal, A. (2015), “Authentic leadership and creativity: mediating role of work- related
flow and psychological capital”, Journal of Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 150-171.

Corresponding author
Khanh-Van Ho Nguyen can be contacted at: nhkhanhvan2211@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com