
Suggested audience: Top leaders, corporate citizenship professionals, managers, HR
Takeaway: Employees with favorable perceptions of their organization's corporate citizenship tend to experience higher levels of self-efficacy, hope, and optimism about work, which in turn leads to higher levels of emotional attachment and identification with the company.
Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey across 23 companies. The survey questions explored the following aspects of employees:
Positive psychological state, which is composed of four constructs:
- Self-efficacy (e.g., “I feel confident contributing to discussions about the company's strategy”)
- Hope (e.g., “At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals”)
- Optimism (e.g., “When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best”)
- Resilience (e.g., “I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work”)
Affective commitment: emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. (e.g., “I would be happy to work at this organization until I retire.”)
Perception of organizational corporate citizenship (e.g., “Our company gives adequate contributions to charities and supports local community.”
Survey respondents were divided based on whether or not they had been involved in their company’s corporate citizenship activities during the last two years.
Key findings:
Employees who participate in corporate citizenship activities tend to have higher levels of self-efficacy, hope, and optimism, which leads to a stronger emotional attachment to the organization.
All employees, regardless of their participation in corporate citizenship, show a high regard for their firm’s corporate citizenship behavior and perceive it as both a positive and commendable activity
If citing, please refer to original article: Papacharalampous, N., & Papadimitriou, D. (2021). Perceived corporate social responsibility and affective commitment: The mediating role of psychological capital and the impact of employee participation. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 32: 251– 272. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21426