Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies Vol. 4, No. 2, 76-81, 2017 ISSN(E) 2313-7401 / ISSN(P) 2518-0096 DOI: 10.20448/journal.500.2017.42.76.81 76 Positive Organizational Study: A Comparison between Private and Government University Teacher Farah Iqbal1 Sobia Shahzad2 Sarwat Amin Rattani3  Sadaf Mustafa4 ( Corresponding Author) 1,3Department of Psychology, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan 2Department of Sociology, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan 4Department of Commerce, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan Abstract The study conducted explored the relation between Psychological Capital, General Health and Organizational Citizenship Behavior and its variation between the teachers of private and government universities of Karachi, Pakistan. Based on existing literature, following hypotheses were formulated; (1) Difference would be observed in psychological capital of private and government university teachers, (2) Difference would be observed in efficacy levels of private and government university teachers, (3) Individuals with good health will have high psychological capital, (4) Individuals with high OCB will have high psychological capital. Through convenient sampling, 261 teachers teaching at graduate-level were taken as participants. Psychological Capital Questionnaire, General Health Questionnaire and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Checklist were employed. All the hypotheses were proved when results were analyzed through SPSS. In conclusion, people having high psychological capital live healthier life and are more likely to indulge in pro-social activities and organizational citizenship behavior. Keywords: Psychological capital, Organizational citizenship behavior, General health questionnaire. Citation | Farah Iqbal; Sobia Shahzad; Sarwat Amin Rattani; Sadaf Mustafa (2017). Positive Organizational Study: A Comparison between Private and Government University Teacher. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 4(2): 76-81. History: Received: 5 May 2017 Revised: 9 June 2017 Accepted: 13 June 2017 Published: 20 June 2017 Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Contribution/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing. Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 77 2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 78 3. Results ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 78 4. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 80 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Farah Iqbal https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sobia Shahzad https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sarwat Amin Rattani https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sadaf Mustafa https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Farah Iqbal https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sobia Shahzad https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sarwat Amin Rattani https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sadaf Mustafa https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Farah Iqbal https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sobia Shahzad https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sarwat Amin Rattani https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sadaf Mustafa https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Farah Iqbal https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sobia Shahzad https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sarwat Amin Rattani https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sadaf Mustafa https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Farah Iqbal https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sobia Shahzad https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sarwat Amin Rattani https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Sadaf Mustafa Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2017, 4(2): 76-81 77 1. Introduction Positive psychology has its roots from psychologist Martin Seligman, who proposed to concentrate more on the good sides of people than on the problems. According to Seligman, too often people get wedged on the negative sides of themselves and their personal history (Seligman, 1998). Drawing from literature, positive psychology has brought an uplifting and novel view pertaining to human nature and other interrelated characteristics, which had somehow been neglected (Luthans, 2002; Bright et al., 2006). The concept of psychological capital is central in positive psychology. Psychological capital is distinct from traditional economic capital, human capital and social capital. Traditional economic capital includes typically finance and tangible assets; human capital includes experiences, education, skills, knowledge, and ideas; social capital stresses relationships, network of contacts, and friends; and positive psychological capital stresses on optimism, confidence, resilience, and hope (Luthans et al., 2004). Psychological capital is concerned about ‘who you are?’ and more importantly, on ‘who you are becoming?’. Psychological capital is defined here as; An individual’s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by: 1) having confidence (self- efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks, 2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future, 3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed, and 4) when surrounded by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success Luthans et al. (2007). Studies suggest that psychological capital has an impact on individual and organizational outputs and performance in work environment. Examples of such positive impacts include increased satisfaction, performance and commitment (Goldsmith et al., 1997; Luthans et al., 2008). According to World Health Organization, health is defined as ‘a state of complete physical, social and mental well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (World Health Organization, 1948). Wellbeing has been found to be related to both work and personal life outcomes. There is considerable research on the relationship between psychological wellbeing and performance at work (Cropanzano and Wright, 1999; Wright and Cropanzano, 2000) and successful relationships (Diener and Seligman, 2002). Also, superior mental and physical health and longevity have been found to co vary with happiness and positivity levels (Danner et al., 2001; Roysamb et al., 2003; Koivumaa-Honkanen et al., 2004). This in turn draws inferences about the relation of psychological capital and an individual’s health. A more recent focus has been to recognize and demonstrate the important role that positivity may play in well-being. In a meta-analysis, the results clearly indicated that positive, happy people had better physical and mental health outcomes and behavior (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005) and in another study, Lyubomirsky (2008) concluded that happier, more positive people are more resilient toward problems, have stronger immune systems, and are physically healthier. Psychological capital has been linked to several other workplace outcomes including organizational commitment, Larson and Luthans (2006) decreases in stress and turnover, Avey et al. (2009) reduced absenteeism (Avey et al., 2006) and organizational citizenship behaviors (Gooty et al., 2009). Research shows that the four components (self-efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism) of Psychological Capital have positive relationships with performance, happiness, well-being, and satisfaction of workers. Self-efficacy has been found to have a positive impact on performance (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998; Legal and Meyer, 2009). Employees’ optimism is related to their performance, satisfaction, and happiness (Luthans et al., 2007). Hope is related to employees’ performance, satisfaction, happiness, and retention (Luthans et al., 2007). Resilience has a positive relationship with employee performance and happiness and satisfaction (Luthans et al., 2007). Moreover, researches indicate a difference in the psychological capital, level of performance and efficacy between private and government sector workers-bank employees (Singh and Khan, 2013). The third construct in question is Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). Individual behaviors carried out to promote effective functioning of an organization, by contributing to its social and psychological environment are categorized under Organizational Citizenship Behavior. These are voluntary behaviors that do not form part of the employee’s job description. Such behaviors include helping another employee finish a project, providing helpful advice or suggestions, and offering positive feedback on work tasks (Podsakoff et al., 1993; Organ and Ryan, 1995). OCB is also referred to as ‘contextual performance’ or ‘pro-social organizational behavior’ (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). Studies indicate that, individuals in a positive mood are more likely to help others than those in a negative or neutral mood (Isen and Baron, 1991). Avey et al. (2008) found that psychological capital was related to attitudes (engagement and cynicism) and behaviors (organizational citizenship) in a study on 132 employees from a broad cross-section of organizations. Wen-Yu (2004) also found that self-efficacy is correlated with organizational citizenship behavior. Learned optimism, confrontation and pro-action also have a significant influence on organizational citizenship behavior (Niranjana and Biswajeet, 2005). The present study aims to investigate the relationship between Psychological Capital, General Health and Organization Citizenship Behavior of graduate-level teachers (Figure 1). Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2017, 4(2): 76-81 78 Figure-1. Happy Employee Considering the above literature, the formulated hypotheses are:  A difference would be seen in the mean score of psychological capital of teachers in the private and the government sector.  A difference would be seen in the mean score of efficacy of teachers in the private and the government sector.  Teachers with good health (a low score on GHQ) will have a high psychological capital. (Implying a negative correlation between the scores of GHQ and PsyCap).  Teachers with high organizational citizenship behavior will have high psychological capital. (Implying a positive correlation between the scores of OCB and PsyCap). 2. Methodology 2.1. Sample The participants were 261 teachers, 140 from private sector and 121 from government sector, from different departments of several universities and colleges. The sample was selected through convenience sampling. Teachers teaching at Graduate and Post-Graduate level with a minimum Master degree were approached for this study. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-12) PsyCap was measured using the PCQ-12 made by Luthans et al. (2007). PsyCap is a 12-item construct, consisting of four subscales which include efficacy (3 items), hope (4 items), resilience (3items), and optimism (2 items). All items were measured using a 6-point Likert scale of agreement, with response options ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. The sum of the averages of the four subscales of PsyCap is the psychological capital of an individual. 2.2.2. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) General Health Questionnaire by Goldberg (1972) is a commonly accepted measure of mental health/well- being that measures aspects of affect, general health and psychological distress. Respondents rate themselves on a four-point Likert scale of 12 items, according to how they have recently experienced each GHQ item, ranging from ‘better than usual’, ‘same as usual’, 'worse than usual' to 'much worse than usual.' A total score is computed by adding the scores of each individual item. 2.2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Checklist (OCB-C) The Organizational Citizenship Behavior Checklist (OCB-C) is a 10-item scale designed by Spector et al. (2010) to assess the frequency of citizenship behaviors in the workplace. Items ask respondents to indicate how often each behavior is performed by themselves or others (e.g., coworkers or subordinates). The OCB-C uses a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Every day. A total score is the sum of responses to all items. 2.3. Procedure The data collection procedure that was followed was approaching graduate-level teachers and requesting them to fill the questionnaire within 3 days. The formatted questionnaire had consent form, demographic sheet, University’s permission letter followed by PsyCap-12, OCB-C and GHQ-10 measures. After collecting data from the sample, SPSS was applied to analyze the results. 3. Results The results were analyzed using Independent Samples t-test and Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation. There was a significant mean difference between the psychological capital of private and government university teachers, such that government sector teachers had higher psychological capital as compared to the teachers of private sector universities (Table 1). Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2017, 4(2): 76-81 79 Table-1. Mean difference for Psychological Capital & General Health Questionnaire Private Sector Govt Sector Mean Difference Sig (2-tailed), α-level = 0.05 PsyCap 18.0028 18.7554 -0.75261 0.031 GHQ 15.1857 10.6942 4.4915 0.000 On GHQ questionnaire, teachers from private universities scored significantly higher as compared to teachers from government universities (Table 1). A higher score on GHQ as indicates poor health; it can be inferred that government universities teachers are in comparatively healthier state. Table-2. Mean difference for Psychological Capital Subscales Private Sector Govt Sector Mean Difference Sig (2-tailed), α-level = 0.05 Efficacy 4.6544 4.8790 -0.22458 0.047 Optimism 4.6500 4.9669 -0.31694 0.016 Mean difference for subscales of PsyCap was also calculated. Significant difference emerged on two out of the four subscales. A Table 2 shows, there was a significant difference between the efficacy & optimism level of private and government university teachers such that government teachers had higher efficacy and optimism score on average as compared to private teachers. Correlation results show a significant, negative correlation (r = - 0.171, p < 0.01) between the score of GHQ and that of PsyCap, implying that healthier individuals (low score on GHQ) will have high psychological capital (high score on PsyCap). Each of the four dimensions contribute to the psychological capital of an individual. Furthermore, a positive, moderate correlation (r ~ + 0.4, p < 0.01) was found between Psychological Capital and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. 4. Discussion Luthans et al. (2004) advocated that the dimensions of psychological capital are ‘state’ and not trait dispositions and therefore could be developed in the organizations by careful planning. Hence, different organizations might differ in terms of how much effort is put in by the organizations or employees to develop the psychological capital. The present study examined the relation between Psychological Capital, Health and Organizational Citizenship Behavior and its variation in the government and private sector teachers. One of the findings of the present study denotes that a difference was found between the psychological capital of private and government university teachers which is in accordance to the formulated hypothesis. Government sector teachers had a higher psychological capital as compared to the teachers of private sector universities. Other research, on the contrary, indicates that private sector bank employees have a higher psychological capital and level of happiness (Singh and Khan, 2013). This might be due to difference of the domain of job in question as well as the policies involved. Another finding, as was hypothesized, indicated a significant difference between the efficacy of private and government university teachers. This finding is substantiated by the results of the study conducted by Sharma (1977) where he found significant difference in the level of efficacy of government and private secondary school teachers. Degrees of efficacy vary in accordance with the exposure given to the teachers as well as the environment given to them (Sharma, 1977). We found reason to believe that healthier individuals are linked to having a high psychological capital. Each of the four dimensions separately contributes to the psychological capital of an individual. Findings suggest that self- efficacy beliefs have been found related to clinical problems such as phobias (Bandura, 1983) addiction (Marlatt et al., 1995) depression (Davis and Yates, 1982) social skills (Moe and Zeiss, 1982) assertiveness (Lee, 1983; 1984) to stress in a variety of contexts (Jerusalem and Mittag, 1995) to smoking behavior (Garcia et al., 1990) to pain control (Manning and Wright, 1983) and to health (O’Leary, 1985). Optimistic people report a higher quality of life and have lower risks of all-cause death (Powers and Dawn, 2004) and are less likely to develop physical ill health or suicidal tendencies when they face major stressful life events than individuals with a pessimistic style (Carr and Alan, 2004). There was also a link between Psychological Capital and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Prior researches indicate employees’ hope, optimism, self-efficacy and resiliency separately had positive impacts on their organizational citizenship behavior. In a recent update, it was indicated that the employees’ psychological capital (a combined construct of hope, optimism, self-efficacy and resiliency) had positive impacts on their job performance, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Zhong, 2007). Studies indicate that hope predicts resilience (Worrell and Hale, 2001) academic success (Snyder, 2002) and persistence (Snyder, 2002). Within positive psychology, hope is positively correlated with self-esteem, optimism, and positive affect (Snyder, 2002) which are related to citizenship behavior (Walumbwa et al., 2011). The study also found that Positive Psychological Capital and its separate four dimensions contribute to both General Health and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Higher psychological capital amplifies health and pro- social behavior within an employee, leading to better organizational development. Furthermore, a significant difference was seen in the psychological capital and level of efficacy between the teachers of private and government universities, implying that environmental, managerial and other related factors may have a significant role in enhancing or reducing psychological capital and self-efficacy of an individual. Further research in this domain is recommended, along with added variables such as personality traits, work motivation, past academic success and gender differences. 5. Conclusion It is incredibly important for organizations of today to focus on psychological capital of their employees. Here the employees in question are teachers. Positive grooming may result in healthier and committed teachers. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2017, 4(2): 76-81 80 It is important to remember, that personality of teachers and their work, impacts leaders of tomorrow that is their students. By concentrating on building the psychological capital of teachers, organizations will not only ensure their own success but also make significant positive contribution to the future. 5.1. Geolocation Information This study was conducted in Universities located in Karachi, Pakistan. References Avey, J.B., F. Luthans and S. Jensen, 2009. Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48(5): 677-693. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Avey, J.B., J.L. Patera and B.J. West, 2006. The implications of positive psychological capital on employee absenteeism. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(2): 42-60. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Avey, J.B., T.S. Wernsing and F. Luthans, 2008. Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 44(1): 48-70. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Bandura, A., 1983. Self-efficacy determinants of anticipated fears and calamities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2): 464- 469. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Borman, W.C. and S.J. Motowidlo, 1997. Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2): 99-109. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Bright, D.S., K.S. Cameron and A. Caza, 2006. The amplifying and buffering effects of virtuousness in downsized organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(3): 249–269. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Carr and Alan, 2004. Positive psychology: The science of happiness and human strengths. Brunner- Routledge Publications. Cropanzano, R. and T.A. Wright, 1999. A 5-year study of change in the relationship between well-being and job performance. Consulting Psychology Journal, 51(4): 252– 265. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Danner, D.D., D.A. Snowdon and W.V. Friesen, 2001. Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5): 804 – 813. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Davis, F.W. and B.T. Yates, 1982. Self-efficacy expectancies versus outcome expectancies as determinants of performance deficits and depressive affect. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6(1): 23-35. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Diener, E. and M.E.P. Seligman, 2002. Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1): 81– 84. View at Google Scholar Garcia, M.E., J.M. Schmitz and L.A. Doerfler, 1990. A fine-grained analysis of the role of self-efficacy in self-initiated attempts to quit smoking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58(3): 317-322. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Goldberg, D., 1972. The deduction of psychiatric illness by questionnaire technique for identification and assessment of non-psychiatric illness. London, New York: Oxford Press. Goldsmith, A.H., J.R. Veum and W.J. Darity, 1997. The impact of psychological and human capital on wages. Economic Inquiry, 35(4): 815– 829. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Gooty, J., M. Gavin, P.D. Johnson, M.L. Frazier and D.B. Snow, 2009. In the eyes of the beholder: Transformational leadership, positive psychological capital, and performance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15(4): 353-367. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Isen, A.M. and R.A. Baron, 1991. Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 13: 1-54. Jerusalem, M. and W. Mittag, 1995. Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp: 177-201. Koivumaa-Honkanen, H., M. Koskenvuo, R.J. Honkanen, H. Viinamaki, K. Heikkilae and J. Kaprio, 2004. Life dissatisfaction and subsequent work disability in an 11-year follow-up study. Psychological Medicine, 34(2): 221– 228. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Larson, M. and F. Luthans, 2006. Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work attitudes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(1): 75-92. Lee, C., 1983. Self-efficacy and behavior as predictors of subsequent behavior in an assertiveness training programme. Behavior Research and Therapy, 21(3): 225-232. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Lee, C., 1984. Accuracy of efficacy and outcome expectations in predicting performance in a simulated assertiveness task. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8(1): 37-48. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Legal, J.B. and T. Meyer, 2009. Goal priming and self-efficacy: Independent contributions to motor performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108(2): 383-391. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Luthans, F., 2002. Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths for performance improvement. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1): 57–72. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Luthans, F., B. Avolio, J.B. Avey and S.M. Norman, 2007. Psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3): 541-572. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Luthans, F., K.W. Luthans and B.C. Luthans, 2004. Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1): 45–50. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Luthans, F., S.M. Norman, B.J. Avolio and J.B. Avey, 2008. The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate – employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2): 219–238. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Luthans, F., C.M. Youssef and B.J. Avolio, 2007. Psychological capital, developing the human competitive edge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lyubomirsky, S., 2008. The how of happiness. New York: Penguin Press. Lyubomirsky, S., L. King and E. Diener, 2005. The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6): 803– 855. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Manning, M.M. and T.L. Wright, 1983. Self-efficacy expectancies, outcome expectancies and the persistence of pain control in childbirth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2): 421-431. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Marlatt, A.A., J.S. Baer and A.A. Quigley, 1995. Self-efficacy and addictive behavior. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp: 289-316. Moe, K.O. and A.M. Zeiss, 1982. Measuring self-efficacy expectations for social skills: A methodological inquiry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6(2): 191-205. Niranjana, P. and P. Biswajeet, 2005. Influence of learned optimism and organizational ethos on organizational citizenship behavior: A study on Indian corporations. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 5(1): 85-98. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher O’Leary, A., 1985. Self-efficacy and health. Behavior Research and Therapy, 23(4): 437-451. View at Google Scholar Organ, D.W. and K. Ryan, 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 48(4): 775–802. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie and C. Hui, 1993. Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 11: 1–40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Powers, T.L. and B. Dawn, 2004. Improving health outcomes through patient empowerment. Journal of Hospital Marketing and Public Relations, 15(1): 45-59. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Roysamb, E., K. Tawls, T. Reichborn-Kjenneruc, M.C. Neale and J.R. Harris, 2003. Happiness and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 1136 – 1146. Seligman, M., 1998. Learned optimism. New York: Pocket Books. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Psychological%20capital:%20A%20positive%20resource%20for%20combating%20stress%20and%20turnover http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20294 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=The%20implications%20of%20positive%20psychological%20capital%20on%20employee%20absenteeism http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130020401 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Can%20positive%20employees%20help%20positive%20organizational%20change?%20Impact%20of%20psychological%20capital%20and%20emotions%20on%20relevant%20attitudes%20and%20behaviors http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886307311470 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886307311470 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-efficacy%20determinants%20of%20anticipated%20fears%20and%20calamities http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.464 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Task%20performance%20and%20contextual%20performance:%20The%20meaning%20for%20personnel%20selection%20research http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=The%20amplifying%20and%20buffering%20effects%20of%20virtuousness%20in%20downsized%20organizations http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-5904-4 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=A%205-year%20study%20of%20change%20in%20the%20relationship%20between%20well-being%20and%20job%20performance http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.51.4.252 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Positive%20emotions%20in%20early%20life%20and%20longevity:%20Findings%20from%20the%20nun%20study http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.804 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-efficacy%20expectancies%20versus%20outcome%20expectancies%20as%20determinants%20of%20performance%20deficits%20and%20depressive%20affect http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01185724 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Very%20happy%20people https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=A%20fine-grained%20analysis%20of%20the%20role%20of%20self-efficacy%20in%20self-initiated%20attempts%20to%20quit%20smoking http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.58.3.317 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=The%20impact%20of%20psychological%20and%20human%20capital%20on%20wages http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1997.tb01966.x https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=In%20the%20eyes%20of%20the%20beholder:%20Transformational%20leadership,%20positive%20psychological%20capital,%20and%20performance http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051809332021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051809332021 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Life%20dissatisfaction%20and%20subsequent%20work%20disability%20in%20an%2011-year%20follow-up%20study http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0033291703001089 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-efficacy%20and%20behavior%20as%20predictors%20of%20subsequent%20behavior%20in%20an%20assertiveness%20training%20programme http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(83)90203-6 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Accuracy%20of%20efficacy%20and%20outcome%20expectations%20in%20predicting%20performance%20in%20a%20simulated%20assertiveness%20task http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01315096 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Goal%20priming%20and%20self-efficacy:%20Independent%20contributions%20to%20motor%20performance http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.108.2.383-391 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Positive%20organizational%20behavior:%20Developing%20and%20managing%20psychological%20strengths%20for%20performance%20improvement http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ame.2002.6640181 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Psychological%20capital:%20Measurement%20and%20relationship%20with%20performance%20and%20job%20satisfaction http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Positive%20psychological%20capital:%20Beyond%20human%20and%20social%20capital http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=The%20mediating%20role%20of%20psychological%20capital%20in%20the%20supportive%20organizational%20climate%20–%20employee%20performance%20relationship http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.507 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.507 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=The%20benefits%20of%20frequent%20positive%20affect:%20Does%20happiness%20lead%20to%20success? http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-efficacy%20expectancies,%20outcome%20expectancies%20and%20the%20persistence%20of%20pain%20control%20in%20childbirth http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.421 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Influence%20of%20learned%20optimism%20and%20organizational%20ethos%20on%20organizational%20citizenship%20behavior:%20A%20study%20on%20Indian%20corporations http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijhrdm.2005.005987 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-efficacy%20and%20health https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=A%20meta-analytic%20review%20of%20attitudinal%20and%20dispositional%20predictors%20of%20organizational%20citizenship%20behaviors http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Improving%20health%20outcomes%20through%20patient%20empowerment http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j375v15n01_05 Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2017, 4(2): 76-81 81 Sharma, M.L., 1977. Success in teaching in relation to self-concept, intelligence, experience and academic achievement of teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Punjab University, Chandigarh. Singh, N. and I. Khan, 2013. Psychological capital and happiness among government and private bank employees - a comparative investigation. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 3(2): 336-338. Snyder, C.R., 2002. Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4): 249-275. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Spector, P.E., J.A. Bauer and S. Fox, 2010. Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4): 781-790. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Stajkovic, A. and F. Luthans, 1998. Self-efficacy and work related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2): 240-261. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Walumbwa, F.O., F. Luthans, J.B. Avey and A. Oke, 2011. Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1): 4-24. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Wen-Yu, S., 2004. Personality, impression management and organizational citizenship behavior. Master’s Thesis. World Health Organization, 1948. Preamble to the constitution of world health organization. Geneva: World Health Organization. Worrell, F.C. and R.L. Hale, 2001. The relationship of hope in the future and perceived school climate to school completion. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(4): 370-388. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Wright, T.A. and R. Cropanzano, 2000. Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1): 84 –94. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher Zhong, L., 2007. Effects of psychological capital on employees’ job performance. Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior, 39(2): 328-334. Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Hope%20theory:%20Rainbows%20in%20the%20mind http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1304_01 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Measurement%20artifacts%20in%20the%20assessment%20of%20counterproductive%20work%20behavior%20and%20organizational%20citizenship%20behavior:%20Do%20we%20know%20what%20we%20think%20we%20know? http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019477 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-efficacy%20and%20work%20related%20performance:%20A%20meta-analysis https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-efficacy%20and%20work%20related%20performance:%20A%20meta-analysis http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Authentically%20leading%20groups:%20The%20mediating%20role%20of%20collective%20psychological%20capital%20and%20trust http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.653 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=The%20relationship%20of%20hope%20in%20the%20future%20and%20perceived%20school%20climate%20to%20school%20completion http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/scpq.16.4.370.19896 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Psychological%20well-being%20and%20job%20satisfaction%20as%20predictors%20of%20job%20performance http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.84