Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by VGTU Press This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. *Corresponding author. E-mail: natashasaman20@gmail.com THE IMPACT OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY ON AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT: MEDIATING ROLE OF PROSOCIAL MOTIVATION Ihsan ULLAH , Natasha Saman ELAHI *, Ghulam ABID , Matti Ullah BUTT School of Business Administration, National College of Business Administration & Economics, Lahore, Pakistan Received 27 February 2020; accepted 10 April 2020 Abstract. Purpose – The main objective of this study is to examine the effect of perceived organi- zational support and proactive personality on prosocial motivation. Furthermore, it looks upon the influence of prosocial motivation on affective commitment. The indirect effect of perceived organi- zational support and proactive personality on affective commitment through prosocial motivation is also examined. Research methodology – The self-administered survey questionnaires are utilised for collecting the data from the service sector employees. Data were analyzed by using Process Macros on an actual sample of 221. Findings – Results indicate that perceived organizational support and proactive personality are the drivers of prosocial motivation. Likewise, prosocial motivation is positively associated with affective commitment. Besides, the indirect effect of perceived organizational support and proactive person- ality on affective commitment through prosocial motivation is significant. Research limitations – This study is conducted in the specific culture and the organizational context of Pakistan (Lahore). Data of all study variables are collected from the employees (single source) and at one point in time. Practical implications – The study findings suggested that organizations should always provide sup- port to their employees that encourage them to show more desire to help their colleagues in the working environment and fosters their commitment towards their organization. Originality/Value – It is the first study that examines the indirect impact of POS and proactive personality on affective commitment via prosocial motivation. Keywords: perceived organizational support, proactive personality, affective commitment, pro- social motivation. JEL Classification: D23,O15, Q56. Business, Management and Education ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2020 Volume 18 Issue 2: 183–205 https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2020.12189 Introduction The notion of prosocial motivation is a desire to help others has attracted extensive atten- tion in the field of positive organizational scholarship, and organizational behaviour due to its http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00091-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00091-2 mailto:natashasaman20@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2115-1345 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7029-783X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3271-9082 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0793-8715 https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2020.12189 184 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... favourable outcomes (Grant & Berg, 2010; Grant & Sumanth, 2009) such as Abid, Sajjad, Elahi, and Farooqi (2018) found the prosocial motivation is the contributor to work engagement, and thriving at work.  Grant (2007), Shao, Cardona, Ng, and Trau (2017) demonstrated  that  em- ployee’s commitment towards people and their organization is formed by prosocial motiva- tion. Voet, Steijn, and Kuipers (2017) revealed that prosocial motivation positively influences commitment. Literature also shows that employee performance, persistence, productivity, and organizational citizenship behaviour are the outcomes of prosocial motivation (Grant, 2007; Korsgaard, Meglino, & Lester, 1997; Rioux & Penner, 2001).  Cai, Huo, Lan, Chen, and Lam (2019) noted that prosocial motivation is the predictor of taking charge. Prosocially moti- vated employees are important assets of any organization because they help others within the organization (Rioux & Penner, 2001), take the initiative (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009), give more preference to the goals of their colleagues (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004), involved in creativ- ity  (Grant & Berry, 2011),  accept negative feedback  for self improvement (Korsgaard et  al., 1997), complete their task persistently, perform better (Grant, 2008a) and involved in the inclu- sive behaviour (Nelissen et al., 2016). Contrary, prosocial motivation has negative association with knowledge hiding (Babič et al., 2018) and subjective wellbeing (Kibler et al., 2018). Prosocial motivation creates beneficial individual and organizational outcomes in an excel- lent and supportive working environment. The beneficial outcomes can diminish with over a period of time without proper work setting (Shao et  al., 2017). Therefore, it is essential to investigate those factors and conditions that enable the employees to help their beneficiaries such as co-workers, supervisors, and customers, and also prompt the organization by creating a supportive and pleasant working environment that can take the advantages of the beneficial outcomes. Thus, the main aim of the present study is to inspect those factors that lead to employee prosocial motivation. Although prosocial motivation is an essential construct in the organizational setting, but in the literature, only some studies have investigated the contex- tual factors that prompt the positive influence of prosocial motivation on job outcomes. Past studies examine that relation of contextual factors, for example, organizational trust (Koçak, 2020), workplace spirituality (Otaye-Ebede et al., 2019), family-supportive behaviour (Bosch et al., 2018), job characteristics (i.e. tasks significance, task identity and autonomy) and social characteristics (i.e. interaction with insides) with the prosocial motivation (Grant, 2007). Zhu and Akhtar (2014) found that leaders can influence the helping behaviour of employees by using numerous approaches that depend on their prosocial motivation tendency. When pro- socially motivated employees recognize that their supervisors are trustworthy and honest, and then they carry out all tasks in effective manners  (Grant & Sumanth, 2009). In the previous studies, the influence of contextual factor, such as perceived organizational support (POS) on prosocial motivation is not examined. Therefore, the focus of our study is to empirically test the relationship between perceived organizational support and prosocial motivation. Besides, we suggest in our study prosocial motivation is influenced by personal charac- teristics such as proactive personality. In the literature, the relationship between proactive personality and prosocial motivation is not examined yet for the best of our knowledge. Therefore, we propose in our study, proactive personality employees have a desire to help other people. Moreover, the supervisor’s prosocial motivation promotes organizational com- mitment towards has been tested empirically in the past literature (Shao et al., 2017). While researchers do not consider the association between employees prosocial motivation and Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 185 affective commitment towards their organization. Therefore, our study postulates that em- ployees are emotionally attached to their organization and goals when they are prosocially motivated. Likewise, in this study, we have examined the indirect effect of perceived organi- zational support and proactive personality on the employee’s affective commitment towards their organization through prosocial motivation. The mediating role of prosocial motivation among the perceived organizational support, proactive personality and affective commitment were not examined because previous studies have focused on examining the moderating ef- fect of prosocial motivation (Butt et al., 2018; Škerlavaj et al., 2018). In this study, we have taken an affective commitment as criterion variable because  it is one of the components of organizational commitment that has attained a lot of attention as compared to normative commitment and continuous commitment. Affective commitment is defined by as “employee’s desire to stay as a member of the organization, an intention to make an effort for the organization, a belief in the values and norms of the organization” (Glazer & Kruse, 2008). It explained the relationship between the employee and the organiza- tion (Mowday & Sutton, 1993). From a theoretical view, we want to examine how prosocially motivated employees will emotionally attach to their organizations when they have a proac- tive personality and also when they perceive that their organizations are more supportive for them. From the practical perspective, affective committed employees are satisfied, perform better, involve in the voluntary behaviour (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Meyer et al., 2002), and transfer their knowledge among other employees (Marques et al., 2019). Employees who are emotionally committed to the organization have a higher degree of performance (in-role job performance), are more loyal to the organization, have intrinsic motivation, obtained the organizational goal with enthusiasm, and always want to stay with their organization (Harrison-Walker, 2001; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Lee et al., 2008). In addition, employees who are affectively committed show less intention to leave (Alkhateri et  al., 2018; Haque et  al., 2019) and withdrawal behaviours, i.e. lateness, absenteeism and turnover (Kim & Beehr, 2019. Therefore, the major goals of the current study are 1) to examine the association among POS, proactively personality and prosocial motivation, 2) to study relationship prosocial motivation and affective commitment, 3) to examine the intervening role of prosocial moti- vation between POS and affective commitment, and also proactive personality and affective commitment. All relationships are summarized in Figure 1. H4 H5 H2 ���������� ��������������� �� ��� ���������� ����������� ���������� ��������� �������� ���������� H1 H3 Figure 1. Proposed model 186 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... 1. Literature review and hypotheses development 1.1. Perceived organizational support and prosocial motivation Prosocial motivation refers to “as the desire to spend efforts or benefit out of concern for oth- er people or groups” (Grant, 2007, 2008b). Prosocial denotes “benefits of others”, and motiva- tion means “desire to act” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2009). Prosocially motivated people to have characteristics of cooperation, amicability, sympathetic and value the others (Grant & Berry, 2011). Batson, Ahmad, Powell, and Stocks (2008) stated that prosocially motivated personnel’s could help other people because they have concern for them, and they want to continue their relationship within the value group. By doing so, they think that they are doing the right things for long term relationship with other colleagues and hence support the organization. By doing all such, they think positively about themselves. Grant (2008b) stated that prosocial motivation is differentiated from intrinsic motivation on the basis of three-facet (i) goal-directedness, (ii) temporal focus and (iii) self-regulation. Prosocial mo- tivation is less autonomous and whereas intrinsic motivation is fully autonomous in term of self-regulation. Prosocial motivation depends on other-oriented values, goals and focused on producing outcomes that could be beneficial in the long run, while intrinsic motivation is mainly based on the task that focused on finishing it only at the present time in the term of self-directedness and temporal focus (Grant & Berry, 2011). Perceived organizational support (POS) is defined by Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchi- son, and Sowa (1986) as the “degree to which employees believed that their organizations value their contributions, and cares about their well-being and fulfils their socioemotional needs such as affiliation, social support, and esteem”. Hakkak and Ghodsi (2013) defined POS as “a kind of cooperation or support that is necessary to perform a job effectively”. POS is social, not merely a psychological process that is intended through the information that em- ployees acquire from their social setting. Both the Organizational support theory and social exchange theory are considered for a theoretical foundation of perception of organizational support. Eisenberger and his colleagues have developed the organizational support theory in 1986. This theory stated that employees form a general belief with respect to how much their organization values their contribution and thinks about their socio-emotional and well being; furthermore, to what extent their loyalty and performance to the organization is rewarded (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Employees are always committed to supportive organizations (Ma- latesta & Tetrick, 1996). Besides, social exchange theory alluded that reciprocity is an essen- tial facet of social life and the relationship of the employee and the organization. According to Gouldner (1960), reciprocity is a vital concept that is linked to POS. When personnel per- ceived that their organization is more supportive with them and care about their well-being, the norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) propel them to assist their organizations in its goal accomplishment (Eisenberger et al., 1986). It also enables them to repay their organizations in the form of more favorable job outcomes, for example, higher organizational commitment and job performance, and less negative behaviours such as deviance, absenteeism, voluntary turnover, tardiness emotional exhaustion and psychometric strain (Caesens et  al., 2017) as compared to those employees who have a low level of POS (Mohamed & Ali, 2015). Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 187 On the basis of organizational support theory (OST) and social exchange theory (SET), a perception of organizational support creates with many positive outcomes, for example, job satisfaction (Alder et al., 2012), organizational commitment, felt obligation, in-role job perfor- mance (Arshadi, 2011), affective commitment (Meyer et al., 2002), organizational citizenship behaviour (Asgari et  al., 2020), task performance (Miao, 2011), work engagement (Murthy, 2017),  work performance (Miao & Kim, 2010), change in readiness, trust in management (Gigliotti et  al., 2019), job embeddedness (Akgunduz, & Sanli, 2017), employees  favourable orientation toward their work and organization, their helping behaviour and psychological wellbeing (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), voice (Bergeron & Thompson, 2020), ideal commit- ment, innovative behaviour (Li & Huan, 2019) and also have a negative association with the turnover intention (Arshadi, 2011), and burnout (Alder et al., 2012). Furthermore, a study of Harris and Kacmar (2018) affirmed that higher commitment, higher performance and lower deviance are outcomes of perception of organizational support. A Meta-analysis of Kurtessis, Eisenberger, Ford, Buffardi, Stewart, and Adis (2017) found that POS enhance job satisfac- tion, subjective wellbeing, performance, self efficacy, organizational identification, work-family balance, organizational citizenship behaviour, job organizational based self-esteem, also lower stress, work family conflict and withdrawal behaviours of employees. A recent cross-cultural meta analysis also indicated that POS is the predictor of many desirable attitudinal and behav- ioural outcomes such as job involvement, in role job performance, OCB (organizational citi- zenship behaviour) and lower turnover intention (Rockstuhl et al., 2020). Employees perceived that their organizations are more supportive to them,  accomplished their socio-emotional and material needs and also care about their well-being (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), as a result of it, they are likely more involved in the prosocial motivation. On the basis of the above discussion, we proposed in the context of perceived organizational support employees will be prosocially motivated. So, our hypothetical statement is: Hypothesis 1: Perceived organizational support is positively related to prosocial motivation. 1.2. Prosocial motivation and affective commitment An important component of loyalty and dedication is an affective commitment; it is defined by  Allen and Meyer (1996) “employee’s emotional attachment to the organization, and its goals.” It is also defined by Glazer and Kruse (2008) as “employee’s desire to stay as a mem- ber of the organization, an intention to make an effort for the organization, a belief in the values and norms of the organization”. Affective commitment is influenced by many fac- tors and researchers have characterized these factors in main categories, for example (i) job characteristics, (ii) work experiences, (iii) structural characteristics, (iv) personal character- istics, (v) organizational factors (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Job characteristics are comprised of job stress, management style, responsibility degree and award system (Sayğan, 2011). Work experiences consisted of the organizational rewards, supervisor support and procedural jus- tices (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Decentralization, the degree of control, organization size, wage systems, formalization degree, working hours, and opportunities of career are included in the structural characteristics (Meyer & Allen, 1997;  Sayğan, 2011).  Job structure is the key indicator of affective organizational commitment, while the intrinsic job satisfaction and job enrichment identified as job structure features also determined the affective commitment 188 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... (Oyinlade, 2018). A study of Bouraoui, Bensemmane, Ohana, and Russo (2019) illustrated that affective organizational commitment is an outcome of corporate social responsibility. Meyer and Allen (1997) indicated that affective commitment is strongly influenced by work experiences as opposed to personal and structural characteristics. Organizational factor con- sisted of the perceived organizational support and leadership styles. Affective commitment is strongly influenced by the perceived organizational support (Sharma & Dhar, 2016). Jang and Kandampully (2018) explained in their research servant leadership based on ethical behaviours, and employee growth can contribute to enhancing the affective commitment of employees towards their organization. Hendryadi, Suratna, Suryani, and Purwanto (2019) found that empowering leadership is a strong contributor to affective organizational com- mitment. A study by Lee, Woo, and Kim (2018) revealed that transformational leadership and affective commitment are linked in a positive manner with each other, as a result of it, committed employees involved in the extra role activities, i.e. organizational citizenship behaviour. Kooij and Boon (2017) indicated that perception of HPWP (high performance work practices) creates an emotional attachment among the employees in the organizational setting. Erum, Abid, Conteras, and Islam (2020) empirically demonstrated that employees developed an emotional connection to the organization when they receive respect in the workplace (civility) and perceive their job as a way to support their families (family support). Previous studies showed that affective commitment influenced by personal characteristics, for example, gender, age, tenure, education, personality, values, a desire to success (Sayğan, 2011; Meyer et al., 2002). ST-Hilaire, and de la Robertie (2018) revealed the positive link of affective commitment with job challenges, workload and internal motivation to remain on the job. Employees create positive feelings and stronger affective commitment towards their organization (Ko & Choi, 2020), when they perceive compassionate behaviours from other members of the organizations. Individuals who view their work as meaningful appear to rec- ognize pleasant job experience and greater affective commitment (Jiang, & Johnson, 2018). Chordiya, Sabharwal, and Goodman (2017) noted that positive feeling of employees about their job enables them to show more commitment to the organizations. In this study, we have focused on the personal characteristic such as prosocial motivation that influenced the employee’s emotional attachment towards (affective commitment) their organization. Shao et al. (2017) found that employees’ prosocial motivation and perception of supervisor prosocial motivation is the strongest predictor of organizational commitment. Likewise, the study of Ong, Tan, Villareal, and Chiu (2019) found that prosocial motivation has a positive association with organizational commitment. In line with these assumptions, we assumed employee prosocial motivation and affective commitment (one element of orga- nizational commitment) are linked within a positive way. Prosocial motivation is intimately related to integrity, such as sincerity and social justice (Meglino & Ravlin,  1998), and be- nevolence, such as concern for well being of others (Marcus, Lee, & Ashton, 2007). A study of Cullen, Parboteeah and Victor (2003) has found a positive association between the ethical climate of benevolence (concern for well being of others) and organizational commitment. Employees with a greater prosocial motivation are more interested in placing themselves in the role of others, recognizing the needs of others and perceiving the world in a considerate manner, as a consequence of which they are engaged in helping behaviour. Alternatively, Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 189 employees with low prosocial motivation do not worry about other people’s expectations and needs; they focus on their objectives; therefore, they lack the opportunities to impact positively on others (Shao et al., 2019). Prosocially motivated employees perceived that their goals and values are aligned with prosocially motivated supervisors (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Zhang et al., 2012) and co-worker. This configuration will cultivate the advancement of bet- ter-shared connections and understanding and also urge them to look out of their organi- zations and other people (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Zhang et  al., 2012). Prosocially motivated employees to display more commitment towards their organization when they perceive that their goals diverge with the goals of supervisors (Shao et al., 2017). Thus, in this study, we expected that prosocially motivated personnel’s would emotionally be attached to the organization and its goals. The hypothetical statement is: Hypothesis 2: Prosocial motivation is positively related to affective commitment. Based on hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2, we propose that prosocial motivation intervenes between the perception of organizational supports and affective commitment relationship. The employee will be prosocially motivated when they perceive that their organization and supervisors are more supportive. As a result of prosocial motivation, they show affective commitment towards their organization. Thus we propose that: Hypothesis 3: Prosocial motivation mediates the relationship between perceived organi- zational support and affective commitment. 1.3. Proactive personality and prosocial motivation Proactive personality is described as “dispositional tendency to take an individual initiative within a wide range of situations and activities”. The archetypal proactive personality is de- fined as “someone who is relatively unrestrained through situational forces and who effect the change in environment” (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Grant and Ashford (2008, p. 8) refers proactive personality as “anticipatory the action that employees take to impact themselves and/or their environments”. Crant (2000) considers that proactive behaviour is the main contributor to proactive personality. Past empirical studies revealed that proactive person- ality is a complex and multidimensional concept. It creates many significant and positive outcomes for an organization as well as for an individual; such as individual job performance (Andri et  al., 2019; Crant, 1995), leadership effectiveness (Crant & Bateman, 2000), work team performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), innovation-related behaviour (Ng & Feldman, 2013), entrepreneurship (Becherer & Maurer, 1999), thriving at work (Jiang, 2017), employee altruism (Lv et  al., 2018), job search (Brown et  al., 2006), employee creativity (Kim et  al., 2009), job crafting (Zhang et  al., 2018), increase in salary, promotion (Seibert et  al., 1999), LXM quality and voice behaviour (Wijaya, 2018), career satisfaction (Joo & Ready, 2012), citizenship behaviour (Hua et  al., 2019), training outcomes, i.e. behavioural intention and motivation (Major et  al., 2006), motivation to learn and transfer intention (Roberts et  al., 2018), change in job satisfaction (Kuo et  al., 2019), innovative performance (Rodrigues & Rebelo, 2019), work engagement (Dikkers et al., 2010; Lv et al., 2018; Tisu et al., 2020), and life satisfaction (Wang et  al., 2018). Proactive personality has also been directly linked to career success. Proactive personality enhances job performance, work interference in family and reduce the interference of family in work (Altura et al., 2020). 190 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... The research demonstrated that proactive individuals as compared to reactive individu- als select, create, and influence work situations that increase the likelihood of career suc- cess (Seibert et al., 1999). Newman, Schwarz, Cooper, and Sendjaya (2017) demonstrate that employee with strong proactive personality is more likely to respond to positive leadership behaviours. Servant leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour link can be forti- fied by proactive personality. Proactive personality individuals take part in initiatives of the organization (Parker, 1998). They have a capacity of tolerating the stress that presents in a challenging job (Parker & Sprigg, 1999). In addition, people with highly proactive personality are actively engaged in taking the initiative, influence the change in environment, identify the different opportunities, carry out the goals with persistence (Bateman & Crant, 1993), have a different approach towards finding jobs and career (Crant, 1995), energetically solve the obscurity and ratify the change (Allen et  al., 2005). In addition, proactive personnel’s are better able to engage in creation (Crant, 2000), propagation and execution of the idea. Proactive people can lessen uncertainties more rapidly because of three eminent traits of pro- active personality: change orientation, self-inception, and future core interest (Parker et al., 2010). They continue and recognize new opportunities such as the acquisition of knowledge and skill for their self-improvement that will help them in future encouragement. Proactive individuals challenge the status quo while reactive individuals sustain the status quo because they react to the change rather than the formation of change (Seibert et al., 1999). People with a proactive personality welcome social connections as compared to reactive individuals (Yang et al., 2011). Social connections influence the attitudes and behaviours of individuals (Brass et al., 2004). People who inserted in social connections positively associ- ated with helping behaviour (Sparrowe et  al., 2001) because prosocial motivation (helping behaviour) is considered as the outcome of interpersonal interactions (Bolino et  al., 2002) and continual interactions between the members of the organizations can enhance the help- ing behaviour (Perlow et al., 2004). So, we posit that individuals with a proactive personality have more desire to help their co-workers and also assist them in their tasks while exchanging their information and knowledge. Likewise, those employees who have a proactive personal- ity are prosocially motivated because of their secure connection with other people. Employ- ees showed emotional attachments towards their organization when they are prosocially motivated. Thus, on the basis of the above discussion, we posit that: Hypothesis 4: Proactive Personality is positively related to prosocial motivation. Hypothesis 5: Prosocial motivation mediates the relationship between proactive personal- ity and affective commitment. 2. Methodology 2.1. Sample and procedure The current study was descriptive and correlational in nature because the aim of the current study was to examine the association among the study variables. The targeted population was working employees of the service sector, particularly banking employees and educational institutes located in a large metropolitan city in South Asia. The service sector is the most critical sector because it significantly contributes to the country GDP and economic growth, that is why this sector has been selected for this study. We used the purposive sampling tech- Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 191 nique for the study data collection process. The self-administered questionnaire was used for the collection of primary data from the respondents by following the cross-sectional research design in the non-contrived setting. The survey questionnaire consists of 22 measuring items and split into two parts. The first section deals with the demographic characteristics of em- ployees, such as gender, tenure, and marital status. The second section contains questions related to the study variables (i.e. 8-items of perceived organizational support, 6-items of proactive personality, 5-items of prosocial motivation, and 3-items of affective organizational commitment). For all the banks and educational institutes, the method of data collection was similar at each level as the first author was personally met the higher management of banks and educational institutes and told them about the purpose of our research. A cover letter was also provided to give ascertain that their information would remain confidential because they feel hesitated to give information to someone. The survey was conducted only with management approval, cooperation and willingness of employees in the whole process. After that, questionnaires were circulated to the respondents by researchers. Total 300 survey questionnaires were distributed to the employees in the banking and educational employees; we received back 221 completed questionnaires. After receiving these questionnaires, we have screened these questionnaires for the identification of missing re- sponses, but none of them was found with this problem. The actual response rate is 73.66%, which is suitable for organizational research (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). In this study majority of participants were male 125 (56.6%) while 96 (43.4%) were female. Concerning marital status, about 105 (52.5%) participants were single, while 116 (47.5%) were married. The distribution of research participant’s marital status by their gender indicated that 75(33.9%) male are single, 50 (22.6%) are married, while 30(13.6%) female are single, and 66 (29.9%) fe- male are married. Furthermore, the 63 (28.5%) participants (male = 31(14%), female, 32(14.5%)) have 1–5 years of tenure, 84(38%) participants (male = 48(21.7%), female = 36(16.3%)) have 6–10 years working tenure, and 44 (19.9%) participants (male = 27(12.2%), female = 17(7.7%)) have 11–15 years of working tenure, and 30 (13.6%) participants (male = 19(8.6%), female = 11(5%)) have above 15 years of experience with the employing organization. 2.2. Measures The well-established measures were used for the measurement of variables in this study. All constructs used 7- point Likert scale items, ranging from (1 = entirely disagree to 7 = mostly agree).  Perceived organizational support was assessed with 8-item came from Eisenberg- er et  al. (1997). A sample includes “my organization strongly considers my goals and val- ues”. Proactive personality was measured by a scale of Bateman and Crant’s (1993). This scale consisted of the 6-items. A sample item is “If I see something I don’t like, I fix it”. The proso- cial motivation was assessed with the 5-items scale of Grant and Sumanth (2009). A sample item is “I get energized by working on tasks that have the potential to benefit others”. The affective commitment was assessed with a 3-items scale of Mowday et  al. (1979). A sample item is “I am proud to tell people whom I work for”. In this study, we have obtained the employee’s demographic information (gender, marital status and working tenure). Although these variables are not incorporated in the theoretical model, we have controlled the effect of these demographic variables. 192 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive analysis A mean, standard deviation, internal consistency and Bivariate Pearson Correlation analy- sis among all the study variables (perceived organizational support, proactive personality, prosocial motivation, and affective commitment) and demographic characteristics (gender, marital status and tenure with the current organization) was performed before hypotheses testing by using SPSS 24.  The correlation coefficients are in anticipated directions and pro- vide initial support for study stipulated hypothetical relationship. In line with our proposed hypothetical relationships, correlation analysis demonstrated that perceived organizational support has a positive and significant association with prosocial motivation (r  = 0.263,  p  < 0.01), and employees’ prosocial motivation and affective commitment are positively and sig- nificantly related to each other (r = 0.319, p < 0.01). Both the relationships are in accordance with H1 and H2, respectively. The correlation analysis also showed that proactive personality has a significant and positive association with prosocial motivation (r = 0.442, p < 0.01). This relationship is in accordance with H4. In addition, correlation analysis has not found any association among study variables and demographics (see Table 1). Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlation analysis Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Gender 1.43 0.49 – 2. Marital Status 1.52 0.50 0.285** – 3. Tenure 3.25 0.59 –0.310** –0.39** – 4. POS 5.89 0.54 –0.141* –0.10 0.11 (0.73) 5. Proactive Personality 6.04 0.58 –0.11 –0.02 0.10 0.34** (0.74) 6. Prosocial Motivation 6.17 0.58 –0.07 –0.05 0.07 0.26** 0.44** (0.72) 7. Affective Commitment 5.93 0.94 –0.05 –0.08 0.08 0.27** 0.29** 0.31** (0.72) Note: N = 221, Alpha values are on the diagonal in parenthesis. ** p < 0.01 level, * p < 0.05 level. 3.2. Confirmatory analysis AMOS 24 was used for the assessment of the fit indices of measurement model and alterna- tive models. The outcomes indicated that the fit indices value of four factor model (mea- surement model), such as GF1 = 0.90, χ2/(df ) = 1.56, , IFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.05, RMR = 0.04 best fit to our data set because all values of fit indices exceed the acceptable values of AGFI > 0.86, (χ2/(df ) < 3, CFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08, SRMR < 0.05, TLI > 0.90, GF1> 0.90, IFI > 0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) as compared to alternate models, for example Ist alternate model (2 factor model) in which we have combined prosocial motiva- tion and perceived into one factor, and affective commitment and proactive personality into another factor. The outcomes indicated that values fit indices (GF1 = 0.76, χ2/ (df ) = 3.45, IFI = 0.58, RMSEA = 0.11, CFI = 0.57, RMR = 0.08, AGFI = 0.71) of two factor model wore opposed to measurement model. Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 193 The 2nd alternate model (3 factor model) in which we have combined proactive personal- ity and prosocial motivation into one factor. The outcome of this alternative model was also not as good as the measurement model, (χ2/ (df ) = 2.42, GF1 = 0.83, IFI = 0.76, CFI = 0.75, AGFI = 0.79, RMSEA = 0.08, RMR = 0.06). In the final alternative we have combined all factors (perceived organizational support, proactive personality, prosocial motivation and affective commitment) into one factor, outcome, (χ2/ (df ) = 3.69, GF1 = 0.75, IFI = 0.54, CFI = 0.53, AGFI = 0.69, RMSEA = 0.11, RMR = 0.09) this alternate model again was not good as values of measurement model. Thus, measurement model is accepted because it has adequate value of fit indices. While alternate models were not best fit to the data due their poor fit indices values (Table 2). 3.3. Hypotheses testing results PROCESS Macros analysis technique by Andrew Hayes (Hayes & Preacher 2013) was used for  testing the  hypothetical model because it was known as a strong and robust technique to detect the significance of the conditional indirect effect relying on bootstrap sampling (Abid et  al., 2019). Two simple meditation models were estimated because there are two independent variables, i.e. (perceived organizational support and proactive personality) in our study. The first simple mediation model was run to test H1, H2, and H3 hypotheses. The second simple mediation model tested hypotheses H4, H5. The outcomes of Process show that POS positively impact prosocial motivation (β = 0.28, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.07, LLCI = 0.16, ULCI = 0.39) Therefore, our H1  is strongly supported. Results also showed that  prosocial motivation is positively impacting affective commitment (β = 0.43, p < 0.001, R2  = 0.14, LLCI = 0.26, ULCI = 0.61) when controlling for POS, thus H2 is supported. POS is positively and significantly influence affective commitment (β = 0.35, p < 0 .001, R2 = 0.14, LLCI = 0.17, ULCI = 0.54) when controlling for prosocial motivation. These outcomes provide support for mediation. Results of a simple mediation model specified that POS has an indirect effect on affective commitment through prosocial motivation. This indirect effect was positive (β = 0.12) and significant (Sobel z = 2.82, p < 0.001) because bootstrapping results and Sobel test result are consistent with each other, as 90% CI (0.06, 0.23) around indirect effect exclude the zero point. Therefore, H3 was supported (Table 3). Table 2. Fit indices of factor models Models χ2 Df χ2/df GFI IFI CFI AGFI SRMR RMSEA Full Measurement Model 272.85 174 1.56 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.86 0.04 0.05 2 Factor Model a 649.61 188 3.45 0.76 0.58 0.57 0.71 0.08 0.11 3 Factor Model b 450.23 186 2.42 0.83 0.76 0.75 0.79 0.06 0.08 1 Factor Model c 698.31 189 3.69 0.75 0.54 0.53 0.69 0.09 0.11 Notes: a Prosocial Motivation and Perceived Organizational Support combined into one factor, Proactive Personality and Affective Commitment combined into another factor. b Prosocial Motivation and Proactive Personality combined into one factor. c All construct are combined into one factor. 194 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... Table 3. Simple mediation results regressing POS as a predictor Variables Β SE T p Direct and total effects Affective Commitment regressed on perceived organizational support 0.47 0.11 4.20 0.00 Prosocial motivation regressed on perceived organizational support 0.28 0.07 4.03 0.00 Affective commitment regressed on prosocial motivation, controlling for perceived organizational support 0.43 0.11 4.08 0.00 Affective commitment regressed on perceived organizational support, controlling for prosocial motivation 0.35 0.11 3.31 0.00 Value SE LL 90% CI UL 90% CI Z P Indirect effect and significance using the normal distribution Sobel 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.23 2.82 0.00 M SE LL 90% CI UL 90% CI Bootstrap results for indirect effect Effect 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.23 Note: N = 221. β (Unstandardized Regression Coefficient); SE (Standard Error); Bootstrap Sample Size (1000); CI (Confidence Interval); LL( Lower Limit); UL (Upper Limit). Table 4 shows the results of the second estimated model. Results indicated that proactive personality has a positive impact on prosocial motivation (β = 0.44, p < 0.001, R2  = 0.20, LLCI = 0.34, ULCI = 0.54) Therefore, our H4  is supported. Results showed that  prosocial motivation significantly impact affective commitment (β = 0.38, p < 0.001, R2  = 0.13, LLCI = 0.19, ULCI = 0.57) when controlling for proactive personality. Proactive personality has significantly impacted affective commitment too (β = 0.31, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.13, LLCI = 0.12, ULCI  = 0.5) when controlling for prosocial motivation. These outcomes provide sup- port for mediation. The results of this simple mediation model showed that proactive per- sonality has an indirect effect on affective commitment through prosocial motivation. This indirect effect was positive (β = 0.1) and significant (Sobel z = 3.00, p < 0.001). The bootstrap- ping results favour the Sobel test, as 90% CI (0.09, 0.27) around indirect effect excluding the zero. So, H5 was supported. 4. Discussion The present research is a unique attempt to look at the impact of contextual (perceived orga- nizational support) and personal factor (proactive personality) on the affective commitment through the intervening role of prosocial motivation in the different service sectors of (edu- cational and banking, Lahore), Pakistan. The current study is fundamental because it is the first study that examines the direct impact of POS and proactive personality on prosocial and also examines the direct association between prosocial motivation and affective commitment. Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 195 Additionally, this study examines the mediating role of prosocial motivation between POS and affective commitment and also between proactive personality and affective commitment in the organizational context. All results of this study favour our proposed model. First, this study finds that POS and proactive personality are positively and significantly impact proso- cial motivation. Second, these results find that prosocial motivation has a significant impact on affective commitment. Lastly, our study found that prosocial motivation mediates the rela- tionship between two predictors (POS and proactive personality) and affective commitment. 4.1. Theoretical contributions The present study contributed to the current literature in the following ways. First, this is the first study that examined the association between POS, proactive personality and prosocial motivation. Prosocial motivation has attracted significant attention in the practice and re- search (Batson et al., 2008; Grant & Mayer, 2009; Grant & Sumanth, 2009). Past studies have only focused on investigating the potential outcomes of prosocial motivation  (Grant, 2007; Korsgaard et al., 1997; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Voet et al., 2017). While there are few studies, have examined the factors that prompt the employees to help their colleagues (Kocak, 2020). Therefore, there is a need to investigate those factors that encourage prosocial motivation. In order to contemplate this gap, our study has introduced the two new antecedents (POS and proactive personality) that boost prosocial motivation among employees. This is a first study that has examined the POS, proactive personality and prosocial motivation relationship. The findings of our study suggested contextual factor such as POS is contributors to prosocial Table 4. Simple mediation results regressing proactive personality as a predictor Variables Β SE T p Direct and total effects Affective Commitment regressed on proactive personality 0.48 0.10 4.57 0.00 Prosocial motivation regressed on proactive personality 0.44 0.06 7.29 0.00 Affective commitment regressed on prosocial motivation, controlling for proactive personality 0.38 0.11 3.32 0.00 Affective commitment regressed on proactive personality, controlling for prosocial motivation 0.31 0.11 2.72 0.00 Value SE LL 90% CI UL 90% CI z P Indirect effect and significance using the normal distribution Sobel 0.17 0.05 0.09 0.27 3.00 0.00 M SE LL 90% CI UL 90% CI Bootstrap results for indirect effect Effect 0.17 0.06 0.09 0.27 Note: N = 221. β (Unstandardized Regression Coefficient); SE (Standard Error); Bootstrap Sample Size (1000); CI (Confidence Interval); LL ( Lower Limit); UL (Upper Limit). 196 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... motivation by favouring the assumptions of prior studies which indicated that prosocial motivation is influenced by contextual factors (Bosch et al., 2018; Otaye-Ebede et al., 2019; Erum et  al., 2020). The desire of employees to help their colleagues at work is those who perceived that their organization is more supportive to them value their contribution and fulfill their socio-emotional needs. Similarly, our study found that personal factor (proactive personality) also influenced the prosocial motivation; this means that employees who have a proactive personality are more prosocially motivated. Second, this study empirically validates the positive association between prosocial moti- vation and affective commitment; it gives the support on advantageous outcomes of prosocial motivation in the working context as reported by many scholars (Abid et  al., 2018;  Grant, 2007; Korsgaard et al., 1997; Rioux & Penner, 2000; Shao et al., 2017). This study also found that prosocial motivation and affective commitment (one element of organizational com- mitment) is positively linked like organizational commitment (Ong et al., 2019). Lastly, this is the first study that examines the mediating role of prosocial motivation between POS and affective commitment and between proactive personality and affective commitment. Previous studies have examined the moderating role of prosocial motivation (Butt et al., 2018; Grant & Berry, 2011; Rofcanin et al., 2018; Shao et al., 2019). 4.2. Managerial implications The current study offers significant implications for  practitioners by offering novel recom- mendations on how they create and enhance affective commitment among their employees. For this purpose,  the organizations should invest in the human capital with the focus on enhancing the employee emotional attached to their organization and its goals rather than just concentrating on their performance and productivity enhancement. Higher levels of af- fective commitment among employees is a vital concern for any organizations because these committed employees are more satisfied, perform better, involve involuntary behaviour, and also show less intention to leave (Fazio et al., 2017) and absenteeism (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Meyer et  al., 2002), and they have stronger ability to realize, produce, and promote ideas (innovative job performance; Al-Abbadi, 2018), The study findings indicated that POS is closely associated with prosocial motivation. Employees who perceived that their organization is more supportive of them also value their contribution as a result of it; they show more willingness to help their colleagues in the work- ing environment. So that is why organizations should always care their employees’ wellbe- ing, rewards their contributions and efforts, also fulfil their socioemotional needs such as esteem and affiliation. This is because POS is a source of many potential and organizational outcomes. Besides, this study also empirically confirmed that employees with a proactive personality have the desire to help others by interacting and communicating with them. For this purpose, human resource managers should carefully recruit such individuals who have a proactive personality because they are change-oriented, identify the new opportunities and create a high-quality relationship with their peers. The present study revealed that when employees help their colleagues at the workplace then they display a higher affective commit- ment to the organization. Organizations can increase and promote the employee’s prosocial motivation through socialization and mentoring. Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 197 4.3. Limitations and directions The present research meaningfully extended and contributed to the literature of organiza- tional behaviour; this empirical work is not free from some potential limitations. First, this study is first that investigates the association among POS, proactive personality, prosocial motivation and affective commitment. However, this research is conducted in the specific culture and the organizational context of Pakistan. Therefore, future studies may conduct in the developed countries for the validation of the findings of the current study. The gener- alizability of the study in a different setting could be challenged because of the context and culture. Also, the attitude of employees in Pakistan is distinctive from developed countries such as North America and Europe. Second, in this study, the relationship between the study variables was examined relying on the cross-sectional study design. The causality among the study variables cannot be drawn from it. The only longitudinal study would propose this possibility. Therefore, the future study may attempt to test the causality among the study variables by longitudinal and experimental study designs. Third, in the present study, we have collected data of predictor, mediator and criterion vari- ables from the employees (single source) and at one point in time through self-administered survey questionnaires that may arise the issue of common method variance. Also, the associa- tion among variables can be inflated or deflated (Podsakoff et al., 2003). So, future studies may try to collect the data from the different source and also collected the data on the predictor, mediator, and a criterion on a different point in time with a temporal gap in order to address this issue (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Fourth, in this study sample, respondents are selected from different service sector of Lahore city (Pakistan). Thus, these results may not be representa- tive of other cities and sector of Pakistan. The future may attempt to generalize these findings to the other cities and different sectors. Sixth, in this study, the majority of respondents were male, which challenge the generalizability of findings for both genders. Therefore, future stud- ies try to examine this present model by employing the dominant female sample. Seventh, in this study data, have been collected from the participants through purposive sampling, future studies may use the probability sampling technique for the data collection. Lastly, we study the influence of employee prosocial motivation; the future study may try to investigate supervi- sor prosocial motivation in this study. Future studies may try to explore the mediating role of prosocial motivation between other contextual and personal factors. Conclusions The key objectives of this present research to inspect the direct influence of perception of organizational support and proactive personality on employees’ prosocial motivation; as well the direct impact of prosocial motivation on affective commitment. This study also exam- ined the indirect influence POS on the affective commitment by incorporating prosocial motivation as a mediator in the service sector, i.e. banking and educational sectors in the Lahore, Pakistan. By using Process Macros on an actual sample of 221 results confirmed that POS and proactive personality directly influence the prosocial motivation. Similarly, this result shows that prosocial motivation has a positive association with affective commit- ment. Furthermore, these results indicate that prosocial motivation intervenes between POS 198 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... and affective commitment, and proactive personality on affective commitment relationship. Besides, this research has provided several implications for the practitioners and managers. Organizations should focus on the prosocially motivated employees via POS and proactive personality in today’s competitive era because the prosocially motivated employees are a source of higher performance and productivity. Our study contributes to the literature of organizational behaviours by introducing new predictors such as perceived organizational support and proactive personality of prosocial motivation. References Abid, G., Contreras, F., Ahmed, S., & Qazi, T. (2019). Contextual factors and organizational commit- ment: Examining the mediating role of thriving at work. Sustainability, 11(17), 4686. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174686 Abid, G., Sajjad, I., Elahi, N. S., Farooqi, S., & Nisar, A. (2018). The influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement: The mediating role of thriving at work. Cogent-Business and Management, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 Akgunduz, Y., & Sanli,  S.  C. (2017). The effect of employee advocacy and perceived organizational support on job embeddedness and turnover intention in hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.12.002 Al-Abbadi, L.  H.  M. (2018). The impact of high performance human resources practices on in-role and innovative job performance: The mediation role of affective commitment.  Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 4(1). Alder,  G.  S., McAllister, D., & Chase, J. (2012). we get by with a little help from our friends: explor- ing the effects of perceived coworker support on employee burnout and job attitudes. Advances in Business Research, 3(1), 1–11. Allen,  N.  J., & Meyer,  J.  P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x Allen,  D.  G., Weeks,  K.  P., & Moffitt,  K.  R. (2005). Turnover intentions and voluntary turnover: The moderating roles of self-monitoring, locus of control, proactive personality, and risk aversion. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 980–990. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.980 Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organiza- tion: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 49(3), 252–276. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043 Alkhateri,  A.  S., Abuelhassan,  A.  E., Khalifa,  G.  S., Nusari, M., & Ameen, A. (2018). The Impact of perceived supervisor support on employee’s turnover intention: The Mediating role of job satisfac- tion and affective organizational commitment. International Business Management, 12(7), 477–492. Altura, T. G., Rao, A. N., & Virick, M. (2020). Proactive personality as a double-edged sword: The me- diating role of work–family conflict on employee outcomes. Journal of Career Development, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319899984 Andri, G. A., Adawiyah, W. R., & Purnomo, R. (2019). Psychological capital as a mediation, relationship between empowering leadership, transformational leadership behaviour, proactive personality to individual job performance.  Jurnal Benefita: Ekonomi Pembangunan, Manajemen Bisnis & Akun- tansi, 4(3), 492–506. https://doi.org/10.22216/jbe.v4i3.4445 Arshadi, N. (2011). The relationships of perceived organizational support (POS) with organizational commitment, in-role performance, and turnover intention: Mediating role of felt obligation.  Pro- cedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 30, 1103–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.215 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174686 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.12.002 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.980 https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043 https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319899984 https://doi.org/10.22216/jbe.v4i3.4445 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.215 Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 199 Asgari, A., Mezginejad, S., & Taherpour, F. (2020). The role of leadership styles in organizational citi- zenship behaviour through mediation of perceived organizational support and job satisfaction. In- novar, 30(75), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v30n75.83259 Babič, K., Černe, M., Škerlavaj, M., & Zhang, P. (2018). The Interplay among prosocial motivation, cultural tightness, and uncertainty avoidance in predicting knowledge hiding. Economic & Business Review, 20(3), 395–422. Baruch, Y., & Holtom,  B.  C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational re- search. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863 Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behaviour: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202 Batson,  C.  D., Ahmad, N., Powell,  A.  A., Stocks,  E.  L., Shah, J., & Gardner,  W.  L. (2008). Prosocial motivation. In Handbook of motivation science (pp. 135–149). Guilford Press. Becherer,  R.  C., & Maurer,  J.  G. (1999). The proactive personality disposition and entrepreneurial behaviour among small company presidents. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(1), 28–32. Bergeron, D. M., & Thompson, P. S. (2020). Speaking up at work: The role of perceived organizational support in explaining the relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and voice behaviour. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 0021886319900332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319900332 Bosch, M. J., Las Heras, M., Russo, M., Rofcanin, Y., & i Grau, M. G. (2018). How context matters: The relationship between family supportive supervisor behaviours and motivation to work moderated by gender inequality. Journal of Business Research, 82, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.026 Bolino,  M.  C., Turnley,  W.  H., & Bloodgood,  J.  M. (2002). Citizenship behaviour and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–522. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.7566023 Bouraoui, K., Bensemmane, S., Ohana, M., & Russo, M. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and employees’ affective commitment. Management Decision, 57(1), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2017-1015 Brass,  D.  J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve,  H.  R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organiza- tions: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795–817. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159624 Brown,  D.  J., Cober,  R.  T., Kane, K., Levy,  P.  E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search: a field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.717 Butt, T. H., Abid, G., Arya, B., & Farooqi, S. (2018). Employee energy and subjective well-being: a mod- erated mediation model. The Service Industries Journal, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1563072 Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., Demoulin, S., & De Wilde, M. (2017). Perceived organizational support and employees’ well-being: The mediating role of organizational dehumanization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1319817 Cai, Z., Huo, Y., Lan, J., Chen, Z., & Lam, W. (2019). When do frontline hospitality employees take charge? Prosocial motivation, taking charge, and job performance: The moderating role of job au- tonomy. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 60(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965518797081 Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., & Goodman, D. (2017). Affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A cross‐national comparative study. Public Administration, 95(1), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12306 https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v30n75.83259 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202 https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319900332 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.026 https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.7566023 https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2017-1015 https://doi.org/10.5465/20159624 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.717 https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1563072 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1319817 https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965518797081 https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12306 200 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... Crant,  J.  M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.532 Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304 Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proac- tive personality. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1<63::AID-JOB8>3.0.CO;2-J Cullen,  J.  B., Parboteeah,  K.  P., & Victor, B. (2003). The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment: A two-study analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025089819456 De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behaviour: Implications for job performance, prosocial behaviour, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 913–926. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014494 Dikkers, J. S., Jansen, P. G., de Lange, A. H., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Kooij, D. (2010). Proactivity, job char- acteristics, and engagement: a longitudinal study. Career Development International, 15(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011020899 Dirks,  K.  T., & Ferrin,  D.  L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611 Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1026–1040. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1026 Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discre- tionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812 Erum, H., Abid, G., Contreras, F., & Islam, T. (2020). Role of family motivation, workplace civility and self-efficacy in developing affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour.  Euro- pean Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 10(1), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe10010027 Fazio, J., Gong, B., Sims, R., & Yurova, Y. (2017). The role of affective commitment in the relationship between social support and turnover intention. Management Decision, 55(3), 512–525.  https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2016-0338 Gerstner,  C.  R., & Day,  D.  V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Cor- relates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827 Gigliotti, R., Vardaman, J., Marshall, D. R., & Gonzalez, K. (2019). The role of perceived organizational support in individual change readiness. Journal of Change Management, 19(2), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1459784 Glazer, S., & Kruse, B. (2008). The role of organizational commitment in occupational stress mod- els. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(4), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013135 Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Re- view, 25, 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623 Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159308 Grant, A. M. (2008a). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mecha- nisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.532 https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1%3C63::AID-JOB8%3E3.0.CO;2-J https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025089819456 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014494 https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011020899 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1026 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812 https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe10010027 https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2016-0338 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827 https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1459784 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013135 https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623 https://doi.org/10.2307/20159308 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108 Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 201 Grant,  A.  M. (2008b). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in pre- dicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48 Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002 Grant,  A.  M. & Berg,  J.  M. (2010). Prosocial motivation at work: When, why, and how making a difference makes a difference. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 28–44). Oxford University Press. Grant,  A.  M., & Berry,  J.  W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity.  Academy of Management Journal,  54(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.59215085 Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: prosocial and impression man- agement motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013770 Grant,  A.  M., & Sumanth,  J.  J. (2009). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially motivated employees depends on manager trustworthiness.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  94(4), 927–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014391 Hakkak, M., & Ghodsi, M. (2013). Investigating the relation between job satisfaction, perceived or- ganizational support and organizational commitment. International Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences, 2(6), 513–520. Haque, A., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2019). Responsible leadership, affective commitment and inten- tion to quit: an individual level analysis.  Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2017-0397 Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2018). Is more always better? An examination of the nonlinear effects of perceived organizational support on individual outcomes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1324394 Harrison-Walker,  L.  J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investi- gation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050141006 Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation mod- eling to examine contingent causal processes.  Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course,  2, 217–264. Hendryadi, Suratna, Suryani, & Purwanto, B. (2019). Bureaucratic culture, empowering leadership, affective commitment, and knowledge sharing behaviour in Indonesian government public servic- es. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1680099. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1680099 Hu,  L.  T., & Bentler,  P.  M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.  Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Hua, J., Zheng, L., Zhang, G., & Fan, J. (2019). Proactive personality and cross-cultural adjustment: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 72, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.06.003 Jang, J., & Kandampully, J. (2018). Reducing employee turnover intention through servant leadership in the restaurant context: A mediation study of affective organizational commitment. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 19(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1305310 Jiang, Z. (2017). Proactive personality and career adaptability: The role of thriving at work. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 98, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.59215085 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013770 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014391 https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2017-0397 https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1324394 https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050141006 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1680099 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.06.003 https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1305310 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.10.003 202 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... Jiang, L., & Johnson, M. J. (2018). Meaningful work and affective commitment: A moderated mediation model of positive work reflection and work centrality.  Journal of Business and Psychology,  33(4), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9509-6 Joo,  B.  K., & Ready,  K.  J. (2012). Career satisfaction: The influences of proactive personality, perfor- mance goal orientation, organizational learning culture, and leader-member exchange quality. Ca- reer Development International, 17(3), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241090 Kibler, E., Wincent, J., Kautonen, T., Cacciotti, G., & Obschonka, M. (2018). Can prosocial motivation harm entrepreneurs’ subjective well-being? Journal of Business Venturing, 34(4), 608–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.10.003 Kim, T., Hon, A. H. Y., & Crant, J. M. (2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9094-4 Kim, M., & Beehr,  T.  A. (2019). Empowering leadership: leading people to be present through affec- tive organizational commitment? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1424017 Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/256874 Ko, S., & Choi, Y. (2020). The effects of compassion experienced by SME employees on affective commitment: Double-mediation of authenticity and positive emotion.  Management Science Let- ters, 10(6), 1351–1358. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.11.022 Koçak, D. (2020). The relationship between political behaviour perception and prosocial motivation- Mediating role of organizational trust.  Business & Management Studies: An International Jour- nal, 8(1), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i1.1393 Kooij,  D.  T., & Boon, C. (2018). Perceptions of HR practices, person–organisation fit, and affective commitment: The moderating role of career stage.  Human Resource Management Journal,  28(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12164 Korsgaard,  M.  A., Meglino,  B.  M., & Lester,  S.  W. (1997). Beyond helping: Do other-oriented values have broader implications in organizations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.160 Kuo,  C.  C., Ye,  Y.  C., Chen,  M.  Y., & Chen,  L.  H. (2019). Proactive personality enhances change in employees’ job satisfaction: The moderating role of psychological safety. Australian Journal of Man- agement, 44(3), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896218818225 Kurtessis,  J.  N., Eisenberger, R., Ford,  M.  T., Buffardi,  L.  C., Stewart,  K.  A., & Adis,  C.  S. (2015). Per- ceived organizational support: A Meta analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854–1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554 Lee, S. H., Lee, T. W., & Lum, C. F. (2008). The effects of employee services on organizational commitment and intentions to quit. Personnel Review, 37(2), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480810850551 Lee, Y. H., Woo, B., & Kim, Y. (2018). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship be- haviour: Mediating role of affective commitment. International Journal of Sports Science & Coach- ing, 13(3), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117725286 Li, T. A. O., & Huan, G. U. O. (2019). The Relationship between perceived organizational support and individual innovative behaviour: The mediate effect of ideal commitment. In DEStech Transactions on Economics, Business and Management. Lv, A., Lv, R., Xu, H., Ning, Y., & Ning, Y. (2018). Team autonomy amplifies the positive effects of proactive personality on work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Jour- nal, 46(7), 1071–1082. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6830 Major,  D.  A., Turner,  J.  E., & Fletcher,  T.  D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the big five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 927–935. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.927 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9509-6 https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241090 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9094-4 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1424017 https://doi.org/10.2307/256874 https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.11.022 https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i1.1393 https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12164 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.160 https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896218818225 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554 https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480810850551 https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117725286 https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6830 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.927 Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 203 Malatesta, R. M. & Tetrick, L. E., (1996). Understanding the dynamics of organizational and supervisory commitment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organiza- tional Society, San Diego, CA. Marcus, B., Lee, K., & Ashton, M.  C.  2007. Personality dimensions explaining relationships between integrity tests and counterproductive behaviour: Big five, or one in addition? Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00063.x Marques, J. M. R., La Falce, J. L., Marques, F. M. F. R., De Muylder, C. F., & Silva, J. T. M. (2019). The re- lationship between organizational commitment, knowledge transfer and knowledge management ma- turity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(3), 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2018-0199 Meglino,  B.  M., & Ravlin,  E.  C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400304 Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, A. (2004). Considering rational self-interest as a disposition: Organiza- tional implications of other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 946–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.946 Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Sage. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00053-X Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and norma- tive commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842 Miao,  R.  T. (2011). Perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, task performance and organi- zational citizenship behaviour in China.  Journal of Behavioural and Applied Management,  12(2), 105–127. Miao, R., & Kim,  H.  G. (2010). Perceived organizational support, job satisfaction and employee per- formance: An Chinese empirical study. Journal of Service Science and Management, 3(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2010.32032 Mohamed, A., & Ali, M. (2015). The influence of perceived organizational support on employees’ job performance. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(4), 1–6. Mowday,  R.  T., & Sutton,  R.  I. (1993). Organizational behaviour: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195–229. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.001211 Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1 Murthy, R. K. (2017). Perceived organizational support and work engagement. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(5), 738–740. Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017). How servant leadership influences organi- zational citizenship behaviour: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6 Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Age and innovation‐related behaviour: The joint moderating effects of supervisor undermining and proactive personality.  Journal of Organizational Behaviour,  34(5), 583–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1802 Nelissen,  P.  T., Hülsheger,  U.  R., van Ruitenbeek,  G.  M., & Zijlstra,  F.  R. (2016). Lending a helping hand at work: A multilevel investigation of prosocial motivation, inclusive climate and inclusive behaviour. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 27(3), 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9680-z https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00063.x https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2018-0199 https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400304 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.946 https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00053-X https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842 https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2010.32032 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.001211 https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1802 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9680-z 204 I. Ullah et al. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality... Ong, J. F. B., Tan, J. M. T., Villareal, R. F. C., & Chiu, J. L. (2019). Impact of quality work life and pro- social motivation on the organizational commitment and turnover intent of public health practi- tioners. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 8, 24–43. Otaye-Ebede, L., Shaffakat, S., & Foster, S. (2019). A multilevel model examining the relationships between workplace spirituality, ethical climate and outcomes: A Social Cognitive Theory Perspec- tive. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04133-8 Oxford English Dictionary Online. (2009). Retrieved February 20, 2010, from library.upenn.edu Oyinlade,  A.  O. (2018). Relations of job structure to affective organizational commitment.  Journal of Human Resources Management and Labor Studies, 6(1), 13–32. Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other orga- nizational interventions. Journal of applied psychology, 83(6), 835–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835 Parker,  S.  K., & Sprigg,  C.  A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: the role of job de- mands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 925–939. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.925 Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motiva- tion. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732 Perlow,  L.  A., Gittell,  J.  H., & Katz, N. (2004).Contextualization patterns of work group interaction: toward a nested theory of structuration. Organization Science, 15, 520–536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0097 Podsakoff,  P.  M., MacKenzie,  S.  B., Lee,  J.  Y., & Podsakoff,  N.  P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698 Rioux,  S.  M., & Penner,  L.  A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306–1314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1306 Roberts, Z., Rogers, A., Thomas, C. L., & Spitzmueller, C. (2018). Effects of proactive personality and conscientiousness on training motivation. International Journal of Training and Development, 22(2), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12122 Rockstuhl, T., Eisenberger, R., Shore,  L.  M., Kurtessis,  J.  N., Ford,  M.  T., Buffardi,  L.  C., & Mes- daghinia, S. (2020). Perceived organizational support (POS) across 54 nations: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of POS effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00311-3 Rodrigues, N., & Rebelo, T. (2019). Predicting innovative performance through proactive personality: Examining its criterion validity and incremental validity over the five‐factor model.  International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12232 Rofcanin, Y., de Jong, J. P., Las Heras, M., & Kim, S. (2018). The moderating role of prosocial motivation on the association between family-supportive supervisor behaviours and employee outcomes. Jour- nal of Vocational Behaviour, 107, 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.04.001 Sayğan,  F.  N. (2011). Relationship between affective commitment and organizational silence: A con- ceptual discussion. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 3(2), 219–227. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416 Shao, B., Cardona, P., Ng, I., & Trau, R. N. (2017). Are prosocially motivated employees more commit- ted to their organization? The roles of supervisors’ prosocial motivation and perceived corporate social responsibility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(4), 951–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9512-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04133-8 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.925 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0097 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1306 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12122 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00311-3 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12232 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.04.001 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9512-5 Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(2): 183–205 205 Shao, D., Zhou, E., Gao, P., Long, L., & Xiong, J. (2019). Double-edged effects of socially responsible human resource management on employee task performance and organizational citizenship behav- iour: Mediating by role ambiguity and moderating by prosocial motivation.  Sustainability,  11(8), 2271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082271 Sharma, J., & Dhar, R. L. (2016). Factors influencing job performance of nursing staff: mediating role of affective commitment. Personnel Review, 45(1), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2014-0007 Škerlavaj, M., Connelly,  C.  E., Cerne, M., & Dysvik, A. (2018). Tell me if you can: time pressure, prosocial motivation, perspective taking, and knowledge hiding.  Journal of Knowledge Manage- ment, 22(7), 1489–1509. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2017-0179 ST-Hilaire,  W.  A., & de la Robertie, C. (2018). Correlates of affective commitment in organizational performance: Multi-level perspectives. Australian Journal of Career Development, 27(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416217744215 Sparrowe,  R.  T., Liden,  R.  C., Wayne,  S.  J., & Kraimer,  M.  L. (2001). Social networks and the perfor- mance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069458 Tisu, L., Lupșa, D., Vîrgă, D., & Rusu, A. (2020). Personality characteristics, job performance and mental health the mediating role of work engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 109644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109644 Voet, J., Steijn, B., & Kuipers, B. S. (2017). What’s in it for others? The relationship between prosocial motivation and commitment to change among youth care professionals.  Public Management Re- view, 19(4), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1183699 Wang, S., Li, Y., & Tu, Y. (2019). Linking proactive personality to life satisfaction in the chinese context: The mediation of interpersonal trust and moderation of positive reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Hap- piness Studies, 20(8), 2471–2488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0056-2 Wijaya, N.  H.  S. (2018). Proactive personality, LMX, and voice behaviour: Employee–supervisor sex (Dis) similarity as a Moderator. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318918804890 Yang, J., Gong, Y., & Huo, Y. (2011). Proactive personality, social capital, helping, and turnover inten- tions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(8), 739–760. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111181806 Zhang, L., Lu, H., & Li, F. (2018).  Proactive personality and mental health: The role of job crafting. PsyCh Journal, 7(3), 154–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.214 Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. Q. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0865 Zhu, Y., & Akhtar, S. (2014). How transformational leadership influences follower helping behaviour: The role of trust and prosocial motivation.  Journal of Organizational Behaviour,  35(3), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1884 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082271 https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2014-0007 https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2017-0179 https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416217744215 https://doi.org/10.2307/3069458 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109644 https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1183699 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0056-2 https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318918804890 https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111181806 https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.214 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0865 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1884