e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Impact Factor- 5.354
www.irjmets.com
HOW JOB STRESSORS AFFECT PROJECT ORIENTED OCB: AN EGO
DEPLETION PERSPECTIVE
Farrukh Aziz*1, Farough Ali Shah*2, Hassan Mujtaba Shah*3
*1,2Riphah
School of Business and Management, Riphah International University, Township
Lahore, Pakistan.
*3Department
of Civil Engineering, Muhammad Nawaz Shareef UET Multan.
ABSTRACT
The influence of work stressors on projects based on OCBs, with the role of medium of ego depletion and
the role of self-effectiveness, was investigated. This study. Most study assumes that career stressors
suppress the project-oriented actions of workers as corporate people. Yet studies on work stressors and
PCBs (including management of relationships) does not have similar consequences on all forms of
stressors. Our research is aimed at creating a new research paradigm on the various effects of particular
types of challenge stressors and impediments on PCBs. Based on the principle of ego depletion, the
interaction between PCB and stressors is influenced by the shift in ego depletion of employees. We have
tested the moderating self-efficacy effect on the correlation between stressors and ego depletion. We
analyzed the linkages based on data obtained from 217 employees in Pakistan. As hypothesized, the
connection between stressors and the project-oriented organizational citizen activity was mediated by
ego depletion. Also the positive correlation between disability stress and resulting self-impairment
strengthens self-efficacy. For study and practice, we explore consequences. Centered on 2217 answers
from the Pakistani building industry. SPSS was used to assess Cronbach alpha and association informative
analysis. Hayes Mechanism macro has been tested for mediation and moderation analysis. The thesis has
consequences for practitioners working in the building industry in Pakistan, both technically and
realistically. & Growth gives further insights into the degree of dedication to and leadership of workers to
train them for new future and innovations which will transform.
Keywords: Self-Efficacy, Project Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Ego Depletion, Time
Pressure, Role Conflict.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Both supervisors and staff face multiple challenges such as job stressors in their everyday work routine.
Organizations doesn’t understand the experiences of the workers that they encounter from their everyday
jobs. Managers don't help them understand and deal with stressors in the workplace in view of the
multiple consequences of pressure and stressors. Job stressors decrease Project Oriented OCB which can
decrease employee performance and can increase employee turnover. It can cause a lot of negative
results that can effect organizations. Chiaburu et al. (2008) suggested overloading tasks and time pressure
the voice activity is negatively linked. Ng and Feldman (2012) in a Meta-Analysis has found a negative link
between different jobs stressors, and actions of voices. The ego-depletion state of employees is
significantly linked to Project Oriented OCB, but employees do not pay attention to their own regulatory
assets and do not attempt to recognize resources or activities that could help avoid depletion. The same is
true for companies and supervisors: They do not help workers control their regulatory tools (Trougakos
et al., 2015). This work will improve understanding of how the stressor-related dynamic cycle influences
Project Oriented OCB through improvement in ego-depletion mediation. Work will provide managers
advice on subordinate, employees, colleagues relationships. Previous research’s consistently support the
view that stressors to employment are the voice activity is negatively linked. Li et al. (2020) found that
organizational policy perceived as being a kind of work stressor, decrease the voice behavior of the
employees. This Research shows that challenge stressors like time pressure and role overload are
negatively linked with Project Oriented OCB. If time pressure and role overload will increase Project
Oriented OCB will decrease. Ng and Feldman (2012) in a Meta-Analysis has found a negative link between
www.irjmets.com
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[896]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Impact Factor- 5.354
www.irjmets.com
different jobs stressors, and actions of voices. All forms of stressors are not its negative effect on the
conduct of organizational citizenship. Whereas obstacle stressors are not negatively associated with OCB,
that stressors are related positively to OCB (Rodell & Judge, 2009; Wallace et al., 2009). These stressors,
by comparison, cause workers to spend extra time and time to overcome challenges to completion of tasks
(Grebner et al., 2010).
II.
LITERATURE REVIEW & HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Challenge stressors (Time pressure & Role overload) and ego depletion:
People have a minimal amount according to the ego depletion principle assets self-regulating (Baumeister
et al., 1998). It takes self-control, If people behave against their interests (Muraven et al., 1998; Quinn et
al., 2012), and this, thus, weakens its capital. Staff ought to maintain self- control in the workplace and
thus, use self-regulatory energy when addressing jobs requirements that prevent them from achieving
goals. It means employees find extra duties more difficult to complete that needs supervision of oneself
(Baumeister et al., 2000; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000).
Here, the differentiation between stressors. Is especially important. Challenge stressors can help
employees pursuit of goals and achievements (Grebner et al., 2010). Accordingly, Stressors can be less
disruptive to workers than hindrance stressors. Coping with stressors increases self- development and
professional growth (LePine et al., 2005). Though demanding stressors absorb time and energy, and these
promoters raise stress The intrinsic motivation of the workers when they help them achieve their goals,
improve career development and satisfy autonomy and Skills required.
Hypothesis 1: Time pressure is negatively related to employee ego depletion.
Hindrance stressors (Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity) and ego depletion:
These stressors, by comparison, cause workers to spend extra time and time to overcome challenges to
completion of tasks (Grebner et al., 2010). According to the theory of ego depletion self-control involves
overriding or inhibit autonomous or conditioned thoughts, impulses or otherwise tendencies otherwise
impeding the attainment of the target (Baumeister et al., 1994). These Stressors Goal achievement of the
employees as they reduce intrinsic motivation, Performance and behavior regarding organizational
citizenship (LePine et al., 2005; Wallace et al., 2009), beneficial for workers. This means workers have to
use obstacles to conquer stressors, more money on self-control and self-regulation than they should under
circumstances natural.
Hypothesis 2: Role Conflict is positively related to ego depletion.
Relationship between stressors, ego depletion, and OCB
Stressors promote meaningful behavior as a challenge and may be a positive relationship as possible
means of achieving positive change Between certain stressors and the behavior of the speech. In
comparison, hindrance stressors are detrimental factors in the achievement of goals and are Needed to
overcome them in order to achieve the goal that leaves little place to participate in other prosocial
practices. There is a positive linkage between challenge stressors and performance (e.g., voice behavior)
and a negative linkage between hindrance stressors and performance (e.g., voice behavior) (Zhang et al.,
2014).
Webster et al. (2010) results explains a positive interaction between the stressors and extra-role
challenges Organizational performance (Organizational Citizenship behaviors To organization; OCB-O),
the voice of which is known to be Part. The relationship between OCB-O and obstacle stressors has been
Possibly negative. Rodell and Judge (2009) also tested the connection between the two Challenge /
Obstruction & OCB.
To summarize, these findings indicate an increase in stressors speech while stressors hindrance minimize
it. Meanwhile, we are arguing that ego-depletion mediates the stressors relationship and subsequent
actions in speech.
Hypothesis 3a: Ego depletion mediates the positive relationship between Time pressure and Project
www.irjmets.com
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[897]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Impact Factor- 5.354
www.irjmets.com
Oriented OCB.
Hypothesis 3b: Ego depletion mediates the negative relationship between Role Conflict and Project
Oriented OCB.
The moderating effect of Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to people's judgments of their own capabilities to organize and carry out actions and
behaviors required to attain a certain performance (Bandura, 1986). The basic idea is that one's personal
dispositions affect one's behavior by activating self-regulatory processes such as self- efficacy (Lent et al.,
1994). to emotional self-efficacy may positively impact performance (Qualter et al., 2015). Performance
seems to depend directly on one's actual ability to deal with an emotional situation. Self-efficacy is a kind of
personality factor in the social cognitive theory of Bandura Bandura (1977), affecting behavior, effort, and
time spent dealing with environmental stress.
(Mahdizadeh et al., 2016). Significantly, there have been negative associations between job tension and
Independence (Mahdizadeh et al., 2016).
Hypothesis 4a: Self-efficacy moderates the relationship between Time pressure and ego depletion, such
that the negative relationship is stronger when employees perceive higher Self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 4b: Self-efficacy moderates the relationship between Role conflict and ego depletion, such
that the positive relationship is weaker when employees perceive higher Self-efficacy.
Figure 1: Hypothesized Model
III.
METHODOLOGY
Sample & Method
The target population for this study is the construction industry of Pakistan. In this study Time Pressure &
Role Conflict is discussed with the effect of Ego-Depletion and Self-Efficacy and examined the effect on
project oriented OCB. This research has targeted construction industry of Pakistan in this study. This
research is using the dyadic method (colleagues rate) to control the nesting issue. convenience sampling
was used for this research. Minimum sample size was calculated by thumb rule (VanVoorhis & Morgan,
2007). Thumb rule stated that sample size for this research data set should be (5 variable x 30 = 150). The
purpose of this rule is to ensure enough data is collected to achieve an acceptable level of statistical power.
In total 300 questionnaires were circulated surveys in order to account for non-response. and got back
total of 217 questionnaires determining 72.33% response rate.
Measures
Time pressure is independent scale in this research. At Time, research measured time pressure using four
items from the scale developed by (Matteson and Ivancevich 1987). Participants used a 7-point Likert
www.irjmets.com
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[898]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Impact Factor- 5.354
www.irjmets.com
scale (from 1 not at all to 7 very much) to respond to these items. Sample item is “I have to rush in order
to complete my job”. We used some demographic variables in our questionnaire survey. Ego depletion is
mediator scale in this research. At Time, research measured depletion using five items from the scale
developed by (Twenge, Muraven et al. 2004). Participants used a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 not at all to 5
very much) to respond to these items. Lanaj, Johnson et al. (2014) and Johnson, Lanaj et al. (2014)
provide proof of the validity of this 5-item test. Sample item is “I feel like my willpower is gone.” SelfEfficacy is moderator scale in this research. At Time, research measured self-efficacy using 8-items from
the scale originally used by (Chen, Gully et al. 2001). Participants used a 5-point Likert scale (from 1strongly disagree to 5- strongly agree) to respond to these items. Sample item is “Even when things are
tough, I can perform quite well.” Project Oriented OCB is dependent scale in this research. At Time,
research measured Project Oriented OCB using one types of PCBs, namely relationship maintenance using
the scale originally used by (Braun, Ferreira et al. 2013, Xia, Zhong et al. 2018). Sample items is
“Occasionally, I catch up with former external project workers” for relationship maintenance. Participants
used a 5-point Likert scale (from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree) to respond to these items. Role
conflict is independent scale in this research. At Time, research measured role conflict using 15-items from
the scale originally used by (Rizzo, House et al. 1970). Participants used a 5-point Likert scale (from 1strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree) to respond to these items. Sample item is “I work on unnecessary
things.” Gender, age & year of experience are control variables.
Survey data coded and input into SPSS. Subsequently, the data screened to address missing data, outliers,
and responses with very low standard deviation.
Hypothesis testing conducted through regression analyses using SPSS and Hayes’ PROCESS macro.
Reliability of Measurement
Table-1: Reliability Statistics of Measurement Scales
Variables
Items
Cronbach’s Alpha α
TP
4
0.754
RC
15
0.750
ED
5
0.734
S-E
8
0.776
PCB
4
0.706
Descriptive Statistics for the Variables
Descriptive statistics showing the range of collected data. It manifests how the data was responded.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for the Study variables
Variables
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
TP
1.00
6.50
3.4147
1.45881
RC
1.00
4.07
2.9733
0.50986
ED
1.00
5.20
3.3115
0.7876
S-E
1.00
5.00
2.9182
0.80242
PCB
1.00
5.00
2.9389
0.82286
www.irjmets.com
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[899]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Impact Factor- 5.354
IV.
www.irjmets.com
RESULTS
To show and elaborate the coefficients of correlation of variables we use correlation matrix table. Each cell
in the table shows the correlation between two variables. The correlation among RC & TP is .370 also are
positive & significant. The correlation among ED and TP, ED & RC is .228 and .515 respectively also are
positive & significant. The correlation among SE & TP, SE & RC, SE & ED is .242, .435 & .625 respectively
also are positive & significant. The correlation among PCB & TP, PCB & RC, PCB & ED, PCB & SE is .193,
.147, -.049 & -.015 respectively also are positive & significant but negative in case of DV & mediator, DV &
moderator. We can see the relationship between IV and DV variables is positively highly significant.
Moreover, moderating and mediating variables also have positive and significant connection with IV and
with DV it is negative. So we can easily say that the correlation matrix also endorsed the relationship
among variables.
Table-3: Bi-Variate Pearson Correlation
Variables
TP
RC
ED
SE
PCB
TP
1
RC
.370**
1
ED
.228**
.515**
1
S-E
.242**
.435**
.625**
1
PCB
.193**
.147*
-.049
-.015
1
Cronbach’s α in parentheses
All correlations statistically significant at p < 0.05
Regression Analysis Tables
TP – ED & RC - ED - 1 & 2 Hypothesis
Table 4: Analysis of TP, ED, RC, SE & PCB
Direct Paths
Coefficient
SE
T
P
TP → ED
0.228
.036
3.433
0.001
RC → ED
.515
.090
8.814
0.000
ED → PCB
-.049
0.071
-.725
.469
Independent Variable: TP=Time Pressure Independent Variable: RC= Role Conflict Mediator Variable:
ED= Ego Depletion Dependent Variable: PCB=Project Oriented OCB
TP, PCB and ED Mediation - 3a Hypothesis
Table 5: TP, PCB & ED mediator
Total effect of Time Pressure on Project Oriented OCB
Effect
SE
T
P
LLCI
ULCI
.1086
.0377
2.8776
.0044
.0342
.1830
LLCI
ULCI
Direct effect of Time Pressure on Project Oriented OCB
Effect
SE
www.irjmets.com
T
P
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[900]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
.1213
.0387
Impact Factor- 5.354
3.1359
.0020
www.irjmets.com
.0450
.1975
Indirect effect of Time Pressure on Project Oriented OCB Through Ego Depletion
Effect
Boot SE
Boot LLCI
Boot ULCI
-.0127
.0115
-.0406
.0050
TP=Time Pressure; ED= Ego Depletion; PCB=Project Oriented OCB
RC, PCB & ED Mediation - 3b Hypothesis
Table 6: RC, PCB & ED mediator
Total effect of Role Conflict on Project Oriented OCB
Effect
SE
T
P
LLCI
ULCI
.2380
.1089
2.1860
.0299
.0234
.4525
Direct effect of Role Conflict on Project Oriented OCB
Effect
SE
T
P
LLCI
ULCI
.3799
.1259
3.0168
.0029
.1317
.6280
Indirect effect of Role Conflict on Project Oriented OCB Through Ego Depletion
Effect
Boot SE
Boot LLCI
Boot ULCI
-.1419
.0691
-.2852
-.0130
RC= Role Conflict; ED= Ego Depletion; PCB=Project Oriented OCB
TP, ED & SE Moderator - 4a Hypothesis
Table-7: TP, ED & SE Moderator
R2-Change
F
P
.0120
4.3348
.0385
Interaction Term
Coefficient
SE
T
P
TP
ED
.2502
.1033
2.4230
.0162
SE
ED
.8356
.1271
6.5749
.0000
TP x SE ED
-.0741
.0356
-2.0820
.0385
Moderation
Model
RC, ED & SE Moderator - 4b Hypothesis
Table-8: RC, ED & SE Moderator
R2-Change
www.irjmets.com
F
P
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[901]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Moderation
Impact Factor- 5.354
www.irjmets.com
.0092
3.7207
.0551
Interaction Term
Coefficient
SE
T
P
RC
ED
.7541
.1731
4.3561
.0000
SE
ED
.8708
.2065
4. 2174
.0000
RC x SE ED
-.1305
.0676
-1.9289
.0551
Model
The results of the regression analysis indicated that Time Pressure was found to be positive and
significant predictor of Ego Depletion. Accordingly, H1 is not supported. Role Conflict was found to be
positive and significant predictor of Ego Depletion. Accordingly, H2 is supported. The results firstly show
that effect of Time Pressure on Project Oriented OCB is significant. Second, direct effect of Time Pressure
on Project Oriented OCB significant. Furthermore, the indirect effect of Time Pressure on Project Oriented
OCB through Ego Depletion is not significant. Therefore, the mediation result indicates that Ego Depletion
is not mediating Time Pressure and Project Oriented OCB. Accordingly, H3a is not supported. The results
firstly show that effect of Role Conflict on project oriented OCB is significant. Second, direct effect of Role
Conflict on Project Oriented OCB is significant. Furthermore, the indirect effect of Role Conflict on Project
Oriented OCB through Ego Depletion is also significant and giving negative mediation. Therefore, the
mediation result indicates that Ego Depletion is mediating Role Conflict and Project Oriented OCB.
Accordingly, H3b is supported. Moderating role of Self-Efficacy was calculated by bootstrapping method
using 95% confidence interval. The results indicate that interaction term is significantly effecting
dependent variable (R2-Change = 0.0120, F = 4.3348, p<0.05). Also moderation effect was significant (b =
-.0741, t = -2.0820, p < 0.05). Therefore, the result indicates that Self-Efficacy moderates effect of Time
Pressure and Ego Depletion.
ED
4.
5
3.
5
LOW
2.
5
1.
5
SE
High
SE
0.
5
Low
High
TP
TP
Fig 2: Slope between Self-Efficacy, Time Pressure and ED
The slope between Time Pressure and ED with moderation effect of Self-Efficacy indicates that low Time
Pressure and low Self-Efficacy gave some value of ED which is increased with the increase in Time
Pressure. That means Time Pressure is positively increased ED with low Self- Efficacy.
Under conditions of high Self-Efficacy, the slope of the graph showing the relationship between Time
Pressure and ED becomes less steep (i.e. the relationship is weakened). Slope between low time Pressure
and high Self-Efficacy indicates that low Time Pressure and high Self-Efficacy gave certain value of ED
which decreased by increase of Time Pressure and increase in Self-Efficacy. This means that increase in
Time Pressure and Self-Efficacy decreases ED but this slope is above slope of low Self-Efficacy. This
www.irjmets.com
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[902]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Impact Factor- 5.354
www.irjmets.com
indicates that increase in Self-Efficacy increased ED but weaken relationship between Time Pressure and
ED. That’s why slop between high Self-Efficacy is less steep than low Self-Efficacy but in both cases ED is
decreasing. Therefore, moderating results indicate that Self-Efficacy moderates Time Pressure and ED.
Negatively relationship is stronger in case of high Self-Efficacy. Accordingly, H4a is supported.
Moderating role of Self-Efficacy was calculated by bootstrapping method using 95% confidence interval.
The results indicate that interaction term is significantly effecting dependent variable (R2-Change =
0.0120, F = 4.3348, p<0.05). Also moderation effect was significant (b = -.0741, t = -2.0820, p < 0.05).
Therefore, the result indicates that Self-Efficacy moderates effect of Role Conflict and Ego Depletion.
4.
5
3.
5
LOW
SE
2.
5
High SE
0.
5
Low
High
RC
RC
Fig 3: Slope between Self-Efficacy, Role Conflict and ED
The slope between Role Conflict and ED with moderation effect of Self-Efficacy indicates that low Role
Conflict and low Self-Efficacy gave some value of ED which is increased with the increase in Role Conflict.
That means Role Conflict is positively increased ED with low Self- Efficacy.
Under conditions of high Self-Efficacy, the slope of the graph showing the relationship between Role
Conflict and ED becomes less steep (i.e. the relationship is weakened). Slope between low Role Conflict
and high Self-Efficacy indicates that low Role Conflict and high Self-Efficacy gave certain value of ED which
increased by increase of Role Conflict and increase in Self-Efficacy. This means that increase in Role
Conflict and Self-Efficacy also increases ED but this slope is above slope of low Self-Efficacy. This
indicates that increase in Self-Efficacy increased ED but weaken relationship between Role Conflict and
ED. That’s why slop between high Self-Efficacy is less steep than low Self-Efficacy but in both cases ED is
decreasing. Therefore, moderating results indicate that Self-Efficacy moderates Role Conflict and ED but
Self-Efficacy is weakened the effect of Role Conflict and ED. It means positive relationship will be weaker
in case of high self-efficacy. Accordingly, H4b is supported.
V.
CONCLUSION
The present research was designed to investigate the relationship of time pressure and position conflict
between project-oriented OCBs. The loss of ego was acting as mediator and the self- efficacy was acting as
moderator. The result supported that depletion of ego mediates conflict of position and OCB focused
project. Self-efficacy balances the impact of time pressure, competing position and OCB focused project.
The study highlights that if time pressure was applied, role conflict had a major impact directly on ego
depletion with moderating effect of self-efficacy. The combined impact of time pressure, competing
function and self-efficacy may also boost ego depletion. Ego depletion also linked positively and
significantly to time pressure, contradictory position and OCB-oriented project.
Research also shows how important it is for businesses to consider employees' perspectives on their daily
work experiences. Managers need to be proactive in allocating job demands to employees and helping
them understand and cope with work stressors, considering the different consequences of challenges and
www.irjmets.com
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[903]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Impact Factor- 5.354
www.irjmets.com
obstacles.
Theoretical Contributions
The model presented in this study will broaden the concept about job stressors and their linkage with
OCB. Past studies used broad categories; challenge and hindrance stressors in line with the theoretical
differentiation Cavanaugh et al. (2000), challenge and hindrance stressors are broad in scope. The
problem with measuring broad categories of challenge and hindrance stressors is that this mainly
captures the appraisal or the nature of stressors (González-Morales & Neves, 2015; Zhang et al., 2014).
This research is using specific sub-categories of job stressors in the research to strengthen the findings.
Past studies did not investigate other organizational citizenship behaviors that can be influenced by job
stressors. This research is taking Project Oriented OCB as a DV in the research rather than performance
(Voice Behavior) which has not addressed before. This research establishes a more comprehensive model
to strengthen the ego depletion explanation. This research is considering self-efficacy as a moderator
rather than LMX to strengthen the findings which past studies has not addressed before. Different selfregulatory strategies substantially influence behavior regulation (Higgins & Spiegel, 2004). This research
is using relationships in Pakistan Culture which has not addressed before. This research is using the
colleagues rated method (by asking questions from colleagues). Past studies has not addressed before.
Practical Implications
This research will provide implications for managers and employees alike. First, it will emphasize the
importance of understanding day-to-day work conditions such as career stressors. Previous studies
focused on the benefits of voice behavior and organizational factors that could influence that behavior
(Detert & Burris, 2007; Li & Sun, 2015; McClean et al., 2013). However, research will illustrate how critical
it is for companies to understand the views of workers on their everyday work experiences. Managers
need to be vigilant in allocating job demands to workers and helping them recognize and cope with work
stressors in view of the various effects of difficulties and hindrances.
This research will provide evidence that the ego-depletion condition of employees is significantly
correlated with Project Oriented OCB. Work should encourage workers to pay attention to their own
regulatory assets and attempt to recognize resources or habits that help prevent depletion. The same
applies to organizations, supervisors and others. They should help employees manage their regulatory
resources, for example by developing training courses on cognitive and emotional regulation (Trougakos
et al., 2015), or by establishing a security climate within the organization.
Finally, this study will give guidance to managers regarding subordinate relationships. Hindrance
stressors are likely to discourage Project Oriented OCB by employees who have a good relationship with
their leader. One reason for this research is that workers often feel more vulnerable to external stressors
have positive relationships with their leaders. And managers will need to carefully consider how
stressors are viewed by these employees.
Limitations and Future Research
There were many drawbacks during this study and collecting of data purposes. This study was based
entirely on Pakistan Construction industry. This research is based entirely on convenience sampling
technique so the data collected for this research was very general and cannot be generalized to a
particular community in Pakistan. This is based on the construction industry which is a very large group of
people so that this research cannot be specifically applied to a few people.
Future studies could examine our assumptions by extending the survey to longer cycles (e.g. weekly,
monthly), testing for longer-term changes. Experimental designs to ensure causality and more rigorously
capture ego-depletion should be implemented (Baumeister et al., 1998).
Future research should test other particular subcategories to validate and confirm our results, such as
position overload and position ambiguities.
We have not studied other patterns of organizational citizenship that can be affected by work stressors.
We studied only one dimension of the behaviors of organizational citizenship oriented to the project.
www.irjmets.com
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[904]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Impact Factor- 5.354
www.irjmets.com
Researchers may examine other behaviors of organization citizenship and other aspects of projectoriented behaviors of organizational citizenship that could be affected by work stressors. Future studies
require a more detailed model to support the reason for the ego depletion. Furthermore, other dependent
variables may be considered, in addition to the moderating impact of self-efficacy explored in this
analysis. Various self-regulatory techniques, for example, greatly affect behavioral control (Higgins &
Spiegel, 2004).
VI.
REFERENCES
[1]
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time
pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963.
[2]
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191.
[3]
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social
and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
[4]
Baumeister, R. E., Bratslavsky, E., & Muraven, M. Tice (1998). Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a
Limited Resource. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(5), 1252.
[5]
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self
a limited resource? Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(5), 1252.
[6]
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail
at self. Regulation, 11.
[7]
Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: A resource model of volition,
self-regulation, and controlled processing. Social cognition, 18(2), 130-150.
[8]
Boerner, S., Dütschke, E., & Schwämmle, A. (2005). Doing voluntary extra work? Organizational
citizenship behavior in the hospital--a comparison between physicians and nurses.
Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)),
67(11), 770-776.
[9]
Cavanagh, J., Owens, D., & Johnstone, E. (1999). Life events in suicide and undetermined death in
south-east Scotland: a case-control study using the method of psychological autopsy. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 34(12), 645-650.
[10]
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical
examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(1), 65.
[11]
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
[12]
Organizational research methods, 4(1), 62-83.
[13]
Chiaburu, D. S., Marinova, S. V., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). SHOULD I DO IT OR NOT? AN INITIAL
MODEL OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES PREDICTING VOICE BEHAVIORS.
[14]
Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
[15]
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individualdifferences model and its applications: University of Minnesota press.
[16]
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really
open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.
[17]
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1998). Person-environment fit theory. Theories of
organizational stress, 28, 67.
[18]
Elfering, A., Grebner, S., K Semmer, N., Kaiser‐Freiburghaus, D., Lauper‐Del Ponte, S., &Witschi, I.
(2005). Chronic job stressors and job control: Effects on event‐related coping success and well‐
being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(2), 237-252.
www.irjmets.com
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[905]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Impact Factor- 5.354
www.irjmets.com
[19]
González-Morales, M. G., & Neves, P. (2015). When stressors make you work: Mechanisms linking
challenge stressors to performance. Work & Stress, 29(3), 213-229.
[20]
Grebner, S., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2010). The success resource model of job stress.
Higgins, E. T., & Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation.
[21]
Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications, 171-187.
[22]
Jain, A. K., & Cooper, C. L. (2012). Stress and organisational citizenship behaviours in Indian
business process outsourcing organisations. IIMB Management Review, 24(3), 155-163.
[23]
Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of
procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99(4), 635.
[24]
Keinan, G., Friedland, N., & Ben-Porath, Y. (1987). Decision making under stress: Scanning of
alternatives under physical threat. Acta Psychologica, 64(3), 219-228.
[25]
Klaas, B. S., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Ward, A.-K. (2012). The determinants of alternative forms of
workplace voice: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management, 38(1), 314-345.
[26]
Kohan, A., & Mazmanian, D. (2003). Police work, burnout, and pro-organizational behavior: A
consideration of daily work experiences. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(5), 559-583.
[27]
Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person–environment fit APA handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization. (pp.
3-50): American Psychological Association.
[28]
Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). Beginning the workday yet already depleted?
Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 124(1), 11-23.
[29]
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career
and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of vocational behavior, 45(1), 79-122.
[30]
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge
stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among
stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775.
[31]
Li, C., Liang, J., & Farh, J.-L. (2020). Speaking up when water is Murky: An uncertainty-based
model linking perceived organizational politics to employee voice. Journal of Management, 46(3),
443-469.
[32]
Li, Y., & Sun, J.-M. (2015). Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A crosslevel examination. The leadership quarterly, 26(2), 172-189.
[33]
Mahdizadeh, J., Daihimfar, F., & Kahouei, M. (2016). The relationship of job stress with selfefficacy among nurses working in hospitals of Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Iran.
Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications, 9(3), 435-438.
[34]
Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlling work stress: Effective human resource and
management strategies: Jossey-Bass.
[35]
McClean, E., Burris, E., & Detert, J. (2013). When voice leads to exit: The moderating effect of
leadership and resources. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 525-548.
[36]
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research.
[37]
Academy of Management annals, 5(1), 373-412.
[38]
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does
self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological bulletin, 126(2), 247.
[39]
Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: regulatory
depletion patterns. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(3), 774.
[40]
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta‐analytic test of the
www.irjmets.com
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[906]
e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020
Impact Factor- 5.354
www.irjmets.com
conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216-234.
[41]
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome: Lexington
Books/DC Heath and Com.
[42]
Organ, D. W., & Hui, C. (1995). Time pressure, Type A syndrome, and organizational citizenship
behavior: A field study replication of Hui, Organ, and Crooker (1994). Psychological reports,
77(1), 179-185.
[43]
Perlow, L., & Williams, S. (2003). Is silence killing your company? Ieee Engineering Management
Review, 31(4), 18-23.
[44]
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance
stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal
behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 438.
[45]
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
[46]
Qualter, P., Pool, L. D., Gardner, K., Ashley-Kot, S., Wise, A., & Wols, A. (2015). The emotional selfefficacy scale: adaptation and validation for young adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 33(1), 33-45.
[47]
Quinn, R. W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Lam, C. F. (2012). Building a sustainable model of human energy
in organizations: Exploring the critical role of resources. The Academy of Management Annals,
6(1), 337-396.
[48]
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 150-163.
[49]
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role
of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438.
[50]
Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Cheng, B. H., Hideg, I., & Zweig, D. (2015). Too drained to help: A
resource depletion perspective on daily interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(1), 227.
[51]
Twenge, J., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (2004). Measuring state self-control: Reliability, validity, and
correlations with physical and psychological stress. Unpublished manuscript, San Diego State
University.
[52]
VanVoorhis, C. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for
determining sample sizes. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 3(2), 43-50.
[53]
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person–
organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of vocational behavior, 63(3), 473-489.
[54]
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, D. M. (2009). Work stressors, rolebased performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(1), 254.
[55]
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2010). Toward a better understanding of the
effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on work behavior. Journal of vocational behavior,
76(1), 68-77.
[56]
Xia, Y., Schyns, B., & Zhang, L. (2020). Why and when job stressors impact voice behaviour: An ego
depletion perspective. Journal of Business Research, 109, 200-209.
[57]
Zhang, Y., LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Wei, F. (2014). It's not fair… or is it? The role of justice
and leadership in explaining work stressor–job performance relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(3), 675-697.
www.irjmets.com
@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[907]