Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02337-w
BMC Psychology
Open Access
RESEARCH
The effect of responsible leadership
on organizational citizenship behavior: double
mediation of gratitude and organizational
identification
Jia Luo1,2, Lee-Peng Ng1* and Yuen-Onn Choong1
Abstract
Background Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a non-compulsory but beneficial behavior for effective
organizational operation. OCB can be largely determined by the type of leadership style, among which responsible
leadership has been attracting considerable attention in the organizational context nowadays. The objective of this
study was to examine the parallel mediating effect of gratitude and organizational identification between responsible
leadership and OCB among the academic staff in China.
Methods This study employed a cross-sectional design by distributing self-administrative questionnaires to 317
faculty members from higher education institutions in China. SmartPLS 4.0 statistical software was employed to
perform Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling, in which hypotheses were tested.
Results The findings indicated that responsible leadership had a positive direct relationship with employees’
gratitude and organizational identification but not with OCB. Meanwhile, gratitude and organizational identification
were found to improve OCB significantly. Furthermore, the results revealed that gratitude and organizational
identification functioned as mediators between responsible leadership and OCB.
Conclusions This study theoretically expanded existing research by employing a parallel mediation model between
responsible leadership and OCB within an Asian higher education setting. Moreover, this study also presented
practical suggestions for management and policymakers to devise strategies that can cultivate responsible leadership
in higher education institutions to enhance employees’ gratitude and organizational identification, ultimately
promoting OCB.
Keywords Responsible leadership, Gratitude, Organizational identification, Organizational citizenship behavior
*Correspondence:
Lee-Peng Ng
nglp@utar.edu.my
1
Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman,
Kampar, Perak 31900, Malaysia
2
School of Business Administration, GuiZhou University of Finance and
Economics, Guiyang, Guizhou 550025, China
© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you
give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the
licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit ​h​t​​​​t​p​:​/​/​c​r​e​​a​​​t​i​
v​e​​c​​o​​m​​m​​o​n​s​.​o​r​g​/​l​i​c​e​n​s​e​s​/​b​y​-​n​c​-​n​d​/​4​.​0​/​​​​.​ ​​​
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
Introduction
In the age of the knowledge-based economy, universities
are expected to take on more prominent roles, broaden
their missions, and actively fulfill social responsibility
[1]. Chinese higher education institutions have made
great strides in recent decades. However, it is still necessary to keep improving education quality, encouraging
innovation and research, boosting the country’s university reputation internationally, and adapting to changing
labor market demands [2, 3]. Therefore, the engagement
of leaders and academic staff is essential to enable Chinese higher education institutions to confront these
challenges.
Responsible leadership is defined as leaders’ behavior
of addressing stakeholder needs, balancing stakeholder
interests, and building trust and reliability with stakeholders [4, 5]. In higher education, responsible leaders
are essential for enhancing employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior [6], psychological contract [7], psychological safety [8], and work engagement and career success
[9]. However, scandals about university leaders, including
academic corruption and academic fraud, have become a
problematic issue [10, 11]. Irresponsible leaders in educational institutions are primarily motivated by their
own egomaniacal needs. Instead of empathizing, inspiring, and resolving conflicts, irresponsible leaders are
more likely to inhibit moral development and discourage employees’ efforts and creativity [12]. Given the dark
sides of irresponsible leadership, the call for responsible
leadership is indispensable to respond to the constantly
changing educational environment and promote the
institution’s performance [13].
Meanwhile, academic staff is the most valuable human
resource in the university. With the rising competition
among higher education institutions, academic staff are
expected to take on a broader range of responsibilities
beyond teaching, including research, publication, consultancy, supervision, tutoring, and community services [14,
15]. The academic staff possesses the knowledge, creativity, and autonomy; thus, their organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB), which refers to discretionary, nonreward-based behavior that improves the organization, is
valuable to the university development, students’ learning process and the delivery of quality education [11, 16–
18]. Promoting OCB is essential given its favorable effect
on academic staff ’s sense of fulfillment, job satisfaction,
students’ achievements, students employability, as well as
the overall effectiveness, sustainable competitive advantage, and image of the institution [19–21]. University
leaders need to play a more critical role than previously
in stimulating the momentum for extra-role behavior
among academic staff beyond their formal required job
functions. Notably, responsible leadership is a valuebased leadership that focuses on promoting meaningful
Page 2 of 14
value and fostering a mutually beneficial leader-stakeholder relationship [22]. Therefore, responsible leadership is vital to encourage academic staff ’s self-driven,
extra-role, and beneficial behaviors in today’s higher education landscape.
The first objective of this study is to examine the relationship between responsible leadership and OCB among
academic staff. While researchers generally advocate a
positive relationship between responsible leadership and
OCB [23, 24], inconsistent results were found between
the two variables in past studies. For instance, Khanam
and Tarab [25], as well as Freire and Gonçalve [26] found
no significant direct effect of responsible leadership on
OCB based on the samples of employees from the healthcare and hospitality sectors, respectively. This inconsistency suggests that the connection between responsible
leadership and OCB needs further investigation in country-specific and industry-specific circumstances. There
is still a research gap regarding the connection of these
variables in the context of Chinese higher education.
Moreover, the mixed findings suggest the significance
of exploring the complex mechanism for how responsible leadership is related to OCB. Thus, the second
objective is to examine the role of gratitude in mediating the relationship between responsible leadership and
OCB. According to Affective Event Theory [27], employees’ attitudes and behaviors can be shaped by emotional responses that arise from workplace events. As
an integral component of workplace interactions, leaders’ behavior can induce employees’ emotional reactions
and shape their work attitudes and behaviors [27]. Thus,
responsible leaders who prioritize employees’ interests
and benefits will likely evoke feelings of gratitude and
inspire their willingness to engage in OCB [28]. In recent
years, organizational researchers have emphasized the
need for more evaluations related to gratitude, as it is a
positive psychology concept [29] known to benefit both
employees and organizations [30]. Research has discovered different leadership styles that effectively elicit gratitude in employees, thus impacting their work behaviors.
Examples include servant leadership [31, 32], inclusive
leadership [33], sustainable leadership [34], and leaders’
forgiveness [35]. However, the extent to which responsible leadership can be a valuable stimulator of academic
staff gratitude needs further validation. Meanwhile,
the literature still lacks an assessment of the mediating effect of gratitude between responsible leadership
and OCB. Existing research has mainly focused on the
mediating role of gratitude between servant leadership
and outcomes such as interpersonal citizenship behavior, upward voice, creativity, and organizational success
[31, 32]. Therefore, investigating how responsible leadership explains OCB indirectly through gratitude deserves
researchers’ attention.
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
Third, we examined organizational identification as
a mediator between responsible leadership and OCB.
Previous research suggests that identification serves as
a mediator between responsible leadership and various
employees’ attitudes and behaviors [36], such as responsible leadership and employees’ creative idea-sharing
[37], responsible leadership and organizational commitment, responsible leadership and work engagement [36],
and responsible leadership and OCB [26]. Drawing on
the Theory of Social Identity, leadership can be related
to followers’ self-perception and sense of identification
with the organization [38]. Responsible leaders prioritize
ethical standards and the welfare of stakeholders, which
foster a positive perception of the organization among
employees [39]. In such a situation, employees will have
a greater tendency to internalize the organization’s core
values, nurturing a feeling of pride and a strong sense of
belonging to the organization. More specifically, responsible leaders cultivate employee identification by demonstrating traits such as trustworthiness, openness,
proactivity, and virtuousness. Consequently, employees
who identify with the organization may feel personally
connected to it and be more inclined to exert extra effort
to contribute to its success [40]. Thus far, the extent to
which organizational identification can be an effective
mediator on the linkage between responsible leadership
and OCB among academics in the Chinese higher education sector has yet to be established. Understanding this
connection is essential in developing a supportive academic environment.
Taken together, this study is positioned to make several
significant contributions. Theoretically, the parallel mediation research model employed here provides a deeper
understanding of the relationship between responsible
leadership, gratitude, organizational identification, and
OCB within the Chinese higher education context. This
enhances the body of knowledge in organizational behavior literature. From a practical standpoint, this study is
expected to offer valuable guidance to university administrators regarding the importance of cultivating responsible leadership to nurture a culture of gratitude among
academic staff and enhance their sense of organizational
identification. These efforts, in turn, can stimulate academic staff to engage in OCB.
Literature review
Underpinning theory
The suggested model is underpinned by two theories:
Affective Events Theory (AET) and the Social Identity
Theory (SIT). AET describes the logical chain of emotional responses among organizational members to specific work events, ultimately leading to various outcomes.
It elucidates the underlying reasons for emotional reactions and predicts subsequent behaviors [27]. AET has
Page 3 of 14
been extensively embraced by numerous academics, particularly in studies focusing on gratitude [35]. According
to AET, a leader’s conduct within the work environment
can elicit emotions among individuals or teams, thereby
shaping their subsequent behavior. Responsible leadership fosters positive emotions among subordinates by
addressing the needs of diverse stakeholders and establishing a fair and ethical working environment [41].
Hence, it can be posited that responsible leaders’ behavior has the potential to evoke specific positive emotions,
such as gratitude.
On the other hand, SIT suggests that individuals often
categorize themselves and others based on factors such
as organizational belonging, religious affiliation, gender,
and age group [42]. SIT has frequently served as a foundational framework for leadership studies [26, 40]. It posits that individuals’ identity is shaped by their awareness
of belonging to social groups and the emotional significance they attribute to this membership [43]. According to SIT, promoting employees’ identification with the
organization fosters positive behavior among the members [44]. Organizational identification refers to the
alignment between an individual’s beliefs and objectives
with those of the organization [45], hence resulting in
greater involvement and more substantial commitment
to the organization [46].
Responsible leadership and OCB
A responsible leader is defined as someone who carefully
considers the potential impact of decisions on all parties
involved. They actively engage in stakeholder dialogue,
assessing and balancing diverse interests [5]. This type
of leadership has received significant attention due to
growing concerns about organizational sustainability and
responsibility [22, 26]. In higher education, an essential
aspect of responsible leadership is cultivating collaborative relationships with various stakeholders, covering students, professors, parents, and the broader community
[39]. Several empirical studies in the higher education
realm show that responsible leadership is related to organizational dynamics. For example, responsible leadership
is associated with the knowledge-sharing behavior of
Chinese faculty members directly and indirectly through
person-organization fit [6]. Research in Egypt suggests
that the connection between organizational inclusion
and psychological contract among academics was mediated by responsible leadership [7]. In Ugandan public
universities, responsible leadership was found to positively correlate with psychological safety and supporting employee well-being [8]. Additionally, responsible
leadership elevates work engagement and leads to career
success, especially among employees with strong selfenhancement motives in Pakistan’s education sector [9].
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
On the other hand, OCB is defined as “individual
behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system, and that, in the
aggregate, promotes the effective functioning of the organization” [47, p.4]. Williams and Anderson [48] further
categorize OCB into two components: OCBI represents
OCB directed towards specific individuals, and OCBO
reflects a broader sense of conscientiousness towards
the larger organization. The job nature of academic staff
is relatively complex as they must deal with a wide range
of duties, such as teaching, administration, student mentoring, and research. These required academic staff to be
creative, flexible, and highly professional. In such diverse
and demanding work conditions, the OCB of academic
staff within the university becomes crucial [49].
Generally, past studies in non-academic settings, such
as the pharmaceutical sector [24] and the Red Crescent
Society [23], affirm that responsible leadership promotes
OCB among employees. However, thus far, research
examining the underlying relationship between responsible leadership and OCB, especially within the higher
educational context, is currently limited. An extensive
review revealed that while the existing body of research
in higher education recognizes the importance of various
leadership styles in shaping extra-role behavior among
academic staff, the primary focus was on inclusive leadership [50], benevolent leadership [51], ethical leadership
[52, 53], change leadership [54], transformational leadership [55], and servant leadership [56], with responsible
leadership being overlooked.
Responsible leaders, considering the well-being of multiple stakeholders, promote employees’ OCB by serving
as role models and advocating for socially responsible initiatives, inspiring individuals to engage in behaviors that
benefit both the organization and the community [57].
Leading by example fosters a sense of team awareness,
altruism, and internal motivation among employees,
which corresponds to the feature of OCB [49]. Responsible leadership encourages employees to focus on the
interests of internal and external stakeholders and promotes workers’ sense of responsibility, including helping
new colleagues, spending extra time tutoring students,
and contributing to the community [51]. In light of this, it
is proposed that responsible leadership can improve the
OCB of academic staff.
Responsible leadership, gratitude, and OCB
Gratitude is defined as a discrete positive emotion with
a dispositional component [58]. It manifests as a positive
emotion that arises when an individual receives a benefit
and attributes the event favorably [35, 59]. Employees
may experience gratitude due to events involving leadership or helpful actions from colleagues [30].
Page 4 of 14
Past research has demonstrated that various factors,
such as servant leadership [31, 32], employees’ perceived
trust in their supervisor [58], leaders’ forgiveness [35],
and perceived corporate social responsibility [60], can
evoke feelings of gratitude among employees. Responsible leadership, characterized by its emphasis on fostering ethical and moral relationships with stakeholders
[4, 61], involves considering the interests of all relevant
stakeholders in decision-making [62]. This leadership
approach also entails ensuring ethical employment practices, providing a safe work environment, prioritizing
employees’ professional development, and ensuring job
meaning and work-family balance [61]. Employees typically perceive these actions of responsible leadership as
actively caring for and benefiting them, which is expected
to stimulate their feelings of gratitude [59, 62].
Based on AET, leaders’ conduct during work events
can be associated with the emotional responses of subordinates, thereby shaping their work attitudes and behaviors [27]. Employees’ psychological states, attitudes, and
behaviors in the workplace are often associated with situational factors or events [27]. The intensity of these emotions may vary depending on the specific event.
Previous research has identified that gratitude can positively relate to various types of OCBs, such as interpersonal citizenship behaviors [32], helping behaviors [63],
and OCBO [64]. Employees who experience feelings of
gratitude in the workplace are more inclined to engage
in prosocial behaviors, including OCB, within the organizational context [58]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that
gratitude, as a positive emotion, could serve as an indirect mechanism through which responsible leadership is
related to employee voluntary behavior.
Responsible leadership, organizational identification, and
OCB
Organizational identification refers to individuals’ cognitive connection between self-definition and the organization’s definitions [65]. It signifies a sense of unity with
the organization, as well as a perception of the organization’s successes and failures as personally significant [66].
It involves individuals defining themselves based on their
affiliation with a specific organization, making it a form
of social identification [67].
Employees form a perception of their organization
based on the behavior and voices of their leaders [36].
Effective leadership operates within the framework of
shared goals and values [38], which are associated with
followers’ sense of identification with the organization
[67]. Employees modify their beliefs and behaviors by
observing the behaviors of their leaders, especially those
who are responsible [68]. Value-based leadership, such
as ethical leadership [40, 69], transformational leadership [70, 71], and responsible leadership [36] have been
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
testified to elicit organizational identification. Responsible leadership is also a value-based leadership that
prioritizes the core values of integrity, honesty, courage,
patience, trust, and respect [72]. By establishing a work
environment that upholds ethical and supportive values,
responsible leadership enhances employees’ satisfaction with their jobs and fosters a sense of obligation [73,
74]. To put it another way, responsible leaders prioritize
transparency and open communication. This form of
leadership fosters and maintains a trustworthy relationship with internal and external stakeholders [36]. Practice
by responsible leaders, such as delegating and involving
employees in decision-making and offering opportunities for employee development, can significantly increase
employee engagement and commitment, which may yield
a sense of identification and belongness among them
[36].
Meanwhile, empirical evidence indicates that employees’ identification with the organization relates to its
socially responsible practices [26]. For instance, socially
responsible human resource management initiatives can
enhance employee engagement in OCB by fostering a
stronger sense of organizational identification [75]. Organizations perceived as socially responsible may be viewed
as prestigious and reputable by employees, fulfilling their
need for meaning and self-esteem and consequently
favorably impacting their organizational identification
[44, 76]. In a similar vein, the idea of responsible leadership was conceptualized by combining corporate social
responsibility and leadership literature [77]. Their concern, care, and attention toward a range of stakeholders
showed an overall responsibility [61]. Empirically, the
connection between responsible leadership and organizational identification has been verified in the studies
that involve participants from the hospitality industry
and nonprofit organizations [26, 36]. Relatedly, we speculated that responsible leadership could enhance employees’ organizational identification.
Employees with high organizational identification
may experience a strong connection and alignment with
the goals and demands of their organization [78]. Such
alignment results in employees’ increased involvement
and willingness to compromise with the organization
[46]. They prioritize the interests of their organization
as their own and make job-related decisions based on
what is most beneficial for the organization [79]. Besides,
employees with high organizational identification are
more prone to contributing to the organization by making financial donations, encouraging others to join, and
participating in organizational activities such as attending events [66]. Organizational identification has the
potential to yield numerous positive outcomes for both
employees and organizations. These include a greater
dedication to the organization, higher staff retention
Page 5 of 14
rates, reduced turnover intention, increased OCB, higher
employee well-being and satisfaction, organizationalfriendly decision-making, and improved employee
performance [26, 75, 80, 81]. Given the discussion mentioned above, we hypothesized that organizational identification could serve as a mediator in the relationship
between responsible leadership and OCB.
Hypotheses development
Aligned with the research objectives, we aim to investigate whether responsible leadership predicts OCB.
Besides, we contended that responsible leadership is indirectly related to OCB through the mediating mechanism
of gratitude and organizational identification. Therefore,
the hypotheses are presented as follows:
Hypothesis 1 Responsible leadership is positively related
to OCB.
Hypothesis 2 Responsible leadership is positively related
to gratitude.
Hypothesis 3 Gratitude is positively related to OCB.
Hypothesis 4 Responsible leadership is positively related
to organizational identification.
Hypothesis 5 Organizational identification is positively
related to OCB.
Hypothesis 6 Gratitude will mediate the relationship
between responsible leadership and OCB.
Hypothesis 7 Organizational identification will mediate
the relationship between responsible leadership and OCB.
Research model
Figure 1 presents an overview of the research model.
Research methodology
Procedure and sample
This study adopted a quantitative approach with a crosssectional design. The quota sampling technique was
utilized to ensure the data’s representativeness and generalizability. The study was conducted in Guizhou, a
culturally and economically diverse province in southwestern China. Data from the Ministry of Education
China [82] shows Guizhou is home to 75 higher education institutions, including 28 universities. For this study,
participants were selected from 10 prominent universities across the province, which offer broad academic
disciplines, including finance and economics, education,
Western and traditional Chinese medicine, engineering,
science, and policing studies.
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
Page 6 of 14
Fig. 1 Conceptual framework
We employed self-administered questionnaires to collect data from the participants. To be eligible, respondents needed to be full-time academic staff members at
universities. Additionally, respondents were required to
have worked at the university for more than one year to
ensure they had sufficient interaction with their leaders.
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the university’s Scientific Review Committee, and consent was
obtained from the management of each university. Subsequently, academic staff members were contacted and
approached to participate in the survey from January
2024 to February 2024.
A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed to academic staff who volunteered to participate in the survey. We included a cover letter in each questionnaire to
minimize common method bias in data collection for
self-report questionnaires. The cover letter outlined the
survey’s purpose and assured respondents of both anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. Additionally, in the instructions, we urged the participants to
respond truthfully and highlighted no correct or incorrect answers for their responses. Data collection was conducted using the Drop-off and Pick-up (DOPU) method.
As an acknowledgment of participation in the paperbased survey, each respondent received a token of appreciation valued at 10 Chinese Yuan (CNY). Out of the 355
surveys returned, 317 were deemed usable. The remaining 38 surveys were incomplete, resulting in an effective
response rate of 89%.
The participants of this study consisted of 106 (33.4%)
male and 211 (66.6%) female academic staff. Out of the
entire survey sample, 1.6% of respondents were 25 years
old and below, 35% were between the ages of 26 and 35,
51.4% were between the ages of 36 and 45, 10.4% were
between the ages of 46 and 55, and 1.6% were 56 years
old and above. On the other hand, 66.9% of the academic
staff possessed a master’s degree, 24.6% held a doctorate
degree, and 8.5% were with other qualifications. Finally,
11% of the respondents were assistant lecturers, 47%
were lecturers, 29% were associate professors, 8% were
professors, and 5% were classified in other categories.
Research instrument
Responsible leadership was assessed using the scale
developed by Voegtlin [83], which comprises 5 items.
Participants were asked to reflect on the leader with
whom they interacted most frequently and rate that
leader on a five-point Likert scale. The scale developed by
Voegtlin [83] is widely recognized and frequently utilized
in academic research. A minor adjustment was made
to one item to enhance clarity regarding the concept of
stakeholders in the university context. The adapted scale
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
Page 7 of 14
demonstrates good internal consistency, as well as discriminant and predictive validity, across various studies
[84–86]. An example item from the scale is “My immediate superior will thoroughly consider the impact of his/
her decision on the stakeholders”.
Gratitude was operationalized by adapting the State
Gratitude Scale developed by Spence et al. [58]. This
five-item scale is commonly used to evaluate employees’
affective states in the workplace [58]. Modifications were
applied to the original items to reflect employees’ feelings
of gratitude more accurately toward their leader. Sample
items include “I feel grateful for my immediate superior”
and “I am happy to have been helped by my immediate
superior”.
Organizational identification was assessed using a sixitem scale adapted from the original work of Mael and
Ashforth [66]. Sample items from this scale include “I
consider it a personal offense when someone criticizes
the university I work for” and “The achievements of the
university I work for are my own successes”.
Organizational citizenship behavior was assessed by
adapting the scale developed by Williams and Anderson
[48]. This scale comprises two dimensions: organizational
citizenship behavior towards individuals (OCB-I) and
organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization (OCB-O). Each dimension of OCB—OCB-I and
OCB-O—consists of seven items, totaling 14 items. This
scale has demonstrated validity and reliability across
various studies [87–89]. Sample items are “I find it is a
personal offense when someone criticizes the university I
work for” and “The successes of the university I work for
are my successes”.
All adapted measurement items in this study were
evaluated using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree. The questionnaire was translated into Chinese following the
guidelines of [90] using the back-translation method.
To ensure the appropriateness of the survey instrument,
a pre-test was conducted by inviting five academic staff
who are experts in the field to assess the content validity
of the questionnaire. Subsequently, a pilot study involving
30 respondents was conducted, and the reliability of each
measure used in this study was found to be satisfactory.
Data analysis
The data collected for this research were first analyzed
using SPSS version 27, which involved descriptive analysis, correlation analysis, and evaluation of common
method bias. Subsequently, SmartPLS version 4.0.9.9
was used to perform Partial Least Squares-Structural
Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) to ascertain the path
relationships among variables. PLS-SEM is well-suited
to evaluate a complex model consisting of diverse constructs and indicators [91]. Besides, in contrast to covariance-based structural equation modeling, PLS-SEM
possesses greater predictive capabilities; it not only can
deal with small datasets but also works well for large
sample sizes and does not have a strict requirement for
normal data [92, 93]. In sum, PLS-SEM is suitable for
evaluating multiple mediation analyses in this study and
enabling the understanding of the structural relationships between the latent variables.
In the analysis of PLS-SEM, the measurement model
was first examined by applying the PLS algorithm technique to confirm the model’s convergent and discriminant validity. Subsequently, the structural model was
assessed using a bootstrapping approach to test the
hypotheses.
Result
Descriptive and correlation analysis
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and
inter-correlations among the key variables of the study.
Responsible leadership, gratitude, and organizational
identification were positively correlated with OCB. Conversely, no significant correlations were found between
the control variables (age, gender, level of education, and
academic position) and OCB.
Table 1 Mean, standard deviation, and inter-correlations
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Construct
Gender
Age
Level of education
Academic position
Responsible leadership
Gratitude
Organizational identification
OCB
Mean
Standard Deviation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
− 0.112*
− 0.175**
− 0.036
− 0.123*
− 0.149**
− 0.137*
0.007
N/A
N/A
0.037
0.372**
− 0.068
− 0.114*
0.053
− 0.046
N/A
N/A
0.277**
− 0.072
− 0.051
− 0.024
− 0.094
N/A
N/A
− 0.064
− 0.069
0.050
− 0.048
N/A
N/A
0.819**
0.352**
0.369**
3.548
0.972
0.456**
0.468**
3.559
1.031
0.478**
3.762
0.781
3.985
0.502
Note. N/A: Not applicable, OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
Page 8 of 14
Preliminary analysis
Measurement model analysis
Common method bias (CMB) was assessed due to the
self-report nature of the data. Harman’s single-factor test,
a statistical method, was employed to detect the presence of CMB. The results from unrotated factor analysis
indicated that the first factor accounted for 40.839% of
the total variance, which is below the 50% threshold. This
suggests that our data does not exhibit significant CMB
[94].
Besides, we conducted a full collinearity assessment
to detect CMB in PLS-SEM analysis [95]. A variance
inflation factor (VIF) exceeding 3.3 would indicate the
presence of CMB. Based on the results from the PLS
algorithm, the VIF values for responsible leadership, gratitude, organizational identification, and OCB were 2.928,
3.226, 1.159, and 1.148, respectively, indicating that CMB
was not present in our data.
The measurement model was evaluated using the PLS
algorithm technique. This study employed a two-stage
approach to estimate the higher-order construct of OCB,
which follows a reflective-reflective hierarchical component model (HCM). In the initial phase of the two-stage
approach, the focus was on the fundamental elements
of OCB in the path model. This involved computing the
latent variable scores for the two dimensions of OCB
(OCB-I and OCB-O). These dimensions were then utilized as indicators for the higher-order construct in the
second stage [96]. The reliability and convergent validity results for each construct of the measurement model
are displayed in Table 2. The average variance extracted
(AVE) for all key constructs, including the first-order
dimensions of OCB, exceeded 0.5. As demonstrated in
Table 2, the composite reliability (CR) exceeded 0.7 for all
key constructs in this study [96]. Additionally, the values
Table 2 Measurement model –convergent validity and internal consistency
Variable
Responsible Leadership
Gratitude
Organizational Identification
OCB-I
(first-order)
OCB-O
(first-order)
OCB
(second-order)
Indicators
RL1
RL2
RL3
RL4
RL5
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
OI1
OI2
OI3
OI4
OI5
OI6
OCB1
OCB2
OCB3
OCB4
OCB5
OCB6
OCB7
OCB8
OCB9
OCB10
OCB11
OCB12
OCB13
OCB14
OCB-I
OCB-O
Factor loadings
0.902
0.926
0.877
0.942
0.92
0.959
0.959
0.956
0.943
0.944
0.807
0.876
0.842
0.854
0.921
0.916
0.754
0.851
0.745
0.762
0.852
0.866
0.812
0.584
0.661
0.77
0.731
0.689
0.824
0.814
0.895
0.876
Note. OCB-I = organizational citizenship behavior towards individuals,
OCB-O = organizational citizenship behavior towards organization
AVE
0.835
Cronbach’s alpha
0.95
Composite reliability (rho_c)
0.962
0.907
0.974
0.98
0.758
0.936
0.949
0.652
0.911
0.918
0.532
0.854
0.879
0.784
0.725
0.879
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
Page 9 of 14
Table 3 Discriminant validity based on HTMT Criterion
Construct
Gratitude
OCB
Organizational Identification
Responsible Leadership
Gratitude
OCB
Organizational Identification
0.567
0.479
0.851
0.597
0.451
0.374
Responsible Leadership
Table 4 Results of direct and indirect hypothesis testing
Path
Beta
Standard deviation
t- statistics
H1 RL -> OCB
H2 RL -> G
H3 G -> OCB
H4 RL -> OI
H5 OI -> OCB
H6 RL-> G -> OCB
H7 RL-> OI-> OCB
-0.034
0.820
0.342
0.365
0.353
0.082
0.025
0.082
0.061
0.066
0.068
0.031
0.418
32.974
4.164
6.012
5.306
0.280
0.129
4.151
4.177
p-values
Bootstrapping confidence interval
5%LL
95%UL
0.338
-0.169
0.100
0.000
0.775
0.859
0.000
0.203
0.475
0.000
0.265
0.464
0.000
0.245
0.465
0.000
0.167
0.392
0.000
0.083
0.184
Note. RL: responsible leadership, OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior, G: gratitude, OI: organizational identification, LL: Lower level, UL: Upper level
of Cronbach’s alpha (α) ranged from 0.725 to 0.974, indicating high internal reliability of all variables. Given that
the average variance extracted (AVE) and internal consistency for every construct met the required cut-off values, items with factor loadings between 0.5 and 0.7 were
retained, and none of the indicators were removed.
To assess the discriminant validity between different
indicators, the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) values were examined, as presented in
Table 3. None of the HTMT correlation values exceeded
the threshold value of 0.9 [97]. Consequently, the main
latent variables of the study were demonstrated to be distinct concepts.
Structural model analysis
A bootstrapping approach with 5000 resamples was utilized to evaluate the structural model. In this subsection,
the results of direct hypotheses are presented first, followed by the results of indirect hypotheses.
Direct hypotheses
The results of the direct hypothesis testing are displayed
in Table 4. The result shows that responsible leadership
is not significantly related to OCB (β=-0.034, t = 0.418,
p = 0.338). As a result, H1 is not supported by the data.
On the other hand, responsible leadership is positively
related to gratitude (β = 0.820, t = 32.974, p < 0.001). Likewise, significant positive relationships are found between
gratitude and OCB (β = 0.342, t = 4.164, p < 0.001),
responsible leadership and organizational identification
(β = 0.365, t = 6.012, p < 0.001), as well as organizational
identification and OCB (β = 0.353, t = 5.306, p < 0.001).
Hence, H2 to H5 are supported by the data.
Indirect hypotheses
As shown in Table 4, the results from the evaluation of
mediating analyses revealed that responsible leadership
indirectly predicts OCB through gratitude (β = 0.280,
t = 4.151, p < 0.001) and organizational identification
(β = 0.129, t = 4.177, p < 0.001). Hence, H6 and H7 were
well-supported by the data. Based on the results, both
gratitude and organizational identification were found
to fully mediate the indirect effect between the variables since the direct effect (RL --> OCB) was found
to be insignificant but the indirect effect appears to be
significant.
Discussion
This study investigated an integrated model that explores
the dual mediating mechanism of gratitude and organizational identification in the relationship between
responsible leadership and OCB. Surprisingly, the findings revealed that responsible leadership has no direct
significant relationship with OCB. This result contradicts
previous studies such as Guo and Su [98] and Thakur and
Sharma [24] while aligning with findings from Freire and
Gonçalves [26] and Khanam and Tarab [25]. The inconsistency in results could be attributed to various contextual factors that potentially alter the strength of the
relationship. These factors include organizational culture, industry norms, and individual differences among
employees and occupations [99]. For example, the study
by Guo and Su [98] was conducted in China, with data
collected from private sector companies and constructs
measured using Chinese scales. Conversely, Freire and
Gonçalves [26] examined the framework by collecting
data from frontline employees in Portuguese high-end
hotels, with item scales adapted from a Western context. Therefore, context specificity and the choice of
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
scales have a certain impact on the relationship between
responsible leadership and OCB.
Besides, our findings confirm that gratitude significantly mediates the relationship between responsible
leadership and OCB. As hypothesized, responsible leaders consistently demonstrate moral and ethical conduct,
taking into consideration the interests of all stakeholders [4, 5, 61]. These positive leadership behaviors are
often perceived by employees as genuine concern for
their well-being [100]. Consequently, employees will
likely develop a sense of gratitude towards the leader.
Employees who experience gratitude in the workplace
are inclined to engage in prosocial behaviors, including OCB [58]. According to Affective Events Theory, the
relationship between employees’ perception of trust in
their supervisor and their work engagement is mediated
by gratitude [59]. Similarly, responsible leadership, which
often exhibits ethical and considerate behavior, can evoke
employees’ gratitude, thereby promoting OCB [27, 101].
Lastly, this study’s findings further confirm that the
relationship between responsible leadership and OCB is
significantly mediated by organizational identification.
This finding is supported by Freire and Gonçalves [26] in
the context of the hospitality industry. Responsible leadership demonstrates concern, care, and attention toward
employees, fosters reliable relationships with employees
[61], and engages in socially responsible organizational
activities [75, 76], thereby increasing organizational identification among employees [36]. When employees have
a high level of organizational identification, they tend to
feel a strong connection and alignment with their organization and strive for its success [79].
Implications
Theoretical implications
This research contributes significantly to the understanding of organizational behavior by examining leadership,
gratitude organizational identification, and OCB. First
and foremost, the insignificant relationship between
responsible leadership and OCB in higher educational
institutions is consistent with findings from previous
studies conducted in service industries such as hotel
and healthcare sectors [25, 26]. In contrast, research
conducted in pharmaceutical firms has shown a different relationship [24]. This variation indicates that the
link between responsible leadership and OCB may be
highly context-dependent, determined by unique organizational characteristics and sector-specific norms. This
context-specific gap suggests that responsible leadership,
while valuable, may not drive OCB directly in higher
education as it does in some other sectors. Instead, this
leadership style may related to OCB indirectly by fostering an environment where gratitude and organizational
identification serve as mediating mechanisms. Unlike
Page 10 of 14
more hierarchical or commercially focused industries,
higher education emphasizes autonomy, intellectual freedom, and individual initiative among employees. Consequently, responsible leaders in this context can better
trigger the desire of academic staff to engage in OCB by
creating an environment that promotes gratitude and
organizational identification within the institutions.
Secondly, this study fills a crucial gap in the literature
by examining the mediating role of gratitude between
responsible leadership and OCB. This relationship is
grounded in Affective Events Theory [27], which suggests that leaders’ behavior can determine subordinates’
emotional responses and subsequently shape their work
attitudes and behavior. In this regard, our research
sheds light on the role of responsible leadership in fostering feelings of gratitude, which consequently drives
OCB among academic staff. Previous research has
demonstrated that servant leadership [31, 32] and leaders’ forgiveness [35] evoke feelings of gratitude among
employees, leading to specific behavioral outcomes. Our
study emphasized that gratitude is a key mechanism
connecting responsible leadership and employees’ voluntary behavior. By demonstrating that responsible leadership promotes gratitude, which in turn enhances OCB
among academic staff, our findings contribute to a theoretical understanding of how positive emotions function
within a higher educational context to encourage desired
behaviors. This insight encourages further exploration
of responsible leadership as a strategic approach to fostering gratitude and enhancing OCB, especially in sectors where ethical conduct and employee well-being are
highly valued.
Another significant theoretical contribution is demonstrated by confirming that organizational identification
plays a crucial mediating role in the relationship between
responsible leadership and OCB in the higher education
context. This enriched the existing literature by extending the contextual applicability, as empirical evidence on
this mediating mechanism has only been testified in the
hospitality sector [26]. By establishing that responsible
leadership can enhance organizational identification,
which subsequently fosters OCB among academic staff
in higher education, our study delivers valuable insights
into how responsible leadership operates in this unique
setting.
Practical implications
This study highlights the crucial role of responsible leadership in fostering feelings of gratitude and organizational
identification among employees, ultimately encouraging
them to engage in OCB. These findings offer important
practical insights for universities, particularly in shaping
their human resource practices. University administrators should consider these results when making decisions
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
related to leadership recruitment, development, and performance evaluation. In higher education, it is essential
to strategically recruit leaders who not only have the
necessary academic and administrative qualifications
but also demonstrate strong ethical standards and moral
integrity. This can be achieved by incorporating personality assessments and performance simulation tests during the recruitment process to identify candidates who
exhibit responsibility, empathy, and fairness. Additionally, integrating OCB-related criteria into faculty performance appraisals can encourage staff to engage more
actively in behaviors that benefit the institution beyond
their formal job descriptions. To further promote OCB,
universities should foster a supportive and collaborative
environment through initiatives such as team-building
activities and professional development programs.
Furthermore, numerous enterprises advocate for a
culture of gratitude and emphasize the role of employee
gratitude. Gratitude is recognized as a valuable positive emotion that can lead to several beneficial effects
on employees, their interpersonal relationships, and
the organization as a whole [30]. The findings of this
study indicate that continuously improving the quality
of responsible leadership can stimulate employee gratitude. For example, in the absence of gratitude, employees might not fully appreciate their colleagues’ efforts
and the support from the organization, leading to these
contributions being undervalued or taken for granted. In
the context of higher education, it is crucial for university
leaders to actively cultivate a culture of gratitude by demonstrating genuine care for the well-being of faculty and
staff. This can be achieved through consistent, responsible leadership practices that acknowledge and appreciate employees’ contributions, both individually and as a
group. By raising awareness of gratitude and encouraging
behaviors that recognize and celebrate the efforts of others, university leaders can foster a more positive and supportive work environment.
Finally, responsible leaders shape the behavior of their
followers by promoting the organization’s mission, values, culture, and ethical standards. Organizational identification enhances the bonding between individuals and
their organization, leading to the formation of strong
emotional and affective attachments among academic
staff to both their university and work roles. Therefore,
the mediating role of organizational identification suggests that university administrations should recruit individuals whose personal beliefs closely align with those
of the educational institution. Additionally, university
leaders should actively demonstrate socially responsible
behaviors, such as ethical decision-making, transparency, and a commitment to social good, to serve as role
models for their staff. When leaders demonstrate these
values, they encourage employees to internalize the
Page 11 of 14
institution’s mission, thereby strengthening their emotional attachment to the university and enhancing overall
organizational cohesion. This sense of identification can
lead to greater employee engagement, improved morale,
and a more collaborative and productive academic
environment.
Limitations and future research
Our study has several limitations. Firstly, this study
employs a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability
to establish causality. Longitudinal design, on the other
hand, is a better approach that can be employed by future
researchers to effectively determine the cause-andeffect relationship among these variables by tracking the
changes over time. As such, future researchers can further evaluate the current research model with a longitudinal research design to verify the findings of this study,
ultimately improving our understanding of the interactions between the variables.
Secondly, the data were collected via a self-reported
survey, which may introduce potential CMB. While Harman’s single-factor test and full collinearity assessment
were performed, this does not guarantee the complete
elimination of bias effects. Future studies could gather
data on predictors and outcome variables separately from
employees and leaders, which is regarded as a better way
to mitigate or evade CMB.
Thirdly, this research solely focused on a single leadership style, namely responsible leadership, in evaluating
its interplay with gratitude, organizational identification,
and OCB. Future research can further enrich the present
research framework by incorporating additional leadership styles, such as charismatic and spiritual leadership,
to predict the outcomes. The extension of the current
research model facilitates future research to make meaningful comparisons between different leadership styles
and their respective outcomes, especially in a longitudinal research setting.
Finally, our study focused on academics in higher education institutions in China. It is essential to recognize
that employees from diverse cultural backgrounds may
hold distinct perspectives. Therefore, future research
might consider including employees from different cultural backgrounds in their study, such as those from
Western countries, as well as from multi-ethnic societies
like Malaysia, to enhance the generalizability or comparability of our findings.
Conclusion
This study developed a research framework based on
Affective Event Theory and Social Identity Theory to
investigate the relationships among responsible leadership, gratitude, organizational identification, and OCB.
The findings highlight that gratitude and organizational
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
identification among academic staff are key mediators linking responsible leadership to OCB. Our study
enhances the understanding by showing the significance
of emotional dynamics in shaping workplace behaviors.
As such, higher education institutions should prioritize
cultivating responsible leadership to enhance employee
gratitude and organizational identification, ultimately
benefiting both individuals and the organization.
Abbreviations
OCBOrganizational Citizenship Behavior
OCB-IOrganizational citizenship behavior towards individuals
OCB-OOrganizational citizenship behavior towards the organization
AETAffective Events Theory
SITSocial Identity Theory
PLS-SEMPartial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling
CMBCommon method bias
VIFVariance inflation factor
AVEAverage variance extracted
CRComposite reliability
HTMTHeterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to extend their heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to
all the participants of this study.
Author contributions
Luo, J. was responsible for the design of the study, literature review, data
collection, data analysis, and preparing the manuscript. L.-P. Ng and Y.-O.
Choong provided supervision and guidance, as well as reviewed and edited
the paper. All authors reviewed the final manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the China Scholarship Council “National
and Regional Research Talent Support Program [2022] 708” [CSC NO.
202208520022].
Page 12 of 14
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are
not publicly available because they are required to be kept confidential, which
is requested by the third party, but they are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
17.
Declarations
19.
Ethical approval
This study received ethical approval from the Scientific and Ethical
Review Committee of Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (Reference No. U/
SERC/306/2023). All procedures performed in the study that involved human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional
research committee. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
18.
20.
21.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
22.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
23.
Received: 3 August 2024 / Accepted: 30 December 2024
24.
25.
References
1. Compagnucci L, Spigarelli F. The third mission of the university: a systematic
literature review on potentials and constraints. Technol Forecast Soc Change.
2020;161:120284.
26.
Hu J, Liu H, Chen Y, Qin J. Strategic planning and the stratification of Chinese
higher education institutions. Int J Educ Dev. 2018;63:36–43.
Bodenhorn T, Burns JP, Palmer M, Change. Contradiction and the state: higher
education in Greater China. China Q. 2020;244:903–19.
Maak T, Pless NM. Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society – A relational perspective. J Bus Ethics. 2006;66:99–115.
Voegtlin C, Patzer M, Scherer AG. Responsible leadership in global business:
a new approach to leadership and its multi-level outcomes. J Bus Ethics.
2012;105:1–16.
Haider SA, Akbar A, Tehseen S, Poulova P, Jaleel F. The impact of responsible
leadership on knowledge sharing behavior through the mediating role of
person–organization fit and moderating role of higher educational institute
culture. J Innov Knowl. 2022;7:100265.
Mousa M. Organizational inclusion and academics’ psychological contract:
can responsible leadership mediate the relationship? Equal Divers Incl Int J.
2019;ahead-of-print.
Kyambade M, Namuddu R, Mugambwa J, Namatovu A. I can’t express myself
at work: encouraging socially responsible leadership and psychological safety
in higher education setting. Cogent Educ. 2024;11:2373560.
Li M, Yang F, Akhtar MW. Responsible leadership effect on career success: the
role of work engagement and self-enhancement motives in the education
sector. Front Psychol. 2022;13:888386.
De Souza-Daw T, Ross R. Fraud in higher education: a system for detection
and prevention. J Eng Des Technol. 2023;21:637–54.
Liu A. Why are Chinese university faculty reluctant to participate in school
governance based on the theory of organizational citizenship behavior. High
Educ Explor. 2020;:30–5.
Oplatka I. Irresponsible leadership and unethical practices in schools: a conceptual framework of the dark side of educational leadership. In: Normore A,
Tony H, Brooks JS, editors. Advances in Educational Administration. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited; 2016. pp. 1–18.
Carini C, Rocca L, Veneziani M, Teodori C. Sustainability regulation and global
corporate citizenship: a lesson (already) learned? Corp Soc Responsib Environ
Manag. 2021;28:116–26.
Su F, Wood M. What makes a good university lecturer? Students’ perceptions
of teaching excellence. J Appl Res High Educ. 2012;4:142–55.
Wan CD, Sirat M, Razak DA. Academic governance and leadership in Malaysia:
examining the national higher education strategic initiatives. J Int Comp
Educ JICE. 2020;91–102.
Alfagira Sgdwar, Zumrah A, Noor ARB, Rahman KBM. OBA. Investigating the
factors influencing academic staff performance: a conceptual approach.
2017. https:/​/doi.or​g/10.21​276/​sjebm.2017.4.11.13
Guo L, Huang J, Zhang Y. Education development in China: education return,
quality, and equity. Sustainability. 2019;11:3750.
Qiu S, Alizadeh A, Dooley LM, Zhang R. The effects of authentic leadership on
trust in leaders, organizational citizenship behavior, and service quality in the
Chinese hospitality industry. J Hosp Tour Manag. 2019;40:77–87.
Butt A, Lodhi RN, Shahzad MK. Staff retention: a factor of sustainable competitive advantage in the higher education sector of Pakistan. Stud High
Educ. 2020;45:1584–604.
Donglong Z, Taejun C, Julie A, Sanghun L. The structural relationship
between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior in
university faculty in China: the mediating effect of organizational commitment. Asia Pac Educ Rev. 2020;21:167–79.
Oplatka I. Organizational citizenship behavior in teaching: the consequences
for teachers, pupils, and the school. Int J Educ Manag. 2009;23:375–89.
Haque A, Fernando M, Caputi P. Responsible leadership and employee outcomes: a systematic literature review, integration and propositions. Asia-Pac J
Bus Adm. 2021;13:383–408.
Akbari M, Hemmatinejad M, Azimian O, Hosseinzadeh A. The impact of
responsible leadership on organizational citizenship behavior through the
mediating role of organizational justice and organizational commitment
(case study: Guilan Red Crescent Society employees). Biannu J Psychol Res
Manag. 2021;6:33–71.
Thakur DJ, Sharma D. Responsible leadership style and organizational citizenship behavior: a relationship study. Pac Bus Rev Int. 2019;12:21–9.
Khanam Z, Tarab S. A moderated-mediation model of the relationship
between responsible leadership, citizenship behavior and patient satisfaction. IIM Ranchi J Manag Stud. 2023;2:114–34.
Freire C, Gonçalves J. The relationship between responsible leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. Sustainability.
2021;13:4705.
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
27. Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. Affective events theory. Res Organ Behav.
1996;18:1–74.
28. Bartlett MY, DeSteno D. Gratitude and prosocial behavior: helping when it
costs you. Psychol Sci. 2006;17:319–25.
29. Emmons RA, McCullough ME, Tsang J-A. The assessment of gratitude. 2003.
30. Fehr R, Fulmer A, Awtrey E, Miller JA. The grateful workplace: a multilevel
model of gratitude in organizations. Acad Manage Rev. 2017;42:361–81.
31. Baykal E, Zehi̇R C, Köle M. Effects of servant leadership on gratitude, empowerment, innovativeness and performance: Turkey example. J Econ Cult Soc.
2018;:29–52.
32. Sun J, Liden RC, Ouyang L. Are servant leaders appreciated? An investigation
of how relational attributions influence employee feelings of gratitude and
prosocial behaviors. J Organ Behav. 2019;40:528–40.
33. Xia J, Xu H, Xie L. Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in proactive
behavior at the workplace: the mediating role of gratitude. Balt J Manag.
2024;19:200–17.
34. Ashfaq F, Abid G, Ilyas S, Elahi AR. Sustainable Leadership and Work Engagement: exploring sequential mediation of Organizational Support and Gratitude. Public Organ Rev. 2024. https:/​/doi.or​g/10.10​07/s​11115-024-00778-w.
35. Lu L, Huang Y, Luo J. Leader forgiveness and employee’s unethical proorganizational behavior: the roles of gratitude and moral identity. Front
Psychol. 2021;12.
36. Gomes JFS, Marques T, Cabral C. Responsible leadership, organizational
commitment, and work engagement: the mediator role of organizational
identification. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh. 2022;33:89–108.
37. Batool S, Izwar Ibrahim H, Adeel A. How responsible leadership pays off: role
of organizational identification and organizational culture for creative idea
sharing. Sustain Technol Entrep. 2024;3:100057.
38. Van Knippenberg D, Hogg MA. A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Res Organ Behav. 2003;25:243–95.
39. Stone-Johnson C. Responsible Leadership. Educ Adm Q. 2014;50:645–74.
40. Kia N, Halvorsen B, Bartram T. Ethical leadership and employee in-role
performance: the mediating roles of organisational identification, customer
orientation, service climate, and ethical climate. Pers Rev. 2019;48:1716–33.
41. Han Z, Wang D, Ni M. A review of the responsible leadership research and its
prospects from the vision of China. Acad J Bus Manag. 2022;4:27–37.
42. Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Political
psychology. Psychology; 2004. pp. 276–93.
43. Tajfel H. Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. Differ
Soc Group. 1978;:61–76.
44. Glavas A, Godwin LN. Is the perception of ‘goodness’ good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and
employee organizational identification. J Bus Ethics. 2013;114:15–27.
45. Mesmer-Magnus JR, Asencio R, Seely PW, DeChurch LA. How organizational
identity affects team functioning: the identity instrumentality hypothesis. J
Manag. 2018;44:1530–50.
46. Ashforth BE, Rogers KM, Corley KG. Identity in organizations: exploring crosslevel dynamics. Organ Sci. 2011;22:1144–56.
47. Organ DW. Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington.; 1988.
48. Williams LJ, Anderson SE. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J Manag.
1991;17:601–17.
49. DiPaola MF, Hoy WK. Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of
high school students. High Sch J. 2005;88:35–44.
50. Aboramadan M, Dahleez KA, Farao C. Inclusive leadership and extra-role
behaviors in higher education: does organizational learning mediate the
relationship? Int J Educ Manag. 2021;36:397–418.
51. Ho HX, Le ANH. Investigating the relationship between benevolent leadership and the organizational citizenship behaviour of academic staff: the
mediating role of leader-member exchange. Manag Educ. 2023;37:74–84.
52. Shareef RA, Atan T. The influence of ethical leadership on academic employees’ organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention: mediating
role of intrinsic motivation. Manag Decis. 2019;57:583–605.
53. Taamneh M, Aljawarneh N, Al-Okaily M, Taamneh A, Al-Oqaily A. The impact
of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior in higher
education: the contingent role of organizational justice. Cogent Bus Manag.
2024;11:2294834.
54. Ghavifekr S, Adewale AS. Can change leadership impact on staff organizational citizenship behavior? A scenario from Malaysia. High Educ Eval Dev.
2019;13:65–81.
Page 13 of 14
55. Al-Mamary YHS. The impact of transformational leadership on organizational
citizenship behaviour: evidence from Malaysian higher education context.
Hum Syst Manag. 2021;40:737–49.
56. Mahembe B, Engelbrecht AS. The relationship between servant leadership,
organisational citizenship behaviour and team effectiveness. SA J Ind Psychol.
2014;40:10.
57. De Ruiter M, Schaveling J, Ciulla JB, Nijhof A. Leadership and the creation
of corporate social responsibility: an introduction to the special issue. J Bus
Ethics. 2018;151:871–4.
58. Spence JR, Brown DJ, Keeping LM, Lian H. Helpful today, but not tomorrow?
Feeling grateful as a predictor of daily organizational citizenship behaviors.
Pers Psychol. 2014;67:705–38.
59. Wang C. Antecedent, influence and boundary conditions of state gratitude.
China Acad J. 2019;16:1640–9.
60. Guzzo RF, Wang X, Abbott J. Corporate social responsibility and individual
outcomes: the mediating role of gratitude and compassion at work. Cornell
Hosp Q. 2022;63:350–68.
61. Stahl GK, Sully de Luque M. Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: a
research synthesis, conceptual framework, and agenda for future research.
Acad Manag Perspect. 2014;28:235–54.
62. Voegtlin C, Greenwood M. Corporate social responsibility and human
resource management: a systematic review and conceptual analysis. Hum
Resour Manag Rev. 2016;26:181–97.
63. Kim YJ, Van Dyne L, Lee SM. A dyadic model of motives, pride, gratitude, and
helping. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:1367–82.
64. Ford MT, Wang Y, Jin J, Eisenberger R. Chronic and episodic anger and
gratitude toward the organization: relationships with organizational and
supervisor supportiveness and extrarole behavior. J Occup Health Psychol.
2018;23:175–87.
65. Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV. Organizational images and member
identification. Adm Sci Q. 1994;:239–63.
66. Mael F, Ashforth BE. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. J Organ Behav.
1992;13:103–23.
67. Ashforth BE, Mael F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14:20.
68. Hogg MA, van Knippenberg D. Social identity and leadership processes in
groups. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2003;35:1–52.
69. Walumbwa FO, Mayer DM, Wang P, Wang H, Workman K, Christensen AL.
Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: the roles of leader–
member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organ
Behav Hum Decis Process. 2011;115:204–13.
70. Buil I, Martínez E, Matute J. Transformational leadership and employee performance: the role of identification, engagement and proactive personality. Int J
Hosp Manag. 2019;77:64–75.
71. Herman HM, Chiu WC. Transformational leadership and job performance: a
social identity perspective. J Bus Res. 2014;67:2827–35.
72. Haque A, Fernando M, Caputi P. The relationship between responsible leadership and organisational commitment and the mediating effect of employee
turnover intentions: an empirical study with Australian employees. J Bus
Ethics. 2019;156:759–74.
73. Haque A, Fernando M, Caputi P. How is responsible leadership related to the
three-component model of organisational commitment? Int J Prod Perform
Manag. 2021;70:1137–61.
74. He J, Morrison AM, Zhang H. Being sustainable: the three-way interactive
effects of CSR, green human resource management, and responsible leadership on employee green behavior and task performance. Corp Soc Responsib
Environ Manag. 2021;28:1043–54.
75. Newman A, Miao Q, Hofman PS, Zhu CJ. The impact of socially responsible
human resource management on employees’ organizational citizenship
behaviour: the mediating role of organizational identification. Int J Hum
Resour Manag. 2016;27:440–55.
76. De Roeck K, El Akremi A, Swaen V. Consistency matters! How and when does
corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification?
J Manag Stud. 2016;53:1141–68.
77. Doh JP, Quigley NR. Responsible leadership and stakeholder management:
influence pathways and organizational outcomes. Acad Manag Perspect.
2014;28:255–74.
78. Blader S, Patil S, Packer D. Organizational identification and workplace behavior: more than meets the eye. Res Organ Behav. 2017;37.
79. Bullis CA, Tompkins PK. The forest ranger revisited: a study of control practices
and identification. Commun Monogr. 1989;56:287–306.
Luo et al. BMC Psychology
(2025) 13:6
80. Riketta M. Organizational identification: a meta-analysis. J Vocat Behav.
2005;66:358–84.
81. Scott CR, Stephens KK. It depends on who you’re talking to… predictors and
outcomes of situated measures of organizational identification. West J Commun. 2009;73:370–94.
82. Ministry of Education China. Number of higher education institutions. ​h​t​t​​p​:​/​/​​
w​w​w​​.​m​​o​e​.​​g​o​v​.​​c​n​/​​j​y​​b​_​s​j​z​l​/​m​o​e​_​5​6​0​/​2​0​2​1​/​g​e​d​i​/​2​0​2​3​0​1​/​t​2​0​2​3​0​1​1​7​_​1​0​3​9​5​5​7​
.​h​t​m​l​​​​ (2021). Accessed 15 May 2023.
83. Voegtlin C. Development of a scale measuring discursive responsible leadership. Responsible Leadersh. 2011;:57–73.
84. Afsar B, Maqsoom A, Shahjehan A, Afridi SA, Nawaz A, Fazliani H. Responsible
leadership and employee’s proenvironmental behavior: the role of organizational commitment, green shared vision, and internal environmental locus of
control. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2020;27:297–312.
85. Dong W, Zhong L. Responsible leadership fuels innovative behavior: the
mediating roles of socially responsible human resource management and
organizational pride. Front Psychol. 2021;12:5885.
86. Xiao X, Zhou Z, Yang F, Qi H. Embracing responsible leadership and enhancing organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: a social identity
perspective. Front Psychol. 2021;12:632629.
87. Tan LP, Yap CS, Choong YO, Choe KL, Rungruang P, Li Z. Ethical leadership,
perceived organizational support and citizenship behaviors: the moderating
role of ethnic dissimilarity. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2019;40:877–97.
88. Teng C-C, Lu ACC, Huang Z-Y, Fang C-H. Ethical work climate, organizational
identification, leader-member-exchange (LMX) and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) a study of three star hotels in Taiwan. Int J Contemp Hosp
Manag. 2020;32:212–29.
89. Yang C, Chen Y, Chen A, Ahmed SJ. The integrated effects of leader–member
exchange social comparison on job performance and OCB in the Chinese
context. Front Psychol. 2023;14.
90. Brislin RW. The wording and translation of research instruments. Field Methods Cross-Cult Res. 1986;:137–64.
91. Hair J, Alamer A. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)
in second language and education research: guidelines using an applied
example. Res Methods Appl Linguist. 2022;1:100027.
Page 14 of 14
92. Dash G, Paul J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences
and technology forecasting. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2021;173:121092.
93. Hair J, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the
results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. 2019;31:2–24.
94. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:879–903.
95. Kock N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity Assessment
Approach. Int J E-Collab. 2015;11:1–10.
96. Sarstedt M, Hair JF, Cheah J-H, Becker J-M, Ringle CM. How to specify,
estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in pls-sem. Australas Mark J.
2019;27:197–211.
97. Gold AH, Malhotra A, Segars AH. Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective. J Manag Inf Syst. 2001;18:185–214.
98. Guo YX, Su Y. The double-edged sword effect of responsible leadership
on subordianates′ organizational citizenship behavior. Res Econ Manag.
2018;39:90–102.
99. Rudolph CW, Katz IM, Lavigne KN, Zacher H. Job crafting: a meta-analysis
of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work
outcomes. J Vocat Behav. 2017;102:112–38.
100. Kelemen TK, Matthews SH, Breevaart K. Leading day-to-day: a review of
the daily causes and consequences of leadership behaviors. Leadersh Q.
2020;31:101344.
101. Voegtlin C, Frisch C, Walther A, Schwab P. Theoretical development and
empirical examination of a three-roles model of responsible leadership. J Bus
Ethics. 2020;167:411–31.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.