↓ Skip to main content

SOC Strategies and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors toward the Benefits of Co-workers: A Multi-Source Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
SOC Strategies and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors toward the Benefits of Co-workers: A Multi-Source Study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01740
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Müller, Matthias Weigl

Abstract

Background: Individuals' behavioral strategies like selection, optimization, and compensation (SOC) contribute to efficient use of available resources. In the work context, previous studies revealed positive associations between employees' SOC use and favorable individual outcomes, like engagement and job performance. However, the social implications of self-directed behaviors like SOC that are favorable for the employee but may imply consequences for coworkers have not been investigated yet in an interpersonal work context. Objective: This study aimed to assess associations between employees' use of SOC behaviors at work and their organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) toward the benefits of co-workers rated by their peers at work. We further sought to identify age-specific associations between SOC use and OCB. Design and Method: A cross-sectional design combining multi-source data was applied in primary school teachers (age range: 23-58 years) who frequently teach in dyads. N = 114 dyads were finally included. Teachers reported on their SOC strategies at work. Their peer colleagues evaluated teachers' OCB. Control variables were gender, workload, working hours, and perceived proximity of relationship between the dyads. Results: We observed a positive effect of loss-based selection behaviors on peer-rated OCB. Moreover, there was a significant two-way interaction effect between the use of compensation strategies and age on OCB, such that there was a positive association for older employees and a negative association for younger employees. There were no significant main and age-related interaction effects of elective selection, optimization, and of overall SOC strategies on OCB. Conclusion: Our study suggests that high use of loss-based selection and high use of compensation strategies in older employees is positively related with OCB as perceived by their colleagues. However, high use of compensation strategies in younger employees is perceived negatively related with OCB. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the age-differentiated interpersonal effects of successful aging strategies in terms of SOC in organizations.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 22 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 29 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#19,393,582
of 24,699,496 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,751
of 33,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,577
of 327,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#478
of 600 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,699,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 600 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.