CC BY
0
Organizational Psychology, 2023, Vol. 13, No. 3, P. 74-91. DOI: 10.17323/2312-5942-2023-13-3-74-91
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
www.orgpsyjournal.hse.ru
Psychological safety as a precedent to unethical pro-organizational behavior: A social exchange analysis
Amir KHUSHK
ORCID: 0000-0002-1895-9821
Yang HUI Xu YI
ORCID: 0000-0003-4918-902X
Zhang ZENGTIAN
University of Science and Technology China, Hefei, Anhui, China
Abstract. Purpose. This study aims to investigate how psychological safety act as an antecedent of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Drawing from social exchange theory, we examine the role of job insecurity as a mediating variable along with moderation of employee proactive personality on the said association. Study design. Data were collected using a survey structured questionnaire from Chinese managers (N = 135) from service and manufacturing companies in Hefei. Smart PLS was used to analyze the data. Findings. The result showed that job insecurity mediated the relationship between psychological safety and unethical pro-organizational behavior. However, the results also revealed that a proactive personality does not moderate the relationship between psychological safety and job insecurity. Findings also suggest that supervisors should be conscious that workers who are at risk of being fired maybe engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior just to keep their job safe. Such behavior can be harmful to the company in the long term, so managers must be careful and prompt in upsetting such behavior. Implications for practice. By statistically evaluating relationships between psychological safety and unethical pro-organizational behavior, the findings provide insight into social exchange theory and practice in the service and manufacturing industries. In the long run, managers must understand factors other than moral principles that influence employee commitment. Originality. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study that precisely investigates psychological safety as an antecedent of unethical pro-organizational conduct with the mediation function of job insecurity.
Keywords: psychological safety, job insecurity, UPB, ethics, personality, social exchange theory.
It has been documented that unethical behavior has negative consequences on well-being, employment, and organizational performance. Managers and organizational scholars generally believe that unethical behavior is harmful or rooted in self-interest (Zhang et al., 2020). Researchers have been paying considerable attention to employees who engage in unethical pro-organizational activities to secure their status and position (Keim et al., 2014). An employee can misrepresent the
Address: No. 96, JinZhai Road Baohe District, Hefei, Anhui, 233026, P. R. China. E-mail: amir65378@gmail.com
Introduction
information about goods and services which the company offers to customers. It is also possible that accountants fake the numbers to save their organization money on taxes (Umphress, Bingham, 2011a). Therefore, employees may be perceived as efficient by their superiors by engaging in unethical but organizationally beneficial behavior. In light of recent rises in the incidence of unethical organizational behavior researchers are becoming increasingly interested in this concept (Umphress et al., 2010b). Based on the social exchange theory, and social identity theory researchers have studied the antecedents of UPB (Bryant, Merritt, 2019). Based on prior studies, unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) is highly related to individual variations (Stefan Thau et al., 2015), personality and values (Castille et al., 2018), and job outcomes (Lawrence, Kacmar, 2017). Therefore, in this research, we examined how and why UPB is triggered by low psychological safety. Notably, new empirical studies concerning safety demonstrate that psychological safety may incite unethical conduct, thus it can enhance potential risks in workplace settings. Because followers might perceive the lower possible costs and bigger rewards of UPB based on psychological safety, the idea of psychological safety is viewed as a crucial criterion in judging unethical behavior (Zhang et al., 2020). Psychologically safe employees are less likely to engage in UPB. Inadequate psychological safety can cause individuals to engage in UPB (Pearsall, Ellis, 2011). Furthermore, individuals with reduced job stress evaluate the moral significance of their actions and are more likely to behave ethically. Previous research used the social learning theory to explain the relationship between psychological safety and unethical behavior (Cheng et al., 2019; Johnson, Umphress, 2018). These ideas, however, do not describe why and how job insecurity is viewed as a type of interaction between psychological safety and immoral behavior. Our research sheds light on UPB by investigating the role of psychological safety in fostering UPB in the face of employment insecurity. The purpose of this research is to create a comprehensive model of psychological safety and unethical behavior after taking into account control factors that may influence the variables of interest and their interactions.
We aim to examine the relationship between psychological safety and employee participation in UPB, to make significant contributions. First, we contribute to the UPB literature by finding additional UPB antecedent variables. Our research offers another perspective on employees' low psychological safety that employees don't raise their voices against unethical practices for the sake of organizational benefits. Additionally, this research offers insight into UPB's complexities. The concept of job insecurity emphasizes the link between psychological safety and employee UPB, which relates to the concepts of social exchange and identity. One reason why employees with low psychological safety may experience UPB is job insecurity. Previous theories have limitations when predicting when and how employees will engage in unethical activities that benefit their employers. Therefore, we use theoretical perspectives on social relationship dynamics to expand conceptions of the UPB triggers. Third, we establish hypotheses that suggest proactive personality is an important factor that can either boost or weaken the impacts of psychological safety on UPB. By investigating the roles of proactive personality in field research, our findings add to a better understanding of the UPB phenomena. This research offers evidence that members engage in UPB as a result of low psychological safety, which is more likely to be perceived among proactive employees. Finally, our emphasis on employees' low psychological safety on UPB brings a new viewpoint to the literature. As a result, we responded to requests by emphasizing that psychological safety does not necessarily result in good results (Newman et al., 2017). Thus, the purpose of this study was to use social exchange and identity theory to expand theoretical understanding by investigating the underlying mechanism that links psychological safety to UPB (Erkutlu, Chafra, 2019). This research examined the link between psychological safety and UPB. The relationship between such aspects and UPB in the workplace has not been clearly defined by previous research. Dang with colleagues assert that
determining the extent to which UPB is supported by low psychological safety is a core topic in the study (Dang et al., 2017). In addition, this research will contribute to theoretical understanding by investigating the underlying psychological processes of UPB as well as by examining them as an antecedent factor of UPB.
Theoretical development
Over the last decade, organizations have been shrinking, reorganizing, and merging at a growing rate. Workers have expressed issues related to safety, fear, pressure, and uncertainty about the structure and future of work as a result of such massive changes (Cartwright, Cooper, 1990; Romzek, 1985). Individuals could have valid reasons to be concerned. For instance, personnel transfer and loss of employment, position, perks, and promotions are regular effects of mergers or acquisitions (Walsh et al., 1985). It was observed that demoralization, distrust, powerlessness, and anxiety were in response to a probable dismissal. Psychological safety has mainly been studied using theories such as social exchange, and social identity theories to describe the processes involved in its development and impact.
Cognitive and emotional aspects of a job are two different dimensions of job insecurity to evaluate (O'Neill, Seva, 2013). Employees who have been mistreated may become more devoted to their bosses to avoid additional abuse as a result of actively utilizing proactive strategies to repair the dysfunctional relationship with superiors. This point of view has been supported by a growing number of researchers (Oh, Farh, 2017; Pan et al., 2018). For instance, it was discovered that individuals with lower psychological safety engage in self-presented conduct in the manner of favor offering to others to display their value and ensure supervisor endorsements (Vogel, Mitchell, 2015). Moreover, lack of safety may drive greater performance in cases where productivity is a more relevant factor in layoff decisions than years of continuous service (Sverke, Hellgren, 2002). Another study has identified insecurity as a direct influence of unemployment (Brockner, 1992). Some researchers have examined the cognitive and affective aspects of job insecurity (Keim et al., 2014). Job insecurity is perceived differently by individuals, suggesting that personality characteristics may play a role as a predictor of job uncertainty (De Witte, 2005). There is a curvilinear connection, with high employment insecurity inducing workers to participate in organizational citizenship behavior to prevent layoffs (Lam et al., 2015). Followers of UBP believe that the concept is rooted in social exchange theory as well (Umphress, Bingham, 2011b). To put it another way, workers may participate in the pro-organizational activity, even though it is immoral if they continue to profit from it (Gilboa et al., 2013). According to the social exchange theory, when individuals are motivated, they may also become proactive players in changing the social exchange relations they have with others (Fehr, Gachter, 2000).
Hypothesis development
Psychological safety and unethical pro-organizational behavior
Psychological safety is defined as the extent to which an employee feel confident and safe in their capabilities (Javed et al., 2019). Employees have a trustworthy and cooperative relationship with their leaders (Kahn, 1990), and followers' activities coincide with their managers' views are more likely and to be valued. Psychology is particularly important at work, as it has been demonstrated that psychological safety helps reduce employee errors (Leroy et al., 2012), and that it increases team and individual communication (Ortega et al., 2014). In the context of unethical behavior, employees
may assume risks by supporting unethical activities for the sake of the organization, despite their not being in the interests of external stakeholders. Organizations expect their employees to play a vital role in continuously improving organizational processes and practices by collaborating with members and trying out new ways of doing things (Nembhard, Edmondson, 2011). The company may benefit from such efforts, but they also pose significant risks. The present study focuses on evaluating the links between psychological safety and unethical behaviors for the sake of the organization. It can be an effective perception that leads to unethical behavior (Li et al., 2017). Previous studies have found that psychological safety has a favorable influence on unethical conduct (Liang et al., 2012)felt obligation for constructive change, and organization-based self-esteem. People believe in psychological safety and do not fear negative consequences to their self-image, status in society, or their career advancement (Kahn, 1990).
Employees' psychological safety is measured by their sense of confidence and comfort with their skills (Javed et al., 2019). Following their leader's wishes results in followers who believe they will be rewarded. Various aspects of the business climate are influenced by interactions with managers, including psychological safety. Previous research has found that leaders' powerful position, which can influence the psychological safety of their subordinates (Edmondson, 1999; Li et al., 2017). For example, argued that employees who reject the boss' inclinations feel less safe because they are afraid of not being accepted (Xu et al., 2019). A study conducted in a Chinese company found that charismatic leadership can influence UPB indirectly through psychological safety, with performance pressure being the moderator. Taking risks, such as unethical behavior, for the benefit of achieving organizational goals, is encouraged by charismatic leadership. In addition, charismatic leadership is associated with UPB through psychological safety, with results demonstrating a positive relationship whose strength is amplified by substantial performance pressure (Zhang et al., 2020). Based on Mediation analysis results suggest that employees' psychological safety fully mediates the effect of a leader's psychopathy on employee organizational deviance based on social exchange theory. In terms of psychological safety, leader psychopathy is significantly influenced by moral disengagement. Researchers have previously found that high levels of organizational deviance and low psychological safety are consequences of a leader's psychopathy. Authors claimed that psychological safety is linked to employee deviance when a leader is psychopathic (Erkutl, Chafra, 2019).
Psychological safety is an emotional belief that leads to immoral behavior. Therefore, employees have a favorable effect on unethical conduct (Erkutlu, Chafra, 2019). Lack of psychological safety for workers may lead to low affiliation with the leader and company, as well as excessive organizational deviations (Chan, McAllister, 2014). When employees voice their opinions in the workplace, they are considered troublemakers. As a result, they may be get lower support, abuse, or, in some cases dismissal is also possible (Miceli et al., 2009). Hence, emotional support from organizations can encourage employees to feel psychologically safe in their workplaces (Hirak et al., 2012). This shows that psychological safety can be one of the variables that foster UPB for the sake of organizational benefit. As a result, we hypothesized that there is a positive relationship between psychological safety and UPB among followers:
Hypothesis 1: Psychological safety has a positive effect on unethical pro-organizational behavior.
Mediating role of job insecurity
The perception of job insecurity among employees has declined over time (Weaver, 2015), partly due to the termination of work schedules (Kuroki, 2012). Media reports, however, have reported how companies in information technology sector, start-up, and manufacturing sectors have been laying off employees to reduce costs. Under such circumstances, employees may feel more job insecurity. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that employees will look for ways to mitigate such career
risks. As companies increasingly expect employees to perform to get a permanent job, the issue of job instability has gained significant attention (Callea et al., 2014; Greenhalgh, Rosenblatt, 2010). Work uncertainty is defined as "the incapacity to maintain desired consistency in a challenging job environment" (Vander Elst et al., 2014). Cognitive and affective aspects of job insecurity is studied separately along with combination global assessment (O'Neill, Seva, 2013). Scholars also distinguishes insecurity from loss of employment, because job insecurity is characterized by ambiguity, whereas job loss is a fact of life. Job insecurity is likely to sustain in a competitive environment, and earlier studies looked into it in context the of work situations in terms of marketplaces, laws, and regulations (Kinnunen et al., 2014).
According to previous research, job insecurity moderates the relationship between employment and outcomes (De Cuyper et al., 2009). For instance, an organizational downsizing operation may be perceived as a threat by certain employees who are constantly afraid, while others may not regard this action in same manner. Job insecurity has been demonstrated to have a detrimental impact on a person's life, and can have a harmful influence on the person's physical and mental (Cheng, Chan, 2008)age, and gender differences in the relationship between job insecurity and its job-related and health-related consequences. A total of 133 studies, providing 172 independent samples, were included in the analysis. Our results basically replicated Sverke et al.'s (2002. It has, nevertheless, been seen to be a "challenging source of stress" that can drive employees to benefit business (Staufenbiel. Konig, 2010)organizational citizenship behaviour, turnover intention, and absenteeism. A model is tested in which job insecurity is simultaneously a hindrance and a challenge stressor. In particular, job insecurity is proposed to have a predominantly harmful effect on performance, turnover intention, and absenteeism, and it is argued that these effects are mediated by (reduced. Supporters of unethical pro-organizational conduct say that the term is founded in SET as well (Umphress, Bingham, 2011a). Workers who participate in pro behaviors, even if immoral, if they expect to gain from them. Impression management techniques are also used by employees to minimize the chances of job insecurity (De Cuyper et al., 2014)or about impression management aimed at prevention of loss. Here, we probe the relationship between exemplification (impression management aimed at acquiring the image ofmodel employee. Such techniques which benefit a company may be more effective at overcoming job insecurity than those which glorify the individual (Huang et al., 2013).
Moreover, (Sverke, Hellgren, 2002)reported that anxiety to fulfil performance goals leads to a proclivity to engage in immoral behaviors. A person's higher stress causes higher risk perception, and individuals are more willing to participate in unethical behavior (Kouchaki, Desai, 2015). Nevertheless, not enough attention has been paid to the mediating role of job insecurity between psychological safety and unethical pro-organizational behaviors (Debus et al., 2012). Employees who ascribe their job insecurity to elements beyond the organization's control may also want to impose themselves at any expense to benefit the company, which includes neglecting moral considerations because the assessment of fair treatment at the cost of job insecurity influences how an employee performs (Schumacher et al., 2015).
According to (Hur, Perry, 2014) employees who experience job insecurity will display negative organizational behaviors such as a reduction in productivity, increased turnover, and resistance to change. There is evidence that job instability is associated with increased incidences of various types of psychological stress. The uncertainty of a job and the uncertainty of how long they will be employed can lead to stress for employees (Frazier et al., 2016). As employees worry about their futures and those of their family members, they become concerned about how to deal with them (Khushk, 2020; Shanker, 2019). Work instability is tied to the possibility of future job loss, and these misgivings and uncertainties are referred to as stressors. Therefore, employees who are afraid of job insecurity may decide to take advantage of the safety of their surroundings even if it is considered
immoral when faced with a dilemma. Due to this, UPB is more relevant to people who are facing higher job insecurity.
Hypothesis 2: Job insecurity mediates the relationship between psychological safety and unethical pro-organizational behavior.
Moderating role of proactive personality
In the twenty-first century workplace, where businesses must continuously adapt and grow, proactive behaviors such as taking initiative, and assisting others are seen as really vital (Frese et al., 1997; Grant, Ashford, 2008; Li et al., 2010). An individual's proactive mentality, which is their proclivity to discover prospects, resolve issues, and execute changes, is a typical indicator of proactive behavior (Fuller, Marler, 2009; van Wingerden, Poell, 2019). Proactive people take the initiative to make an impact on their environment instead of reacting, adapting, and being shaped by their environment. Research indicates that proactive personalities predict other critical organizational behaviors as well. In fact, it was discovered that proactive characteristics are related to personal need satisfaction, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors (Greguras, Diefendorff, 2010). Employees believe that improving themselves and their work environment can reduce the possibility of losing their jobs or job characteristics in a future situation when they perceive that their future jobs are at risk. Employers should consider taking proactive steps to improve their work performance, demonstrate their value to superior leaders and organizations, and reflect on their skills to reduce job insecurity (Lam et al., 2015).
A turbulent economy often forces organizations to adjust their priorities. Considering that UPB is a sort of pro-organizational behavior, it is plausible to argue that the link between psychological safety and UPB is complicated and can also serve as an impression management technique, assisting employees in improving relationships between management (Umphress, Bingham, 2011a; Wang et al., 2018). According to proactive personality theory, workers with a higher proactive personality are more confident and eager to shape an unfavorable situation. Employees must take proactive measures to maximize their work environment when economic difficulty arises (Li et al., 2010). But the role of workers' proactive personalities in the relationship between psychological safety and job insecurity has received little attention. We examine job insecurity in this study as a predictor of UPB and workers with a dynamic mentality are more prone to participate in unethical behavior. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed as:
Hypothesis 3: Proactive personality moderates the relationship between psychological safety and job insecurity.
Conceptual framework
Conceptual framework is demonstrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
Methodology
Demographic
The data was collected from information technology and manufacturing firms in China. Managers were asked to fill out surveys during work hours. The participants were informed that survey responses would be kept anonymous by the research team. We distributed 150 online questionnaires to managers and obtained 135 valid questionnaires (with response rates of 90 percent). The participants were asked to rate on a five-point Likert scale, with "1" representing "strongly disagree" and "5" representing "strongly agree". The validated and confirmed measures were adopted to identify the present study tables. The authors used Cronbach alpha (a) to measure the reliability and validity of all the variables.
Table 1. Demographics
Variables Classifications Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 65 48.1
Female 70 51.9
Age Mean 1.515 -
Standard Deviation .500 -
Maximum 2 -
Minimum 1 -
Education Level Bachelor's Degree 85 62.96
Master's Degree 50 37.07
Experience Less than three years - -
3-7years 43 31.85
7-10years 65 48.14
10 and above 27 20.01
Measurement model
In addition to linking measurement items to their latent variables, the measurement model is also necessary for SEM. This part discusses the statistical analysis to confirm the measurement model's validity and reliability. For analysis, we use R, specifically the lavaan package for SEM (Rosseel, 2012). Figure 1 illustrates a conceptual model. To assess the latent variables of the conceptual model, we employ several observed items. The first variable is related to the psychological safety of the employees.
Psychological safety
On the Six-item scale by A. C. Edmondson, A. W. Woolley were used to get respondent feedback on psychological safety of workers. High score indicates that there is less psychological safety among employees due to lack of support from organizations and leaders or even from colleagues, where low score shows high psychological safety. Sample items were "If I make a mistake in this job, it is often held against me", "When I raise a problem with my manager, s/he does not seem very interested in helping me find a solution" (Edmondson, Woolley. 1999). Cronbach's a is 0.79.
Job insecurity
The concept of job insecurity, defined by Vander with colleagues as the perception and fear of losing one's job in the future, was applied to the scale for evaluating job insecurity developed by De Witte. Three sample items were. There's a good chance I'm going to lose my job soon" and "I think I will lose my job soon" are sample items (Vander et al., 2014, p. 369). The Cronbach's a value is 0.80 which is acceptable.
Unethical pro organizational behavior
A scale of six items was developed by E. E. Umphress with colleagues. As an example, "I would misrepresent the truth if it could benefit my organization", and "If I had to, I would conceal damaging information to my organization" (Umphress et al., 2010). Cronbach's a was 0.82 in this study.
Proactive personality
Using a Likert-type scale, this measure was constructed in accordance with prior proactive personality research (e.g., Zhang et al., 2012). We used a six-item proactive personality measure developed by S. S. Seibert. "No matter what the odds are, if I believe in something, I will make it happen," and "I thrive at recognizing opportunities" are two examples (Seibert et al., 1999). Cronbach's a is 0.83.
Table 2. Measure(s), item(s) and reliability(s)
Constructs and their respective items Factor Loadings
Unethical pro-organizational behavior
I.If it would help my organization, the employee would misrepresent the truth to make my organization .824 look good. .875
2. If it would help my organization, the employees would exaggerate the truth about my company's products
or services to customers and clients. .771
3. If it would benefit my organization, employees would withhold negative information about my company
or its products from customers and clients. .724
4. If my organization needed, the employee would be given a good recommendation on the behalf of an incompetent employee in the hope that the person will become another organization's problem instead of .813 my own.
5. If needed, I would conceal information from the public that could be damaging to my organization. I would do whatever it takes to help my organization.
Job insecurity .837
6. Chances are employees think they will soon lose employment and feel insecure about the future of their job. .862
7. Employees think they might lose my job in the near future .830 Psychological safety
8. I make a mistake in this job, it is often held against me. .872
9. It is difficult to ask others in this department for help. .711
10. My manager don't encourages me to take on new tasks or to learn how to do things I have never done before. .773
II. If I was thinking about leaving this company to pursue a better job elsewhere, I would talk to my .763 manager about it. .772
12. If I had a problem in this company, I feel my manager won't be my advocate. .799
13. Often when I raise a problem with my manager, he/she does not seem very interested in helping me find a solution.
Proactive personality
14. I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life. .871
15. If I see something I don't like, I fix it. .876
16. No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen. .817
17. I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others' opposition. .827
18. I excel at identifying opportunities. .811
19. If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen. .813
Model-fit: NFI = 0.875, SRMR = 0.073, Cronbach's alpha value is represented by Alpha, while composite reliability is represented by CR.
Results
Reliability and validity
A questionnaire is used to collect data for measuring objects. The statements are rated on a five-point Likert scale, with a "5" representing "strong agreement" and a "1" representing severe
disagreement. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the 22 questions verified the three-component model produced from the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Table 2 shows the standardized factor loadings of the CFA model are all statistically meaningful (p-value 0.001), showing that the items represent their latent variable. This confirms the assessment of model's convergent validity (Anderson, Gerbing, 1988). Table 2 also displays Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability (CR) for each component. Cronbach's a and CR values that are more than the 0.70 recommended limit for all variables (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, the reliability of the measurement model is shown. The following equation can be used to calculate CR.
The factor loading of item (i) is denoted by FL; (n) denotes the number of items in a factor, and MEi denotes the measurement error of items. MEi is computed as follows: (Formula). It determines if two conceptions that are not related are divergent or discriminant in validity. Table 3 shows that one technique for verifying this is to place the squared-correlations of all latent variables in a matrix and compare them with their extracted average variance (AVE). The following equation can be used to compute AVE, based on (Hair et al., 2011).
Table 3. Divergent validity analysis
Variable UPB Psy_Safety Job_Insecurity Pro_Personality
UPB 1.00
Psy_Safety .886 1
Job_Insecurity .845 .837 1
Pro_Personality .867 .858 .769 1
AVE .645 .613 .711 .699
Note. The matrix values indicate squared correlations between latent variables. Divergent validity is shown by an AVE value greater than the column-wise squared correlations.
Formula
The standardized factor loadings of measurement item (i) are denoted by FLi, and the number of items in the factor is denoted by n. In order to show DV, squared-correlations below the diagonal should be less than AVEs of each latent variable (Hair et al., 2011). Table 3 confirms the DV of the latent variables because the tangible AVE and squared correlation are on the threshold. tangible measuring items, on the other hand, are well-established in the research (Jomnonkwao, Ratanavaraha, 2016) drivers and crews, and management factors. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA. Thus, DV is verified as a latent variable.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlation among latent variables
Latent Variables Mean Standard deviation UPB Psy_Safety Job_Ins Pro_Per
UPB 3.618 .579 1
Psy_Safety 3.232 .635 .678 1
Job_Insecurity 3.252 .672 .732 .771 1
Pro_Personality 3.378 .559 .576 .680 .488 1
Note. The mean value and standard deviation (SD) stand for the arithmetic mean of latent variable scores. Moreover, a correlation matrix based on confirmatory component analysis (CFA) reveals the relationship between latent variables.
Furthermore, the measurement model has a good fit (see Table 2), as indicated by the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker — Lewis Index (TLI), both of which are greater than the 0.90 threshold level, and by the Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), both of which are less than the 0.08 threshold level (Hair et al., 2010). Table 4 provides descriptive data as a result of developing a measuring model.
Table 5. Model 1 and Model 2
Variables Model 1 Model 2
Sample mean St. dev. Sig (p-value) Sample mean St. dev. Sig (p-value)
Psy_Saf — Job_Ins .592 .175 .001 .430 .199 .027
Job_Ins - UPB .748 .063 .000 .817 .123 .000
Pro_Per - Job_Ins .291 .212 .178 .283 .211 .210
Psy_Saf - UPB .440 .128 .000
Gender — Job_Ins .307 .137 .029
Gender — UPB -.124 .158 .410
Table 6. Summary of hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Standardized coefficient Remark
H1: Psy_Saf Job_Ins .592(.175)* Supported
H2: Job_Ins UPB .748(.063)* Supported
H3: Pro_Per ^ Job_Ins .291(.212)** Not Supported
H4: Psy_Saf UPB .540(.128)* Supported
Note. Standard deviation in parenthesis, Significance: *p < 0.05, **p > 0.05.
Common method bias
Assessment errors caused by methodological flaws are examples of common method biases. Using the same scales across all items in the questionnaire may result in common method variation. The researchers offer many analytical cures for common technique bias, each with advantages and disadvantages (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Harman's single variable test, which is commonly used, is adopted for the study. Unrotated factor analysis was conducted with the 20 items assigned to a single latent component. The average proportion of variation explained by a single component is just 33% (this is significantly below the suggested cut-off of 50%). Therefore, common method bias in not the problem in our study.
It is difficult to develop identical conceptual and empirical structural equation models at 5% statistically significant in complicated SEM experiments with more than 12 measuring items, such as this study (Hair et al., 2011). The estimated SEM model (496.106/313 = 1.585) indicates a satisfactory model fit when the chi-square statistic to degrees of freedom (DF) ratio is less than three (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Other model-fit indices conditions are satisfied. The CFI and TLI are both greater than 0.90, whereas the RMSEA and SRMR are both lower than 0.08. This means SEM calculations are correct. Based on the R2 of latent endogenous variables, customer satisfaction, and life satisfaction account for about 50% and 10% of the variation of the two endogenous variables. Table 6 summarizes hypothesis testing based on the SEM model. The three (H1, H2, H4) hypotheses support the relationship. Among these four, H3 is not supported, implying that a proactive personality doesn't moderate the relationship between psychological safety and job insecurity. H1 and H4 are supported, implying a favorable relationship between employee psychological safety and Unethical pro-organizational behavior. H2 is also supported, implying that job insecurity mediates the relationship between psychological safety between unethical pro-organizational behavior. To test the robustness of the conceptual framework, we use partial least squares (PLS) SEM (Hair et al., 2011). In hypothesis testing, we find that both covariance-based SEM and PLS-SEM produce the same results.
Discussion
If an employee's psychological safety is under threat, they can make a good impression on their boss by engaging in pro-organizational conduct, in exchange they expect to keep their position (Cheng
et al., 2012; De Cuyper et al., 2014). Therefore, the study aims to investigate empirically the impact of psychological safety on UPB. In line with past literature, the current study suggests that to cope with uncertainty, employees will sometimes engage in immoral behavior that benefits their company. Studies indicate that such practices may be accepted in a company, since there are not always moral culture (Umphress, Bingham, 2011b). Thus, findings indicate that psychological safety is positively correlated with unethical organizational behavior. In line with (Erkutlu, Chafra, 2019) research, it was expected that if an employee's need for job protection is high (in this example, if psychological safety is low), or if there is a risk to their work, the tendency for that person to participate in unethical activity would be high. The current study hypothesized that unethical pro-organizational behavior is mediated by job insecurity psychological safety and UPB. As a result, desperate employees may participate in unethical organizational conduct if they are afraid of losing their job. A salesman with a target may not refuse to exaggerate the quality of goods to clients to sell that item, particularly if the sales goal is the core of their job.
Several significant theoretical contributions are made in this study: researchers previously had not studied the tendency of employees to engage in UPB for the sole purpose of retaining their jobs; however, this study provides empirical evidence that they do so, with the mediating role of job insecurity and moderating role of proactive personality of the employee to engage in such behavior to secure his/her position and in return benefit the organization. Past research suggests individuals engage in just pro-organizational behavior such as (better performance, and impression management) when their jobs are at risk (Staufenbiel, Konig, 2010); however, the current study emphasizes on the unethical nature of such pro-organizational behaviors. UPB may be useful to companies in the shorter term, and it might be damaging in the longer term. Practical implications demand managers should be aware that workers may participate in UPB in reaction to a job threat. Managers should be cautious about employee perception of their positions, because safety issues could lead these individuals to perform activities that can be beneficial to the business but are inconsistent with ethical standards (Thau et al., 2015). Moreover, an employee with high levels of job insecurity should be paid attention by managers to prevent them from engaging in unethical conduct (Keim et al., 2014).
From theoretical perspective, according to the social exchange theory, if an individual is motivated, they may reach an exchange relationship with their superiors even if that behavior is unethical. If employees feel they have a strong sense of identity with their employer, they may feel motivated to engage in conduct that helps the organization, even though from an ethical perspective it is immoral (Lee et al., 2015; Umphress, Bingham, 2011a). Psychological safety has been found to a have positive relationship with UPB, which supports our hypothesis 1. High achievement attitudes coupled with job uncertainty can ensure minimum levels of withdrawal from work (Yi, Wang, 2015). Thus, individuals with psychological safety to their employers make a significant contribution to the organization, particularly in a situation when job insecurity is high (De Witte, 2005). As per the previous studies, various forms of organizational transformation and market instability are important predictors of increased unemployment, with employee well-being and job prospects suffering as a result (Keim et al., 2014). According to research, people deal with job insecurity by working hard, asking for aid from bosses, and employing persuasive abilities (Huang et al., 2013). Which supports our hypothesis 2. However, proactive personality does not support our research hypothesis 3 of the role as a moderator between psychological safety and job insecurity (see Table 6).
Managerial implication
Researchers found that the impression of psychological safety may cause employees to behave in many ways, regardless of whether that behavior damages them personally, to be recognized as
valuable to the company (Boswell et al., 2014). Employees who are under significant job insecurity make HR alarmed by the rise in unethical conduct by workers, since such individuals may easily engage in unethical activities that may help them feel psychologically safe. Consequently, employee engagement should not be confused with ensuring suitable assistance to people being under pressure to achieve and encouraging them to convey themselves in a proper venue when confronted with situations in which they are not morally permissible (Huang et al., 2013).
We propose a policy implication for disciplinary systems aiming at restricting immoral behavior. Rather than merely endorsing unethical pro-behavior, managers whenever possible, implement publicly declared guidelines stating that group contributions are based on ethical behaviors and an entire group may be held responsible for commitments if found in unethical practices. Such a regulation would diminish the value of unethical activity as a method of boosting one's inclusive standing and, as a result, would probably discourage such unpleasant activities. To encourage ethical work practices, it is recommended that firms conduct psychological safety training and design interventions to educate practical leaders or managers on the issues of job insecurity and the necessity of good relationships between employees and managers, to promote ethical work practices.
In the current era studies found that lack of psychological safety due to job insecurity is highly expected by employees, and that this type of research is vital in combating the negative effects of job (Wang et al., 2015). Although implications and determinants of job insecurity have been thoroughly researched, therefore, more research should be conducted from the perspective of human resource professionals to uncover realistic strategies for employees to deal with insecurity (Boswell et al., 2014). According to research, a stronger internal locus of control (LOC), less role ambiguity, and effective coordination, in addition to supporting supervisors and organization can help to reduce job uncertainty (Keim et al., 2014).
Limitations and future directions
This research still has some limitations as it focuses on just one industry. Research should be conducted on a more diverse sample of respondents, and in a variety of settings, sectors, and countries. In addition, the research relying on self-reported data is considered a limitation as people may not accurately evaluate themselves. Alternatively, data could also be collected from coworkers, managers, or peers of the respondent (Aziz, 2008), which can lead to common method bias (CMB). Harman's single component analysis was used to minimize CMB, and a time-lag strategy was used to adjust for samples.
Conclusion
It has been observed that employees may engage in unethical behavior to benefit their organization, such as lying to customers or concealing facts. It's crucial to understand when and why employees engage in UPB given the prevalence and damaging consequences of this behavior. Employees' willingness to engage in unethical pro-organizational behavior in response to psychological safety was examined empirically. Therefore the findings of current research fill the gap in the literature by showing psychological safety is negatively associated with UPB that contribute to current research by identifying psychological safety as a predictor of UPB. Finally, the study found that psychological safety strengthens the relationship between job insecurity and UPB.
Declarations Funding and (or) Conflict of interest
This research has not received any kind of funding and the authors declare no conflict of interest. We would like to acknowledge Prof: Xu Yi, Zhang Zengtian and Yang Hui for their contribution and assistance.
References
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Harris, T. B. (2014). I cannot afford to have a life: employee adaptation to feelings of job insecurity. Personnel Psychology, 67(4), 887-915. https://doi. org/10.1111/peps.12061 Bryant, W., Merritt, S. M. (2019). Unethical pro-organizational behavior and positive leader-employee relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(4), 777-793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04211-x
Callea, A., Urbini, F., Ingusci, E., Chirumbolo, A. (2014). The relationship between contract type and job satisfaction in a mediated moderation model: The role of job insecurity and psychological contract violation. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 37(2), 399-420. https://doi. org/10.1177/0143831X14546238 Castille, C. M., Buckner, J. E., Thoroughgood, C. N. (2018). Prosocial citizens without a moral compass? examining the relationship between machiavellianism and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(4), 919-930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3079-9
Chan, M. E., McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia.
Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 44-66. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0419 Cheng, K., Wei, F., Lin, Y. (2019). The trickle-down effect of responsible leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of leader-follower value congruence. Journal of Business Research, 102(May), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.jbusres.2019.04.044 Cheng, T., Mauno, S., Lee, C. (2012). The buffering effect of coping strategies in the relationship between job insecurity and employee well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 35(1), 71-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X12463170 Cuyper de, N., Schreurs, B., Vander Elst, T., Baillien, E., De Witte, H. (2014). Exemplification and perceived job insecurity: Associations with self-rated performance and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13(1), 1-10. Dang, C. T., Umphress, E. E., Mitchell, M. S. (2017). Leader social accounts of subordinates' Unethical behavior: Examining observer reactions to leader social accounts with moral disengagement language. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(10), 1448-1461. https://doi.org/10.1037/ apl0000233
Debus, M. E., Probst, T. M., König, C. J., Kleinmann, M. (2012). Catch me if i fall! Enacted uncertainty avoidance and the social safety net as country-level moderators in the job insecurity-job attitudes link. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 690-698. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027832 Emberland, J. S., Rundmo, T. (2010). Implications of job insecurity perceptions and job insecurity responses for psychological well-being, turnover intentions and reported risk behavior. Safety Science, 48(4), 452-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.12.002 Erkutlu, H., Chafra, J. (2019). Leader psychopathy and organizational deviance: The mediating role of psychological safety and the moderating role of moral disengagement. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 12(4), 197-213. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-12-2018-0154
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., Vracheva, V. (2016). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113-165. https://doi. org/10.1111/peps.12183 Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., Cooper, C. L. (2013). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. From Stress to Wellbeing. Volumel: The theory and research on occupational stress and wellbeing, (188-230). https://doi. org/10.1057/9781137310651 Greenhalgh, L., Rosenblatt, Z. (2010). Evolution of research on job insecurity. International Studies of Management and Organization, 40(1), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.2753/IM00020-8825400101 Greguras, G. J., Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). Why does proactive personality predict employee life satisfaction and work behaviors? A field investigation of the mediating role of the self-concordance model. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 539-560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01180.x
Hair, J., Black, W., Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (Pearson (ed.); 7th ed.). https:// www.pearson.com/uk/
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202 Hirak, R., Chunyan, A., Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J. M. (2012). Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.leaqua.2011.11.009 Huang, G. H., Zhao, H. H., Niu, X. Y., Ashford, S. J., Lee, C. (2013). Reducing job insecurity and increasing performance ratings: Does impression management matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 852-862. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033151 Hur, H., Perry, J. L. (2014). The Relationship Between Job Security and Work Attitudes: A Meta-Analysis Examining Competing Theoretical Models. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-33. https://doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2452082 Javed, B., Naqvi, S. M. M. R., Khan, A. K., Arjoon, S., Tayyeb, H. H. (2019). Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety. Journal of Management and Organization, 25(1), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.3 Jiang, L., Probst, T. M. (2019). The moderating effect of trust in management on consequences of job insecurity. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 40(2), 409-433. https://doi. org/10.1177/0143831X16652945 Johnson, Umphress, E. E. (2018). To help my supervisor: Identification, moral identity, and unethical pro-supervisor behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 519-534. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-018-3836-z
Jomnonkwao, S., Ratanavaraha, V. (2016). Measurement modeling of the perceived service quality of a sightseeing bus service: An application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Transport Policy, 45(2010), 240-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.04.001 Keim, A. C., Landis, R. S., Pierce, C. A., Earnest, D. R. (2014). Why do employees worry about their jobs? A meta-analytic review of predictors of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036743 Khushk, A. (2020). Role of functional conflict on employee engagement through effective negotiation in banking sector of Hyderabad Sindh, Pakistan. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 14(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2020/v14i130182 Kinnunen, U., Makikangas, A., Mauno, S., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H. (2014). Development of perceived job insecurity across two years: Associations with antecedents and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035835
Kouchaki, M., Desai, S. D. (2015). Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: How anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit unethical acts. Journal for Applied Psychology, 100(2), 360-375. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/ Kuroki, M. (2012). The deregulation of temporary employment and workers' perceptions of job insecurity. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 65(3), 560-577. https://doi. org/10.1177/001979391206500304 Lam, C. F., Liang, J., Ashford, S. J., Lee, C. (2015). Job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior: Exploring curvilinear and moderated relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 499-510. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038659 Lawrence, E. R., Kacmar, K. M. (2017). Exploring the impact of job insecurity on employees' unethical
behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(1), 39-70. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.58 Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049-1080. https://doi. org/10.1037/bul0000012 Leroy, H., Dierynck, B., Anseel, F., Simons, T., Halbesleben, J. R. B., Mccaughey, D., Savage, G. T., Al, L. E. T. (2012). Behavioral integrity for safety, priority of safety, psychological safety, and patient safety: A team-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1273-1281. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0030076
Li, N., Liang, J., Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 395-404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018079 Li, S., Magrabi, F., Coiera, E. (2017). A systematic review of the psychological literature on interruption and its patient safety implications. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19, 6-12. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000024 Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive Voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92. https://doi. org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176 Nembhard, I. M., Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Psychological safety: A foundation for speaking up, collaboration, and experimentation in organizations. In Oxford Handbooks. https://www. oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199734610-e-037
Newman, A., Donohue, R., Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. hrmr.2017.01.001
O'Neill, P., Seva, P. (2013). The Development and validation of a new multidimensional job insecurity measure (JIM): An inductive methodology. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 338-349. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033114 Oh, J. K., Farh, C. I. C. (2017). An emotional process theory of how subordinates appraise, experience, and respond to abusive supervision over time. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 207-232. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0347 Ortega, A., Van den Bossche, P., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Rico, R., & Gil, F. (2014). The influence of change-oriented leadership and psychological safety on team learning in healthcare teams. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 311-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9315-8 Pan, W., Sun, L., Sun, L., Li, C. (2018). Abusive supervision and job-oriented constructive deviance in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(5), 22492267. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-04-2017-0212
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Thick as Thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 401-411. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0021503
Schumacher, D., Schreurs, B., Emmerik van, H., De Witte, H. (2015). Explaining the relation between job insecurity and employee outcomes during organizational change: A multiple group comparison. Human Resource Management, 55(5), 809-827. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21687 Shanker, M. (2019). Assessing job stress: development of an inventory and relationship with
managers' intention to stay. Drishtikon: A Management Journal, 10(1), 24-32. Staufenbiel, T., Konig, C. J. (2010). A model for the effects of job insecurity on performance, turnover intention, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 101-117. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X401912 Thau, S, Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., Mitchell, M. S. (2015). Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 57(10), 1943-1944. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02457.x Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., Mitchell, M. S., Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 98-113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036708 Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B. (2011a). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science Publication, 22(3), 621-640. https:// doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0559 Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., Mitchell, M. S. (2010a). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: the moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769-780. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0019214 Van Wingerden, J., Poell, R. F. (2019). Antecedents of job crafting behavior within organizations: the role of personal resources, job resources and perceived opportunities to craft in employees proactive behavior. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 9(3), 135. https://doi. org/10.5296/ijhrs.v9i3.14908 Vander Elst, T., De Witte, H., De Cuyper, N. (2014). The Job Insecurity Scale: A psychometric evaluation across five European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 364-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.745989 Vogel, R. M., Mitchell, M. S. (2015). The motivational effects of diminished self-esteem for employees who experience abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 43(7), 2218-2251. https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206314566462 Wang, H. J., Lu, C. Q., Siu, O. L. (2015). Job insecurity and job performance: The moderating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1249-1258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038330 Wang, L., Zhang, He. (2018). A social exchange perspective of employee-organization relationships and employee unethical pro-organizational behavior: the moderating role of individual moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 473-489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3782-9
Weaver, C. N. (2015). Worker's expectations about losing and replacing their jobs: 35 years of change.
Monthly Labor Review, (1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2015.! Wong, K. K. K.-K. (2013). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques Using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1-32. http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/
Xu, M., Qin, X., Dust, S. B., DiRenzo, M. S. (2019). Supervisor-subordinate proactive personality congruence and psychological safety: A signaling theory approach to employee voice behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 30(4), 440-453. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.leaqua.2019.03.001 Yi, X., Wang, S. (2015). Revisiting the curvilinear relation between job insecurity and work withdrawal: the moderating role of achievement orientation and risk aversion. Human Resource Management, 54(3), 499-515. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21638 Zhang, X., Liang, L., Tian, G., Tian, Y. (2020). Heroes or villains? The dark side of charismatic leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph1
Received 29.07.2022
Психологическая безопасность как прецедент неэтичного про-организационного поведения: анализ социального обмена
ХУШК Амир
ORCID: 0000-0002-1895-9821
ХУИ Ян И Сюй
ORCID: 0000-0003-4918-902X
ЗЕНТЯНЬ Чжан
Университет науки и технологий Китая, Хэфэй, Китайская Народная Республика
Аннотация. Цель. Целью данного исследования является изучение того, как психологическая безопасность выступает в качестве предпосылки неэтичного про-организационного поведения. Опираясь на теорию социального обмена, мы исследуем роль негарантированной занятости как опосредующей переменной наряду с модерацией личностной проактивности сотрудника в указанной связи. Дизайн исследования. Данные были собраны с помощью структурированного опроса китайских менеджеров (N = 135) из сервисных и производственных компаний в Хэфэе. Для анализа данных использовался Smart PLS. Выводы. Результаты показали, что негарантированная занятость опосредует связь между психологической безопасностью и неэтичным про-организационным поведением. Однако результаты также показали, что личностная проактив-ность не модерирует взаимосвязь между психологической безопасностью и нестабильностью работы. Результаты также показывают, что руководители должны осознавать, что работники, которым грозит увольнение, могут проявлять неэтичное про-организационное поведение только для того, чтобы сохранить свою работу. Такое поведение может нанести вред компании в долгосрочной перспективе, поэтому менеджеры должны проявлять осторожность и оперативно пресекать такое поведение. Последствия для практики. Путём статистической оценки взаимосвязей между психологической безопасностью и неэтичным про-организационным поведением полученные результаты дают представление о теории и практике социального обмена в сфере услуг и промышленности. В долгосрочной перспективе менеджеры должны понимать и другие факторы, помимо моральных принципов, которые влияют на приверженность сотрудников. Оригинальность. Насколько известно авторам, это первое исследование, которое изучает именно психологическую безопасность как предпосылку неэтичного про-организационного поведения с посреднической функцией негарантированной занятости.
Ключевые слова: психологическая безопасность, негарантированная занятость, неэтичное про-организационное поведение, этика, личность, теория социального обмена.
