Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30897801›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019

The Relationship between Power Type, Work Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.

Kwang O Park

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. How CSV and CSR Affect Organizational Performance: A Productive Behavior Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kwang O ParkDivision of Business, Yeungnam University College, 170 Hyeonchung-ro, Nam-gu, Daegu 42415, Korea. kopark1021@ync.ac.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The focus of this study is to investigate if power type improves organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) through work engagement. Based on existing research, power can be classified into two main types: coercive and non-coercive power. Coercive power is divided into the categories of coercion, reward, and legitimate power, and non-coercive power can be divided into information, expert, and reference power. Therefore, this study examines what kind of relationship is formed in the work engagement of organization members based on power type, and ultimately empirically investigates the effects on OCB. Although it is very important in organizational research, no study has yet been conducted on the relationships between power type, work engagement, and OCB. The survey targets of this study were the companies listed on the Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI), a stock market in South Korea. The companies listed on the KOSPI are the representative companies of South Korea, as announced by the South Korean government based on their market representativeness, liquidity, and industry representativeness. This study sheds new light on the relationships between power type, work engagement, and OCB which have been overlooked from both the academic and practical perspectives. Based on this study, it is expected that power types that have practical influence will be further investigated, and the plans required for the maintenance of better relationships in an organization could then be established.

Indexed as

LeadershipOrganizational CultureWork EngagementAdultFemaleHumansMaleRepublic of KoreaSocial BehaviorSurveys and Questionnairescoercive powernon-coercive powerorganizational citizenship behaviorwork engagement

Identifiers

PMID30897801
PMCPMC6466222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.