Competitive Psychological Climate and Organizational Citizenship Behavior–Model Inventory

1. Abstract

The Competitive Psychological Climate and Organizational Citizenship Behavior–Model Inventory is an advanced, multi-dimensional psychometric assessment instrument developed by Bani-Melhem, Shamsudin, Abukhait, and Al-Hawari (2023). The inventory was specifically formulated to investigate the structural dynamics through which perceived workplace rivalry influences extra-role performance, operationalized as organizational citizenship behavior directed toward co-workers (OCB-CW) and customers (OCB-C). Grounded in the complementary theoretical frameworks of Social Comparison Theory and Self-Consistency Theory, the inventory measures the dual-edged consequences of competitive workplace environments by examining workplace jealousy as a mediating mechanism and organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) as a critical boundary-buffering condition.

The validated model inventory is composed of five core subscales comprising 25 retained, verified measurement items: Competitive Psychological Climate (4 items), Workplace Jealousy (4 items), Organization-Based Self-Esteem (7 items), Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Coworkers (5 items), and Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Customers (5 items). All measurement items are administered using a standard 5-point Likert scale. Psychometric validation was performed utilizing dyadic, multi-source data collected from customer-contact service employees and their immediate supervisors across hospitality organizations in the United Arab Emirates. Structural and measurement evaluations demonstrated robust psychometric integrity: composite reliability coefficients ranged from 0.940 to 0.978, Cronbach’s alpha values exceeded 0.70 across all dimensions, and average variance extracted (AVE) values ranged from 0.741 to 0.830, establishing convergent validity. Discriminant validity was fully supported under Fornell-Larcker criteria and conservative correlation cutoff thresholds. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) exhibited outstanding global goodness-of-fit indices (χ²(367) = 426.899, χ²/df = 1.163, CFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.985, IFI = 0.987, SRMR = 0.041, RMSEA = 0.034). The scale provides industrial-organizational psychologists, human resource executives, and hospitality researchers with an empirically rigorous, dyadically validated instrument designed to diagnose organizational rivalry, destructive social comparisons, and prosocial discretionary behaviors.

2. Keywords

Competitive Psychological Climate, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Workplace Jealousy, Organization-Based Self-Esteem, Social Comparison Theory, Self-Consistency Theory, Hospitality Management, Prosocial Behavior, Extra-Role Performance, Dyadic Measurement

3. Authors

The Competitive Psychological Climate and Organizational Citizenship Behavior–Model Inventory was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by an international research team specializing in organizational behavior, human resource management, and service marketing:

• Shaker Bani-Melhem, Ph.D. (ORCID: 0000-0002-6137-7691) — Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. E-mail: [email protected]. Dr. Bani-Melhem’s research focuses on workplace climate, employee creativity, discretionary performance, and psychological mechanisms in the service and hospitality sectors.
• Faridahwati Mohd Shamsudin, Ph.D. — Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. E-mail: [email protected]. Her scholarly expertise spans deviant workplace behavior, human resource management practices, employee well-being, and organizational justice.
• Rawan Abukhait, Ph.D. — Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates. E-mail: [email protected]. Dr. Abukhait specializes in leadership behaviors, work engagement, cross-cultural management, and employee emotional responses in service industries.
• Mohd Ahmad Al-Hawari, Ph.D. (ORCID: 0000-0002-2166-0572) — Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. E-mail: [email protected]. His empirical work centers on relationship marketing, customer relationship management, service failure and recovery, and frontline employee-customer dynamics.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Competitive Psychological Climate and Organizational Citizenship Behavior–Model Inventory is to capture and quantify the nuanced psychological pathways through which an internal competitive organizational climate impacts frontline employee behaviors. In modern commercial enterprises—most acutely within customer-facing service and hospitality contexts—organizations frequently stimulate internal competition among employees through comparative performance appraisals, ranked merit pay, and public recognition systems. While leadership often introduces these systems under the assumption that competition stimulates superior motivation and peak output, such climates frequently produce unintended, deleterious psychological side effects. The inventory resolves a critical empirical paradox in organizational science: understanding why and when competitive psychological climates function as a catalyst for excellence versus an engine of interpersonal friction, malicious envy, and operational withdrawal.

Specifically, the instrument serves three interrelated diagnostic and empirical functions. First, it measures the extent to which employees perceive their proximal work environment as competitive, zero-sum, and rank-obsessed. Second, it operationalizes the dark, affective reaction of workplace jealousy triggered by upward social comparison when organizational rewards and managerial favors are viewed as scarce and competitively distributed. Third, it assesses the direct and indirect consequences of these psychological processes on two distinct forms of prosocial behavior: discretionary behaviors directed inward toward colleagues (OCB-CW) versus outward toward patrons and clients (OCB-C).

From an applied perspective, the tool provides human resource practitioners, occupational health consultants, and organizational development specialists with a standardized metric to audit the psychological climate of their workforces. Rather than relying on aggregate organizational performance metrics that mask affective toxicity, administrators can employ this inventory to pinpoint whether competitive pressure is eroding co-worker collaboration while leaving frontline customer service intact, or vice versa. Clinically and diagnostically, the scale demonstrates how individual differences in self-concept—specifically organization-based self-esteem—act as an essential psychological buffer. Individuals possessing high organization-based self-esteem are insulated against the dysfunctional, withholding behaviors normally incited by workplace jealousy. Consequently, the inventory enables targeted organizational interventions, such as restructuring appraisal systems to reward teamwork over cutthroat rivalry, administering resilience and self-worth training, and calibrating supervisory management styles to diminish zero-sum perceptions.

5. Psychological Construct

The inventory operationalizes five distinct yet interconnected psychological constructs that bridge the macro-level organizational climate with micro-level affective experiences and behavioral actions:

Competitive Psychological Climate

Competitive psychological climate reflects an employee’s subjective cognitive appraisal of organizational reward structures, managerial practices, and peer dynamics as inherently competitive, comparative, and zero-sum. Rather than reflecting an objective structural property of the firm, psychological climate captures the individual’s cognitive interpretation of environmental cues (James & Jones, 1974). Employees in a strong competitive psychological climate perceive that recognition, status, and professional advancement depend strictly upon outperforming colleagues, creating a framework where one employee’s triumph necessarily equates to another’s professional diminishment. This dimension manifests in perceptions of constant peer comparison and the salience of organizational ranking mechanisms.

Workplace Jealousy

Workplace jealousy is conceptualized as a negative, threat-oriented affective and cognitive state experienced when an individual perceives that an actual or potential rival threatens or secures a valued relationship, resource, status, or managerial recognition that the individual desires for themselves. Rooted in triadic social configurations (the focal employee, the rival co-worker, and the resource-granting supervisor), jealousy entails distressing emotions including resentment, perceived loss of standing, bitterness, and relational anxiety. In competitive organizational environments, jealousy arises when employees witness peers receiving preferential praise, assignments, or informal supervisor esteem, interpreting these events as a direct threat to their own organizational security and standing.

Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE)

Originally introduced by Pierce et al. (1989), organization-based self-esteem represents the self-perceived competence, value, and importance an individual holds within the context of their specific employing organization. OBSE answers the fundamental question: “Do I matter, count, and make a significant difference within this organization?” Employees characterized by elevated OBSE perceive themselves as instrumental, capable, respected, and trusted members of the corporate community. This internal self-worth serves as a robust socio-cognitive buffer, modulating how workers interpret social threats, competitive friction, and peer accomplishments.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Coworkers (OCB-CW)

Organizational citizenship behavior towards co-workers encompasses discretionary, prosocial, and extra-role behaviors directed at peers within the immediate work group that are not formally mandated by employment contracts or enforceable through explicit reward systems. These behaviors include voluntarily helping colleagues handle overwhelming task volumes, assisting peers returning from absence, sharing institutional knowledge, listening to work-related anxieties, and offering active guidance to novice personnel. Because OCB-CW requires personal resource expenditure (time, cognitive effort, emotional support), it is exceptionally susceptible to breakdown when interpersonal trust is poisoned by competitive jealousy.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Customers (OCB-C)

Organizational citizenship behavior towards customers encompasses frontline, customer-directed discretionary behaviors that surpass explicit job descriptions and service scripts (Bettencourt & Brown, 1997). In high-touch service environments, OCB-C is manifested when frontline employees go out of their way to solve customer problems, exhibit exceptional hospitality, dedicate personal effort to ensure satisfaction, and enthusiastically advocate for patron well-being. Because customers operate outside the internal peer competition structure, employees experiencing internal friction may maintain, or even amplify, their customer-directed citizenship behaviors as an alternate channel to demonstrate competence and secure positive social reinforcement.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the inventory rests upon the synthesis of two seminal organizational psychology and social psychology theories: Social Comparison Theory and Self-Consistency Theory.

Social Comparison Theory as an Explanatory Mechanism

Originally formulated by Leon Festinger (1954), Social Comparison Theory posits that human beings possess an innate drive to evaluate their own opinions, competencies, and societal standing by comparing themselves to others, particularly in the absence of unambiguous, objective standards. In organizational contexts, when competitive psychological climates are salient, the workplace establishes an institutionalized environment of forced upward and downward social comparisons. Employees constantly assess their relative performance, managerial favor, and resource allocations against proximate co-workers.

When employees engage in unfavorable upward social comparisons—observing that co-workers receive greater recognition, higher performance rankings, or superior managerial praise—they experience acute ego-threat and relational insecurity. This socio-comparative appraisal is the direct psychological antecedent of workplace jealousy. In turn, jealousy shifts the employee’s motivation from mutual cooperation to protective self-preservation and hostility. Because colleagues are viewed as hostile rivals competing for zero-sum outcomes, employees strategically withhold discretionary cooperation, altruism, and knowledge sharing (diminishing OCB-CW) to avoid enhancing a competitor’s comparative advantage.

Self-Consistency Theory as a Moderating Framework

To understand why not all employees react to competitive jealousy with equal behavioral dysfunction, the model integrates Abraham Korman’s (1970, 1976) Self-Consistency Theory. Korman posited that individuals are fundamentally motivated to behave in ways that maintain consistency with their prevailing self-image, cognitive evaluations of self-worth, and self-esteem. Individuals with high self-esteem engage in constructive, prosocial actions that align with their view of themselves as competent, valuable, and morally integral actors.

Applied to the inventory’s model, organization-based self-esteem serves as a critical boundary condition (moderator). Frontline employees possessing robust OBSE perceive their organizational worth as deeply rooted, validated, and stable. Even when exposed to a competitive climate and the transient sting of workplace jealousy, their fundamental sense of organizational security remains uncompromised. Consequently, consistent with self-consistency postulates, high-OBSE employees refuse to compromise their personal standards of helpfulness and competence; they continue to exhibit high OCB-CW and OCB-C. Conversely, employees with fragile, low OBSE depend heavily on continuous external managerial validation. When workplace rivalry threatens this validation, their jealousy rapidly degenerates into defensive behaviors, causing steep reductions in citizenship behaviors directed toward peers and customers.

7. Validity

The measurement model was subjected to rigorous empirical validation utilizing dyadic field data collected across hospitality organizations in the United Arab Emirates. The evaluation adhered to established methodological standards for construct, convergent, and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2010).

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates the degree to which individual items reflecting a specific theoretical construct share a high proportion of common variance. In this inventory, convergent validity was confirmed using factor loading inspection and average variance extracted (AVE) analysis:

• All retained standardized factor loadings exceeded the widely accepted 0.50 threshold, with the majority surpassing 0.70, indicating strong item-level convergence on their designated latent factors.
• The calculated Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for all five latent constructs significantly exceeded the recommended benchmark of 0.50, ranging between 0.741 and 0.830. This indicates that the latent constructs account for between 74.1% and 83.0% of the variance in their respective measurement items, demonstrating exceptional convergent validity.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity confirms that each latent construct is statistically and conceptually distinct from all other constructs in the model:

• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: In accordance with the Fornell and Larcker (1981) framework, the square root of the AVE for every individual construct was strictly greater than the bivariate correlation coefficients between that construct and any other construct in the measurement model.
• Correlation Thresholds: Kline (2010) recommends that inter-construct correlations should remain below 0.85 to preclude multicollinearity and construct overlap. The empirical correlations between the latent constructs in this inventory ranged conservatively from -0.280 to 0.454, comfortably satisfying this threshold and demonstrating sharp discriminant boundaries among competitive climate, jealousy, OBSE, OCB-CW, and OCB-C.

Methodological Controls: Dyadic Design and Common Method Bias

A significant psychometric strength of the instrument’s validation is the elimination of common method variance (CMV) through both procedural and statistical remedies:

• Dyadic Multi-Source Data Collection: Frontline employees self-reported their perceptions of Competitive Psychological Climate, Workplace Jealousy, and Organization-Based Self-Esteem. Simultaneously, their immediate supervisors independently evaluated the employees’ citizenship behaviors (OCB-CW and OCB-C). This separation of data sources fundamentally eliminates self-serving rating bias and spurious inflated correlations between independent and outcome variables.
• Harman’s Single-Factor Test: An unrotated exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the single largest factor accounted for only 28.964% of the total variance, far below the critical 50% threshold (Hoyle, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2003), confirming that common method bias does not threaten the validity of the inventory.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and scale reliability of the inventory were assessed using both classical test theory parameters (Cronbach’s alpha) and structural equation modeling parameters (Composite Reliability).

Internal Consistency Metrics

In psychometric measurement, composite reliability (CR) offers a more rigorous and less biased estimation of internal consistency than Cronbach’s alpha, as it does not assume equal factor loadings (tau-equivalence) across items. For this inventory:

• Composite Reliability (CR): The CR values across all five latent constructs ranged from 0.940 to 0.978. These figures substantially exceed the traditional 0.70 benchmark and the stringent 0.80 benchmark recommended by Hair et al. (2010), demonstrating exceptional latent construct reliability.
• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): In alignment with Nunnally and Bernstein’s (1994) foundational guidelines, all five dimensions generated alpha coefficients comfortably exceeding the 0.70 minimum reliability standard, with each subscale exhibiting alpha coefficients ranging between 0.88 and 0.96.

The elevated reliability coefficients observed across both supervisor-rated and employee-rated subscales confirm that random measurement error is exceptionally low, ensuring stable, dependable behavioral measurement across diverse organizational administrations.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality and construct integrity of the inventory were evaluated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within a structural equation modeling environment.

Item Pruning and Model Refinement

The initial pool of questionnaire items comprised 31 items adapted from validated literature: Fletcher et al. (2008) for Competitive Psychological Climate, Han et al. (2020) for Jealousy, Pierce et al. (1989) for OBSE, and Bettencourt & Brown (1997) for Citizenship Behaviors. During the initial CFA specification, two items exhibited standardized factor loadings below the established 0.50 threshold: one item from the co-worker citizenship dimension (OCBCW2: “I help my co-workers who have been absent to finish their work”) and one item from the self-esteem dimension (OBSE2: “I am taken seriously around here”). In accordance with strict psychometric refinement protocols, these two items were permanently eliminated from the measurement model to preserve parsimony, structural integrity, and indicator reliability. The resulting 25-item retained model was subjected to final confirmatory testing.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Indices

The overall measurement model exhibited an extraordinary fit to the empirical data. The goodness-of-fit statistics obtained from the CFA are summarized below:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom (χ²/df): χ²(367) = 426.899 (p < 0.05), resulting in a ratio of 1.163. This is well below the conservative ceiling threshold of 2.0 (and the liberal threshold of 3.0 or 5.0), signifying exceptional absolute fit.
• Goodness of Fit Index (GFI): 0.839, exceeding the 0.80 benchmark typical for complex structural models.
• Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI): 0.809, also satisfying the 0.80 threshold.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.987, substantially surpassing the 0.95 gold standard for superior model fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.985, indicating exemplary incremental fit relative to the null baseline model.
• Incremental Fit Index (IFI): 0.987, further confirming exceptional relative fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.041, well within the strict < 0.08 cutoff, reflecting minimal residual correlation discrepancy.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.034 (with 90% confidence intervals comfortably situated below 0.05), demonstrating an outstanding degree of precision and approximation fit.

Collectively, these fit statistics establish that the 5-factor specification represents the optimal structural representation of the latent phenomena, supporting the multi-dimensional independence of competitive climate, workplace jealousy, self-esteem, co-worker citizenship, and customer citizenship.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Multi-Dimensional Psychometric Inventory / Dyadic Organizational Survey.
• Target Population: Customer-contact frontline employees and their immediate workplace supervisors across commercial enterprises, service firms, and hospitality organizations.
• Applicable Age Demographics: Working adults aged 18 years and older (spanning Young Adulthood [18–29], Thirties [30–39], and Middle Age [40–64]).
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or secure digital survey instrument (bilingual availability in English and Arabic).
• Total Item Count: 25 verified items across 5 distinct subscales:
• Competitive Psychological Climate (CPC): 4 items (Employee self-report)
• Workplace Jealousy (JLS): 4 items (Employee self-report)
• Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE): 7 items (Employee self-report)
• Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Coworkers (OCB-CW): 5 items (Supervisor rating)
• Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Customers (OCB-C): 5 items (Supervisor rating)
• Authentic Response Scale: Items are rated using a 5-point Likert scale.
• Scoring System and Aggregation: Subscale scores are calculated by computing the unweighted arithmetic mean of the items comprising each subscale. Scores on each dimension range continuously from 1.0 to 5.0. Higher scores denote greater levels of the respective construct.
• Reverse-Scoring Rules: No items are reverse-scored. All statements are worded in the direction of their theoretical constructs.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 2023.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: © 2023 Shaker Bani-Melhem, Faridahwati Mohd Shamsudin, Rawan Abukhait, and Mohd Ahmad Al-Hawari. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management.
• Permissible Use: The inventory may be reproduced, administered, and utilized free of charge for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical applications, scientific inquiry, and doctoral dissertations without seeking explicit written copyright authorization, provided that formal academic attribution is cited.
• Commercial Use: Commercial application, monetization, corporate consulting packaging, or deployment within fee-for-service proprietary human resource platforms is strictly prohibited without prior formal licensing agreements from the copyright holders.
• Licensing Fee: No fee is required for non-commercial scientific research.

12. References

Bani-Melhem, S., Shamsudin, F. M., Abukhait, R., & Al-Hawari, M. A. (2023). Competitive psychological climate as a double-edged sword: A moderated mediation model of organization-based self-esteem, jealousy, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 54, 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.12.011

Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Contact employees: Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90014-2

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

Fletcher, T. D., Major, D. A., & Davis, D. D. (2008). The interactive relationship of competitive climate and trait competitiveness with work-related outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 899–922. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.503

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

Han, S. H., Harold, C. M., & Cheong, M. (2020). Examining when and why examining competitive workplace climates leads to organizational citizenship behaviors and deviant behaviors: The role of jealousy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(8), 754–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2470

Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. SAGE Publications.

James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81(12), 1096–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037511

Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028656

Korman, A. K. (1976). Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of Management Review, 1(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1976.4408762

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622–648. https://doi.org/10.5465/256434

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

13. Items of the Scale