The Effect of Social Support and Resilience on Extra Role Behavior
Through Work Engagement in Generation Z
Daryanto, Harya Kuncara Wiralaga and Budi Santoso
Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia
Keywords: Extra Role Behavior, Social Support, Work Engagement, Resilience.
Abstract: This study aims to determine the effect of social support and resilience on extra-role behavior through work
engagement in Generation Z at the Central Statistics Agency. This study uses a quantitative approach with a
survey model, to explain the effect of social support and resilience, and work engagement on Extra Role
Behavior, with the research object of Generation Z at the Central Statistics Agency. The number of
respondents as many as 288 respondents, who met the requirements and in accordance with the research
objectives, examined the behavior of Generation Z with a population spread in big cities in Indonesia, who
were relatively new to the world of work, the age of respondents was around the age of 21-25 years. Sampling
was carried out randomly and data analysis was conducted using the PLS Structure Equation Model (SEM).
The results showed that social support had a positive effect on extra-role behavior through work engagement;
resilience also has a positive impact on extra-role behavior through work engagement; and work engagement
has a direct positive effect on extra-role behavior. This study opens a study for further research on social
support and other variables that are thought to affect extra-role behavior in Generation Z.
1 INTRODUCTION
Basically, the organization must be able to direct
employees in accordance with job demands, namely
in the form of mental demands and job demands
which are expected to be able to have not only
adequate performance but must perform
extraordinarily, who can work beyond the demands
of their work, or at least have extra-role behavior.
Extra-role behaviors often include employee actions
that assist other group members and increase the flow
of information among coworkers, assist in the
development of interpersonal relationships, and
encourage an atmosphere of teamwork and
cooperation (O'Bannon & Pearce, 1999). Katz studied
and identified three main types of behavior that have
a core effect on the effective operation of an
organization, namely whether people will enter the
organization and maintain their identity as members
of the organization. Second, organizational members
must meet specific requirements for a role in an
interdependent system. Third, organizational
members will spontaneously produce many actions
other than the required role. Katz points out that an
organization that only relies on the behavior required
by the job description is a very fragile social system
(Zhu, Lam, & Lai, 2019). It becomes even more
interesting to study whether Generation Z, which has
its own characteristics, will be the same in responding
to various variables or factors that influence their
extra-role behavior, as stated by Katz.
Bakker & Demerouti, made a model known as
The JD-R Model of Work Engagement (A.B Bakker
& Demerouti, 2007), made a model on work
engagement. The JD-R model explains the factors
that influence work engagement, namely job
resources which refer to the physical, social, and
organizational aspects of work that allow individuals
to reduce demands, achieve work targets, and
stimulate personal growth and development. Another
factor is personal resources which refer to aspects that
are within the employees themselves, which include
optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience.
The problem of human resource management
(HRM) in organizations in general is how human
resources as capital can contribute beyond the
demands of work (Avey, et al, 2011; Knies, &
Leisink, 2014; Chams, & García 2019; Doz, 2020),
but require extra-role behaviors that often work
beyond their responsibilities (Pham et al, 2019; Zhao
& Zhou, 2021; Anwar et al, 2020). Extra-role
behavior as a discretionary matter is related to
264
Daryanto, ., Wiralaga, H. and Santoso, B.
The Effect of Social Support and Resilience on Extra Role Behavior Through Work Engagement in Generation Z.
DOI: 10.5220/0011979700003582
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Seminar and Call for Paper (ISCP) UTA â
˘
A
´
Z45 Jakarta (ISCP UTA’45 Jakarta 2022), pages 264-274
ISBN: 978-989-758-654-5; ISSN: 2828-853X
Copyright
c
2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
employee behavior, because it is outside the
obligations included in the formal employment
contract (Reychav & Sharkie, 2010). This is behavior
that is likely to contribute positively to the
advancement of the interests of the organization.
Performance can only be improved if employees are
ready to 'go the extra mile' or behave in an extra role
(Knies and Leisink, 2014; Garay, 2006). People who
want to work more than their work demands will
produce extra-role performance. Several studies on
extra-role performance revealed that the impact of the
extra-role performance was able to increase the
effectiveness and success of the organization, for
example making low operating costs, faster work
completion times, and optimal use of resources (V.
Garay, 2006).
Generation Z, which is the unit observation of this
research, as a unique digital native generation, is now
entering the workplace. Studies on the characteristics
of Generation Z are mostly carried out by scholars
(Gargi & Maitri, 2015; Chicca, & Shellenbarger,
2018; Goh & Lee, 2018; Iftode, 2019; Chomątowska
et al, 2022). Understanding the workforce of
Generation Z is very important as an empirical study
of previous generations such as Baby-boomers,
Generation X, and Generation Y or millennials
(Twenge, 2010; Goh, & Lee, 2018; Jung, et al, 2021).
Generation theory assumes that we can generalize the
existence of group differences to an average level in
each generation to gain a better understanding of the
prototypical profile and characteristics of the
individual, as a theoretical framework for screening
and uncovering Generation Z perceptions (Twenge et
al., 2010; Goh). & Lee, 2018).
As a young generation born between 1997-2012,
Generasi Z has the characteristics of being dynamic,
versatile, creative, and innovative, full of energy and
enthusiasm. As a result of exposure to electronic
media, Generation Z has made Generation Z more
competent, likes to experiment and explore, and even
dares to take risks (Gargi & Maitri, 2015). At this
time, in the labor market, there are employees from
Gen Z, therefore it is important to investigate the
demands, expectations, values, and preferences of
this prospective workforce (Jerome, et al, 2014;
Anderson et al, 2017). Each generation has different
workplace preferences. Therefore, it is important for
human resource managers (HRM) to understand the
differences between each generation to be able to
attract them (Jerome, et al, 2014; Singh & Dangmei,
2016). A company is required to develop a good
impression as an attractive employer for its
employees (Vahlström, et al. 2022). Generation Z is
different from the previous generation. It should be
noted that in Generation Z there is a difference
between what they declare and what they need. The
paradox is that there is an opportunity for Generation
Z to change their workplace, but most of them are also
looking for security in their work (Chomątowska, et
al, 2022).
In today's work environment, four generations
coexist, with Generation Z as the newest generation.
Every generation group, Baby Boomers, Generation
X, Millennials, and now Human resources are the
most valuable assets and organizational performance
depends on capturing, developing, and exploiting
explicit and implicit knowledge that exists within the
organization (Reychav, I. and Sharkie, R. 2010). Each
generation has unique motivations and needs, which
have an impact on tenure and employee turnover
(Hardin, R. M. 2020). The problem of HRM in
organizations in general is how human resources as
capital can contribute not only according to the
demands of the job (Avey, et al, 2011; Knies, &
Leisink, 2014; Chams, & García 2019; Doz, 2020),
but require extra-role behaviors that often work
beyond their responsibilities (Pham et al, 2019; Zhao
& Zhou, 2021; Anwar et al, 2020). Extra-role
behavior as a discretionary matter is related to
employee behavior, because it is outside the
obligations included in the formal employment
contract (Reychav & Sharkie, 2010). This is behavior
that is likely to contribute positively to the
advancement of the interests of the organization.
Performance can only be improved if employees are
ready to 'go the extra mile' or behave in an extra role
(Knies and Leisink, 2014; Garay, 2006).
The characteristics of Generation Z who are more
familiar with the internet (Gargi & Maitri, 2015),
prefer to spend their time in front of a gadget or
computer screen, as if working does not require social
support representing job resources and resilience
aspects representing personal resources (Baker and
Demerouti, 2007). ). This study offers insight into at
least three points. First, it provides theoretical insight
into the extra-role behavior (Knies and Leisink, 2014)
of Generation Z, with various predictors of social
support, resilience, and work engagement. Second,
our study offers a unique insight because the research
respondents are Generation Z workers. Third, our
study also provides practical recommendations to
HRM practitioners in dealing with Generation Z
employees.
The Effect of Social Support and Resilience on Extra Role Behavior Through Work Engagement in Generation Z
265
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Extra Role Behavior
Tyler and Dümbgen (2009) in their paper explain the
various understandings and results of research on
extra-role behavior that extra-role behavior requires
greater effort and has a wider variety of determinants.
Podsakoff et al. (2013) than many group behaviors
tested in previous social identity research. Because of
its discretionary nature, extra-role behavior may be
very open to being influenced by intrinsic motivators
as the identity of the person concerned (Dick, Rolf &
Haslam, Alex & Tyler, Tom & Blader, 2001). In
addition, of the studies listed above, which examined
the most conceptually similar behavior to extra-role
behavior, some experimental studies may not
replicate the real world (e.g., Karau & Williams,
1993; Worchel et al., 1998). ), and others are field
studies that rely on self-report measures or employee-
specific samples (Bartel, 2001; Dukerich, Golden, &
Shortell, 2002; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006; T. R.
Tyler & Blader, 2000; Van Knippenberg & Van
Schie, 2000).
Extra role behavior is a positive behavior of
employees towards work, organization, and work
environment. As a series of dynamic reactions of
employees, as members of the organization to various
stimuli from the internal and external environment
which according to Podsakoff et al, (2013) is
indicated by the indicators: a. Altruism (behavior of
helping others); b. Conscientiousness (accuracy and
prudence or discipline); c. Sportsmanship
(sportsmanlike behavior); d. Countesy (maintaining
good relations); and e. Civic virtue (wisdom of
workers). As a discretionary behavior, where people
work beyond their demands (Reychav & Sharkie,
2010). Extra-role behavior becomes very important in
the management of human resources in organizations
(Ocampo, et al, 2018; Tagliabue, et al, 2020, Tefera,
& Hunsaker, 2020).
2.2 Social Support for Work
Engagement
Work engagement is defined as a positive, satisfying,
work-related state of mind characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption (W. Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Work engagement is believed to be able to encourage
employees to work better in the organization. Work
engagement is considered the focal point of talent
management in retaining employees (Christensen
Hughes and Rog 2008) while, more importantly,
ensuring organizational sustainability and success
(Shuck and Herd 2012). The JD-R Model explains the
factors that influence work engagement, namely job
resources which refer to the physical, social and
organizational aspects of work that enable individuals
to reduce job demands, achieve job targets, and
stimulate personal growth and development. Another
factor is personal resources which refer to aspects that
are in the employees themselves which include
optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007). The influence of two factors that
affect work engagement which include aspects of
pressure from work, physical, mental and emotional
demands, and others. The strength and weakness of
work attachments will have a direct effect on
performance, where performance can only match the
demands of the job (in role); above the demands of
work (extra role), and creativity.
Social support is one of the variables that can
increase the level of employee engagement. Social
support is defined as the provision of physical,
emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance
that a person feels from his or her social network
(Cobb, 1976; Luet al., 2015). Social support includes
many kinds of social, such as interaction with spouse,
extended family, friends, and other people (Siklos &
Kerns, 2006).
Theoretically, social support can increase
employees' willingness in their efforts to complete
work tasks by fostering their work environment (W.
Schaufeli et al., 2009). Thus, through social support,
greater fulfillment of employees' needs for
competence and autonomy will be achieved (Chirkov
et al., 2003). In various studies, there is a relationship
between social support and work engagement
(Cureton, 2014; Hengel et al., 2012; Nasurdin et al.,
2018; Wiese, 2017). Great support from superiors,
coworkers will make employees bound in their work.
Thus, it can be hypothesized that social support has a
positive effect on work engagement
H1: Social support has a positive effect on work
engagement.
2.3 Work Engagement on Extra-Role
Behavior
Katz points out that organizations that rely solely on
the behaviors required by job descriptions are very
fragile social systems. Then it takes members who
behave extra role. Extra-role behaviors often include
employee actions that assist other group members and
increase the flow of information among coworkers,
assist in the development of interpersonal
relationships, and encourage an atmosphere of
teamwork and cooperation (O'Bannon & Pearce,
ISCP UTA’45 Jakarta 2022 - International Seminar and Call for Paper Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Jakarta
266
1999). Employees who can behave in extra roles will
be reflected in performance that exceeds the demands
of their work, or will result in extra-role performance.
Work engagement is believed to be able to encourage
employees to work better in the organization. Work
engagement is considered to be the focal point of
talent management in retaining employees (Hughes &
Rog, 2008) while, more importantly, ensuring
organizational sustainability and success (Shuck &
Herd, 2012).
Work engagement is defined as a positive,
satisfying, work-related state of mind characterized
by vigor (vigor), dedication, and absorption
(Schaufeli et al., 2002). Absorption is characterized
by being completely concentrated and happily
engrossed in one's work, in which time passes quickly
and one has difficulty disengaging from work (see
also, Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).
Various studies on work engagement show that
this variable can positively influence extra-role
behavior. Such research (Arnold B Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007; W. Schaufeli et al., 2002; Tang,
Wei, Snape, & Ng, 2015). Thus, it can be
hypothesized that work engagement has a positive
effect on extra-role behavior.
H2: Work engagement has a positive effect on
extra-role behavior through work engagement.
2.4 Social Support for Extra-Role
Behavior through Work
Engagement
From the description above with the assumption of
Hypothesis 1, there is a relationship between Social
support and work engagement (Cureton, 2014;
Hengel et al., 2012; Nasurdin et al., 2018; Wiese,
2017). It shows that Social support has a positive
effect on work. Engagement, as well as Hypothesis 2,
Work engagement has a positive effect on extra-role
behavior. Various studies on work engagement show
that this variable can positively influence extra-role
behavior. As research (Arnold B Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007; W. Schaufeli et al., 2002; Tang,
Wei, Snape, & Ng, 2015) Thus it can be hypothesized
that work engagement can mediate the effect of social
support on extra-role behavior. This is also reinforced
by the results of research by Baker and Demouriti
(2015).
H3: Social support has a positive effect on extra-
role behavior through work engagement.
2.5 Resilience to Work Engagement
Referring to the JD-R Model Baker and Demerouti,
work engagement is formed or influenced by personal
factors or personal resources which refer to aspects
that are in the employees themselves, which include
optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience. On the other
hand, job engagement must be shaped by job
resources that refer to the physical, social, and
organizational aspects of work that enable individuals
to reduce job demands, achieve job targets, and
stimulate personal growth and development. Both
aspects of personal resources and job resources show
a positive influence on work engagement. That is, if
these two aspects increase, it can increase employee
work engagement. Where work engagement is
defined as a positive, satisfying, work-related state of
mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and
absorption (Salmela-Aro & Upadyaya, 2018; W.
Schaufeli et al., 2002).
One of the factors or components of personal
resources is resilience. The resilience factor as a
predictor of work engagement, is defined as the
ability to survive or overcome difficulties from
unpleasant situations and successfully adapt to
change and uncertainty (McEwen, 2011). So
important is the resilience factor, in 2016 the
European Union has raised resilience as one of the
five guiding principles for the role of the European
Union in the world (Tocci, 2020). Various studies
have stated that the resilience variable has a
relationship with one's work engagement and can
have a positive influence on work engagement.
Several studies have shown a relationship between
employee resilience and work engagement
(Kašpárková et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020; Z. Wang et
al., 2017). Thus, it can be hypothesized that resilience
has a positive effect on work engagement.
H4: Resilience has a positive effect on work
engagement.
2.6 Social Support for Extra-Role
Behavior through Work
Engagement
From the description above, assuming Hypothesis 4,
it shows that resilience has a positive effect on work
engagement. Several studies have also shown a
relationship between employee resilience and work
engagement, such as the results of research
(Kašpárková et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020; Z. Wang et
al., 2017). Similarly, the assumption of Hypothesis 2,
that work engagement has a positive effect on extra-
role behavior. (Arnold B Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;
The Effect of Social Support and Resilience on Extra Role Behavior Through Work Engagement in Generation Z
267
W. Schaufeli et al., 2002; Tang, Wei, Snape, & Ng,
2015) Thus, it can be hypothesized that work
engagement can mediate the effect of resilience on
extra-role behavior.
H5: Resilience affects extra-role behavior through
work engagement.
3 METHOD
3.1 Sample and Data Collection
This study uses a quantitative approach with a survey
model, to explain the effect of Social Support (X1),
Resilience (X2), and work engagement (X3) on Extra
Role Behavior (Y), using a sample of Generation Z.
(see figure 1).
Figure 1. Research Model.
The number of samples as many as 288 employees
who meet the requirements and in accordance with
the research objectives examine the behavior of
Generation Z with a population spread across big
cities in Indonesia, who are relatively new to the
world of work. The age of the respondents is around
the age of 21 to 25 years, this is according to the
reference of Generation Z, born 1996-2009
(Codrington & Sue Grant-Marshall, 2004). This
research was conducted in the period April-May
2022. Sampling was carried out randomly.
Respondents involved in this study were voluntary,
without threats and coercion. The complete data on
the demographics and characteristics of the
respondents in this study can be seen in table 1.
Furthermore, our study instrument was adopted
from a number of literatures, data were collected by
questionnaire, where the questionnaire items were
compiled by adopting previous instruments, such as,
extra-role behavior (Podsakoff et al, 2013), with
indicators, Altruism, Conscientiousness,
Sportsmanship, Courtesy, and Civic virtue, (14
items). Work engagement adopts the concept of
Schaufeli & Bakker (2003) with indicators of vigor,
dedication, and absorption (6 items); Social Support
adopted the instrument (Susskind, 2007; Cureton,
2014; Liu et al, 2018) with the number of instruments
(6 items). Resilience adopted the instrument
(Wagnild & Collins, 2009), with a total of 8
questions.
Furthermore, using a Likert scale to represent
responses from respondents, where 1 represents
“Strongly Disagree (STS)”, 2 represents “Disagree
(TS)”, 3 represents “Neutral (N)”, 4 represents
“Agree (S)”. ), and 5 represents Strongly Agree (SS)”.
The research instrument has been validated by the
ethics committee of the Faculty of Economics, State
University of Jakarta.
3.2 Measurement and Structural
Model
The analysis technique in this study uses SEM-PLS,
using PLS 3.2 software. In addition to testing the
hypotheses built, this study also uses multi-group
analysis, which is facilitated by the PLS software
program. The aim is to test whether the research
model built answers hypothesis 5, where the research
model has differences between groups of male and
female respondents.
The evaluation was carried out on the outer model
and inner model, where the research used SEM-PLS.
The basic reason for using the SEM-PLS method is
because it has advantages where the previous theory
has not been strongly validated. The main objective
of this study is to explain the variance in the
dependent construct but also to test the data based on
the measurement model (Hair et al., 2017). PLS can
be a multivariate estimation method that can be used
to describe the simultaneous linear relationship
between the variables studied in this study.
There are two main criteria used in the analysis of
this measurement model including: validity and
reliability (Hair et al., 2014). The first step in
evaluating the external model in PLS analysis is
testing to ensure that the instrument used is valid and
reliable. Cronbach Alpha or Construct Reliability
(CR) is a reinforcement of construction reliability
(Hair et al., 2014), where a score that exceeds 0.7
indicates good construction reliability. There are two
types of validity tests carried out, namely the
convergent validity test and the discriminant validity
test. To assess the structural model, there are several
Social
Resili
Work Extra
ISCP UTA’45 Jakarta 2022 - International Seminar and Call for Paper Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Jakarta
268
steps, namely 1) collinearity test, 2) assessing path
coefficients, and 3) assessing Goodness of Fit (Hu
and Bentler, 1999; Hair et al., 2014).
4 DATA ANALYSIS AND
RESULTS
4.1 Characteristics of Respondents
Table 1 informs that the respondents in this study are
relatively balanced between men and women, which
are 45.00 percent and 55.00 percent, respectively.
Furthermore, in terms of age, according to the target
of Generation Z respondents, aged 21 to 25 years. In
terms of education, the majority of respondents in this
study have Diploma IV (97.00 percent) and S1 (3.00
percent) education. Complete information related to
the characteristics of respondents can be seen in table
1.
Table 1: Characteristics of Respondents.
Profile Category Amount Percentage
Gender
Man 131 45%
Woman 157 55%
Age
21 years old 1 0,3%
22 years old 3 1,0%
23 years old 43 14,9%
24 years old 97 33,7%
25 years old 144 50,0%
Education
Diploma III 20 7%
Diploma IV 259 90%
Strata 1 9 3%
4.2 The Outer Model Evaluation
The first estimate is convergent validity using AVE
(Average Variance Extracted), where the size must be
higher than 0.5. The results of the AVE measurement
can be seen in table 2. Furthermore, as shown in Table
2, the value of Construct Reliability (CR) for each
construct ranges from 0.814-0.912, exceeding 0.7 as
the limit value to achieve construct reliability criteria
(Hair et al. ., 2014). Thus, all tested variables meet
construct reliability.
The discriminant calculation can also be seen in
table 3, using the Fornell-Larcker Criterion as a
measure of discriminant validity. The test results for
each variable (table 3) show that the value of each
variable exceeds the value of the other variables so
that it has reached discriminant validity. Furthermore,
the correlation matrix in table 4 provides the main
support for the hypothesis and confirms the predicted
relationship.
Table 2: The result of outer model calculation.
Construct Item Loading α C.R AVE
Social
Su
pp
ort
X31 0.799 0.813 0.876 0.639
X32 0.829
X33 0.756
X34 0.811
Recilience
X11 0.802 0.663 0.815 0.595
X12 0.765
X13 0.747
Work
en
g
a
g
ement
X21 0.798 0.879 0.912 0.674
X23 0.836
X24 0.779
X25 0.841
X26 0.848
Extra role
b
ehavio
r
Y12 0.798 0.659 0.814 0.594
Y14 0.809
Y4 0.700
Table 3: Discriminant validity.
Extra
Role
Behavior
Resilie
nce
Social
Suppor
t
Work
engagem
ent
Extra Role
Behavior
0.771
Resilience 0.397 0.771
Social
Support
0.162 0.428 0.799
Work
en
g
a
g
ement
0.359 0.734 0.505 0.821
Furthermore, collinearity can be seen in the
Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) table 4. Where it does
not have a value higher than 5.00 (Hair et al., 2014).
The test results show that the VIF range is in the value
of 1,224 - 2,400, meaning that there is no collinearity.
The Effect of Social Support and Resilience on Extra Role Behavior Through Work Engagement in Generation Z
269
Table 4: Collinearity Statistics inner (VIF).
Extra
Role
Beha
vior
Resi
lien
ce
Social
Suppor
t
Work
Engage
ment
Extra Role
Behavior
Resilience 2.188 1.224
Social
Support
1.355 1.224
Work
Engagemen
t
2.400
4.3 Inner Model Assessment
The measurement model shows adequate convergent
validity and discriminant validity. Therefore, the next
step in PLS analysis is to develop an inner model that
can be used to assess the relationship between
constructs. All data were run using 500 bootstrap
samples through 130 cases. Path coefficients are also
used to evaluate the inner model. By using the
bootstrap resampling procedure. This is a non-
parametric approach used to estimate the accuracy of
SEM-PLS estimation. Table 5 and Figure 2 show the
inner model testing in which the results contained 5
acceptable hypotheses, by looking at the results: t-
value > 1.645 (one-tailed test), p < 0.05
Table 5. Coefficient test and hypothesis testing.
Original
Sample (O)
T
Statistic
s
P
Value
s
Decision
H1. Social
Support ->
Work
en
g
a
g
ement
0.234 5.427 0.000 Approved
H2. Work
engagement ->
Extra Role
Behavio
r
0.167 1.832 0.034 Approved
H3. Resilience
-> Work
en
g
a
g
ement
0.634 15.064 0.000 Approved
H4. Social
support ->
Work
engagement ->
Perilaku peran
ekstra
0.106 1.777 0.038
Approved
H5. Resilience
-> Work
engagement ->
Perilaku peran
ekstra
0.039 1.727 0.042
Approved
Source: own elaboration by Authors.
Figure 2. The Result SEM Analysis.
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Social Support for Work
Engagement
Social support is defined as both moral and material
support given to employees by superiors, the
environment, and coworkers that make employees
more comfortable at work. The impact of social
support will certainly have a positive impact on
employees. Descriptively, the social support
perceived or perceived by respondents in this study,
shows a high average number of 3.53, where the
highest average value is in the statement item, "My
colleagues help if I get into trouble" with an average
value of 3 ,97. Descriptive data on work engagement
shows that the overall average score of work
engagement is 3.45, which is included in the high
category. The highest score is in the statement; I work
wholeheartedly with a score of 3.75 and the next
highest on the statement: I am proud of my work with
a score of 3.58.
Theoretically, social support positively predicts
employee engagement which has been established by
a large number of previous empirical findings
(Hakanen et al., 2006; Korunka et al., 2009; Llorens
et al., 2006). On the one hand, social support
increases the willingness of employees in their efforts
to complete work tasks by fostering a work
environment (W. Schaufeli et al., 2009).
Social support is one of the variables that can
increase the level of employee work engagement.
Social support is defined as the provision of physical,
emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance
that a person feels from his or her social network
(Cobb, 1976; Luet al., 2015). Social support includes
many kinds of social, such as interaction with spouse,
extended family, friends, and other people (Siklos &
Kerns, 2006).
Social support positively predicts employee
engagement, which has been confirmed by a large
number of previous empirical findings (Hakanen,
ISCP UTA’45 Jakarta 2022 - International Seminar and Call for Paper Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Jakarta
270
Bakker, Schaufeli, 2006). Liorens, S.; Bakker, A.B.;
Schaufeli, W.; Salanova, M. 2006) (Korunka, C.;
Kubicek, B.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Hoonakker, 2009). On
the one hand, social support increases employees'
willingness in their efforts to complete work tasks by
fostering a work environment (Schaufeli, W.B.;
Bakker, A.B.; Van Rhene, W. 2009). Social support
does not mean only consisting of support in the form
of physical goods (instrumental function) that other
individuals in the organization provide to employees,
but also the emotional characteristics of relationships
between parties in the workplace that function
effectively (Chirkov, V.; Ryan, R.M.; Kim , Y.;
Kaplan, 2003). Theoretically, social support can
increase employees' willingness in their efforts to
complete work tasks by fostering their work
environment (W. B. Schaufeli et al., 2009).
The results of statistical tests, show that Social
support is defined as the provision of physical,
emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance
that is felt by someone from their social network
(Cobb, 1976; Luet al., 2015), has a positive and
significant effect on work engagement. This means
that every increase in social support for respondents
will increase the work engagement of respondents.
These results strengthen the findings, (W. Schaufeli
et al., 2009, Cureton, 2014; Hengel et al., 2012;
Nasurdin et al., 2018; Wiese, 2017).
These results indicate that the role of Social
support as a predictor, the results are significantly
needed to increase work engagement, as a very
important thing which indicates that respondents as
employees are fully concentrated and happily
engrossed in work, feel time passes quickly, and have
difficulty getting away from work. (Cureton, 2014).
A person's engagement with his job as a motivational
pathway has received wider attention in recent years,
because of its capacity to increase employee intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation, in the form of work
involvement that can improve performance (Fernet,
Austin, & Vallerand, 2012). Schaufeli also says that
work engagement is a relatively enduring state of
mind but can fluctuate over time (Schaufeli et al.,
2002). This of course has a beneficial effect on
employees and the organization, as it is positively
related to employee job satisfaction (Bresó et al.,
2011; Saks, 2019), health (Bresó et al., 2011),
organizational commitment (Saks, 2019), and task
and performance contextual (Arnold B. Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007; Christian et al., 2011) and
negatively related to employee turnover (Saks, 2019).
The results of this study in addition to confirming
previous research, these results can show that social
support is very necessary to increase work
engagement to maintain the conditions of work
engagement which is very necessary for
organizations.
5.2 Work Engagement on Extra-Role
Behavior
Work engagement is defined as a positive, satisfying,
work-related state of mind characterized by
enthusiasm, dedication, and absorption (W. B.
Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). Work
engagement refers to “a state of positive, persistent,
positive, affective fulfillment of motivation”
(Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001) characterized by
absorption, dedication, and enthusiasm (W.
Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá, & Bakker,
2002).
In this study, work engagement is placed as a
predictor variable of extra-role behavior. In addition,
referring to the research model, work engagement is
an intervening or mediating variable. As is known,
referring to descriptive data from research results, for
work engagement, respondents answered with a high
average, as well as for extra-role behavior. The results
of statistical hypothesis testing show that work
engagement has a positive effect on extra-role
behavior. This means that every increase in work
engagement will increase extra-role behavior. The
results of this study indicate that the results are still
the same as previous studies or confirm previous
studies (Arnold B. Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; W.
Schaufeli et al., 2002; Tang, Wei, Snape, & Ng,
2015).
Schaufeli et al. (2008) asserted that work
engagement explicitly conceptualizes employee
involvement as a form of welfare. So that maintaining
and increasing employee work engagement is
important and necessary to encourage employees to
work beyond the demands of their work.
5.3 Resilience to Work Engagement
The concept of resilience has been discussed many
years ago as a personality trait associated with
adaptability and coping (Block, 1961). When applied
in the workplace, Resilience is defined as "a positive
psychological capacity to recover, to 'bounce back'
from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure, or even
positive change, progress, and increased
responsibility" (Luthans, 2002, p. 702) . Resilience is
a person's dynamic process that involves the role of
individual and social or environmental factors in the
workplace, which reflects a person's strength and
resilience to face stressful difficult situations and rise
The Effect of Social Support and Resilience on Extra Role Behavior Through Work Engagement in Generation Z
271
from negative emotional experiences when facing
difficult situations. In general, Resilience is (a)
capacity that reflects behavior; (b) dealing with
change; and (c) related to dealing with some
undesirable situations (Paul, Bamel, & Garg, 2016).
The results of the questionnaire data from the
Resilience variable show an average score of 3.76 or
high, where the statements answered with scores
above the average are statements; I am willing to
contribute positively to my work (4,14); I am strong
in dealing with job failures (3.82) and I always focus
on the positive (3.79). The high average score can be
concluded that the resilience aspect of the
respondents as employees is in high condition.
Resilience as a predictor variable on work
engagement in this study, based on the hypothesis test
conducted, it shows that Resilience has a significant
positive effect on work engagement, meaning that
any increase in Resilience will affect increasing work
engagement. The results of this study confirm the
results of previous studies submitted by (Baker and
Schaufeli, 2007; Kašpárková et al., 2018; Li et al.,
2020; Z. Wang, Li, & Li, 2017). The condition of high
and significant resilience has a positive effect on
work engagement, making it an ideal thing to
maintain, to maintain their performance and job
satisfaction.
5.4 Social Support Affects Extra-Role
Behavior Through Work
Engagement
The results of statistical analysis on the role of
mediation or intervening or the indirect effect of the
work engagement variable indicate that work
engagement can function or prove to be significant as
a mediating variable for the effect of social support
on extra-role behavior. The mediation function is full
(full mediation), because the direct effect of Social
support on extra-role behavior is statistically not
significant.
Holmbeck (1997) states that the difference in
mediation positions can be expressed as full
mediation if the direct influence of social support
relations on extra-role behavior. is not significant (not
support), it can be stated that Social support only has
a choice of paths through mediating variables (work
engagement) to influence extra-role behavior. The
conclusion of full mediation can increase
recommendations that are more convincing and can
even be an opportunity for the renewal of studies on
dissertation work.
5.5 Resilience Affects Extra-Role
Behavior Through Work
Engagement
Statistical results on the role of the indirect effect of
Resilience on extra-role behavior through work
engagement showed a significant effect. Likewise,
the effect of Resilience on extra-role behavior shows
a significant effect, so it can be concluded that the
effect of Resilience on extra-role behavior is proven,
so the work engagement function can be referred to
as not being a full mediation or partial mediation.
That is, Resilience can directly affect the behavior of
extra roles or can be through work engagement.
When the mediation is partial, the statistical
magnitude of the path can be further seen. From the
statistical results, the Resilience path coefficient
affects extra-role behavior at 0.295, while the total
Resilience effect affects extra-role behavior through
work engagement mediation, with a path coefficient
of 0.106. This means that the direct influence of
Resilience on extra-role behavior is greater than
through indirect work engagement.
6 CONCLUSION
The results of this study strengthen previous studies
that social support and resilience have a positive
effect on work engagement. Work engagement also
has a positive impact on extra-role behavior.
Likewise, social support and resilience have a
positive effect on extra-role behavior through work
engagement. This study has limitations, especially
since we only examine the effect of social support,
resilience, and work engagement on extra-role
behavior. We did not examine other variables that had
a dominant effect on extra-role behavior, so we could
not fully and comprehensively explain the important
predictors of extra-role behavior. Therefore, further
researchers can test by involving many predictor
variables related to extra-role behavior, as well as the
number and wider area of respondents. This will
provide a more comprehensive picture of the
dominant predictor of extra-role behavior, especially
in the context of Generation Z employees.
REFERENCES
Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M.
R. (2017). What works for you may not work for (Gen)
Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the
ISCP UTA’45 Jakarta 2022 - International Seminar and Call for Paper Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Jakarta
272
new generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245-
260.
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H.
(2011). Meta‐analysis of the impact of positive
psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors,
and performance. Human resource development
quarterly, 22(2), 127-152.
Anwar, N., Mahmood, N. H. N., Yusliza, M. Y., Ramayah,
T., Faezah, J. N., & Khalid, W. (2020). Green Human
Resource Management for organisational citizenship
behaviour towards the environment and environmental
performance on a university campus. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 256, 120401
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐
resources model: State of the art. Journal of managerial
psychology.
Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2009). The crossover of work
engagement between working couples. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 24(3), 220–236.
Chams, N., & García-Blandón, J. (2019). On the
importance of sustainable human resource management
for the adoption of sustainable development goals.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 109-122.
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Stoverink, A. C., Park, H. H.,
Bradley, C., & Barros-Rivera, B. A. (2022). Happy to
help, happy to change? A meta-analysis of major
predictors of affiliative and change-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 132, 103664.
Chicca, J., & Shellenbarger, T. (2018). Connecting with
Generation Z: Approaches in nursing education.
Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 13(3), 180-184.
Chomątowska, B., Janiak-Rejno, I., Strugała, A., &
Żarczyńska-Dobiesz, A. (2022). Generation Z in the
labour market: contestation or adaptation.
DelCampo, R. G., Haggerty, L. A., & Knippel, L. A.
(2017). Managing the multi-generational workforce:
From the GI generation to the millennials. Routledge.
Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Ellington, J. K. (2021).
Interpersonal skills, role cognitions, and OCB:
Exploring mediating mechanisms and contextual
constraints on role enactment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 129, 103604.
Doz, Y. (2020). Fostering strategic agility: How individual
executives and human resource practices contribute.
Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), 100693.
Ersoy, N. C., Derous, E., Born, M. P., & Van der Molen, H.
T. (2015). Antecedents of organizational citizenship
behavior among Turkish white-collar employees in The
Netherlands and Turkey. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 49, 68-79.
Gargi, K., & Maitri, M. (2015). Gen Z-Children of Digital
Revolution Transforming Social Landscape. American
International Journal of Research in Humanities. Arts
and Social Sciences, 10(3), 206-208.
Goh, E., & Lee, C. (2018). A workforce to be reckoned
with: The emerging pivotal Generation Z hospitality
workforce. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 73, 20-28.
Gould-Williams, J. (2003). The importance of HR practices
and workplace trust in achieving superior performance:
a study of public-sector organizations. International
journal of human resource management, 14(1), 28-54.
Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E.,
& Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: An introduction.
Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 5(6),
629–686.
Hardin, R. M. (2020). Generation Z: Motivational Needs of
the Newest Workforce (Doctoral dissertation,
Northcentral University).
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS
path modeling in new technology research: Updated
guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems,
116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-
0382
Iftode, D. (2019). Generation Z and learning styles.
Available at SSRN 3518722.
Jerome, A., Scales, M., Whithem, C., & Quain, B. (2014).
Millennials in the workforce: Gen Y workplace
strategies for the next century. E-Journal of Social &
Behavioural Research in Business, 5(1), 1.
Jung, H. S., Jung, Y. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2021). COVID-19:
The effects of job insecurity on the job engagement and
turnover intent of deluxe hotel employees and the
moderating role of generational characteristics.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92,
102703.
Knies, E., & Leisink, P. (2014). Linking people
management and extra‐role behaviour: results of a
longitudinal study. Human Resource Management
Journal, 24(1), 57-76.
Merdiaty, N., Omar, K., Saputra, J., & Bon, A. T. (2021).
A Review of Resilience and Well-being in Human
Resource Management Perspective Literature. In 11th
Annual International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Operations Management
Nanang, A. S., Soetjipto, B. E., & Supriyanto, A. S. (2021).
Predicting factors of organizational citizenship
behavior in Indonesian nurses. Heliyon, 7(12), e08652.
Nauly, M., Purba, S., & Gultom, I. (2022). The Influence of
Mindfulness, Collective Values, Transformational
Leadership, Working Conditions, Psychological
Empowerment on Organizational Citizenship Behavior
(OCB) Among High School Teachers in Medan.
Randwick International of Social Science Journal, 3(2),
388-406.
Ocampo, L., Acedillo, V., Bacunador, A. M., Balo, C. C.,
Lagdameo, Y. J., & Tupa, N. S. (2018). A historical
review of the development of organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) and its implications for the twenty-first
century. Personnel Review.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B.
(2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature,
antecedents, and consequences. Sage Publications.
Pham, N. T., Tučková, Z., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2019).
Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human
resource management practices influence
organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed-
methods study. Tourism Management, 72, 386-399.
The Effect of Social Support and Resilience on Extra Role Behavior Through Work Engagement in Generation Z
273
Reychav, I., & Sharkie, R. (2010). Trust: an antecedent to
employee extra‐role behaviour. Journal of Intellectual
Capital.
Singh, A. P., & Dangmei, J. (2016). Understanding the
generation Z: the future workforce. South-Asian
Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(3), 1-5.
Tagliabue, M., Sigurjonsdottir, S. S., & Sandaker, I. (2020).
The effects of performance feedback on organizational
citizenship behaviour: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 29(6), 841-861.
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence
on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201-210.
Tefera, C. A., & Hunsaker, W. D. (2020). Intangible assets
and organizational citizenship behavior: A conceptual
model. Heliyon, 6(7), e04497.
Vahlström, A., Idlbi, K., & Taleb, K. (2022). How
employers in regional Sweden can attract and retain
Gen Z: The case study of Jönköpings län.
Zhao, H., & Zhou, Q. (2021). Socially responsible human
resource management and hotel employee
organizational citizenship behavior for the
environment: A social cognitive perspective.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95,
102749.
Yu, S., Wu, N., Liu, S., & Gong, X. (2021). Job insecurity
and employees’ extra-role behavior: moderated
mediation model of negative emotion and workplace
friendship. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 631062.
ISCP UTA’45 Jakarta 2022 - International Seminar and Call for Paper Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Jakarta
274
