Brutal murder at the workplace (The Indian Express, 2025), sexual harassment (APNews, 2022), non-inclusive behavior, organizational bullying (Hindustan Times, 2006), and excessive work pressures are increasingly making the workplaces inhospitable. The workplace dynamics are becoming more challenging and repressive due to increased competition, the requirement to remain informed and adaptive to fast-changing technological scenarios, hybrid and multinational work settings, etc. Many researchers have extensively researched workplace aggression and violence over the years. Workplace aggression is any behaviour that an employee performs to harm another individual or the organization itself (Barling, Dupre, & Kelloway, 2009). Deviant workplace behaviours must be mitigated by constructive strategies such as surveillance on workplace dynamics, employee empowerment, instituting zero tolerance policy for deviant work behaviours at the workplace, and continuously sensitizing employees through proper training and development (Jeewandara & Kumari, 2021).

To create a sustainable workplace, it is important to foster a supportive workplace culture that promotes open dialogue and reduces aggression. However, only administering some training or sensitizing programs is not enough to create an inclusive and warm workplace environment. An inclusive workplace culture has a high impact on employee mental health and well-being (Krentz, Dartnell, Khanna, & Locklair, 2021). A physically and psychologically safe workplace culture can improve the employee's well-being. Supportive leadership, care from peer groups, achievable job targets, work-life balance, and flexible and transparent policies promote healthy workplace cultures that promote employees' mental health and well-being (Monteiro & Joseph, 2023).

The organizational culture is a function of shared values, principles, traditions, beliefs, or perceptions within an organization (Robbins & Coulter, 2005). So, to adopt a sustainable workplace culture, organizations must align the value systems at both the individual employee and organizational levels to ensure that they are congruent. Organizational value and the practice of spirituality have been found to have a positive impact on the attitudinal and involvement-related outcomes of employees in organizations (Kolodinsky, Giacalone, & Jurkiewicz, 2008).

It is evident from many seminal studies that leaders play a crucial role in fostering a supportive workplace culture by promoting open dialogue, transparent communication, and establishing clear policies and expectations around work behavior. Leadership style and employee efficacy expectations mediate the congruence between individual work values and organizational values (Engelbrecht, 2002). Through transformational leadership style, leaders can cultivate trust among the employees by being an ideal role model; conflict among the employees can be reduced by providing individualized attention to the needs of the employees, intellectually stimulating the followers, and inspiring them to achieve the organizational goals (Bass, 1985). Leaders who foster an environment of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, February 2008) through open communication, relational transparency, and a focus on moral perspective are more likely to manage conflicts effectively in the workplace.

Different contemporary leadership styles, such as ethical leadership (Michael, Linda, & David, 2005), are found to be important to creating an equitable, respectful, and fair workplace, while servant leadership (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008) prioritizes open communication and conflict resolution, resulting in improved psychological safety for employees and facilitating a reduction in workplace aggression.

Supportive leadership enhances organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) among employees. Mutual respect, voluntary engagement, and cooperative work environments reduce organizational incivility and enhance organizational citizenship behaviour (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

Spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003) has been found to closely related to OCB as the leadership style focuses on sense of purpose, meaningfulness of work, fostering altruistic love and interpersonal citizenship behaviour, and affective commitment.

Leadership significantly influences employee engagement and their organizational experience. But there are very few literatures that link work value, OCB, leadership an engagement. So, the paper starts with a question that: How do work-value, organizational citizenship behavior, and leadership style collectively influence employee engagement?

The next section addresses the available literatures to set the research gap, frame the research questions.

• Work value and employee engagement:

Employee engagement has always been a central theme in research on organizational behavior and human resource management, but there is a dearth of studies on work value, which is built around extrinsic and intrinsic beliefs.

Values are vital and basic beliefs, motivational constructs that direct or inspire behaviours. Values are the driving force behind intentional behaviors, representing the objective toward which we strive  (Schwartz, 2009). Values form the cornerstone of ethics, which revolve around human actions and their selection. Ethics evaluates actions and values, determining which to uphold and which to reject.  (Mintz, 2018). Work goals and values are specific expressions of general values. Work values can typically be categorized into intrinsic (e.g., autonomy, personal growth, meaningful work) and extrinsic (e.g., salary, job security, status) dimensions (Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999). Employee engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Marisasalanova, & Bakker, 2002). Employee engagement is also defined as a multifaceted construct with cognition, emotions, and behavior, and on the other hand, it is proposed as a unitary construct of a positive state of mind, dedicated willingness, and the opposite of burnout (Li & Chanchai, 2019. December). Individual, job-related, and organizational factors influence employee engagement. It is associated with performance, well-being, and retention.

Research established that work value has a significant impact on affective commitment, and the relationship is mediated through emotional intelligence and moderated by employee engagement (Nadeem, Akram, Ali, Iftikhar, & Shamshad, 2019). (Liao & Lu, 2012), in their research, presented a mediation role of work value on work attitude and job performance. Work value purposes and work means were the constructs of work value, whereas work involvement and organizational commitment formed the work attitude factor. It was found that the people who put more emphasis on their work purposes and means of work feel more successful in their job, as their self-assessed job performance was found to be high. Some recent research advocated about the positive influence of human value on work engagement, mediated through authenticity (Ortiz-Gómez1, Ariza-Montes, & Molina-Sánchez, 2020). In the research paper “Connecting Value Creation for Society with Work Engagement: the relevance of an organization’s public value as an extension of the job characteristics model” by Meynhardt, Hermann, & Bardeli, 2024, they extended the well-established JCM (Job Characteristic) model by Hackman & Oldham, 1976, with another  unique characteristic: organizational public values that posistively impact work engagement with self efficacy as a mediator.

Research Question: Does Work value influence the employee engagement?

• Work value and OCB:

The key paradigms in organisational psychology that affect employee engagement, workplace culture, and organisational sustainability are work values and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). OCB describes voluntary, discretionary behaviours that support organisational effectiveness without direct rewards, work values reflect the ideas and beliefs that direct employees' attitudes and behaviours (Ros M. S., 1999).It examines alignment between individual and organisational values promotes prosocial workplace behaviours, this literature review examines the relationship between work values and OCB. Work values are durable ideas that shape workers' attitudes and actions in the workplace (Schwartz S. H., 1992). Intrinsic values (e.g., meaningful work, personal development), extrinsic values (e.g., salary, job security), relational values (e.g., teamwork, fairness), prestige values (e.g., recognition, career advancement) are among their categories.

Studies imply that workers whose job values coincide with organisational culture show more job satisfaction and dedication (Kalleberg, 1977). On the other hand, misalignment results in disengagement and unproductive behaviour (Meglino, 1998).

OCB that states to voluntary activities supporting organisational operations outside of official job requirements (Organ, 1988). Five major dimensions of OCB includes, Altruism (helping colleagues), Conscientiousness (exceeding role expectations), Sportsmanship (tolerating inconveniences without complaint), Courtesy (preventing interpersonal conflicts), Civic virtue (participating in organisational governance) were found by (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

OCB increases productivity, lowers turnover, and improves workplace cohesiveness (Bolino M. C., 2004). OCB (Moorman, 1991)is much influenced by organisational justice and leadership.

Employees who match their work values with those of the company are more likely to show OCB (Van Dyne, 1994). Employees that value teamwork, for example, are more likely to act compassionately (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000)

Strong ethical values help employees to show better OCB, especially in civic virtue and conscientiousness (Turnipseed, 2002). Ethical leadership improves this relationship even more (Brown, 2005)

Workers motivated by internal values—that is, personal development—show more OCB than those driven by extrinsic rewards (Deci, 2000). Transformational leadership improves this relationship by encouraging a feeling of direction (Bass, 1985). Cultural variations affect the way OCB results from work values. Whereas in individualist societies achievement-oriented values are more important, in collectivist societies relational values clearly predict OCB (Hofstede, 1980).

Research Question: Does Work value influence the OCB?

• OCB and employee engagement

Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and employee engagement are two key concepts in the fields of human resource management and organisational behaviour. According to (Organ, 1988), employee engagement is a measure of how emotionally and mentally involved workers are with their jobs and the company. On the other hand, OCB is when employees do things outside of their normal job that help the company run more smoothly. This review of the literature looks at studies from Scopus-indexed journals that were done in the real world to find out how OCB and employee engagement are related.

Helping coworkers, doing extra work, and making the workplace a better place to be all examples of OCB (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). According to Organ (1988), OCB has five parts: civic virtue, sportsmanship, courtesy, altruism, and conscientiousness. Later research added both individual (OCB-I) and organisational (OCB-O) aspects to OCB (Williams, 1991). There is a strong link between OCB and employees being engaged in a good way. (Rich, 2010) say that employees who are engaged are more likely to show OCB because they feel like they belong and are willing to go above and beyond what is expected of them at work. On the other hand, workers who do OCB a lot say they are more engaged because they enjoy their jobs more Agarwal, 2014, Saks, 2006, says that job satisfaction is somewhere between OCB and engagement. People who are happy with their jobs are more likely to be involved and do OCB. Research has shown that transformational leadership and perceived organisational support (POS) can help strengthen the link between OCB and engagement (Eisenberger, 2002). People who feel appreciated will come back to work and do OCB (Rhoades, 2002). In 2004, (Farh, 2007)did a study in Asia that looked at how culture affects these constructs. They found that collectivist societies have stronger OCB-engagement relationships than individualistic societies.

These studies show that OCB and employee engagement are strongly linked in both directions. Employees who are engaged are more likely to show OCB, and OCB makes employees more engaged by making them happy at work, giving them support from their bosses, and creating a positive work environment. Researchers in the future should look into things that can change the outcome, such as how working from home affects people and how people of different ages think and act.

Research Question: Does OCB influence Employee engagement?

• Leadership on work value, OCB, and employee engagement

Specific practices can help organisations build a workforce of good organisational citizens (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). To encourage this, businesses need to keep an eye on and control citizenship behaviours to make sure they improve performance (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Managers have a big impact on organisational citizenship behaviour by how they lead and by shaping the culture of the (Bolino, 2003) organisation (O'Grady, 2018).Managers can better recognise and encourage organisational citizenship behaviour in their companies if they understand it better and where it comes from (O'Grady, 2018). Organisational citizenship behaviour goes beyond official job descriptions and includes things like helping coworkers, keeping things clean, doing extra work, and suggesting ways to make things better (Schnake, 1991). These actions improve task performance by giving people more power and motivation (Tahir, 2015). Organisational citizenship behaviour means doing more than just your job to help the organisation, the people in it, and the mental health of everyone (Borman, 2004). Helping coworkers, putting in extra effort, and coming up with new ways to do your job are all examples of organisational citizenship behaviour (Ahmad, 2020). Organisations expect their employees to go above and beyond their official job duties, so organisational citizenship behaviour is important (Çolakoğlu, 2015). OCB is when people do things that help the organisation without expecting to be rewarded for them (Fernandes.et.al, 2023). OCB includes following rules, being loyal, and getting involved in politics, which are all things that citizens should do (Graham, 1991). Organisational citizenship behaviour is important because it helps organisations do better (Linda.et.al, 2019).

Research Question: Does leadership influence Work Value, OCB & Employee engagement?

Theoretical Background:

To understand the research questions, some major theories are reviewed. Important theories linking the employee value system and OCB are examined:The Value-Belief-Norm theory by Stern (2000) suggests that people's values influence their beliefs, which then affect their norms and ultimately their actions. The theory shows that employees' values (like altruism and achievement) affect their belief in and involvement in OCB and indicates that workers perform actions on their time in exchange for perceived benefits from the company, such as fair treatment, support, and recognition. Similarly, Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) states that employees compare inputs (like effort and skills) to their outcomes (such as rewards), and a perceived fair and transparent policy helps promote OCB among them. These foundational theories establish a connection between the value systems of employees and their organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Leadership theories emphasize how different leadership styles affect OCB and employee engagement. Leader-Member Exchange Theory (Erdogan & Bauer, 2014) suggests that the quality of the relationship, in terms of trust and respect, between leaders and team members enhances OCB. A clear vision, sense of purpose, and personalized support from leaders motivate and inspire employees to perform better (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Promoting employees’ efforts in the right settings helps foster a sense of belonging with the leader and organization by creating a sense of power and aligning them with organizational goals (Greenleaf, 1977). An authentic leader—honest, open, and aware of their actions and consequences—motivates workers by fostering trust and authenticity, which increases engagement and OCB (George, 2003).

The Value-Belief-Norm theory by Stern (2000) promotes that people's values affect their beliefs, which in turn affect their norms and finally, their actions. It is evident from the theory that employees' values (like achievement and altruism) can affect how much they believe OCB is important and how involved they are.

Social Exchange Theory, Blau, 1964, proposes that the workers do things on their own time in exchange for perceived benefits from the company, such as being treated fairly, getting help, and being recognized. The same is also opined by Equity Theory (Adams, 1965), as inputs (like effort and skills) and their outcomes (like rewards) are compared by the employees, and a perceived fair and transparent policy helps to promote OCB among them.

These seminal theories advocate linkage between employee value systems and OCB and employee engagement.

The theories on leadership have brought out the implications of leadership style on OCB and employee engagement. Leader-Member Exchange Theory (Erdogan & Bauer, 2014) proposes that the quality of the relationship in terms of exchanging trust and respect between leaders and their team members improves OCB. Clear vision, a sense of purpose, and personalized help from the leaders motivate and inspire employees to perform better (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Promoting the employees’ effort at the right forum helps to improve the belongingness of the employees with the leader and organization by creating a sense of power and integrating them into the organizational objectives (Greenleaf, 1977). An authentic leader who is honest, open, and aware of his/her actions and their consequences motivates workers by promoting trust and authenticity, which makes them more engaged and OCB. (George, 2003).

These ideas help us see how work values, OCB, leadership, and employee engagement are all linked. How managers lead and shape the culture of the organisation can change how employees act as citizens. This has a big effect on how well the business runs.

A mixed-method approach was employed to gather data for understanding the objectives of the paper. Data was obtained from IT companies in Kolkata during 2022 and 2025. The organizations were categorized into four tiers according to market share, CMMI level, and business model: Tier 1 (large Indian IT corporations), Tier 2 (global multinational enterprises), Tier 3 (midcap IT firms), and Tier 4 (startup IT ventures). The firms participated in the analysis were selected from each stratum by purposive sampling. The quantitative data were gathered from the employees of these firms through a questionnaire survey. Three hundred questionnaires were distributed; Out of which 217 completed forms receive. 29 forms were rejected owing to incomplete responses. The overall computation was derived from the gathered data.

A 49-item scale was developed from validated instruments pertaining to work values (Work Values Inventory, Super, D. E. (1970)), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Podsakoff et al., 1990), and leadership styles: Servant Leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) and Authentic Leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).

The quantitative data gathered were corroborated through comprehensive interviews with 23 HR professionals from the organizations under examination and 31 employees, who were interviewed according to their availability and willingness to participate in the study.

Analysis and Finding:

The demographic profile of the respondents’ demonstrations a well balance of participation in terms of gender (56.4% male, 43.6% female) and age (35.1% below 30 years; 49.5% -31 to 45 years; 15.4% above 45 years). 27.7%. 25.5%, 27.7% and 19.1% respondents are from the Tier 1 (large Indian IT corporations), Tier 2 (global multinational enterprises), Tier 3 (midcap IT firms), and Tier 4 (startup IT ventures) companies. The dataset is divided into four segments: Work value items, OCB items, Leadership items and one employee engagement item. 45 items together account for 0.887 Cronbach alpha value, indicating a strong internal consistency in the data set.

Work value Factors

15 items on work value items were further reduced to four work value factor intrinsic work value, social work value, extrinsic work value, lifestyle work value. KMO value 0.847 indicates sample adequacy and Bartlett’s test = 0.000< 0.05 signifies inter item correlations in the data set. 81.663% variance was explained through four factors.

The rotated component matrix after varimax rotation:

The four factors extracted after the rotation are: intrinsic value (Achievement (WV4), Ability Utilization (WV7), Creativity (WV8), Intellectual Stimulation (WV9)); Social Value (Altruism (WV1), Social Interaction (WV14), Supervision (WV15)); Extrinsic Values (Economic return (WV2), Security (WV3), Prestige (WV5), Advancement (WV10)). Lifestyle Values (Lifestyle (WV6), Independence (WV11), Aesthetics (WV12), Variety (WV13)). To proceed further the mean value of the factors are calculated as used for the further calculations.

The Leadership Factor

To reduce the dimensions of leadership items, factor analysis was conducted. The KMO value = 0.820 and Bartlett’s test value =0.000 < 0.05, supports the data adequacy and item corelation to proceed further. Three factors explain 85.633% variance.

The leadership factors: Task-Oriented Leadership (Straight forward attitude (RL1), Clarity in communicating goals and expectations. (RL2), Structured and particular about deadlines (RL3), Initiative and Volunteering to attend meetings (RL9), expresses complements and appreciation when staff completes tasks (RL10)); People-Oriented Leadership (care for staff well-being. (RL5), Empathy (RL6), Supportive. (RL7)), Fairness and Equality (Equity in treatment (RL4), Pays attention to employees’ benefits. (RL8), expresses complements and appreciation when staff completes tasks (RL10).

The inter- item correlation among the items is found to be high and significant:

The OCB factors:

The third section of the study deals with organizational citizenship behaviour among the workers. !9 items on OCB adapted from Podsakoff et al.’s (1990). The data adequacy was measured by KMO and Bartlett's Test (0.820; p value= 0.000 < 0.05), 83.565% total variance explained by the five factors extracted. OCB factors: The factors for OCB are as follows: Compliance: (adherence to rules (OCB1), Respectful and obedience to rules (OCB2); Conscientious and Integrity (OCB3), Up- to -date and connected (OCB11); Awareness about organisation announcements, memos and so on (OCB12)). The next factor is concerned about the items which are related to the proactive engagement and involvement with the organization – Organizational Involvement (Engaged with the organizational assignments (OCB 9) and proactive to advocate organizational image (OCB 10). The helping behaviour of the employees formed the factor: Altruism: (Collegial (OCB16); Supportive Mentor to juniors (OCB17); Expert facilitator (OCB 18); Empathetic (OCB 19)). The factor Courtesy reflects sensitivity to how individual behavior affects other fellow employees: (Respectful to the problems of co-workers (OCB15); Mindful of behaviour (OCB13); Believe in ethical consideration about the rights of others (OCB 14)). The item which is advocating about the peoples feeling about the issues and outcomes of the organization has been found as factor – Vocal: which describes the willingness of the respondents to speak up. The items were reverse coded (1= Strongly Agree, 2= Agree, 3= neutral, 4= Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree). The items are created based on the validated questionnaire on OCB and the interviews conducted with the employees of the IT organization. The items are complaining attitude about the organizational process and policies (OCB 4); Over thinking about the wrong things happening to me (OCB 5); overanxious about job assignments (OCB 6); A whistle blower about the organizational wrong doings (OCB7); Vocal about own issues and problems (OCB8)

The mean factor scores for the items were treated as single items for “Leadership”, “OCB”, “Work value” and “Engagement” was measured with a single item in the questionnaire. The items were further regressed to check the impact of leadership, work value, OCB on employee engagement.

Role of leadership on employee engagement

The following table shows the role of leadership “only” on employee engagement. The adjusted R square value (0.374) establishes a moderately fit model. The calculation of ANOVA (F = 111.325; p value = 0.000< 0.05) establishes a significant impact of predictor variables on dependent variable.

The table below shows that leadership has a positive and significant impact on employee engagement. The IT industry is popular for the complex and dynamic nature of its work settings and its heterogeneous work culture. The nature of jobs is ambiguous and fast-changing. Leaders play a crucial role in keeping the employees engaged by managing their motivations. The in-depth interviews show that people are losing their emotional ties to organizations, as many work from home. They have not even met often with their peer group and organization in person. Continuously performing work from home is creating alienation among the workers. Less frequent physical interaction with the peer group and organization is loosening the emotional bonding of the employees with their peers and organization. The nature of IT companies is very demanding in terms of work timing and pressure. People are increasingly working from home. The concept of fixed working hours has been diluted. Now the employees have been compelled to attend the office calls and meetings even at night at 9 pm. This situation is creating a tremendous strain among employees. Moreover, as they are working from home, they are working on their formal assignments from an informal setting. Family members also have their own expectations and responsibilities, which creates an additional burden for employees trying to manage both work and home roles. During the employee interviews, it was found that 68% of male respondents and 16% of female respondents reported facing challenges in managing their work responsibilities while working from home. Since they no longer have to commute to the office, they have ceased purchasing formal shirts. Many senior respondents reported that they are missing office gossip over a cup of coffee, and they feel that they are caged within the four walls of the home, with enormous work pressure. However, females are happier with the work-from-home setting because they feel it allows them to spend more time with their family members, especially their children and elderly parents. Nevertheless, they also reported that irregular meetings, client calls, and significant time pressure to complete work assignments are causing them mental stress.

Leaders play a crucial role here in keeping employees engaged. It is also a real challenge for the leaders to keep the connection and motivation high among the workforces. It is also evident from the regression table below:

Impact of leadership on OCB

The impact of leadership on OCB is analysed using a regression analysis. The model fitness shows a poor fit (Table 7) with adjusted R square value = .0211. Anova results (F: 50.913; p value = 0.000< 0.05) ensures impact of the leadership on OCB.

Though the model fitness shows a poor result, the regression coefficient shows a significant and positive impact of leadership on OCB. In-depth interviews with respondents revealed that employees in IT companies, who mostly work from home, are experiencing a weakening connection with their organization. Employees prioritize their projects over the overall organizational values. The complex work setting in the IT industry is increasingly distancing the employees from the organization. Interviewing the HR managers adds another dimension to this issue. According to them, the Gen Z employees are more concerned with their receivables, rights, and achievements. With the increasing popularity of the gig economy, Gen Z is more open to freelancing to discover the best options for them. Retaining them in the organization for the long term is a challenge. A single leadership style is insufficient to improve the feeling of OCB among the workers, particularly among Gen Z. Equitable organizational policies, transparent communication, and fair promotional practices are more important for engaging Gen Z employees.

Impact of leadership. OCB on employee engagement

To comprehend the impact of OCB on employee engagement, the regression analysis was conducted on the data. Taking leadership style and OCB into account, the model fitness increases. Adjusted R square value = 0.447; ANOVA reports (F: 76.588; p value = 0.000 < 0.05) significant impact of leadership. OCB on employee engagement.

The leadership style and OCB are found to have a positive impact on employee engagement, although the B value for leadership appears to be higher (BLeadership = 0.447) than for OCB (BOCB = 0.343). The data suggest that when leaders cultivate a supportive and collaborative work environment that promotes growth, employees are also more likely to demonstrate behaviors that go beyond their basic job requirements. Interviews indicate that, in the face of significant work pressure, constantly changing technology, rapid adaptation needs, multinational clients, and a strong, task-oriented leadership style—where job demands and company expectations are defined, and performance-reward alignment exists—help employees feel more comfortable. The people-oriented leadership style was found to be less effective in this context, which aligns with Fiedler’s contingency theory: high task structure, high leader position power, and good leader-member relations (Fiedler, 2006).

By prioritizing strong and effective leadership practices, organizations can foster a thriving work environment that encourages innovation and teamwork. People feel valued and supported in their roles. An engaged employee base helps the organization achieve sustainable growth with ease. But the question remains: how does it work? Can leadership style influence employees' work values? Work value acts as an internal guide that influences work behavior. The paper aims to understand whether leadership style influences employees' work values or not.

Impact of leadership on work value

A regression analysis shows the impact of leadership style on work value. The adjusted R square value (0.313) with ANOVA (F: 86.168; p value = 0.000< 0.05) shows a moderately fit model.

The regression coefficient table shows a positive and significant impact on the employee work value. When the leaders of the organization promote a culture of collaboration and trust; provide constructive feedback and demonstrate support, the followers also feel valued and motivated. This also improves their work value.

Leadership involves guiding and managing tasks for followers; it subtly influences their perception of self-worth and strength within the workplace. A leader can impact employees beyond their usual organizational tasks and performance metrics by shaping their values and attitudes, helping them change their mindset, and assigning new meanings to their work.

Empathetic and visionary leadership fosters an environment where an employee can naturally feel aligned between personal values and organizational goals. Consistent practice of inclusivity and recognition can instill a sense of dignity and purpose in teams, thereby increasing the value of each team member. When an employee's contributions are acknowledged and appreciated, they do not merely perform duties; instead, they engage with passion, creativity, and loyalty.

On the other hand, highly authoritarian leadership can reduce work value among employees, turning them into mere tools for output rather than valued contributors. In such environments, motivation declines, innovation stagnates, and employees often detach emotionally from their roles. This erosion of work value creates disengagement, undermining both personal fulfillment and organizational success.

Through in-depth interviews, it was found that the industry’s highly ambiguous, uncertain, and complex nature makes task-oriented and equity-oriented leadership essential for motivating employees. Task-oriented leadership offers clarity amidst chaos by establishing clear goals, structuring workflows effectively, and defining roles and responsibilities, helping employees gain a sense of stability. Conversely, equity-oriented leadership ensures employees feel respected, treated fairly, and valued. This style of leadership also encourages innovation, creativity, team bonding, and channels employee energy toward improved productivity.

An empathetic and visionary leadership cultivates an environment where an employee can naturally feel congruent between individual values and organizational values.

Regular practice of inclusivity and recognition can instill a sense of dignity and purpose in teams, thereby enriching the value of individual team members. When an employee's contributions are acknowledged and appreciated, they do not merely perform duties; instead, they engage with passion, creativity, and loyalty.

Conversely, highly authoritarian leadership can diminish work value among employees, reducing them to mere instruments of output rather than valued contributors.

In such climates, motivation declines, innovation stalls, and employees often detach emotionally from their roles. The erosion of work value in this way creates disengagement, undermining both individual fulfilment and organizational success.

Through in-depth interviews, it was found that the highly ambiguous, uncertain, and complex nature of the industry makes task-oriented and equity-oriented leadership significant for motivating employees. Task-oriented leadership provides clarity amidst chaos by setting clear goals, structuring workflows effectively, and defining roles and responsibilities, which helps employees gain a sense of stability. In contrast, equity-oriented leadership ensures that employees feel respected, treated fairly, and valued. This type of leadership also promotes innovation, creativity, team bonding, and channels employee energy towards improved productivity.

Role of leadership, OCB, work value on employee engagement

To comprehend the composite effect of leadership, OCB and work value on employee engagement, regression analysis performed, the adjusted R square improved (R square = 0.457), showing a better model fit with ANOVA: F = 53.404, 0.000 <0.05.

Considering the factors together the model fitness increases. All the three predictor variables show significant impact on the dependent variable Employee engagement. But the leadership style gets emerges as most significant and positive to influence employee engagement.

The step-by-step comparison (Table – 13) between the models understudy reveals a very important insight.

The paper examines the roles of leadership, OCB, and work value in employee engagement. Leadership alone has a significant and substantial impact on employee engagement (Adj R² = 0.374), but its effect on OCB and work value is less pronounced. A one-unit increase in leadership results in a 0.588 rise in employee engagement.

The paper highlights that the OCB factor "vocal" reflects respondents' willingness to speak up. Interviews reveal that employees harbor many grievances against company policies, practices, discrepancies, and biased treatment, along with job stability concerns and fairness issues in performance evaluations, project assignments, and promotional opportunities, as well as personal conflicts with the organization and leadership. These issues create misunderstandings, anxiety, and social alienation within the organization. In this context, OCB acts as a mediator, and when included in the model, it reduces the influence of leadership (Leadership = .447***, OCB = .343***). Interviews indicate that employees perceive a disconnect between what leaders say and what they experience. Respondents report a deep mistrust in leaders regarding promises of better assignments and promotions, alongside frustrations with long working hours, odd-time meetings, and intense pressure to complete projects quickly. Several women employees reported experiencing discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Such behaviors diminish leadership's credibility. Meanwhile, leaders describe feeling significant pressure from both upper management and subordinates, expressing concerns about managing top-level expectations and their team members’ demands. Integrating personal values with organizational values is a significant challenge for them.

When analyzing the combined effect of leadership, OCB, and work value on employee engagement, the beta value for leadership decreases (0.390***), indicating that leadership influences employee engagement indirectly, moderated by OCB and work value. Effective leadership promotes a positive organizational culture through clear and transparent communication, procedures, and policies. This, in turn, inspires employees to go beyond their job descriptions and helps shape their work values by fostering creativity, innovation, autonomy, independence, and organizational pride. Including both OCB and work value splits the total impact of leadership into direct effects (b = 0.390) and indirect effects via work value and OCB.

The paper proposes a framework to understand how leadership, OCB, and work value collectively impact employee engagement.

Indian research on the IT sector supports this finding, demonstrating that competence and growth values drive citizenship (Thakur, 2023). The IT industry's fast-paced, diverse, and high-pressure environment makes it an ideal place to study these behavioral dynamics. Leaders play a pivotal role in integrating personal work value with the organizational work value, generating a feeling of pride and belongingness with the organization. It is also understood that through a positive leadership style, work values can be shaped, and value-based employees are also better able to handle stress, collaborate across cultural boundaries, and volunteer their time in circumstances outside of their job description. This supports the theoretical links as well: Value Skills encourages OCB by embracing adoptive internal motivation.

Theoretical Implications

Despite the available studies offering profound information on the topic of work values, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), leadership, and employee engagement, there is still a gap in integrating these three.

Although engagement has been widely investigated within the context of organizational behavior, the values of work have been analyzed indirectly by referring to such constructs as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, or attitudes. Few studies explicitly examine the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic work values and employee engagement (Liao and Lu, 2012; Nadeem et al., 2019). The mediating or moderating factors—emotional intelligence, value congruence, leadership styles, etc.—are under-investigated, and the picture of work values to engagement conversion remains incomplete.

It has been revealed that value congruence with organizational culture is a predictor of positive organizational behaviors like OCB (Van Dyne, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Nonetheless, the research seldom looks at work values as antecedents of OCB per se. Organizational justice and leadership have been highlighted as the drivers of much of the OCB literature (Moorman, 1991; Brown, 2005), although explanations based on value are still sporadic. It is still not clear how the intrinsic, extrinsic, and relational values influence the development of the particular OCB dimensions (altruism, conscientiousness, civic virtue, etc.). There is evidence of a reciprocal relationship: engaged employees are found to display more OCB, and OCB will develop engagement in the form of job satisfaction, social support, and a positive work climate (Saks, 2006; Agarwal, 2014).

However, the majority of the studies investigate this relationship in one direction only (either OCB or Engagement OCB). Many longitudinal or multi-level studies regarding the reciprocal reinforcement loop do not explore the two constructs. Theories of leadership (transformational, servant, authentic, and LMX) demonstrate strong links with OCB and engagement (Bass, 1985; Liden et al., 2008). Nevertheless, the work values' role in moderating or mediating these relations is not well studied. It is unclear whether leaders boost OCB and engagement directly or whether the impact is higher when the work values of the employees are in line with the leader's values and the organizational culture.

The current study fills this theoretical gap by emphasizing the combined influence of the three variables on employee engagement. The study contributes meaningfully to the current leadership and organizational behavior literature by establishing a meaningful relationship between leadership, OCB, work value, and employee engagement. The paper proposes that leadership is not the only variable that impacts employee engagement, but also personal work value (Adj R² = 0.171, b = 0.515***) has a positive and significant role in employee engagement.

This corroborates also the theoretical connections:

1.Value based skills use adopting Internal Motivation that generates OCB.

2.Work Values are shaped by Leadership which also directly affects OCB.

3.Once the Work Values are in place with the OCB, it improves the Employee Satisfaction and helps to cut the Turnover.

The scope of further study lies in testing the model with more robust mechanisms, such as PLS-SEM, and expanding the study's scope to encompass respondents' opinions from various sectors of the economy.

Managerial Implications:

The paper provides clear and actionable insights for leaders and organizations that can help create a sustainable and engaged workplace.

Adopt a balanced leadership style: the paper suggests that in a highly complex, competitive, uncertain, and volatile work environment—where employees must be resilient and adaptable to rapidly changing technology—a solely people-oriented leadership style may not be effective. However, a task-oriented, people-oriented, and equity-oriented leadership style will be more acceptable to employees, as understood from the interviews. A balanced approach will ensure clarity and transparency in processes, structured performance evaluations, reward policies, task allocation, and communicating organizational expectations to employees. This fosters trust and team spirit, improving employees’ sense of belonging to the organization.

Fostering OCB: As revealed in the in-depth interviews, IT employees reported feeling overburdened with project loads. Alienation from the organization and team—due to remote work assignments and complaints against organizational policies and leadership styles—is reducing organizational citizenship behaviour among employees. Therefore, a supportive work climate should be promoted, and behaviours that go beyond job descriptions should be recognized. Participative leadership, open communication among team members, role modelling by leaders, addressing employee issues with empathy and encouraging positive behaviour can be successful in promoting OCB.

Nurture personal work values and create congruence between individual and organizational values. It is evident from the interviews that four major values are important for improving workplace culture: empathy, propensity to be trained and followership, growth mindset, and team skills. Managers must cultivate these values among employees through role modelling and continuous, structured value-based training to align individual and organizational values.

Develop sustainable engagement strategies: It is understood that leadership alone cannot improve employee engagement. A solid HR policy, value-based leadership development programs, value-driven training for employees, and enforcement of OCB can create an ecosystem conducive to sustainable growth.

Conclusion: The paper asserts that acquiring valuable ecosystem skills is both easy and essential in today's workplace environments, particularly in the IT field. Value training facilitated by leaders through leadership styles and an ethical climate has a significant impact on translating values into action (OCB). Integrating value-based learning into HR practices can enhance engagement, reduce attrition, and foster the development of ethical and resilient organizations. The study presents a new framework linking values, skills, and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). By examining a diverse sample of IT professionals across eight major firms, the research provides a rich, multidimensional understanding of how individual motivations, leadership quality, and value congruence collectively shape extra-role behaviours vital for organizational effectiveness. Value congruence programs, emphasizing fairness and transparency, and offering flexible work hours can strengthen organizational culture. Additionally, involving employees in co-creating the mission statement may enhance organizational culture. Training in emotional intelligence, incorporating spirituality in leadership practices, access to individual counselling, value-based training, employee interactions to develop coping mechanisms, behaviour management strategies, and diversity training can help employees become more sensitive and empathetic.

1. Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2,, 267-299. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
2. Agarwal, U. A. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement. Personnel Review. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2012-0019
3. Ahmad, S. (2020). EVALUATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR IN THE CONTEXT OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: THE CASE OF HEFEI PUBLIC SERVICE INSTITUTIONS, CHINA. doi:10.17323/1999-5431-2020-0-6-51-66
4. (2022, December 1). Workplace Violence. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/: https://apnews.com/hub/workplace-violence
5. Barling, J., Dupre, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting Workplace Aggression andViolence. Annual Review of Psychology 60,, 671-692.
6. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance.Y: Free Press.
7. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617095
8. Blau, P. M. (1964 ). "Exchange and Power in Social Life". New York: Wiley.
9. Bolino, M. C. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.05.004
10. Bolino, T. (2003). Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior. doi:10.5465/ame.2003.10954754
11. Borman, W. C. (2004). The Concept of Organizational Citizenship. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00316.x
12. Brown, M. E. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
13. Çolakoğlu. (2015). Dimensional comparatives of organizational citizenship and emotional labor: A study on accommodation companies. doi:10.14687/ijhs.v12i1.3086
14. Deci, E. L. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
15. Edmondson, A. (.-3. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
16. Eisenberger, R. S. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565
17. Engelbrecht, A. S. (2002). The Effect of Organisational Leadership on Value Congruence and Effectiveness: An Integrated Model . SAJEMS NS Vol 5. No 3, 589-605.
18. Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2014). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory: The relational approach to leadership. In D. V. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 407–433). Oxford University Press.
19. Farh, J. L. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25530866
20. et.al. (2023). Organizational culture and the individuals' discretionary behaviors at work: a cross-cultural analysis. Frontiers in Sociology. doi:10.3389/fsoc.2023.1190488
21. Fiedler, F. E. (2006). The Contingency Model: A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. In J. M. Levine, & R. L. Moreland (Eds.), Small groups (pp. 369–381). Psychology Press.
22. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The leadership quarterly, 14(6), 693-727. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001
23. George, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. doi:10.1007/bf01385031
25. Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York.: Paulist Press.
26. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
27. (2006). https://www.hindustantimes.com. Retrieved from More women get bullied at work than men: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/more-women-get-bullied-at-work-than-men/story-UXwmNut1MFsUoSHObLOpUI.html
28. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.
29. Jeewandara, S. K., & Kumari, T. (2021). A Theoretical Review Of Deviant Workplace Behavior. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH. VO`LUME 10. ISSUE 04, 91-113.
30. Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological Review. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2117735
31. Kolodinsky, R. W., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2008). Workplace Values and Outcomes: Exploring Personal, Organizational, and Interactive Workplace Spirituality. Journal of Business Ethics. 81, 465–480.
32. Krentz, M., Dartnell, A., Khanna, D., & Locklair, S. (2021). Inclusive Cultures Have Healthier and Happier Workers. Boston, Massachusetts: Boston Consulting Group.
33. Li, S., & Chanchai, B. (2019. December). Employee Engagement: A Literature Review,. International Journal of Human Resource Studies vol. 9(1), 63-80.
34. Liao, C.-W., & Lu, C.-Y. (2012). Work values, work attitude and job performance of green energy industry employees in Taiwan. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. Vol. 6(15), 5299-5318. doi:DOI: 10.5897/AJBM11.1449
35. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The leadership quarterly, 19(2), 161-177, 161-177.
36. et.al. (2019). The Effect of Perceived Organizational Support and Job satisfaction on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. doi:10.2991/piceeba-19.2019.76
37. Meglino, B. M. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80065-8
38. Meynhardt, T., Hermann, C., & Bardeli, J. (2024). "Connecting value creation for society with work engagement: the relevance of an organization’s public value as an extension of the job characteristics model". Current Psychology. Vol 43, 23260–23277. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05922-9
39. Michael, E. B., Linda, K. T., & David, A. H. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Volume 97, Issue 2, 117-134. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002.
40. Mintz, S. (2018, August 1). Ethics Sage. Retrieved from Steves: www.ethicssage.com
41. Monteiro, E., & Joseph, J. (2023). A Review on the Impact of Workplace Culture on Employee Mental Health and Well-Being. International Journal of Case Studies in Business, IT, and Education. Vol. 7, No. 2.
42. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845
43. Nadeem, K., Akram, W., Ali, H. F., Iftikhar, Y., & Shamshad, W. (2019). The Relationship between Work Values, Affective Commitment, Emotional Intelligence, and Employee Engagement: A Moderated Mediation Model. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences. Vol.8, No 3 , 469-482.
44. O'Grady. (2018). Organisational citizenship behaviour: Sensitization to an organisational phenomenon. doi:10.1111/jonm.12622
45. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.
46. Ortiz-Gómez1, M., Ariza-Montes, A., & Molina-Sánchez, H. (2020). Human Values and Engagement: The Mediating Role of Authenticity Among Workers in a Spanish Religious Organization. Frontier Psychology. Vol 11. Article 76. doi:doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00076
47. Ozkan, M., & Solmaz, B. (2015). The Changing Face of the Employees: Generation Z and Their Perceptions of Work (a Study Applied to University Students). Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 476-483. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00876-X
48. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of management, 26(3), Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical re513-563.
49. Rhoades, L. &. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
50. Rich, B. L. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988
51. Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2005). 11th Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall.
52. Ros, M. S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00048.x
53. Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic Individual Values, Work Values, and the Meaning of Work. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 48(1), 49–71.
54. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
55. Schaufeli, W., Marisasalanova, V. G., & Bakker, A. A.-R. (2002). The measurement of Engagement and Burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 3, 71-92.
56. (1991). Organizational Citizenship: A Review, Proposed Model, and Research Agenda. doi:10.1177/001872679104400706
57. Schroth, H. (2019). Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? . California Management Review, 5-18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619841006
58. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
59. Schwartz, S. H. (2009). Basic Human Values. Cross-National Comparison Seminar on the Quality and Comparability of Measures for Constructs in Comparative Research: Methods and Applications, Bolzano (Bozen), Italy,, (pp. 1-39). Bolzano (Bozen), Italy.
60. Stern, P. C. (2000). "New environmental theories: Shaping a new intellectual agenda". Journal of Social Issues. 56(3), 407-428.
61. Tahir, M. (2015). Psychological Empowerment, Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Task Performance; an Interrelationship. (Literature Review). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2782282
62. (2025). A murder, a movement, and the search for justice: A timeline of events in the RG Kar Medical College rape and murder case. New Delhi: The Indian Express. .
63. Turnipseed, D. L. (2002). Are good soldiers good?: Exploring the link between organizational citizenship behavior and personal ethics. Journal of Business Research. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00173-8
64. Van Dyne, L. G. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/256600
65. Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T., & Peterson, S. (February 2008). Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory - Based Measure. Journal of Management 34:1, 89-126. doi:doi 10.1177/0149206307308913
66. Williams, L. J. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305