Psychological need states profiles

Recently Vansteenkiste et al. (Reference Vansteenkiste, Ryan and Soenens2020) called for future research to focus on need profiles to reach a better understanding of within-person combinations of psychological need states. Indeed, the person-centered approach allows to capture the true complexity of employees’ psychological need states, which seldom involve a single psychological experience of either positive or negative nature (e.g., Rouse et al., Reference Rouse, Turner, Siddall, Schmid, Standage and Bilzon2020; Tóth-Király, Bőthe, Orosz, & Rigó, Reference Tóth-Király, Bőthe, Orosz and Rigó2020). Moreover, person-centered results allow practitioners for more tailored interventions that can target several need states at the same time. Despite these important implications, only one study (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a) has thus far used this approach to investigate different combinations of need satisfaction, unfulfillment, and frustration. Thus, it is even more important to verify which of the profiles identified by Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al. (Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a), if any, are representative among other populations of workers, and which are specific to their sample.

More precisely, Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al. (Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a) found a bifactor representation of psychological need states to be superior (i.e., one global factor and nine specific factors). Importantly, research also emphasizes that employees’ global levels of need satisfaction co-exist with specific levels which explain unique variability in outcomes (Gillet, Morin, Huart, Colombat, & Fouquereau, Reference Gillet, Morin, Huart, Colombat and Fouquereau2020).

Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al. (Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a) identified six profiles based on this bifactor solution: (1) Globally Positive and Average Specific (low levels of negative global psychological need experience and average-to-moderately low levels of specific need states), (2) Globally Average and Mixed Specific (moderately high levels of negative global psychological need experience, high levels of specific autonomy unfulfillment, and low levels of specific autonomy satisfaction, competence frustration, and relatedness frustration, while all other specific need states were characterized by average levels), (3) Globally Negative and Mixed Specific (moderately high levels of negative global psychological need experience, high levels of specific relatedness satisfaction, moderately high levels of specific competence frustration and competence unfulfillment, and moderately low levels of specific competence need satisfaction, while all other indicators were characterized by average levels), (4) Globally Very Positive and Average Specific (very low levels of negative global psychological need experience and average-to-moderately high or low levels of specific need states), (5) Globally Very Positive and Mixed Specific (very low levels of negative global psychological need experience and specific relatedness unfulfillment, low levels of specific competence unfulfillment, moderately low levels of specific autonomy unfulfillment, moderately high levels of specific competence and relatedness satisfaction, high levels of specific competence frustration, and very high levels of specific relatedness frustration, while specific autonomy satisfaction and autonomy frustration displayed average levels), and (6) Globally Very Negative and Mixed Specific (very high levels of negative global psychological need experience, high levels of specific competence satisfaction, relatedness unfulfillment, competence frustration, and relatedness frustration, low levels of specific relatedness satisfaction, and average levels of all other specific need states).

Based on this study examining need satisfaction/frustration/unfulfillment profiles (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a), and on prior research on employees’ need satisfaction (four profiles: Gillet, Morin, Choisay, & Fouquereau, Reference Gillet, Morin, Choisay and Fouquereau2019; Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Morin, Forest, Fouquereau, & Gillet, Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Morin, Forest, Fouquereau and Gillet2022b) and need satisfaction/frustration (five profiles; Rouse et al., Reference Rouse, Turner, Siddall, Schmid, Standage and Bilzon2020) profiles, we expected to identify a similar (i.e., 4–6) number of profiles (Hypothesis 1a).

As to the nature of these profiles, based on prior person-centered research jointly examining need satisfaction and frustration (Rouse et al., Reference Rouse, Turner, Siddall, Schmid, Standage and Bilzon2020; Tóth-Király et al., Reference Tóth-Király, Bőthe, Orosz and Rigó2020), and on research examining employees’ need satisfaction, frustration, and unfulfillment profiles (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a), we expected to identify some or all of the following profiles (Hypothesis 1b): (1) a positive profile (high positive experiential need states and low negative experiential need states), (2) a negative profile (high negative experiential need states and low positive experiential need states), (3) a very positive profile (very high positive experiential need states and very low negative experiential need states), (4) a very negative profile (very high negative experiential need states and low positive experiential need states), (5) a normative profile (close to average levels across all experiential need states), and (6) a profile characterized by mixed experiential need states (e.g., low levels of need unfulfillment coupled with high levels of need satisfaction and frustration).

Perceptions of environmental CSR

The United Nations introduced sustainable development goals in 2015, which explicitly emphasized that work organizations should achieve these goals (United Nations, 2015). Organizations can take up this role through environmental CSR, which covers an organization’s commitment to maximize long-term environmental well-being through business practices, policies, and resources (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, Reference Du, Bhattacharya and Sen2011). CSR considers the triple bottom line of organizations’ economic, social, and environmental performance (El Akremi et al., Reference El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck and Igalens2018), and the focus of the current study is on perceptions of environmental CSR, in line with the rationale outlined on page 4–5 regarding the selection of variables. Interestingly, according to Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, and Williams (Reference Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera and Williams2006), employees perceive, evaluate, and react to their organization’s CSR activities. Indeed, prior research has shown the positive influence of environmental CSR on performance (El Akremi et al., Reference El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck and Igalens2018; Tsai, Tsang, & Cheng, Reference Tsai, Tsang and Cheng2012), organizational commitment (Kim, Kim, Han, Jackson, & Ployhart, Reference Kim, Kim, Han, Jackson and Ployhart2017), and organizational attractiveness for job seekers (El Akremi et al., Reference El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck and Igalens2018; Rupp, Shao, Thornton, & Skarlicki, Reference Rupp, Shao, Thornton and Skarlicki2013). Perceptions of CSR have moreover been linked to employees’ organizational identification and job satisfaction (El Akremi et al., Reference El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck and Igalens2018). El Akremi et al. (Reference El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck and Igalens2018) suggest that these positive implications of CSR owe to how rewarding it is for employees’ self-image to belong to a socially responsible organization. More precisely, employees take pride in belonging to a fair and ethical organization, that creates shared value, which strengthens their self-worth and results in a positive assessment of this fulfilling work experience.

Moreover, recent research has shown that organizational CSR may directly influence the fulfillment of employees’ basic psychological needs. Indeed, when employees feel that their organization is committed to maximize long-term environmental well-being (Kim, Rhou, Topcuoglu, & Kim, Reference Kim, Rhou, Topcuoglu and Kim2020), they are likely to experience a sense of understanding and feel respected and valued by their organization, since it values and possibly shares some important and normative welfare principles (Gherman, Arhiri, Holman, & Soponaru, Reference Gherman, Arhiri, Holman and Soponaru2022). A recent study supported this assumption by showing perceptions of CSR to have a positive effect on employees’ need satisfaction (Kim et al., Reference Kim, Rhou, Topcuoglu and Kim2020). Yet, it should be noted that research has never explored the relation between perceptions of CSR and need frustration or need unfulfillment, thus leaving unknown whether employees’ perceptions of their organization’s environmental CSR could prevent negative experiential need states. More generally, most studies on CSR have investigated its positive consequences (e.g., El Akremi et al., Reference El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck and Igalens2018; Tsai et al., Reference Tsai, Tsang and Cheng2012), leaving as uncharted territory whether CSR could help reduce negative work outcomes. Our study could therefore contribute to extend knowledge on this issue.

Interestingly, prior studies found CSR to negatively relate to burnout and turnover intentions (Lin & Liu, Reference Lin and Liu2017), which are known consequences of need frustration (Huyghebaert et al., Reference Huyghebaert, Gillet, Fernet, Lahiani and Fouquereau2018b). A recent study also found CSR to negatively relate to job boredom (Ohana, Murtaza, Al-Shatti, & Chi, Reference Ohana, Murtaza, Al-Shatti and Chi2023), which was documented to stem from need unfulfillment (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Ntoumanis, Berjot and Gillet2021). As such, prior variable-centered findings suggest that CSR could negatively relate to negative experiential need states. Indeed, when they believe that they belong to an ethical and value-creating organization, employees are less likely to experience feelings of coercion or uncertainty, uselessness, or dullness, and reject or disconnection. Based on prior variable-centered results, we could thus expect perceptions of environmental CSR to predict a higher likelihood of membership in the profile(s) dominated by need satisfaction and a lower likelihood of membership in the profile(s) dominated by need frustration and/or unfulfillment. Moreover, based on a prior person-centered examination of psychological need states (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a), we can expect positive work experiences such as perceptions of environmental CSR to predict a higher likelihood of membership in the profile(s) dominated by need satisfaction than in the mixed or average profile(s). Indeed, average or mixed profiles imply, alongside need satisfaction, the presence of need frustration and/or unfulfillment, which are unlikely to result from perceiving one’s organization to be ethical and socially responsible (Hypothesis 2a).

Employees’ perceptions of environmental CSR focus on the cognitive side (Peloza & Shang, Reference Peloza and Shang2011) of employees’ reactions to their organization’s environmental responsibility. However, there is also an emotional side to these reactions. Indeed, employees’ moral emotions regarding their organization’s environmental (ir)responsibility may help them assess their organization’s actions when it comes to promoting sustainable development. In other words, perceptions of CSR and moral emotions related to the environment are separate phenomena in their nature and valence but share a common source in the organization’s environmental (ir)responsibility. They could complement one another in explaining employees’ psychological experiences (i.e., need profiles) at work.

Negative moral emotions

Moral emotions may be defined as emotions ‘… linked to the interests or welfare of society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent’ (Haidt, Reference Haidt, Davison, Scherer and Goldsmith2003, p. 853). Moral emotions help to support the moral standards recognized by society (Haidt, Reference Haidt, Davison, Scherer and Goldsmith2003) and help individuals to assess their own and others’ actions when it comes to promoting or undermining a well‐functioning world. Moral emotions stem from biological hardwiring (Bloom, Reference Bloom2013), past experiences (Ekman, Reference Ekman1992), and social learning (e.g., Tangney et al., Reference Tangney, Stuewig, Mashek, Tracy, Robins and Tangney2007). In the literature, two often-discussed categories of negative moral emotions are other-condemning emotions and self‐conscious emotions (see Haidt, Reference Haidt, Davison, Scherer and Goldsmith2003). Employees experience other‐condemning moral emotions in response to other people’s moral transgressions, which can take the form of anger. Anger captures feelings of resentment that arise because someone has transgressed a moral standard without justification (Haidt, Reference Haidt, Davison, Scherer and Goldsmith2003). Employees can thus experience other-condemning moral emotions toward their organization when they feel that the latter does not play its role in preserving the environment. Conversely, individuals experience self‐conscious moral emotions when they violate moral standards (Leary, Reference Leary, Tesser, Stapel and Wood2002). Employees can thus feel that they contribute to violating moral standards when working for and being a part of an organization that does not live up to eco-friendly standards. They may then experience shame and/or guilt (Greenbaum et al., Reference Greenbaum, Bonner, Gray and Mawritz2020).

Although there has been a rise in research on moral emotions in organizations, this research field is understudied in terms of explaining their consequences for employees’ work-related experiences (Greenbaum et al., Reference Greenbaum, Bonner, Gray and Mawritz2020). More precisely, no study has explored the relations between employees’ work-related moral emotions and their need satisfaction, frustration, and unfulfillment. Yet, prior research has shown that when employees are faced with emotionally challenging work environments, they tend to experience more need frustration and less need satisfaction (e.g., Huyghebaert et al., Reference Huyghebaert, Gillet, Fernet, Lahiani, Chevalier and Fouquereau2018a). Similarly, when experiencing negative moral emotions regarding their organization’s environmental (ir)responsibility, employees may feel inauthentic as they work for an organization that does not match their environmental moral standards, which could turn into a deeper sense that they cannot express their true self in their work environment (e.g., need frustration and unfulfillment; Grandey & Gabriel, Reference Grandey and Gabriel2015). For instance, Gherman et al. (Reference Gherman, Arhiri, Holman and Soponaru2022) showed that nurses’ psychological needs were more frustrated and less satisfied when facing organizational events that were contradictory with their moral convictions. These results are in line with SDT, which posits need satisfaction to occur in environments that are in line with individuals’ intrinsic values, while need frustration occurs in environments that are not congruent with, or even obstruct, these values (Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2017).

However, no research has examined how employees’ moral or affective experiences in the workplace relate to need unfulfillment. Yet, need unfulfillment was found to be positively associated with state boredom (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Ntoumanis, Berjot and Gillet2021), which carries moral significance not only because it stems from the perception of lack of meaning and thus involves a moral judgment as to how meaningful the situation is, but also because it stands as an obstacle to flourishing (Elpidorou, Reference Elpidorou2017). Thus, we could expect negative moral judgments such as negative moral emotions to elicit more need unfulfillment. Consistent with the above rationale, a prior person-centered examination of psychological need states (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a) showed that negative work-related experiences, such as negative moral emotions, predicted a lower likelihood of membership in the profile(s) dominated by need satisfaction and a higher likelihood of membership in the profile(s) dominated by (very) negative need states experiences (need frustration and unfulfillment). In sum, we expect negative moral emotions related to one’s organization’s environmental (ir)responsibility to predict a higher likelihood of membership in the predominantly negative profile(s) and a lower likelihood of membership in the profile(s) dominated by need satisfaction (Hypothesis 2b).

Affective organizational commitment

AOC refers to how employees attach to, identify with, and get involved in the organization (Meyer & Herscovitch, Reference Meyer and Herscovitch2001). Research has found that AOC influences important work behaviors like job involvement or absenteeism (Mercurio, Reference Mercurio2015; Meyer & Herscovitch, Reference Meyer and Herscovitch2001). It may also have ramifications for behaviors such as creativeness and innovativeness (Neininger, Lehmann-Willenbrock, Kauffeld, & Henschel, Reference Neininger, Lehmann-Willenbrock, Kauffeld and Henschel2010). Interestingly, previous research (e.g., Meyer & Maltin, Reference Meyer and Maltin2010) has shown that psychological need states were associated with affective commitment. Indeed, according to SDT (Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2017), need satisfaction promotes positive job attitudes such as AOC. For instance, Greguras and Diefendorff (Reference Greguras and Diefendorff2009) found that need satisfaction positively related to AOC and more recently, Gillet et al. (Reference Gillet, Forest, Benabou and Bentein2015) found that need satisfaction positively explained AOC while need frustration negatively explained AOC.

Meyer and Maltin (Reference Meyer and Maltin2010) propose that employees’ desire to belong and maintain membership in their organization (i.e., AOC) stems from the perception that their work allows them to behave in line with their intrinsic interests or values, which also underpins autonomous motivational processes such as need satisfaction (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Ntoumanis, Berjot and Gillet2021). Indeed, according to SDT, individuals experience need satisfaction when they can express their true self (Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2017). Conversely, when they feel that their true self is oppressed within their organization (need frustration) or when they feel unable to make sense of, or value, the organizational context (need unfulfillment), they may struggle to identify to their organization and to develop an affective bond to it (AOC). Yet, these findings are based on variable-centered results and ignore the fact that need satisfaction, frustration, and unfulfillment can combine in the work lives of employees, leaving unknown their joint implications for AOC. For instance, prior research has failed to address which configurations would be most detrimental for AOC: Would simultaneously high levels of need frustration and unfulfillment carry the worst consequences or would a profile dominated by one or the other of these negative experiences be more detrimental? A prior person-centered investigation of psychological need states (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a) showed that identified motivation, which is conceptually very closely related to AOC as they both reflect employees’ genuine involvement in and identification with the values of their work/organization, was the lowest in a profile dominated by specific need unfulfillment and, equally, in a profile dominated by both specific need unfulfillment and need specific frustration. More studies are thus needed to disentangle how such need states profiles would affect AOC. In line with the above-mentioned prior variable-centered findings, we could still expect that members of the positive profile(s) would show higher levels of AOC, while member of the predominantly negative profile(s) would have the lowest levels of AOC (Hypothesis 3a).

Turnover intentions

Turnover is understood as ‘the termination of an individual’s employment with a given company’ (Tett & Meyer, Reference Tett and Meyer1993, p. 262) and can be either voluntary or involuntary. A high turnover rate is not only associated with extra costs (e.g., Hayes et al., Reference Hayes, O’Brien-Pallas, Duffield, Shamian, Buchan, Hughes and Stone2006), but also with negative effects on incumbent workers attitudes (e.g., Kuhn & Yu, Reference Kuhn and Yu2021). Through its effects on the organizational climate as well as the time and resources it demands, a high turnover rate weakens devotion of full effort into the goals and tasks of the organization (Kuhn & Yu, Reference Kuhn and Yu2021). Regarding voluntary turnover on the part of the employee, the decision to quit has been shown to be strongly preceded by a conscious and deliberate willfulness to leave the organization, referred to as turnover intentions (Tett & Meyer, Reference Tett and Meyer1993).

Turnover intentions have been negatively associated with need satisfaction (Trépanier et al., Reference Trépanier, Fernet and Austin2015; Van den Broeck, Ferris, Chang, & Rosen, Reference Van den Broeck, Ferris, Chang and Rosen2016) while need frustration was positively related to turnover intentions (e.g., Gherman et al., Reference Gherman, Arhiri, Holman and Soponaru2022; Huyghebaert et al., Reference Huyghebaert, Gillet, Fernet, Lahiani and Fouquereau2018b; Olafsen, Halvari, & Frølund, Reference Olafsen, Halvari and Frølund2021). Indeed, when the professional environment is experienced as frustrating or unsatisfying, employees might disengage and consider other job opportunities that could better fulfill their psychological needs. Yet, prior studies failed to address the role of need unfulfillment, and its combinations with need satisfaction and frustration, in the prediction of turnover intentions. One could wonder whether turnover intentions are more likely in cases of high need frustration or of high need unfulfillment, or of their combination. A prior person-centered examination of psychological need states suggests the latter to be most likely to fuel turnover intentions (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a) as it showed that employees were most likely to engage in their work to avoid losing their job or other material losses (external-material regulation) when they experienced simultaneously high levels of need frustration and unfulfillment. This result suggests that, if they had more favorable job alternatives, employees facing simultaneously high levels of need frustration and unfulfillment might consider leaving their job (Maertz & Campion, Reference Maertz and Campion2004). As such, need frustration and unfulfillment may have additive effects and result in employees wanting to leave their job to protect their integrity (need frustration) and seek more meaningful work experiences (need unfulfillment). In sum, person-centered analyses should help identify at-risk profiles regarding turnover intentions. Based on the above-mentioned prior variable-centered research, we can at least expect the lowest levels of turnover intentions to be found in the predominantly positive profile, while the highest levels will be found for members of the predominantly negative profile (Hypothesis 3b).

Cyberslacking

Cyberslacking refers to minor (e.g., browsing, emailing, shopping) and major (e.g., blogging, gambling, surfing adult websites) personal activities that an employee voluntarily undertakes during work hours (Blanchard & Henle, Reference Blanchard and Henle2008). Since cyberslacking is a widespread phenomenon, it has raised substantial concerns about its influence on employee performance (Askew et al., Reference Askew, Buckner, Taing, Ilie, Bauer and Coovert2014). To prevent cyberslacking and its detrimental consequences, scholars have thus investigated its antecedents, although this research area still needs to be further explored. For instance, work engagement was found to negatively mediate the relationship between organizational trust and cyberslacking, indicating that organizational trust can reduce the occurrence of cyberslacking via work engagement (Oosthuizen, Rabie, & De Beer, Reference Oosthuizen, Rabie and De Beer2018). However, no research has documented the implications of psychological need states in the development of cyberslacking. Yet, recent findings from research conducted in education settings showed the importance of psychological need satisfaction and frustration in respectively negatively and positively predicting procrastination (Oram & Rogers, Reference Oram and Rogers2022).

Moreover, recent person-centered findings showed that the predominantly negative need states profiles were related to high levels of amotivation (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Gillet, Fernet, Thomas and Ntoumanis2022a), which shares conceptual similarities with cyberslacking, as they both reflect a lack of motivation to engage in one’s work and both imply that employees do not see the point of putting effort into work. As such, we could similarly expect to find the highest levels of cyberslacking among employees of the predominantly negative need states profile(s). Indeed, employees may engage in cyberslacking as a form of retaliation toward a frustrating and/or neglecting work environment, to reciprocate feelings of being unfairly treated (Venkatesh, Cheung, Davis, & Lee, Reference Venkatesh, Cheung, Davis and Lee2023). Employees may also engage in cyberslacking to restore autonomy (i.e., deciding to browse the internet instead of doing one’s work), mastery (e.g., engaging in an online game they feel competent at), and connection with others (e.g., using social network or texting family and friends). In sum, cyberslacking should be a relevant response when employees feel that their needs are neglected and frustrated by the organization. A person-centered analysis could thus be a first step to identify the relative relevance of the three psychological needs states but also to identify at-risk profiles regarding cyberslacking. Thus, we can expect to find the highest levels of cyberslacking among members of the predominantly negative profile(s) (Hypothesis 3c).

Participants and procedure

The recruited participants had to be employed by an organization and to work in France. They were recruited by undergraduate students through network and snowball sampling procedures and were not compensated for their participation. Prior to data collection, potential participants received an email clarifying the general goal of the research and assuring them of the voluntary and anonymous nature of their participation. They were invited to provide a written informed consent. A total of 525 French employees (M _age = 35.60 years; SD = 12.27; 56.80% women) completed the online survey. Most participants worked full-time (80.20%) for an average of 36.07 weekly hours (SD = 9.23). We aimed to include a diverse range of occupational groups, however, most participants (87.8%) worked in the service industry (market services: 35.8%; nonmarket services: 52.0%). Participants had been working for their current organization for an average of 8.51 years (SD = 9.23). Finally, participants were highly concerned by environmental issues (M = 7.45; SD = 1.94 on a scale from 1 – not concerned at all to 10 – very concerned).

Measures

Environmental CSR was measured with seven items (α = .92; e.g., ‘Our company takes action to reduce pollution related to its activities (e.g., choice of materials, eco-design, and dematerialization)’) developed by El Akremi et al. (Reference El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck and Igalens2018). Participants reported how much they agreed with each statement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Negative moral emotions related to organization’s environmental (ir)responsibility were measured with eight items (α = .94; e.g., ‘I get sad because of how my organization deals with the climate crisis’) with a scale that was adapted from Thornberg, Pozzoli, Gini, and Jungert (Reference Thornberg, Pozzoli, Gini and Jungert2015). Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Psychological need states were measured with the validated French version of the Psychological Need States at Work Scale (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., Reference Huyghebaert-Zouaghi, Ntoumanis, Berjot and Gillet2021). Before completing this 37-item scale, workers were asked to consider their general experience in their current job to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement (1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree). Need satisfaction was measured by three items for autonomy (e.g., ‘I have a say in how things are done’; α = .87), three for competence (e.g., ‘I feel that I am capable’; α = .81), and six for relatedness (e.g., ‘I feel cared for’; α = .92). Need frustration was assessed via four items for autonomy (e.g., ‘I feel forced to follow decisions about my work’; α = .82), four for competence (e.g., ‘I feel like a failure’; α = .90), and five for relatedness (e.g., ‘I feel excluded’; α = .90). Need unfulfillment was measured through four items for autonomy (e.g., ‘I am confused as to when I can make decisions’; α = .82), three for competence (e.g., ‘I feel like I have improved less than I would have liked to’; α = .68), and five for relatedness (e.g., ‘I feel I don’t quite fit in with others’; α = .82).

AOC was measured with three items (α = .86; e.g., ‘I am proud to say that I work for my organization’) developed by Perreira et al. (Reference Perreira, Morin, Hebert, Gillet, Houle and Berta2018). Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

Cyberslacking was measured with four items (α = .80; e.g., ‘I spend more than half an hour on social network sites (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) per day for leisure purposes during working hours’) developed by Metin et al. (Reference Metin, Taris, Peeters, Korpinen, Smrke, Razum and Gaioshko2020). Participants were asked to report how frequently they engaged in each behavior on a scale from 1 (never) to 7 (always).

Turnover intentions were measured with three items (α = .89; e.g., ‘How often do you think about quitting your current organization?’) developed by Jaros (Reference Jaros1997). Each statement was rated on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

Preliminary analyses

The psychometric properties of all multi-item measures used in this research were verified as part of preliminary factor analyses. Details on these analyses (factor structure, composite reliability, and correlations) are reported in the Online Supplements (Tables S1–S7). The subsequent main analyses relied on factor scores taken from these preliminary analyses (Morin, Reference Morin and Meyer2016) and estimated in standardized units (SD = 1; M = 0; for further information on the benefits of using factor scores, see Morin, Reference Morin and Meyer2016).

Latent profile analyses

Analyses were conducted using the maximum likelihood robust estimator implemented in Mplus 8.6 (Muthén & Muthén, Reference Muthén and Muthén2021). There were no missing responses given the way the survey was set up. We chose latent profile analysis (LPA) because of its added value relative to cluster analyses; LPA permits more flexible model specification than cluster analysis and LPA fit indexes allow different models to be compared and decisions on number of underlying classes to be made (Marsh et al., Reference Marsh, Lüdtke, Trautwein and Morin2009).

Predictors and outcomes of profile membership

Predictors (environmental CSR and negative moral emotions related to organization’s environmental (ir)responsibility) and demographic controls (gender, age, environmental concerns, organizational tenure, and employment type) were first incorporated to the final LPA solution, using a multinomial logistic regression link function. We decided to include those demographic variables to ensure that our findings are not skewed by variations in demographic characteristics. Environmental concern was also important as we could expect it to influence the sensitiveness to the organization’s environmental behavior and environmental CSR perceptions. Outcomes of profile membership (AOC, cyberslacking, and turnover intentions) were then incorporated to the final LPA solution. Profiles were contrasted in relation to levels of outcome variables using the Auxiliary (DCON) approach (Asparouhov & Muthén, Reference Asparouhov and Muthén2014).