Abstract

This paper aims to contribute to the study of Psychological Capital, by looking at the impact of cultural differences on the relationship between PsyCap and employee performance and engagement. While there is a broad range of literature looking at those relationships, the results are frequently inconsistent. One of the reasons for this inconsistency may be due to cultural/regional differences. A systematic literature review was conducted to shed light on those cultural/regional differences. The concept of PsyCap refers to an individual’s positive psychological state of development characterized by four main components: hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism (Luthans et al., 2015). Literature has shown that engagement and performance are important antecedents of different work-related outcomes such as productivity, well-being, innovation, and organisational change (Christian et al., 2011). Nevertheless, there is consistent instability of engagement levels among employees (Avolio & Luthans, 2006), which can compromise the performance and productivity of numerous organisations. To achieve effective organisational success modern companies should not only focus on negative-based strategies to minimize weaknesses and problems (Luthans et al., 2015) but also promote resources of investment in the face of adversities and organisational changes through the development of positive psychological states and capabilities (PsyCap). PsyCap became a
central topic of discussion in positive psychology as the combination of its components supports the individual development and improvement of foundational resources for managing and adapting over adversities (Luthans et al., 2010), increasing various work-related outcomes including but not limited to performance, engagement (Simons & Buitendach, 2013). However, research about the impact of PsyCap on engagement and performance is globally sparse with contradictory findings depending on the geographical location of the studies. This systematic literature review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement (Moher et al., 2015). Twenty-two study including primary (quantitative) and secondary (meta-analysis) was included. ProQuest, Academic Research Complete, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Business Source Complete, and CINAHL were used as sources of information for the systematic literature review. The keywords selected in the search strategy were PsyCap, engagement, and performance. The screening process accounts for relevant studies including English language, full-text, reference list, peer-reviewed, and based on employees working across different geographical areas (West, Europe, East, Latino America, and Africa). Studies showing unclear findings, no demographic information, student-based research, remote workers, and variables unrelated to employees’ engagement and performance were excluded from the screening process. In addition, the AXIS tool was administered to assess the quality of qualitative, cross-sectional, and longitudinal research design, while the Joanna Briggs Institute tool was adopted to provide a rigorous process for critical appraisal and synthesis. The analysis shows a positive impact of PsyCap on engagement and performance in USA, China, Italy, and Zimbabwe. However, there are cultural differences between some African regions that affect the PsyCap impact on employee engagement overtime, compared to other geographical areas including West, East, and Europe, where high levels of PsyCap predicted was shown to be a good predictor employee engagement. Besides, looking at the PsyCap dimensions, hope, self-efficacy, and optimism are the main drivers of engagement in the West and Africa, while in the East, particularly in India, hope and resilience seem to be more important. One of the main findings of this systematic review is the lack of qualitative research which does not capture the full complexity of the topic in consideration. In addition, it was found limited research in some geographical regions such as Latin America, which does not allow us to treat these relationships as a global phenomenon. Despite some regional differences, this systematic review provides some evidence of the significant positive relationship between PsyCap, engagement, and performance across different regions. The regional differences we found, stress the importance of tailoring PsyCap intervention to regional and cultural idiosyncrasies. Moving forward, more attention should be given to shed light on how exactly how we can adapt PsyCap interventions to cultural differences in order to maximise its impact on employee performance and engagement