THE IMPACT OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY ON AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT: MEDIATING ROLE OF PROSOCIAL MOTIVATION

Purpose – The main objective of this study is to examine the effect of perceived organizational support and proactive personality on prosocial motivation. Furthermore, it looks upon the influence of prosocial motivation on affective commitment. The indirect effect of perceived organizational support and proactive personality on affective commitment through prosocial motivation is also examined. Research methodology – The self-administered survey questionnaires are utilised for collecting the data from the service sector employees. Data were analyzed by using Process Macros on an actual sample of 221. Findings – Results indicate that perceived organizational support and proactive personality are the drivers of prosocial motivation. Likewise, prosocial motivation is positively associated with affective commitment. Besides, the indirect effect of perceived organizational support and proactive personality on affective commitment through prosocial motivation is significant. Research limitations – This study is conducted in the specific culture and the organizational context of Pakistan (Lahore). Data of all study variables are collected from the employees (single source) and at one point in time. Practical implications – The study findings suggested that organizations should always provide support to their employees that encourage them to show more desire to help their colleagues in the working environment and fosters their commitment towards their organization. Originality/Value – It is the first study that examines the indirect impact of POS and proactive personality on affective commitment via prosocial motivation.


Introduction
The notion of prosocial motivation is a desire to help others has attracted extensive attention in the field of positive organizational scholarship, and organizational behaviour due to its favourable outcomes (Grant & Berg, 2010;Grant & Sumanth, 2009) such as Abid, Sajjad, Elahi, and Farooqi (2018) found the prosocial motivation is the contributor to work engagement, and thriving at work. Grant (2007), Shao, Cardona, Ng, and Trau (2017) demonstrated that employee's commitment towards people and their organization is formed by prosocial motivation. Voet, Steijn, and Kuipers (2017) revealed that prosocial motivation positively influences commitment. Literature also shows that employee performance, persistence, productivity, and organizational citizenship behaviour are the outcomes of prosocial motivation (Grant, 2007;Korsgaard, Meglino, & Lester, 1997;Rioux & Penner, 2001). Cai, Huo, Lan, Chen, and Lam (2019) noted that prosocial motivation is the predictor of taking charge. Prosocially motivated employees are important assets of any organization because they help others within the organization (Rioux & Penner, 2001), take the initiative (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009), give more preference to the goals of their colleagues (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004), involved in creativity (Grant & Berry, 2011), accept negative feedback for self improvement (Korsgaard et al., 1997), complete their task persistently, perform better (Grant, 2008a) and involved in the inclusive behaviour (Nelissen et al., 2016). Contrary, prosocial motivation has negative association with knowledge hiding (Babič et al., 2018) and subjective wellbeing (Kibler et al., 2018).
Prosocial motivation creates beneficial individual and organizational outcomes in an excellent and supportive working environment. The beneficial outcomes can diminish with over a period of time without proper work setting (Shao et al., 2017). Therefore, it is essential to investigate those factors and conditions that enable the employees to help their beneficiaries such as co-workers, supervisors, and customers, and also prompt the organization by creating a supportive and pleasant working environment that can take the advantages of the beneficial outcomes. Thus, the main aim of the present study is to inspect those factors that lead to employee prosocial motivation. Although prosocial motivation is an essential construct in the organizational setting, but in the literature, only some studies have investigated the contextual factors that prompt the positive influence of prosocial motivation on job outcomes. Past studies examine that relation of contextual factors, for example, organizational trust (Koçak, 2020), workplace spirituality (Otaye-Ebede et al., 2019), family-supportive behaviour (Bosch et al., 2018), job characteristics (i.e. tasks significance, task identity and autonomy) and social characteristics (i.e. interaction with insides) with the prosocial motivation (Grant, 2007). Zhu and Akhtar (2014) found that leaders can influence the helping behaviour of employees by using numerous approaches that depend on their prosocial motivation tendency. When prosocially motivated employees recognize that their supervisors are trustworthy and honest, and then they carry out all tasks in effective manners (Grant & Sumanth, 2009). In the previous studies, the influence of contextual factor, such as perceived organizational support (POS) on prosocial motivation is not examined. Therefore, the focus of our study is to empirically test the relationship between perceived organizational support and prosocial motivation.
Besides, we suggest in our study prosocial motivation is influenced by personal characteristics such as proactive personality. In the literature, the relationship between proactive personality and prosocial motivation is not examined yet for the best of our knowledge. Therefore, we propose in our study, proactive personality employees have a desire to help other people. Moreover, the supervisor's prosocial motivation promotes organizational commitment towards has been tested empirically in the past literature (Shao et al., 2017). While researchers do not consider the association between employees prosocial motivation and affective commitment towards their organization. Therefore, our study postulates that employees are emotionally attached to their organization and goals when they are prosocially motivated. Likewise, in this study, we have examined the indirect effect of perceived organizational support and proactive personality on the employee's affective commitment towards their organization through prosocial motivation. The mediating role of prosocial motivation among the perceived organizational support, proactive personality and affective commitment were not examined because previous studies have focused on examining the moderating effect of prosocial motivation (Butt et al., 2018;Škerlavaj et al., 2018).
In this study, we have taken an affective commitment as criterion variable because it is one of the components of organizational commitment that has attained a lot of attention as compared to normative commitment and continuous commitment. Affective commitment is defined by as "employee's desire to stay as a member of the organization, an intention to make an effort for the organization, a belief in the values and norms of the organization" (Glazer & Kruse, 2008). It explained the relationship between the employee and the organization (Mowday & Sutton, 1993). From a theoretical view, we want to examine how prosocially motivated employees will emotionally attach to their organizations when they have a proactive personality and also when they perceive that their organizations are more supportive for them. From the practical perspective, affective committed employees are satisfied, perform better, involve in the voluntary behaviour (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001;Meyer et al., 2002), and transfer their knowledge among other employees (Marques et al., 2019). Employees who are emotionally committed to the organization have a higher degree of performance (in-role job performance), are more loyal to the organization, have intrinsic motivation, obtained the organizational goal with enthusiasm, and always want to stay with their organization (Harrison-Walker, 2001;Meyer & Allen, 1991;Lee et al., 2008). In addition, employees who are affectively committed show less intention to leave (Alkhateri et al., 2018;Haque et al., 2019) and withdrawal behaviours, i.e. lateness, absenteeism and turnover (Kim & Beehr, 2019. Therefore, the major goals of the current study are 1) to examine the association among POS, proactively personality and prosocial motivation, 2) to study relationship prosocial motivation and affective commitment, 3) to examine the intervening role of prosocial motivation between POS and affective commitment, and also proactive personality and affective commitment. All relationships are summarized in Figure 1.

. Perceived organizational support and prosocial motivation
Prosocial motivation refers to "as the desire to spend efforts or benefit out of concern for other people or groups" (Grant, 2007(Grant, , 2008b. Prosocial denotes "benefits of others", and motivation means "desire to act" (Oxford English Dictionary, 2009). Prosocially motivated people to have characteristics of cooperation, amicability, sympathetic and value the others (Grant & Berry, 2011). Batson, Ahmad, Powell, and Stocks (2008) stated that prosocially motivated personnel's could help other people because they have concern for them, and they want to continue their relationship within the value group. By doing so, they think that they are doing the right things for long term relationship with other colleagues and hence support the organization. By doing all such, they think positively about themselves. Grant (2008b) stated that prosocial motivation is differentiated from intrinsic motivation on the basis of three-facet (i) goal-directedness, (ii) temporal focus and (iii) self-regulation. Prosocial motivation is less autonomous and whereas intrinsic motivation is fully autonomous in term of self-regulation. Prosocial motivation depends on other-oriented values, goals and focused on producing outcomes that could be beneficial in the long run, while intrinsic motivation is mainly based on the task that focused on finishing it only at the present time in the term of self-directedness and temporal focus (Grant & Berry, 2011). Perceived organizational support (POS) is defined by Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) as the "degree to which employees believed that their organizations value their contributions, and cares about their well-being and fulfils their socioemotional needs such as affiliation, social support, and esteem". Hakkak and Ghodsi (2013) defined POS as "a kind of cooperation or support that is necessary to perform a job effectively". POS is social, not merely a psychological process that is intended through the information that employees acquire from their social setting. Both the Organizational support theory and social exchange theory are considered for a theoretical foundation of perception of organizational support. Eisenberger and his colleagues have developed the organizational support theory in 1986. This theory stated that employees form a general belief with respect to how much their organization values their contribution and thinks about their socio-emotional and well being; furthermore, to what extent their loyalty and performance to the organization is rewarded (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Employees are always committed to supportive organizations (Malatesta & Tetrick, 1996). Besides, social exchange theory alluded that reciprocity is an essential facet of social life and the relationship of the employee and the organization. According to Gouldner (1960), reciprocity is a vital concept that is linked to POS. When personnel perceived that their organization is more supportive with them and care about their well-being, the norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) propel them to assist their organizations in its goal accomplishment (Eisenberger et al., 1986). It also enables them to repay their organizations in the form of more favorable job outcomes, for example, higher organizational commitment and job performance, and less negative behaviours such as deviance, absenteeism, voluntary turnover, tardiness emotional exhaustion and psychometric strain (Caesens et al., 2017) as compared to those employees who have a low level of POS (Mohamed & Ali, 2015).
On the basis of organizational support theory (OST) and social exchange theory (SET), a perception of organizational support creates with many positive outcomes, for example, job satisfaction (Alder et al., 2012), organizational commitment, felt obligation, in-role job performance (Arshadi, 2011), affective commitment (Meyer et al., 2002), organizational citizenship behaviour (Asgari et al., 2020), task performance (Miao, 2011), work engagement (Murthy, 2017), work performance (Miao & Kim, 2010), change in readiness, trust in management (Gigliotti et al., 2019), job embeddedness (Akgunduz, & Sanli, 2017), employees favourable orientation toward their work and organization, their helping behaviour and psychological wellbeing (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), voice (Bergeron & Thompson, 2020), ideal commitment, innovative behaviour (Li & Huan, 2019) and also have a negative association with the turnover intention (Arshadi, 2011), and burnout (Alder et al., 2012). Furthermore, a study of Harris and Kacmar (2018) affirmed that higher commitment, higher performance and lower deviance are outcomes of perception of organizational support. A Meta-analysis of Kurtessis, Eisenberger, Ford, Buffardi, Stewart, and Adis (2017) found that POS enhance job satisfaction, subjective wellbeing, performance, self efficacy, organizational identification, work-family balance, organizational citizenship behaviour, job organizational based self-esteem, also lower stress, work family conflict and withdrawal behaviours of employees. A recent cross-cultural meta analysis also indicated that POS is the predictor of many desirable attitudinal and behavioural outcomes such as job involvement, in role job performance, OCB (organizational citizenship behaviour) and lower turnover intention (Rockstuhl et al., 2020). Employees perceived that their organizations are more supportive to them, accomplished their socio-emotional and material needs and also care about their well-being (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), as a result of it, they are likely more involved in the prosocial motivation. On the basis of the above discussion, we proposed in the context of perceived organizational support employees will be prosocially motivated. So, our hypothetical statement is: Hypothesis 1: Perceived organizational support is positively related to prosocial motivation.

Prosocial motivation and affective commitment
An important component of loyalty and dedication is an affective commitment; it is defined by Allen and Meyer (1996) "employee's emotional attachment to the organization, and its goals. " It is also defined by Glazer and Kruse (2008) as "employee's desire to stay as a member of the organization, an intention to make an effort for the organization, a belief in the values and norms of the organization". Affective commitment is influenced by many factors and researchers have characterized these factors in main categories, for example (i) job characteristics, (ii) work experiences, (iii) structural characteristics, (iv) personal characteristics, (v) organizational factors (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Job characteristics are comprised of job stress, management style, responsibility degree and award system (Sayğan, 2011). Work experiences consisted of the organizational rewards, supervisor support and procedural justices (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Decentralization, the degree of control, organization size, wage systems, formalization degree, working hours, and opportunities of career are included in the structural characteristics (Meyer & Allen, 1997;Sayğan, 2011). Job structure is the key indicator of affective organizational commitment, while the intrinsic job satisfaction and job enrichment identified as job structure features also determined the affective commitment (Oyinlade, 2018). A study of Bouraoui, Bensemmane, Ohana, and Russo (2019) illustrated that affective organizational commitment is an outcome of corporate social responsibility. Meyer and Allen (1997) indicated that affective commitment is strongly influenced by work experiences as opposed to personal and structural characteristics. Organizational factor consisted of the perceived organizational support and leadership styles. Affective commitment is strongly influenced by the perceived organizational support (Sharma & Dhar, 2016). Jang and Kandampully (2018) explained in their research servant leadership based on ethical behaviours, and employee growth can contribute to enhancing the affective commitment of employees towards their organization. Hendryadi, Suratna, Suryani, and Purwanto (2019) found that empowering leadership is a strong contributor to affective organizational commitment. A study by Lee, Woo, and Kim (2018) revealed that transformational leadership and affective commitment are linked in a positive manner with each other, as a result of it, committed employees involved in the extra role activities, i.e. organizational citizenship behaviour. Kooij and Boon (2017) indicated that perception of HPWP (high performance work practices) creates an emotional attachment among the employees in the organizational setting. Erum, Abid, Conteras, and Islam (2020) empirically demonstrated that employees developed an emotional connection to the organization when they receive respect in the workplace (civility) and perceive their job as a way to support their families (family support). Previous studies showed that affective commitment influenced by personal characteristics, for example, gender, age, tenure, education, personality, values, a desire to success (Sayğan, 2011;Meyer et al., 2002). ST-Hilaire, and de la Robertie (2018) revealed the positive link of affective commitment with job challenges, workload and internal motivation to remain on the job. Employees create positive feelings and stronger affective commitment towards their organization (Ko & Choi, 2020), when they perceive compassionate behaviours from other members of the organizations. Individuals who view their work as meaningful appear to recognize pleasant job experience and greater affective commitment (Jiang, & Johnson, 2018). Chordiya, Sabharwal, and Goodman (2017) noted that positive feeling of employees about their job enables them to show more commitment to the organizations. In this study, we have focused on the personal characteristic such as prosocial motivation that influenced the employee's emotional attachment towards (affective commitment) their organization. Shao et al. (2017) found that employees' prosocial motivation and perception of supervisor prosocial motivation is the strongest predictor of organizational commitment. Likewise, the study of Ong, Tan, Villareal, and Chiu (2019) found that prosocial motivation has a positive association with organizational commitment. In line with these assumptions, we assumed employee prosocial motivation and affective commitment (one element of organizational commitment) are linked within a positive way. Prosocial motivation is intimately related to integrity, such as sincerity and social justice (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998), and benevolence, such as concern for well being of others (Marcus, Lee, & Ashton, 2007). A study of Cullen, Parboteeah and Victor (2003) has found a positive association between the ethical climate of benevolence (concern for well being of others) and organizational commitment. Employees with a greater prosocial motivation are more interested in placing themselves in the role of others, recognizing the needs of others and perceiving the world in a considerate manner, as a consequence of which they are engaged in helping behaviour. Alternatively, employees with low prosocial motivation do not worry about other people's expectations and needs; they focus on their objectives; therefore, they lack the opportunities to impact positively on others (Shao et al., 2019). Prosocially motivated employees perceived that their goals and values are aligned with prosocially motivated supervisors (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;Zhang et al., 2012) and co-worker. This configuration will cultivate the advancement of better-shared connections and understanding and also urge them to look out of their organizations and other people (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;Gerstner & Day, 1997;Zhang et al., 2012). Prosocially motivated employees to display more commitment towards their organization when they perceive that their goals diverge with the goals of supervisors (Shao et al., 2017). Thus, in this study, we expected that prosocially motivated personnel's would emotionally be attached to the organization and its goals. The hypothetical statement is: Hypothesis 2: Prosocial motivation is positively related to affective commitment. Based on hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2, we propose that prosocial motivation intervenes between the perception of organizational supports and affective commitment relationship. The employee will be prosocially motivated when they perceive that their organization and supervisors are more supportive. As a result of prosocial motivation, they show affective commitment towards their organization. Thus we propose that: Hypothesis 3: Prosocial motivation mediates the relationship between perceived organizational support and affective commitment.

Proactive personality and prosocial motivation
Proactive personality is described as "dispositional tendency to take an individual initiative within a wide range of situations and activities". The archetypal proactive personality is defined as "someone who is relatively unrestrained through situational forces and who effect the change in environment" (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Grant and Ashford (2008, p. 8) refers proactive personality as "anticipatory the action that employees take to impact themselves and/or their environments". Crant (2000) considers that proactive behaviour is the main contributor to proactive personality. Past empirical studies revealed that proactive personality is a complex and multidimensional concept. It creates many significant and positive outcomes for an organization as well as for an individual; such as individual job performance (Andri et al., 2019;Crant, 1995), leadership effectiveness (Crant & Bateman, 2000), work team performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), innovation-related behaviour (Ng & Feldman, 2013), entrepreneurship (Becherer & Maurer, 1999), thriving at work (Jiang, 2017), employee altruism (Lv et al., 2018), job search (Brown et al., 2006), employee creativity (Kim et al., 2009), job crafting , increase in salary, promotion (Seibert et al., 1999), LXM quality and voice behaviour (Wijaya, 2018), career satisfaction (Joo & Ready, 2012), citizenship behaviour (Hua et al., 2019), training outcomes, i.e. behavioural intention and motivation (Major et al., 2006), motivation to learn and transfer intention (Roberts et al., 2018), change in job satisfaction (Kuo et al., 2019), innovative performance (Rodrigues & Rebelo, 2019), work engagement (Dikkers et al., 2010;Lv et al., 2018;Tisu et al., 2020), and life satisfaction (Wang et al., 2018). Proactive personality has also been directly linked to career success. Proactive personality enhances job performance, work interference in family and reduce the interference of family in work (Altura et al., 2020).
The research demonstrated that proactive individuals as compared to reactive individuals select, create, and influence work situations that increase the likelihood of career success (Seibert et al., 1999). Newman, Schwarz, Cooper, and Sendjaya (2017) demonstrate that employee with strong proactive personality is more likely to respond to positive leadership behaviours. Servant leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour link can be fortified by proactive personality. Proactive personality individuals take part in initiatives of the organization (Parker, 1998). They have a capacity of tolerating the stress that presents in a challenging job (Parker & Sprigg, 1999). In addition, people with highly proactive personality are actively engaged in taking the initiative, influence the change in environment, identify the different opportunities, carry out the goals with persistence (Bateman & Crant, 1993), have a different approach towards finding jobs and career (Crant, 1995), energetically solve the obscurity and ratify the change (Allen et al., 2005). In addition, proactive personnel's are better able to engage in creation (Crant, 2000), propagation and execution of the idea. Proactive people can lessen uncertainties more rapidly because of three eminent traits of proactive personality: change orientation, self-inception, and future core interest (Parker et al., 2010). They continue and recognize new opportunities such as the acquisition of knowledge and skill for their self-improvement that will help them in future encouragement. Proactive individuals challenge the status quo while reactive individuals sustain the status quo because they react to the change rather than the formation of change (Seibert et al., 1999).
People with a proactive personality welcome social connections as compared to reactive individuals (Yang et al., 2011). Social connections influence the attitudes and behaviours of individuals (Brass et al., 2004). People who inserted in social connections positively associated with helping behaviour (Sparrowe et al., 2001) because prosocial motivation (helping behaviour) is considered as the outcome of interpersonal interactions (Bolino et al., 2002) and continual interactions between the members of the organizations can enhance the helping behaviour (Perlow et al., 2004). So, we posit that individuals with a proactive personality have more desire to help their co-workers and also assist them in their tasks while exchanging their information and knowledge. Likewise, those employees who have a proactive personality are prosocially motivated because of their secure connection with other people. Employees showed emotional attachments towards their organization when they are prosocially motivated. Thus, on the basis of the above discussion, we posit that: Hypothesis 4: Proactive Personality is positively related to prosocial motivation. Hypothesis 5: Prosocial motivation mediates the relationship between proactive personality and affective commitment.

Sample and procedure
The current study was descriptive and correlational in nature because the aim of the current study was to examine the association among the study variables. The targeted population was working employees of the service sector, particularly banking employees and educational institutes located in a large metropolitan city in South Asia. The service sector is the most critical sector because it significantly contributes to the country GDP and economic growth, that is why this sector has been selected for this study. We used the purposive sampling tech-nique for the study data collection process. The self-administered questionnaire was used for the collection of primary data from the respondents by following the cross-sectional research design in the non-contrived setting. The survey questionnaire consists of 22 measuring items and split into two parts. The first section deals with the demographic characteristics of employees, such as gender, tenure, and marital status. The second section contains questions related to the study variables (i.e. 8-items of perceived organizational support, 6-items of proactive personality, 5-items of prosocial motivation, and 3-items of affective organizational commitment). For all the banks and educational institutes, the method of data collection was similar at each level as the first author was personally met the higher management of banks and educational institutes and told them about the purpose of our research. A cover letter was also provided to give ascertain that their information would remain confidential because they feel hesitated to give information to someone. The survey was conducted only with management approval, cooperation and willingness of employees in the whole process. After that, questionnaires were circulated to the respondents by researchers.

Measures
The well-established measures were used for the measurement of variables in this study. All constructs used 7-point Likert scale items, ranging from (1 = entirely disagree to 7 = mostly agree). Perceived organizational support was assessed with 8-item came from Eisenberger et al. (1997). A sample includes "my organization strongly considers my goals and values". Proactive personality was measured by a scale of Bateman and Crant's (1993). This scale consisted of the 6-items. A sample item is "If I see something I don't like, I fix it". The prosocial motivation was assessed with the 5-items scale of Grant and Sumanth (2009). A sample item is "I get energized by working on tasks that have the potential to benefit others". The affective commitment was assessed with a 3-items scale of Mowday et al. (1979). A sample item is "I am proud to tell people whom I work for".
In this study, we have obtained the employee's demographic information (gender, marital status and working tenure). Although these variables are not incorporated in the theoretical model, we have controlled the effect of these demographic variables.

Descriptive analysis
A mean, standard deviation, internal consistency and Bivariate Pearson Correlation analysis among all the study variables (perceived organizational support, proactive personality, prosocial motivation, and affective commitment) and demographic characteristics (gender, marital status and tenure with the current organization) was performed before hypotheses testing by using SPSS 24. The correlation coefficients are in anticipated directions and provide initial support for study stipulated hypothetical relationship. In line with our proposed hypothetical relationships, correlation analysis demonstrated that perceived organizational support has a positive and significant association with prosocial motivation (r = 0.263, p < 0.01), and employees' prosocial motivation and affective commitment are positively and significantly related to each other (r = 0.319, p < 0.01). Both the relationships are in accordance with H 1 and H 2 , respectively. The correlation analysis also showed that proactive personality has a significant and positive association with prosocial motivation (r = 0.442, p < 0.01). This relationship is in accordance with H 4 . In addition, correlation analysis has not found any association among study variables and demographics (see Table 1).
The 2 nd alternate model (3 factor model) in which we have combined proactive personality and prosocial motivation into one factor. The outcome of this alternative model was also not as good as the measurement model, (χ 2 / (df) = 2.42, GF1 = 0.83, IFI = 0.76, CFI = 0.75, AGFI = 0.79, RMSEA = 0.08, RMR = 0.06). In the final alternative we have combined all factors (perceived organizational support, proactive personality, prosocial motivation and affective commitment) into one factor, outcome, (χ2/ (df) = 3.69, GF1 = 0.75, IFI = 0.54, CFI = 0.53, AGFI = 0.69, RMSEA = 0.11, RMR = 0.09) this alternate model again was not good as values of measurement model. Thus, measurement model is accepted because it has adequate value of fit indices. While alternate models were not best fit to the data due their poor fit indices values (Table 2). (Hayes & Preacher 2013) was used for testing the hypothetical model because it was known as a strong and robust technique to detect the significance of the conditional indirect effect relying on bootstrap sampling (Abid et al., 2019). Two simple meditation models were estimated because there are two independent variables, i.e. (perceived organizational support and proactive personality) in our study. The first simple mediation model was run to test H1, H2, and H3 hypotheses. The second simple mediation model tested hypotheses H4, H5. The outcomes of Process show that POS positively impact prosocial motivation (β = 0.28, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.07, LLCI = 0.16, ULCI = 0.39) Therefore, our H 1 is strongly supported. Results also showed that prosocial motivation is positively impacting affective commitment (β = 0.43, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.14, LLCI = 0.26, ULCI = 0.61) when controlling for POS, thus H2 is supported. POS is positively and significantly influence affective commitment (β = 0.35, p < 0 .001, R 2 = 0.14, LLCI = 0.17, ULCI = 0.54) when controlling for prosocial motivation. These outcomes provide support for mediation. Results of a simple mediation model specified that POS has an indirect effect on affective commitment through prosocial motivation. This indirect effect was positive (β = 0.12) and significant (Sobel z = 2.82, p < 0.001) because bootstrapping results and Sobel test result are consistent with each other, as 90% CI (0.06, 0.23) around indirect effect exclude the zero point. Therefore, H3 was supported (Table 3). Notes: a Prosocial Motivation and Perceived Organizational Support combined into one factor, Proactive Personality and Affective Commitment combined into another factor.

PROCESS Macros analysis technique by Andrew Hayes
b Prosocial Motivation and Proactive Personality combined into one factor. c All construct are combined into one factor.  Table 4 shows the results of the second estimated model. Results indicated that proactive personality has a positive impact on prosocial motivation (β = 0.44, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.20, LLCI = 0.34, ULCI = 0.54) Therefore, our H 4 is supported. Results showed that prosocial motivation significantly impact affective commitment (β = 0.38, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.13, LLCI = 0.19, ULCI = 0.57) when controlling for proactive personality. Proactive personality has significantly impacted affective commitment too (β = 0.31, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.13, LLCI = 0.12, ULCI = 0.5) when controlling for prosocial motivation. These outcomes provide support for mediation. The results of this simple mediation model showed that proactive personality has an indirect effect on affective commitment through prosocial motivation. This indirect effect was positive (β = 0.1) and significant (Sobel z = 3.00, p < 0.001). The bootstrapping results favour the Sobel test, as 90% CI (0.09, 0.27) around indirect effect excluding the zero. So, H5 was supported.

Discussion
The present research is a unique attempt to look at the impact of contextual (perceived organizational support) and personal factor (proactive personality) on the affective commitment through the intervening role of prosocial motivation in the different service sectors of (educational and banking, Lahore), Pakistan. The current study is fundamental because it is the first study that examines the direct impact of POS and proactive personality on prosocial and also examines the direct association between prosocial motivation and affective commitment.
Additionally, this study examines the mediating role of prosocial motivation between POS and affective commitment and also between proactive personality and affective commitment in the organizational context. All results of this study favour our proposed model. First, this study finds that POS and proactive personality are positively and significantly impact prosocial motivation. Second, these results find that prosocial motivation has a significant impact on affective commitment. Lastly, our study found that prosocial motivation mediates the relationship between two predictors (POS and proactive personality) and affective commitment.

Theoretical contributions
The present study contributed to the current literature in the following ways. First, this is the first study that examined the association between POS, proactive personality and prosocial motivation. Prosocial motivation has attracted significant attention in the practice and research (Batson et al., 2008;Grant & Mayer, 2009;Grant & Sumanth, 2009). Past studies have only focused on investigating the potential outcomes of prosocial motivation (Grant, 2007;Korsgaard et al., 1997;Rioux & Penner, 2001;Voet et al., 2017). While there are few studies, have examined the factors that prompt the employees to help their colleagues (Kocak, 2020). Therefore, there is a need to investigate those factors that encourage prosocial motivation. In order to contemplate this gap, our study has introduced the two new antecedents (POS and proactive personality) that boost prosocial motivation among employees. This is a first study that has examined the POS, proactive personality and prosocial motivation relationship. The findings of our study suggested contextual factor such as POS is contributors to prosocial motivation by favouring the assumptions of prior studies which indicated that prosocial motivation is influenced by contextual factors (Bosch et al., 2018;Otaye-Ebede et al., 2019;Erum et al., 2020). The desire of employees to help their colleagues at work is those who perceived that their organization is more supportive to them value their contribution and fulfill their socio-emotional needs. Similarly, our study found that personal factor (proactive personality) also influenced the prosocial motivation; this means that employees who have a proactive personality are more prosocially motivated. Second, this study empirically validates the positive association between prosocial motivation and affective commitment; it gives the support on advantageous outcomes of prosocial motivation in the working context as reported by many scholars Grant, 2007;Korsgaard et al., 1997;Rioux & Penner, 2000;Shao et al., 2017). This study also found that prosocial motivation and affective commitment (one element of organizational commitment) is positively linked like organizational commitment (Ong et al., 2019). Lastly, this is the first study that examines the mediating role of prosocial motivation between POS and affective commitment and between proactive personality and affective commitment. Previous studies have examined the moderating role of prosocial motivation (Butt et al., 2018;Grant & Berry, 2011;Rofcanin et al., 2018;Shao et al., 2019).

Managerial implications
The current study offers significant implications for practitioners by offering novel recommendations on how they create and enhance affective commitment among their employees. For this purpose, the organizations should invest in the human capital with the focus on enhancing the employee emotional attached to their organization and its goals rather than just concentrating on their performance and productivity enhancement. Higher levels of affective commitment among employees is a vital concern for any organizations because these committed employees are more satisfied, perform better, involve involuntary behaviour, and also show less intention to leave (Fazio et al., 2017) and absenteeism (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001;Meyer et al., 2002), and they have stronger ability to realize, produce, and promote ideas (innovative job performance; Al-Abbadi, 2018), The study findings indicated that POS is closely associated with prosocial motivation. Employees who perceived that their organization is more supportive of them also value their contribution as a result of it; they show more willingness to help their colleagues in the working environment. So that is why organizations should always care their employees' wellbeing, rewards their contributions and efforts, also fulfil their socioemotional needs such as esteem and affiliation. This is because POS is a source of many potential and organizational outcomes. Besides, this study also empirically confirmed that employees with a proactive personality have the desire to help others by interacting and communicating with them. For this purpose, human resource managers should carefully recruit such individuals who have a proactive personality because they are change-oriented, identify the new opportunities and create a high-quality relationship with their peers. The present study revealed that when employees help their colleagues at the workplace then they display a higher affective commitment to the organization. Organizations can increase and promote the employee's prosocial motivation through socialization and mentoring.

Limitations and directions
The present research meaningfully extended and contributed to the literature of organizational behaviour; this empirical work is not free from some potential limitations. First, this study is first that investigates the association among POS, proactive personality, prosocial motivation and affective commitment. However, this research is conducted in the specific culture and the organizational context of Pakistan. Therefore, future studies may conduct in the developed countries for the validation of the findings of the current study. The generalizability of the study in a different setting could be challenged because of the context and culture. Also, the attitude of employees in Pakistan is distinctive from developed countries such as North America and Europe. Second, in this study, the relationship between the study variables was examined relying on the cross-sectional study design. The causality among the study variables cannot be drawn from it. The only longitudinal study would propose this possibility. Therefore, the future study may attempt to test the causality among the study variables by longitudinal and experimental study designs.
Third, in the present study, we have collected data of predictor, mediator and criterion variables from the employees (single source) and at one point in time through self-administered survey questionnaires that may arise the issue of common method variance. Also, the association among variables can be inflated or deflated (Podsakoff et al., 2003). So, future studies may try to collect the data from the different source and also collected the data on the predictor, mediator, and a criterion on a different point in time with a temporal gap in order to address this issue (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Fourth, in this study sample, respondents are selected from different service sector of Lahore city (Pakistan). Thus, these results may not be representative of other cities and sector of Pakistan. The future may attempt to generalize these findings to the other cities and different sectors. Sixth, in this study, the majority of respondents were male, which challenge the generalizability of findings for both genders. Therefore, future studies try to examine this present model by employing the dominant female sample. Seventh, in this study data, have been collected from the participants through purposive sampling, future studies may use the probability sampling technique for the data collection. Lastly, we study the influence of employee prosocial motivation; the future study may try to investigate supervisor prosocial motivation in this study. Future studies may try to explore the mediating role of prosocial motivation between other contextual and personal factors.

Conclusions
The key objectives of this present research to inspect the direct influence of perception of organizational support and proactive personality on employees' prosocial motivation; as well the direct impact of prosocial motivation on affective commitment. This study also examined the indirect influence POS on the affective commitment by incorporating prosocial motivation as a mediator in the service sector, i.e. banking and educational sectors in the Lahore, Pakistan. By using Process Macros on an actual sample of 221 results confirmed that POS and proactive personality directly influence the prosocial motivation. Similarly, this result shows that prosocial motivation has a positive association with affective commitment. Furthermore, these results indicate that prosocial motivation intervenes between POS and affective commitment, and proactive personality on affective commitment relationship. Besides, this research has provided several implications for the practitioners and managers. Organizations should focus on the prosocially motivated employees via POS and proactive personality in today's competitive era because the prosocially motivated employees are a source of higher performance and productivity. Our study contributes to the literature of organizational behaviours by introducing new predictors such as perceived organizational support and proactive personality of prosocial motivation.