Educators in non-formal education organizations are often expected to display values of volunteering and giving to the community. These contributions, which are beyond the call of duty, are defined as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). When such behavior is performed as a result of pressure rather than out of free will, that pressure is defined as citizenship pressure (CP). Building on the job demands-resources theory, the study examined a moderator-mediator model at the team level construct, to explore whether team CP mediates the relationship between both idealized influence behavior and idealized influence attributed (transformational leadership dimensions) and team OCB, and whether that mediation is moderated by organizational identification. The study sample consisted of 75 teams of educators and their direct superiors, who work in 11 youth movements. Results show that the negative relationship between both idealized influence behavior and idealized influence attributed and team CP is moderated by organizational identification. Furthermore, results show a negative relationship between team CP and team OCB. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

The study investigated the potential role of human resources exemplified by leaders' psychological capital (PsyCap) as a resource that may cross over to team-member exchange (TMX), and bring about desired organizational outcomes. We suggest a model where TMX of senior management teams serves as a team resource mediating the relationship between leaders’ PsyCap and organizational outcomes, as represented by team innovation, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and employees’ job satisfaction. The study, carried out among 86 elementary and junior high schools, indicated a positive relationship between leaders’ PsyCap and TMX. In addition, we found a significant relationship between TMX and the three measures of organizational outcomes. Furthermore, TMX partially mediated the relationship between leaders’ PsyCap and the desired outcomes, excepting innovation. The findings provide support for the importance of the leaders’ personal resource of psychological capital as a complementary perspective that may enhance our understanding of leadership’s impact on organizational success. In addition, the study provides significant support for the expanded model, broadening the definition of the crossover model by examining the translation of positive resources from leaders' PsyCap to organizational outcomes via teams' positive resources. From a practical perspective, the findings bring to the forefront the importance of psychological capital as a state-like construct that can be developed through leader preparation and professional development programs.