The Effects of Psychological Capital on Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance: A Study on Teaching Hospitals in Egypt

Background: Psychological Capital (PsyCap) is a core construct in the literature of positive psychology. However, there is considerably less evidence on its positive effects on Employee Attitudes (EA) and Employee Performance (EP). Purpose: The objective of this study is to provide empirical evidence on the relationships between PsyCap, EA and EP. This paper also seeks to present the theoretical development of PsyCap, Job Satisfaction (JS), Organizational Commitment (OC), EP and their application to employees at Teaching Hospitals practices. Research Design/Methodology: To assess positive PsyCap, refer to (PsyCap Questionnaire, Luthans et al., 2006), JS (JS Survey, Judge & Bono, 2001; and Best & Thurston, 2004), OC (OC Questionnaire, Porter et al., 1974; and Trimble, 2006), EP (EP Questionnaire, Black & Porter, 1991; and Caligiuri, 1997). Out of the 357 questionnaires that were distributed to employees at Teaching Hospitals in Egypt, 315 usable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 88%. Findings: The results indicated the expected significant positive relationships between PsyCap, JS, OC and EP. In other words, self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience significantly correlated with EA and EP. The results also supported the hypothesized model. The study findings support the view that PsyCap, JS, OC, and EP are related constructs. Practical Implications: The study suggests that Teaching Hospitals in Egypt can improve EA and EP by influencing its PsyCap, specifically, by developing self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience. The study provided that it is necessary to pay more attention to the dimensions of PsyCap as a key source for organizations to enhance the competitive advantage which is of prime significance for EA and EP. Originality/Value: Preliminary evidence of the psychometric properties of the PCQ-24, which measures the construct of PsyCap (hope, self-efficacy, resilience and optimism) on an Egyptian sample, is provided in this study. Also, this study discusses the additional studies essential for further development of research based on organizational and management effectiveness.


Introduction
Organizational effectiveness is one of the continuous goals and intermediate outcomes of professional management. For many decades, researchers have been exploring the factors contributing to organizational effectiveness, but the results varied across the different cultures and economic systems (Suki, 2011). Recent research has revealed universal constructs that can be applied to any given organizational context. This implies JS and OC (Garg & Rastogi, 2009;Kumar & Giri, 2009;Meyer et al., 2008). A lot of studies have demonstrated that fully committed employees lead to organizational success and thriving in today's dynamic organizational contexts (Yucel, 2012;Lumley, 2011). Moreover, a specific construct of psychological capital was introduced to forecast the results of management in a certain group . EA (JS and OC) and employee behaviours (organizational citizenship behaviour and EP) have been found to be positively related with PsyCap . PsyCap has considerable positive effects on the organizational desirable outcomes. It leads to increase in creativity and entrepreneurship; decrease in work absence; increase in EP, OC, JS, and organizational citizenship behaviour (Toor & Ofori, 2010;Luthans et al., 2010). PsyCap changes overtime: for instance, employees who demonstrated an increase (or decrease) in PsyCap showed an increase (or decrease) in EP (Peterson et al. 2011).
OC and JS have been found to be positively related with PsyCap (Cetin, 2011).
PsyCap is one of the most influential means in attaining the desired EP (Lewis, 2011). EP can be an outcome of developing and managing the PsyCap factors of hope, resilience, optimism and self-efficacy . In sum, PsyCap is presented here as an emerging higher order, core construct that organizations can invest in and develop in their workforce to achieve veritable, sustained growth and performance. PsyCap may help provide and contribute to the call for a new perspective and approach to managing for competitive advantage in the ''flat world'' environment. However, PsyCap cannot operate in vacuum and this is why we hope that a supportive organizational climate may play a role.

Psychological Capital
PsyCap is the personal traits contributing to individual productivity by psychologists (Gohel, 2012). It is the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today's workplace . PsyCap can be conceptualized as an individual's positive state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success . PsyCap is seen as a resource that goes beyond human capital (experience, knowledge, skills and abilities) and social capital (relationships, networks). It deals with "who you are here and now", and "who you can become" in the proximal future if your psychological resources are developed and nurtured in the workplace Luthans & Youssef, 2004). To date, surveys support that the four component resources load on the higher-order core construct of PsyCap and indicate convergent and discriminant validity with similar positive constructs, such as core self-evaluations and relevant personality traits, such as conscientiousness . PsyCap is a core psychological factor of Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) criteria. It is (a) based on the positive psychological paradigm; (b) includes psychological states based on POB criteria; (c) goes beyond human capital and social capital; (d) involves investment and development for a return yielding performance improvement and resulting competitive advantage (Luthans, 2005). PsyCap is seen as a resource that goes beyond human capital (experience, knowledge, skills and abilities) and social capital (relationships, networks). It deals with "who you are here and now", and "who you can become" in the proximal future if your resources are developed and nurtured in the workplace Luthans & Youssef, 2004). PsyCap is the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today's workplace . Psychological capital consists of four dimensions; self efficacy, hope, resiliency and optimism : 1) Hope is a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (a) agency (goal-oriented energy) and (b) pathways (planning to meet goals) (Snyder et al., 2002). Hope is a belief to determine significant purposes (Çetin & Basım, 2011). Snyder et al., (1996); however, describe hope as "a motivational state whereby two elements, agency (goal-directed determination) and pathways (or planning to achieve those goals), interact." Hope makes it possible to put up with barriers during goal attainment with the strength of motivation (Synder et al., 1991).
2) Optimism is a commonly used term, but Seligman's (1998) definition draws from attribution theory in terms of two crucial dimensions of one's explanatory style of good and bad events: permanence and pervasiveness. Optimism means positive expectations about the future (Peterson et al., 2011). Synder et al., (1991 define optimism as generalized expectations that an individual hopes for the best and persistence for achieving the target. Optimism requires objective assessments that a person follows to succeed . While optimists insist on their aims and try to do the best, pessimists aren't patient when meeting difficulties. Compared to pessimists, optimists benefit from career opportunities at a high level and pursue their aims under tough conditions (Wrosch & Scheier, 2003).
3) Resilience: According to Coutu (2002), the common themes/profiles of resilient people are now recognized to be (a) a staunch acceptance of reality, (b) a deep belief, often buttressed by strongly held values, that life is meaningful, and (c) an uncanny ability to improvise and adapt to significant change (Meng, 2011). changes . 4) Self-efficacy is the individual's conviction…about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context. Self-efficacy is one's belief to perform the task successfully and fulfill motivational, cognitive and operational resources .
Individuals with high self efficacy choose challenging tasks, develop complicated ways to overcome the obstacles, (Keleş, 2011), and become persistent and success-oriented in terms of difficulties (Shahnawaz & Jafri, 2009). PsyCap can vary within individuals on the basis of contextual conditions (e.g., an inspirational leader) and individual characteristics (e.g., traits, physical health; for a detailed review of the state like nature of PsyCap . To date, PsyCap has been conceptually linked to work outcomes such as performance and extra role behaviors , Wright, 2003. Luthans et al. (2007) presented psychometric support for a newly developed measure of PsyCap, as well as initial predictive validity evidence, by relating PsyCap to job performance and satisfaction in two samples (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). The employees with higher levels of PsyCap experienced more positive emotions, which were in turn related to their engagement and cynicism during organizational change. These authors also found that positive emotions mediated the relationship between employees' PsyCap and their behavior, such as organizational citizenship behaviors and deviance . The usefulness of PsyCap in a Chinese context for predicting EP is evident . Other researchers have demonstrated that PsyCap helped reduce absenteeism in a sample of high technology employees. Despite this emerging empirical work, Luthans et al. noted that much remains to be done, especially in examining not only the effects of PsyCap, on a range of important work outcomes, but also its antecedents . Research shows that these four components (self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resiliency) of PsyCap have positive relationships with EP and JS. In sum, self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resiliency are related to EP (Nguyen et al., 2011). 1) Self-efficacy has been found to have a positive impact on EP Legal & Meyer, 2009).

Employee Attitudes
There are two dimensions of EA; JS and OC. A number of previous researchers have reported mixed findings on the relationship between JS and OC. For instance, Busch et al., (1998) found a significant relationship between JS and OC. Other researchers (Chiu-Yueh, 2000;Mannheim et al., 1997) found that JS was a significant predictor of OC. Some other researchers found a positive correlation between JS and OC, which means that the high level of JS leads to higher OC (Freund, 2005). Other researchers argued that JS reflects immediate affective reactions to the job while commitment to the organization develops more slowly after the individual forms more comprehensive evaluations of the employing organization, its values, and expectations and one's own future in it. Therefore, JS is seen as one of the determinants of OC (Mannheim et al., 1997). It is expected that highly satisfied workers will be more committed to the organization. Higher education is not immune to the problem of low JS; in fact, educational leaders have increased the number of research studies that try to identify factors that affect JS (Davis, 2001;Grace & Khalsa, 2003;Scarpinato, 2001;Truman, 1999).

Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction (JS) can be defined as employees' satisfaction level regarding their jobs and work conditions (Gohel, 2012). JS level is relevant to employees' expectations about job itself. Therefore, if employees' satisfaction as to job expectations is provided, it is likely that it may increase employees' level of JS (Yang, 2010). It can be described as an affective case as a result of evaluation of individual's own work experience (Al Jenaibi, 2010) or an attitudinal phenomenon that individuals assess their JS as regarding past events and current impressions (Ko, 2012). JS is a subjective affective response that is related to employees' impressions towards their jobs. Therefore, it isn't seen, but it can be observed through individual's behavior. It can be stated as the extent to which outcomes meet expectations. JS occurs when employees try to get the rewards that they believe in or exceed their achievements (Islam et al., 2012). JS includes many attitudinal objects connected with each other. These objects are relevant to job itself, wage, career facilities, management style, colleagues, and the like. Satisfaction of employees working in hotel businesses may produce positive results such as increase in productivity, creation of competitive advantage, reduction of optional labor turnover rate, resultant customer satisfaction and so forth.  (Rayton, 2006). JS can be measured in terms of satisfaction with pay, promotion, coworkers, supervision and work or an overall rating of satisfaction. An overall measure is generally taken using the respondents' general perception of how satisfied they are with their job (Mulki et al., 2006).
There are two dimensions of job satisfaction; internal satisfaction and external satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001;Best & Thurston, 2004):  Internal Satisfaction: the opportunities to demonstrate abilities, sense of achievement obtained from work, ethical values of the work, and opportunities to provide services.
 External Satisfaction: Job content, salary, unobstructed channels for promotion, work environment and equipment.

Organizational Commitment
Organization Commitment (OC) is the strong belief in and acceptance of the organizational goals and values, willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a definite desire to maintain organizational membership (Porter et al., 1974). OC refers to the employee's emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. It is generally considered as three dimensional construct comprising of affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment (Boehman, 2006;Canipe, 2006;Turner & Chelladurai, 2005;Greenberg, 2005;Allen & Meyer, 1996;Karrasch, 2003).
1) Affective commitment refers to an employee's connection through an emotional bond with, linkage to or engagement in the organization, while continuance commitment refers to the employee's perceptions of the benefits and advantages that may be lost when one leaves the relevant organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
2) Normative commitment refers to an employee's sense of indebtedness towards the relevant organization. Thus, employees may feel obliged to stay at their organization because of social norms (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
3) Continuance commitment may develop as employees recognize that they have accumulated investments (Becker, 1960) that may be lost if they leave their current organization, or if alternative employment possibilities are limited.
Accordingly, employees who are strongly committed to their organization are less likely to leave (Delobbe & Vandenberghe, 2000;Lumley 2009;Spector, 2008). Employees who are committed to their organizations may easily accept and adhere to the organizational objectives and goals (Valentine et al., 2002). Individuals may become committed to an organization for many reasons: a person may stay with an organization because the organization's values, mission, and goals align with his/her own; another person may stay with the same organization because leaving may impact his/her prestige, benefits, or social networks; yet another may be committed to the organization due to a sense of obligation. Each of these three commitments-affective, continuance, and normative-are independent types of commitment experienced at different levels by all individuals of an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Employee Performance
Performance is a reflection of the organization's ability to achieve its goals (Miller & Broamiley, 1990). It is a combination of resources, capabilities of the organization that are being used efficiently and effectively in order to achieve its objectives (Collis & Montgomrey, 1995). Performance is the level of the outputs of the organization after conducting operations on its inputs. Performance is the output of the activities that occur within the organization (Wit & Meyer, 1998). Individual performance has become a topical issue in today's business environment, so much so that organizations go to great lengths to appraise and manage it (Armstrong & Baron, 1998). Individual job performance is a function of knowledge, skills, abilities, and motivation directed at role prescribed behavior, such as formal job responsibilities (Campbell, 1999). Job performance is a multidimensional construct consisting of task dimension and contextual dimension (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). A review of literature indicated individual differences such as gender (Caligiuri & Tung, 1999;Sinangil & Ones, 2003), Big Five Personality (e.g., Dalton & Wilson, 2000;Caligiuri, 2000;Mol et al., 2005), self-monitoring personality (Caligiuri & Day, 2000), goal orientation (Wang & Takeuchi, 2007), task and people orientation (Shaffer et al., 2006), cultural flexibility (Shaffer et al., 2006), non-ethnocentrism (Hechanova et al., 2003), communicational ability, relational ability, stress tolerance (Holopainen & Bjorkman, 2005), and previous international experience (Varma, Toh, & Budhwar, 2006) related to expatriate job performance. Hence, after a thorough review of the different concepts of performance, it can be argued that performance in its simplest form is the desired result which the organization seeks to achieve efficiently and effectively.

Research Model
The proposed comprehensive conceptual model is presented in Figure 1. The diagram below shows that there is one independent variable of PsyCap. There are two dependent variable of EA and EP. It shows the rational link among the variables. From the above discussion, the research model is as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Proposed comprehensive conceptual model
The research framework suggests that PsyCap have an impact on EA and EP. PsyCap as measured consists of hope, optimism, resilience and self-efficacy . JS is measured in terms of internal satisfaction and external satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001;Best & Thurston, 2004).
OC is measured in terms of affective, continuance, and normative commitment (Allan and Meyer, 1990, Meyer, et al., 1993. EP is measured in terms of task performance, contextual performance, and assignment specific performance (Black & Porter, 1991;Caligiuri, 1997).

Research Questions
The researcher found the research problem through two sources. The first source is to be found in previous studies, and it turns out that there is a lack in the number of literature reviews that dealt with the analysis of the relationship between PsyCap, JS, OC and EP for employees at Teaching hospitals in Egypt. This called for the researcher to test this relationship in the Egyptian environment. The second source is the pilot study, which was conducted in an interview with (30) employees at Teaching hospitals in Egypt in order to identify the relationship between PsyCap, JS, OC and EP at Teaching hospitals in Egypt.
The researcher found through the pilot study several indicators notably the important and vital role that could be played by PsyCap in developing and improving JS, OC, EP at Teaching hospitals in Egypt . As a result of the discussions given above, the research questions of this study are as follows: Q1: What is the nature and the extent of the relationship between PsyCap (Hope, Optimism, Resiliency, Self-Efficacy) and JS at Teaching Hospitals in Egypt.
Q2: What is the statistically significant relationship between PsyCap (Hope, Optimism, Resiliency, Self-Efficacy) and OC at Teaching Hospitals in Egypt.
Q3: What is the nature of the relationship between PsyCap (Hope, Optimism, Resiliency, Self-Efficacy) and EP at Teaching Hospitals in Egypt.

Research Hypotheses
A growing number of studies have clearly demonstrated that PsyCap has an impact on the desired outcomes in the workplace. For example, PsyCap was shown to be positively related to JS 2008). There is increasing evidence that PsyCap is significantly related to desired employee behaviors (and negatively to undesired behaviors), attitudes (e.g., JS and OC), and EP .
A recent meta-analysis has provided further evidence of significant, a positive relationships between PsyCap, JS, OC, and EP .
PsyCap is one of the most influential means in attaining the desired EP (Lewis, 2011).
Some research exhibits positive relationship between PsyCap and JS. Youssef and Luthans (2007) showed that there was a positive relationship between PsyCap (resiliency, optimism, hope) and JS.
However, Uslu (2010) concluded that the positive organizational behavior had a negative effect on JS. Other researchers found that there a positive relationship between PsyCap and JS Topcu & Ocak, 2012;Cetin & Basım, 2011).
Overall, in this study, we anticipate that PsyCap will have a positive relationship with desirable EA (JS and OC). From the above statements, the following hypotheses are formed:

Population and Sample
The research study attempts to investigate the relationships between PsyCap, EA and EP at Teaching Hospitals in Egypt. This sector includes nine Hospitals. They are Ahmed Maher, El-Matrya, El-Galaa, El-Sahel, Benha, Shebin El-Kom, Damanhour, Sohag and Aswan. The researcher excludes Hospitals in Sohag and Aswan. This explains why the population of this study includes 5,135 employees.
The random sampling was used for collecting the primary data as it was difficult to get all of the items of the research population, because of time limitations.
The stratified random sample was used while selecting items from the different categories of employees. The following equation determines the sampling size (Daniel, 1999): Accordingly, the sample size has become 357 employees at Teaching Hospitals in Egypt. Proportionality with the number of employees in the research population is proved in Table (1). By using the lists of employees at the Staff Affairs Department, Teaching Hospitals in Egypt random choice of categories was attained. Table 2 illustrates the features of sample units.

Procedure
A survey-based descriptive research design is used. The study was carried out at Teaching Hospitals in Egypt. The questionnaire included three pages.
A covering letter was attached to the questionnaire, explaining the instructions for completing the questionnaire. It included four questions, relating to recognizing PsyCap, JS, OC, EP and biographical information of employees at Teaching Hospitals in Egypt.
Few employees completed 25 questionnaires but some changes took place. The questionnaires were completed anonymously during group administration.
Data collection took approximately two months. About 357 survey questionnaires were distributed by employing diverse modes of communication such as in person and post. Multiple follow-ups yielded 315 statistically usable questionnaires. Survey responses were 88%.

Research Variables and Methods of Measuring
The 24-item scale PsyCap section is based on . There were six items measuring hope, six items measuring optimism, six items measuring resilience, and six items measuring self-efficacy.
The 10-item scale JS section is based on Judge & Bono, 2001;Best & Thurston, 2004. There were six items measuring internal satisfaction and six items measuring external satisfaction.
The 18-item scale OC section is based on Allan and Meyer (1990), Meyer et al. (1993). There were six items measuring affective, six items measuring continuance, and six items measuring normative.
The 17-item scale EP section is based on Black & Porter, 1991;Caligiuri, 1997. There were five items for task performance, five for contextual performance, and seven for assignment specific performance.

Methods of Data Analysis and Testing Hypotheses
The researcher has employed the following methods: (1)

Hypotheses Testing
Before testing the hypotheses and research questions, descriptive statistics were performed to find out means and standard deviations of PsyCap, JS, OC and EP.  The different facets of JP (task performance, contextual performance, and assignment-specific performance) are examined. Most respondents identified the presence of task performance (M=3.69, SD=1.21). This was followed by contextual performance (M=3.62, SD=1.26), and assignment specific performance (M=3.61, SD=1.26).

Evaluating Reliability
ACC was used to evaluate the degree of internal consistency among the contents of the scale under testing. Table 4 shows the results of the reliability test for each variable of PsyCap, JS, OC and EP.
ACC was decided to exclude variables that had a correlation coefficient of less than 0.30 when the acceptable limits of ACC range from 0.60 to 0.80, in accordance with levels of reliability analysis in social sciences (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
To assess the reliability of the data, Cronbach's alpha test was conducted.  The 10 items of JS are reliable due to the fact that the ACC is 0.979. The internal satisfaction, which consists of five items, is reliable since the ACC is 0.961 while the six items related to external satisfaction is reliable as the ACC is 0.954.
The 18 items of OC are reliable because the ACC is 0.986. The six items of affective scales are reliable due to the fact that the ACC is 0.969. The continuance, which consists of six items, is reliable since the ACC is 0.959. The six items related to normative are reliable as ACC is 0.961.
The 17 items of JP are reliable because the ACC is 0.985. The five items of task performance scales are reliable due to the fact that the ACC is 0.963. The contextual performance, which consists of five items, is reliable since the ACC is 0.957. The seven items related to assignment-specific performance are reliable as ACC is 0.965.   According to Table 5, there is a positive correlation between JS and OC (R=0.993; P < 0.01), which means that the high level of JS leads to higher OC. The table shows that there is a positive correlation between JS and EP (R= 0.967; P < 0.01), which means that the high level of JS leads to higher EP. Table 5 refers that there is a positive correlation between OC and EP (R= 0.971; P < 0.01) implying that the high level of OC led to high level of EP. According to Table 6, the regression-coefficient between PsyCap (Hope) and JS is R= 0.469 and R 2 = 0.220. This means that the JS can be explained by the dimensions of PsyCap (Hope), for example, "I have several alternatives to resolve any problem I may face" (β= 0.303, R= 0.229, and R 2 = 0.052), "I feel that I have achieved great success in my career" (β= 0.321, R= 0.329, and R 2 = 0.108), and "when I can think of more than one way to achieve my goals" (β= 0.244, R= 0.403, and R 2 = 0.162). Because of the calculated F (14.4682), more than indexed F (2.80) at the statistical significance level of 0.01, the null hypothesis is rejected.  Note. * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01.

The Relationship between PsyCap (Resilience) and JS
According to Table (8), the regression-coefficient between PsyCap (Resilience) and JS is R= 0.451 and R 2 = 0.204. This means that the JS can be explained by the dimensions of PsyCap (Resilience), for example, "I restore my normal mood quickly after unpleasant events" (β= 0.207, R= 0.184, and R 2 = 0.033), "I usually succeed to form positive impression about others" (β= 0.111, R= 0.222, and R 2 = 0.049), and "I prefer work that is both new and challenging" (β= 0.509, R= 0.388, and R 2 = 0.150). Therefore, there is enough empirical evidence to reject the null hypothesis. According to Table 9, the regression-coefficient between PsyCap (Self-Efficacy) and JS is R= 0.459 and R 2 = 0.206. This means that the JS can be explained by the dimensions of PsyCap (Self-Efficacy), for example, "I face many problems and I could solve them" (β= 0.143, R= 0.213, and R 2 = 0.054), "I enjoy a great deal of self-confidence" (β= 0.181, R= 0.232, and R 2 = 0.053), and "I finish my work on time and do not wait until the last minute" (β= 0.183, R= 0.391, and R 2 = 0.152). Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected because PsyCap (Self-Efficacy) and JS have a statistical relationship at the significance level of 0.01. great success in my career" (β= 0.300, R= 0.322, and R 2 = 0.103), and "I can think of more than one way to achieve my goals" (β= 0.253, R= 0.400, and R 2 = 0.160). Because of the calculated F (14.150) more than indexed F (2.80) at the statistical significance level of 0.01, the null hypothesis is rejected. Note. * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01. According to Table 11, the regression-coefficient between PsyCap (Optimism) and OC is R= 0.447 and R 2 = 0.200. This means that the OC can be explained by the dimensions of PsyCap (Optimism), for example, "When I feel indignant on the performance of the work, I delay it for another time" (β= 0.109, R= 0.209, and R 2 = 0.043), "I can easily feel relaxed" (β= 0.108, R= 0.336, and R 2 = 0.112), and "I expect pleasant events, rather than unpleasant events" (β= 0.187, R= 0.387, and R 2 = 0.149).

The Relationship between PsyCap (Optimism) and OC
Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected because PsyCap (Optimism) and OC have a statistical relationship at the significance level of 0.01.

The Relationship between PsyCap (Resilience) and OC
According to Table (12), the regression-coefficient between PsyCap (Resilience) and OC is R= 0.449 and R 2 = 0.202.
This means that the OC can be explained by the dimensions of PsyCap (Resilience), for example, "I restore my normal mood quickly after unpleasant events" (β= 0.202, R= 0.177, and R 2 = 0.031), "I usually succeed to form positive impression about others" (β= 0.110, R= 0.220, and R 2 = 0.048), "I prefer work that is both new and www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 10, No. 3; challenging" (β= 0.523, R= 0.388, and R 2 = 0.150), and "I overcome feelings of anger that may possess me toward a particular person" (β= 0.193, R= 0.304, and R 2 = 0.092). Therefore, there is enough empirical evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Note. * P < .05;** P < .01. According to Table 13, the regression-coefficient between PsyCap (Self-Efficacy) and OC is R= 0.455 and R 2 = 0.207. This means that the OC can be explained by the dimensions of PsyCap (Self-Efficacy), for example, "I enjoy a great deal of self-confidence" (β= 0.182, R= 0.234, and R 2 = 0.054), "I face many problems and I could solve them" (β= 0.141, R= 0.209, and R 2 = 0.043), "I think that I have a very good chance to realize my goals in life" (β= 0.144, R= 0.400, and R 2 = 0.160), and "I finish my work on time and do not wait until the last minute" (β= 0.179, R= 0.387, and R 2 = 0.149).

The Relationship between PsyCap (Self-Efficacy) and OC
Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected because PsyCap (Self-Efficacy) and OC have a statistical relationship at the significance level of 0.01.

The Relationship between PsyCap (Hope) and EP
According to Table (14), the regression-coefficient between PsyCap (Hope) and EP is R= 0.429 and R 2 = 0.184. This means that the EP can be explained by the dimensions of PsyCap (Hope), for example, "I have several alternatives to resolve any problem I may face" (β= 0.327, R= 0.172, and R 2 = 0.092), "I feel that I have achieved great success in my career" (β= 0.285, R= 0.274, and R 2 = 0.075), and "When I find myself under pressure, I think how to get out of this predicament" (β= 0.182, R= 0.308, and R 2 = 0.094).
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 10, No. 3; Because of the calculated F (13.842) more than indexed F (2.80) at the statistical significance level of 0.01, the null hypothesis is rejected.  According to Table (15), the regression-coefficient between PsyCap (Optimism) and EP is R= 0.400 and R 2 = 0.160. This means that the EP can be explained by the dimensions of PsyCap (Optimism), for example, "I expect events to ensure continuity in achieving my goals" (β= 0.268, R= 0.360, and R 2 = 0.129) and "I expect events to ensure continuity in achieving my goals" (β= 0.011, R= 0.353, and R 2 = 0.124).

The Relationship between PsyCap (Optimism) and EP
Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected because PsyCap (Optimism) and EP have a statistical relationship at the significance level of 0.01.

The Relationship between PsyCap (Resilience) and EP
According to Table (16), the regression-coefficient between PsyCap (Resilience) and EP is R= 0.381 and R 2 = 0.145. This means that the EP can be explained by the dimensions of PsyCap (Resilience), for example, "I restore my normal mood quickly after unpleasant events" (β= 0.142, R= 0.118, and R 2 = 0.013), and "I prefer work that is both new and challenging" (β= 0.441, R= 0.347, and R 2 = 0.120). Therefore, there is enough empirical evidence to reject the null hypothesis.  Note. * P < .05;** P < .01. According to Table (17), the regression-coefficient between PsyCap (Self-Efficacy) and EP is R= 0.411 and R 2 = 0.169. This means that the EP can be explained by the dimensions of PsyCap (Self-Efficacy), for example, "I enjoy a great deal of self-confidence" (β= 0.209, R= 0.216, and R 2 = 0.046), "I face many problems and I could solve them" (β= 0.125, R= 0.175, and R 2 = 0.030), and "I finish my work on time and do not wait until the last minute" (β= 0.251, R= 0.360, and R 2 = 0.129).

The Relationship between PsyCap (Self-Efficacy) and EP
Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected because PsyCap (Self-Efficacy) and EP have a statistical relationship at the significance level of 0.01.

Research Finding
The findings support the view that the dimensions of PsyCap (hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy) were positively related with EA (JS and OC). More PsyCap is more effective in achieving JS, OC and EP. The high PsyCap would lead to more satisfaction, more commitment, and high performance of the group members.
The findings support the view that PsyCap (resiliency and optimism) was significantly related with JS. The results are consistent with research conducted by Youssef & Luthans, 2007;Topcu & Ocak, 2012;Cetin & Basım, 2011.

Academic Implications
Despite the theoretical appeal and importance of PsyCap, we found no study that investigates the relationship between PsyCap, JS, OC, EP in Egypt. The paper provides some extensions to the nascent theory of PsyCap by exploring its link with EA and EP at Teaching Hospitals in Egypt.

Practical Implications
There are some practical implications for managers in different organizations. They are as follows: 1) Managers can help their employees, through training interventions, to develop their PsyCap.
2) Managers should be careful in assigning relatively stressful tasks to those who are low on PsyCap as these individuals are more likely to report job stress.
3) Managers should pay attention to building and strengthening the PsyCap of their workers. There are specific guidelines and numerous successful applications in the positive psychology literature for enhancing hope, optimism, resiliency, and self-efficacy.
4) Managers can enhance the PsyCap in one's organization to improve performance and competitive advantage. 5) Managers can provide opportunities to build their own PsyCap and that of their associates through successful practice and EP.
6) Managers can invest in PsyCap through encouraging learning among employees. The more developed employees' positive psychological states become, the higher their PsyCap to draw from in dealing with the increasing demands and pressures of today's organizations.
7) Managers should recognize that the level of an employees' PsyCap may play a role in leveraging what a positive organizational climate can contribute to EA and EP. 8) Managers may look for employees who are high in terms of PsyCap. Not only has PsyCap been shown to be directly related to higher levels of performance and JS, but it is also logical that employees who are more hopeful, resilient, optimistic, and confident can provide higher values to an organization than can employees who are lower in these psychological capacities. 9) Managers should take measures to increase employees' identification with their organization, such as striving for a higher organizational purpose. This might enhance employees' feeling that they are working for a higher good and higher moral standards.

Recommendation
1) The need to focus on the four dimensions of PsyCap and use them to reduce the feelings of OC among employees.
a. Hope, it is found out, affects the attitudes of employees and then influences the feelings of cynicism they have, where high levels of hope make employees contribute to the reduction of cynicism.
b. As for resilience, we find out that an individual's ability to adapt and be flexible may affect the level of cynicism about the organization. Individuals who have a high capacity and flexibility to cope with stressful circumstances might have lower feelings of organizational cynicism.
c. As for optimism, we find that the level of an individual affects the level of his ability to deal with adverse events in the work environment and then controls the feelings of cynicism towards the organization.
d. As for self-efficacy, we find that the decline in self-efficacy makes an individual contribute significantly to the increase of cynicism towards the organization. On the contrary, we find that the higher self-efficacy is, the lower the feelings of OC.
2) The need to train managers on how to develop the four dimensions of PsyCap through training courses targeting the spread of the spirit of hope and optimism among managers, and equipping them with skills to deal with different situations in order to ensure the achievement of positive feedback in the work environment. 3) Teaching Hospitals managers must attend development of the PsyCap as competitive advantage that can actualize very important goals such as JS, OC, EP. 4) Teaching Hospitals can increase the level of PsyCap by using short training sessions of one to three hour micro interventions in which they measure PsyCap before and after the interventions.

5) Teaching Hospitals can increase PsyCap through Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations and Results (SOAR).
Teaching Hospitals SOAR encourages their employees to work together to create a shared understanding of the status of the organizations and construct their futures through dialogue and commitment to action. Research confirms that using strengths-based interventions creates positive emotions with upward spirals toward optimal individual and EP.

Limitations of the Study
The findings of this study need to be interpreted with the following limitations in mind. They are as follows: 1) The results can not be strictly construed to be representative of all employees, because this study has been conducted at Teaching Hospitals in Egypt. Therefore, the study needs to be replicated in different sectors and countries in order to generalize the findings.
2) The participants may have been biased to present positive aspects of their businesses.
3) The study did not address other variables that may affect the relationship between PsyCap, JS, OC and EP.
4) The study examined the effects of PsyCap on JS, OC and EP in the context of only one organization, and a limitation concerns generalizing results to other organizations. For example, a comparative study explored the role of PsyCap in Egypt public and private organizations.
5) The researchers use the same sample to gather data on both independent and dependent variables. This method of obtaining data may result in common source bias and lead to inflated relationships. The author did not use these methods because of resource constraints about the ability to issue several surveys and use several observers.

Future Research Directions
This research aimed to investigate the relationship between PsyCap, JS, OC and EP. For the upcoming research, it is available to investigate the PsyCap and JS among different sectors. Moreover, it would also be interesting to establish the relationships between PsyCap PsyCap, turnover intention, organizational citizenship behavior, psychological well-being for different industries or organizations.
Future research can be helpful by comparing the predictive ability of PsyCap with other creativity related personality characteristics to give an insight of the relative strengths of these dispositions.
Future research should continue to use qualitative data, like data from focus groups, to investigate areas of organizational change at the team or business-unit level.
A longitudinal study could measure the ability of PsyCap to predict OCB before, during and after a significant change event. Longitudinal research designs are very critical to our understanding of the directions of influence between PsyCap and job outcomes.
Finally, future research in the area of PsyCap would benefit from longitudinal studies in which researchers observe levels of PsyCap and OCB over time in the context of organizational change.

Conclusion
Although the PsyCap journey seems off to a good start in the right direction, in order to reach its scientific and practical goals, there remains a need for more theory-building, research, and effective application.
Nonetheless, supplementary research is needed to test further whether PsyCap can be developed via training as well as to determine its impact on individual performance (Luthans, Avey et al., 2006;Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008;Luthans, 2010). This would have added value to research on organizational and management effectiveness.
Although the empirical research on PsyCap is still emerging, human resource managers in general, and especially those concerned with HRD, can be confident that at least at this stage of the research, PsyCap has a strong and significant relationship with established desirable outcomes, especially EP.
www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 10, No. 3; In this study, the relationship between PsyCap, JS, OC and EP is analyzed through data set obtained from questionnaire. By reason of correlation analysis, which aims to determine the relationship between variables, there is a positive and significant relationship between PsyCap (self efficacy, hope, resiliency and optimism), JS, OC and EP. MRA determines the effect of sub dimensions of PsyCap (self efficacy, hope, resiliency, and optimism) on JS, OC and EP.
High PsyCap and JS level of the employees enable them to provide a high motivation. By this way, they are willing to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization.
There are some suggestions to increase JS; fair wage plan should be put into effect, supported organizational culture should be created, an effective communication system should be built, employee benefits should be improved, award and penalty system should be constituted and this system should be applied objectively: human resources policies and applications, which have a crucial role in the formation of JS, should be developed.