Purpose This study examines whether and how communal workplace climate (CWC) – defined as a perception that organizations prioritize care, high-quality relationships, trust and employee involvement – relates to productive work behaviors, and whether these associations operate through satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Building on Self-Determination Theory and belongingness perspectives, we test the proposition that CWC functions as a proximal motivational context fostering different forms of productive behavior via differentiated need-based pathways. Design/methodology/approach The study comprised two complementary studies. In Study 1, employees (N = 257) nested within 37 work teams completed measures of CWC and productive behaviors (task engagement, organizational citizenship behavior toward coworkers [OCB-C], and toward the organization [OCB-O]). Multilevel models were used to examine individual- and team-level effects. In Study 2, a larger sample of employees (N = 2,039) completed measures of CWC, basic psychological need satisfaction (autonomy, competence and relatedness) and productive behaviors; hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling. Findings In Study 1, individual-level CWC was positively associated with task engagement and OCB-O, whereas team-level CWC showed weak or inconclusive contextual effects. OCB-C showed no between-team variance and was positively predicted by individual-level CWC. In Study 2, CWC was indirectly related to task engagement via autonomy and competence, to OCB-C primarily via relatedness (with a smaller contribution of competence), and to OCB-O via autonomy and competence, with a small remaining direct effect. Originality/value The study contributes to the literature by showing that CWC is linked to productive work behaviors through differentiated basic psychological need pathways rather than through relatedness alone. This provides a more nuanced understanding of how CWC may support different forms of productive work behavior.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paweł Jurek (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: