Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies ISSN 2029-4581 eISSN 2345-0037
2022, vol. 13, no. 2(26), pp. 357–383 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2022.13.84

Fair and Square: Impact of Hospitality Employees’ Justice Perceptions and Job Embeddedness on Citizenship Behavior during COVID-19

Bindu Chhabra (corresponding author)
International Management Institute, Bhubaneswar, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5747-0378
bindu@imibh.edu.in

Manit Mishra
International Management Institute, Bhubaneswar, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2813-0064
manit.mishra@imibh.edu.in

Abstract. COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted all industries, and the hospitality sector has been the worst hit. Drawing upon conservation of resource (COR) theory, it was hypothesized that organizational justice as well as job embeddedness will positively impact employees’ engagement in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In addition, the moderating role of job embeddedness in organizational justice–OCB relationship was studied. Using time-lagged data of hospitality employees from India, the results demonstrate that of all dimensions of organizational justice, interactional justice emerges as the strongest predictor of OCB. Further, job embeddedness was seen to have a significant relationship with all dimensions of OCB. Support was also found for the moderating role of job embeddedness in strengthening the positive relationship between justice perceptions and certain dimensions of OCB. Finally, the implications are discussed enhancing our understanding of organizational justice—job embeddedness—OCB relationship in Indian hospitality sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting several measures which can be taken by managers of this sector to promote employee extra role behaviors.

Keywords: organizational justice, job embeddedness, organizational citizenship behavior, India, COVID-19.

Received: 5/4/2022. Accepted: 28/10/2022
Copyright © 2022 Bindu Chhabra, Manit Mishra. Published by Vilnius University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

1. Introduction

The world is going through an unprecedented crisis due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which has not only caused immense human suffering but has also devastated the economy of most nations. Due to its large population and one of the strictest lock-downs in the world, the Indian economy has suffered the worst decline during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020. According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), over 21 million salaried jobs were lost in India between April – August 2020 (Krishnan, 2020). The hospitality sector has been among the hardest hit with disproportionately large unemployment rates (Bartik et al., 2020). Recent research has shown that perceived risk from Covid-19 impacts the revisit intention of the customers (Yu et al., 2021). Despite layoffs and potential closure, the hospitality industry must ensure meeting customers’ expectations and earn their loyalty. This makes it imperative to leverage employees to their best potential (Avey, 2018). Therefore, service sector employees must go beyond their prescribed duties and engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) to surpass customer expectations (Smith et al., 1983). Employee OCB is extremely important for the hospitality sector as it has been linked to service quality (Liang, 2012) and employee performance (Chaing & Hsieh, 2012) in this sector. Owing to its importance in this sector, it has been studied extensively in the hospitality industry in recent times (Kalargyrou et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021).

Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) are defined as the behaviors which are discretionary on the part of an individual yet contribute to the overall functioning of the organization (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). These behaviors, like helping a struggling co-worker or voluntarily taking additional responsibilities, have been linked to effective functioning of organizations (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2009) since they have a positive impact on organizational climate (Shin, 2012), productivity and profitability (Dekas et al., 2013), employee retention (Ma et al., 2018), and customer satisfaction (Yildiz & Amin, 2020), Therefore, organizations consistently strive to enhance OCBs among employees. Although previous research has shown that leadership styles (Jha, 2014), empowerment practices (Ma et al., 2020), and charismatic leadership (Tuan, 2020) are some the important predictors of OCBs, there is a need to identify other factors which contribute to the employees’ engagement in OCBs.

The Covid 19 pandemic has disrupted the very nature of the hospitality industry since the focus has shifted to physical distancing and avoiding human interaction (Khoa et al., 2021). The resultant emphasis on technology replacing human touch has accelerated an already growing trend of cost cutting since advent of fourth industrial revolution (Mahmoud, 2021), with estimates of up to 42% permanent job losses (Semuels, 2020). This has not only increased employee anxiety about job security and consequent adverse psychological effects but has also resulted in negative organisational outcomes like decrease in OCB and customer orientation and increased turnover intentions in the sector (Mahmoud et al., 2021). Given the context, it is imperative that organisations are perceived to be just and fair towards their anxious employees to provide them with a sense of security and stability.

In order to contribute to the existing literature, the present study assesses the impact of various dimensions of organizational justice on OCBs. Defined as people’s subjective fairness perception in organizations, organizational justice is normally classified into three major dimensions (Colquitt, 2001), namely distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. It has been linked to many favorable outcomes such as proactive customer service performance (Abuelhassan & AlGassim, 2022), employee engagement and performance (Liu et al., 2022), and innovative behavior (Li et al., 2022). On similar lines, the feelings of injustice by the employees may lead to counterproductive work behaviors like interpersonal and production deviance (Collins & Mossholder, 2017). Therefore, it is crucial for the managers in the hospitality sector to have an understanding about the concept of justice and how it enhances the employees’ engagement in OCBs.

However, it needs to be understood that although justice is a universal value, cultural differences have a significant influence on justice perceptions as well as reactions to injustice. India has traditionally been viewed as a high-power distance culture with a unique caste system which even formally “sanctions” the status (Mahalingam, 2003). Personal goals and a sense of achievement are key motivations in individualistic cultures like the USA and Western Europe, and any perception of injustice hampering these is likely to evoke sharp response (Li & Cropanzano, 2009). In contrast, there may be more tolerance in collectivist cultures, where the focus may be more on maintaining interpersonal harmony. Further, the premise that people react unfavorably when they have little voice in decision making process is well established in studies carried out in the USA (Blader & Tyler, 2003; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). However, Brockner et al. (2001) shows that chances of this happening are less likely in hierarchical and formal cultures like India. The setting of the study in the context of the Indian hospitality sector provides the prism to view the cultural nuances in the relationships between variables.

Further, although several taxonomies of OCB have been proposed and discussed in the literature (e. g., Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990), researchers in the hospitality sector have proposed a three-dimensional framework of OCB consisting of OCB towards the organization (OCB-O), OCB towards the co-workers (OCB-I) and OCBs towards external customers (OCB-C), capturing the full range of hospitality employees’ OCB (Ma et al., 2013). Conceptualizing OCB in terms of OCB-O, OCB-I and OCB-C is prevalent in hospitality contexts as OCB is targeted at internal and external customers (Ma et al. 2020). Therefore, for the present study, OCB will be operationalized using this taxonomy consisting of OCB-O, OCB-I and OCB-C.

The study further aims to investigate if job embeddedness influences the relationship between organization justice and OCBs. Job embeddedness is defined as the collection of forces that tie people to their job and organization (Crossley et al., 2007; Mitchell et al., 2001). It incorporates both on-the-job and off-the-job embeddedness, with each having three key dimensions, viz. fit, links and sacrifices. These dimensions combine to form an individual’s aggregate level of embeddedness. In recent times, the construct of embeddedness has gained increased attention in the hospitality sector as it has been shown to influence a large number of individual and organizational outcomes like employee engagement (Guan et al., 2020), employee retention (Yam et al., 2018), affective commitment (Ampofo, 2020), and proactive customer service performance (Chan et al., 2019). In the present study, we propose that job embeddedness will moderate the positive relationship between organizational justice and OCB, making the relationship stronger.

In sum, the study aims to fulfil two broad objectives. Firstly, it examines the effect of organizational justice perceptions (distributive, procedural and interactional) and job embeddedness on the three dimensions of OCB, viz. OCB-O, OCB-I and OCB-C in the hospitality sector. Secondly, it aims to investigate the moderating role of job embeddedness between different dimensions of organizational justice and OCB. The framework of the conservation of resources (COR) theory was utilized to explain the findings.

The COR theory (Hobfoll, 2001) argues that individuals in a workplace are constantly looking to increase their resources either by acquiring more resources or by minimizing resource loss or both. Resources here are “those objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued” (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 516). According to this theory, the individuals are not only looking to preserve their existing resources, but they also invest resources to acquire additional resources. By using COR as a framework, we extend the recent speculation proposed by Kiazad et al. (2015) about why and how embeddedness impels an employee to behave in a certain way.

2. Hypothesis Formulation

2.1 Organizational Justice and OCB

Organizational justice refers to the degree to which employees believe that the way they are treated by the organization and the outcomes they receive are fair, equitable and in line with the expected ethical and moral standards (Cropanzano et al., 2007). The concept of justice has been used to study a wide range of attitudes and behaviors within the organizations including in-role and extra-role performance, counterproductive work behaviors and some attitudes and emotions (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, 2001). However, recently, a lot of attention is being paid by researchers to the OCBs performed by the employees, because of the benefits they provide to individuals as well as organizations (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Previous research has shown that perception of organizational justice positively influences OCBs by employees (Chan & Lai, 2017).

Drawing upon the COR theory, we argue that the acts of justice by the organization are perceived by the employees as goodwill gestures, and it replenishes their existing resources. Distributive justice, which derives from Adam’s Equity Theory (1965), is experienced when the employees perceive that they are getting equitable return on their invested resources (Mattila & Patterson, 2004; Smith et al., 1999). The perception of distributive justice leads to the replenishment of consumed resources (Cole et al., 2010), and these employees having adequate resources will be more inclined to invest resources (time, effort etc.) in extra-role behaviors to accrue more resources in the form of recognition, support, extrinsic rewards (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2015; Ng & Feldman, 2012). On similar lines, employees having distributively unjust experiences will lack replenished resources at their disposal to be invested for further resources gain and hence will refrain from engaging in OCBs. Based on the above reasoning, we propose:

(H1) There exists a positive relationship between distributive justice and OCB.

Procedural justice refers to the perception of employees regarding fairness of organization’s decision-making process in imposing punishments and distributing rewards (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). According to Judge and Colquitt (2004, p. 396), “procedural justice is valued because it makes long-term outcomes more controllable and predictable”. Conversely, lack of procedural justice may invoke insecurity regarding the availability of essential resources and even suggest the lack of resources. Based on COR theory, when employees perceive high levels of procedural justice, they are bestowed with a large supply of emotional and cognitive resources by the organization which can be used to fuel effort required for extra-role behaviors. The perception that the resources would be regularly replenished through fair procedures and processes would give them confidence and encouragement to invest these resources in commitments that may go beyond their job roles. Therefore, it is proposed that

(H2) There exists a positive relationship between procedural justice and OCB.

Interactional justice refers to the degree of respect, care and consideration experienced by the employees during their interaction with the supervisors or others in the position of authority during the implementation of procedures (Colquitt, 2001). According to Moorman (1991), the way a supervisor interacts with an employee conveys important information about this relationship. Perception of interactional justice from the supervisors indicates that the employee is an important part of the organization nurturing the feelings of acceptance and support toward the subordinate. Based on the COR theory, the perception of high interactional justice replenishes employees’ intrinsic resources in the form of positive affect, strong emotional bond and positive organizational identity providing them with immediate and long-term emotional benefits (Bono et al., 2013). These resources may then be utilized to extend support to the organization by engaging in OCBs. On the other hand, lack of interactional justice may reduce these extra role behaviors, as the limited resources an employee possesses may be utilized only to fulfil the requirements of in-role performance, hence reducing the incidence of OCBs. Therefore, it is proposed that

(H3) There exists a positive relationship between interactional justice and OCB.

2.2 Job Embeddedness and OCB

Job embeddedness denotes the forces, in a form of links, fit and sacrifices, that tie an employee to the organization (Mitchell et al., 2001). Fit refers to the overall congruence of the employee with the organization or surrounding community. Links refer to the formal and informal connections which the employees develop with the people within the organization and the community. Sacrifices denote the perceived costs, both psychological and material, that an employee would incur in case he leaves the organization. Research has shown that job embeddedness is positively related to work attitudes and behaviors like job satisfaction, organizational commitment and creative performance (Lyu & Zhu, 2019) and negatively related to turnover intentions and actual turnover (Crossley et al. 2007; Zhang et al., 2019). Researchers have tried to explain relationship between job embeddedness and performance through motivational effects (Mitchell et al., 2001). According to these theories, job embeddedness leads to more motivation to perform as it indicates more links, a good organizational fit and the sacrifices an employee will have to make by quitting the organization. Therefore, it is expected that the employees high on job embeddedness are more likely to engage in citizenship behaviors since people in an organization do not work alone as their roles are interdependent. Based on the resource investment principle of COR, it is expected that employees embedded in the jobs and the organization are more inclined to engage in OCBs because they have more resources, in the form of fits and links, that can be invested to build resources (Hobfoll, 2001). Therefore, it may be hypothesized that

(H4) Job embeddedness is positively and significantly related to OCB.

2.3 Moderating Role of Job Embeddedness

Although it has been proposed that job embeddedness will be positively related to OCBs, it is crucial to investigate its indirect effect on OCBs through its interaction with organizational justice perceptions. The relationship is not always unidirectional and positive as various attitudinal and motivational factors play an important part in determining the direction and velocity of this relationship. On the positive side, job embeddedness may accentuate the positive relationship between certain workplace attributes and job performance by providing added resources to perform the task better. For example, Sekiguchi et al. (2008) found that the relationship between LMX and task performance is stronger for individuals high on job embeddedness than those who are low. Similar results were found in a study by Collins and Mossholder (2017), where job embeddedness was seen to strengthen the relationship between interactional fairness and OCB. On the other hand, high job embeddedness may evoke the feelings of being stuck or frustrated among employees when job conditions are not favorable (Allen et al., 2016).

Hence, it is predicted that job embeddedness will moderate the positive relationship between organization justice and OCBs, with relationship being stronger for employees who are more embedded in the organization. The perception of organizational justice provides resources to the employees, which are utilized to engage in OCBs in order to gain resources in future. Job embeddedness provides employees with additional resources, in the form of fit and links, which can be utilized to enhance an employee’s engagement in OCBs. The connections (links) which highly embedded employees have with their fellow employees or other stakeholders help them to accrue additional resources in the form of knowledge, skills and physical resources from the organization. The knowledge and skills can be utilized in a better way to engage in OCBs when they fit in well in the organization and see their organization, its procedures, and their supervisors to be fair and just. Therefore, when perception of organizational justice is high, highly embedded employees will have additional resources to engage in OCBs. Hence the following hypotheses may be formulated:

H5: Job embeddedness moderates the relationship between distributive justice and OCB such that the relationship is stronger for the employees high on job embeddedness.

H6: Job embeddedness moderates the relationship between procedural justice and OCB such that the relationship is stronger for the employees high on job embeddedness.

H7: Job embeddedness moderates the relationship between interactional justice and OCB such that the relationship is stronger for the employees high on job embeddedness.

The above hypotheses may be depicted in the form of model given in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Proposed Model

 

3. Methodology

3.1 Participants and Procedure

The data for the study was collected during December 2020 to January 2021 when the situation had marginally improved in India after the first phase of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was also the time when the hospitality sector had started picking up. The sample consisted of employees working in four-star and five-star hotels in Eastern part of India. These hotels were contacted through email and were requested to participate in the study. Of the 55 requests sent, 23 hotels consented to participate in the study, of which 9 belonged to 5-star category and 14 belonged to 4-star category. The employees of these hotels were sent an invitation to participate in the survey ensuring confidentiality of the results. The study employed a two-wave (T1 and T2) research design to mitigate the concerns related to common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). At Time 1, the respondents filled demographic information and responded to the questions related to the predictor (three dimensions of organizational justice) and the moderator (job embeddedness). At T2, which was one week later, the respondents who participated in the first survey responded to the questions related to the dependent variable (three dimensions of OCB). Overall, 537 respondents agreed to participate in the survey, of which 492 filled in the first survey (response rate 91.6%). Of these 492 respondents, 379 respondents completed the second survey (response rate 70.6%), of which 338 were usable (response rate 62.01%). The final sample of 338 consisted of 237 males and 101 females. The age of the respondents ranged from 21 to 58 years (mean age 34.39 years, SD 9.99), and their tenure with the current hotel ranged from 2 to 27 years (mean tenure 5.55 years, SD 6.72). 65 (19.23%) respondents were managers belonging to front office, 85 (25.14%) of them were from food and beverage, other departments (like finance, housekeeping and HR) accounted for 102 (30.18%) respondents, whereas 86 (25.44%) respondents belonged to the upper management. In terms of their experience, 69 (20.41%) respondents had less than 5 years of experience, 112 (33.13%) had between 5 and 10 years of experience, 95 (28.1%) had experience ranging from 11 to 15 years, and the rest 62 (18.34%) had above 15 years of experience.

3.2 Research Instruments

All the survey items were presented in English, and the responses to all the items ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). All the items are reported in the Appendix.

3.3 Organizational Justice

Organizational justice was measured along three dimensions, viz. distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Distributive justice was measured with 3 items from the scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). A sample item is “I think that my level of pay is fair”. Procedural justice was measured by four items from the scale by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). A sample item is “Job decisions are made in my organization in an unbiased manner”. Interactional justice was measured with three items from Colquitt’s (2001) scale. A sample item is “My supervisor treats me in a polite manner”.

Job Embeddedness

Job embeddedness was measured with five items from the scale by Crossley et al. (2007). A sample item is “I’m too caught up in this organization to leave”.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

OCB was measured with the items from the three-component scale developed by Ma et al. (2013). The scale defines three dimensions of OCB, viz. OCB-O, OCB-I and OCB-C, which were measured with three items each. The sample items are: OCB-O: “I say good things about our hotel when talking to outsiders”; OCB-I: “I take time to listen to my coworkers’ problems and worries”; OCB-C “I respond to customer requests and problems in a timely manner”.

Control Variables

Previous research has shown that demographic characteristics of the participants (e. g., age, gender, and tenure with the organization) are likely to impact OCBs (Griffeth et al., 2000). Therefore, to reduce their impact on the main variables in the study, these were controlled for all regression analyses. Gender was assessed using a dichotomous scale: male (1) and female (2). Age and organizational tenure were measured in years using a continuous scale.

4. Analyses and Results

4.1 Data Analysis Overview

The collected data was analyzed using SPSS and AMOS. Since all variables included in the present study were collected from the same source, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to confirm the distinctiveness of the focal variables. Common method variance (CMV) was verified using Harman’s single factor test. The average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and maximum shared variance (MSV) were also calculated to confirm validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to study the impact of organizational justice perceptions (distributive, procedural and interactional) and job embeddedness on the three dimensions of OCB. The interaction effects were tested using PROCESS v 3.0 macro (Hayes, 2013). PROCESS macro uses bootstrapping procedures to get confidence intervals with 95% bias-correction. Since the aim was to study the moderating role of job embeddedness, PROCESS Model 1 was used. In the present study, the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effects was obtained with 5,000 bootstrap resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Since all variables included in the present study were collected from the same source, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to confirm the distinctiveness of the focal variables. In line with the existing research, the specific scale items were expected to load on their corresponding latent variables creating an expected 7-factor model (distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, job embeddedness, OCB-O, OCB-I and OCB-C loading on separate constructs). As can be seen in Table 1, this 7-factor model yielded the best fit to the data when compared to alternative models. The standardized factor loadings were found to be acceptable and significant on their respective constructs.

Table 1
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Models	χ2(df)	∆ χ2(∆df)	RMSEA	CFI	TLI
7-Factor model (Baseline)	418.68 (230) **	–	.049	.96	.95
5-Factor modela	983.26 (241) **	564.58 (11) **	.096	.83	.81
3-Factor modelb	1553 (248) **	1134.32 (18) **	.125	.70	.67
2- Factor modelc	2141.55 (250) **	1722.87 (20) **	.152	.58	.53
1-Factor modeld	2574.52 (251) **	2155.84 (21) **	.166	.48	.43

Note. **p < 0.01; Chi-square difference test was conducted between the baseline model and each alternative model.

^a In the 5-factor model, all items of OCB-O, OCB-I and OCB-C (dimensions of OCB) were loaded on one factor.

^b In the 3-factor model, all items of organizational justice, all items of embeddedness and all items of OCB were loaded on three separate factors.

^c In the two-factor model, all items of organizational justice and embeddedness were loaded on one factor, whereas all items of OCB were loaded on another.

^d In the one-factor model, all items were loaded on a single factor.

4.3 Test of Common Method Bias

Since the data was collected using self-report measures from the same source, Harman’s single factor test was employed to statistically see if common method bias posed a threat. The total variance explained by a single factor was 31.07%, which is less than 50%. Further, since the 1-factor model did not fit well with the data (Table 1), the possibility of common method variance in the present study was ruled out.

4.4 Reliability and Convergent Validity

Table 2 shows the reliability and convergent validity. As can be seen from the table, good internal consistency was demonstrated by all scales as all Cronbach alpha estimates exceeded .70 threshold (Nunnally, 1978). All factor loadings were more than .60, and AVE values were above .50, which indicates good convergent validity (Hair et al., 2018). Further evidence of convergent validity is provided as the MSV values for all variables were less than the respective AVE values.

Table 2
Measurement Model Reliability and Convergent Validity

Constructs	Factor loadings	Cronbach’s alpha (α)	Composite reliability (CR)	Average variance extracted (AVE)	Maximum shared variance (MSV)
Distributive Justice (DJ) DJ1 DJ2 DJ3	.71 .76 .74	.76	.78	.54	.35
Procedural Justice (PJ) PJ1 PJ2 PJ3 PJ4	.65 .78 .84 .84	.86	.86	.61	.39
Interactional Justice (IJ) IJ1 IJ2 IJ3	.93 .93 .74	.90	.90	.76	.39
Job Embeddedness (JE) JE1 JE2 JE3 JE4 JE5	.75 .84 .87 .70 .65	.88	.87	.58	.44
OCB-O (OCB-O) OCB-O1 OCB-O2 OCB-O3	.83 .75 .84	.84	.84	.65	.44
OCB-I (OCB-I) OCB-I1 OCB-I2 OCB-I3	.73 .88 .64	.78	.80	.58	.40
OCB-C (OCB-C) OCB-C1 OCB-C2 OCB-C3	.71 .88 .83	.84	.85	.65	.40

Table 3
Discriminant Validity

	DJ	PJ	IJ	JE	OCB-O	OCB-I	OCB-C
DJ	.73
PJ	.59	.78
IJ	.43	.63	.87
JE	.51	.41	.24	.76
OCB-O	.58	.46	.40	.66	.80
OCB-I	.10	.17	.21	.29	.44	.76
OCB-C	.13	.18	.24	.36	.39	.63	.81

We used the criteria given by Fornell and Larcker (1981) for establishing the discriminant validity. As can be seen in Table 3, square roots of AVE (bold values given in diagonal) are greater than inter-variable correlations confirming that the variables exhibit good discriminant validity.

4.5 Hypotheses Testing

In order to test H1, H2, H3 and H4, hierarchical multiple regression was used and the three dimensions of OCB, i. e., OCB-O, OCB-I and OCB-C were considered as dependent variables. Control variables were entered in Step 1, whereas justice dimensions and job embeddedness were entered in Step 2.

Table 4
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses

Steps and Variables	OCB-O		OCB-I		OCB-C
	I	II	I	II	I	II
Step 1 – Control Variables
Gender	.47	.36	.15	.12	.11	.07
Age	.05**	.03*	.03**	.03**	.04**	.04**
Tenure with Organization	-.003	-.03	-.004	-.02	.003	-.01
Step 2 – Independent Variables and Moderator
Distributive Justice		.19**		-.07		-.05
Procedural Justice		.04		.01		.002
Interactional Justice		.15**		.10**		.12**
Job Embeddedness		.21**		.08**		.09**
Adjusted R²	.04	.40	.02	.08	.06	.13
R² change		.36**		.06**		.08**
F change (p-value)	5.85**	33.58**	3.8**	4.97**	7.92**	8.17**

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients *p<.05; **p<.01.

As can be seen in Table 4, distributive justice was positively and significantly related to only one dimension of OCB, i. e., OCB-O (B = 0.19, p < 0.01), partially supporting H1. Procedural justice was not significantly related to any dimension of OCB, rejecting H2. Interactional justice was positively and significantly related to all dimensions of OCB, i. e., OCB-O (B = 0.15, p < 0.01), OCB-I (B = 0.10, p < 0.01) and OCB-C (B = 0.12, p < 0.01), fully supporting H3. Further job embeddedness was positively and significantly related to all dimensions of OCB, viz. OCB-O (B = 0.21, p < 0.01) OCB-I (B = 0.08, p < 0.01) and OCB-C (B = 0.09, p < 0.01). These results are in line with and fully support H4.

H5 stated that job embeddedness moderates the relationship between distributive justice and OCB. As can be seen in Table 5, the interaction effect between distributive justice and job embeddedness on OCB-I was found to be significant (B = 0.02, t = 2.93, p < 0.01).

Table 5
Moderating Role of Job Embeddedness between Distributive Justice and OCB

Variables	OCB-O			OCB-I			OCB-C
	Β	SE	t	Β	SE	t	Β	SE	T
Gender	.41	.22	1.81	.12	.21	.56	.09	.20	.44
Age	.02	.01	1.94	.02	.01	2.17	.03	.01	3.08
Tenure	-.03	.02	-1.47	-.01	.02	-.71	-.01	.02	-.41
Distributive Justice (DJ)	.28**	.04	6.33	-.03	.04	-.82	-.01	.04	-.25
Job Embeddedness (JE)	.21**	.02	8.78	.09**	.02	4.14	.10**	.02	4.47
DJ X JE	-.01	.00	-2.07	.02**	.01	2.93	.01	.01	1.51
Multiple R			.63			.31			.36
R2			.39			.10			.13
F			35.75**			6.08**			8.12**
Conditional Effects at levels of JE
-1 SD				-.14**	.06	-2.45
Mean				-.03	.04	-.82
+1 SD				.07	.05	1.36

Note. N = 338. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000; Β = unstandardized regression coefficients; SE=standard error; conditional effects provided only for significant interactions; *p<.05; **p<.01.

In order to facilitate the interpretation of the interaction terms, the conditional slopes were plotted at high, medium and low levels of embeddedness (+1 SD, mean and -1 SD). As can be seen in Figure 2, the relationship between distributive justice and OCB-I for employees who are high on embeddedness is positive but not significant (B = 0.07, t = 1.36, NS), which becomes negative and significant for the employees low on embeddedness (B = - 0.14, t = -2.45, p < 0.01).

According to H6, job embeddedness moderates the relationship between procedural justice and OCB. As can be seen in Table 6, the interaction of procedural justice and embeddedness was found to be significant for two dimensions of OCB, i. e., OCB-I (B = 0.02, t = 3.11, p < 0.05) and OCB-C (B = 0.009, t = 2.06, p < 0.01). Figure 3 shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between procedural justice and OCB-I for employees who are high on embeddedness (B = 0.12, t = 2.89, p < 0.01), whereas the relationship between procedural justice and OCB-I is negative and non-significant for employees low on embeddedness (B = - 0.03, t = - 0.98, NS). Figure 4 shows the interaction effect of procedural justice and job embeddedness on OCB-C. As is clear from the figure and in line with our hypothesis, there is a positive and significant relationship between procedural justice and OCB-C for employees high on embeddedness (B = 0.09, t = 2.35, p < 0.01), whereas the relationship is negative and non-significant for employees low on embeddedness (B = - 0.01, t = - .17, NS).

Figure 2
Interaction Effect of Distributive Justice and Job Embeddedness on OCB-I

 

Table 6
Moderating Role of Job Embeddedness between Procedural Justice and OCB

Variables	OCB-O			OCB-I			OCB-C
	B	SE	T	B	SE	T	B	SE	T
Gender	.42	.23	1.80	.17	.21	.81	.12	.20	.60
Age	.03*	.01	2.46	.03	.01	2.29	.03	.01	3.20
Tenure	-.03	.02	-1.67	-.02	.02	-.92	-.01	.02	-.55
Procedural Justice (PJ)	.16**	.03	5.02	.04	.03	1.38	.04	.03	1.5
Job Embeddedness (JE)	.23**	.02	9.08	.08**	.02	3.59	.09**	.02	4.05
PJ X JE	-.003	.00	-.68	.02**	.00	3.11	.009**	.00	2.06
Multiple R			.60			.32			.37
R2			.36			.10			.14
F			31.59**			6.40**			8.79**
Conditional Effects at levels of JE
-1 SD				-.03	.04	-.98	-.01	.03	-.17
Mean				.04	.03	1.38	.04	.03	1.5
+1 SD				.12**	.04	2.89	.09**	.04	2.35

Note. N = 338. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000; B = unstandardized regression coefficients; SE=standard error; conditional effects provided only for significant interactions; *p<.05; **p<.01.

Figure 3

nteraction Effect of Procedural Justice and Job Embeddedness on OCB-I

 

Figure 4
Interaction Effect of Procedural Justice and Job Embeddedness on OCB-C

 

Table 7
Moderating Role of Job Embeddedness between Interactional Justice and OCB

Variables	OCB-O			OCB-I			OCB-C
	B	SE	T	B	SE	t	B	SE	t
Gender	.38	.23	1.63	.09	.21	.42	.06	.20	.30
Age	.03*	.01	2.54	.03	.01	2.51	.04	.01	3.39
Tenure	-.04	.02	-1.95	-.02	.02	-1.08	-.01	.02	-.68
Interactional Justice (IJ)	.24**	.04	5.53	.11**	.04	2.78	.11**	.04	3.11
Job Embeddedness (JE)	.25**	.02	10.59	.07**	.02	3.37	.08**	.02	4.01
IJ X JE	-.005	.01	-.65	.02**	.01	2.47	.01	.01	1.16
Multiple R			.61			.33			.38
R2			.38			.11			.15
F			33.27**			6.56**			9.58**
Conditional Effects at levels of JE
-1 SD				.03	.05	.62
Mean				.11**	.04	2.78
+1 SD				.19**	.06	3.41

Note. N = 338. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000; B = unstandardized regression coefficients; SE=standard error; conditional effects provided only for significant interactions; *p<.05; **p<.01.

Figure 5
Interaction Effect of Interactional Justice and Job Embeddedness on OCB-1

 

H7 predicted that job embeddedness moderates the relationship between interactional justice and OCB. Referring to Table 7 and in line with this hypothesis, the interaction of interactional justice and embeddedness was found to be significant for OCB-I dimension of OCB (B = 0.02, t = 2.47, p < 0.01). As can be seen in Figure 5, relationship between interactional justice and OCB-I is stronger for employees who are high on embeddedness (B = 0.19, t = 3.41, p < 0.01) than those who are low on embeddedness (B = 0.03, t =0.62, NS).

5. Discussion

OCBs are extremely vital for the survival and success of the hospitality sector, which has suffered majorly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study examined the effects of organizational justice perceptions (distributive, procedural and interactional) and job embeddedness on the three dimensions of OCB, viz. OCB-O, OCB-I and OCB-C in the hospitality sector. In addition, the study also explored the moderating role of job embeddedness between different dimensions of organizational justice and OCB. The framework of conservation of resource (COR) theory was utilized to explain the findings.

The study found support for a general positive relationship between perceptions of organizational justice and OCB, confirming previous research that employee decisions to engage in OCB may be an outcome of how fairly they think they are being treated by their organization. However, closer examination reveals that different types of justice have varying impact on different dimensions of OCB. Distributive justice was significantly related only to OCB-I dimension of OCB, and procedural justice showed the weakest link with OCB and was not related to any of its dimensions. However, interactional justice had the strongest relationship with OCB, its relationship being positive and significant with all three dimensions. These results are in line with the study by Özbek et al. (2016), who found the weakest link between procedural justice and OCB among Kyrgyz citizens. In the high-power distance and collectivist cultures like Kyrgyzstan, China, and India, perceived fairness of formal procedures does not evoke as much reaction as the actual practices, which may vary greatly. However, the care, consideration and respect employees receive from their supervisors actually determines if the employee will go an extra mile and engage in OCBs. The employees interact with their supervisors on a daily basis, and the concerns related to interactional justice are closer to them than other two kinds of justice. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the way a supervisor interacts with the employees is a better indicator of trust and equity than the actual presence or absence of fair procedures. These results are generally in line with previous studies which show that interactional justice is the strongest predictor of OCB among the three dimensions (Chan & Lai, 2017; Özbek et al., 2016).

Drawing on COR theory, it may be inferred that the resources gathered by the employees from distributive and procedural justice are few, and chances are that these resources are spent more on in-role behaviors than on extra-role behaviors. These results are in consonance with the study by Ghosh et al. (2017), who found a positive relationship of distributive and procedural justice with in-role performance. However, since the resources gathered through interactional justice are in excess due to the care and respect employees receive from their supervisors, they would be able to spend these on engaging in OCBs along with in-role performance.

The study also finds overwhelming evidence for the positive relationship between job embeddedness and OCB. It was seen that job embeddedness was positively and significantly related to all dimensions of OCB. In line with COR theory, job embeddedness acts as a resource which people are willing to invest by engaging in OCBs as this helps them build more resources. However, these results are in contradiction to the studies conducted in the USA (Collins & Mossholder, 2017; Sekiguchi et al., 2008), which found that the direct relationship between embeddedness and OCB was weak and insignificant. The divergence of results between studies in the USA and India may be largely due to cultural difference as India has been recognized to be a collectivistic culture, whereas the USA is more individualistic (Hofstede, 2001). Research has shown that individualism – collectivism is a crucial national characteristic moderating the link between job embeddedness and turnover intentions (Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010) since the employees in individualistic cultures tend to exhibit more self-concern and looser relationships with others, whereas in collectivistic cultures, they are likely to develop closer relationships and value belongingness more. OCB is a natural outcome of strong identification and belongingness with the organization.

Regarding the moderating role of job embeddedness in the relationship between organizational justice and OCB, several interactions were found to be significant. In all these interaction effects, it was seen that the relationship between justice dimensions and OCB dimensions was positive and significant for employees high on embeddedness, whereas the relationship was not significant for employees low on embeddedness. The results corroborate the findings of Brockner et al. (1992) that the perception of lack of justice will adversely impact the commitment levels of dedicated employees but will hardly matter to those who are not so tethered. Therefore, it is pertinent to note that although perception of organizational justice may have a universal appeal, it may have varying effects depending upon other conditions, job embeddedness being one such boundary condition.

6. Theoretical Implications

The present study has numerous theoretical contributions. Firstly, although many mediators have been studied to explain the process through which organizational justice leads to OCBs, research relating the moderators that impact the organizational justice and OCB relationship is scant especially in Indian hospitality sector. By introducing job embeddedness as a boundary condition in the justice–OCB relationship, the present study enriches organizational justice literature emphasizing the fact that perception of organizational justice may not invariably lead to discretionary behaviors by all employees.

Secondly, this study takes all three dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural and interactional) and explores how embeddedness interacts with these different dimensions to impact organizational citizenship behavior and its dimensions in the hospitality sector. This gives us a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship as different dimensions of justice have been seen to have different impact on outcomes.

Thirdly, the study contributes to the OCB literature by validating the three-dimensional framework of OCB in the Indian hospitality sector. Although the construct of OCB has been extensively studied in the hospitality sector, the three-dimensional model consisting of OCB-O, OCB-I and OCB-C captures the complete range of employees’ OCB in the service sector (Ma et al., 2013), as the service employees’ OCB is targeted towards three main groups consisting of organizations, coworkers and leaders, and customers.

Lastly, the setting of the study in the Indian context provides the prism to view the cultural nuances in the relationships between variables. In doing so, the study attempts to answers the call from the researchers like Collins and Mossholder (2017) to study the interaction effect of fairness and job embeddedness on discretionary behavior in non-western cultures to see if the effect is similar in collectivist cultures to that of individualist cultures.

7. Managerial Implications

There are some real-world implications of the present study for the practicing managers in the hospitality sector which can go a long way in revival of this sector post COVID-19. Managers in the hospitality industry are in the dire need to enhance customer satisfaction. In this respect, organizational justice acts as an important organizational lever which has been seen to have a positive impact on job satisfaction, employee commitment, employee loyalty, and OCB (Nazarian et al., 2021). This, in turn, improves customer service and helps hotels leverage the benefits of improved customer satisfaction (Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, 2020). Our study shows that fair and just treatment from the managers in this sector can go a long way in motivating the employees to engage in extra role behaviors, which are especially relevant in the hospitality sector. Therefore, it becomes important for the management to design policies and create an environment in the organization which ensures justice and fairness. Although all three kinds of justice are important, our results indicate that the perception of interactional justice emerges as the strongest predictor of employees’ positive discretionary behaviors in the hospitality sector. Employees who are treated with respect and dignity during their interactions with the supervisors respond by going beyond their stipulated roles and responsibility. Owing to the importance of these interactions in shaping the employees’ perception of justice, organizations must design training and interventions for the supervisors to enhance their supervisory, interpersonal and communication skills. They should be apprised of the importance of treating their subordinates with respect, giving clear and precise instructions, and including them in the process of decision making, whenever possible.

This study also highlights the significance of job embeddedness in evoking citizenship behaviors from the employees in the hospitality sector. Therefore, it becomes imperative for managers to implement strategies for enhancing their embeddedness among the employees of this sector. Attractive career and promotional opportunities can be created for the employees to enhance their embeddedness. Links can be augmented through certain team and continuing projects connecting people with the organization. Matching employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities with the requirements of the job at the time of selection may improve the fit. The element of sacrifice can be taken care of by tying financial benefits and rewards to longevity.

8. Limitations and Scope for Future Research

This study has some limitations, and we urge the researchers to consider these for their future projects. First, since the research was conducted with self-report measures using a single set of participants, the threat of common method bias cannot be totally excluded (Podsakoff et al. 2003).

Second, the study used embeddedness as a moderator and discussed the results by creating arguments related to the three dimensions of embeddedness. However, embeddedness was measured using the global measure (Crossley et al., 2007). Although this measure has been used in a large number of studies (e. g., Zhang et al., 2019), it would be interesting to see how each of the three dimensions of embeddedness (i. e., links, fit and sacrifice) moderates the relationship between justice perceptions and OCB.

The sample of the study comprised of the employees working in the hospitality sector in India during the time when the hospitality sector had started opening after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the key question remains whether the results can be generalized to other cultures and contexts. Future researchers can undertake studies in other cultures and contexts to enhance our understanding regarding the relationship among the aforesaid variables.

Lastly, even as the study yields some interesting insights, there is a scope for improvement by using a larger sample size. Thus, this study can serve as a precursor to future research which may adopt a larger sample size for greater generalizability and reduction in the margin of error.

Conclusion

A sense of justice is ingrained in human society, and the hospitality sector also has to ensure that their policies are perceived to be fair and equitable by the employees. Managements can benefit from a demonstrable show of fairness to ensure better employee engagement and improved productivity, which is essential in these turbulent times. Drawing on the conservation of resource theory, the study demonstrates the direct effect of organizational justice and job embeddedness on OCB, along with the moderating role of job embeddedness. Among all the justice dimensions, interactional justice came out to be the strongest predictors of OCB, encouraging supervisors to treat their employees with respect and dignity to enhance their perceptions of fairness. Managers in this sector can use these findings to design and leverage policies not only to protect but also garner future resources, thus creating a resource spiral.

References

Abuelhassan, A. E., & AlGassim, A. (2022). How organizational justice in the hospitality industry influences proactive customer service performance through general self-efficacy. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(7), 2579–2596.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2

Allen, D. G., Peltokorpi, V., & Rubenstein, A. L. (2016). When “embedded” means “stuck”: Moderating effects of job embeddedness in adverse work environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1670–1686. 

Ampofo, E. T. (2020). Mediation effects of job satisfaction and work engagement on the relationship between organisational embeddedness and affective commitment among frontline employees of star–rated hotels in Accra. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 44, 253–262.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Avey, C. (2018). Why Repeat Hotel Customers Are Better Than New Ones. Retrieved from Hospitalitynet https://www.hospitalitynet.org/opinion/4091173.html.

Bartik, A. W., Bertrand, M., Lin, F., Rothstein, J., & Unrath, M. (2020). Measuring the Labor Market at the Onset of the COVID-19 Crisis. (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 27613).

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship between Affect and Employee “Citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587–595.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a “Fair” Process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758. 

Bono, J. E., Glomb, T. M., Shen, W., Kim, E., & Koch, A. J. (2013). Building Positive Resources: Effects of Positive Events and Positive Reflection on Work Stress and Health. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1601–1627. 

Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and Procedural Justice: The Influence of Power Distance on Reactions to Voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300–315. 

Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The Influence of Prior Commitment to an Institution on Reactions to Perceived Unfairness: The Higher They Are, the Harder They Fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 241–261.

Chaing, C. F., & Hsieh, T. S. (2012). The Impact of Perceived organizational Support and Psychological empowerment on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 180–190.

Chan, S. H. J., & Lai, H. Y. I. (2017). Understanding the link between communication satisfaction, perceived justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 70, 214–223. 

Chan, W. L., Ho, J. A., Sambasivan, M., & Ng, S. I. (2019). Antecedents and outcome of job embeddedness: Evidence from four and five-star hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 37–45.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. 

Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Walter, F., & Holt, D. T. (2010). Organizational justice and individuals’ withdrawal: Unlocking the influence of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 367–390.

Collins, B. J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2017). Fairness Means More to Some Than Others: Interactional Fairness, Job Embeddedness, and Discretionary Work Behaviors. Journal of Management, 43(2), 293–318.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The Management of Organizational Justice. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48. 

Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a Global Measure of Job Embeddedness and Integration into a Traditional Model of Voluntary Turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1031–1042. 

Dekas, K. H., Bauer, T. N., Welle, B., Kurkoski, J., & Sullivan, S. (2013). Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Version 2.0: A Review and Qualitative Investigation of OCBs for Knowledge Workers at Google and Beyond. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(3), 219–237.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Ghosh, D., Sekiguchi, T., & Gurunathan, L. (2017). Organizational embeddedness as a mediator between justice and in-role performance. Journal of Business Research, 75, 130–137.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488.

Guan, X., Yeh, S. S., Chiang, T. Y., & Huan, T. C. T. (2020). Does organizational inducement foster work engagement in hospitality industry? Perspectives from a moderated mediation model. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43, 259–268.

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2018). Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2015). To Invest or Not? The Role of Coworker Support and Trust in Daily Reciprocal Gain Spirals of Helping Behavior. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1628–1650.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The Influence of Culture, Community, and the Nested‐Self in the Stress Process: Advancing Conservation of Resources Theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421.

Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations (2^nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jha, S. (2014). Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 3(1), 18–35.

Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational Justice and Stress: The Mediating Role of Work-Family Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395–404. 

Kalargyrou, V., Sundar, V., & Jahani, S. (2022). Managers’ attitudes toward employees with depression and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hospitality industry: Assessing the mediating role of personality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, (ahead-of-print).  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2022-0082.

Khoa, D., Wang, C. Y., & Guchait, P. (2021). Using regulatory focus to encourage physical distancing in services: When fear helps to deal with Mr. Deadly COVID-19. The Service Industries Journal, 41(1-2), 32–57.

Kiazad, K., Holtom, B. C., Hom, P. W., & Newman, A. (2015). Job embeddedness: A multifoci theoretical extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 641–659.

Kloutsiniotis, P. V., & Mihail, D. M. (2020). The effects of high performance work systems in employees’ service-oriented OCB. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90, 102610.

Krishnan, M. (2020). Coronavirus: India will take ‘years’ to recover from unemployment crisis. available at: https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-india-will-take-years-to-recover-from-unemployment-crisis/a-54959382 (accessed on 26 October 2022).

Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009). Do East Asians Respond More/Less Strongly to Organizational Justice than North Americans? A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 787–805.

Li, J., Irina, Y. Y., Yang, M. X., & Chen, S. (2022). How needs for belongingness and justice influence social identity and performances: Evidence from the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 50, 366–374.

Liang, Y. H. (2012). Exploring the relationship between perceived electronic service quality, satisfaction, and personality: A study of Taiwan’s online game industry. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(7-8), 949–963.

Liu, X. R., Yu, J. J., Guo, Q., & Li, J. J. (2022). Employee engagement, its antecedents and effects on business performance in hospitality industry: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2021-1512

Lyu, Y., & Zhu, H. (2019). The predictive effects of workplace ostracism on employee attitudes: A job embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 1083–1095.

Ma, E., Hsiao, A., Gao, J., & Vada, S. (2020). Inspiring good soldiers cross-culturally through the lens of the theory of planned behavior—which works best, norms or behavioral control?. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 99–112.

Ma, E., Qu, H., Wei, X., & Hsiao, A. (2018). Conceptualization and Operationalization of an Altruistic and Egoistic Continuum of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Motivations. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(5), 740–771.

Ma, E., Qu, H., Wilson, M., & Eastman, K. (2013). Modeling OCB for hotels: Don’t forget the customers. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(3), 308–317.

Ma, E., Wang, Y. C., Xu, S. T., & Wang, D. (2022). Clarifying the multi-order multidimensional structure of organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-cultural validation. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 50, 83–92.

Mahalingam, R. (2003). Essentialism, Culture, and Power: Representations of Social Class. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 733–749. 

Mahmoud, A.B. (2021) Like a cog in a machine. In C. Machado, & J. Paulo Davim (Eds.), Advances in Intelligent, Flexible, and Lean Management and Engineering (pp. 1–20). Hershey: IGI Global.

Mahmoud, A.B., Reisel, W.D., Fuxman, L. & Mohr, I. (2021) A Motivational Standpoint of Job Insecurity Effects on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Generational Study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 62(2), 267–275.

Mattila, A. S., & Patterson, P. G. (2004). Service Recovery and Fairness Perceptions in Collectivist and Individualist Contexts. Journal of Service Research, 6(4), 336–346.

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why People Stay: Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121.

Moorman, R. (1991). Relationship between Organizational Justice and OCB: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845–855.

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an Individual Difference Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 127–142. 

Nazarian, A., Velayati, R., Foroudi, P., Edirisinghe, D., & Atkinson, P. (2021). Organizational justice in the hotel industry: Revisiting GLOBE from a national culture perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(12), 4418–4438.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee Voice Behavior: A Meta‐Analytic Test of the Conservation of Resources Framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216–234.

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a Mediator of the Relationship between Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527–556. 

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Özbek, M. F., Yoldash, M. A., & Tang, T. L.-P. (2016). Theory of Justice, OCB, and Individualism: Kyrgyz Citizens. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 365–382. 

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2009). Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Organizational Performance: A Review and Suggestion for Future Research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133–151.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. 

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

Ramesh, A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). Will they stay or will they go? The role of job embeddedness in predicting turnover in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 807–823. 

Sekiguchi, T., Burton, J. P., & Sablynski, C. J. (2008). The role of job embeddedness on employee performance: The interactive effects with leader–member exchange and organization-based self-esteem. Personnel Psychology, 61(4), 761–792.

Semuels, A. (2020) Millions of Americans Have Lost Jobs in the Pandemic—and Robots and AI Are Replacing Them Faster Than Ever. TIME. Available from: https://time.com/5876604/machines-jobs-coronavirus/ (accessed on 26 October 2022).

Shin, Y. (2012). CEO Ethical Leadership, Ethical Climate, Climate Strength, and Collective Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 299–312.

Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356–372.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663. 

Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.

Tuan, L. T. (2020). Crafting the sales job collectively in the tourism industry: The roles of charismatic leadership and collective person-group fit. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 245–255.

Wang, D., Baker, M. A., Kim, Y. S., & Ma, E. (2021). From angels to demons: Uncovering the relationships between tipping, social dignity, OCB and incivility intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 98, 103043.

Yam, L., Raybould, M., & Gordon, R. (2018). Employment stability and retention in the hospitality industry: Exploring the role of job embeddedness. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(4), 445–464.

Yildiz, Y., & Amin, H. H. H. (2020). Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Customer Satisfaction. Eurasian Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 1(1), 17–35.

Yu, J., Lee, K., & Hyun, S. S. (2021). Understanding the influence of the perceived risk of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the post-traumatic stress disorder and revisit intention of hotel guests. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 327–335.

Zhang, L., Fan, C., Deng, Y., Lam, C. F., Hu, E., & Wang, L. (2019). Exploring the interpersonal determinants of job embeddedness and voluntary turnover: A conservation of resources perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(3), 413–432.

Appendix
Questionnaire

Distributive Justice

1. I consider my work schedule in my current organization to be fair. 2. I think that my level of pay is fair. 3. I consider my workload to be quite fair.

Procedural Justice

1. Job decisions are made in my organization in an unbiased manner. 2. My supervisor makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made. 3. To make job decisions, my supervisor collects accurate and complete information. 4. My supervisor clarifies decisions and provides additional information when requested by employees.

Interactional Justice

1. My supervisor treats me in a polite manner. 2. My supervisor treats me with respect and dignity. 3. He refrains from making improper remarks or comments.

Job Embeddedness

1. I feel attached to this organization. 2. It would be difficult for me to leave this organization. 3. I’m too caught up in this organization to leave. 4. I feel tied to this organization. 5. I simply cannot leave the organization that I work for.

OCB – O

1. I say good things about our hotel when talking with outsiders. 2. I promote the hotel’s products and services actively. 3. I protect our hotel’s property.

OCB-I

1. I help my coworkers when their workload is heavy. 2. I help my coworkers who have been absent to finish their work. 3. I take time to listen to my coworkers’ problems and worries.

OCB-C

1. I am always exceptionally courteous and respectful to customers. 2. I follow customer service guidelines with extreme care. 3. I respond to customer requests and problems in a timely manner.