International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior
Chun-Fang Chiang , Tsung-Sheng Hsieh
Department of Tourism Industry, Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Hotels are under constant pressure from the need to compete, not just the need to respond to rapid changes in the market. Hotels, moreover, must inspire their employees to perform their best and encourage employees to fulll their responsibilities as citizens. Academia and industry recognize the importance of organizational citizenship behavior. This study assessed how hotel employees perceive organizational support, psychological empowerment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job performance; and examined the causal relationships among these variables. A total of 513 employees of Taiwan hotels participated in the study. Data was analyzed through descriptive statistics, conrmatory factor analysis, and the structural equation modeling. Results indicated that perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment both positively affected organizational citizenship behavior. Perceived organizational support did not positively inuence job performance. Psychological empowerment and organizational citizenship behavior positively inuenced job performance. Organizational behavior acted as a partial mediator between perceived organizational support and job performance, as well as between psychological empowerment and job performance. A number of suggestions on theory and managerial implementation were proposed. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hotel employees Perceived organizational support Psychological empowerment Organizational citizenship behavior Job performance

1. Introduction The Taiwan hotel industry faces an increasingly competitive environment nowadays. Increasing numbers of Chinese tourists are arriving to sightsee, and the expansion of international hotel chains demands employee sacrice and diligence. Employee work attitudes and service performance are vital to achieving business objectives as well as maintaining competitive advantages and performance efciency (Karatepe and Sokmen, 2006). In addition to continuously training employees to enhance work performance, hotels must encourage certain behaviors beyond regular job functions, like helping customers resolve problems, cooperating with colleagues, preventing unexpected incidents, and paying extra attention to the organization. In other words, hotel employees not only must complete their job but also act beyond their own obligations to the hotel and others. This, in turn, improves organizational efciency (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Motivating employees to go beyond their job role has increasingly attracted scholarly attention. Self-initiated and positive employee behavior is called organi-

Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 2861 0511; fax: +886 2 2861 1402. E-mail addresses: jcf@faculty.pccu.edu.tw (C.-F. Chiang), dust71712@yahoo.com.tw (T.-S. Hsieh). 0278-4319/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.04.011

zational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Smith et al., 1983; Organ, 1988). Organ (1988) suggested that OCB effectively attributes nancial and human resources, as well as assists organizational efciency in operations. In other words, employees surpass organizational requirements, not only completing their obligations and tasks but also initiating voluntary actions beyond their work roles, making sacrices, helping others, and offering advice (Organ, 1990). Today, the hotel industry places more emphasis on service-oriented behavior, which is essentially OCB (Morrison, 1996). However, OCB is voluntary, going beyond the inuence of the formal incentive mechanism (Organ, 1988, 1990). OCB cannot be spurred by formal rewards or incentives (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997). Therefore, encouraging employees exhibiting OCB and understanding what inuences OCB are important research topics both in academia and in practice. Generally, past studies of OCB used personality traits, employee attitudes, perceptions of fairness, leader behavior, and job characteristics as antecedent variables (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Perceived organizational support (POS) was, however, a more important antecedent variable of OCB (Eisenberger et al., 1990). When employees feel the organization emphasizes employees personal contribution and welfare, they tend to develop a sense of obligation toward the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). With the sense

C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190

181

of obligation, employees not only actively seek to fulll responsibilities, but also are more likely to demonstrate OCBs beyond their job roles. When employees are willing to exhibit OCB, they take the initiative to help colleagues with heavy workloads or those who are behind schedule. This suggests that organizations should encourage employee actions from those who are not in management, allowing these employees to take responsibility and demonstrate authority in making decisions (Pitts, 2005). Past studies have focused mainly on the organizational level, the distribution of decision-making power and increasing available resources for employee action. Conger and Kanungo (1988) suggested that the focus should be psychological, i.e., psychological empowerment (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Hancer and George, 2003; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Psychological empowerment may alter an employees source of internal motivation; this feeling may boost ones personal motivation and stimulate active OCB (Yen et al., 2004). Furthermore, the feelings prompt employees dedication, as well as their determination to complete tasks, encourage problem resolution, and seek to improve overall job performance. Therefore, researchers consider psychological empowerment as one essential factor in the tourism and hospitality industry (Chiang and Jang, 2008; Hwang, 2005; Yen et al., 2004). For OCB in tourism and hospitality industry, research subjects have mainly comprised restaurant employees and student employees in university dining services (e.g., Cho and Johanson, 2008; Hwang, 2005; Koys, 2001; Ravichandran and Gilmore, 2007; Ravichandran et al., 2007; Stamper and Van Dyne, 2003; Walz and Niehoff, 2000). However, employees working at hotels face more diverse customer demographics, including foreign customers; compared to other service industries, the hotel industry requires more service professionalism and expertise, as well as service quality and job performance. Raub (2008) suggested that hotel employees should demonstrate more OCB in the workplace. Thus, among all service enterprises, the hotel industry is the one that should promote OCB among employees and make the most effective use of human and organizational resources. When employees develop OCB in the workplace, they willingly put extra effort into their work, help colleagues, and diligently seek better ways to do their work, resulting in better productivity (Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996). In fact, OCB is one indicator for evaluating job performance (MacKenzie et al., 1991; Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994), and studies conrm OCB is one attribute of good job performance (Posdakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Turnipseed & Rassuli, 2005; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996). Clearly, POS, psychological empowerment, and OCB are closely associated with job performance (Chow et al., 2006; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Liden et al., 2000; Niehoff et al., 2001; Peccei and Rosenthal, 2001; Spreitzer et al., 1997). OCB results from POS and psychological empowerment; it is, moreover, the antecedent variable for employee job performance. Perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment have been studied as antecedent variables of OCB (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Shore and Wayne, 1993; Wayne et al., 1997, 2002; Yen et al., 2004). Many scholars have studied the direct correlation between employees POS and job performance (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Shore and Wayne, 1993; Wayne et al., 2002). According to a meta-analysis study by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), employees POS correlates positively with job performance. Niehoff et al. (2001) suggested that when employees feel empowered, they realize the meaning of work and feel they can nish their work by making their own work decisions; they see their work affect the organization, which, in turn, enhances employees competence and advances job performance. Therefore, psychological empowerment and job performance correlate positively. Posdakoff and MacKenzie (1994), Turnipseed and Rassuli

(2005), and Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) all mentioned that OCB enhances organizational performance. In summary, OCB may mediate among these variables. After studying managers and employees from hotels in South Korea, Kim et al. (2009) noted that proactive behavior can affect job performance; proactive behavior is one medium between emotional competence and job performance. Thus, this research focused on Taiwan hotel employees to explore the relationship among POS, psychological empowerment, OCB, and job performance. The purposes of this study were to (1) examine the inuence of employees POS on OCB; (2) investigate the inuence of employee psychological empowerment on OCB; (3) verify the inuence of employee OCB on job performance; (4) explore the mediating effect of OCB between POS and job performance and of the inuence of psychological empowerment on job performance. 2. Literature review 2.1. Organizational citizenship behavior Smith et al. (1983, p. 653) and Katz (1964) proposed that to achieve effective organizational operation, the following three kinds of behaviors are necessary: employee willingness to remain with the organization, employee actions that surpass their job description, and employee proactive behavior beyond job responsibilities. The rst two kinds of behaviors are within employee roles, whereas the third goes beyond, to include cooperation among colleagues, self-improvement, and creating a positive organizational image. For an organization to function effectively, innovative and spontaneous behaviors are essential. These behaviors, though not required for job performance, can greatly contribute to the operation and performance of an organization. Organ (1988, p.4) dened OCB as self-initiated by employees. Although this kind of behavior can enhance the overall effectiveness of organizational functions, the formal organizational reward system does not recognize the behavior. Williams and Anderson (1991) stated that OCB refers to the proactive cooperation and assistance among coworkers; OCB for an organization, behaviors displayed by employees to make good for the organization. Various approaches assess the dimensions of OCB. Organ (1988) classied OCB into the following dimensions: (1) Altruism: taking the initiative to help members of an organization resolve problems; (2) Conscientiousness: in addition to complying with organizational rules, going beyond minimum requirements through hard work; (3) Sportsmanship: obeying organizational regulations, tolerating imperfect situations without complaint; (4) Courtesy: to avoid work problems, remind and inform other coworkers in advance; (5) Civic virtue: remaining attentive and proactive when participating in organizational activities. Podsakoff et al. (1990) also used ve dimensions to evaluate OCB. Williams and Anderson (1991) categorized OCB into two dimensions: OCB of individuals (OCB-I) and OCB toward organizations (OCB-O). Podsakoff et al. (1997) proposed three dimensions of assessment: helping behavior, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Van Dyne and LePine (1998) categorized OCB into two dimensions: helping behavior and voice behavior. As mentioned before, Podsakoff et al. (2009) pointed out that, although many researchers use different evaluative dimensions, the two most common measurement methods were the ve dimensions proposed by Organ

182

C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190

(1988, 1990), altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, civic virtue, as well as the two dimensions of OCB-O and OCB-I proposed by Williams and Anderson (1991). In terms of OCB, the tourism and hospitality industries remain in early development (Ravichandran et al., 2007). An increasing number of scholars currently are investigating OCB in the tourism and hospitality industries. Cho and Johanson (2008), Stamper and Van Dyne (2003), Koys (2001), and Walz and Niehoff (2000) made restaurant staff their research subject. Raub (2008) suggested that hotel employees should demonstrate more OCB in the workplace. 2.2. The relationships among perceived organizational support, organizational citizenship behavior and job performance The employees level of POS reects his or her innermost feelings about the organizations care and emphasis. Employees with a sense of POS feel that in circumstances where they need work or life support, the organization is willing to lend a helping hand; employees personally feel respected, cared for, and recognized, and in turn display increased cooperation, identication, diligent performance, appreciation, and reciprocity among workers. Based on the principle of reciprocity, employees with POS not only help coworkers, but also increase their own job satisfaction and organizational commitment, while reducing resignations and absenteeism, thus stimulating employee job performance (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003). Eisenberger et al. (1986) derived an employee POS from the organizations benevolent care; the more personal and humane the personnel management, the higher the level of POS employees feel. Shore and Wayne (1993) noted that POS accurately predicts employees OCB. Wayne et al. (1997) investigated the inuence of perceptions on working attitudes and behavior, discovering that when employees feel important to the organization, they tend to develop trust with their organization and become willing to offer concrete suggestions conducive to organizational growth; these kinds of self-initiated actions manifest in OCB. Existing literature denotes that POS relates signicantly to OCB (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Shore and Wayne, 1993; Wayne et al., 1997, 2002). In social exchange, POS arouses employees obligations to behave in accordance with organizational objectives. When employees feel that the organization attaches great importance to their personal values, they reciprocate via extra OCB (Moorman et al., 1998; Piercy et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Settoon et al., 1996). Based on these ideas, hypothesis one is as follows: H1. Hotel employees POS positively inuences OCB.

feel organizational support and strive to assist the organization to achieve its goals. Thus, hypothesis two is as follows: H2. Hotel employees POS positively inuences employee job performance. 2.3. The relationships among psychological empowerment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job performance In Daft (2001), empowerment involves offering employees the control, freedom, and information to participate in decisionmaking and organizational affairs. Conger and Kanungo (1988), Spreitzer (1995), and Thomas and Velthouse (1990) have shifted their focus to employees psychological aspects. They stress psychological empowerment, i.e., the degree of empowerment employees feels internally: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995). In the tourism and hospitality industries, much research has investigated employees psychological empowerment (Chiang and Jang, 2008; Liden et al., 2000; Tsaur et al., 2004). Conger and Kanungo (1988) pointed out that psychological empowerment is a type of internal motivation conducive to promoting OCB. Morrison (1996) proposed that empowerment incentivizes employees, increasing their motivation, aspirations, and demonstration of organizational citizenship; moreover, for good organizational citizenship, employees must have inuence in the fullling of their job responsibilities. Wat and Shaffer (2005) also indicated that employees psychological empowerment signicantly inuences OCB. Hofstede (1980) introduced the concept of power distance, which is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations accept and expect the power is distributed unequally. Taiwan is categorized as a long power distance country, and power distance could be a factor that inuences Taiwans hotel employees perception of psychological empowerment. Thus, the hypothesis three is as follows: H3. Hotel employees psychological empowerment positively inuences OCB. According to existing literature, psychological empowerment not only affects employee job roles but also inuences the working environment (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). If employees feel good about their jobs, they recognize the meaning of the work; similarly, if employees realize their job inuences others, they perform better. The same applies to members of an organization who have decision-making control and exibility; they tend to feel satised with life beyond work. Because employees trust their ability to nish work-related undertakings, they have less doubt about themselves and their work, enhancing job performance (Liden et al., 2000; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). Many researchers note that psychological empowerment correlates signicantly with job performance (Chow et al., 2006; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Liden et al., 2000; Niehoff et al., 2001; Peccei and Rosenthal, 2001; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Therefore, this study proposes hypothesis four: H4. Hotel employees psychological empowerment positively inuences employee job performance. 2.4. The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and job performance Babin and Boles (1996) investigated individual employee perceptions of job performance, where job performance refers to job related behavioral outcomes, employee personal productivity comparisons, job performance directs toward organizational expectations and requirements, and work behavior in accordance with organizational requirements like work quality, efciency, and awareness.

Eisenberger et al. (1990) stated that employees POS and job performance are positively related, something that many subsequent studies have already conrmed (Wayne et al., 1997, 2002). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) corroborated that employees POS may inuence job performance. Lynch et al. (1999) discovered a signicant relationship between job performance and POS. Even when employee performance is unsatisfactory, a business can improve the situation by focusing on employee needs and cares. Once employees feel organizational support, they are motivated by communal sentiments to reciprocate via quality output (Armeli et al., 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1986, 1990). As a result, employees gradually develop a sense of responsibility to enhance the performance of the organization to bring about mutual benets (Eisenberger et al., 1990). Existing research on POS and job performance, though conducted in different research areas, also suggests a signicant relationship between these two variables (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Hochwarter et al., 2006; Witt and Ferris, 2003). Additionally, Aselage and Eisenberger (2003) considered POS to be an upward-down commitment, where employees

C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190

183

In the study of Yoon and Suhs (2003), a positive correlation between OCB and customers perceived quality of service was validated by tourism employees. The latter involved employee job performance in the tourist industry; OCB positively inuenced employee job performance. Accordingly, employees OCB corresponded with increased cooperation among employees, proactive assistance in resolving problems for others, and willingness to attend and participate in organizational activities and meetings. This changed the overall state of mind and social atmosphere of the organization, further enhancing the overall employee job performance. Therefore, hypothesis ve is as follows: H5. Hotel employees OCB positively inuences employee job performance. 2.5. The mediating effects of OCB A number of researchers have found POS and job performance correlate signicantly (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Lynch et al., 1999; Wayne et al., 1997, 2002). Employees organizational support stimulates OCB (Masterson et al., 2000; Moorman et al., 1998; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Wayne et al., 1997). Even so, providing employees with psychological empowerment for superior job performance is imperative (Liden et al., 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Increasing OCB requires more psychological empowerment (Hwang, 2005; Maurer et al., 2002; Peccei and Rosenthal, 2001; Spector and Fox, 2002; Tsaur et al., 2004; Wat and Shaffer, 2005; Yen et al., 2004). Kim et al. (2009) conducted research on managers and employees in hotels in South Korea, concluding that employee proactive behavior mediated emotional competence on job performance. Chen (2008) investigated POS and job performance and revealed that high levels of employees POS produced positive OCB; moreover, OCB improved staff performance itself. Therefore, OCB mediated the relationship between POS and job performance. Podsakoff et al. (1997) proposed that by increasing the efcient use of resources, OCB supported job performance and boosted productivity. Therefore, our study will attempt to verify whether OCB is a mediator variable between POS, psychological empowerment, and job performance. Because researchers note that POS and psychological empowerment signicantly affect OCB and job performance and even propose that OCB affects individual job performance, we infer that OCB plays an intermediary role in hypotheses six and seven: H6. Through the mediating effect of OCB, the POS of hotel employees enhances job performance. H7. Through the mediating effect of OCB, the psychological empowerment of hotel employees enhances job performance. 3. Research method This research studied the relationship between hotel employees POS, psychological empowerment, organizational citizenship, and job performance from the point of view of Taiwan hotel employees. In referencing existing literature, the study established a basic research model. Fig. 1 shows that employees POS and psychological empowerment are independent variables; job performance is dependent variable; OCB is the mediator variable. The study collected data through questionnaires with ve sections: POS, psychological empowerment, organizational citizenship, job performance, and basic respondent demographic data. The survey used the seven-point Likert scale, ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree) for each scale. The 8-item scale in the POS section (e.g., Help is available from my organization when I have a problem.) is based on Rhoades et al. (2001). The 12-item scale in the psychological empowerment section (e.g., I have signicant

Fig. 1. Research model.

autonomy in determining how I do my job.) was adopted from Spreitzer (1995). The OCB scale was adopted from Podsakoff et al. with 24 items (e.g., Helps others who have heavy workloads.). The 6-item scale measuring job performance (e.g., I am effective in my job.) used the studies by Ang et al. (2003) and Kim et al. (2009). This study designed a draft questionnaire, which was examined and revised by three researchers and hotel managers, and a pilot study was conducted before data collection. A total of 130 questionnaires were distributed, and 112 were returned between December 28, 2009 and January 25, 2010, with 108 valid questionnaires collected for a response rate of 83%. A few changes in wording in the questionnaire were made based on the results of the reliability test in preparing the nal version of the survey. Using convenience sampling, researchers chose current employees from up-scale hotels to luxury hotels as research subjects. To identify participant hotels, we telephoned different hotels; in all, 26 hotels agreed to have employees ll out questionnaires received by mail and return them. The study used SPSS 12.0 for descriptive statistic analysis and reliability analysis; Amos 7.0 was used for conrmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. 4. Research ndings 4.1. Respondent prole The questionnaires were formally issued from March to April 2010. A total of 513 questionnaires were distributed, and 423 were returned. Ten questionnaires were eliminated because they were returned only partially completed, so 413 valid questionnaires were collected for a response rate of 80.5%. Table 1 shows that most respondents were females: 279 participants (67.6%). Some 213 participants (51.6%) were aged 2130, and another 140 participants were between 31 and 40 (33.9%). Education levels were mostly college (46.5%) or vocational school (28.3%). Most employees were formal hotel employees (88.4%) and had previously served in the hotel industry for more than one year but less than three years. They were mainly in three departments: front ofce, housekeeping, and food and beverage; 178 employees (43.1%) were from the food and beverage department. 4.2. Descriptive analyses As Table 2 illustrates employees perceptions about organizational care for their welfare and emphasis on their contributions was average (mean = 4.75), implying that employee perceived level of support from the hotel was not high. Hotel employees had fair agreement with psychological empowerment (Mean = 5.00), suggesting that employees felt somewhat good about being empowered. Hotel employees identied their level of OCB as somewhat agree (Mean = 5.48), reecting that employees agreed

184 Table 1 Respondents prole. Variables Gender Male Female Age 20 and below 2130 3140 4150 5160 60 and above Marriage Unmarried Married Others Education Junior high Senior high College University Graduate school Position Full-time Part-time

C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190

Sample (N = 413) 134 279 22 213 140 33 5 0 278 135 0 5 87 117 192 12 365 48

Percentage (%) 32.4 67.6 5.3 51.6 33.9 8.0 1.2 0 67.3 32.7 0 1.2 21.1 28.3 46.5 2.9 88.4 11.6

Variables

Sample (N = 413)

Percentage (%) 16.2 14.5 43.1 4.8 6.5 5.8 5.6 3.4 6.5 17.7 40.2 16.2 6.5 12.8 4.1 11.9 36.1 20.6 11.4 16.0

Department Front ofce 67 Housekeeping 60 Food and beverage 178 Administration 20 Human resource 27 Finance and sales 24 Engineering 23 Marketing and sales 14 Period working in current hotel 6 months and below 27 612 months 73 13 years 166 36 years 67 69 years 27 9 years and above 53 Period working in the hotel industry 6 months and under 17 612 months 49 13 years 149 36 years 85 69 years 47 9 years and above 66

that individuals should help new coworkers solve problems and adjust to the hotel working environment, as well as actively help with absent coworker tasks. The degree of agreement on job performance was somewhat agree (Mean = 5.27), i.e., employees somewhat agreed that individual job performance was good. The correlation between each variable was signicantly positive. The Cronbach alpha values of research variables were in the range of 0.7720.912, indicating good reliability (Nunnally, 1978). 4.3. Conrmatory factor analysis To validate the developed constructs, the research model was estimated with the conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) in which all measurement items were loaded on their expected constructs, and the constructs were correlated in the analysis (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). In the testing model for conrmatory factor analysis, all factor loadings were signicant (p < 0.001). The test result of adaptability was 2 = 3593.96, df = 1118, 2 /df = 3.21, RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) = 0.07, NFI (normed t index) = 0.78, NNFI (non-normed t index) = 0.83, and CFI (comparative t index) = 0.84, which was below the model adaptability standard suggested by Hair et al. (2006) ( 2 /df < 3, RMSEA 0.08, NFI 0.90, NNFI 0.90, CFI: higher value indicates better t). Thus, the model required some amendment. The study removed items with factor loading <0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) and cross loadings. The results for the revised testing model were 2 = 2188.99, 2 /df = 2.75, CFI = 0.90, NNFI = 0.89, and RMSEA = 0.07, indicating that the modied model achieved an acceptable standard. Table 3 shows that the composite reliability ranged from 0.77 to 0.93, or greater than the standard of 0.6. In terms of the convergent and discriminant validity of the questionnaire, the average variance
Table 2 Descriptive analyses. N = 413 Mean (S.D.)

extracted for each factor was between 0.47 and 0.71, which was either close to or higher than 0.5. Therefore, the convergent validity of the study measurement scale was acceptable (Karatepe, 2006). The square correlation coefcients of any two variables were less than the average variance extracted; in conclusion, the measurement scale had discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). 4.4. Structural equation model Lastly, the study applied a structural equation model to verify hypotheses for the causal relationships between variables. Structural equation model combines aspects of multiple regression and factor analysis to estimate a series of interrelated relationships among variables simultaneously (Hair et al., 2006). Table 4 shows 2 ) between the Full Mediation Model and that the difference ( 2 is 234.2. The indices, GFI, CFI, NNFI, and Direct Effects Model RMSEA of the Full Mediation Model indicated good adaptability, indicating that the Full Mediation Model had better adaptability than the Direct Effects Model. Next, the study compared the Partial Mediation Model to the Full Mediation Model; the difference 2 ) of 2 is 22.83. The adaptability index, GFI, CFI, NNFI, and ( RMSEA of the Partial Mediation Model demonstrated that the Partial Mediation Model exceeded the Full Mediation Model in terms of adaptability. Adaptability indices were 2 /df = 2.31, GFI = 0.819, CFI = 0.928, NNI = 0.921, and RMSEA = 0.056. The model adaptability was satisfactory, and in accordance with the studys theoretical framework. In conclusion, the Partial Mediation Model was a suitable model. Table 5 indicates the results. POS signicantly and positively affected OCB ( = 0.12, p < 0.01); thus, hotel employees POS positively related to OCB, validating Hypothesis 1. POS neg-

Cronbachs

Correlations 1 2 1 0.473** 0.452** 3 4

1. Perceived organizational support 2. Psychology empowerment 3. Organizational citizenship behavior 4. Job performance **p-Value < 0.01.

4.75 (1.06) 5.00 (0.84) 5.48 (0.69) 5.27 (0.82)

0.772 0.846 0.912 0.907

1 0.531** 0.408** 0.213**

1 0.504**

C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190 Table 3 Results of conrmation factor analysis. Items Perceived organizational support My organization cares about my opinions My organization really cares about my well-being My organization strongly considers my goals and values Help is available from my organization when I have a problem My organization would forgive an honest mistake on my part Psychology empowerment Meaning The work I do is very important to me My job activities are personally meaningful to me The work I do is meaningful to me Competence I am condent about my ability to do my job I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities I have mastered the skills necessary for my job Self-determination I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job Impact My impact on what happens in my department is large I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department I have signicant inuences over what happens in my department Organizational citizenship behavior Altruism Helps others who have heavy work loads Helps others who have been absent. Willingly helps others who have work related problems Helps orient new people even though it is not required Is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/her Courtesy Takes steps to prevent problems with other workers Is mindful of how his/her behavior affects other peoples jobs Does not abuse the rights of others Tries to avoid creating problems for coworkers Considers the impact of his/her actions on coworkers Civic virtue Attends meeting that are not mandatory, but are considered important Attends functions that are not required, but help the company image Keeps abreast of changes in the organization Reads and keeps up with organization announcements, memos, and so on Sportsmanship Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters (R) Always focuses on whats wrong, rather than the positive side (R) Tends to make mountains out of molehills (R) Always nd fault with what the organization is doing (R) Is the classic squeaky wheel that always needs greasing (R) Conscientiousness Obeys company rules and regulations even when no one is watching I am one of my most conscientious employees Believes in giving an honest days work for an honest days pay Job performance Fullling specic job responsibilities Meeting performance standards and expectations The performance level of this employee is satisfactory This employee is effective in his or her job This employee performs better than many other employees who perform the same job This employee produces high-quality work Note: R refers to reversed question items. Standardized factor loading 0.87 0.90 0.91 0.84 0.67 0.77 0.94 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.86 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.78 0.94 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.86 0.93 0.86 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.78 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.78 0.82 0.63 0.74 0.83 0.73 0.90 0.76 0.83 0.88 0.81 0.76 0.88 0.81 0.88 0.83 0.91 0.69 0.78 0.85 0.90 0.69 0.81 0.62 0.71 0.65 0.54 0.65 0.57 0.73 0.84 0.74 0.77 0.47 0.83 Composite reliability 0.92

185

Average variance extract 0.71

Table 4 Results for t indices of structural models. Model Direct Effects Model Full Mediation Model Partial Mediation Model
2 2 ***

/df (<3)

GFI (>0.9) 0.805 0.817 0.819

CFI (>0.9) 0.910 0.926 0.928

NNFI (>0.9) 0.902 0.920 0.921

RMSEA (<0.08) 0.063 0.057 0.056

2080.69 (df = 793) 1846.49*** (df = 792) 1823.66*** (df = 790)

2.62 2.33 2.31

234.2 22.83

Note: 2 presents differences between model and the following model. Fit indices criteria refers to Hair et al. (2006). *** p-Value < 0.001.

186 Table 5 Path of structural model.

C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190

Standardized path coefcients (t-value) Direct Effects Model POS JP PE JP POS OCB PE OCB OCB JP 0.10 (2.16* ) 0.64 (8.16*** ) 0.10 (2.27* ) 0.75 (10.11*** ) 0.60 (9.87*** ) Full Mediation Model Partial Mediation Model 0.13 (2.99* ) 0.42 (4.68*** ) 0.12 (2.75** ) 0.73 (9.64*** ) 0.30 (3.74*** )

Note: POS presents perceived organizational support. PE presents psychological empowerment. OCB presents organizational citizenship behavior. JP presents job performance. * p-Value < 0.05. ** p-Value < 0.01. *** p-Value < 0.001.

atively inuenced job performance ( = 0.13, p < 0.05); therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Psychological empowerment signicantly and positively affected OCB ( = 0.73, p < 0.001), thereby proving Hypothesis 3. Psychological empowerment signicantly and positively inuenced job performance ( = 0.42, p < 0.001), thus proving Hypothesis 4. OCB signicantly and positively inuenced job performance ( = 0.30, p < 0.001), hence supporting Hypothesis 5. Our study additionally used the testing approach of Baron and Kenny (1986) to examine whether OCB was a mediating variable. The procedures for regression analyses are as follows: (1) regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable; (2) regressing the mediator on the independent variable; and (3) regressing the dependent variables on the independent variable and mediator (Baron and Kenny, 1986). If the independent variable shows signicance on the mediator, the mediator shows signicance in the dependent variable, and the independent variable is not signicant on the dependent variable, there is likely a mediator between the independent variable and dependent variable (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Therefore, the study veried each hypothesis via a three-step approach: (1) the path regression between POS and job performance as well as the path regression between psychological empowerment and job performance, respectively (these results must be signicant); (2) the path regression between POS and OCB, between psychological empowerment and OCB (these results must be signicant); (3) the path regression of POS, psychological empowerment, and OCB on job performance. If POS and psychological empowerment show signicance on OCB, OCB shows signicance on job performance, and POS or psychological empowerment shows no signicance on job performance, then OCB is likely a mediator. If POS and psychological empowerment still show signicance on OCB, but the paths path coefcients are reduced, indicating OCB is a partial mediator. In other words, POS and psychological empowerment inuence job performance directly and inuence job performance indirectly through OCB. According to the direct model in Table 5, POS and psychological empowerment featured signicant path coefcients (POS JP: 0.10, p < 0.05; PE JP: 0.64, p < 0.001) on job performance, thus conrming to the rst step of Baron and Kennys test. Based on the complete mediation model in Table 5, the coefcients between POS and psychological empowerment on OCB were positive (POS OCB: 0.10, p < 0.05; PE OCB: 0.75, p < 0.001), as was the impact of OCB on job performance (OCB JP: 0.60, p < 0.001), tting the requirement in the second step of Baron and Kennys method. Lastly, the mediation model conrmed with the third step of Baron and Kennys test, indicating path coefcients of POS and psychological empowerment on OCB, path coefcients of OCB on job performance, and nally, path coefcients of POS and psychological empowerment on job performance.

From the Partial Mediation Model in Table 5, employees POS did not positively affect employee job performance ( = 0.13, p < 0.05). In fact, however, POS negatively inuenced employees OCB (0.12 0.30 = 0.04 > 0.13). The study found that OCB was a partial mediator between POS and job performance. Hotel employees POS negatively affected job performance; however, due to the inuence of POS on OCB, more employees initiated OCB, resulting in enhanced employee job performance. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was partly supported. In addition, employee psychological empowerment positively inuenced employee job performance ( = 0.42, p < 0.001). Together with the indirect impact of OCB, employee psychological empowerment positively inuenced employee job performance 0.22 (0.73 0.30), less than the direct inuence of employee psychological empowerment on job performance (0.22 < 0.42). Thus, for the effect of psychological empowerment on job performance, employee psychological empowerment did positively inuence employee job performance, as well as positively affected employees OCB, thus indirectly increasing employee job performance. The study thus validated Hypothesis 7, that OCB was the partial mediation variable. Fig. 2 shows the research ndings, and Table 6 summarizes the hypothesis results. 5. Discussion 5.1. Perceptions of POS, PE, OCB, and job performance First, for employees POS, employees did not feel strong support from hotels; hotels could do more to support employees: listening to employees opinions, caring about them. Our result supported the ndings of Susskind et al. (2000), where POS is rated only a low positive in hotels, restaurants, and retail. For employees psychological empowerment, most employees somewhat agreed that they felt empowered by the hotel in completing tasks; this conrms

Fig. 2. Path results of research model.

C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190 Table 6 Summary of hypothesis results. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 7 Hotel employees POS positively inuences OCB Hotel employees POS positively inuences employee job performance Hotel employees psychological empowerment positively inuences OCB Hotel employees psychological empowerment positively inuences employee job performance Hotel employees OCB positively inuences employee job performance Through the mediating effect of OCB, the POS of hotel employees enhances job performance Through the mediating effect of OCB, the psychological empowerment of hotel employees enhances job performance

187

Supported Not supported Supported Supported Supported Partially supported Partially supported

Chiang and Jangs studies (2008) of Taiwan hotel employees, in which the psychological empowerment of Taiwan hotel employees was not high. In terms of OCB, this study also conrmed Cho and Johansons studies (2008) on OCB of U.S. restaurant employees. Taiwan hotel employees generally consider themselves proactive in helping coworkers and participating in hotel activities. Employees somewhat agreed that they had good job performance. 5.2. The relationships among POS, psychological empowerment, and OCB The results showed that POS positively affected OCB. Once the organization emphasizes the needs and concerns of the employees, employees feel the support from the organization. Accordingly, their attitudes toward the organization may become more positive, making them more willing to expend more effort for the hotels, as well as motivating employees proactive behavior. The study ndings echoed previous research (Moorman et al., 1998; Settoon et al., 1996), that with higher POS, more employees would display OCB. According to Thomas and Velthouse (1990), psychological empowerment an internal motivator, which inspires better employee working behavior. Previous studies suggest that when the managers release control, employees need to feel empowered psychologically (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). This study indicated that employee psychological empowerment positively inuences OCB. This nding coincided with previous studies (Hwang, 2005; Morrison, 1996; Wat and Shaffer, 2005; Yen et al., 2004), indicating that employees psychological empowerment signicantly inuences OCB. Peccei and Rosenthal (2001) proposed that psychological empowerment comprises work value and selfdetermination of work, so when employees have more control and freedom in their work, they value their work, behave altruistically, thus encouraging employees to have stronger OCB. 5.3. The relationships among POS, psychological empowerment, and job performance The results of this study suggest that hotel employees POS does not positively inuence job performance (Hypothesis 2), with POS negatively inuencing job performance ( = 0.13, p < 0.01). Chow et al. (2006) had similar results. Given the existing literature, this study hypothesized that employees POS might positively inuence their job performance (Lynch et al., 1999; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Wayne et al., 1997, 2002). The unexpected result may, however, be due to suppressor variables; when the independent variable is positively associated with dependent variable, after regression analysis with another variable, a negative regression coefcient may occur due to the suppressor variable (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). According to Table 2, POS and job performance were positively correlated (correlation coefcient = 0.213), although the correlation was lower than the correlations of the other two variables with job performance. A series of regressions tested the suppressor effect (Table 7). In regression 1, POS was positively related with job

performance ( = 0.213) when POS was only the independent variable regressed to job performance. In regression 2, POS showed the negative beta coefcient ( = 0.038) when regressed with psychological empowerment. In regression 3, its beta coefcient became non-signicant when regressed with OCB to job performance. Again, the beta coefcient of POS showed negative beta coefcient when regressed with psychological empowerment and OCB to job performance in regression 4. These ndings indicated that psychological empowerment was a suppressor, suppressing the effect of POS on job performance. Therefore, POS in this study did not have a positive effect on hotel employee job performance, which conicted with previous studies (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Shore and Wayne, 1993; Wayne et al., 2002). The ndings of regressions also suggested that psychological empowerment is more inuential than POS on job performance. This study veried that employees psychological empowerment positively affected job performance. These results conrmed previous research ndings (Aryee and Chen, 2006; Hechanova et al., 2006) and were similar to Wat and Shaffer (2005). When employees personally feel that they have been given proper control from the hotel, they have more incentive to work well. Hechanova et al. (2006) noted that hotel employees psychological empowerment enhances job performance. When individuals consider their job meaningful, they tend to increase their job performance, believing that they can nish related tasks at work by themselves and having fewer doubts (Liden et al., 2000). Thus, employees psychological empowerment is important (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). 5.4. The mediating effects of OCB The study conrmed the relationship of POS and psychological empowerment on organizational citizenship, while also examining the correlation between OCB and job performance. Employees OCB positively inuenced job performance, as in previous studies (Bell and Menguc, 2002; Chien and Hung, 2008; Posdakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Yoon and Suh, 2003). Our results showed that when employees exerted themselves, giving extra attention and effort beyond their job description, human and capital resource were used most effectively. Therefore, improving the entire organizations psychological state and social environment may improve overall employee job performance. In other words, if more working behavior is self-initiated, employee job performance improves. As in Tsai et al. (2007), this study considered other manifestations of job performance improvement, including proactive assistance from individuals to their coworkers and sustained excellence. Yoon and Suh (2003) considered that customers perceived service quality can reect employees job performance in the hotel industry. This study conrmed that employees OCB correlate positively to job performance. OCB also was the partial mediator between POS and job performance; hence, hotel employees POS advances job performance through OCB. The result was comparable to Chens (2008) study on the mediator variables of OCB, noting that to reciprocate, employees with high POS develop their OCB and further contribute to job

188

C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190

Table 7 Summary results of regression of suppressor effect. Independent variable Dependent variable Regressions (n = 413) R2 (adjusted R2 ) Regression 1 POS JP Regression 2 POS PE JP Regression 3 POS OCB JP Regression 4 POS PE OCB JP Note: POS presents perceived organizational support. PE presents psychological empowerment. OCB presents organizational citizenship behavior. JP presents job performance. *p-Value < 0.05. ***p-Value < 0.001 Standardized 0.213 0.045 (0.043) 0.038 0.472 0.205 (0.201) 0.009 0.506 0.260 (0.256) 0.125 0.327 0.406 0.328 (0.323) 2.556 6.457 8.664 0.011* 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.183 10.898 0.855 0.000*** 0.725 9.073 0.469 0.000*** t-Value 4.414 p-Value .0000***

performance. Thus, to encourage good job performance, employers must rst induce employees OCB. Additionally, organizational care and emphasis on employees help encourage OCB. Hotel employees psychological empowerment stimulated job performance through the partial mediation of OCB, which was also a mediator variable between psychological empowerment and job performance. Many studies have suggested management needs to encourage employees to display OCB, so employees need to feel they have acquired power from the organization (Peccei and Rosenthal, 2001; Tsaur et al., 2004; Wat and Shaffer, 2005). In addition, high levels of psychological empowerment among employees allow quick response to customer requests, improving service effectiveness and job performance. The study conrmed that the higher the level of employees psychological empowerment, the more motivated employees are to perform well at work. Additionally, while employees have positive feelings about psychological empowerment, they are motivated to demonstrate more OCB, which in turn advances job performance. 6. Conclusion and suggestions 6.1. Conclusion This study veried POS, psychological empowerment, OCB, and job performance as the research framework. Through a literature review, we examined causal relationships among these variables. The subjects of the study were Taiwan hotel employees. The study found that employees POS and psychological empowerment both positively inuenced OCB. Employees psychological empowerment positively inuenced job performance, as did OCB. However, the assumption that employees POS positively affected job performance was not valid, for psychological empowerment was found to be a suppressor, suppressing the effect of POS on job performance. OCB had a partial mediation effect on the relationship between POS and job performance; OCB also had a partial mediation effect on the relationship between psychological empowerment and job performance. The study proved that increasing employee proactive working behavior spurred higher levels of OCB among employees by offering more attention and care to employees and giving them proper

control at work. Hotel employees willingness to demonstrate OCB is essential to better job performance. 6.2. Academic contribution and practical suggestions Although demonstrations of OCB are vital to the hotel industry, the industry itself has seldom been the focus of studies. Using hotel employees as research subjects, this study highlighted the importance of OCB in the hotel industry. In discussing existing literature, the study discovered that OCB was mostly an outcome variable, coming from many antecedent variables. The study supported past research, nding that POS and psychological empowerment are important antecedent variables of OCB. The study also concured with previous studies on the positive effect of OCB on employee job performance. One unique contribution of this study was that we investigated the relationship between POS, psychological empowerment, OCB, and job performance simultaneously; using POS and psychological empowerment as independent variables, with job performance as dependent variable to verify OCB is the partial mediator. This study provided deeper theoretical insight into OCB and its effect on POS, psychological empowerment, and job performance. The study concluded that hotel employees OCB signicantly and positively inuenced job performance. Employees willingness to show more OCB helps employees to improve job performance. The study noted that employees with more OCB can effectively accomplish their tasks; however, employees motivation from OCB depends on the degree of employees POS and psychological empowerment. Taiwan hotel employees do not have high POS because they perceive that they are not valued by the hotel management. Thus, the study suggested that to make employees feel cared for, hotels should proactively offer employee benets, protect their rights, listen to their voices, and provide training. Hotel employees face a complex and rapidly changing environment. Moreover, customer service demands immense focus and creates pressure. The study recommended hotels to provide good benets and working conditions for employees; once employees feel support from hotel management, this will elicit more OCB, improving their job performance.

C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190

189

The study discovered that hotel employee psychological empowerment is their perceived power in the workplace. To provide more psychological empowerment to employees, managers should often solicit suggestions from employees about work tasks, departmental affairs, or organizational policy. In sharing their thoughts with managers, employees may realize that they have inuence as well. Lastly, the organization should encourage employees to participate in training classes to enhance their autonomy in making astute decisions and thus enhancing their job performance. This will also reduce time wasted waiting for managerial instruction, thus improving work effectiveness and increasing employees sense of responsibility. In sum, hotel managers should communicate more with employees, listen to their voices, and establish a harmonious relationship so that employees feel important. The organization should attach importance to employee contributions and proactively provide benets to employees. Managers should allow employees real power, so employees are willing to take the initiative to solve customers and coworkers problems promptly. By exerting external inuence on employee feelings, the organization spurs employees to improve their performance. 6.3. Research limitations and future research suggestions The study suggested that compared to workers of other service industries, hotel employees have more professional knowledge and skills; thus, demonstrations of OCB are very important. The study selected Taiwan hotel employees as research subjects. Accordingly, the research ndings only apply to Taiwan hotel employees and cannot be extended to overseas employees or employees from other service industries in Taiwan. Another limitation of this study was the questionnaire distribution. Questionnaires were distributed by the hotel staff or managers of human resource department. All questionnaires were self-reported, which may have contributed toward the common method bias. The study suggested managers to evaluate employee job performance and answer survey questions, using qualitative and quantitative research methods simultaneously for future research. In this study, POS and psychological empowerment functioned as independent variables; other researchers may investigate other possible independent variables. By analyzing variable relationships, the study discovered a signicant correlation between POS and psychological empowerment; however, this relationship requires further clarication. One assumption concerning their relationship is that, after the organization provides employee autonomy, employees may sense organizational support. Another explanation may be that, after employees feel organizational support, they feel empowered. Future studies should investigate the relationship between these variables. Finally, the research studied Taiwan hotel employees; however, hotel employees from other cultures and identities may reect different psychological perceptions. Thus, cultural differences should be analyzed to obtain thorough comparisons. References
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Begley, T.M., 2003. The employment relationships of foreign workers versus local employees: a eld study of organizational justice, job satisfaction, performance, and OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (5), 561583. Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., Lynch, P., 1998. Perceived organizational support and police performance: the moderating inuence of socioemotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (2), 288297. Aryee, S., Chen, Z.X., 2006. Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Research 59 (7), 793801. Aselage, J., Eisenberger, R., 2003. Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: a theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (5), 491509.

Babin, B.J., Boles, J.S., 1996. The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing 72 (1), 5775. Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1), 7494. Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173 1182. Bell, S.J., Menguc, B., 2002. The employeeorganization relationship, organizational citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality. Journal of Retailing 78 (2), 131146. Chen, C.C., 2008. Test of a mediating model linking perceived organizational support and job performance. Journal of Management (Taiwan) 25 (3), 309331 (in Chinese). Chiang, C.F., Jang, S., 2008. The antecedents and consequences of psychological empowerment: the case of Taiwans hotel companies. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 32 (1), 4061. Chien, C.C., Hung, S.T., 2008. Goal orientation, service behavior and service performance. Asia Pacic Management Review 13 (2), 513529. Cho, S., Johanson, M.M., 2008. Organizational citizenship behavior and employee performance: a moderating effect of work status in restaurant employees. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 32 (3), 307326. Chow, I.H.S., Lo, T.W.C., Sha, Z., Hong, J., 2006. The impact of developmental experience, empowerment, and organizational support on catering service staff performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 25 (3), 478 495. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, Hillsdal. Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N., 1988. The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. The Academy of Management Review 13 (3), 471482. Daft, R.L., 2001. Organizational Theory and Design. South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., Davis-LaMastro, V., 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology 75 (1), 5159. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., Sowa, D., 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3), 500507. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1), 3950. Gerbing, D.W., Anderson, J.C., 1988. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research 25, 186192. Hair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hancer, M., George, R.T., 2003. Psychological empowerment of non-supervisory employees working in full-service restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management 22 (1), 316. Hechanova, M.R.M., Alampay, R.B.A., Franco, E.P., 2006. Psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and performance among Filipino service workers. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 9 (1), 7278. Hochwarter, W.A., Witt, L.A., Treadway, D.C., Ferris, G.R., 2006. The interaction of social skill and organizational support on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (2), 482489. Hofstede, G., 1980. Cultures Consequences: International Differences in WorkRelated Values. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hwang, P.C., 2005. The effects of transformational and transactional leader behaviors on psychological empowerment and service oriented citizenship behaviors: a model and test of potential differences between full-time and part-time restaurant employees. Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies 11 (3), 233258 (in Chinese). Karatepe, O.M., 2006. Customer complaints and organizational responses: the effects of complainants perceptions of justice on satisfaction and loyalty. International Journal of Hospitality Management 25 (1), 6990. Karatepe, O.M., Sokmen, A., 2006. The effects of work role and family role variables on psychological and behavioral outcomes of frontline employees. Tourism Management 27 (2), 255268. Katz, D., 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science 9 (2), 131146. Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., 1999. Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal 42 (1), 5874. Kim, T.Y., Cable, D.M., Kim, S.P., Wang, J., 2009. Emotional competence and work performance: the mediating effect of proactivity and the moderating effect of job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30 (7), 9831000. Koys, D.J., 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology 54 (1), 101114. Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Sparrowe, R.T., 2000. An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (3), 407416. Lynch, P.D., Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., 1999. Perceived organizational support: inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (4), 467483.

190

C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180190 Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N., Liden, R.C., 1996. Social exchange in organizations: perceived organizational support, leadermember exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (3), 219227. Shore, L.M., Wayne, S.J., 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (5), 774780. Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., Near, J.P., 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68 (4), 653663. Spector, P.E., Fox, S., 2002. An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review 12 (2), 269292. Spreitzer, G.M., 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal 38 (5), 14421465. Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A., Nason, S.W., 1997. A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management 23 (5), 679704. Stajkovic, A.D., Luthans, F., 1998. Self-efcacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 124 (2), 240261. Stamper, C.L., Van Dyne, L., 2003. Organizational citizenship: a comparison between part-time and full-time service employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 44 (1), 3342. Susskind, A.M., Borchgrevink, C.P., Kacmar, K.M., Brymer, R.A., 2000. Customer service employees behavioral intentions and attitudes: an examination of construct validity and a path model. International Journal of Hospitality Management 19 (1), 5377. Thomas, K.W., Velthouse, B.A., 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: an Interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. The Academy of Management Review 15 (4), 666681. Tsai, W.C., Chen, C.C., Liu, H.L., 2007. Test of a model linking employee positive moods and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (6), 15701583. Tsaur, S.H., Chang, H.M., Wu, C.S., 2004. Promoting service quality with employee empowerment in tourist hotels: the role of service behavior. Asia Pacic Management Review 9 (3), 435461. Turnipseed, D.L., Rassuli, A., 2005. Performance perceptions of organizational citizenship behaviours at work: a bi-level study among managers and employees. British Journal of Management 16 (3), 231244. Van Dyne, L., LePine, J.A., 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity. The Academy of Management Journal 41 (1), 108119. Van Scotter, J.R., Motowidlo, S.J., 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (5), 525531. Walz, S.M., Niehoff, B.P., 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 24 (3), 301319. Wat, D., Shaffer, M.A., 2005. Equity and relationship quality inuences on organizational citizenship behaviors: the mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review 34 (4), 406422. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H., Tetrick, L.E., 2002. The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leadermember exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3), 590598. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Liden, R.C., 1997. Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: a social exchange perspective. The Academy of Management Journal 40 (1), 82111. Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17 (3), 601617. Witt, L.A., Ferris, G.R., 2003. Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousnessperformance relationship: convergent results across four studies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 809821. Yen, R.H.J., Lin, Y.L., Tai, S.H., 2004. The impacts of service climate on service-oriented citizenship behavior the mediating roles of psychological empowerment and role denition. Management Review 23 (1), 2548 (in Chinese). Yoon, M.H., Suh, J., 2003. Organizational citizenship behaviors and service quality as external effectiveness of contact employees. Journal of Business Research 56 (8), 597611.

MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., Fetter, R., 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (1), 123150. Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., Taylor, M.S., 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. The Academy of Management Journal 43 (4), 738748. Maurer, T.J., Pierce, H.R., Shore, L.M., 2002. Perceived beneciary of employee development activity: a three-dimensional social exchange model. The Academy of Management Review 27 (3), 432444. Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L., Niehoff, B.P., 1998. Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? The Academy of Management Journal 41 (3), 351357. Morrison, E.W., 1996. Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM practices and service quality. Human Resource Management 35 (4), 493512. Motowidlo, S.J., Van Scotter, J.R., 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (4), 475480. Niehoff, B.P., Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G., Fuller, J., 2001. The inuence of empowerment and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment. Group Organization Management 26 (1), 93113. Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: the Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Organ, D.W., 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior 12, 4372. Peccei, R., Rosenthal, P., 2001. Delivering customer-oriented behavior through empowerment: an empirical test of HRM assumptions. Journal of Management Studies 38 (6), 831857. Piercy, N., Cravens, D., Lane, N., Vorhies, D., 2006. Driving organizational citizenship behaviors and salesperson in-role behavior performance: the role of management control and perceived organizational support. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (2), 244262. Pitts, D.W., 2005. Leadership, empowerment, and public organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration 25 (1), 528. Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., Blume, B.D., 2009. Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (1), 122141. Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., MacKenzie, S.B., 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (2), 262270. Posdakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., 1994. Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (3), 351363. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., 1997. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: a review and suggestion for future research. Human Performance 10 (2), 133151. 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. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., Bachrach, D.G., 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26 (3), 513563. Raub, S., 2008. Does bureaucracy kill individual initiative? The impact of structure on organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 179186. Ravichandran, S., Gilmore, S.A., 2007. Formation of organizational citizenship behaviors in students employed in university dinging services: impact of manager and co-worker behaviors. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 10 (2), 1950. Ravichandran, S., Gilmore, S.A., Strohbehn, C., 2007. Organizational citizenship behavior research in hospitality current status and future research directions. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism 6 (2), 5978. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., 2002. Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4), 698714. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., 2001. Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (5), 825836.