2. C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180–190 181
of obligation, employees not only actively seek to fulfill responsi-
bilities, but also are more likely to demonstrate OCBs beyond their
job roles.
When employees are willing to exhibit OCB, they take the ini-
tiative to help colleagues with heavy workloads or those who are
behind schedule. This suggests that organizations should encour-
age 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 one’s personal motivation and stimulate active OCB (Yen
et al., 2004). Furthermore, the feelings prompt employees’ dedica-
tion, 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 sub-
jects 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 cus-
tomers; 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 eval-
uating job performance (MacKenzie et al., 1991; Motowidlo and
Van Scotter, 1994), and studies confirm 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 psycho-
logical empowerment; it is, moreover, the antecedent variable for
employee job performance.
Perceived organizational support and psychological empow-
erment 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 perfor-
mance (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 finish 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 pos-
itively. 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 perfor-
mance.
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 influence of employees’ POS on OCB; (2) investigate
the influence of employee psychological empowerment on OCB;
(3) verify the influence of employee OCB on job performance; (4)
explore the mediating effect of OCB between POS and job perfor-
mance and of the influence 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 responsi-
bilities. The first two kinds of behaviors are within employee roles,
whereas the third goes beyond, to include cooperation among col-
leagues, 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 opera-
tion and performance of an organization. Organ (1988, p.4) defined
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)
classified OCB into the following dimensions:
(1) Altruism: taking the initiative to help members of an organiza-
tion resolve problems;
(2) Conscientiousness: in addition to complying with organiza-
tional 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 participat-
ing in organizational activities.
Podsakoff et al. (1990) also used five dimensions to evaluate
OCB. Williams and Anderson (1991) categorized OCB into two
dimensions: OCB of individuals (OCB-I) and OCB toward organiza-
tions (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 dimen-
sions: 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 mea-
surement methods were the five dimensions proposed by Organ
3. 182 C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180–190
(1988, 1990), altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, cour-
tesy, 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 reflects his or her innermost
feelings about the organization’s 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 recog-
nized, and in turn display increased cooperation, identification,
diligent performance, appreciation, and reciprocity among work-
ers. 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 organization’s
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 influence 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 significantly to OCB
(Eisenberger et al., 1990; Shore and Wayne, 1993; Wayne et al.,
1997, 2002). In social exchange, POS arouses employees’ obliga-
tions 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 influences OCB.
Eisenberger et al. (1990) stated that employees’ POS and job
performance are positively related, something that many subse-
quent studies have already confirmed (Wayne et al., 1997, 2002).
Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) corroborated that employees’ POS
may influence job performance. Lynch et al. (1999) discovered a sig-
nificant 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 com-
munal sentiments to reciprocate via quality output (Armeli et al.,
1998; Eisenberger et al., 1986, 1990).
As a result, employees gradually develop a sense of responsibil-
ity to enhance the performance of the organization to bring about
mutual benefits (Eisenberger et al., 1990). Existing research on POS
and job performance, though conducted in different research areas,
also suggests a significant relationship between these two variables
(Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Hochwarter et al., 2006; Witt and
Ferris, 2003). Additionally, Aselage and Eisenberger (2003) consid-
ered POS to be an upward-down commitment, where employees
feel organizational support and strive to assist the organization to
achieve its goals. Thus, hypothesis two is as follows:
H2. Hotel employees’ POS positively influences employee job per-
formance.
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 decision-
making and organizational affairs. Conger and Kanungo (1988),
Spreitzer (1995), and Thomas and Velthouse (1990) have shifted
their focus to employees’ psychological aspects. They stress psycho-
logical empowerment, i.e., the degree of empowerment employees
feels internally: meaning, competence, self-determination, and
impact (Spreitzer, 1995). In the tourism and hospitality indus-
tries, 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 psycho-
logical 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 influence in
the fulfilling of their job responsibilities. Wat and Shaffer (2005)
also indicated that employees’ psychological empowerment sig-
nificantly influences OCB. Hofstede (1980) introduced the concept
of power distance, which is the extent to which the less pow-
erful members of organizations accept and expect the power is
distributed unequally. Taiwan is categorized as a long power dis-
tance country, and power distance could be a factor that influences
Taiwan’s hotel employee’s perception of psychological empower-
ment. Thus, the hypothesis three is as follows:
H3. Hotel employees’ psychological empowerment positively
influences OCB.
According to existing literature, psychological empowerment
not only affects employee job roles but also influences the work-
ing 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 influences others,
they perform better. The same applies to members of an orga-
nization who have decision-making control and flexibility; they
tend to feel satisfied with life beyond work. Because employees
trust their ability to finish work-related undertakings, they have
less doubt about themselves and their work, enhancing job per-
formance (Liden et al., 2000; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). Many
researchers note that psychological empowerment correlates sig-
nificantly 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 pro-
poses hypothesis four:
H4. Hotel employees’ psychological empowerment positively
influences employee job performance.
2.4. The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior
and job performance
Babin and Boles (1996) investigated individual employee per-
ceptions of job performance, where job performance refers to
job related behavioral outcomes, employee personal productiv-
ity comparisons, job performance directs toward organizational
expectations and requirements, and work behavior in accordance
with organizational requirements like work quality, efficiency, and
awareness.
4. C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180–190 183
In the study of Yoon and Suh’s (2003), a positive correlation
between OCB and customers’ perceived quality of service was val-
idated by tourism employees. The latter involved employee job
performance in the tourist industry; OCB positively influenced
employee job performance. Accordingly, employees’ OCB corre-
sponded 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 per-
formance. Therefore, hypothesis five is as follows:
H5. Hotel employees’ OCB positively influences employee job per-
formance.
2.5. The mediating effects of OCB
A number of researchers have found POS and job performance
correlate significantly (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Lynch et al., 1999;
Wayne et al., 1997, 2002). Employees’ organizational support stim-
ulates 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 behav-
ior 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 effi-
cient 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 empow-
erment, and job performance. Because researchers note that POS
and psychological empowerment significantly 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 employ-
ees 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 employ-
ees. In referencing existing literature, the study established a basic
research model. Fig. 1 shows that employees’ POS and psycho-
logical empowerment are independent variables; job performance
is dependent variable; OCB is the mediator variable. The study
collected data through questionnaires with five sections: POS,
psychological empowerment, organizational citizenship, job per-
formance, 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 significant
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 ques-
tionnaire were made based on the results of the reliability test in
preparing the final 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 fill out question-
naires 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 confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation
modeling.
4. Research findings
4.1. Respondent profile
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 par-
ticipants (51.6%) were aged 21–30, 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 office, housekeep-
ing, 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 organiza-
tional 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 identified their level of OCB as
“somewhat agree” (Mean = 5.48), reflecting that employees agreed
5. 184 C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180–190
Table 1
Respondents’ profile.
Variables Sample (N = 413) Percentage (%) Variables Sample (N = 413) Percentage (%)
Gender Department
Male 134 32.4 Front office 67 16.2
Female 279 67.6 Housekeeping 60 14.5
Age Food and beverage 178 43.1
20 and below 22 5.3 Administration 20 4.8
21–30 213 51.6 Human resource 27 6.5
31–40 140 33.9 Finance and sales 24 5.8
41–50 33 8.0 Engineering 23 5.6
51–60 5 1.2 Marketing and sales 14 3.4
60 and above 0 0 Period working in current hotel
Marriage 6 months and below 27 6.5
Unmarried 278 67.3 6–12 months 73 17.7
Married 135 32.7 1–3 years 166 40.2
Others 0 0 3–6 years 67 16.2
Education 6–9 years 27 6.5
Junior high 5 1.2 9 years and above 53 12.8
Senior high 87 21.1 Period working in the hotel industry
College 117 28.3 6 months and under 17 4.1
University 192 46.5 6–12 months 49 11.9
Graduate school 12 2.9 1–3 years 149 36.1
Position 3–6 years 85 20.6
Full-time 365 88.4 6–9 years 47 11.4
Part-time 48 11.6 9 years and above 66 16.0
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 per-
formance was “somewhat agree” (Mean = 5.27), i.e., employees
somewhat agreed that individual job performance was good. The
correlation between each variable was significantly positive. The
Cronbach alpha values of research variables were in the range of
0.772–0.912, indicating good reliability (Nunnally, 1978).
4.3. Confirmatory factor analysis
To validate the developed constructs, the research model was
estimated with the confirmatory 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 confirmatory factor anal-
ysis, all factor loadings were significant (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 fit
index) = 0.78, NNFI (non-normed fit index) = 0.83, and CFI (com-
parative fit 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 fit). Thus,
the model required some amendment. The study removed items
with factor loading 0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) and cross load-
ings. 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 modified 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
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 coefficients of any two variables were less
than the average variance extracted; in conclusion, the measure-
ment 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. Struc-
tural 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
that the difference (2) between the Full Mediation Model and
Direct Effects Model 2 is 234.2. The indices, GFI, CFI, NNFI, and
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 Par-
tial 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 Par-
tial 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 adaptabil-
ity was satisfactory, and in accordance with the study’s theoretical
framework.
In conclusion, the Partial Mediation Model was a suitable
model. Table 5 indicates the results. POS significantly and pos-
itively affected OCB (ˇ = 0.12, p 0.01); thus, hotel employees’
POS positively related to OCB, validating Hypothesis 1. POS neg-
Table 2
Descriptive analyses.
N = 413 Mean (S.D.) Cronbach’s ˛ Correlations
1 2 3 4
1. Perceived organizational support 4.75 (1.06) 0.772 1
2. Psychology empowerment 5.00 (0.84) 0.846 0.531**
1
3. Organizational citizenship behavior 5.48 (0.69) 0.912 0.408**
0.473**
1
4. Job performance 5.27 (0.82) 0.907 0.213**
0.452**
0.504**
1
**p-Value 0.01.
6. C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180–190 185
Table 3
Results of confirmation factor analysis.
Items Standardized factor
loading
Composite
reliability
Average variance
extract
Perceived organizational support 0.92 0.71
My organization cares about my opinions 0.87
My organization really cares about my well-being 0.90
My organization strongly considers my goals and values 0.91
Help is available from my organization when I have a problem 0.84
My organization would forgive an honest mistake on my part 0.67
Psychology empowerment 0.77 0.47
Meaning 0.94 0.83
The work I do is very important to me 0.87
My job activities are personally meaningful to me 0.93
The work I do is meaningful to me 0.93
Competence 0.87 0.77
I am confident about my ability to do my job 0.86
I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities 0.89
I have mastered the skills necessary for my job 0.88
Self-determination 0.90 0.74
I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work 0.92
I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job 0.78
Impact 0.94 0.84
My impact on what happens in my department is large 0.90
I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department 0.92
I have significant influences over what happens in my department 0.93
Organizational citizenship behavior 0.86 0.57
Altruism 0.93 0.73
Helps others who have heavy work loads 0.86
Helps others who have been absent. 0.82
Willingly helps others who have work related problems 0.86
Helps orient new people even though it is not required 0.86
Is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/her 0.87
Courtesy 0.90 0.65
Takes steps to prevent problems with other workers 0.78
Is mindful of how his/her behavior affects other people’s jobs 0.83
Does not abuse the rights of others 0.82
Tries to avoid creating problems for coworkers 0.81
Considers the impact of his/her actions on coworkers 0.78
Civic virtue 0.82 0.54
Attends meeting that are not mandatory, but are considered important 0.63
Attends functions that are not required, but help the company image 0.74
Keeps abreast of changes in the organization 0.83
Reads and keeps up with organization announcements, memos, and so on 0.73
Sportsmanship 0.90 0.65
Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters (R) 0.76
Always focuses on what’s wrong, rather than the positive side (R) 0.83
Tends to make “mountains out of molehills” (R) 0.88
Always find fault with what the organization is doing (R) 0.81
Is the classic “squeaky wheel” that always needs greasing (R) 0.76
Conscientiousness 0.88 0.71
Obeys company rules and regulations even when no one is watching 0.81
I am one of my most conscientious employees 0.88
Believes in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay 0.83
Job performance 0.91 0.62
Fulfilling specific job responsibilities 0.69
Meeting performance standards and expectations 0.78
The performance level of this employee is satisfactory 0.85
This employee is effective in his or her job 0.90
This employee performs better than many other employees who perform the same job 0.69
This employee produces high-quality work 0.81
Note: R refers to reversed question items.
Table 4
Results for fit indices of structural models.
Model 2
2
/df (3) 2
GFI (0.9) CFI (0.9) NNFI (0.9) RMSEA (0.08)
Direct Effects Model 2080.69***
(df = 793) 2.62 – 0.805 0.910 0.902 0.063
Full Mediation Model 1846.49***
(df = 792) 2.33 234.2 0.817 0.926 0.920 0.057
Partial Mediation Model 1823.66***
(df = 790) 2.31 22.83 0.819 0.928 0.921 0.056
Note:
2
presents differences between model and the following model.
Fit indices criteria refers to Hair et al. (2006).
***
p-Value 0.001.
7. 186 C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180–190
Table 5
Path of structural model.
Standardized path coefficients (t-value)
Direct Effects Model Full Mediation Model Partial Mediation Model
POS → JP −0.10 (−2.16*
) −0.13 (−2.99*
)
PE → JP 0.64 (8.16***
) 0.42 (4.68***
)
POS → OCB 0.10 (2.27*
) 0.12 (2.75**
)
PE → OCB 0.75 (10.11***
) 0.73 (9.64***
)
OCB → JP 0.60 (9.87***
) 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 influenced job performance (ˇ = −0.13, p 0.05); therefore,
Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Psychological empowerment sig-
nificantly and positively affected OCB (ˇ = 0.73, p 0.001), thereby
proving Hypothesis 3. Psychological empowerment significantly
and positively influenced job performance (ˇ = 0.42, p 0.001),
thus proving Hypothesis 4. OCB significantly and positively influ-
enced job performance (ˇ = 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 vari-
able. 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 significance on the mediator, the mediator shows signifi-
cance in the dependent variable, and the independent variable is
not significant on the dependent variable, there is likely a mediator
between the independent variable and dependent variable (Baron
and Kenny, 1986). Therefore, the study verified each hypothesis
via a three-step approach: (1) the path regression between POS
and job performance as well as the path regression between psy-
chological empowerment and job performance, respectively (these
results must be significant); (2) the path regression between POS
and OCB, between psychological empowerment and OCB (these
results must be significant); (3) the path regression of POS, psy-
chological empowerment, and OCB on job performance. If POS and
psychological empowerment show significance on OCB, OCB shows
significance on job performance, and POS or psychological empow-
erment shows no significance on job performance, then OCB is
likely a mediator. If POS and psychological empowerment still show
significance on OCB, but the path’s path coefficients are reduced,
indicating OCB is a partial mediator. In other words, POS and psy-
chological empowerment influence job performance directly and
influence job performance indirectly through OCB.
According to the direct model in Table 5, POS and psychologi-
cal empowerment featured significant path coefficients (POS → JP:
−0.10, p 0.05; PE → JP: 0.64, p 0.001) on job performance, thus
confirming to the first step of Baron and Kenny’s test. Based
on the complete mediation model in Table 5, the coefficients
between POS and psychological empowerment on OCB were pos-
itive (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),
fitting the requirement in the second step of Baron and Kenny’s
method. Lastly, the mediation model confirmed with the third step
of Baron and Kenny’s test, indicating path coefficients of POS and
psychological empowerment on OCB, path coefficients of OCB on
job performance, and finally, path coefficients of POS and psycho-
logical empowerment on job performance.
From the Partial Mediation Model in Table 5, employees’ POS
did not positively affect employee job performance (ˇ = −0.13,
p 0.05). In fact, however, POS negatively influenced 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 influence of POS on OCB,
more employees initiated OCB, resulting in enhanced employee
job performance. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was partly supported. In addi-
tion, employee psychological empowerment positively influenced
employee job performance (ˇ = 0.42, p 0.001). Together with the
indirect impact of OCB, employee psychological empowerment
positively influenced employee job performance 0.22 (0.73 × 0.30),
less than the direct influence of employee psychological empow-
erment on job performance (0.22 0.42). Thus, for the effect of
psychological empowerment on job performance, employee psy-
chological empowerment did positively influence employee job
performance, as well as positively affected employee’s OCB, thus
indirectly increasing employee job performance. The study thus
validated Hypothesis 7, that OCB was the partial mediation vari-
able. Fig. 2 shows the research findings, 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 findings of Susskind et al. (2000), where POS is rated only a
low positive in hotels, restaurants, and retail. For employees’ psy-
chological empowerment, most employees somewhat agreed that
they felt empowered by the hotel in completing tasks; this confirms
Fig. 2. Path results of research model.
8. C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180–190 187
Table 6
Summary of hypothesis results.
Hypothesis 1 Hotel employees’ POS positively influences OCB Supported
Hypothesis 2 Hotel employees’ POS positively influences employee job performance Not supported
Hypothesis 3 Hotel employees’ psychological empowerment positively influences OCB Supported
Hypothesis 4 Hotel employees’ psychological empowerment positively influences employee job performance Supported
Hypothesis 5 Hotel employees’ OCB positively influences employee job performance Supported
Hypothesis 6 Through the mediating effect of OCB, the POS of hotel employees enhances job performance Partially supported
Hypothesis 7 Through the mediating effect of OCB, the psychological empowerment of hotel employees enhances job performance Partially supported
Chiang and Jang’s 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 confirmed Cho and Johanson’s
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 some-
what 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 employ-
ees, employees feel the support from the organization. Accordingly,
their attitudes toward the organization may become more pos-
itive, making them more willing to expend more effort for the
hotels, as well as motivating employees’ proactive behavior. The
study findings 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), psychologi-
cal empowerment an internal motivator, which inspires better
employee working behavior. Previous studies suggest that when
the managers release control, employees need to feel empow-
ered psychologically (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). This study
indicated that employee psychological empowerment positively
influences OCB. This finding coincided with previous studies
(Hwang, 2005; Morrison, 1996; Wat and Shaffer, 2005; Yen et al.,
2004), indicating that employees’ psychological empowerment sig-
nificantly influences OCB. Peccei and Rosenthal (2001) proposed
that psychological empowerment comprises work value and self-
determination 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 influence job performance (Hypothesis 2), with POS
negatively influencing job performance (ˇ = −0.13, p 0.01). Chow
et al. (2006) had similar results.
Given the existing literature, this study hypothesized that
employees’ POS might positively influence their job performance
(Lynch et al., 1999; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Wayne et al.,
1997, 2002). The unexpected result may, however, be due to sup-
pressor variables; when the independent variable is positively
associated with dependent variable, after regression analysis with
another variable, a negative regression coefficient may occur due
to the suppressor variable (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). According to
Table 2, POS and job performance were positively correlated (cor-
relation coefficient = 0.213), although the correlation was lower
than the correlations of the other two variables with job per-
formance. A series of regressions tested the suppressor effect
(Table 7). In regression 1, POS was positively related with job
performance (ˇ = 0.213) when POS was only the independent vari-
able regressed to job performance. In regression 2, POS showed
the negative beta coefficient (ˇ = −0.038) when regressed with
psychological empowerment. In regression 3, its beta coefficient
became non-significant when regressed with OCB to job perfor-
mance. Again, the beta coefficient of POS showed negative beta
coefficient when regressed with psychological empowerment and
OCB to job performance in regression 4. These findings 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 conflicted with previous studies (Eisenberger et al., 1990;
Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Shore and Wayne, 1993; Wayne
et al., 2002). The findings of regressions also suggested that psy-
chological empowerment is more influential than POS on job
performance.
This study verified that employees’ psychological empower-
ment positively affected job performance. These results confirmed
previous research findings (Aryee and Chen, 2006; Hechanova et al.,
2006) and were similar to Wat and Shaffer (2005). When employ-
ees 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, believ-
ing that they can finish 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 confirmed the relationship of POS and psychological
empowerment on organizational citizenship, while also examin-
ing the correlation between OCB and job performance. Employees’
OCB positively influenced job performance, as in previous stud-
ies (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 organi-
zation’s 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 reflect employees’ job performance in the hotel industry. This
study confirmed that employees’ OCB correlate positively to job
performance.
OCB also was the partial mediator between POS and job per-
formance; hence, hotel employees’ POS advances job performance
through OCB. The result was comparable to Chen’s (2008) study on
the mediator variables of OCB, noting that to reciprocate, employ-
ees with high POS develop their OCB and further contribute to job
9. 188 C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180–190
Table 7
Summary results of regression of suppressor effect.
Independent variable Dependent variable Regressions (n = 413)
R2
(adjusted R2
) Standardized ˇ t-Value p-Value
Regression 1
POS 0.213 4.414 .0000***
JP 0.045 (0.043)
Regression 2
POS −0.038 −0.725 0.469
PE 0.472 9.073 0.000***
JP 0.205 (0.201)
Regression 3
POS 0.009 0.183 0.855
OCB 0.506 10.898 0.000***
JP 0.260 (0.256)
Regression 4
POS −0.125 −2.556 0.011*
PE 0.327 6.457 0.000***
OCB 0.406 8.664 0.000***
JP 0.328 (0.323)
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
performance. Thus, to encourage good job performance, employers
must first 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 confirmed
that the higher the level of employees’ psychological empower-
ment, the more motivated employees are to perform well at work.
Additionally, while employees have positive feelings about psycho-
logical empowerment, they are motivated to demonstrate more
OCB, which in turn advances job performance.
6. Conclusion and suggestions
6.1. Conclusion
This study verified 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 influenced OCB. Employees’ psychological empower-
ment positively influenced job performance, as did OCB. However,
the assumption that employees’ POS positively affected job perfor-
mance 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 offer-
ing 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 impor-
tance 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, finding 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 empow-
erment, 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 perfor-
mance.
The study concluded that hotel employees’ OCB significantly
and positively influenced 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 benefits, protect their rights, lis-
ten 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 benefits and working con-
ditions for employees; once employees feel support from hotel
management, this will elicit more OCB, improving their job per-
formance.
10. C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180–190 189
The study discovered that hotel employee psychological
empowerment is their perceived power in the workplace. To
provide more psychological empowerment to employees, man-
agers 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 influence as well. Lastly, the organization should encour-
age 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 rela-
tionship so that employees feel important. The organization should
attach importance to employee contributions and proactively pro-
vide benefits to employees. Managers should allow employees real
power, so employees are willing to take the initiative to solve cus-
tomers and coworkers’ problems promptly. By exerting external
influence 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 findings 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 dis-
tribution. 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 qualita-
tive and quantitative research methods simultaneously for future
research. In this study, POS and psychological empowerment func-
tioned as independent variables; other researchers may investigate
other possible independent variables.
By analyzing variable relationships, the study discovered a
significant correlation between POS and psychological empow-
erment; however, this relationship requires further clarification.
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
reflect different psychological perceptions. Thus, cultural differ-
ences should be analyzed to obtain thorough comparisons.
References
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Begley, T.M., 2003. The employment relationships of for-
eign workers versus local employees: a field study of organizational justice, job
satisfaction, performance, and OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (5),
561–583.
Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., Lynch, P., 1998. Perceived organizational sup-
port and police performance: the moderating influence of socioemotional needs.
Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (2), 288–297.
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), 793–801.
Aselage, J., Eisenberger, R., 2003. Perceived organizational support and psychological
contracts: a theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (5),
491–509.
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 satis-
faction. Journal of Retailing 72 (1), 57–75.
Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1), 74–94.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinc-
tion 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 employee–organization relationship, organizational
citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality. Journal of Retailing 78 (2),
131–146.
Chen, C.C., 2008. Test of a mediating model linking perceived organizational sup-
port and job performance. Journal of Management (Taiwan) 25 (3), 309–331 (in
Chinese).
Chiang, C.F., Jang, S., 2008. The antecedents and consequences of psychological
empowerment: the case of Taiwan’s hotel companies. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research 32 (1), 40–61.
Chien, C.C., Hung, S.T., 2008. Goal orientation, service behavior and service perfor-
mance. Asia Pacific Management Review 13 (2), 513–529.
Cho, S., Johanson, M.M., 2008. Organizational citizenship behavior and employee
performance: a moderating effect of work status in restaurant employees. Jour-
nal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 32 (3), 307–326.
Chow, I.H.S., Lo, T.W.C., Sha, Z., Hong, J., 2006. The impact of developmental expe-
rience, 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), 471–482.
Daft, R.L., 2001. Organizational Theory and Design. South-Western College Publish-
ing, Cincinnati, OH.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., Davis-LaMastro, V., 1990. Perceived organizational sup-
port and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied
Psychology 75 (1), 51–59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., Sowa, D., 1986. Perceived organiza-
tional support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3), 500–507.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1), 39–50.
Gerbing, D.W., Anderson, J.C., 1988. An updated paradigm for scale develop-
ment incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing
Research 25, 186–192.
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 Hospi-
tality Management 22 (1), 3–16.
Hechanova, M.R.M., Alampay, R.B.A., Franco, E.P., 2006. Psychological empower-
ment, job satisfaction and performance among Filipino service workers. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology 9 (1), 72–78.
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), 482–489.
Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-
Related Values. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hwang, P.C., 2005. The effects of transformational and transactional leader behav-
iors on psychological empowerment and service oriented citizenship behaviors:
a model and test of potential differences between full-time and part-time restau-
rant employees. Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies 11 (3), 233–258 (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), 69–90.
Karatepe, O.M., Sokmen, A., 2006. The effects of work role and family role vari-
ables on psychological and behavioral outcomes of frontline employees. Tourism
Management 27 (2), 255–268.
Katz, D., 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science
9 (2), 131–146.
Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., 1999. Beyond self-management: antecedents and conse-
quences of team empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal 42 (1),
58–74.
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), 983–1000.
Koys, D.J., 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship
behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitu-
dinal study. Personnel Psychology 54 (1), 101–114.
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, interper-
sonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (3),
407–416.
Lynch, P.D., Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., 1999. Perceived organizational support:
inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology 84 (4), 467–483.
11. 190 C.-F. Chiang, T.-S. Hsieh / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 180–190
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., Fetter, R., 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior
and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of sales-
persons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
50 (1), 123–150.
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), 738–748.
Maurer, T.J., Pierce, H.R., Shore, L.M., 2002. Perceived beneficiary of employee devel-
opment activity: a three-dimensional social exchange model. The Academy of
Management Review 27 (3), 432–444.
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L., Niehoff, B.P., 1998. Does perceived organizational sup-
port mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational
citizenship behavior? The Academy of Management Journal 41 (3), 351–357.
Morrison, E.W., 1996. Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between
HRM practices and service quality. Human Resource Management 35 (4),
493–512.
Motowidlo, S.J., Van Scotter, J.R., 1994. Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 79
(4), 475–480.
Niehoff, B.P., Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G., Fuller, J., 2001. The influence of empow-
erment and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment.
Group Organization Management 26 (1), 93–113.
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, 43–72.
Peccei, R., Rosenthal, P., 2001. Delivering customer-oriented behavior through
empowerment: an empirical test of HRM assumptions. Journal of Management
Studies 38 (6), 831–857.
Piercy, N., Cravens, D., Lane, N., Vorhies, D., 2006. Driving organizational citizenship
behaviors and salesperson in-role behavior performance: the role of manage-
ment control and perceived organizational support. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 34 (2), 244–262.
Pitts, D.W., 2005. Leadership, empowerment, and public organizations. Review of
Public Personnel Administration 25 (1), 5–28.
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), 122–141.
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), 262–270.
Posdakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., 1994. Organizational citizenship behaviors and
sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (3), 351–363.
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), 133–151.
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 cit-
izenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature
and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26 (3), 513–563.
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), 179–186.
Ravichandran, S., Gilmore, S.A., 2007. Formation of organizational citizenship behav-
iors in students employed in university dinging services: impact of manager and
co-worker behaviors. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 10 (2), 19–50.
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), 59–78.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., 2002. Perceived organizational support: a review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4), 698–714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., 2001. Affective commitment to the organi-
zation: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology 86 (5), 825–836.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N., Liden, R.C., 1996. Social exchange in organizations:
perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee
reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (3), 219–227.
Shore, L.M., Wayne, S.J., 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of
affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organiza-
tional support. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (5), 774–780.
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.
Spector, P.E., Fox, S., 2002. An emotion-centered model of voluntary work
behavior: some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and orga-
nizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review 12 (2),
269–292.
Spreitzer, G.M., 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions,
measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal 38 (5),
1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A., Nason, S.W., 1997. A dimensional analysis of the rela-
tionship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness satisfaction,
and strain. Journal of Management 23 (5), 679–704.
Stajkovic, A.D., Luthans, F., 1998. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 124 (2), 240–261.
Stamper, C.L., Van Dyne, L., 2003. Organizational citizenship: a comparison between
part-time and full-time service employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Admin-
istration Quarterly 44 (1), 33–42.
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 Man-
agement 19 (1), 53–77.
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), 666–681.
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), 1570–1583.
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 Pacific Man-
agement Review 9 (3), 435–461.
Turnipseed, D.L., Rassuli, A., 2005. Performance perceptions of organizational citi-
zenship behaviours at work: a bi-level study among managers and employees.
British Journal of Management 16 (3), 231–244.
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),
108–119.
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), 525–531.
Walz, S.M., Niehoff, B.P., 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: their relation-
ship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research
24 (3), 301–319.
Wat, D., Shaffer, M.A., 2005. Equity and relationship quality influences on organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors: the mediating role of trust in the supervisor and
empowerment. Personnel Review 34 (4), 406–422.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H., Tetrick, L.E., 2002. The role of fair treat-
ment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader–member
exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3), 590–598.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Liden, R.C., 1997. Perceived organizational support and
leader–member exchange: a social exchange perspective. The Academy of Man-
agement Journal 40 (1), 82–111.
Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Man-
agement 17 (3), 601–617.
Witt, L.A., Ferris, G.R., 2003. Social skill as moderator of the
conscientiousness–performance relationship: convergent results across
four studies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 809–821.
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 definition. Management Review 23 (1), 25–48 (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), 597–611.
