Hotels’ environmental leadership and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhm

Hotels’ environmental leadership and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior ⁎

Woo Gon Kima, Sean McGinleyb, Hyung-Min Choia, , Charoenchai Agmapisarnc a

International Center for Hospitality Research & Development, Dedman School of Hospitality, Florida State University, 288 Champions Way, UCB 4116, P.O. Box 3062541, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA b Dedman School of Hospitality, Florida State University, 288 Champions Way, UCB 4111, P.O. Box 3062541, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA c Graduate School of Tourism Management, National Institute of Development Administration, 118 Moo 3, Sereethai Road, Klong-Chan, Bangkapi, Bangkok, 10240, Thailand

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sustainability Environmental-transformational leadership Self-determination theory Organizational citizenship behavior toward environment

Expanding on a stream of literature connecting employee motivation to environmental practices, this research investigated why hospitality employees participated in organizational citizenship behaviors related to company sustainability efforts. The results of this study suggest that employees’ environmental belief partially mediates the influences of both environmental-transformational leadership and environmental policies on organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment, while it fully mediates the association between environmental training and the outcome. The findings also demonstrate that employees’ perception of organizational support moderates the relationship between environmental belief and organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Pointedly, hospitality workers reported they were increasingly more likely to engage in ecologically friendly organizational citizenship behaviors as their environmental beliefs increased, and as such, organizational support moderated the association so that the more support received, the more likely workers would engage in such behaviors, and the less support received, the less likely they were to do so.

1. Introduction The global hospitality industry may need to reemphasize its commitment to and effectiveness at managing ecologically sustainable operations. The global hospitality and tourism industry accounts for an estimated 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Carbon Brief, 2018). The same report suggests the proportion of greenhouse gas emissions from hospitality and tourism is set to rise because more nations have embraced tourism as a way to grow their economies and are investing in hospitality marketing campaigns and infrastructure (Gabbatiss, 2018). In fact, global tourism is growing quickly enough to outpace global trade growth (Gabbatiss, 2018). Given the increasing importance of hospitality to the world’s economy and its large impact on the environment, this study seeks to investigate how hotel operations specifically can implement more ecologically sound operating principles and increase the likelihood that employees in the industry will go above and beyond their job role requirements. Specifically, this research is proposed to answer the question: Why are some hospitality employees motivated to go above and beyond their work role requirements to act

sustainably at work while others are not? The importance of the environment is not lost on hospitality operators; in recent years, an increasing number of hotels have embraced environmental concerns as a significant part of their marketing and operational strategies. They are introducing and implementing green practices to build their brands by establishing environmentally conscious images, which hotel leaders are creating brand strategies around (Yi et al., 2018). In the past, the majority of green practices in the hotel industry focused on guests’ voluntary towel use and water conservation measures (Dimara et al., 2017; Han and Hyun, 2018). Despite this, Yi et al. (2018) delineated eleven types of green practices: towel reuse, linen reuse, recycling, guest training, energy conservation, water conservation, purchasing strategies, waste management, facility design and operations, education, and innovation. Hotels applying green practices are expected to raise guest satisfaction through the perceived quality of the hotel within the hotel’s specific star rating (Kim et al., 2016). Sustainability initiatives in the hotel industry are mostly concerned with water conservation and towel use as they are more likely to create eco-friendly behaviors of guests during stays because guests will feel

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (W.G. Kim), [email protected] (S. McGinley), [email protected] (H.-M. Choi), [email protected] (C. Agmapisarn). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102375 Received 2 February 2019; Received in revised form 28 August 2019; Accepted 12 September 2019 0278-4319/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Woo Gon Kim, et al., International Journal of Hospitality Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102375

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

goals. Tims et al. (2011) found that transformational leadership did increase workers’ daily work engagement through an enhancement of personal resources, similar to how self-determination theory explained employee motivation stemming from autonomous motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). As such self-determination theory and transformational leadership may be a two-pronged argument for explaining proenvironmental behaviors from workers, with Ryan and Deci’s (2000) work suggesting that autonomous motivation may cue people to engage in extra-role behaviors or commit to performing their roles at a high level, while transformational leadership explains the external role that managers can play not only to inspire their teams but to directly influence outcomes (Graves et al., 2013). However, studies on employees’ eco-friendly behavior have not systematically developed theories that directly link organizational policy to specific aspects of individual employee behavior. This study seeks to explore supervisor support towards the environment, environmental policy, and employee motivation as inter-connected aspects of encouraging employees’ eco-friendly behaviors. By an empirical test based off the assertions of self-determination theory, this study’s objectives are fourfold: (1) to examine the influences of environmental-transformational leadership (E-TFL), organizational environmental policy (OEP), and environmental training (ETR) on environmental belief (EBF); (2) to examine the influence of E-TFL, OEP, and ETR on organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCBE); (3) to examine the mediating role of EBF between three external factors (E-TFL, OEP, and ETR) and OCBE; and (4) to examine the moderating role of organizational environmental (OES) support between EBF and OCBE.

pride by engaging in sustainability efforts and could feel guilty if they did not (Han and Hyun, 2018). Aboelmaged (2018) found hotels with an environmental orientation that have implemented green practices positively increased their return on investment (ROI), sales, profit, market share, and customer satisfaction. With this in mind, ecologically sensitive operations may be paramount for successful hotel management. In fact, hotel managers who view environmental practices as a means to gain competitive advantages are more inclined to voluntarily implement green practices (Carmona-Moreno et al., 2004). These hotel managers can encourage their teams to think about environmental issues in innovative ways and create relationships with their teams through leveraging pro-environmental practices (Robertson and Barling, 2013). Employees’ eco-friendly behavior is often responsible for the successful implementation of operational policies that help reduce adverse effects on the natural environment (Ramus and Steger, 2000). Corporate researchers have addressed the need for empirical studies that investigate how to encourage employees to engage in environmentally friendly practices (Boiral and Paillé, 2012; Graves et al., 2013; Robertson and Barling, 2013). Therefore, this study seeks to specifically gain a greater understanding of employees’ eco-friendly behavior by examining the processes that facilitate such behavior. One factor that may explain individual behavior is motivation, because it gives the reason for directing attention to things, helps to sustain human effort, and serves to energize people (Gagné and Deci, 2005). Motivation is thought of as more of an enduring concept than attitude, which can be fleeting and subject to the temporary effects of factors like emotions or other external stimuli (Petty and Briñol, 2015). In this study, the organismic motivational theory of Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory is used as a framework to help explain why employees may choose to engage in eco-friendly behavior. Ultimately, this study tests whether individuals’ environmental beliefs will translate into ecologically friendly behaviors within the hotel industry because as Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory posits, those individuals would have a high degree of autonomous motivation. Deci and Ryan (1985) even suggest that certain social and environmental forces can help shape a person’s intrinsic or autonomous motivation. Based on Deci and Ryan’s (1985) findings, this study also tests to see if a set of supervisory behaviors (transformational leadership targeting envrionmental policies) and formal organizational factors (environmental policies and environmental training programs) will influence employees’ eco-friendly behaviors by altering their environmental beliefs. Several researchers convincingly argue that green operations can be best achieved if the organization’s leaders strongly influence employees’ eco-friendly behaviors (Kim et al., 2014; Robertson and Barling, 2013). Empirical evidence suggests that leadership, especially the transformational style of leadership, has an effect on employee motivation and is linked to how people behave (Wang et al., 2016). Graves et al. (2013) also state that supervisors’ environmental leadership prompts employees’ pro-environmental behavior because they are highly visible to employees, helping to set a performance expectation to follow. What both Wang et al. (2016) and Graves et al. (2013) suggest is that the actions of organizational leadership have the ability to meaningfully change the motivations of employees, resulting in a change of behaviors. Conversely, other research at the organizational level suggest company policy effectively shapes employee behaviors (Arthur, 1994; Ramus and Steger, 2000). For example, Ramus and Steger (2000) observed employees who perceive strong signals from the company regarding its environmental policy are more likely to become involved in environmental efforts. One way in which employees can receive strong signals is when a leader is able to successfully change the norms and values in the organization, and, ultimately, inspire workers to perform beyond even their own expectations, better known as transformational leadership (Yukl, 1989). Bass (1985) further defined transformational leadership as a focus on enhancing employees’ involvement with organizational

2. Literature review and hypothesis development Self-determination theory proposes that an individual’s motivation is a core determinant of behavior and provides a more differentiated approach to motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Self-determination theory distinguishes two categories of motivation: autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. “Autonomy involves acting with a sense of volition and having the experience of choice” (Gagné and Deci, 2005). For example, an individual pursues an action when it fits one’s goals and values. In contrast, “being controlled involves acting with a sense of pressure, a sense of having to engage in the actions” (Gagné and Deci, 2005). To illustrate, an individual takes action when that person gets rewarded or punished (Graves et al., 2013). Finally, individuals’ behaviors can be stimulated based on the degree to which their motivations are autonomous versus controlled. 2.1. Environmental-transformational leadership Recent studies (Graves et al., 2013; Robertson and Barling, 2013) have demonstrated that transformational leadership has established a strong correlation with followers’ satisfaction with leaders and with job satisfaction and motivation overall (Lowe et al., 1996). Even in the hospitality industry, Kara et al. (2018) found that managers who adopted a transformational leadership management style provided better working conditions and incentives, which improved the quality of work life for hotel employees. The concept of environmental-transformational leadership, introduced by Graves et al. (2013), is predominantly characterized by managers who motivate employees to incorporate ecological ideas and practices as part of their operational responsibilities. The leaders with an environmental transformation management style encourage their staff to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Robertson and Carleton (2018) and Robertson and Barling (2013) discovered that strong E-TFL escalates employees’ autonomous motivation and also positively influences the voluntary pro-environmental behaviors among employees. ETFL, in turn, has a significant impact on revolutionary change within firms (Liefferink and Wurzel, 2017). Evidence from the hotel industry 2

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

effects an employee’s level of environmental commitment, even if the employee has weak personal environmental beliefs. They claimed that a healthy association between an environmental belief and employee environmental commitment exists, particularly if the employee is fully informed and if the communications about environmental policies are well-prepared and are convincing (Ramus and Steger, 2000). Consequently, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

suggests E-TFL has powerfully influenced green creativity and green organizational identity, regardless of hotel classification (Mittal and Dhar, 2016). It has a positive relationship with employee autonomous motivation and external motivation (Graves et al., 2013). When employee motivation increases, workers are able to express and act according to their passion, expertise, self-efficacy, and self-determination in addressing environmental issues (Chen et al., 2014; Gagné and Deci, 2005). Graves et al. (2013) claimed E-TFL has a positive impact on autonomous motivation among employees, enhances the staff’s internalization of organizational values, and encourages staff members to express their feelings within their work roles about ecological issues. Additionally, they found a positive impact on workgroup members through green advocacy. As such, the leader’s behavioral cues and the work group’s green support together create social pressure on other employees to conform to sustainability norms (Kim et al., 2014). Haddock-Millar et al. (2016) found staff members, whose supervisors are supportive of environmental issues, have a robust environmental belief about their ability to creatively engage in green activities. Consistent with this finding, Özduran and Tanova (2017) provided evidence that hotel leaders with a growth mind-set, which refers to the belief that individual's abilities can be developed through his/her commitment and efforts (Dweck, 2008), can shape their employees’ skills, attitudes, and motivation. Chen et al. (2014) confirmed that environmental-transformational leaders can transparently explain the organization’s vision and can explain how to achieve it. Communications that accurately express norms and beliefs, made with confidence and optimism, are most effective. Transformational leaders can enhance followers’ environmental self-efficacy (defined as belief in one’s capabilities to perform a behavior and successfully execute specific actions to achieve environmental goals). Once employees gain a stronger sense of self-efficacy, they have a greater belief in their abilities to develop new ideas and to engage in more creative behaviors, and an increase in an individual’s self-efficacy, resultant of transformational leadership, is positively associated with work engagement (Tims et al., 2011). Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2. Organizational environmental policy is positively associated with employees’ environmental belief. 2.3. Environmental training Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) provided evidence that human capital can be stimulated through practical training. Training is a human resource practice, which can be easily implemented, and its value can be measured regarding time and costs (Jex and Britt, 2014). Likewise, environmental training (ETR) is one effective means for developing collective knowledge and establishing specific organizational routines through organizational learning (Dolores et al., 2012). With regard to ETR, several studies (Cantor et al., 2012; Sammalisto and Brorson, 2008) showed that the successful implementation of environmental programs depends on employees’ training, particularly, training that reinforces expectations that staff actively adopts and engages in eco-initiatives. In particular, Tang et al. (2018) verified that effective green training builds a foundation for hotel staff to understand the context of green practices and the consequences of environmental behavior. Consequently, effective green training provided by knowledgeable management enables staff to carry out environmental activities effectively (del Brío et al., 2007). As such, training is necessary to ensure that hotel employees understand how to effectively adapt and engage environmental management programs (Sourvinou and Filimonau, 2018). Management-to-staff and staff-to-management communication is an essential core aspect of designing a training program. In conjunction with training programs, reinforcing them with a rewards system aimed to incentivize pro-environmental behaviors may help leaders lead consistently with transformational leadership tenants by creating external factors to aid in recognizing good work and helping inspire their workers (Tims et al., 2011). ETR assists employees in understanding more about environmental concerns (Wong, 1998), and environmental education, through training, may increase the endorsement of environmental beliefs (Chou, 2014). Environmental belief is a core concept incorporated in the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), which refers to beliefs about humanity’s ability to upset the balance of nature (Dunlap et al., 2000). Additionally, ETR for hotel employees has been shown to be a leading factor in determining the sustainability of a hotel operation (Kim et al., 2015). Environmental education and the training of staff may be the influential factors affecting ecological performance because they, as Ryan and Deci (2000) suggest, may help to increase a feeling of autonomous motivation among workers. Therefore, in the hotel industry, managers may be able to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner due to their efforts regarding education and training; as such, our study proposes that environmental belief is resultant of training.

Hypothesis 1. Managers’ environmental-transformational leadership is positively associated with employees’ environmental belief. 2.2. Organizational environment policy Several studies (Hutchinson, 1996; Ramus and Steger, 2000) have proposed that articulating or publishing an environmental policy is a critical driver that encourages employees to engage in environmental activities. Specifically in the hotel industry, Kim et al. (2019) claimed that an organizational environmental policy (OEP), as part of a larger green human resource management initiative, led staff to feel pride in their organizations and embrace eco-friendly behaviors. Previous findings by Ramus and Steger (2000) revealed employees are more likely to adopt a self-described environmental initiative when the organization had published environmental policies, and prior literature showed that environmental policy is an essential antecedent to employee engagement in ecological endeavors (Hutchinson, 1996). Echoing the work on organizational environmental policies, Chou (2014) found hotel policies inspire employees to engage in green behavior, particularly when individuals harbor higher personal sustainability norms. Personal sustainability norms are deterministic of an individual holding a robust ecologically friendly belief system (Chou, 2014). An effectively communicated vision and environmental policy instill increasingly high envronmental values among employees, leading to more pro-environmental behavior. Moreover, as Ryan and Deci (2000) posited using self-determination theory, organizational values do influence employees’ views, which then increases employees’ awareness and leads to positive behavioral outcomes, in this context, pro-environmental behavior. Raineri and Paillé (2016) observed how an environmental policy

Hypothesis 3. Environmental training is positively associated with employees’ environmental belief. 2.4. Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment Along with increased interest in environmental management, a stronger voice regarding the need for employees to actively participate in environmental management has emerged. This assertion is in part due to expanding the concept of organizational citizenship behavior from the viewpoint of sustainability efforts (Boiral, 2009; Daily et al., 2009), which has been widely used in organizational behavior and 3

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

forward to study:

human resources management. Daily et al. (2009) inceptively introduced the expanded concept of organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment (OCBE), which refers to “discretionary acts by employees within the organization not rewarded or required that are directed toward environmental improvement (p. 246).” Since the precepts of OCBE are based on discretionary, voluntary engagement without reward incentives, employee behaviors should be motivated by supervisory support demonstrated by the allocation of resources or by leaders modeling eco-friendly behaviors (Boiral and Paillé, 2012). Therefore, demonstrating leadership is essential for motivating employees to autonomously participate in the organization’s environmental management. Scholars consider, from the various styles of leadership, transformational leadership as an effective leadership style in encouraging followers’ voluntary behaviors (Avolio et al., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990), and even the most recent, empirical studies have also revealed that transformational leadership has direct influence on followers’ organizational citizenship behavior (Bottomley et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2017; Lofquist and Matthiesen, 2018; Majeed et al., 2017; Yoon et al., 2016). As stronger evidence of this association, several studies using a meta-analysis demonstrated that organizational citizenship behavior is one of the key outcomes from transformational leadership (Hoch et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2011). Drawing inspiration from this association, the authors infer that leaders influence autonomous motivation in their employees to engage in environmental issues; as such, environmental-transformational leaders should convey confidence in staff capabilities by encouraging staff to question beliefs regarding environmental concerns and acknowledge new ideas for dealing with environmental problems. This inference is supported by prior transformational leadership studies focused on pro-environment (Graves et al., 2013) or sustainable development (Jiang et al., 2017). Expanding the transformational leadership to the pro-environmental setting, Graves et al. (2013) highlighted that higher E-TFL directly leads to employees’ more active pro-environmental behavior at their workplaces. Furthermore, Jiang et al. (2017) argued that supervisors’ transformational leadership enhances subordinates’ performance in their sustainable tasks because subordinates under transformational leaders tend to exhibit organizational citizenship behavior in the sustainable tasks that require employees’ voluntary commitment. Accordingly, this study suggests the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5. Organizational environmental policy is positively associated with employees’ organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Likewise, ETR may play a role in directly predicting the behaviors of employees, while training and observation can lead to the Hawthorne effect (people changing behavior due to organizational attention or observation) as was recently documented in the study of energy efficient cooking techniques in a commercial kitchen environment (Simons et al., 2017). Therefore, one would expect that as an organization puts resources into reinforcing sustainable behaviors in the form of training, individuals would engage in more sustainable behaviors at work, in the short-term, due to the Hawthorne effect as shown by Simons et al. (2017). However, short-term gains from training likely do not satisfy organizational needs. As such, leadership must train in a way that connects participants to the goals of the program to create long-lasting positive outcomes. When doing so, training can also have long-lasting results that ultimately change the way organizational members behave (Jex and Britt, 2014). Jex and Britt (2014) go on to state that training can have a positive effect on a worker’s job satisfaction, and that may actually help create the conditions that allow training to predict actual employee behavior (Yu et al., 2019). In the long-term, training may create real change in the way organizational members act (Jex and Britt, 2014). As such, not only should organizational training be associated with environmental belief, it should also help encourage more eco-friendly extra-role behaviors, given that employees (through training programs and the attention paid to environmental behaviors) would know how and what sustainable actions are; therefore, they may have the knowledge and skills to go above and beyond what the organization asks them to do, similar to the associations of Yu et al. (2019) who reported a link between food safety training and whistle blowing behavior. More direct evidence comes from a recent study on scale development for hotel environmental management initiatives (HEMI), which empirically demonstrated the positive impacts of environmental policies and training on OCBE in verifying the criterionrelated validity of the HEMI scale. Their study shows the possibility of a positive relationship between ETR and OCBE. However, because Choi et al.’s study (2019) measured environmental policies and training as a single incorporated factor without separating them from each other, scholars have not identified that the exact effect of only ETR on OCBE. Thus, this study needs to re-treat the association between ETR and OCBE as a hypothesis. Therefore, this research brings forth the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4. Managers’ environmental-transformational leadership is positively associated with employees’ organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Additionally, establishing an organizational environmental policy (OEP) may help to explain why employees engage in ecologically friendly behaviors (Kim et al., 2019). Given the direct effect that an OEP may have on employee behavior, a link may be present between the company’s policy and individual behaviors. As such, an established and communicated OEP may influence more than just compliance behaviors because it would demonstrate to employees what is valued by the organization, which both Yukl (1989) and Luu (2019) stated was important to instill motivation strong enough for action. Therefore, the OEP put forward by a company may help to not only get employees to engage in compliance behaviors that are environmentally friendly as Kim et al. (2019) observed, but may also cue employees that environmentalism is important to the organization, thus inspiring workers to engage in extra efforts beyond their duties (OCBs). In addition, since motivated employees tend to behave in ways their organizations expect, a specific policy for environmental management can lead workers to voluntarily participate in the organization’s environmental management. Evidence for this is that Raineri and Paillé (2016) found that hotel company’s environmental policy is effective in bringing about employees’ OCBE. Moreover, Choi et al. (2019) demonstrated that hotel’s environmental policy can work as an important antecedent of employees’ OCBE, suggesting a scale to assess hotel’s environmental management initiatives. As such, the following hypothesis is brought

Hypothesis 6. Environmental training is positively associated with employees’ organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. 2.5. Environmental belief Scholars widely consider NEP to be the measure of environmental attitudes and beliefs. NEP has become more useful in investigating the structure and consistency of ecological worldviews, supporting environmental perspective, and studying the relations between worldviews and the range of environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (Dunlap et al., 2000). Research also suggests employees with strong environmental beliefs have greater ecological commitment and are self-motivated to become more engaged in environmental citizenship behavior (Raineri and Paillé, 2016), consistent with self-determination theory. In agreement, Lamm et al. (2013) discovered that employees’ belief about the importance of environmental concerns within the organization has a healthy association with OCBE. Furthermore, when employees feel that they are valued and their work is noticed, they are willing to make more significant efforts to engage in positive behaviors for their 4

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

to because they feel obliged to return the organization’s support. Organizational norms are in part determined by employee POS, and environmental behaviors that are supported by the organization can increase affective commitment toward sustainability initiatives (Cantor et al., 2012; Eisenberger et al., 1990). In fact, POS has played a moderating role in diverse organizational settings and has been found to moderate relations between many different variables like POS moderating the association between trauma victims receiving empathy from care-givers predicting recovery outcomes (Brockhouse et al., 2011), and POS also moderated the effect of stress, leading to chronic strain with eldercare workers, where POS attenuated the stress to strain association (Zacher and Winter, 2011). In more service worker settings, POS has also been shown to moderate the association between technoligical updates and use of new tenchologies with line-level service workers (Lee et al., 2005). POS also moderated the association between emotional labor and job satisfaction (Duke et al., 2009), and finally, POS moderated the effect of leader-member exchange on job satisfaction with grocery store employees (Erdogan and Enders, 2007). Based on the ideas of social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976), research shows that the principle of reciprocity leads to positive outcomes (Tian et al., 2016). Previous studies confirmed that organizational support plays a role in strengthening or buffering the relations between source of behavior and actual behavior when POS focuses on particular areas (Brockhouse et al., 2011; Duke et al., 2009; Erdogan and Enders, 2007; Lee et al., 2005; Zacher and Winter, 2011). Organizations could build their employees' commitment to environmental behaviors by increasing their level of organizational support to further cement a norm around environmental behavior and further enhance their employees' belief that their firm is supportive of corporate sustainability initiatives and increasing workers’ motivation to comply with those initiatives. Thus, this study asserts, given the force of social exchange theory, environmental belief may influence OCBE as determined by the level of organizational environmental support.

employer, a core idea of transformational leadership (Yukl, 1989). Recent evidence suggests that as leadership focuses on environmental behaviors and employees are made to feel their efforts are noticed by their superiors, they will behave in a more sustainable way (Luu, 2019). Coupling the ideas presented in Yukl’s (1989) and Luu’s (2019) studies when managers engage in transformational leadership that focuses on the environment, employees should experience increasing motivations to act in a more ecologically friendly way at work. Other studies have found that perceived behavior control affects environmental belief, which refers to the subjective degree of control over the performance of the behavior (Ajzen, 2002). The more workers understand how their behaviors affect outcomes, the more they are capable of OCBE (Boiral et al., 2015). In addition, Boiral et al. (2018) supported the idea that environmental belief by NEP is positively related to eco-helping and eco-civic engagement. Inferring from self-determination theory, which purports that people have autonomously high motivations, employees should engage in more OCBEs because of an increasing desire to be causal agents within their own lives in an effort to act congruently with their integrated views of the self (Deci and Vansteenkiste, 2004). Stated another way, as one’s belief system is more ecologically friendly, one’s autonomous motivations will drive him or her to behave in a way that is harmonious with that belief system (greater NEP leads to greater sustainably focused OCBE). Accordingly, this study assumes that environmental belief is positively associated with OCBE. Hypothesis 7. Employees’ environmental belief is positively associated with their organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Based on the abovementioned literature on the antecedents of EBF, such as E-TFL (Graves et al., 2013; Haddock-Millar et al., 2016; Özduran and Tanova, 2017), OEP (Chou, 2014; Kim et al., 2019) and ETR (Cantor et al., 2012; Chou, 2014; Tang et al., 2018; Wong, 1998), it is possible to infer that employees’ environmental belief may act as a mediator in the relationships among the motivating factors (E-TFL, OEP and ETR) and OCBE. Since EBF is conceptualized to explain personnel’s motivated status, focusing on resolving environmental issues, specific motivators such as E-TFL, OEP, and ETR can result in employees’ motivated outcome, OCBE, through EBF. Consequently, the authors formulate the followed hypotheses:

Hypothesis 11. Organizational environmental support moderates the association between employees’ environmental belief and organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Fig. 1 explains the conceptual framework with the role of transformational leadership towards the environment, formal environmental policy and training, organizational environmental support, and employee motivation in fostering employees’ OCBE.

Hypothesis 8. Employees’ environmental belief mediates the relationship between managers’ environmental-transformational leadership and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment.

3. Methodology

Hypothesis 9. Employees’ environmental belief mediates the relationship between organizational environmental policy and their organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment.

3.1. Questionnaire and measures The authors developed the survey questions in English, and then a bilingual translator translated the English questionnaire into Thai. Following, a different bilingual translator completed a reverse translation to resolve any discrepancies. After the translations, the authors sent the draft questionnaire to fifty industrial experts to review the measurability of the questionnaire. Then they determined the final version of the questionnaire. The authors developed a paper-based questionnaire with four sections. The first section was the introduction and an informed consent form that addressed the purpose of the survey and procedures for answering and outlined the researchers’ commitment to ensure respondents’ confidentiality and anonymity. The second section consisted of screening questions that strictly controlled the eligibility of the participants, such as hotel name, name of department, and department manager’s name, which increased the validity of the responses. The third section consisted of six sets of measures (details are announced below and in the Appendix). In this section, the authors not only included the different directions and explanations for each set of the scale but also included social desirability with four items to mitigate or diagnose the common method bias (CMB) contamination. The last section

Hypothesis 10. Employees’ environmental belief mediates the relationship between environmental training and their organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. 2.6. Organizational environmental support Part of a healthy organization is people’s perception that the organization as a whole is supportive, which can reinforce norms related to eco-initiatives (Ramus and Killmer, 2007). Perceived organizational support (POS) is the degree to which employees believe that their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being and fulfills socioemotional needs (Eisenberger et al., 1986). POS is generally thought to be the organization's contribution to a positive reciprocity dynamic with employees as employees tend to perform better and reciprocate received rewards and favorable treatment. In other words, as Blau (1964) posited in social exchange theory, two parties will exchange valuable assets to each other to create a high quality exchange. Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) implies that employees tend to behave the way that the organization expects them 5

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of hotel employees’ OCBE enhancement.

requested official cooperation for survey participation from the authorizers of selected hotels, such as top management and directors of human resource departments. Twelve environmental certified hotels (5 Green Hotel, 6 Greenleaf, and 1 EarthCheck) allowed the research team to conduct the survey targeting their hotel employees. In the last stage, the research team directly distributed a total of 480 questionnaires (specifically 40 for each hotel) to the supervisors and employees, and it received 450. Discarding 65 invalid cases due to their missing values, insincere responses, and disqualifications (less than 1-year experience), the authors retained 385 responses for further analysis. Out of 385 valid respondents, 60.8% were female, 50.1% had bachelor’s degrees or higher, and their average age was 32.5 (SD = 9.00) years. Regarding their working conditions, the majority of respondents worked in nonmanagerial positions (84.2%), 66.0% in the front-of-house, and 66.5% in mid- or high-level of customer facing jobs. Moreover, the tenure periods of the respondents ranged from 1.08 to 31.17 and averaged 6.76 years (SD = 7.72).

consisted of the questions regarding the respondents’ demographic information (e.g., gender, age, and educational level) and working conditions (e.g., tenure, job position, and title). To measure E-TFL, the authors obtained the reproduce license for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) with the 5x-Short version of the Rater Form developed by Avolio and Bass (1995) and provided by Mind Garden, Inc. In addition, the authors altered the 20item original scale, as appropriate, to assess the hotel managers’ E-TFL. The 20-item scale maintained its content validity, and the terms did not misrepresent the construct’s originality as approved by Mind Garden. Following the MLQ instructions, hotel employees rated how often their managers demonstrated the subject behavior on a 5-point scale (0 = not at all, 4= frequently if not always). To assess ETR, the authors adopted a 3-item scale anchored with 5 points (1 = not at all, 5= frequently if not always) from Cantor et al. (2012). Moreover, OEP, EBF, OCBE, and level of organizational environmental support (OES) were anchored with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). To evaluate OEP, the authors derived a 13-item scale and slightly adjusted it from Ramus and Steger (2000). To assess the level of OES, respondents rated a 3-item scale adapted from Cantor et al. (2012). To measure EBF, the authors obtained a 6-item New Ecological Paradigm scale with a revised version from Dunlap et al. (2005). The questionnaire asked respondents to indicate their individual thoughts and opinions about the global environment. Finally, to evaluate OCBE, the authors employed a 10-item scale from Boiral and Paillé (2012) and slightly modified some words into appropriate ones in accordance with the hotel industry.

3.3. Data analysis To examine the hypothesized model, the authors utilized SmartPLS version 3 and conducted a partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), which is free from the assumption of normality and allows for the analyzing of data with a small sample size. The PLS model consisted of twenty reflective indicators and five latent variables. Specifically, the authors created five and three parceled indicators for E-TFL and OCBE, respectively, by adopting the multidimensional parceling approach, as well as the three parceled indicators for OEP by using the random parceling technique (Little et al., 2002). Furthermore, the authors employed the three and six items to the observed variables of ETR and EBF, respectively. Before hypothesis testing, the authors diagnosed a CMB contaminant not only by using a full-collinearity test (Kock, 2015) but also by employing a measured-marker variable (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Moreover, the authors identified Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio to confirm the measures’ reliability and convergent and discriminant validity.

3.2. Data collection and sample The authors obtained data from employees who had work experiences of one year or more in green-certified hotels located in Phuket, Thailand, one of the most popular destinations in the world that receives around 30 million tourists a year (World Bank Group, 2018, 2017). In the first stage of the sampling procedures, the authors listed 59 environmentally certified hotels as a sample frame obtained from the census database maintained by Green Hotel, the Department of Environmental Quality Promotion (DEQP) under the Thailand Ministry of Natural Resource Environment, Greenleaf, and EarthCheck. In the second stage, the authors selected 30 hotels from the directory by using a simple random sampling technique. In the third stage, the authors 6

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

4. Results

confidence intervals. Fig. 2 illustrates the results, including the path coefficients and the significant levels. Before the authors conducted the hypotheses tests, they evaluated the PLS model. With respect to model fit, the authors identified the normed fit index (NFI) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The results support that the model properly fit the data because the model fit indices (NFI = 0.933; SRMR = 0.030) are within the acceptable levels (Hu and Bentler, 1999). In terms of multicollinearity, it was concluded that the multicollinearity does not seriously distort the PLS estimation because the inner variance inflation factors (VIF) ranged from 1.445 to 2.032 and were less than the Hair et al.’s (2011) rule of thumb (5.0). Regarding the predictors’ quality criteria, the R-squared and Q-squared values of EBF are respectively 0.455 and 0.226, and those of OCBE are respectively 0.671 and 0.399. These results indicate that predictors of each outcome have reasonable power and relevance (Chin, 1998; Henseler et al., 2009). A positive relationship between E-TFL and EBF was formulated for Hypothesis 1. As expected, the results of the PLS-SEM reveal that hotel managers’ E-TFL has a positive (β1 = 0.245) and significant (t1 = 3.597; p < 0.001) impact on employees’ EBF. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is clearly supported. Hypothesis 2 assumed a positive relationship between OEP and EBF. The results demonstrate that OEP positively (β2 = 0.342) and significantly (t2 = 5.007; p < 0.001) influences EBF. Therefore, the results lend support to Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 focused on the relationship between ETR and EBF. The results identify that the effect of ETR on EBF is positive (β3 = 0.222) and significant (t3 = 3.736; p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is strongly supported. The positive direct effect of E-TFL on OCBE was expected in Hypothesis 4. The results identify that E-TFL positively (β4 = 0.160) and significantly (t4 = 2.549; p < 0.05) influences OCBE. Hence, Hypothesis 4 is supported. Hypothesis 5 described a positive direct influence of EBF on OCBE. The results demonstrate that the direct effect of OEP on OCBE is positive (β5 = 0.403) and significant (t5 = 5.673; p < 0.001). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 is also supported. The positive direct effect of ETR on OCBE was posited in Hypothesis 6. However, the results reveal that Hypothesis 6 is not supported because the effect of ETR is positive (β6 = 0.019) but not significant (t6 = 0.386; p > 0.05). Hypothesis 7 described the positive influence of EBF on OCBE. The PLS results verify that employees’ EBF positively (β7 = 0.374) and significantly (t7 = 5.838; p < 0.001) affects OCBE. Therefore, Hypothesis 7 is supported. The theoretical model of this study includes three mediation effects of EBF in the relationships between the exogeneous variables (E-TFL, OEP, and ETR) and the outcome, OCBE, which were formulated in hypotheses 8–10. The PLS-SEM results yield the total, direct, and indirect effects and the significances. A total effect, which indicates the direct effect of a predictor on an outcome without any mediator, is equivalent to the sum of the direct and indirect effects of the predictor on the outcome when a mediator intervenes into the model (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). As reported in Table 2, all the total effects of E-TFL (Effect size = 0.251; t = 3.819; p < 0.001), OEP (Effect size = 0.530; t = 7.854; p < 0.001), and ETR (Effect size = 0.102; t = 1.991; p <

4.1. Measurement model Common method bias. To mitigate CMB, the authors applied several techniques—guaranteeing respondents' anonymity and confidentiality and using different guidelines for each scale. Notwithstanding, the potential CMB may have contaminated the correlations or path coefficients due to all self-reported data under the cross-sectional research design. For this reason, the authors conducted two statistical tests to diagnose how much CMB was present in the observed variances. First, the authors adopted a directly measured marker variable approach to the PLS model, allowing all indicators to load not only on their correspondent constructs but also on social desirability, which was added as a method factor (Liang et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2003). The maker variable averagely accounted for 0.07% of indicators, while the theoretical constructs explained 75.29% on average. Second, the authors conducted a full collinearity test, and the results indicated that the measured variances of the indicators were not contaminated by CMB because none of the variance inflation factors (1.399 ≤ VIF ≤ 3.034) exceeded the Kock’s (2015) threshold (3.3). According to the results of two CMB tests, serious CMB was not detected in the observed variances of the indicators. Construct reliability and validity. Regarding the reliability as reported in Table 1, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.845 to 0.942, and the CR values ranged from 0.845 to 0.941. Thus, the results indicate that all scales of the study have satisfactory levels of internal consistency. With respect to the convergent validity, high outer loadings fluctuated between 0.732 and 0.889, and as illustrated in Table 1, all indices of AVE (0.576 ≤ AVE ≤ 0.763) from the measures were also above Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) threshold (0.5). Therefore, those two shreds of evidence clearly indicate that the measures of the current study have an acceptable degree of convergent validity. To assess the discriminant validity of the scales, the authors employed not only the Fornell-Larcker criterion but also the ratio of HTMT. Discriminant validity occurs either when the maximum coefficient of correlations is less than the minimum value of the square root of AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) or when no HTMT ratio exceeds the Henseler et al.’s (2015) threshold (0.85). As shown in Table 1, the minimum value of the square root of AVE (0.759) is larger than the maximum correlation coefficients (0.713). Furthermore, the HTMT ratios ranged from 0.430 to 0.730, and no ratio greater than the criterion (0.85) was found. Consequently, the results strongly support that the measures have no serious concern regarding the discriminant validity. 4.2. Structural model To test the hypotheses, the authors adopted a bootstrapping technique with a consistent PLS algorithm, which can be optimally utilized to examine path coefficients between the constructs with reflective indicators (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015). In addition, bootstrapping generated 5000 resamples and corrected the biases within 95 percent Table 1 Construct reliability and validity of measures.

E-TFL OEP ETR EBF OCBE

Mean

SD

Alpha

CR

AVE

E-TFL

OEP

ETR

EBF

OCBE

3.929 4.072 3.864 4.062 3.987

0.478 0.528 0.632 0.520 0.448

0.942 0.893 0.845 0.891 0.862

0.941 0.893 0.845 0.891 0.863

0.763 0.736 0.646 0.576 0.679

0.873 0.622 0.542 0.578 0.637

0.622 0.858 0.430 0.590 0.731

0.543 0.430 0.804 0.502 0.466

0.578 0.590 0.503 0.759 0.713

0.636 0.730 0.465 0.713 0.824

Notes. E-TFL is environmental-transformational leadership, OEP is organizational environmental policy, ETR is environmental training, EBF is environmental belief, OCBE is organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment, SD is standard deviations, Alpha is Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, CR is composite reliability, and AVE is average variance extracted. The bold figures in diagonal represent the square root of AVE, the figures in lower triangular matrix represent the correlation coefficients, and those in the upper triangular matrix represent the heterotrait-monotrait ratio. 7

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

Fig. 2. Results of PLS-SEM for the theoretical model. Table 2 Mediation effects of environmental belief.

Table 3 Moderation effects of level of organizational environmental support. Confidence intervals

Paths Total effects E-TFL → OCBE OEP → OCBE ETR → OCBE Direct effects E-TFL → OCBE OEP → OCBE ETR → OCBE Mediation effects E-TFL → EBF → OCBE OEP → EBF → OCBE ETR → EBF → OCBE

Effects

t-values

p-values

2.5%

97.5%

Paths EBF → OCBE

0.251 0.530 0.102

3.819 7.854 1.991

0.000 0.000 0.047

0.124 0.394 0.000

0.382 0.659 0.202

0.160 0.403 0.019

2.549 5.673 0.386

0.011 0.000 0.700

0.041 0.258 −0.080

0.286 0.537 0.116

0.092 0.128 0.083

3.011 3.820 3.143

0.003 0.000 0.002

0.039 0.067 0.036

0.156 0.199 0.139

High OES (n = 213)

Low OES (n = 172)

Differences

Beta

Beta

Beta

t-values

0.328

3.346**

0.563

t-values 8.707

***

0.236

t-values **

3.168

Notes. OES is organizational environmental support. Beta in differences represents absolute values of differences between High and Low OES. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

11. 5. Discussion and conclusion The results support the proposed nomological network. The supported hypotheses state that E-TFL, OEP, and ETR all helped to explain employees’ environmental beliefs. Furthermore, environmental beliefs acted as a mediator between E-TFL, OEP, and ETR and the likelihood that workers would engage in pro-environmental extra-role behaviors. Finally, the results indicate that the level of organizational support moderated the association between environmental beliefs and pro-environmental extra-role behaviors, such that when perceptions of organizational support were high, employees were more likely to engage in pro-environmental extra-role behaviors and less likely when perceptions of organizational support were low.

0.05) on OCBE are significant. Where the mediator, EBF, added into the relationships, the direct effects of both E-TFL (Effect size = 0.160; t = 2.549; p < 0.05) and OEP (Effect size = 0.403; t = 5.673; p < 0.001) on OCBE are still significant, while that of ETR on OCBE is transformed to be insignificant (Effect size = 0.019; t = 0.386; p > 0.05). The results imply that EBF partially mediates the influences of ETFL and OEP on OCBE, while it fully mediates that of ETR on OCBE. Regarding the hypotheses testing, the mediation effects of EBF are 0.127 (t8 = 3.534; p < 0.001) in the relationship between E-TFL and OCBE, 0.177 (t9 = 3.891; p < 0.001) in the relationship between OEP and OCBE, and 0.116 (t10 = 3.545; p < 0.01) in the relationship between ETR and OCBE, which are all significant. Thus, hypothesis 8, 9 and 10 are all supported. Hypothesis 11 describes the moderation effect of OES in the relationship between EBF and OCBE. To examine Hypothesis 11, the authors generated two sub-samples (high OES and low OES groups) by using those standardized scores, and they compared the path coefficients between the high and low OES groups by employing multi-group analysis in a PLS-SEM. As displayed in Table 3, the results demonstrate that the effects of EBF on OCBE are positive and significant in both the high (βH = 0.563; tH = 8.707; p < 0.001) and low (βL = 0.236; tL = 3.168; p < 0.01) OES groups. In terms of the differences in magnitude, the path coefficient in the high OES group is 0.328 greater than that in the low OES group, and the difference is statistically significant (tH-L = 3.346; p < 0.01). Thus, the results support Hypothesis

5.1. Theoretical implications The results support the ideas of Ryan and Deci (2000) and their continued work on self-determination theory by showing how external factors, like organizational support and transformational leadership, play a role in forging a person’s autonomous motivations. While many organismic motivational theories, like self-determination theory, posit a distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, the results indicate that external factors may influence an individual’s internal motivations. While the authors observed that, ultimately, it was a person’s internal beliefs regarding the environment that led to behaviors, those beliefs were explained by external factors like an organization’s environmental policy. The results suggest the two types of motivations may, therefore, be more intertwined than self-determination theory 8

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

for environmental initiatives is a key component of getting the staff to take ownership of and move the operations forward by engaging in proecological extra-role behaviors. The failure of doing so can negate much of the good work the organization is doing to build its brand image and protect the environment.

posits. There may be less of a clear distinction between external and internal motivation; rather, each different type of motivation may reinforce the other, creating a virtuous cycle. Conversely, the results also show that if one type of motivation is not present through the process, positive outcomes (like engaging in OCBs) may not come to fruition, and organizational efforts, like expending resources on training, may be for naught. Secondarily, the authors observed that another external factor, the perceptions of organizational support for ecological initiatives, played a key role in moderating the relations between the internally held variable (environmental beliefs) and the ultimate actions that an individual intends to take. The interaction between an autonomous motivational factor, like environmental beliefs, and an external motivational factor, like organizational support, help to explain why people do and sometimes do not act consistently with their held internal motivations. It is important to understand that within the context of self-determination theory, people are motivated to act due to a combination of external and internal forces. Managers at an organization may not merely hire people based on their environmental beliefs and get positive outcomes, but, rather, an organization can help prime those internal beliefs through practices like transformational leadership, OEP, and training and must also reinforce internal motivations externally through organizational support. In conclusion, managers must completely buy into sustainability initiatives to engage and encourage team members to take on extra role behaviors to support those initiatives.

5.3. Limitations and future studies Notwithstanding the theoretical contributions and practical suggestions, this study has several limitations. First, in exploring the antecedents of the hoteliers’ voluntary eco-friendly behavior, the current study emphasized the motivation in the intrinsic aspect only because the study is rooted in self-determination theory. Additional research could focus on other internalized motivations, like the need for environmental action or how an individual feels about the need to take urgent action on behalf of the environment. However, future scholars should investigate not only the intrinsic motivations but also the extrinsic motivational strategies such as direct compensation if they hope to understand the complete reason for hotel employees’ involuntary pro-environmental actions. The academic efforts of future researchers to compare the effects of external motivations with those of internal motivations on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior could also contribute greatly to hospitality literature. Second, the authors operationally reconceptualized the concept of transformational leadership, the most traditional leadership style, into that of toward pro-environment and used it as a predictor in this study because transformational leadership is required for supervisors or leaders in organizations that have goals that include innovative changes, such as environmental challenges. However, for hotel organizations that have been doing environmental management for quite some time, different styles of leadership (e.g., transactional or authentic leadership) may be more effective in inducing voluntary actions from their employees. Therefore, follow-up studies need to try adopting other leadership styles to environmental characteristics to find the most effective leadership style for the hotels’ environmental management practices. Another opportunity for future research is exploring the appropriate leadership styles that different organizational structures (e.g., vertical vs. horizontal) and cultures (e.g., collectivism vs. individualism) can use in motivating their hotel employees’ participation in environmental management. Lastly, the authors investigated the roles of E-TFL, OEP, ETR, BEF, and OES for employees’ OCBE, but the relationships among the variables were examined with the single cultural sample. To generalize the findings to various culture, future research is required to expand the results into other countries or cultures.

5.2. Practical applications Hospitality organizations serve their guests at their facilities and, as such, have a vested interest in creating the type of all-around experience that is required for guest satisfaction and loyalty. One such way would be for managers in the industry to use the results of this study to help further the environmental initiatives at their properties. By engaging with staff to accomplish greater success, organizations can both signal and show guests their sustainability efforts and results. Managers should understand then the importance of the environmental policies they produce to their teams and ensure, first, that they have one and, second, it is written and communicated in a clear and consistent manner. After such a policy is rolled out, it should be reinforced with training that specifically targets the operation’s sustainability efforts. Competent and topical training that mirrors the environmental policy may help to foster stronger environmental beliefs, which this study observed leads to better pro-green behaviors. These efforts would aid a hospitality organization both in communicating to and showing guests their sustainability credentials and should result in more effective sustainability initiatives, helping both the brand image and the environment. In addition to the organization expending resources on the staff, the managerial team itself needs support as well. The managerial team should be given training on how to become transformational leaders to best leverage environmental efforts by the organization. Beyond training through seminars and retreats, managers should have ongoing in-house training to better hone and reinforce their transformational leadership skills and styles. Transformational leadership is important because, in this study, the authors observed it played a direct role in influencing environmental beliefs and environmental organizational citizenship behaviors. Finally, the managerial team needs to understand the importance of its level of support to the staff. Perceptions of organizational support played a critical moderating role between environmental beliefs and environmental organizational citizenship behaviors in the data. Even though an organization’s managers better their transformational leadership prowess, provide a clear and well-communicated environmental policy, and train their teams effectively, they may still fall short of their goals if the managers do not support their staff well in the operation. Impressing upon managers the importance of their support

Acknowledgement This research was undertaken with the Distinguished Professorship funded by National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok, Thailand. Appendix A Environmental-Transformational Leadership (example items)1 My manager: 1 Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate for environmental issues (Intellectual Stimulation). 2 Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her, an

1 This scale was adapted from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (5x-Short), obtained a limited license for reproduction from Mindgarden. Only five examples are allowed to show in a publication. For information, please contact Mindgarden at www.mindgarden.com.

9

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

2 I voluntarily carry out environmental actions and initiatives in my daily work activities. 3 I make suggestions to my colleagues about ways to protect the environment more effectively, even when it is not my direct responsibility. 4 I actively participate in environmental events organized in and/or by my hotel. 5 I stay informed of my hotel’s environmental initiatives. 6 I undertake environmental actions that positively contribute to the image of my hotel. 7 I volunteer for projects, endeavors, or events that address environmental issues in my hotel. 8 I spontaneously give my time to help customers take the environment into account every time they stay at this hotel. 9 I encourage customers to adopt more environmentally conscious consumption when they stay. 10 I encourage customers to share their ideas and opinions on environmental issues concerning this hotel.

environmental leader (Idealized Influence—Attributed). 3 Talks about his/her most important values and beliefs about the environment (Idealized Influence—Behavior). 4 Talks optimistically about the future environment (Inspirational Motivation). 5 Spends time teaching and coaching on environmental issues (Individual Consideration). Organizational Environmental Policy My hotel: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Publishes its environmental policy. Has specific targets for environmental performance. Publishes an annual environmental report. Uses an environmental management system. Applies environmental considerations to purchasing decisions. Provides employee environmental training. Makes employees responsible for the company’s environmental performance. Uses durable goods that can be reused and recycled. Has management that understands/addresses issues of sustainable development. Systematically reduces energy consumption. Mostly uses environmentally friendly cleaners and detergents. Systematically reduces consumption of unsustainable products. Applies the same environmental standards at home and abroad.

References Aboelmaged, M., 2018. Direct and indirect effects of eco-innovation, environmental orientation and supplier collaboration on hotel performance: an empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 184, 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.192. Aguinis, H., Kraiger, K., 2009. Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 451–474. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505. Ajzen, I., 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned Behavior1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32, 665–683. Arthur, J.B., 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Acad. Manag. J. 37, 670–687. https://doi.org/10.2307/256705. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., 1995. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Instrument (Leader and Rater Form) and Scoring Guide (Form 5X-Short). https://doi.org/10.1037/ t03624-000. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., Jung, D.I., 1999. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 72, 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789. Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press. Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley, New York. Boiral, O., 2009. Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 87, 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9881-2. Boiral, O., Paillé, P., 2012. Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: measurement and validation. J. Bus. Ethics 109, 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-011-1138-9. Boiral, O., Raineri, N., Talbot, D., 2018. Managers’ citizenship behaviors for the environment: a developmental perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 149, 395–409. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-016-3098-6. Boiral, O., Talbot, D., Paillé, P., 2015. Leading by example: a model of organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Bus. Strategy Environ. 24, 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1835. Bottomley, P., Mostafa, A.M.S., Gould‐Williams, J.S., León‐Cázares, F., 2016. The impact of transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behaviours: the contingent role of public service motivation. Br. J. Manag. 27, 390–405. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-8551.12108. Brockhouse, R., Msetfi, R.M., Cohen, K., Joseph, S., 2011. Vicarious exposure to trauma and growth in therapists: the moderating effects of sense of coherence, organizational support, and empathy. J. Trauma. Stress 24, 735–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts. 20704. Cantor, D.E., Morrow, P.C., Montabon, F., 2012. Engagement in environmental behaviors among supply chain management employees: an organizational support theoretical perspective. J. Supply Chain. Manag. 48, 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745493X.2011.03257.x. Carbon Brief, 2018. Tourism Responsible for 8% of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Study Finds [WWW Document]. Carbon Brief. URL https://www.carbonbrief.org/ tourism-responsible-for-8-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-study-finds (accessed 5.6.19). Carmona-Moreno, E., Céspedes-Lorente, J., de Burgos-Jiménez, J., 2004. Environmental strategies in Spanish hotels: contextual factors and peformance. Serv. Ind. J. 24, 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264206042000247786. Chen, Y.S., Chang, C.H., Lin, Y.H., 2014. Green transformational leadership and green performance: the mediation effects of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6106604. Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295–358. Choi, H.-M., Kim, W.G., Kim, Y.J., Agmapisarn, C., 2019. Hotel environmental management initiative (HEMI) scale development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 77, 562–572. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.08.020. Chou, C.J., 2014. Hotels’ environmental policies and employee personal environmental

Environmental Training I have received training related to: 1 Environmental issues [e.g., global warming]. 2 Environmental management practices. 3 Environmental tools and techniques. Organizational Environmental Support 1 My hotel is willing to assist employees in solving environmental problems. 2 Help is available at my hotel when environmental problems arise. 3 My hotel is willing to extend itself to solve an environmental problem. Social Desirability (Measured marker variable) 1 2 3 4

I I I I

smile at people every time I meet them. always practice what I preach to people. never lie to people. never laugh at dirty jokes people may make.

Environmental Belief (Scale of New Ecological Paradigm) 1 We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support. 2 Humans interfering with nature produces disastrous consequences. 3 Humans are seriously abusing the environment. 4 The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 5 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 6 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. Organizational Citizenship Behavior toward the Environment 1 In my work, I weigh the consequences of my actions before doing something that could affect the environment. 10

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

Sustainability 9, 1567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091567. Kara, D., Kim, H.(Lina), Lee, G., Uysal, M., 2018. The moderating effects of gender and income between leadership and quality of work life (QWL). Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 30, 1419–1435. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0514. Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S.E., Ployhart, R.E., 2014. Multilevel Influences on Voluntary Workplace Green Behavior: Individual Differences, Leader Behavior, and Coworker Advocacy. J. Manage. XX, 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206314547386. Kim, H.J., Park, J., Wen, J., 2015. General managers’ environmental commitment and environmental involvement of lodging companies: the mediating role of environmental management capabilities. Int J Contemp Hospitality Mngt 27, 1499–1519. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0011. Kim, J., Hlee, S., Joun, Y., 2016. Green Practise of the Hotel Industry : analysis through the windows of smart tourism system. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 36, 1–10. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.05.001. Kim, Y.J., Kim, W.G., Choi, H.M., Phetvaroon, K., 2019. The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 76, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018. 04.007. Kock, N., 2015. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach. IJeC 11, 1–10. Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J., Williams, E.G., 2013. Read this article, but don’t print it: organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Group Organ. Manag. 38, 163–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112475210. Lee, H.Y., Lee, Y.-K., Kwon, D., 2005. The intention to use computerized reservation systems: the moderating effects of organizational support and supplier incentive. J. Bus. Res. 58, 1552–1561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.07.008. Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., Xue, Y., 2007. Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. Mis Q. 31, 59–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148781. Liefferink, D., Wurzel, R.K.W., 2017. Environmental leaders and pioneers: agents of change? J. Eur. Public Policy 24, 951–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016. 1161657. Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G., Widaman, K.F., 2002. To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 9, 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1. Lofquist, E.A., Matthiesen, S.B., 2018. Viking leadership: how Norwegian transformational leadership style effects creativity and change through organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Int. J. Cross Cult. Manag. 18, 309–325. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1470595818806326. Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., Sivasubramaniam, N., 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the literature. Leadersh. Q. 7, 385–425. Luu, T.T., 2019. Building employees’ organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: the role of environmentally-specific servant leadership and a moderated mediation mechanism. Int J Contemp Hospitality Mngt 31, 406–426. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2017-0425. Majeed, N., Ramayah, T., Mustamil, N., Nazri, M., Jamshed, S., 2017. Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: modeling emotional intelligence as mediator. Manag. Mark. 12, 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1515/mmcks-20170034. Mittal, S., Dhar, R.L., 2016. Effect of green transformational leadership on green creativity: a study of tourist hotels. Tour. Manag. 57, 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2016.05.007. Özduran, A., Tanova, C., 2017. Manager mindsets and employee organizational citizenship behaviours. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29, 589–606. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJCHM-03-2016-0141. Petty, R.E., Briñol, P., 2015. Emotion and persuasion: cognitive and meta-cognitive processes impact attitudes. Cogn. Emot. 29, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02699931.2014.967183. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5. 879. 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. Leadersh. Q. 1, 107–142. https://doi.org/10. 1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7. Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879. Raineri, N., Paillé, P., 2016. Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: the role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 137, 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-0152548-x. Ramus, C.A., Killmer, A.B.C., 2007. Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviours – a conceptual framework for employee motivation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 16, 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.504. Ramus, C.A., Steger, U., 2000. The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 605–626. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556357. Robertson, J.L., Barling, J., 2013. Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 176–194. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.1820. Robertson, J.L., Carleton, E., 2018. Uncovering how and when environmental leadership affects employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior. J. Leadership Org. Studies

beliefs: interactions and outcomes. Tour. Manag. 40, 436–446. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tourman.2013.08.001. Daily, B.F., Bishop, J.W., Govindarajulu, N., 2009. A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Bus. Soc. 48, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650308315439. Deci, E., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, Perspectives in Social Psychology. Springer US. Deci, E.L., Vansteenkiste, M., 2004. Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia 27, 23–40. del Brío, J.Á., Fernández, E., Junquera, B., 2007. Management and employee involvement in achieving an environmental action-based competitive advantage: an empirical study. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 18, 491–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585190601178687. Dijkstra, T.K., Henseler, J., 2015. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. Mis Q. 39, 297–316. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02. Dimara, E., Manganari, E., Skuras, D., 2017. Don’ t change my towels please : factors in fluencing participation in towel reuse programs. Tour. Manag. 59, 425–437. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.003. Dolores, V.-S.M., Eulogio, C.-P., Vera, F.-V., 2012. Human resource management and developing proactive environmental strategies: the influence of environmental training and organizational learning. Hum. Resour. Manage. 51, 905–934. https:// doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21507. Duke, A.B., Goodman, J.M., Treadway, D.C., Breland, J.W., 2009. Perceived organizational support as a moderator of emotional Labor/Outcomes relationships. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39, 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00470.x. Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E., 2005. Measuring endorsement of the New ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. In: Kalof, L., Satterfield, T. (Eds.), The Earthscan Reader in Environmental Values. Earthscan, London, pp. 170–185. Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E., 2000. New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537. 00176. Dweck, C.S., 2008. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books, New York, NY. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., Davis-LaMastro, V., 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. J. Appl. Psychol. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., Sowa, D., 1986. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 71, 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3. 500. Emerson, R.M., 1976. Social exchange theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2, 335–362. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003. Erdogan, B., Enders, J., 2007. Support from the top: supervisors’ perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92. 2.321. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 3151312. Gabbatiss, J., 2018. Tourism is Responsible for Nearly One Tenth of Global Carbon Emissions Come from Tourism [WWW Document]. The Independent. URL https:// www.independent.co.uk/environment/tourism-climate-change-carbon-emissionsglobal-warming-flying-cars-transport-a8338946.html (accessed 5.6.19). Gagné, M., Deci, E.L., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322. Graves, L.M., Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., 2013. How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China. J. Environ. Psychol. 35, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.002. Haddock-Millar, J., Sanyal, C., Müller-Camen, M., 2016. Green human resource management: a comparative qualitative case study of a United States multinational corporation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27, 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585192.2015.1052087. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202. Han, H., Hyun, S.S., 2018. What influences water conservation and towel reuse practices of hotel guests? Tour. Manag. 64, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017. 08.005. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R. (Eds.), 2009. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. Advances in International Marketing 20. Hoch, J.E., Bommer, W.H., Dulebohn, J.H., Wu, D., 2018. Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. J. Manage. 44, 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206316665461. Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118. Hutchinson, C., 1996. Corporate strategy and the environment. In: Welford, R., Starkey, R. (Eds.), Business and the Environment: A Reader. Earthscan, London, pp. 85–104. Jex, S.M., Britt, T.W., 2014. Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. John Wiley & Sons. Jiang, W., Zhao, X., Ni, J., 2017. The impact of transformational leadership on employee sustainable performance: the mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior.

11

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

W.G. Kim, et al.

1059601111401017. Wang, X..-H.(Frank), Kim, T.-Y., Lee, D.-R., 2016. Cognitive diversity and team creativity: effects of team intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership. J. Business Res. 69, 3231–3239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.026. Wong, W.Y.L., 1998. A holistic perspective on quality quests and quality gains: the role of environment. Total Quality Management 9, 241–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0954412988992. World Bank Group, 2018. Thailand Economic Monitor: Beyond the Innovation Paradox April 2018. World Bank Group, 2017. Thailand Economic Monitor: Digital Transformation August 2017. Bangkok, Thailand. . Yi, S., Li, X., Jai, T..M.(Catherine), 2018. Hotel guests’ perception of best green practices: a content analysis of online reviews. Tourism and Hospitality Research 18, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358416637251. Yoon, D.-Y., Han, S.H., Seo, G., Yoon, S.W., 2016. Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing: mediating roles of employee’s empowerment, commitment, and citizenship behaviors. J. Workplace Learning 28, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JWL-09-2015-0066. Yu, H., Sirsat, S.A., Neal, J.A., 2019. Linking food safety training with whistle-blowing: the mediation roles of job satisfaction and self-efficacy | Emerald Insight. Int. J. Contemp. Hospitality Mngt. 31, 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-20170689. Yukl, G., 1989. Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. J. Management 15, 251–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500207. Zacher, H., Winter, G., 2011. Eldercare demands, strain, and work engagement: the moderating role of perceived organizational support. J. Vocational Behavior 79, 667–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.020.

25, 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817738940. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Sammalisto, K., Brorson, T., 2008. Training and communication in the implementation of environmental management systems (ISO 14001): a case study at the University of Gävle, Sweden. J. Cleaner Production 16, 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2006.07.029. Simons, A.M., Beltramo, T., Blalock, G., Levine, D.I., 2017. Using unobtrusive sensors to measure and minimize Hawthorne effects: evidence from cookstoves. J. Environmental Economics and Management, Special Issue Environ. Econ. Developing Countries 86, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.05.007. Sourvinou, A., Filimonau, V., 2018. Planning for an environmental management programme in a luxury hotel and its perceived impact on staff: an exploratory case study. J. Sust. Tourism 26, 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1377721. Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., Jia, J., 2018. Green human resource management practices: scale development and validity. Asia Pacific J. Human Res. 56, 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12147. Tian, A.W., Gamble, J., Cordery, J., 2016. Staying and performing: how human resource management practices increase job embeddedness and performance. Personnel Review 45, 947–968. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2014-0194. Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Xanthopoulou, D., 2011. Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly 22, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.011. Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S.H., Colbert, A.E., 2011. Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management 36, 223–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/

12