When does an employee not help coworkers? The effect of leader–member exchange on employee envy and organizational citizenship behavior

International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 530–537

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

When does an employee not help coworkers? The effect of leader–member exchange on employee envy and organizational citizenship behavior Soo Kim a,*, John W. O’Neill b,1, Hyun-Min Cho c,2 a

School of Business, Montclair State University, 1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043, United States School of Hospitality Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States c KCTI (Korea Culture & Tourism Institute) Tourism Policy Research Division, Culture Contents Center, #1602, Sangam-Dong, Mapo-Gu, Seoul 121-270, Republic of Korea b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Hotel management Leader–member exchange (LMX) Employee envy Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)

Using a sample of 233 front-line hotel employees, we examined leader–member exchange (LMX), envy, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The results from path analysis support the research model that employees who have a relatively poor working relationship with their supervisor (i.e., lowquality LMX relationship) were more likely to show higher levels of envy than employees who have relatively closer working relationships with the same supervisor (i.e., high-quality LMX relationship). Ultimately, higher levels of envy decreased employee voluntary helping behavior (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior, OCB) toward coworkers. This finding suggests that employees perceiving a poor working relationship with their supervisor committed less voluntary helping behavior toward coworkers than their counterparts. Implications for managers and suggestions for future research are discussed. ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Front-line jobs in the hospitality industry often require employees to express their emotions in a controlled fashion. Outsiders (e.g., customers) may affect front-line employees’ emotions and create emotional stress (Kim, 2008). Insiders (e.g., other employees) may also affect employee emotions based on regular interactions with supervisors and coworkers (Basch and Fisher, 2000). Even though front-line employees’ emotional control plays a vital role in providing quality customer service, we believe that envy, one important type of employee emotion, may prohibit employees from delivering quality customer service. First, we focus on the outsider factor (e.g., customer interactions). Front-line employees may be easily susceptible to emotional burnout from their everyday work lives (Kim, 2008; Kim et al., 2009). Once their emotions are deleteriously affected, it may decrease ultimate employee performance (Young and Corsun, 2009), directly affecting customer service. Therefore, the ability to understand this mechanism and to minimize emotional burdens among employees can be crucial predictors of the effectiveness of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 973 655 7765; fax: +1 973 655 4456. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Kim), [email protected] (J.W. O’Neill), [email protected] (H.-M. Cho). 1 Tel.: +1 814 863 8984; fax: +1 814 863 4257. 2 Tel.: +82 3 3153 2447; fax: +82 2 3153 2410. 0278-4319/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.08.003

supervisors because supervisors are responsible for providing their employees with an environment allowing for the delivery of quality customer service. Yet, supervisors may not be effective, because they might create ‘‘unnecessary’’ negative emotions (e.g., envy) in some of their employees. When we focus on the insider factor (i.e., interactions with supervisors and coworkers), we find the potential that supervisors may not be effective in that employee performance may be negatively affected from interactions with supervisors and coworkers. Supervisors tend to treat their employees differently within the same work group (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), and some employees may perceive themselves to be treated well (i.e., close working relationships), others to be treated reasonably (i.e., middle working relationships), but others treated poorly (i.e., poor working relationships). A recent study found that employees in restaurants deliver higher levels of customer service when those employees perceive that their coworkers help and support them (Susskind et al., 2007). Customer service in the hospitality industry is an aggregated process involving employees working together and having regular interactions with one another. Such regular interactions, therefore, might be natural sources providing employees with frequent comparison with each other on critical aspects of work such as interpersonal relations (e.g., employee–supervisor working relationship), professional reputation, rewards, or success at work. Employee–supervisor working relationships (i.e., leader–member exchange, LMX) result in employees comparing themselves

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 530–537

with coworkers. With frequent comparison, employees may often develop negative feelings such as envy, and this envy may result in harmful effects in organizations (Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007). Given that supervisors are the most powerful sources related to pay increases, better assigned jobs, or promotions (Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004), an employee who has a close working relationship with his/her supervisor (i.e., high-quality LMX relationship) is expected to enjoy favorable support and resources from that relationship (Harris et al., 2005). It might be a different situation, however, for an employee who has a poor working relationship with the same supervisor (i.e., low-quality LXM relationship). Given that hospitality organizations may provide limited resources or opportunities for promotion, each employee within the same work group can quickly learn which employees receive what advantages (Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007). By comparing what they receive and what others receive, feeling of envy may arise. Some employees (i.e., low-quality LMX employees) may feel envy after knowing that what they receive is unfavorable compared to what others receive (i.e., high-quality LMX employees). In general, high-quality LMX employees take advantage of the positive relationship with their supervisor and receive higher performance ratings and superior job assignments/ schedules, while their counterparts (i.e., low-quality LMX employees) do not enjoy the same advantages (see Gerstner and Day, 1997, for a review). Even if the situation does not seem to be unfair, envy can still be aroused among employees (Bedeian, 1995; Smith, 1991). In any case, we predict that LMX will affect employee envy. Consequently, such differentiated treatment or different working relationships can easily develop into tension and negative emotion (e.g., envy) among low-quality LMX employees, creating problems for them working with high-quality LMX employees in a work group (Deluga, 1994; Sherony and Green, 2002; Vecchio, 2000). Such organizationally undesirable situations may infect employee interactions and eventually prevent optimal performance. During the process of infecting cooperation, envy may inhibit low-quality LMX employees from voluntarily helping others (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior, OCB). One of the reactions of envy in the workplace is not helping the envied ones (Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007). While OCB is an essential employee work behavior and has been related to organizational effectiveness (cf. Chen et al., 1998), our particular interest is focused on the idea that OCB has been positively related to customer service and service quality (Castro, 2004; Morrison, 1996; Schneider et al., 2005; Walz and Niehoff, 2000; Yoon and Suh, 2003). When employees engage in OCB, they select different OCBs in that OCB-Individual (OCBI) directly benefits organizational members and in that OCB-Organization (OCBO) directly benefits the organization (Williams and Anderson, 1991). We predict that envy will affect both OCBI and OCBO.

Fig. 1. Proposed model of relationships among LMX, employee envy, and OCBs.

531

To our knowledge, there is no published research regarding the relationship between LMX, OCB, and employee envy. It is important to examine whether LMX affects employee envy and thus affects OCB, which may eventually influence customer service and service quality in the hospitality industry. If the relationship among variables is supported from the results of this study, it indicates that employee envy has the potential to deleteriously affect customer service and service quality. Based on the relationship described previously, we suggest the hypothesized model in Fig. 1. The following section delineates theoretical associations among the subject variables. 2. Literature review 2.1. Leader–member exchange (LMX) Leader–member exchange (LMX) is defined as the quality of the working relationship between an employee and his or her immediate supervisor (Dansereau et al., 1975). It represents a dyadic process that reflects different levels of the relationship to each employee. This process is based on the belief that a supervisor has different types of interaction with different employees in the same work group (Graen and Cashman, 1975). Such differentiation is one of the most unique contributions to leadership theory (cf. Gerstner and Day, 1997; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). The assumption of LMX is that leadership effectiveness cannot be understood without examining how supervisors and employees influence each other over time. LMX views leadership as being fairly heterogeneous across employees within a work unit (i.e., Vertical Dyadic Linkage, VDL), whereas traditional leadership theories view leadership as being fairly homogeneous across employees within a work unit (i.e., Average Leadership Style, ALS). An ALS-based research assumption is that a supervisor acts in a relatively uniform way toward all employees; therefore, research from this perspective concentrates almost exclusively on the supervisor’s typical or average behaviors toward employees (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). In the ALS approach, deviations in the average employee’s perception of the supervisor typically are treated as error variance, and therefore, are ignored (e.g., between group variation in leadership). As a result, supervisor self-reports and employees’ perceptions of the supervisor have been treated as a group level phenomenon (Rousseau, 1985). In contrast, the LMX approach treats such deviations as predictive of subsequent behaviors (e.g., within-group variation in leadership, Dansereau et al., 1975) that result in a non-homogeneity assumption across employees within the same work unit. Due to limited time and resources, supervisors will typically develop close relationships with only a few employees (e.g., highquality LMX employees), but keep their distance from other employees (e.g., low-quality LMX employees). The higher the quality of the LMX relationships, the greater the benefits employees receive of valued resources, support, information, or social networks (Dienesch and Liden, 1986; Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007; Lam, 2003; Liden and Maslyn, 1998; Liden et al., 1997). Similarly, the higher the quality of hospitality LMX relationships, the greater the benefits of valuable resources and support (Borchgrevink and Boster, 1994, 1997; Sparrowe, 1994, 1995). Traditionally, LMX researchers have highlighted the ‘‘bright side of LMX’’ such that higher quality LMX is associated with higher job satisfaction, higher employee performance, and lower turnover intention in organizations (cf. Gerstner and Day, 1997; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Given that low-quality LMX relationships have been related to dysfunctional outcomes (e.g., reduced citizenship behavior and higher turnover intention) and in turn can present enormous costs to organizations (Mayfield and Mayfield, 1998), low-quality LMX relationships need be studied. Nonetheless, little

532

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 530–537

research has been conducted on low-quality LMX (cf. Kacmar et al., 2007). The focus in our study is on low-quality LMX relationships. In the hospitality industry, front-line employees have frequent interactions with their supervisor and coworkers. While interacting with one another, employees can naturally compare each other regarding critical aspects of work such as interpersonal relations (e.g., employee–supervisor working relationship, LMX). Because supervisors are very influential on critical work aspects, (Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004), high-quality LMX employees have advantages of favorable support and resources from the relationship, whereas low-quality LMX employees are less likely to have what their counterparts enjoy. As a primary source of critical aspects regarding work, LMX can provide each employee with comparison within a group. When employees actually learn that their relationships are worse (i.e., lower quality LMX) than their coworkers (i.e., higher quality LMX), it may upset the employees’ sense of balance, creating envy (Heider, 1958; Smith, 2000). It would be ideal if all supervisors and all employees had highquality LMX relationships to optimize aggregated performance; however, in the real workplace, not all LMXs are close, and lowquality LMX relationships exist. We, therefore, propose LMX as a precursor to employee envy. 2.2. Employee envy Employee envy is an unpleasant and negative emotion driven by comparison with one’s coworkers and focusing on what one does not have compared to others (Menon and Thompson, 2007; Parrott and Smith, 1993; Smith and Kim, 2007). Envy can occur when one learns that he or she does not have a close or beneficial relationship with one’s superior, and desires to have such a relationship with his/her superior. When experiencing envy, one feels discontented and hostile to some degree because another enjoys a desired superiority. Once envy is experienced, it is difficult to control, hide, or change (Parrott, 1991). When an employee undertakes the process of comparing oneself with coworkers, the compared coworkers could easily be more successful ones (Smith, 2000). The closer an individual is to someone, the more likely that envious comparison processes will occur (Tesser, 1988). CohenCharash (2000) explained a required condition of envy with a job promotion situation, as ‘‘when person A notices that a similar other, person B, has something (e.g., promotion) that person A wants but does not have, and the desired object or condition (e.g., promotion) is important to A, A will probably experience envy (p. 2).’’ Given that envy in a close working group is felt by comparing one another, we apply this situation to the LMX domain. We formulate that by substituting LMX for promotion in such a way that when a low-quality LMX employee notices that high-quality LMX employees have better working relationships with the same supervisor (i.e., high-quality LMX), and the high-quality LMX is important to the employee, the employee may experience envy. Often, envy is accompanied with perceived injustice or unfairness (Ben-Ze’ev, 2000; Smith, 1991). However, comparing one’s own outcomes relative to other’s outcomes with the proportion to one’s and other’s inputs (i.e., perceived equity) is not a required prerequisite for experiencing envy. Envy may not depend on equitable exchanges, but rather on discontent that one does not have the possession that others have (Bedeian, 1995; Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007). Furthermore, unfairness can serve as an excuse for envy when people justify their emotions (Ben-Ze’ev, 1992). Accordingly, even if there is no social support for the perceived unfairness, people still could feel envy, especially under a competitive circumstance (Smith, 1991; Smith et al., 1994). If the other person violates objective, societal standards of fairness, and the violation meets severe, obvious standards of

unfairness, then the emotion would be resentment rather than envy (Smith, 2000). In such a way, supervisors may argue that they differentiate higher or lower quality LMX relationships based on their ‘‘fair’’ decision-making regarding employees’ performance, and that the differentiations are not unfair. Therefore, it may not make sense to them if some employees feel envy because their LMX relationships are lower. Although there is a tendency that unfair situations may increase envy (Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007), fairness does not guarantee that envy will not emerge. In addition to the subjectivity of envy, supervisors could simply rate and differentiate higher quality LMX employees as good performers as a result of halo effect (Duarte et al., 1994). Once envy is felt, the employee tends to balance what the employee does not have with what the envied employees have. When the envious employee undergoes this process of balance, he/ she may harm the envied ones (Heider, 1958; Smith, 2000). The stronger one feels envy, the more negative are the reactions toward the envied ones (Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007). While we expect that envious employees will exhibit less helping behavior toward the envied ones (i.e., coworkers), we do not expect that envious ones intentionally neglect their assigned duties as one of the reactions of envy (e.g., sabotage, Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007). If employees are dissatisfied, they may withdraw voluntary helping behaviors (e.g., OCBs, Uhl-Bien and Maslyn, 2003) because such behaviors are voluntary, not required. For example, ‘‘helping coworkers’’ may not be ‘‘explicitly’’ described in job descriptions, but employees may be ‘‘implicitly’’ expected to help coworkers voluntarily. It may be a beneficial self-protective strategy for an envious employee not to help envied coworkers while still adequately performing his/her assigned duties. We, therefore, propose envy as an inhibitor of OCB and simultaneously as a mediator between LMX and OCB. 2.3. LMX, employee envy and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is proposed as a criterion variable in our research model in that LMX affects employee envy which, in turn, negatively influences OCB. OCB has been chosen as the ending point of our model because of its importance for the hospitality industry (Raub, 2008). In the hospitality industry, OCB has been particularly and positively related to customer service and satisfaction, employee performance (Walz and Niehoff, 2000) and effective service delivery (Bienstock et al., 2003; Castro, 2004; Morrison, 1996; Schneider et al., 2005; Yoon and Suh, 2003). OCB is defined as employees’ extra-helping behavior that immediately benefits a specific individual and indirectly contributes to an organization. OCB behaviors are behaviors that are discretionary, not described by job definitions (Organ, 1988). A number of studies have suggested a direct relationship between LMX and OCB on the basis of social exchange theory that represents cooperation between two or more individuals for mutual benefit (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). With social exchange theory, LMX has been reported to be associated with OCB such that higher quality LMX employees are also higher OCB performers (Hui et al., 1999; Ilies et al., 2007; Masterson et al., 2000; Setton et al., 1996; Wayne et al., 1997). It might be difficult to dispute the theoretical role of social exchange theory on the relationship between LMX and OCB; however, there are other views that the findings of the direct relationship between LMX and OCB have been overstated (cf. House and Aditya, 1997). Studies have found either no significant relationship between LMX and OCB (e.g., Wayne et al., 2002), or have found mediators to explain more sophisticated relationships between LMX and OCB (e.g., Hoffmann et al., 2003; Tierney et al., 2002). Because of halo effect

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 530–537

or other biases, supervisors may simply perceive and rate higher LMX employees as better performers on every performance dimension (Duarte et al., 1994). Compared to a significant amount of attention devoted to investigating promoters of OCB (cf. Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007; Turnley et al., 2003), there is little research on inhibitors of OCB (Hui et al., 1999). Employee envy may be an inhibitor of OCB, but it should not be an inhibitor of employees’ assigned formal duties, as previously discussed. By definition, OCB is a discretionary behavior that is not indicated in one’s job description. When employees perform OCB, they select and engage in behavior in two fundamentally different ways: behavior that directly benefits individuals or organizational members (i.e., OCBI) and behavior that directly benefits the organization (i.e., OCBO, Williams and Anderson, 1991). OCBI consists of extra-helping behaviors for specific individuals. Envy has been proposed to be induced from low-quality LMX employees comparing themselves with highquality LMX employees. We therefore propose that employee envy is a negatively correlated precursor of OCBI such that envious lowquality LMX employees hesitate to assist the envied high-quality LMX employees. Another proposal has been that envy can be a negatively correlated precursor of OCBO, given that supervisors are the representative agents or ‘‘faces’’ of organizations to employees (Schneider, 1987). In fact, low-quality LMX employees tend to respond negatively to their supervisors while performing their duties (Harris et al., 2005). Taken together, we suggest within our hypothesized model that low-quality LMX stimulates employee envy and, in turn, OCB suffers from that envy. 3. Methodology 3.1. Participants and procedure Front-line hotel employees (i.e., food and beverage, front desk, and housekeeping employees) made up the study population. A convenience sample was created by recruiting six general managers of full service, non-all-suite hotels located in the Northeastern United States to participate in this study. Full service hotels were the focus of this study because they typically have a sufficient number of both hourly employees and supervisors for this study design. Participants in four hotels were asked to complete the survey questionnaire on-site in group settings in four hotels. The first author had permission to attend the group settings. Once each employee finished the survey, he or she personally gave the first author the completed survey. For the sensitivity of this study, we especially cared about employees’ anonymity and their responses’ confidentiality. In the survey, therefore, the respondents were not allowed to mention their names. In this way, the participants were also ensured that the survey was confidential. Participants in two other hotels completed the questionnaire by mail. In this case, we assured the purpose and confidentiality of this study through the cover letter for each survey. Supervisors at those two hotels gave the employees the survey in a self-addressed envelope to return directly to the first author of this study to reinforce the confidentiality of the data collection procedures. A total of 233 employees returned usable questionnaires that had been distributed at the six different hotel properties, representing a total response rate of 91.2%. Employees’ ages ranged from 18 to 64, and average age was 38. Male employees comprised 41.5% of the study population, while female employees comprised 58.4%. Food and beverage employees consisted of 42.6%, while front desk employees were 34.4%, and housekeeping employees were 22.8%. Most of the participants were full-time employees (94.9%). The employees had worked with their immediate supervisor from less than 1 year to 17 years. The average length of this relationship was 3.6 years.

533

3.2. Measures LMX was measured by LMX7 with seven items on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree, Scandura and Graen, 1984; Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004). Among several different measures of LMX, LMX7 has become the most widely used scale and has shown the strongest psychometric properties of all LMX instruments (cf. Kacmar et al., 2007). A sample item includes: ‘‘My supervisor and I get along well together.’’ We used Vecchio’s (2000) workplace envy scale that represents employee envy at work. Given that there is little research regarding employee envy, we had limited choice to compare which employee envy scale is more reliable. We did not use Cohen-Charash’s (2000) workplace envy scale that requires an actual name on the survey, which may be more appropriate for scenarios or experimental designs. Vecchio’s scale consists of five items on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree). A sample item includes: ‘‘At the job, most of my co-workers have it better than I do.’’ OCBs were measured by Williams and Anderson’s (1991) OCBI scale with six items on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree) and OCBO scale with three items on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree). A sample OCBI item includes: ‘‘I would typically take over a coworker’s duties if they are absent from work.’’ A sample OCBO item includes: ‘‘My attendance at work is above the norm.’’ We should note several methodological thoughts regarding the measurement of OCBs in this section. There are notions that multiple sources of measure (e.g., both self-report OCBs and supervisory measure of OCBs for their employees) are preferable to reduce common-method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and that self-report OCBs may be vulnerable to social desirability bias (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Podsakoff et al., 2003). We obtained employee measure of OCBs, and we did not obtain supervisory measure of OCBs for their employees. A supervisory measure of OCBs for employees may be preferable; however, it may contaminate the results. As indicated above, supervisors may simply evaluate high-quality LMX employees as better OCB performers with a halo effect (Duarte et al., 1994; Schnake, 1991) that could raise a spurious relationship between the predictor variables (i.e., LMX and envy) and criterion (i.e., OCBs) variable. Supervisors may have memory distortion bias or may fail to observe employee OCBs correctly (Schnake, 1991). The ideal way to reduce both a single source bias (e.g., common-method bias) and supervisory biases (e.g., halo effect or memory distortion bias) might be collecting data from both sides. Data from both sides, however, generate the problem of the anonymity of the respondents, given that the data from both sides must be matched and requires actual names. If anonymity suffers, then research participants may not want to respond or may change the responses that may distort the relationship among variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Given that anonymity is important and because of the sensitive nature of the issues in this study, we chose procedural remedies to reduce common-method bias. Procedural or design remedies (e.g., a sophisticated survey design) and statistical remedies (e.g., a single-factor test) are recommended for controlling such biases. We chose procedural over statistical remedies based on the recommendation that procedural remedies are an authentically treated method. While procedural remedies are used before collecting the actual data, statistical remedies do nothing for method effects because they are used after collecting the data (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Podsakoff et al., 2003). We separately measured the predictors (i.e., LMX and employee envy) and criterion variable (i.e., OCBs) with a time lag. Procedures also included separating questions in the survey to reduce the

534

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 530–537

appearance that the measurement of the predictor variables is not related to the criterion variable. Specifically, participants were first asked to measure the predictor variables, and then asked to measure the criterion variable. We told the participants either verbally in groups, or in cover letters, that their responses were anonymous. We assured respondents there were no right or wrong answers to maximize the likelihood that we would receive honest answers and data from them. As another procedural remedy (e.g., improving scale items) to reduce common-method bias, we used the measurement of social desirability scale and positive and negative affectivity (PANAS). Because of self-report OCBs, a concern was whether there is a socially desirable way of responding among employees (e.g., intent to look good to others) and thus whether socially desirable responses may distort the relationship among variables and the results as a whole (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We were also concerned about the spurious effect of employees’ dispositional emotion (i.e., whether or not they tend to be negative or positive by nature) on envy. We used Reynolds’s (1982) social desirability scale with 13 items on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree). A sample item is: ‘‘It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged.’’ We used Watson et al.’s (1988) PANAS scale. We instructed participants to indicate ‘‘to what extent you generally feel this way; this is how you feel on the average’’ using a five-point Likert-type scale (1: not at all to 5: extremely). Sample adjectives are ‘‘irritable’’ or ‘‘distressed.’’ 3.3. Analyses 3.3.1. Level of analysis The unit of analysis in this study was the individual. We examined the perception of employees’ LMX, envy, OCBs, social desirability, and PANAS. LMX can be measured by employees, by supervisors, or by both, depending on the research question(s) (Hall and Lord, 1998). LMX can be categorized as a level of conceptualization for leadership, and, therefore, is unique in its adoption of the dyadic relationship as the level of analysis (i.e., a dyadic process, Gerstner and Day, 1997). The assumption of LMX is that leadership may be perceived differently by each employee. In LMX, therefore, leadership can be treated as an individual level phenomenon (Rousseau, 1985). Moreover, employees’ ratings of LMX seem to be more reliable and predictive than supervisors’ (Liden et al., 1997; Masterson et al., 2000; Wayne et al., 2002), which was also supported by meta-analysis with an indication of a lower LMX alpha estimate from supervisors’ ratings (Gerstner and Day, 1997). Because relationships of different quality develop and vary, individuals do not perceive the behavior of their supervisors similarly. Thus, there would be little within-group homogeneity; interactions between supervisors and employees essentially occur in one-to-one settings (Gavin and Hofmann, 2002). Most importantly, we were interested in the perception of employees’ envy from their different relationships with supervisors, perceptions that can be felt regardless of unfair situations. If we measured supervisors’ rating of LMX, then the issue of unfairness may arise while matching the employee and supervisor measure of LMX. In conjunction with the concern of unfairness, we were concerned about the halo effect of supervisors (Duarte et al., 1994) having a false influence on supervisors’ ratings of employees’ OCBs. 3.3.2. Preliminary and main analyses ANOVA was conducted to examine whether there were any systematic differences among employees’ responses based on different supervisors and hotels, and also to examine if there were any systematic differences among the responses between the two data collection methods (i.e., mail vs. on-site administration).

Path analysis, as a main analysis, was used to examine whether the hypothesized model fits to the data and if there are statistically significant relations among the variables in the model. Even though path analysis does not guarantee causality with certainty, it implies that there are potential casual relationships among the variables. Arrows indicate the proposed relationships and the direction of the effect in the model (Susskind et al., 2007). LMX was treated as the exogenous variable with employee envy, and OCB was treated as the endogenous variable in the model. Employee envy was treated as a mediator between LMX and OCB. 4. Results 4.1. Preliminary analyses The variables of age, gender, and the length of working relationship with the supervisor were considered control variables of LMX (Bauer and Green, 1996). None of them indicated significant correlations with LMX, and all were dropped from further consideration. To check whether there was possible common-method bias, socially desirability and PANAS were measured. They emerged with six factors and four factors, respectively, and none of them indicated significant correlations with main variables. As a result, we dropped these items from main analyses. The result was somewhat surprising because social desirability was expected to correlate with the self-report measure of OCBs (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988; Morrison, 1994). The result is plausible in that there was no significant correlation between self-protective motives and OCB dimensions (Rioux and Penner, 2001). To examine systematic differences among employees’ responses in different supervisors and hotels and between the two different methods of data collection (i.e., mail vs. on-site administration), ANOVA was used. Because ANOVA revealed no systematic differences among employees’ responses from various supervisors and hotels, we combined all the data and examined them together in the main analyses. The homogeneity of responses was plausible in that all hotels participated in the study were unionized to some extent, full service, and located in the Northeastern U.S. LMX has been considered an individual level phenomenon (Rousseau, 1985), and thus should not be affected by an individual’s place of employment. 4.2. Main analyses 4.2.1. Descriptive analysis and correlations The descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables presented in the model are reported in Table 1. To reduce multicollinearity among variables, all variables were centered (Aiken and West, 1991). Second, we checked and calculated variance inflation factor (VIF) scores among the variables to alleviate concerns of multicollinearity. All variance inflation scores were below 3.5, suggesting that multicollinearity was not a significant concern in the analysis (Hair et al., 1998). As we predicted, LMX was negatively correlated to employee envy. Table 1 Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations (N = 233). Variable

M

SD

1

2

3

4

1. 2. 3. 4.

3.99 3.55 4.82 4.75

1.70 1.70 1.61 0.73

(.95) .79** .59** .12

(.89) .70** .08

(.96) .19*

(.74)

LMX Employee envy OCBI OCBO

Note: Cronbach’s a reliabilities for the scales are shown along the diagonal. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 530–537

Employee envy was negatively related to OCBI, but not to OCBO, as shown in Table 1. 4.2.2. Path analysis The hypothesized research model was analyzed by using leastsquares static-path analysis to examine the direct and indirect effects of relationships presented in the model. The overall fit of the model was adequate (x2 = 7.247, df = 4; GFI = .979; CFI = .984; RMR = .055; NFI = .923), indicating that the model produced a reasonable fit to the data. It means that low-quality LMX was associated with increased envy as we predicted. It further means that once there was a sufficient amount of envy, the fostered envy decreased employee citizenship behavior toward envied coworkers, but not toward the organization. In other words, our research model was supported in that employees who had a lowquality LMX relationship demonstrated the presence of envy, which was then strongly and negatively related to OCBI. As we predicted, therefore, envy is an inhibitor of OCB. As indicated in Fig. 2, LMX explains approximately 41% of the variance in employee envy with a negative direction (i.e., b = .64, p < .001, R2 = .41 for the path between LMX and employee envy). In other words, a low-quality LMX relationship can be a significant reason for employee envy. The results also show that employee envy was a significant predictor of OCBI (i.e., b = .51, p < .001, R2 = .26 for the path between employee envy and OCBI). It implies that if an employee feels envy, the envious employee withdraws helping behavior toward the envied coworkers. From this result, we understand and learn why employees are not willing to help coworkers when they need help. We can now answer our initial question regarding when does a hotel employee not help coworkers, and the answer appears to be the moment when he or she has envious feelings that may arise from a differentiated working relationship with his or her supervisor. This finding is critical because help and support from coworkers is vital in the hospitality industry. When employees perceive help and support from their coworkers, they demonstrate great commitment to their customers and deliver high levels of customer service (Susskind et al., 2007). Despite this promising finding, approximately 74% of the variance in OCBI was not explained by our model, with employee envy explaining the remainder of the variance (i.e., 26%) in OCBI. Front-line employees may have decreased their OCBI because of feeling envious; however, other factors have a significant influence on OCBI, as well. Unlike our prediction that envy is related to OCBO, the results did not support the prediction, indicating no significant path in Fig. 2. This result, however, is reasonable in that an employee may withdraw helping behavior toward coworkers (e.g., OCBI) but not intentionally avoid helping behavior toward the organization (e.g., OCBO), particularly if envy was the result of comparing oneself

Fig. 2. Model of relationships among LMX, employee envy, and OCB. Note: The standard errors for the path coefficients appear in parentheses; the model was tested at the unit level ***p < .001.

535

with coworkers, not with the organization. It may mean that OCBO may be predicted better and influenced easier by factors other than employee envy. Those factors or predictors may ultimately either promote or prohibit OCBO. 5. Discussion and managerial implications This study of front-line employees’ envy is of importance in the hospitality industry. Hospitality employees frequently interact with customers (Pizam, 2004), while regulating their emotions. Because of such demands, service employees are likely to experience emotional exhaustion and burnout (Kim, 2008; Kim et al., 2009). Supervisors should strive to minimize employees’ emotional ‘‘workloads.’’ The results of this study indicate that supervisors can do a better job decreasing employees’ emotional burden. In other words, supervisors may increase envy in their employees in that some of their employees may feel envy from low-quality LMX. Once employees feel envy, they tend to withdraw their organizational citizenship behavior that otherwise would promote better customer service and employee performance (Castro, 2004; Morrison, 1996; Schneider et al., 2005; Walz and Niehoff, 2000; Yoon and Suh, 2003). Negative effects of a lowquality LMX relationship can be greater when employees work as an interacting team because hostility induced by envy among team members undermines necessary cooperation (Duffy and Shaw, 2000). Thus, it is important for supervisors to implement proper systems, controls, and/or policies to minimize employee envy. Unmanaged envy could be correlated with employees’ deviant workplace behaviors that intentionally harm envied coworkers (Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007). On the other hand, if envy can be managed effectively, positive LMX can increase OCB. Given that envy emerged from low-quality LMX employees in this study, the systems, controls, and/or policies should be carefully designed from the perspective of low-quality LMX employees. The first step could be establishing fair, clear, and objective systems when assigning jobs, duties, and responsibilities. As discussed above, low-quality LMX employees do not seem to enjoy valued resources or support (Borchgrevink and Boster, 1994, 1997; Dienesch and Liden, 1986; Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007; Lam, 2003; Liden and Maslyn, 1998; Liden et al., 1997; Testa, 2009). If high-quality LMX employees are assigned superior/ preferred jobs or duties, then supervisors should provide every employee in the group with an objective reason to explain the process and reasoning for the assignment. The difference between why one gets what others do not should be clearly emphasized by management so that the difference may be understood by each employee. Also, managers should be careful not to be biased by halo effect, for example (Duarte et al., 1993). If systems are unfair, then levels of envy may be higher and the envy may be more intense. Even though employees could easily feel envy without objective support in any organizational setting, unfair situations may increase envy (Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007). To implement fair systems, objective performance evaluation should be instituted to increase the potential for organizational fairness (Dogan and Vecchio, 2001). Employee training may reduce employee envy, resulting in a message that each employee is valued. This training may provide the employees with guidelines that help avoid negative reactions from envy (Bedeian, 1995). As Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) suggested, managers should build more concrete and trustworthy relationships with lower quality LMX employees. Given the high turnover rate in the hospitality industry, building more concrete relationships is especially important because low LMX employees are prone to quit their jobs (Gerstner and Day, 1997). An open-door policy may decrease envy and indirectly improve LMX in that employees may feel comfortable discussing/venting their problems with their

536

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 530–537

supervisors. Similarly, informal meetings or social activities might be a prominent solution to potentially decrease envy by increasing LMX (Kim et al., 2004). As shown in the results of this study, reducing or decreasing envy potentially can build closer employee–supervisor working relationships and ultimately can increase organizational citizenship behavior, behavior that promotes higher levels of customer service and customer satisfaction (Castro, 2004; Morrison, 1996; Schneider et al., 2005; Walz and Niehoff, 2000; Yoon and Suh, 2003). 6. Limitations and suggestions for further research Despite empirical findings and practical managerial implications from this study, it has limitations like all studies of its kind. This study was a non-experimental and cross-sectional design; therefore, causality may not be warranted even though we used path analysis to examine the potentially causal relationships among variables. Because of a single source bias, OCB was likely to share common-method variance with its predictor variables (i.e., LMX and employee envy). Despite several procedural remedies we used when designing the survey and collecting data, the results should be interpreted with caution because the results may contain spurious relationships among variables. To reduce this commonmethod bias for future research, data from multiple sources (e.g., both employees and supervisors) may be advisable. Even though we did not examine the direct relationship between employee envy and customer service, customer service may suffer from employee envy. Front-line employees’ negative emotions can influence the quality of customer service, given that emotions are contagious (Pugh, 2001). For future studies, it might be interesting to examine if employee envy has a direct effect on customer service and quality. In the present study, we examined the indirect effect of employee envy on customer service through OCBI which has been related to customer service (Yoon and Suh, 2003). The results of this study found that approximately a third of the variance (i.e., 26%) of OCBI was explained by employee envy, but we did not identify other factors that may have influenced OCBI. We did not find that employee envy influenced OCBO. In other words, OCBO may be influenced by other factors that may ultimately either encourage or inhibit OCBO. For future research, it may be interesting to investigate potential factors, other than employee envy, that might influence OCBO, as well as OCBI. In conclusion, the results of this study show the relationship between LMX and OCBI is mediated by employee envy. We are aware of no published research regarding the relationships among LMX, employee envy, and OCB. From an academic perspective, this study can contribute not only to theory regarding the hospitality leadership, but to theory regarding hospitality employee emotions, as well. From a practical perspective, proper organizational systems to minimize envy should be implemented by management, given the potentially detrimental effects of employee envy on the important variable of organizational citizenship behavior. References Aiken, L., West, S., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Basch, J., Fisher, C.D., 2000. Affective events-emotions matrix: T classification of work events and associated emotions. In: Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J., Zerbe, W.J. (Eds.), Emotions in the Workplace: Research, Theory, and Practice. Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 36–48. Bauer, T.N., Green, S.G., 1996. Development of leader–member exchange: a longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal 39 (6), 1538–1567. Bienstock, C.C., DeMoranville, C.W., Smith, R.K., 2003. Organizational citizenship behavior and service quality. Journal of Services Marketing 17, 357–378. Ben-Ze’ev, A., 1992. Envy and inequality. Journal of Philosophy 20, 487–516. Ben-Ze’ev, A., 2000. The Subtlety of Emotions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Borchgrevink, C.P., Boster, F.J., 1994. Leader–member exchange: a test of the measurement model. Hospitality Research Journal 17, 75–100. Borchgrevink, C.P., Boster, F.J., 1997. Leader–member exchange development: a hospitality antecedent investigation. International Journal of Hospitality Management 16, 241–259. Castro, C.B., 2004. The influence of employee organizational citizenship behavior on customer loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management 15, 27– 53. Bedeian, A.G., 1995. Workplace envy. Organizational Dynamics 23 (4), 49–55. Chen, X.P., Hui, C., Sego, D.J., 1998. The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (6), 922–932. Cohen-Charash, Y., 2000. Envy at work: a preliminary examination of antecedents and outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Cohen-Charash, Y., Mueller, J.S., 2007. Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (3), 666–680. Cropanzano, R., Mitchell, M.S., 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management 31 (6), 874–900. Dansereau, F., Graen, G.B., Haga, W., 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13, 46–78. Dienesch, R.M., Liden, R.C., 1986. Leader–member exchange model of leadership: a critique and further development. Academy of Management Review 11 (3), 618–634. Deluga, R.J., 1994. Supervisor trust building, leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 67 (4), 315–326. Dogan, K., Vecchio, R.P., 2001. Managing envy and jealousy in the workplace. Compensation & Benefits Review 33 (2), 57–64. Duarte, N.T., Goodson, J.R., Klich, N.R., 1994. Effect of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal 37 (3), 499–521. Duffy, M.K., Shaw, J.D., 2000. The salieri syndrome: consequences of envy in groups. Small Group Research 31 (1), 3–23. Gavin, M.B., Hofmann, D.A., 2002. Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate the moderating influence of leadership climate. The Leadership Quarterly 13, 15–33. Gerstner, C.R., Day, D.V., 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (6), 827–844. Graen, G.B., Cashman, J.H., 1975. A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a developmental approach. In: Hunt, J.G., Larson, L.L. (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers. Kent State University Press, Kent, OH, pp. 143–166. Graen, G.B., Uhl-Bien, M., 1995. Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 6, 219–247. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hall, R.J., Lord, R.G., 1998. Measures and assessments for the information-processing approach. In: Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F.J. (Eds.), Leadership: The Multiple-Levels Approaches. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 185–190. Harris, K.J., Kacmar, M., Witt, L.A., 2005. An examination of the curvilinear relationship between leader–member exchange and intent to turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 (4), 363–378. Harris, M.M., Schaubroeck, J., 1988. A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personal Psychology 41, 43–62. Heider, F., 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. House, R.J., Aditya, R.N., 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management 23 (3), 409–473. Hoffmann, D.A., Morgeson, F.P., Gerras, S.J., 2003. Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader–member exchange and content specific citizenship: safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (1), 170– 178. Hui, C., Law, K.S., Chen, Z.X., 1999. A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader–member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: a Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 77, 3–21. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P., 2007. Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (1), 269–277. Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N.W., 2004. Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader–member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 47 (3), 368–384. Kacmar, K.M., Zivnuska, S., White, C.D., 2007. Control and exchange: the impact of work environment on the work effort of low relationship quality employees. The Leadership Quarterly 18, 69–84. Kamdar, D., Van Dyne, L., 2007. The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (5), 1286–1298. Kim, H.J., 2008. Hotel service providers’ emotional labor: the antecedents and effects on burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27, 151–161. Kim, H.J., Shin, K.H., Swanger, N., 2009. Burnout and engagement: a comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28, 96–104.

S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2010) 530–537 Kim, S., O’Neill, J.W., Jeong, S.E., 2004. The relationship among leader–member exchange, perceived organizational support, and trust in hotel organizations. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 3, 59–70. Lam, T., 2003. Leader–member exchange and team-member exchange: the role of moderators in new employees’ socialization. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 27, 48–68. Liden, R.C., Maslyn, J.M., 1998. Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management 24 (1), 43–72. Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T., Wayne, S., 1997. Leader–member exchange theory: the past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 15, 47–119. 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. Academy of Management Journal 43 (4), 738–748. Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J., 1998. Increasing worker outcomes by improving leader follower relations. The Journal of Leadership Studies 5, 72–81. Menon, T., Thompson, L., 2007. Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful: self-enhancing biases in threat appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 104, 45–60. Morrison, E.W., 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal 37 (6), 1543–1567. Morrison, E.W., 1996. Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM practices and service quality. Human Resource Management 35 (4), 493–512. Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effect of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3), 492–499. Parrott, W.G., 1991. The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In: Salovey, P. (Ed.), The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy. The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 3–30. Parrott, W.G., Smith, R.H., 1993. Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, 906–920. Pizam, A., 2004. Are hospitality employees equipped to hide their feelings? International Journal of Hospitality Management 23, 315–316. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903. Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12 (4), 531–544. Pugh, S.D., 2001. Services with a smile: emotional contagion in the service encounter. Academy of Management Journal 44 (5), 1018–1027. Raub, S., 2008. Does bureaucracy kill individual initiatives? The impact of structure on organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27, 179–186. Reynolds, W.M., 1982. Development of reliable & valid short form of the Marlowe– Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 38, 119–125. Rousseau, D.M., 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior 7, 1–37. Rioux, S.M., Penner, L.A., 2001. The cases of organizational citizenship behavior: a motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (6), 1306–1314. Scandura, T.A., Graen, G.B., 1984. Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (3), 428–436. Schnake, M., 1991. Organizational citizenship: a review, proposed model and research agenda. Human Relations 44 (7), 735–759. Schneider, B., 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology 40, 437–454. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., Mayer, D.M., Saltz, J.L., Nilles-Jolly, K., 2005. Understanding organization–customer links in service settings. Academy of Management Journal 48 (6), 1017–1032.

537

Setton, 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. Sherony, K.M., Green, S.G., 2002. Coworker exchange: relationships between coworkers, leader–member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3), 542–548. Smith, R.H., 1991. Envy and the sense of injustice. In: Salovey, P. (Ed.), The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy. The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 79–99. Smith, R.H., 2000. Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In: Suls, J., Wheeler, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Comparison: Theory and Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 173–200. Smith, R.H., Kim, S.H., 2007. Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin 133 (1), 46–64. Smith, R.H., Parrott, W.G., Ozer, D., Moniz, A., 1994. Subjective injustice and inferiority as predictors of hostile and depressive feelings in envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20, 705–711. Sparrowe, R.T., 1994. Empowerment in the hospitality industry: an exploration of antecedents and outcomes. Hospitality Research Journal 17, 51–73. Sparrowe, R.T., 1995. The effects of organizational culture and leader–member exchange on employee empowerment in the hospitality industry. Hospitality Research Journal 18, 95–109. Susskind, A.M., Kacmar, M., Borchgrevink, C.P., 2007. How organizational standards and coworker support improve restaurant service. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 48 (4), 370–379. Tesser, A., 1988. Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 21, 181–227. Testa, M.R., 2009. National culture, leadership and citizenship: implications for cross-cultural management. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28, 78–85. Tierney, P., Bauer, T.N., Potter, R.E., 2002. Extra-role behavior among Mexican employees: the impact of LMX, group acceptance, and job attitudes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 10, 292–303. Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W., Bloodgood, J.M., 2003. The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management 29 (2), 187–206. Uhl-Bien, M., Maslyn, J.M., 2003. Reciprocity in manager–subordinate relationships: components, configurations, and outcomes. Journal of Management 29 (4), 511–532. Vecchio, R.P., 2000. Negative emotion in the workplace: employee jealousy and envy. International Journal of Stress Management 7 (3), 161–179. Walz, S.M., Niehoff, B.P., 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 24, 301–319. Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegan, A., 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 1063–1070. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Liden, R.C., 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Review 40 (1), 82–111. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H., Tetrick, L.E., 2002. The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3), 590–598. Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17 (3), 601–617. Yoon, M.H., Suh, J., 2003. Organizational citizenship behaviors and service quality as external effectiveness of contact employees. Journal of Business Research 56, 597–611. Young, C.A., Corsun, D.A., 2009. What a nuisance: controlling for negative affectivity versus personality in hospitality stress research. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28, 280–288.