Antecedents Bilgin2015

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
An investigation of antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior in the Turkish hospitality industry:

a structural equation approach
Necdet Bilgin Cemil Kuzey Gökhan Torlak Ali Uyar
Article information:
To cite this document:
Necdet Bilgin Cemil Kuzey Gökhan Torlak Ali Uyar , (2015),"An investigation of antecedents of organizational citizenship
behavior in the Turkish hospitality industry: a structural equation approach", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp. 200 - 222
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-08-2014-0072
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 07:04 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 121 other documents.
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 07:04 30 January 2016 (PT)
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 272 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Carol Lu, Celine Berchoux, Michael W. Marek, Brendan Chen, (2015),"Service quality and customer satisfaction: qualitative
research implications for luxury hotels", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp.
168-182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-10-2014-0087
Wanna Prayukvong, Nara Huttasin, Morris John Foster, (2015),"Buddhist economics meets agritourism on the Thai farm",
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp. 183-199 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJCTHR-08-2014-0065
Serkan Akinci, Asl#han Kiymalio#lu, Eda Atilgan Inana, (2015),"How golf players’ satisfaction from golf experience predicts
their loyalty intentions? Mediating role of perceived value", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp. 117-132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2014-0033
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:397875 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

An investigation of antecedents of
organizational citizenship behavior in the
Turkish hospitality industry: a structural
equation approach
Necdet Bilgin, Cemil Kuzey, Gökhan Torlak and Ali Uyar
Necdet Bilgin is a Faculty Abstract

Member at Faculty of Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the relationships between organizational citizenship behavior
Economics and (OCB) and its antecedents – job satisfaction (JS), affective commitment (AC), organizational justice (OJ)
Administrative Sciences, and charismatic leadership (CL); the relationships among its antecedents; and mediating roles of JS
Celal Bayar University, and AC in the relationships between CL and OCB and between OJ and OCB in the Turkish hospitality
industry in Antalya region. Improving OCB in the hospitality industry, as in other industries, plays an
Manisa, Turkey.
important role in increasing service quality and organization performance.
Cemil Kuzey is an
Design/methodology/approach – The sample used for this study consisted of 768 employees
Associate
working in 18 hotels (4- or 5-Star) in the Antalya region of Turkey. The data collection methodology of the
Professor, Gökhan Torlak study was a questionnaire survey which was administered through drop-and-collect methodology. The
is a Senior Lecturer and analysis methodology of the study was structural equation modeling.
Ali Uyar is an Associate Findings – The findings indicated that both AC and JS mediated the relationship between CL and
Professor, all at Faculty OCB, as well as between OJ and OCB. Guiding employees by charismatic leaders as well as securing
of Economics and OJ at workplaces in hospitality organizations in the Antalya region of Turkey contribute to OCB
Administrative Sciences, positively; however, JS and AC mediate this relationship. Thus, it is assumed that managers should take
Fatih University, Istanbul, steps to improve the AC and JS attributes of their employees. In addition, unlike empirical findings in
Turkey. hospitality management literature, this research could not find any direct relationship between CL and
OCB.
Research limitations/implications – The present study provides practical implications for hotel
managers who may be searching for ways in which to increase OCB and firm performance. The sample
is confined to the hospitality industry, thus the generalization of findings to other industries might be
limited. Hence, the authors suggest future studies which better enable comparison among various
industries.
Originality/value – The novelty of the present study arises from two points: incorporating a CL variable
into the study’s model regarding the antecedents of OCB and investigating the mediating roles of JS
and AC between CL and OCB as well as between OJ and OCB within the hospitality management
industry.
Keywords Hospitality industry, Job satisfaction, Organizational justice, Organizational citizenship
behavior, Affective commitment, Charismatic leadership
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The hospitality industry operates under severe competitive pressure. Human resources
being the most valuable asset of the organization respond to those challenges through
Received 21 August 2014 generating high-quality service for customers. In this competitive milieu of the hospitality
Revised 20 March 2015
28 March 2015
industry, hotels with employees who demonstrate organizational citizenship behaviors
Accepted 30 March 2015 (OCBs) or “cooperative behaviors that are not formally required by the organization”
PAGE 200 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 9 NO. 2 2015, pp. 200-222, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-08-2014-0072
(Fassina et al., 2008) will strengthen their core competences, outperform its rivals and gain
a competitive advantage. Hotels with employees who have OCBs are more prone to
high-quality service and customer satisfaction than those which do not possess these
attributes (Tang and Tang, 2012; Wang and Wong, 2011; Podsakoff et al., 2009; Bell and
Menguc, 2002). Podsakoff et al. (2009) and Ackfeldt and Coote (2005) emphasized the
positive association between employees who display OCB and organizational
performance. Podsakoff et al. (2009) also proved that OCB positively influences
organizational efficiency, cost reduction and profitability.
This research is conducted in the Turkish hospitality industry, which is extremely important
for the country’s economy. Turkey welcomed 36,837,900 tourists and earned
$34,305,903,000 of tourism income in 2014 (MCT, 2014; TYD, 2014). Antalya is the most
popular tourist destination in this country, receiving 11,498,519 tourists and this figure is
equivalent to 31.21 per cent of all tourist arrivals in 2014 in Turkey (TYD, 2014). However,
Güçlü (2006) and Kuruüzüm et al. (2009) observed the problem of high personnel turnover,
that is between 39 and 50 per cent, due to costs and low service quality. Furthermore, the
researchers of this paper specifically observed the following issues in the hospitality
industry in Turkey: no job security, inappropriate job design (e.g. no freedom and discretion
in scheduling work and determining work methods are given; no feedback regarding the
effectiveness of job performance provided and ambiguous job descriptions exist),

deplorable working conditions, unfair treatment and discrimination in pay, promotion, merit
increase, training, performance appraisal, autocratic and coercive leadership style and no
economic and social support for employees. They assumed these difficulties reduce
organizational commitment (OC) and job satisfaction of employees working in the
hospitality industry in Turkey. Thus, hotels operating in the most popular tourist region,
Antalya, were selected and studied. It is anticipated that employees’ OCBs are likely to
improve the quality of service in local hotels, which will eventually lead to gaining
competitive advantage. The improvement of tourist satisfaction in the area will contribute to
the development of the tourism industry in Turkey.
In line with Organ and Ryan’s (1995) meta-analysis that proved the impact of job
satisfaction, OC, leadership support and organizational justice on OCB, this research
searched for the relationships between OCB and its antecedents – job satisfaction (JS),
affective commitment (AC), organizational justice (OJ) [i.e. in terms of distributive justice
(DJ), procedural justice (PJ) and interactional justice (IJ)] and charismatic leadership
(CL) – and relationships among its antecedents in the hospitality industry in the Antalya
region. In addition, in light of the above observation concerning difficulties in the hospitality
industry in Turkey, researchers decided to test mediating roles of JS and AC in the
relationships between CL and OCB and between OJ and OCB. In particular, the novelty of
this study arises from two significant components: the first component is the incorporation
of the CL variable into the antecedents of OCB as the model of this research. The second
component is the investigation of mediating roles of JS and AC in the relationships between
CL and OCB as well as between OJ and OCB.
The paper is divided into five parts. The first part, called theoretical framework and
hypotheses, delivers theoretical definitions of OCB, JS, AC, OJ and CL and various
empirical findings between OCB and its antecedents and relationships among its
antecedents, and draws up hypotheses as a consequence of theoretical argument. This
analysis both helps underline the significance of OCB practices in organizations and
formulate hypotheses. The second part, called method, explains sample and variable
measurements of this research. The third part, called results and analysis, provides
descriptive statistics, measurement model assessment (i.e. factor analysis), measurement
model analysis (i.e. cause and effect indicators, reliability, internal consistency,
discriminant validity, structural equation modeling (SEM), predictive power and predictive
relevance) and moderating effects. This analysis explains the way the research is
conducted and its empirical findings. The fourth part, called mediating roles of JS and AC
VOL. 9 NO. 2 2015 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 201
in the relationships between CL and OCB and between OJ and OCB, highlights the
absence of research in these specific relationships in hospitality management and other
fields. The fifth part, called conclusion and implications, explains both propositions for hotel
managers in Turkey and limitations of this research.
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

Discrete analyses of OCB, its antecedents – JS, AC, OJ and CL –, relationships between
OCB and its antecedents, relationships among its antecedents, mediating roles of JS and
AC in the relationships between CL and OCB and between OJ and OCB and hypotheses
that are based on the abovementioned terms and their associations should help build the
theoretical foundation of the research in this paper.
2.1 The concepts of OCB, JS, AC, OJ and CL

2.1.1 Organizational citizenship behavior. Organizations being complex adaptive systems
should deal with nonlinear relationships that are made of numerous interactions and
divergent choices generating unintended consequences and rendering an unpredictable
universe. Running such chaotic systems does need better-educated and highly skilled
employees who search for better jobs and expect to be treated respectfully and
considerately. To ensure high organizational performance, they have to undertake various
activities beyond their formal duties and responsibilities. Rational and sensitive managers
should both consider human resource as the most valuable asset of an organization and
understand organizational success requiring employee behavior that goes beyond the call
of duty at a workplace.
The idea of OCB pioneered by Organ (1988) was based on the assumption of “extra role
behavior” of Katz (1964). Organ (1988) defined OCB as unrestricted employee behavior
which is not part of job description, is a personal choice of the employee and helps the
organization meet its objectives. Furthermore, Organ (1997) found that OCB indirectly
helped improve the maintenance of the organization’s social system espousing task
execution. Since its emergence, OCB has been widely studied in empirical work (LePine
et al., 2002); however, its classification led to overlaps and confusions among scholars in
terms of behavioral dimensions of OCB. For example, Brief and Motowidlo (1986) coined
“prosocial organizational behavior” that improved the affluence of another individual OCB
did not support. In addition, OCB did not offer direct and certain reward for employee
performance (Organ, 1997). Likewise, OCB did not include reporting of unethical/illegal
employee practices and protesting of unjust organizational actions (Graham, 1986; Near
and Miceli, 1987).
Smith et al. (1983) initially proposed two dimensions for OCB: altruism and general
compliance. The former dealt with employee helping behavior that ultimately resulted in
benefit for the organization. The latter handled both withdrawal behavior of absenteeism
and conformity to rules and laws in the organization. They assumed that both elements
would promote efficiency and productivity in the organization. However, Organ (1988) later
excluded general compliance but added some other dimensions to OCB, which served as
basis for OCB measurement in many research works (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Ravichandran
et al., 2007; Ma et al., 2013; Wang, 2014). OCB included five dimensions: altruism,
conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy and sportsmanship. Although these distinct
factors are significant in evaluating OCB, they are integrated in the analysis of its
antecedents (LePine et al., 2002). Altruism is related to helping a specific colleague
vis-à-vis in organizational task accomplishment or problem-solving. Conscientiousness is
concerned with going an extra mile in work activity (Law et al., 2005) and adhering to norms
and laws of the organization defining a good worker. Civic virtue is attributed to employee’s
vigorous interest in organizational activities and issues. Courtesy is considered with sincere
and considerate attitudes inhibiting work-related conflicts and discomforts. Finally,
PAGE 202 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 9 NO. 2 2015
sportsmanship refers to employee’s endurance and acceptance for unbearable
circumstances.
2.1.2 Job satisfaction. Locke (1976) defined JS as “pleasurable and positive emotional
state deriving from one’s performance appraisal in task accomplishment”. This approach
showed that one values a specific aspect of work (affect theory). Commonly accepted
definition of JS refers to positive and negative feelings about various facets of job such as
nature of work, supervision style, coworkers’ relationships, conditions of employment (i.e.
pay), working conditions and job security (Oshagbemi, 2000; Judge and Church, 2000).
According to Judge et al. (1997), an improved version of the dispositional approach
emphasizing varying individual characteristics includes self-esteem (i.e. valuing oneself),
self-efficacy (i.e. believing in one’s own talent), locus of control (i.e. believing in one’s
control over own life) and neuroticism. These are considered central to JS. In addition,
unfair treatment by the employer, for example, in work assignments, promotions, pay,
ratings reports, etc. in comparison with one’s coworkers will give rise to significant negative
impacts on JS (Adams, 1965).
2.1.3 Affective commitment. AC is a part of OC that is considered as both an individual’s
involvement in a particular organization through believing and accepting its goals and
values and investment of effort on its activities that strengthens one’s membership
(Mowday et al., 1979; Angle and Perry, 1981). This psychological attachment to the
organization includes three components (Meyer and Allen, 1997). First component, called
AC, refers to positive emotional attachment to the organization based on the “desire” of the
individual to remain a part of it deriving from demographic features such as age, education,
sex, tenure, etc. Second component, called continuance, refers to economic and social
costs and benefits of working in the organization. Third component, called normative
commitment, refers to “feelings of obligation” due to strain, high rewards, strategies or
employee well-being. Researchers found that emotional commitment to the organization –
based on the values and interests – is more influential than “rational commitment” – based
on pay and self-interests – on job performance (Shellenberger, 1997).
2.1.4 Organizational justice. Moorman (1991) defined OJ as “the ways in which employees
determine if they have been treated fairly in their jobs and the ways in which those
determinations influence other work-related variables”. In the literature, three primary
components of OJ have been cited, namely, DJ, PJ and IJ (Nadiri and Tanova, 2010; Wu
and Wang, 2008; Colquitt et al., 2001). DJ refers to “the perceived fairness of the amounts
of compensation employees receive” (Folger and Konovsky, 1989, p. 115); PJ refers to “the
perceived fairness of the means used to determine those amounts” (Folger and Konovsky,
1989, p. 115); and IJ refers to the fairness of the interpersonal treatment people receive
from others when the procedures are implemented (Bies, 2005). According to Organ
(1988), employee’s perception of unfair distribution of rewards relative to work inputs
creates tension within the individual and the individual is induced to resolve the tension.
Greenberg (1990) identified two components of PJ. The first component is fair procedures;
the presence and absence of procedures is central to fair distribution of rewards and
influences employee’s fairness perception. Procedures can be exemplified by participative
decision-making and reduction of prejudice in decision-making. The second component is
IJ, which refers to the fairness of treatment an employee receives in the creation and
explanation of formal procedures (Bies and Moag, 1986). Thus, in the practice of a
procedure, the fair treatment of an employee can influence his/her perceived fairness or
justice judgments.
2.1.5 Charismatic leadership. Related to the research in this paper, the argument shall
concentrate on definitions of transformational leadership (TL) and CL because researchers
used the terms interchangeably, which led to theoretical and practical overlap between TL
and CL (Howell and Shamir, 2005). TL incites followers’ awareness of organizational
concerns and their consequences, develops a vision of organization, builds commitment to
that vision and facilitates organizational changes supporting that vision (Bass, 1985). Bass
(1985) defined the qualities of TL as charisma (e.g. arousing subordinates through
personal power and emotion resulting in followers’ positive mood and attraction to leader),
vision (e.g. creating and communicating vision that excites subordinates to commit),
symbolism (e.g. using rituals to celebrate contributions and achievements), empowerment
(e.g. delegating challenging task and helping remove obstacles) and intellectual
stimulation (e.g. encouraging involvement of subordinates in organizational concerns and
solutions). CL having referent power and influence clarifies complex issues, eliminates
shortcomings and encourages change through a vision and strategic direction (Conger
and Kanungo, 1988; Ehrhart and Klein, 2001; Jacobsen and House, 2001). In addition, CL
communicates challenging targets, displays confidence, takes risks, stresses collective
identity (Shamir, 1991; Ehrhart and Klein, 2001), makes personal sacrifices (Yorges et al.,
1999), intellectually stimulates followers to question the methods of solving problems
(Avolio et al., 1999), uses positive leader emotions generating positive follower moods that
result in positive ratings of the leaders (Bono and Ilies, 2006), minimizes role conflict and
ambiguity, improves trust, connects employee goals to their roles (Shamir, 1991) and
influences followers’ social identification generating followers’ sense of empowerment
(Kark et al., 2003).
2.2 Relationships between OCB and its antecedents

2.2.1 Relationships between OCB and JS. JS is cited as one of the drivers of OCB in the
literature (Organ and Ryan, 1995). This relationship is explained by the social exchange
theory which suggests that when an employee is satisfied while working, he/she will be in
a good mood, helps other employees and will demonstrate higher OCB in the organization
in which he/she works (Chen and Chiu, 2008). Empirical studies corroborated this
association (Nadiri and Tanova, 2010; Foote and Tang, 2008; Lapierre and Hackett, 2007;
LePine et al., 2002; Netemeyer et al., 1997; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Moorman, 1993).
Furthermore, Bateman and Organ (1983), Organ (1988), Williams and Anderson (1991),
Schappe (1998), Ngunia et al., (2006), Lub et al. (2011) and Liang (2012) found that
employees who were satisfied with their jobs either intrinsically (e.g. achievement,
recognition, responsibility, advancement, challenging task, etc.) or extrinsically (e.g. pay,
working conditions, supervision style, administrative policy and relationships) will generate
positive behavior. In particular, Williams and Anderson (1991) used a sample of 461
full-time employees in a Midwest city in USA and found that the cognitive element of JS,
unlike its affective component, predicted OCB. Thus, there is a positive relationship
between JS and OCB.
2.2.2 Relationships between OCB and AC. The theoretical argument regarding the
association between AC and OCB is based on the social exchange theory, according to
which, reciprocity is an important characteristic of social relationships (Blau, 1964). This
theory posits that employees who perceive they are valued and respected are likely to
reciprocate with trust and emotional engagement in their exchanges with organizations (Ng
and Feldman, 2011). In a present study, focus was placed on affective OC for the reason
that AC has a greater relevance for predicting OCB than normative and continuance
commitments (Ng and Feldman, 2011). Other empirical evidence also supported the
positive relationship between AC and OCB (Uçanok and Karabatı, 2013; Biswas, 2008;
Wasti, 2002). In addition, Schappe, (1998), Schaubroeck and Ganster, (1990) and Ngunia
et al. (2006) found that emotionally committed employees were more likely to perform
activities that enhanced the value of the organization. Thus, there is a positive relationship
between AC and OCB.
2.2.3 Relationships between OCB and OJ. The question of what drives employees’ OCBs is
important, as it promotes organizational performance (Kim et al., 2009). The association
between OJ, as one of the drivers of OCB, and OCB has been investigated by researchers
in past studies (Blakely et al., 2005; Colquitt et al., 2001; Organ and Ryan, 1995). For
example, fairness, which is manifested by justice, is considered to be one of the key
determinants of OCB (Enhart, 2004). Blakely et al. (2005) emphasized the positive
contribution of a fair working environment in enhancing OCB. They also asserted that when
employees feel that they are being treated unfairly by the organization or by their
supervisor, they are more likely to reduce the magnitude of OCB. According to Organ
(1988), key understanding of the way DJ affects OCB is to realize the significant difference
between employee’s economic and social exchange in the organization. The former refers
to in-role behaviors specified in the employment contract. The latter entails behaviors
existing outside of the employment contract. Employee’s OCB occurs in the latter case due
to the positive quality of the employment relationship that is not specified in the contract.
Prior studies proved this positive relationship:
between DJ and OCB (Young, 2010; Nadiri and Tanova, 2010; Ertürk et al., 2004;
Colquitt et al., 2001);
between PJ and OCB (Young, 2010; Nadiri and Tanova, 2010; Ertürk et al., 2004;
Colquitt et al., 2001; Moorman, 1993); and
between IJ and OCB (Young, 2010; Colquitt et al., 2001; Moorman, 1991).
Thus, there is a positive relationship between OCB and OJ.
2.2.4 Relationships between OCB and CL. Charismatic leaders are also expected to
contribute to the development of OCB. Organ (1988, p. 4) defined OCB as “individual
behavior at work that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal
reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the
organization”. According to the norm of reciprocity, the employees who receive individual
support from their leaders are more likely to demonstrate higher OCB, which assists the
leader (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Furthermore, enhanced social identification and value
internalization could cause followers to make personal sacrifices for the collective mission
as put forth by the leader, and to improve OCB (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Organ, 1988;
O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). OCB may be demonstrated by extra exertion by employees
in the interests of the team or organization (Shamir et al., 1993). Podsakoff et al. (2000)
emphasized important positive relationships between dimensions of OCB and such
characteristics of CL as vision, high expectations/challenging goals and intellectual
stimulation. In a recent study, Den Hartog et al. (2007) searched for the relationship
between the charisma of CL and helping and compliance dimensions of OCB. Empirical
findings showed that employees were more helpful and compliant when they perceived
their leaders as charismatic. Other recent studies also proved the existence of a positive
association between CL and OCB (Sosik, 2005; Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010).
2.3 Relationships among its antecedents

2.3.1 Relationships between CL and JS. Choi (2006) argued the positive impact of CL on
JS. In previous studies, there was empirical evidence regarding the association between
CL and the work attitude and JS of subordinates. In these studies, charismatic leaders
influence their followers and followers attribute extraordinary qualities to their leaders in
return (Yukl, 1999). Furthermore, charismatic leaders motivate their followers by exhibiting
a high level of commitment (Shamir et al., 1993), which generates a feeling of reverence in
their followers, a sense of group collective identity, perceptions of group task performance
(Conger et al., 2000) and inspirational motivation (Rothfelder et al., 2013). This increases JS
(Shamir et al., 1993) and positively relates to the demonstrated work effort (Cicero and
Pierro, 2007; Hoogh De et al., 2005; Groot De et al., 2000).
2.3.2 Relationships between CL and AC. Another important aspect of CL is to generate AC.
AC refers to “employees’ emotional attachment to identification with and involvement in the
organization” (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Charismatic leaders stimulate the emotional
involvement of their followers by directing them to a common vision and mission or
transcendental goal (Rupert et al., 2010; Shamir et al., 1993). They incite the employees to
put their personal interests aside and to work together in the best interests of the
organization. At the same time, they care about the needs of individuals and try to create
satisfaction by preparing the necessary conditions which will increase the desire of
employees to remain in the organization (Jackson et al., 2013). Empirical evidence
regarding the associations between CL behavior and AC (Jackson et al., 2013) and
between CL and OC (Groot De et al., 2000) supported these theoretical arguments.
2.3.3 Relationships between OJ and AC. Poon (2012) argued that the fair treatment of
employees in the organization increases their sense of attachment, identification and
involvement toward their organization. Prior studies have proved this positive relationship
between DJ and AC (Poon, 2012; Andrews et al., 2008; Wu and Wang, 2008;
Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001), between PJ and AC (Andrews et al., 2008;
Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Moorman et al., 1993) and between IJ and AC
(Andrews et al., 2008; Wu and Wang, 2008; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001).
2.3.4 Relationships between OJ and JS. Prior studies have also tried to link OJ perceptions
to organizational outcomes including JS (Colquitt et al., 2001; Fulford, 2005). Nadiri and
Tanova (2010) asserted that OJ perceptions of employees had an impact on their
motivation. Therefore, it was expected that equal treatment in the implementation of
procedures dealing with employees is likely to enhance JS. Empirical evidence has
consistently indicated that DJ was significantly related to JS (Sieger et al., 2011; Nadiri and
Tanova, 2010; Haar and Spell, 2009; Reithel et al., 2007; Fassina et al., 2008; Colquitt et al.,
2001 and McCain et al., 2010), PJ was significantly related to JS (Nadiri and Tanova, 2010;
Fulford, 2005; Fassina et al., 2008; Colquitt et al., 2001 and McCain et al., 2010) and IJ was
significantly related to JS (Fulford, 2005; Nadiri and Tanova, 2010; Fassina et al., 2008;
Colquitt et al., 2001).
2.4 Mediating roles of JS and AC in the relationships between OJ and OCB and between
CL and OCB
The practitioners in this study did not come across any research that particularly
investigated the mediating roles of JS and AC between OJ and OCB and between CL and
OCB both in hospitality management and other industries. In addition, they observed
difficulties which were highlighted in the introduction part of this paper regarding JS and
AC in hotels in Turkey. The research in hospitality organizations in the Antalya region in
Turkey found out that there was no relationship between CL and OCB. However, strong
relationships were observed between CL and OCB, DJ and OCB, PJ and OCB and IJ and
OCB when JS and AC mediate.
2.5 Hypotheses
In light of above empirical research and findings concerning relationships between OCB
and its antecedents, relationships among its antecedents and mediating roles of AC and JS
between OJ and OCB and between CL and OCB, the following hypotheses can be
developed and formulated:
H1. There is a positive association between CL and JS.
H2. There is a positive association between CL and AC.
H3. There is a positive association between CL and OCB.
H4a. There is a positive association between DJ and AC.
H4b. There is a positive association between PJ and AC.
H4c. There is a positive association between IJ and AC.
H5a. There is a positive association between DJ and JS.
H5b. There is a positive association between PJ and JS.
H5c. There is a positive association between IJ and JS.
H6a. There is a positive association between DJ and OCB.
H6b. There is a positive association between PJ and OCB.
H6c. There is a positive association between IJ and OCB.
H7. There is a positive association between AC and OCB.
H8. There is a positive association between JS and OCB.
H9. JS plays a mediating role between CL and OCB.
H10a. JS plays a mediating role between DJ and OCB.
H10b. JS plays a mediating role between PJ and OCB.
H10c. JS plays a mediating role between IJ and OCB.
H11. AC plays a mediating role between CL and OCB.
H12a. AC plays a mediating role between DJ and OCB.
H12b. AC plays a mediating role between PJ and OCB.
H12c. AC plays a mediating role between IJ and OCB.
3. Method
3.1 Sample
The sample used for this study consisted of 768 employees working in 18 hotels (4- or
5-Star) in the Antalya region of Turkey. The data collection methodology of the study was
a questionnaire survey which was administered through drop-and-collect methodology. It
comprised six sections including descriptive, CL, OCB, AC, JS and OJ.
The demographic statistics are reported in Table I. The sample comprised data from 768
individuals, of which 64 per cent (511) were male and 35.6 per cent (284) were female.
Also, the majority of participants were between 18 and 30 years old, 24.4 per cent were
between the ages of 31 and 40 and 3.9 per cent were older than 40 years. In terms of their
educational levels, 44.4 per cent of the participants were high school graduates, 34.8 per
Table I Profile of the sample (n ⫽ 768)

Variables N %
Gender
Female 284 35.6
Male 511 64.0
Not stated 3 0.4
Total 798 100
Age
18-30 572 71.7
31-40 194 24.4
Older than 40 years 31 3.9
Not stated 1 0.1
Total 798 100
Education
Literate 15 1.9
Elementary 22 2.8
Junior 98 12.3
High school 354 44.4
College 278 34.8
University 24 3.0
Not stated 6 0.8
Total 798 100
Tenure
2 years or fewer 429 54.1
3-5 years 285 35.8
6 years or more 48 6.0
Not stated 36 4.5
Total 798 100
cent were college graduates and 3 per cent had a university degree. Finally, 54.1 per cent
of the participants had two years or less of work experience, 35.8 per cent had between
three and five years of experience and 6 per cent had six years or more of experience.
3.2 Variables measurements

OCB was measured by means of 20 items which were developed by Farh et al. (1997).
Wang and Wong (2011) used this scale in the Chinese hospitality industry to understand
hotels from the cultural perspective. CL scale was measured using 20 items developed by
Conger et al. (1997). Sosik et al. (2002) used this scale to test relationship of
self-presentation attributes and impression management to CL. AC was adopted from
Meyer and Allen (1997)’s three-dimensional OC model (affective, normative and
continuance). Andrews et al. (2008) used this scale in the group cohesion as an
enhancement to the justice–affective commitment relationship. JS was measured by means
of a seven-item scale developed by Kofodimos (1993). Koyuncu et al. (2006) adopted this
scale in work engagement among women managers and professionals in a Turkish bank.
The OJ variable, including ten items, was adopted from the three-dimensional justice model
of Franz (2004) which was based on Lind and Taylor (1988) and Tyler (1994). Above scales
used in other prior studies were reliable and valid. The distribution of the items is as follows:
DJ was measured by a two-item scale, PJ was measured by a two-item scale and IJ was
measured by a six-item scale.
All items for the six variables above were rated based on a Likert scale of 1 to 7 (1 ⫽
strongly agree, 7 ⫽ strongly disagree).
4. Results and analyses

The analysis methodology of the study was SEM, which is depicted in Figure 1.
4.1 Measurement model assessment

4.1.1 Factor analysis. Verifying the adequacy of the data check is vital before factor
analysis can be instituted. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO)
index and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were both used to determine the appropriateness of
sample adequacy. According to the obtained results, KMO (0.90) was significantly above
the threshold value of 0.7, while the Bartlett test of sphericity (␹2 ⫽ 10,588.8; df ⫽ 351,
Figure 1 Research model
p ⬍ 0.001) was significant. All in all, these results confirmed that the data used in this study
were suitable for exploratory factor analysis procedures. Nunnally (1978) recommends
refinement of the measurements of the constructs by checking factor loadings,
cross-loadings, reliability and the validity of the given data sets. Following the sample size
tests, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used. For the EFA procedure, principal
component analysis with varimax orthogonal rotation was applied to 31 items for factor
extraction as well as to assess the underlying dimensions of the given items. The initial EFA
results showed that four items had either low factor loadings or cross-loadings; therefore,
they were eliminated from the analysis. The items were loaded under CL (␣ ⫽ 0.89),
OJ (␣ ⫽ 0.85), OCB (␣ ⫽ 0.84), JS (␣ ⫽ 0.81) and AC (␣ ⫽ 0.81). The Cronbach’s alphas
for each construct were all above the suggested threshold value of 0.7. Eigen values of
each of the constructs were 4.57, 4.00, 2.86, 2.67 and 2.21, respectively, which were
greater than 1, which was used as the threshold value to retain the factors. They were all
loaded under a single factor with no cross-loadings, which suggested the existence of
discriminant validity. The explained variances of each construct were 16.91, 14.84, 10.57,
9.89 and 8.18 per cent, respectively. The obtained factors explained 60.40 per cent of the
total variance. To assess the possible common method bias, as a survey was used in this
study, various methods were recommended to use. Therefore, two steps in order were
applied here. First, Harman’s single-factor test (Harman, 1967) was used. Common method
bias is valid if a single factor accounts for the majority of the covariance in the dependent
and independent variables, which means a single factor’s explained variance illustrates a
majority compared to the rest of the factors’ explained variance. According to the EFA
results, none of the factors had explained a majority of the variance. Second, the method
of controlling for the effect of an unmeasured latent methods factor was applied (Podsakoff
et al., 2003) by loading the items on their theoretical constructs while also on a latent
common methods variance factor (CLF) to capture the common variance. The significance
of the structural parameters was investigated by including CLF and then eliminating CLF.
Following this, the standardized regression weights from the CLF model with that of the
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model were compared, which demonstrated that the
path coefficients linking the constructs were not significantly affected: the difference
between the standardized regression estimates was less than 0.2, which indicated that
there was no serious common method variance, furthermore none of the factors
significantly dominated the variance. Therefore, common method bias was not a threat.
Following the EFA, the items were also subjected to factor analysis using Smart PLS for
confirming the theoretical constructs measure fit. The factor loadings are presented in
Table II, in which the latent variables with sub-dimensions were included (CL, DJ, IJ, PJ,
AC, JS and OCB). The items with lower than a 0.7 threshold value (Chin, 1998) were
eliminated from the analysis. According to Chin (1998), item loadings should be higher than
the cross-loading along each construct column, while at the same time, the loadings of
each item in each row should be more strongly related to its construct column than to any
other construct column. In another words, each item loads more highly on their own
construct than on other constructs, which suggests that the discriminant validity at the item
level has been met.
The same constructs that were set by using prior studies in the literature were subject to
CFA following EFA. The CFA procedure is necessary to test the measurement model where
the seven constructs were tested to assess the construct validity using the maximum
likelihood method. The CFA method compared the variance-covariance matrix obtained
from the used sample with the one obtained from the model to ensure that the selected
items really assessed the constructs. It was found that the results from the CFA illustrated
the set of fit indices recommended by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). As a result, some of the fit
indices, ␹(df⫽273)
2
⫽ 721.08, p ⬍ .001, ␹2/ df ⫽ 2.64, goodness of fit index (GFI) ⫽ 0.94,
normed fit index (NFI) ⫽ 0.93, comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽ 0.96, relative fit index (RFI) ⫽
0.91, incremental fit index (IFI) ⫽ 0.96, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) ⫽ 0.94 and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ 0.045, were all above the recommended
Table II Factor loadings of the measurement model
Items CL DJ IJ PJ AC JS OC
CL12 0.79 0.24 0.39 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.24

CL9 0.76 0.24 0.39 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.23
CL10 0.75 0.23 0.37 0.28 0.23 0.20 0.13
CL13 0.75 0.28 0.43 0.38 0.33 0.25 0.33
CL11 0.74 0.23 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.21 0.17
CL7 0.74 0.23 0.37 0.28 0.25 0.26 0.28
CL6 0.71 0.19 0.30 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.18
C5 0.71 0.18 0.32 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.17
DJ2 0.30 0.89 0.47 0.65 0.23 0.23 0.37
DJ1 0.19 0.73 0.28 0.23 0.10 0.24 0.21
IJ7 0.41 0.38 0.87 0.46 0.33 0.32 0.42
IJ8 0.40 0.40 0.87 0.49 0.31 0.36 0.45
IJ9 0.43 0.35 0.74 0.44 0.22 0.26 0.27
IJ6 0.35 0.40 0.70 0.55 0.24 0.22 0.26
PJ4 0.40 0.52 0.57 0.95 0.34 0.23 0.35
PJ3 0.36 0.58 0.55 0.94 0.29 0.21 0.36
AC4 0.31 0.20 0.30 0.31 0.89 0.19 0.36
AC5 0.29 0.19 0.33 0.30 0.89 0.20 0.41
AC3 0.29 0.16 0.26 0.25 0.76 0.20 0.22
JS5 0.26 0.22 0.27 0.22 0.23 0.84 0.45

JS7 0.27 0.25 0.30 0.16 0.16 0.83 0.37
JS6 0.25 0.30 0.39 0.25 0.20 0.82 0.43
JS3 0.22 0.11 0.21 0.08 0.15 0.70 0.33
OC3 0.25 0.30 0.39 0.32 0.30 0.40 0.84
OC1 0.29 0.32 0.39 0.33 0.36 0.43 0.84
OC2 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.44 0.82
OC4 0.22 0.31 0.38 0.33 0.39 0.38 0.80
Notes: CL: charismatic leadership; DJ: distributive justice; IJ: interactional justice; PJ: procedural
justice; AC: affective commitment; JS: job satisfaction; OC: organizational citizenship; The bold
values represent the significant factor loading values of each corresponding factor
threshold values. The provided fit indices showed sufficient evidence of good models and
demonstrated the soundness of measurement properties as well.
4.2 Measurement model analysis

4.2.1 Reflective versus formative. The relationship between the latent variables and their
respective indicators could be modeled as either formative or reflective. Each construct
demonstrated reflective indicators in this study. Reflective indicators were represented as
effect indicators, while formative ones were considered to be cause indicators.
When examining individual item reliability, construct reliability (internal consistency)and
average variance extracted analysis as well as discriminant validity are important for a
measurement model with reflective indicators’ evaluation. Table III illustrates the
Table III Correlation coefficients, descriptive statistics and reliability analysis results
Constructs Mean SD MSV ASV AVE CR A B C D E F G
A. Charismatic leadership 5.27 1.01 0.25 0.14 0.55 0.91 0.74

B. Distributive justice 5.01 1.27 0.34 0.15 0.67 0.80 0.31** 0.82
C. Interactional justice 5.31 1.11 0.35 0.22 0.64 0.88 0.50** 0.47** 0.80
D. Procedural justice 5.08 1.48 0.35 0.20 0.88 0.94 0.41** 0.58** 0.59** 0.94
E. Affective commitment 5.00 1.35 0.16 0.10 0.72 0.89 0.35** 0.22** 0.35** 0.34** 0.85
F. Job satisfaction 5.62 1.03 0.25 0.11 0.64 0.88 0.31** 0.28** 0.37** 0.24** 0.23** 0.80
G. Organizational citizenship 5.43 1.17 0.25 0.16 0.68 0.89 0.30** 0.37** 0.46** 0.38** 0.40** 0.50** 0.82
Notes: SD: standard deviation; MSV: maximum shared variance; ASV: average shared variance; AVE: average variance extracted; CR:
composite reliability; **p ⬍ 0.01; the elements on the diagonal are the square root of AVE, while the elements on the off-diagonals are
the correlations between latent variables
descriptive statistics, the maximum-shared variance (MSV), the average shared variance
(ASV), the average variance extracted (AVE) and the composite reliability (CR) as well as
the Pearson correlation coefficients of the constructs to provide convergent validity,
discriminant validity and reliability (Hair et al., 2010) values.
4.2.1.1 Reliability. Individual item reliability was previously assessed by examining the
factor loadings of the indicators (Table II). Items with over 0.70 factor loadings were
accepted for analysis, while five items were eliminated from the analysis because of low
factor loadings. It is valuable to remember the recommendations of Chin (1998) and
Barclay et al. (1995) that items with factor loadings of 0.5 or above could be acceptable if
the rest of the items in the same loadings have higher reliability values.
4.2.1.2 Internal consistency. Though Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability are both
able to assess the internal consistency of latent variables with reflective indicators, the
construct reliability was assessed using composite reliability by following the suggestions
of Barclay et al. (1995) and Fornell and Larcker (1981). Accordingly, the composite
reliability of the constructs ranged between 0.80 (DJ) and 0.94 (PJ), which were above the
suggested benchmark value of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978).
4.2.1.3 Discriminant validity. Discriminant validity was evaluated using AVE values (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981) and MSV and ASV values recommended by Hair et al. (2010). This
indicated that a given latent variable was different from the other constructs. It is suggested
that the MSV and ASV values should be lower than the AVE scores. The provided results
confirmed the discriminant validity of the model, as all the constructs’ AVE scores were far
greater than that of the MSV and ASV values. In addition, the AVE estimates of each of the
latent variables were above the threshold value of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), with
ranges between 0.55 (CL) and 0.88 (PJ). Moreover, the square root of AVE scores were
placed on the diagonals of the correlation matrix (Table III) to compare them with the
correlation coefficients of the constructs (off-diagonal values). The square root of AVE
scores were higher than the correlation coefficient of the rest of the latent variables either
in column or row levels. Accordingly, these results revealed that the study did not show a
discriminant validity issue.
4.2.2 Structural equation modeling. Assessing explanatory power, predictive relevance and
predictive power are critically important in a structure model (Chin, 1998). The explained
variance (R2), predictive relevance (Q2) and goodness of fit (GoF) results are demonstrated
in Table V. The explanatory power of a structural model is assessed by using the level of
explained variance of the endogenous latent variables. Chin (1998) recommended
threshold values for R2 as substantial (0.67), moderate (0.33) and weak (0.19). The results
indicated that the R2 values of AC, JS and OCB were 18.1, 17.7 and 39.6 per cent,
respectively, which shows to what extent the model explained each endogenous
construct’s variance. According to Chin’s (1998) recommendation, the variance of OCB
construct was explained at the moderate level, while the variances of AC and JS were
explained at the weak level.
4.2.3 Predictive power. To test the validity of the proposed model as well as to test the
hypothesis, SEM with the PLS approach was used. To test the statistical significance of the
path coefficients of the model, bootstrapping re-sampling techniques were used. In
line with Chin’s (1998) suggestion, the bootstrapping with 500 times re-sampling was run.
The path coefficients with its significance level, the directions and the direct effects
between the related constructs are shown in Table IV and Figure 2. According to Table IV,
CL had a positive and significant effect on JS (␤ ⫽ 0.17, p ⬍ 0.01) and AC (␤ ⫽ 0.21, p ⬍
0.01), while there were no statistically significant relationships between CL and OCB.
Therefore, H1 and H2 were supported, while H3 was not. The results of this study indicated
that DJ (␤ ⫽ 0.17, p ⬍ 0.01) and IJ (␤ ⫽ 0.16, p ⬍ 0.01) had a positive and significant effect
on AC, but on the other hand, DJ had no significant impact on AC. Thus, H4b and H4c were
supported, while H4a was not supported, which indicated that H4 was partially supported.
DJ (␤ ⫽ 0.15, p ⬍ 0.01) and IJ (␤ ⫽ 0.27, p ⬍ 0.01) were significantly and positively
Table IV Structural equation modeling results
Hypothesis Paths Results ␤ t-statistics Significance
H1 CL ¡ JS Supported 0.17 3.66 ***

H2 CL ¡ AC Supported 0.21 4.4 ***
H3 CL ¡ OCB Not supported ⫺0.03 1.11 –
H4a DJ ¡ AC Partially supported ⫺0.02 0.74 –
H4b PJ ¡ AC 0.17 3.5 ***
H4c IJ ¡ AC 0.16 2.98 ***
H5a DJ ¡ JS Partially supported 0.15 3.62 ***
H5b PJ ¡ JS ⫺0.08 1.85 *
H5c IJ ¡ JS 0.27 4.82 ***
H6a DJ ¡ OCB Supported 0.10 2.9 ***
H6b PJ ¡ OCB 0.07 1.98 **
H6c IJ ¡ OCB 0.17 3.72 ***
H7 AC ¡ OCB Supported 0.22 5.3 ***
H8 JS ¡ OCB Supported 0.35 9.64 ***
justice; AC: affective commitment; JS: job satisfaction; OCB: organizational citizenship behavior; *p ⬍
0.10; **p ⬍ 0.05; ***p ⬍ 0.01
Figure 2 The results of the structural model
associated with JS. As opposed to the predicted hypotheses, PJ (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.08, p ⬍ 0.10) had
a negative and weakly significant impact on JS. Accordingly, H5a and H5c were
supported, while, in contrast, H5b was not supported. As a result, H5 was partially
supported. The results also showed that DJ (␤ ⫽ 0.10, p ⬍ 0.01), PJ (␤ ⫽ 0.07, p ⬍ 0.05)
and IJ (␤ ⫽ 0.17, p ⬍ 0.01) all had a positive and significant impact on OCB. These
significant results indicated that H6 was fully supported. Finally, AC (␤ ⫽ 0.22, p ⬍ 0.01)
and JS (␤ ⫽ 0.35, p ⬍ 0.01) were positively and significantly associated with OCB, which
indicated that H7 and H8 were supported as well.
4.2.4 Predictive relevance. The predictive relevance of the structural model was evaluated
by performing the Stone (1974) and Geisser (1975) Q2 test, which is considered to be an
additional assessment for fitting a model. Q2 represents a measure for how well observed
values are reconstructed by the model and its parameter estimates (Chin, 1998). It is
calculated by blindfolding (omitting) one case at a time and re-estimating the model
parameters using the remainder cases, and predicting the omitted case values based on
the remaining parameters (Sellin, 1989). Models with Q2 ⬎ 0 are considered to have
predictive relevance, while models with Q2 ⬍ 0 indicate the absence of predictive
relevance. Accordingly, the higher the positive Q2 value, the more predictive relevance is
obtained. The predictive relevance of each endogenous construct is shown in Table V. The
Q2 values of JS, AC and OC were greater than zero, indicating predictive relevance for the
endogenous latent variables of the model.
The effect size (f 2) is considered to be a measure to assess the impact of a particular
predictor construct on an endogenous latent variable. The f 2 effect size evaluates the
change in the R2 when the specified predecessor exogenous latent variable is eliminated
from the model to show whether the eliminated variable has a significant impact on the R2
value of the particular endogenous variable. Cohen (1988) categorized the effect sizes for
f 2 and q2 values associated with explained variance (R2) and with predictive relevance (Q2)
as small (0.02-0.14), medium (0.15-0.34) and large (above 0.35). Table VI lists the f 2 and
q2 effect sizes. The obtained results indicated that CL, IJ and PJ had small effect sizes in
producing R2 values for AC. It is also shown that CL, DJ and IJ had small effect sizes in
producing R2 values for JS, while as well, IJ had a small effect size in producing R2 value
for OCB. On the other hand, JS had a medium effect in producing R2 for OCB construct.
The results also indicated that CL had a small effect in producing the predictive relevance
(Q2) for AC, IJ had a small effect in producing the predictive relevance (Q2) for JS and that
AC and JS also had small effects in producing the predictive relevance (Q2) for OCB.
To assess overall performance of the model as well as the measurement and the structural
model, a global criterion of goodness of fit index (GoF index) was developed by Tenenhaus
et al. (2004), as there is no overall fit index in PLS path modeling. GoF index provides a
single measure for the overall prediction performance of the model by taking the geometric
mean of the average communality index and the average R2 value (GoF ⫽ 兹Com ⫻ R2).
The GoF index of the model was 0.41 (Table V), which indicated that the model was able
to take into account 41 per cent of the achievable fit.
Table V The explained variance and predictive relevance values of the endogenous
variables
Total SSO SSE Q2 R2
Affective commitment 2,394.00 2,109.32 0.119 0.181

Job satisfaction 3,192.00 2,874.25 0.100 0.177
Organizational citizenship 3,192.00 2,359.85 0.261 0.396
GoF 0.410
Table VI Effect sizes of endogenous latent variables

Affective commitment Job satisfaction Org. citizenship
2 2
Predecessor L.V. R Incl. R Excl. f2 2
R Incl. 2
R Excl. f2 2
R Incl. 2
R Excl. f2
Charismatic leadership 0.181 0.149 0.039 0.177 0.158 0.023 0.396 0.395 0.002
Distributive justice 0.181 0.180 0.001 0.177 0.161 0.019 0.396 0.389 0.012
Interactional justice 0.181 0.167 0.017 0.177 0.137 0.049 0.396 0.381 0.025
Procedural justice 0.181 0.165 0.019 0.177 0.173 0.005 0.396 0.393 0.005
Affective commitment 0.396 0.355 0.068
Job satisfaction 0.396 0.302 0.156
2 2
Predecessor L.V. QIncl. QExcl. q2 2
QIncl. 2
QExcl. q2 2
QIncl. 2
QExcl. q2
Charismatic leadership 0.119 0.100 0.021 0.100 0.090 0.011 0.261 0.261 ⫺0.001
Distributive justice 0.119 0.121 ⫺0.002 0.100 0.092 0.009 0.261 0.257 0.005
Interactional justice 0.119 0.112 0.008 0.100 0.080 0.022 0.261 0.251 0.014
Procedural justice 0.119 0.110 0.010 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.261 0.259 0.003
Affective commitment 0.261 0.235 0.035
Job satisfaction 0.261 0.196 0.088
Notes: The effect size is evaluated using q2 ⫽ QIncluded
2
⫺ QExcluded
2
/ 1 ⫺ QIncluded
2
; f 2 ⫽ RIncluded
2
⫺ RExcluded
2
/ 1 ⫺ RIncluded
2
4.3 Moderating effects
The mediating roles of AC and JS between CL, OJ (PJ, IJ and DJ) and OCB were examined
using the Sobel test method (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Sobel, 1982). Mediation is
determined if the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable substantially
decreases after the addition of the mediator to the model, while the mediator has a
significant effect on the dependent variable (Baron and Kenny, 1986). The Sobel test
statistics results for the mediating roles of AC and JS are provided in Table VII. AC
mediated the relationships between CL and OCB (z ⫽ 5.52, p ⬍ 0.01), between PJ and
OCB (z ⫽ 6.16, p ⬍ 0.01), between IJ and OCB (z ⫽ 4.95, p ⬍ 0.01) and between DJ and
OCB (z ⫽ 5.81, p ⬍ 0.01). In addition, JS had a mediating effect on the relationships
between CL and OCB (z ⫽ 6.92, p ⬍ 0.01), between PJ and OCB (z ⫽ 5.57, p ⬍ 0.01),
between IJ and OCB (z ⫽ 7.19, p ⬍ 0.01) and between DJ and OCB (z ⫽ 5.98, p ⬍ 0.01).
Thus, the hypotheses (i.e. H9, H10a, H10b, H10c, H11, H12a, H12b and H12c) regarding
mediating effects are all supported.
5. Conclusion and implications

This research aimed at understanding the relationships between OCB and its antecedents,
relationships among its antecedents and mediating roles of JS and AC in the relationships
between CL and OCB and between OJ and OCB in hospitality organizations of the Antalya
region of Turkey. The rationale behind this understanding is related to improving OCB
practices in hotels where employees provide high-quality service leading to tourist
satisfaction and progress in the tourism industry in Turkey.
In particular, in terms of relationships between OCB and its antecedents, apart from CL all
antecedents (i.e. OJ, AC and JS) have a positive and significant effect on OCB. Concerning
relationships among antecedents, there are significant and positive associations between
CL and AC, between CL and JS and between PJ and AC. Furthermore, the practitioners
observe mediating roles of JS and AC that strengthen the relationships between CL and
OCB and between OJ (i.e. DJ, PJ and IJ) and OCB.
Given these empirical findings, business organizations in the hospitality industry in the
Antalya region should pay more attention to OJ practices such as fair sharing, process and
treatment in work assignments, pay, promotion, merit increase, training, career
advancement and ratings reports and participant-driven decision-making. They should
also provide economic (e.g. bonus, employee stock ownership, profit sharing, etc.) and
social (e.g. family support, housing, education, etc.) benefits for their employees. These
non-discriminatory preparations should help advance OCB in business organizations in the
hospitality industry. It is important to note that OJ practices promoting OCB that this paper
revealed have already been approved by various researchers in prior studies. For example,
Table VII The mediating roles of affective commitment and job satisfaction
Direct effect With Sobel test
Hypothesized relationship (no mediation) mediation statistics
Mediating role of job satisfaction between

H9 CL and OCB 0.34 0.19 6.92***
H10a DJ and OCB 0.36 0.22 5.98***
H10b PJ and OCB 0.37 0.24 5.57***
H10c IJ and OCB 0.48 0.32 7.19***
Mediating role of affective commitment between
H11 CL and OCB 0.34 0.21 5.52***
H12a DJ and OCB 0.36 0.28 5.81***
H12b PJ and OCB 0.37 0.25 6.16***
H12c IJ and OCB 0.48 0.38 4.95***
justice; OCB: organizational citizenship behavior;***p ⬍ 0.01
according to Organ (1988), Colquitt et al. (2001), Enhart (2004), Ertürk et al. (2004), Nadiri
and Tanova (2010) and Young (2010), fairness fostering justice in amounts of
compensation employees receive (DJ) enhanced OCB. Likewise, according to Moorman
(1993), Colquitt et al. (2001), Enhart (2004), Ertürk et al. (2004), Nadiri and Tanova (2010)
and Young (2010), fairness in means determining compensation amounts (PJ) promoted
OCB. Finally, according to Moorman (1991), Colquitt et al. (2001) and Young (2010),
fairness in interpersonal treatment (IJ) improved OCB. In general, Blakely et al. (2005) also
drew attention to the significance of a fair working environment in the enhancement of OCB
in organizations.
In addition, these organizations should have AC practices such as democratic supervision
and CL. Namely, managers should encourage change through vision and strategic
direction, use positive leader emotions, stimulate followers to question their
problem-solving methods, minimize conflict, improve trust, communicate changing targets
and connect employees’ goals to their roles and emphasize collective identity. The
participative and change-oriented leadership style should generate valued, trusted,
respected and emotionally attached employees who demonstrate OCB in organizations in
the hospitality industry. It is significant to note that the positive relationship between the
desire of an individual to remain a part of the organization (AC) and OCB exposed in this
paper has already been found out in prior studies by Schaubroeck and Ganster (1991),
Schappe (1998), Wasti (2002), Ngunia et al. (2006), Biswas (2008), Ng and Feldman (2011)
and Uçanok and Karabatı (2013).
Furthermore, managers of hospitality industry organizations should adopt JS practices
such as well-designed tasks (e.g. clear job definition, autonomy in scheduling work and
determining work methods and providing employees with direct and clear information
about task execution), policies of continual improvement of conditions of employment and
working conditions, job security, delegation, achievement, advancement and challenging
task opportunities leading to valuing oneself and making one believe in one’s own talent.
These exercises should create a positive emotional state or feeling on the part of the
employee about various aspects of the organization and foster OCB. It is worth noting the
positive association between JS and OCB that the paper highlighted has already been
proven in prior studies by Bateman and Organ (1983), Organ (1988), Williams and
Anderson (1991), Moorman (1993), Organ and Ryan (1995), Netemeyer et al. (1997),
Schappe (1998), Lepine et al. (2002), Ngunia et al. (2006), Lapierre and Hackett (2007),
Chen and Chiu (2008), Foote and Tang (2008), Nadiri and Tanova (2010), Lub et al. (2011)
and Liang (2012).
Such OJ, AC and JS practices will both encourage cooperative behavior and increase
employee commitment to the objectives of the organization, which helps promote OCB.
Concerning the positive relationship between emotional attachment of the employee to the
organization (AC) and stimulation of emotional involvement of followers to a common vision
by a leader (CL) that the paper highlighted has also been approved by an empirical study
conducted by Jackson et al. (2013). Likewise, regarding the positive association between
leaders who influence and motivate employees to stay in (CL) and pleasurable emotional
state of employees who demonstrate high work effort and group task performance (JS) that
the paper uncovered has already been shown by prior studies conducted by Shamir et al.
(1993), Conger et al. (2000), Groot De et al. (2000), Hoogh De et al. (2005), Cicero and
Pierro (2007) and Rothfelder et al. (2013). In addition, in terms of the positive relationship
between fair methods for determining compensation amounts (PJ) and involvement of
employees in the organization (AC) that the paper highlighted has also been confirmed by
prior empirical work conducted by Moorman et al. (1993), Cohen-Charash and Spector
(2001) and Andrews et al. (2008).
On the basis of these empirical findings, organizations in the hospitality industry should
take CL, AC, JS and PJ practices into consideration.
The research findings show that business organizations in the hospitality industry should
give private attention to abovementioned both JS and AC practices because they mediate
the relationships between CL and OCB and between OJ and OCB. JS practices that
encourage appropriate job design, job security, pay, working conditions, achievement,
recognition, advancement, delegation, challenging task, etc. lead to happiness and
satisfaction of employees, who will have more desire to contribute to work, resulting in
high-quality service for customers. Likewise, AC practices that espouse emotional
attachment of employees to the values of the organization through participant-driven and
change-oriented leadership will motivate employees to demonstrate cooperative behavior.
The sample is confined to the hospitality industry, thus the generalization of empirical
findings to other industries might be limited. The practitioners suggest future comparative
analyses of various industries.
References
Ackfeldt, A.L. and Coote, L.V. (2005), “A study of organizational citizenship behaviors in a retail
setting”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 151-159.
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 276-299.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 1-18.
Andrews, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., Blakely, G.L. and Bucklew, N.S. (2008), “Group cohesion as an
enhancement to the justice-affective commitment relationship”, Group & Organization Management,
Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 736-755.
Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L. (1981), “An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and
organizational effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.
Babcock-Roberson, M.E. and Strickland, O.J. (2010), “The relationship between charismatic
leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, The Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 144 No. 3, pp. 313-326.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Youjae, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995), “The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal
modelling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration”, Technology Studies (Special Issue
on Research Methodology), Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 285-309.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bass, B.M. (1985), “Leadership: good, better, best”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 26-40.
Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), “Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship
between affect and employee citizenship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 587-595.
Bell, S.J. and Menguc, B. (2002), “The employee-organization relationship, organizational citizenship
behaviors and superior service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 131-146.
Bies, R.J. (2005), “Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct?”, in
Greenberg J. and Colquitt J.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Justice, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 85-112.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, in
Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations in Organizations,
Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Biswas, S. (2008), “Affective commitment as a mediator between psychological climate, job
involvement and citizenship behavior”, Management and Labour Studies, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 488-503.
Blakely, G.L., Andrews, M.C. and Moorman, R.H. (2005), “Between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 259-273.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bono, J.E. and Ilies, R. (2006), “Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 317-334.
Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), “Prosocial organizational behaviors”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 710-725.
Chen, C.-C. and Chiu, S.-F. (2008), “An integrative model linking supervisor support and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal Business Psychology, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-10.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern methods for business research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Choi, J. (2006), “A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: envisioning, empathy, and

empowerment”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 24-43.
Cicero, L. and Pierro, A. (2007), “Charismatic leadership and organizational outcomes: the mediating
role of employees’ work-group identification”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 5,

pp. 297-306.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, NJ.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and Yee, Ng, K. (2001), “Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, 425-445.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational
Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N., Menon, S.T. and Mathur, P. (1997), “Measuring charisma: dimensionality
and validity of the Conger–Kanungo Scale of charismatic leadership”, Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 290-302.
Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N. and Menon, S.T. (2000), “Charismatic leadership and follower effects”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 747-767.
Den Hartog, C.N., Keegan, A.E. and De Hoogh, A.H.B. (2007), “The interactive effects of
belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92
No. 4, pp. 1131-1139.
Ehrhart, M.G. and Klein, K.J. (2001), “Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: the
influence of follower values and personality”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 153-179.
Enhart, M.G. (2004), “Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 61-94.
Ertürk, A., Yılmaz, C. and Ceylan, A. (2004), “Promoting organizational citizenship behaviors: relative
effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceived managerial fairness”, METU
Studies in Development, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 189-210.
Farh, J.-L., Earley, P.C. and Lin, S.-C. (1997), “A cultural analysis of justice and organizational
citizenship behavior in Chinese society”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 421-444.
Fassina, N.E., Jones, D.A. and Uggerslev, K.L. (2008), “Relationship clean-up time: using
meta-analysis and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and
citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 161-188.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to
pay raise decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 115-130.
Foote, D.A. and Tang, T.L.-P. (2008), “Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior(OCB)
does team commitment make a difference in self-directed teams?”, Management Decision, Vol. 46
No. 6, pp. 933-947.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Franz, C. (2004), “A cross-cultural study of employee empowerment and organizational justice”,

Doctor of Phılosophy, Graduate School of Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
Fulford, M.D. (2005), “That’s not fair!”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 73-84.
Geisser, S. (1975), “The predictive sample reuse method with applications”, Journal of the American
Statistical Association, Vol. 70 No. 350, pp. 320-328.
Graham, J.W. (1986), Organizational Citizenship Informed by Political Theory, paper presented at the
Meeting of Academy of Management, Chicago.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal of

Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 399-432.
Groot De, T., Kiker, D.S. and Cross, T.C. (2000), “A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes
related to charismatic leadership”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 8,
pp. 356-372.
Güçlü, H. (2006), “Turizm sektöründe durumsal faktörlerin örgütsel bağlılık üzerine etkisi (“The effects
of situational factors on organizational commitment in tourism sector”)”, Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No.
1691, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
Haar, J.M. and Spell, C.S. (2009), “How does distributive justice affect work attitudes? The moderating
effects of autonomy”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20 No. 8,
pp. 1827-1842.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, 7th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, NJ.
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hoogh De, A.H.B., Hartog Den, D.N., Koopman, P.L., Thierry, H., Berg Van Den, P.T.,
Van Der Weide, J.G. and Wilderoma, C.P.M. (2005), “Leader motives, charismatic leadership, and
subordinates’ work attitude in the profit and voluntary sector”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 17-38.
Howell, J.M. and Shamir, B. (2005), “The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process:
relationships and their consequences”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 96-112.
Jackson, T.A., John, J.P. and Wang, X.-H. (Frank) (2013), “Leadership, commitment, and culture: a
meta- analysis”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 84-106.
Jacobsen, C. and House, R.J. (2001), “Dynamics of charismatic leadership: a process theory,
simulation model, and tests”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 75-112.
Judge, T.A. and Church, A.H. (2000), “Job satisfaction: research and practice”, in Cooper, C.L. and
Locke, E.A. (Eds), Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Linking Theory With Practice, Blackwell,
Oxford, pp. 166-198.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A. and Durham, C.C. (1997), “The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core
evaluations approach”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 151-188.
Kark, R., Shamir, B. and Chen, G. (2003), “The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment
and dependency”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 246-255.
Katz, D. (1964), “The motivational basis of organizational behaviour”, Behavior Science, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 131-133.
Kim, J.H., Tavitiyaman, P. and Kim, W.G. (2009), “The effect of management commitment to service
behaviors: the mediating role of job satisfaction”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 33
No. 3, 369-390.
Kofodimos, J.R. (1993), Balancing act, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J., Fiksenbaum, L. (2006), “Work engagement among women managers and
professionals in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and consequences”, Equal Opportunities
International, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 299-310.
Kuruüzüm, A., Ipekçi, E. and Irmak, S. (2009), “Path analysis of organizational commitment, job
involvement and job satisfaction in Turkish hospitality industry”, Tourism Review, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 4-16.
Lapierre, L.M. and Hackett, R.D. (2007), “Trait conscientiousness, leader-member exchange, job
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: a test of an integrative model”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 539-554.
Law, S.K., Wong, C. and Chen, X.Z. (2005), “The construct of organizational citizenship behavior:
should we analyze after we have conceptualized?”, in Turnipseed, D.L. (Ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 47-65.
LePine, J.A., Amir, E. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), “The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1,
pp. 52-65.
Liang, Y-W. (2012), “The relationships among work values, burnout, and organizational citizenship
behaviors: a study from hotel front-line service employees in Taiwan”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 251-268.
Lind, E.A. and Taylor, T.R. (1988), Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York, NY.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 1293-1349.
Lub, X.D., Blomme, R.J. and Bal, P.M. (2011), “Psychological contract and organizational citizenship
behavior: a new deal for new generations?”, in Chen, J.S. (Ed.), Advances in Hospitality and Leisure
(Advances in Hospitality and Leisure), Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 7 pp. 109-130.
McCain, S-L.C., Tsai, H. and Bellino, N. (2010), “Organizational justice, employees’ ethical behavior,
and job satisfaction in the casino industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Ma, E., Qu, H., Wilson, M. and Eastman, K. (2013), “Modeling OCB for hotels: don’t forget the
customers”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 308-317.
MCT (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism) (2014), “Yabancı Ziyaretçi Ve Yurt Dışında
İkamet Eden Vatandaş Ziyaretçi Turizm Gelirlerinin Yıllara Göre Dağılımı (Distribution of Tourism
Receipts of Foreign Visitor and Turkish Citizens Residing in Abroad by Years)”, available at: www.
ktbyatirimisletmeler.gov. tr/TR,72942/turizm-gelir-gider-ve-ortalama-harcama.html (accessed 20
March 2015).
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace, Theory, Research and Application,
Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 845-855.
Moorman, R.H. (1993), “The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on
the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior”, Human Relations,
Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 845-855.
Moorman, R.H., Nlehoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993), “Treating employees fairly and organizational
citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural
justice”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 209-225.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”,
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 224-247.
Nadiri, H. and Tanova, C. (2010), “An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job
satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-41.
Near, J.P. and Miceli, M.P. (1987), “Whistleblowers in organizations: dissidents or reformers?”, in
Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, JAI, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 321-368.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., Mackee, D.O. and McMurrian, R. (1997), “An investigation into the
antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D. (2011), “Affective organizational commitment and citizenship behavior:
linear and non-linear moderating effects of organizational tenure”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 528-537.
Ngunia, S., Sleegers, P. and Denessen, E. (2006), Transformational and transactional leadership
effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship
behavior in primary schools: the Tanzanian case”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-177.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the
effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-499.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior – The Good Soldier Syndrome, 1st ed., D.C.
Heathand, MA, Toronto.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”, Human
Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 775-802.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000), “Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university teachers”, Women in
Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 331-343.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009), “Individual- and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 122-141.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.
Poon, J.M.L. (2012), “Distributive justice, procedural justice, affective commitment, and turnover
intention: a mediation-moderation framework”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 6,
pp. 1505-1532.
Ravichandran, S., Gilmore, S.A. and Strohbehn, C. (2007), “Organizational citizenship behavior
research in hospitality”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 59-78.
Reithel, S.M., Baltes, B.B. and Buddhavarapu, S. (2007), “Cultural differences in distributive and
procedural justice does a two-factor model fit for Hong-Kong employees?”, International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 61-76.
Rothfelder, K., Ottenbacher, M.C. and Harrington, R.J. (2013), “The impact of transformational,
transactional and non-leadership styles on employee job satisfaction in the German hospitality
industry”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 201-214.
Rupert, J., Jehn, K.A., Van Engen, M.L. and De Reuver, R.S.M. (2010), “Commitment of cultural
minorities in organizations: effects of leadership and pressure to conform”, Journal Business
Schappe, P. (1998), “The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness
perceptions on organizational citizenship behaviour”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 132 No. 3,
pp. 277-290.
Schaubroeck, J. and Ganster, D.C. (1991), “Beyond the call to duty: a field study of extra-role behavior
in voluntary organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 569-582.
Sellin, N. and Versand, O. (1989), “Partial least square modeling in research on educational
achievement”, in Bos, W. and Lehmann, R.H. (Eds), Reflections on Educational Achievement, Papers
in Honour of T. Neville Postlethwaite, Waxmann Munster, New York, pp. 256-267.
Shamir, B. (1991), “The charismatic relationship: alternative explanations and predictions”, Leadership
Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a
self – concept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-594.
Shellenberger, S. (1997), “Employers are finding it does not cost much to make a staff happy”, Wall
Street Journal, (19 November).
Sieger, P., Bernhard, F. and Frey, U. (2011), “Affective commitment and job satisfaction among
non-family employees: investigating the roles of justice perceptions and psychological ownership”,
Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 78-89.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: its nature and
antecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 653-663.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models”, in Leinhart
S. (Ed.), Sociological methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 290-312.
Sosik, J.J. (2005), “The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers:
a model and preliminary field study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 221-244.
Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J. and Jung, D.I. (2002), “Beneath the mask: examining the relationship of
self-presentation attributes and impression management to charismatic leadership”, The Leadership
Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-147.
Tang, T.W. and Tang, Y.Y. (2012), “Promoting service – oriented organizational citizenship behaviors
in hotels: the role of high-performance human resource practices and organizational social climates”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 885-895.
Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S. and Esposito Vinzi, V. (2004), A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS
structural equation modeling, Proceedings of the XLII SIS Scientific Meeting, Padova, pp. 739-742.
TYD (Turkish Tourism Investors Association). (2014), Ülkemize Gelen Yabanc ı ların Başlıca Turistik
Merkezlere Dağılımı (Distribution of Foreign Tourists Coming to Our Country across Main Touristic
Centers), available at: www.ttyd.org.tr/userfiles/Mix/file/GelenYabancilar2014%20(MERKEZLER).pdf
(accessed 20 March 2015).
Tyler, T.R. (1994), “Psychological models of the justice motive: antecedents of distributive and
procedural justice”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 850-863.
Uçanok, B. and Karabatı, S. (2013), “The effects of values, work centrality, and organizational
commitment on organizational citizenship behaviors: evidence from Turkish SMEs”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 89-129.
Wang, C.-J. (2014), “Do ethical and sustainable practices matter? Effects of corporate citizenship on
business performance in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Wang, J. and Wong, C.K. (2011), “Understanding organizational citizenship behavior from a cultural
perspective: an empirical study within the context of hotels in Mainland China”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 845-854.
Wasti, S.A. (2002), “Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: test of an
integrated model in the Turkish context”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 525-550.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 601-617.
Wu, X. and Wang, C. (2008), “The impact of organizational justice on employees’ pay satisfaction, work
attitudes and performance in Chinese hotels”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality& Tourism,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 181-195.
Yorges, S.L., Weiss, H.M. and Strickland, O.J. (1999), “The effect of leader outcomes on influence,
attributions, and perceptions of charisma”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3,
pp. 428-436.
Young, L.D. (2010), “Is organizational justice enough to promote citizenship behavior at work? A retest
in Korea”, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 637-648.
Yukl, G. (1999), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.
Corresponding author
Ali Uyar can be contacted at: aliuyar@hotmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Antecedents Bilgin2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antecedents Bilgin2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research

An investigation of antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior in the Turkish hospitality industry:

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Necdet Bilgin is a Faculty Abstract

effectiveness of job performance provided and ambiguous job descriptions exist),

2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

2.1 The concepts of OCB, JS, AC, OJ and CL

2.2 Relationships between OCB and its antecedents

2.3 Relationships among its antecedents

Table I Profile of the sample (n ⫽ 768)

3.2 Variables measurements

4. Results and analyses

4.1 Measurement model assessment

Figure 1 Research model

CL12 0.79 0.24 0.39 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.24

JS5 0.26 0.22 0.27 0.22 0.23 0.84 0.45

4.2 Measurement model analysis

A. Charismatic leadership 5.27 1.01 0.25 0.14 0.55 0.91 0.74

H1 CL ¡ JS Supported 0.17 3.66 ***

Figure 2 The results of the structural model

Affective commitment 2,394.00 2,109.32 0.119 0.181

Table VI Effect sizes of endogenous latent variables

5. Conclusion and implications

Mediating role of job satisfaction between

Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 276-299.

Choi, J. (2006), “A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: envisioning, empathy, and

role of employees’ work-group identification”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 5,

Franz, C. (2004), “A cross-cultural study of employee empowerment and organizational justice”,

Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal of

Kofodimos, J.R. (1993), Balancing act, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Yukl, G. (1999), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

You might also like