The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0025-1747.htm

Effects of equity, perceived Macao’s

gaming
organizational support and job industry

satisfaction on organizational
commitment in Macao’s 2433
gaming industry Received 9 November 2021
Revised 19 April 2022
Accepted 17 June 2022
Wai Ming To
Faculty of Business, Macao Polytechnic University, Macao SAR, China, and
Guihai Huang
Faculty of Business, Macao Polytechnic University, Macao SAR, China and
Centre for Gaming and Tourism Studies, Macao Polytechnic University,
Macao SAR, China

Abstract
Purpose – This study explores the relationships between equity, perceived organizational support, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment and counterproductive work behavior in Macao’s gaming industry.
Additionally, it investigates whether the Covid-19 outbreak has effects on employees’ perceptions and
behaviors.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from two surveys using convenience sampling, one
involving 260 casino employees in 2019 and another involving 250 employees in 2020 after the outbreak of
Covid-19.
Findings – No significant difference was observed between mean scores from respondents in the first and
second surveys on job equity, pay equity, perceived organizational support and job satisfaction (p > 0.05).
However, significant changes were found in mean scores for three organizational commitment items (negative
changes; p < 0.05) and three counterproductive work behavior items (positive changes; p < 0.05). Results of
structural equation modeling indicated that job equity and pay equity affected perceived organizational
support and job satisfaction while perceived organizational support impacted organizational commitment
directly and indirectly through job satisfaction, all with R2 values greater than 0.6. Organizational commitment
negatively influenced counterproductive work behavior.
Research limitations/implications – The Covid-19 impact on casino employees’ perceptions and behaviors
was contingent upon the duration of pandemic.
Originality/value – The study is one of the first empirical studies to integrate social exchange theory and
equity theory to organizational commitment in Macao’s gaming industry. Job equity and pay equity were found
to influence organizational commitment through perceived organizational support and job satisfaction.
Additionally, the Covid-19 did not have significant effects on employees’ equity, perceived organizational
support and job satisfaction perceptions.
Keywords Equity, Perceived organizational support, Job satisfaction, Organizational commitment
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The Covid-19 pandemic has adversely affected many industries including the hospitality
industry across the world (Hao et al., 2020; Karatepe et al., 2021) and numerous firms no
matter they are big or small (Baum and Hai, 2020; Pappas and Brown, 2021). For cities such as
Macao, Hong Kong and Singapore that rely on tourism to support their economies, or at least
Management Decision
Vol. 60 No. 9, 2022
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable pp. 2433-2454
comments and suggestions. © Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. DOI 10.1108/MD-11-2021-1447
MD part of the city’s economy, the travel restrictions imposed by countries are hurting businesses
60,9 in the tourism and hospitality sector (Lim and To, 2022). Macao’s gaming companies that
used to make billions of dollars profit every year reported significant losses in 2020 (Moura,
2021). Nevertheless, Macao’s gaming companies take corporate social responsibility seriously
(Huang and To, 2018). They have not initiated layoffs widely but have asked their local
employees to take unpaid leave voluntarily, lowering their operational cost during the
ongoing pandemic. Additionally, Macao’s gaming companies pledge to support local
2434 employment and work with their employees to reach out to help people with economic
difficulties in the community (GGRASIA, 2020; Huang and To, 2022). In doing so, they hope to
maintain employees’ organizational commitment and believe that employees will be more
devoted to the companies when situation improves.
Using social exchange theory and equity theory (Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964) as a
framework, the study explored how Macao’s gaming employees perceived the support from
the companies they work in the time of difficulty and whether they were committed to the
company. Additionally, Chinese are pragmatic. They emphasize on both processes and
outcomes and see job equity and pay equity as motivational factors, on top of perceived
organizational support (Pan and Zhang, 2004; Westwood et al., 2001). Job equity refers to the
degree to which employees perceive the level of fair treatment they receive (Tai and Sims,
2005). Pay equity refers to the degree to which employees perceive that they are properly paid
in relation to other people for the work they do (Buttner and Lowe, 2017a). More specifically,
the study aimed to answer the following research questions: (1) how do job equity, pay equity,
perceived organizational support and job satisfaction affect organizational commitment? (2)
Do job satisfaction and organizational commitment influence counterproductive work
behavior? (3) Does the Covid-19 pandemic influence employees’ perceptions and work
behavior? The findings of the study can contribute to a better understanding of important
motivational factors of organizational commitment in Macao’s gaming industry.
Additionally, the impacts of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on
counterproductive work behavior can be quantified. The influences of Covid-19 pandemic
on Macao’s casino employees are also evaluated. Specifically, the study can advance our
understanding of whether and how equity, social exchange such as perceived organizational
support, job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and counterproductive work
behavior take place in a collectivistic society like Macao before and after the outbreak of
Covid-19. The study’s findings will shed light on how casino management can maintain
employees’ organizational commitment by focusing on the intrinsic and extrinsic
components of jobs in this difficult period of time.
The rest of the article is structured as follows. First, the next section presents a literature
review on organizational commitment, its antecedents and consequences, and the associated
hypotheses. The method section describes the study’s sample, measures and data analysis
approach. It is followed by results, discussion, theoretical and practical implications, and
limitations. The final section concludes the study.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Organizational commitment has been a research focus for many years (Chanana, 2021;
Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1991; Yahaya and Ebrahim, 2016). It has been
recognized as one of the most important variables in management and organizational
literature (Rahman et al., 2018; Yahaya and Ebrahim, 2016). Specifically, Meyer and Allen
(1991) reviewed the nature and theoretical basis of organizational commitment. They found
that although previous researches characterized organizational commitment differently,
most of these researches focused on three general themes: emotional attachment to the
organization (affective component), obligation to work for the organization (normative
component) and necessity to continually work for the organization (continuance component). Macao’s
From that, they defined a three-component model of organizational commitment (Meyer and gaming
Allen, 1991). Since then, many researchers have applied Meyer and Allen’s (1991)
conceptualization of organizational commitment in a wide range of settings (Froese and
industry
Xiao, 2012; Rahman et al., 2018; Yahaya and Ebrahim, 2016). Additionally, affective
commitment and normative commitment were found to have stronger effects on employees’
perceptions and behaviors than continuance commitment (Kuru€ uz€um et al., 2009; Snape and
Redman, 2003). Specifically, affective commitment has the greatest association with 2435
employees’ job satisfaction and work performance (Froese and Xiao, 2012; Kang et al., 2021;
Kuru€uz€
um et al., 2009; Meyer et al., 2002). Therefore, we characterized employees’
organizational commitment based on affective and normative components in the study.

Antecedents of organizational commitment

Past researches indicated that organizational commitment can be influenced by personal

variables and work-related variables (Cohen, 1992; Culibrk et al., 2018; Joiner and Bakalis,
2006). Specifically, Cohen (1992) reported that personal variables were found to have greater
impact on organizational commitment for blue collar and nonprofessional white-collar
employees than for professional employees. Joiner and Bakalis (2006) explored the antecedents
of organizational commitment in Australian higher education sector. They reported that
personal characteristics, job-related characteristics and job involvement characteristics were
associated with organizational commitment. Moreover, they found that job-related
characteristics such as supervisor support, organizational support and co-worker support
had the higher impact on organizational commitment among all studied variables. Culibrk 
et al. (2018) studied the relationships between work characteristics, job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Using responses from 566 employees in Serbia, Culibrk  et al.
(2018) reported that work characteristics affected job satisfaction while job satisfaction
impacted organizational commitment directly and indirectly through job involvement. Buttner
and Lowe (2017b) studied the relationships between perceived equity, productivity and
organizational commitment. They reported that employees’ perceptions of equity including
internal and external pay equities significantly predicted organizational commitment. Thus,
organizational commitment – a psychological state of employees – can be viewed as an
important consequence using the lens of equity theory (Adams, 1965) and social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964; Bouraoui et al., 2019) in organizations. Specifically, equity theory indicates
that job equity and pay equity can impact organizational commitment directly (Chai et al.,
2020; Paik et al., 2007) while social exchange theory provides the rational for linking perceived
organizational support to organizational commitment (Bouraoui et al., 2019; Eisenberger et al.,
1990; Shore and Wayne, 1993). Thus, the study posits the following three hypotheses:
H1. Job equity positively influences organizational commitment.
H2. Pay equity positively influences organizational commitment.
H3. Perceived organizational support positively influences organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment has a positive relationship with job satisfaction (Culibrk et al.,
2018; Chen and Chen, 2018; Froese and Xiao, 2012; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Paik et al., 2007;
Saridakis et al., 2020). Mathieu and Zajac (1990) performed a meta-analysis of antecedents and
consequences of organizational commitment. They identified mixed causal relationships
between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Saridakis et al. (2020) used a large
data set from over 17,000 UK employees in 1,820 workplaces. They reported that job
satisfaction positively influenced employees’ organizational commitment. The positive effect
MD of job satisfaction on organizational commitment was also confirmed by Chen and Chen
60,9 (2018) in the healthcare industry, and Joung et al. (2015), Kang et al. (2021) and Kuru€
uz€
um et al.
(2009) in the hospitality industry. In China, job autonomy, appraisal satisfaction and pay
satisfaction were found to affect organizational commitment in the form of affective
commitment (Froese and Xiao, 2012). Therefore, the study posits that:
H4. Job satisfaction positively influences organizational commitment.
2436
Relationships between job equity, pay equity, perceived organizational support and job
satisfaction
Shore et al. (2006) investigated the effects of pay equity on employees’ perceptions including
perceived organizational support and turnover intention. They reported that pay equity in
the form of internal comparisons significantly predicted perceived organizational support
while pay equity in the form of external comparisons had a significant effect on turnover
intention. Shore and Strauss (2012) studied the relationships between pay equity, job equity
and perceived organizational support. They reported that pay equity had a stronger effect
than job equity on perceived organizational support. Zin (2017) studied the relationships
between pay equity, perceived organizational support and turnover intention. Using 178
responses from IT employees in Malaysia, Zin (2017) reported that perceived organizational
support mediated the relationship between pay equity and turnover intention. Therefore, the
study hypothesizes that:
H5. Job equity positively influences perceived organizational support.
H6. Pay equity positively influences perceived organizational support.
Livingstone et al. (1995) showed that internal and external job equity as well as pay equity
influenced employees’ job satisfaction. Lambert et al. (2020) reported that distributive justice
in the form of job equity and pay equity was a predictor of job satisfaction among US
correctional staff. Eisenberger et al. (1997) investigated the relationship between perceived
organizational support and job satisfaction. They reported that perceived organizational
support and job satisfaction are distinct constructs and they can be strongly and significantly
associated with each other. Bogler and Nir (2012) explored the effect of perceived
organizational support on job satisfaction. Using responses from 2,565 teachers in Israel,
Bogler and Nir (2012) reported that perceived organizational support had significant direct
effect on job satisfaction and the relationship between perceived organizational support and
job satisfaction were partially mediated by teacher empowerment. The direct effect of
perceived organizational support on job satisfaction was empirically supported by Maan et al.
(2020). Thus, the study hypothesizes that:
H7. Job equity positively influences job satisfaction
H8. Pay equity positively influences job satisfaction
H9. Perceived organizational support positively influences job satisfaction

Consequences of job satisfaction and organizational commitment

Job satisfaction and organizational commitment have effects on employees’ work behavior.
Past researches focused more on the positive relationships between job satisfaction, job
performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Ellinger and Wu, 2013; Judge et al.,
2001; Reisel et al., 2010) and between organizational commitment, job performance and
employee retention (Chen and Chen, 2018; Somers and Birnbaum, 1998; Wasti, 2003).
Relatively less attention was given to the negative outcomes such as counterproductive work
behavior (G€urlek, 2021) and more specifically the relationship between job satisfaction (or Macao’s
organizational commitment) and employees’ counterproductive work behavior (Tian et al., gaming
2014; Zhang and Deng, 2016). As satisfied and committed employees are emotional attached
to the organization, it is very unlikely that they will be engaged in counterproductive work
industry
behavior. Therefore, the study posits the following two hypotheses:
H10. Job satisfaction negatively influences counterproductive work behavior.
H11. Organizational commitment negatively influences counterproductive work 2437
behavior.

Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on employees’ perceptions

When the study was first conceived in 2018, Macao’s hospitality industry was on an upward
trend for over fifteen years. Nevertheless, the world’s (including Macao’s) economic, social
and environmental conditions have changed dramatically since the outbreak of Covid-19
(Bajrami et al., 2021; Hao et al., 2020; Lim and To, 2022). Specifically, the lockdowns imposed
by governments across the world have halted domestic and international travel and tourism
in an unprecedented scale, causing structural and transformational changes to tourism as an
industry (Lim and To, 2022; Sigala, 2020). Macao has imposed very stringent border control
measures to prohibit the spread of Covid-19 (McCartney, 2021). However, the side effect is
that the number of tourists has decreased significantly, leading to the fall of casino revenue
by up to over 80% (Lim and To, 2022; McCartney, 2021). Fortunately, Macao’s gaming
companies have tried their best to support local employment and people with economic
difficulties in the community (GGRASIA, 2020; Huang and To, 2022). Nevertheless, Bajrami
et al. (2021) reported that Covid-19 affected employees’ work attitudes. They showed that job
equity (i.e. fairness) due to the impact of Covid-19 on organizations influenced job satisfaction.
Thus, the study hypothesizes that:
H12. Covid-19 has a significant effect on employees’ job equity, pay equity, perceived
organizational support, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and
counterproductive work behavior, and the relationships between variables.
Figure 1 shows the theoretical model of the study. Grounded on the equity and social
exchange theories, job equity and pay equity will positively influence organizational
commitment directly and indirectly through perceived organizational support and job

Figure 1.
The theoretical model
of the study
MD satisfaction. Additionally, job satisfaction and organizational commitment will have negative
60,9 effects on counterproductive work behavior.

Method
The context and sample
The gaming industry has contributed to over 40% of Macao’s gross domestic product since
2438 2003 (Macao Statistics and Census Service, 2019). Additionally, the gaming industry
employed 86,700 people, over 25% of Macao’s total workforce in 2019 (Macao Statistics and
Census Service, 2020). In order to enhance employees’ competencies and service quality in the
gaming industry, the Macao Government and casino operators subsidize and support
employees to study undergraduate programs in gaming and management at a local higher
education institution. With the agreement of instructors who taught gaming and
management-related subjects, our research team invited students who worked as casino
frontline employees to take part in the surveys voluntarily. The team asked students to
distribute questionnaires to and collect the completed questionnaires from their friends and
colleagues who worked in Macao’s gaming industry. In January–March 2019, 500
questionnaires were distributed and 260 completed questionnaires were collected at the
end of the first survey. During the analysis of the collected data and the preparation of article,
the Covid-19 pandemic began and negatively affected Macao and the rest of the world (Lim
and To, 2022). Thus, another 500 questionnaires were distributed in September–November
2020 and 250 completed questionnaires were returned at the end of the second survey – the
one after the Macao Government lifted quarantine requirements for travelers from mainland
China due to decrease in the locally transmitted Covid-19 cases to almost zero in mainland
China. Thus, response rates were 52% in 2019 and 50% in 2020, respectively. The purpose of
the study was stated on the cover page of questionnaire. Additionally, respondents were
ensured the anonymity and confidentiality of the collected data. They were also informed that
they could withdraw from the survey at any time.

Measures
Items of all measures were adapted from the extant literature to ensure content validity and
construct reliability. Job equity refers to the degree to which employees perceive to be fairly
treated considering their education, training, experience, responsibilities, etc. Six items of job
equity were adapted from Tai and Sims (2005). Pay equity refers to the degree to which
employees perceive to be fairly paid in relation to other employees in the same or different
companies. Four items of pay equity were adapted from Buttner and Lowe (2017a, b).
Perceived organizational support characterizes the extent to which the organization cares
about employees’ contribution, well-being, values and satisfaction. Five items were adapted
from Wayne et al. (1997). Job satisfaction is defined as employees’ feelings toward various job-
related factors. Five items were adapted from Warr et al. (1979). Organizational commitment
reflects employees’ emotional attachment to and employees’ feelings of obligation to stay
with the organization. Six items were adapted from Meyer and Allan (1991).
Counterproductive work behavior refers to employees’ behaviors that intentionally
endanger the interests of the organization and its members. Four items were adapted from
Spector et al. (2006). Items of job equity, pay equity, perceived organizational support,
affective commitment and normative commitment were rated using a 5-point Likert scale
with 1 5 “strongly disagree” to 5 5 “strongly agree.” Items of job satisfaction were rated
using a 5-point scale with 1 5 “very dissatisfied” to 5 5 “very satisfied.” Items of
counterproductive work behavior were rated using a 5-point scale with 1 5 “never” to
5 5 “always.” The 30 items are shown in Table A1. The Cronbach’s alpha values of job equity,
pay equity, perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, organizational commitment Macao’s
and counterproductive work behavior were 0.923, 0.898, 0.914, 0.846, 0.894 and 0.803, gaming
respectively, all above the threshold value of 0.7 as suggested by Hair et al. (2010).
industry

Data analysis approach

The collected data were entered to an IBM SPSS 26.0 file. Statistical analyses were performed
to characterize respondents’ profile. Independent t-tests were conducted to examine whether 2439
the Covid-19 pandemic had any effect on job equity, pay equity, perceived organizational
support, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and counterproductive work behavior.
The effects of gender, age and position on different factors were examined by a series of
t-tests and analyses of variance (ANOVA). The measurement model and structural model of
the study were evaluated using IBM SPSS Amos 26.0. The fit of each model was assessed
using the following indices: normed chi-square (χ 2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–
Lewis index (TLI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) as suggested by
Hair et al. (2010). The first and fourth indices are absolute fit indices while the second and
third indices are incremental fit indices. The criteria for an appropriate model fit are: χ 2/
df ≤ 3.0, CFI and TLI ≥ 0.90, and RMSEA ≤ 0.07 (Hair et al., 2010).

Results
Among the 260 employees who responded to the first survey (i.e. Survey 1) in 2019, slightly
less than half were male (48.8%). Most respondents aged between 30 and 39 years (43.8%).
Most respondents were married with children (46.9%), followed by single and living with
parents (26.2%). Most respondents had a high school education (58.9%), followed by having a
bachelor’s degree (38.8%). Most respondents worked as frontline employees (57.3%). Many
respondents had been working for eight-years or more (36.9%). Among the 250 employees
who took part in the second survey (i.e. Survey 2) in 2020, slightly more than half were male
(50.8%). Most respondents aged between 30 and 39 years (40.4%). Most respondents were
single and living with parents (39.2%), followed by those married with children (35.6%). Most
respondents had a bachelor’s degree (65.6%). Most respondents worked as frontline
employees (56.8%). Over half of respondents had been working for eight-years or more
(50.4%). As a whole, almost half of the respondents were male (49.8%). Most respondents
aged between 30 and 39 years (42.2%), were married with children (41.4%) and had a
bachelor’s degree (52.0%). Most respondents worked as frontline employees (57.1%). Most
respondents had been working for eight-years or more (43.6%). Table 1 presents the
demographic profile of respondents. Chi-square tests showed that there were no significant
differences between the distributions of gender and age group of the two surveys (p > 0.05)
while there were significant differences between the distributions of marital status,
education, position and working experience of the two surveys (p < 0.01).
Mean scores of job equity items ranged from 3.08 to 3.36 (SD range 5 0.92–1.03) for
respondents in the first survey and ranged from 3.08 to 3.41 (SD range 5 0.83–0.93) for
respondents in the second survey. Mean scores of pay equity items ranged from 3.17 to 3.25
(SD range 5 0.95–1.08) for respondents in the first survey and ranged from 3.14 to 3.24
(SD range 5 0.91–1.01) for respondents in the second survey. Mean scores of perceived
organizational support ranged from 2.99 to 3.32 (SD range 5 0.99–1.07) for respondents in the
first survey and ranged from 2.83 to 3.29 (SD range 5 0.86–0.94) for respondents in the second
survey. A series of t-tests showed that there was no significant difference between the two
groups for job equity items, pay equity items and perceived organizational support items.
Mean scores of job satisfaction items ranged from 3.03 to 3.46 (SD range 5 0.89–1.01) and
from 3.18 to 3.48 (SD range 5 0.79–0.94) for respondents in the first and second surveys,
MD Frequency (percent)
60,9 Character Class Survey 1 (%) Survey 2 (%) Total (%)

Gender Male 127 (48.8) 127 (50.8) 254 (49.8)

Female 133 (51.2) 123 (49.2) 256 (50.2)
Age 20–29 80 (30.8) 94 (37.6) 174 (34.1)
30–39 114 (43.8) 101 (40.4) 215 (42.2)
2440 40–49 41 (15.8) 34 (13.6) 75 (14.7)
50 or above 25 (9.6) 21 (8.4) 46 (9.0)
Marital status Single, living with parents 68 (26.2) 98 (39.2) 166 (32.5)
Single, living alone 38 (14.6) 29 (11.6) 67 (13.1)
Married without children 27 (10.4) 21 (8.4) 48 (9.4)
Married with children 122 (46.9) 89 (35.6) 211 (41.4)
Others 5 (1.9) 13 (5.2) 18 (3.5)
Education High school 153 (58.9) 73 (29.2) 226 (43.3)
Bachelor’s degree 101 (38.8) 164 (65.6) 265 (52.0)
Masters’ degree or above 6 (2.3) 10 (4.0) 16 (3.1)
Others 3 (1.2) 3 (0.6)
Division Casino 88 (33.8) 151 (60.4) 239 (46.9)
Hotel 89 (34.2) 16 (6.4) 105 (20.6)
Restaurant 27 (10.4) 10 (4.0) 37 (7.3)
Others 56 (21.6) 73 (29.2) 129 (25.2)
Position Frontline 149 (57.3) 142 (56.8) 291 (57.1)
Supporting 32 (12.3) 20 (8.0) 52 (10.2)
Administrative 26 (10.0) 21 (8.4) 47 (9.2)
Managerial 49 (18.8) 45 (18.0) 94 (18.4)
Others 4 (1.5) 22 (8.8) 26 (5.1)
Working experience (in years) <2 years 70 (26.9) 69 (27.6) 139 (27.2)
Table 1. 2 to < 4 49 (18.8) 19 (7.6) 68 (13.3)
Demographic profile of 4 to < 8 45 (17.4) 36 (14.4) 81 (15.9)
respondents 8 or above 96 (36.9) 126 (50.4) 222 (43.6)

respectively. Results of t-tests showed that there was no significant difference between the
two groups for job satisfaction items. Mean scores of organizational commitment items
ranged from 3.10 to 3.62 (SD range 5 0.90–1.00) and from 3.02 to 3.34 (SD range 5 0.86–0.93)
for respondents in the first and second surveys, respectively. Results of t-tests showed that
there were significant differences between the two groups for three items – “I feel like ‘part of
the family’ at my organization”, “I believe that a person must be loyal to his or her
organization” and “I feel that I owe the organization quite a bit because of what it has done for
me”. Mean scores of these items dropped significantly due to the Covid-19 pandemic
(p < 0.05). Mean scores of counterproductive work behavior items ranged from 1.86 to 2.30
(SD range 5 0.91–0.96) and from 2.10 to 2.49 (SD range 5 1.01–1.11) for respondents in the
first and second surveys, respectively. Results of t-tests showed that there were significant
differences between the two groups for two counterproductive work behavior items – “Talk
about in the working setting, you delayed actions on matters that were important to others”,
“Talk about in the working setting, you made fun of a co-worker personal life” and “Talk
about in the working setting, you daydreamed rather than you could have worked”, as shown
in Table 2. Indeed, the Covid-19 pandemic did not have a significant effect on most of the
selected constructs, except that it impacted three items each of organizational commitment
and counterproductive work behavior.
Table 3 shows means, standard deviations (SD), constructs’ composite reliabilities (CR),
average variance extracted (AVE) and correlations between variables. The values of CR
ranged from 0.808 to 0.925 and AVE ranged from 0.516 to 0.692, supporting convergent
validity (Hair et al., 2010). The square root value of AVE of each construct was equal or Macao’s
greater than correlations between the construct and all other constructs, supporting gaming
discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Demographic variables such as gender and
education did not have any significant association with the selected constructs while age,
industry
marital status, position, working experience and survey number (i.e. Survey 1 and Survey 2)
had no significant relationship or very weak relationship (jrj ≤ 0.167) with the selected
constructs. Specifically, the number of survey (i.e. before or after the Covid-19 outbreak) did
not have any significant effect on job equity, pay equity, perceived organizational support 2441
and job satisfaction while it had a very weak negative effect on organizational commitment
and a very weak positive effect on counterproductive work behavior.
Table 3 also shows that job equity (r 5 0.764, p < 0.001) and pay equity (r 5 0.623,
p < 0.001) were positively and significantly associated with perceived organizational support.
Job equity (r 5 0.705, p < 0.001), pay equity (r 5 0.606, p < 0.001) and perceived organizational
support (r 5 0.723, p < 0.001) were positively and significantly associated with job
satisfaction. Job equity (r 5 0.629, p < 0.001), pay equity (r 5 0.554, p < 0.001), and perceived
organizational support (r 5 0.695, p < 0.001), and job satisfaction (r 5 0.691, p < 0.001)
were positively and significantly associated with organizational commitment. On the
other hand, counterproductive work behavior did not have significant relationships with job
equity (r 5 0.034, n.s.), pay equity (r 5 0.046, n.s.) and perceived organizational support
(r 5 0.037, n.s.). Nevertheless, counterproductive work behavior was negatively, weakly
and significantly associated with job satisfaction (r 5 0.128, p < 0.01), and organizational
commitment (r 5 0.140, p < 0.01), respectively. Data were checked for normality using the
Shapiro–Wilk and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Results of these tests showed that all
constructs were normally distributed. Additionally, the values of skewness and kurtosis
statistics ranged from 0.379 to 0.626 and 0.267 to 0.682, respectively. Both of them were
less than ±1.0, supporting that construct data were normally distributed.

Confirmatory factor analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Amos 26.0 with maximum
likelihood estimation. The six-factor measurement model produced the following results:
χ 2/df 5 2.282 (χ 2 5 890.0, df 5 390), CFI 5 0.952, TLI 5 0.947 and RMSEA 5 0.050. The
results indicated that the model fitted the data well. Alternative measurement models were
tested: (a) a five-factor model in which job equity and pay equity were combined as a single
factor, (b) a four-factor model in which job equity, pay equity and perceived organizational
support were combined as a single factor, (c) a three-factor model in which job equity, pay
equity, perceived organizational support and organizational commitment were combined as a

Item Statement Mean (SD)

Survey 1 Survey 2

OC4 I feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization 3.62 (0.90) 3.14 (0.93)
OC5 I believe that a person must be loyal to his or her organization 3.53 (0.92) 3.34 (0.92)
OC6 I feel that I owe the organization quite a bit because of what it has done for 3.27 (1.00) 3.06 (0.91)
me
CWB1 Talk about in the working setting, you delayed actions on matters that 2.28 (0.96) 2.49 (1.11)
were important to others
CWB3 Talk about in the working setting, you made fun of a co-worker personal 1.86 (0.92) 2.10 (1.09)
life Table 2.
CWB4 Talk about in the working setting, you daydreamed rather than you could 1.90 (0.91) 2.19 (1.01) Items with significant
have worked difference (p < 0.05)
 MD
60,9

2442

Table 3.

and correlations
between variables
Mean, SD, CR, AVE
Correlation coefficient
Variable Mean SD CR AVE Gender Age Status Edu Posit Exp Survey JE PE POS JS OC CWB

Gender 1.502 0.500

Age 2.002 0.964 0.120**
Status 2.702 1.380 0.098* 0.467**
Education 2.467 0.784 0.032 0.259** 0.138**
Position 2.043 1.364 0.006 0.112* 0.019 0.185**
Exp 3.620 1.485 0.022 0.574** 0.480** 0.077 0.132**
Survey 1.490 0.500 0.020 0.068 0.101* 0.307** 0.070 0.101*
JE 3.276 0.785 0.925 0.673 0.016 0.049 0.058 0.002 0.140** 0.074 0.009 0.821
PE 3.202 0.852 0.900 0.692 0.003 0.003 0.078 0.014 0.075 0.046 0.006 0.733*** 0.832
POS 3.096 0.837 0.915 0.682 0.065 0.041 0.012 0.065 0.133** 0.092* 0.048 0.764*** 0.623*** 0.826
JS 3.315 0.729 0.845 0.523 0.020 0.044 0.036 0.020 0.159** 0.006 0.004 0.705*** 0.606*** 0.723*** 0.723
OC 3.223 0.753 0.894 0.587 0.038 0.128** 0.140** 0.038 0.146** 0.002 0.138** 0.629*** 0.554*** 0.695*** 0.691*** 0.766
CWB 2.199 0.796 0.808 0.516 0.031 0.145** 0.167** 0.014 0.116** 0.097* 0.144** 0.034 0.046 0.037 0.128** 0.140** 0.719
Note(s)
i. SD – standard deviation; CR – composite reliability; AVE – average variance extracted
ii. JE – job equity; PE – pay equity; POS – perceived organizational support; JS – job satisfaction; OC – organizational commitment; CWB – counterproductive work
behaviors
iii. Numbers in bold and italics are the square root values of AVE
iv. *p < 0.05, **p < 0 0.01, ***p < 0.001 for correlations
single factor, and (d) a single-factor model in which all items were loaded to a single factor. Macao’s
The significant χ 2 changes show that the six-factor measurement model produced a much gaming
better fit than all alternative models (Δχ 2 > 374.6) as shown in Table 4. Thus, the six-factor
model should be used.
industry

Structural equation modeling

Structural equation modeling was performed using IBM SPSS Amos 26.0 with maximum 2443
likelihood estimation. Structural equation model produced the following indices: χ 2/
df 5 3.268 (χ 2 5 1287.7, df 5 394), CFI 5 0.92, TLI 5 0.91 and RMSEA 5 0.067.
Additionally, job equity (β 5 0.04, p 5 0.567) and pay equity (β 5 0.05, p 5 0.199) did not
have significant effects on organizational commitment. Thus, H1 and H2 were not supported.
Job satisfaction was found to have no significant effect on counterproductive work behavior
(β 5 0.05, p 5 0.615). Therefore, H10 was not supported. After removing these three paths,
the final structural model shown in Figure 2 produced the following results: χ 2/df 5 3.247
(χ 2 5 1288.9, df 5 397), CFI 5 0.915, TLI 5 0.907 and RMSEA 5 0.066. Although the normed
chi-square χ 2/df was slightly higher than 3.0, all other indices met the criteria as suggested
by Hair et al. (2010), indicating that the final structural model should be considered as
acceptable. Figure 2 shows that job equity had a strong and significant effect on perceived
organizational support (β 5 0.761, p < 0.001) while pay equity weakly and significantly
affected perceived organizational support (β 5 0.178, p < 0.001). Thus, H5 and H6 were
supported. Job equity (β 5 0.265, p < 0.001), pay equity (β 5 0.179, p < 0.001) and perceived
organizational support (β 5 0.550, p < 0.001) significantly affected job satisfaction. Thus, H7,
H8 and H9 were supported. Organizational commitment was moderately and significantly
predicted by perceived organizational support (β 5 0.341, p < 0.001) and job satisfaction
(β 5 0.509, p < 0.001). Thus, H3 and H4 were supported. Finally, organizational commitment
negatively affected counterproductive work behavior (β 5 0.122, p < 0.05). Thus, H11 was
supported. Table 5 shows the direct, indirect and total effect of job equity, pay equity and
perceived organizational support on job satisfaction. Job equity was found to have the
greatest total effect on job satisfaction, followed by perceived organizational support. Table 5
also shows the direct, indirect and total effect of job equity, pay equity, perceived

Model χ2 df p-value χ 2/df CFI TLI RMSEA Δχ 2 Δdf

Six-factor model (baseline 889.0 390 0.000 2.282 0.952 0.947 0.050 – –
model)
Five-factor model; job equity 1263.6 395 0.000 3.199 0.917 0.909 0.066 374.6 5
and pay equity were
combined as a factor
Four-factor model; job equity, 1741.3 399 0.000 4.364 0.872 0.860 0.081 852.3 9
pay equity, and perceived
organizational support were
combined as a factor
Three-factor model; job 2357.3 402 0.000 5.864 0.813 0.798 0.098 1468.3 12
equity, pay equity, perceived
organizational support, and
organizational commitment
as a factor Table 4.
One-factor model 3138.1 405 0.000 7.748 0.739 0.720 0.115 2249.1 15 Fit statistics for
Note(s): Δχ and Δdf were calculated based on the difference between the alternative model and the six-factor different measurement
2

model (baseline model) models (n 5 510)

MD
60,9

2444

Figure 2.
The structural model

organizational support and job satisfaction on organizational commitment. It was found that
perceived organizational support had the greatest total effect on organizational commitment,
followed by job equity. Gender and age were controlled for in the structural model. Gender
was found to have an insignificant effect on job satisfaction (unstandardized regression
weight B 5 0.026, p 5 0.508) and organizational commitment (unstandardized regression
weight 5 0.012, p 5 0.747). Age was found to have a very weak but significant effect on job
satisfaction (unstandardized regression weight 5 0.057, p 5 0.006) and organization
commitment (unstandardized regression weight 5 0.071, p < 0.001).

Structural equation modeling with multi-group analysis

The study also explored the effect of Covid-19 on the relationships between the studied
variables. Structural equation modeling was performed using IBM SPSS Amos 26.0 with
multi-group analysis. Two groups namely the 2019 group and the 2020 group were selected.
Each of structural paths (shown in Figure 2) was constrained to be equal at a time. The
difference in χ 2 values was then compared with the unconstrained model. Results of χ 2
difference tests showed that Covid-19 did not have significant effect on all path coefficients.
Thus, the structural model shown in Figure 2 was applicable to the group before and the
group after the outbreak of Covid-19. Additionally, regression weights of unconstrained
models were presented in Table 6. Although there was no significant difference between path

Effect on JS Effect on OC
Factor Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

JE 0.265 0.418 0.683 0.000 0.608 0.608

Table 5. PE 0.179 0.098 0.276 0.000 0.201 0.201
Direct, indirect, and POS 0.550 0.000 0.550 0.341 0.280 0.622
total effect of JE, PE, JS 0.509 0.000 0.509
and POS on JS and JE, Note(s): JE – job equity; PE – pay equity; POS – perceived organizational support; JS – job satisfaction;
PE, POS and JS on OC OC – organizational commitment
coefficients for the 2019 group and the 2020 group based on the 95% confidence intervals, Macao’s
some changes were observed. Table 6 shows that job equity had more influence on perceived gaming
organizational support and job satisfaction while pay equity had less influence on perceived
organizational support and job satisfaction after the outbreak of Covid-19. It could be
industry
understood that after the outbreak of Covid-19 most employees felt grateful to casinos for
keeping their jobs. Thus, pay equity became a non-issue influencing perceived organizational
support or a very small issue influencing job satisfaction. Perceived organizational support
had more influence on organizational commitment while the relationship between 2445
organizational commitment and counterproductive work behavior became insignificant
after the outbreak of Covid-19. It could be interpreted that Macao’s casinos have treated
employees quite well over the past decades. Thus, counterproductive work behavior was
negatively and weakly influenced by organizational commitment before the outbreak of
Covid-19. After the outbreak of Covid-19, there was no significant relationship between
organizational commitment and counterproductive work behavior.

Discussion
Macao’s gaming employees generally agreed that they were treated and paid fairly because
mean scores of job equity and pay equity items were all above 3.0. They perceived that
organizations adequately supported them because four out of the five item-mean scores of
perceived organization support were greater than 3.0 before Covid-19 and three out of the five
item-mean scores were greater than 3.0 after the outbreak of Covid-19. They were generally
satisfied with job because all job satisfaction items had a mean score greater than 3.0 before
and after the outbreak of Covid-19. Additionally, they were committed to the companies but
employees’ organizational commitment decreased slightly after the outbreak of Covid-19 (see
Table A1). They seldom had negative work behaviors because mean scores of
counterproductive work behavior items were all below 2.5. Nevertheless, results of t-tests
showed that some aspects of employees’ organizational commitment deteriorated
significantly after the outbreak of Covid-19, including feelings as ‘part of the family’ and
loyal to the companies. The negative effect of Covid-19 on employees’ organizational
commitment was consistent with the one reported by Chanana (2021) who focused on
teachers in private schools in India. Additionally, frequencies of some negative work
behaviors such as delaying actions on matters that were important to others, and
daydreaming in the work setting tended to increase (see Table 2). This finding was consistent
with the study of Fei and Hahn (2021) in which job insecurity due to the Covid-19 was found to
positively influence employees’ counterproductive work behavior in Chinese IT firms.

Unstandardized regression weights (unconstrained models)

Path Survey 1 Survey 2 (i.e. after Covid-19)

JE → POS 0.795*** (95% CI: 0.652, 0.938) 0.798*** (95% CI: 0.651, 0.945)
PE → POS 0.229*** (95% CI: 0.137, 0.321) 0.079ns (95% CI: 0.003, 0.161)
JE → JS 0.118 (95% CI: 0.025, 0.261)
ns
0.318*** (95% CI: 0.169, 0.467)
PE → JS 0.129** (95% CI: 0.047, 0.211) 0.092** (95% CI: 0.023, 0.161) Table 6.
POS →JS 0.473*** (95% CI: 0.312, 0.634) 0.405*** (95% CI: 0.254, 0.556) Unstandardized
regression weights of
POS → OC 0.188** (95% CI: 0.045, 0.331) 0.333*** (95% CI: 0.176, 0.490) the paths from
JS → OC 0.558*** (95% CI: 0.333, 0.783) 0.474*** (95% CI: 0.270, 0.678) structural equation
OC → CWB 0.173* (95% CI: 0.324, 0.022) 0.045ns (95% CI: 0.196, 0.106) models (before and
Note(s): JE – job equity; PE – pay equity; POS – perceived organizational support; JS – job satisfaction; OC – after Covid-19
organizational commitment; CI – Confidence interval; ns – non-significant, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 outbreak)
MD Structural equation modeling results showed that as a whole, job equity had a significant
60,9 impact on job satisfaction directly and indirectly through perceived organizational support
(see Table 5). Pay equity had a significant, but weak impact on job satisfaction directly and
indirectly through perceived organizational commitment. Job equity and pay equity did not
influence organizational commitment directly. However, they influenced organizational
commitment through perceived organizational support and job satisfaction. When the
magnitudes of influences were compared, job equity had much greater influences on
2446 perceived organizational support, job satisfaction and organizational commitment than pay
equity. It could be well understood because Macao’s casino employees have been well paid in
the past decade (Tang, 2021; Zeng et al., 2013). According to the statistics published by Macao
Statistics and Census Services (2021), Macao’s casino employees in average earn about
USD3,000 per month in 2021, with a 20% higher salary than the median salary of Macao’s
residents at USD2,500 per month. Additionally, organizational commitment was found to
have a negative and weak effect on counterproductive work behavior, and the effect became
insignificant after the outbreak of Covid-19. It was because Macao’s casinos have tried their
best to keep jobs and most employees understood that the Covid-19 pandemic is a force
majeure that cannot be dealt with by individuals, organizations or even countries. When all
direct and indirect effects were taken into consideration, perceived organizational support
had the greatest total effect on organizational commitment, followed by job equity. With
respect to employees’ job satisfaction, its most influencing factor was job equity, followed by
perceived organizational support.
Casino gaming is a big business and Macao’s casino operators are public companies listed
in Hong Kong and the US (Huang, 2011), no longer dominated by Chinese family businesses
that might breed employees’ counterproductive work behavior (Zheng et al., 2017). Casino
operators are expected to take corporate social responsibility seriously to mitigate the
negative consequences of gaming (Huang and To, 2018, 2022). Additionally, the Macao
Government urged gaming operators to fulfill their social responsibility such as supporting
small local businesses, and safeguarding local residents’ employment rights (Macao
Government, 2016). Their performance on social responsibility may even affect the likelihood
of obtaining new concessions to continue their gaming business when the concessions expire
in June 2022 (Blaschke, 2022). In January 2021, all Macao’s casino operators announced a
discretionary allowance that was equivalent to one-month salary capped at USD5,600 for
their employees before the Lunar New Year, even though all operators suffered huge financial
loss due to the Covid-19 pandemic (Macau Daily, 2021). Inevitably, some casino employees
were required to take unpaid leave or even made redundancies. Thus, employees have a sense
of uncertainty that probably led to the mean score of a job satisfaction item – “‘the job
security” dropping from 3.37 to 3.26 after the outbreak of Covid-19, even though there was no
statistically significant difference between the scores.

Theoretical implications
Perceived organizational support was found to have a strong, positive and significant effect
on organizational commitment. This result was consistent with the findings of Joiner and
Bakalis (2006), and Panaccio and Vandenberghe (2009) who reported perceived
organizational support positively influenced organizational commitment in the Western
culture. Yet, the study tested the relationships between perceived organizational support and
organizational commitment and between equity and organizational commitment in the
Chinese context and specifically in Macao’s gaming industry. The strong link between
perceived organizational support and organizational commitment could be well reasoned
through the lens of social exchanges. Nevertheless, the insignificant link between job equity
(or pay equity) and organizational commitment showed that job equity and pay equity were
found to have effects on organizational commitment through perceived organizational Macao’s
support and/or job satisfaction. This finding extended the findings of Jiang et al. (2018) who gaming
reported job satisfaction mediating the relationships between job and organization’s
variables and employees’ organizational commitment. Interestingly, while Shore and Strauss
industry
(2012) reported that job equity had a smaller effect than pay equity on perceived
organizational support, the study’s results showed the other way around. It is probably
because Macao’s gaming employees are well paid comparing than their counterparts in other
industries, resulting that gaming employees are more concerned with job equity rather than 2447
pay equity. Additionally, the study’s findings supported Herzberg’s two-factor theory that
employees’ job satisfaction was largely dependent on intrinsic rather than extrinsic elements
of jobs, i.e. job equity vs pay equity (also see Maidani, 1991).
The study is one of the first empirical studies to integrate social exchange theory and
equity theory to explain employees’ organizational commitment in Macao’s gaming industry.
Chinese are pragmatic and the role of reciprocity significantly influences organizational
commitment (Hu et al., 2011). Specifically, Hu et al. (2011) used Chinese employees who
studied MBA programs in China, and employees who studied MBA programs,
undergraduate business or psychology programs in the United States. They reported that
Chinese tended to use a holistic approach to understand their situations and thus interactions
between social exchange, economic exchange and organizational commitment were clearly
evidenced. However, Hu et al.’s (2011) study did not find any interactions between exchange
and commitment constructs among those US samples. Our study showed that job equity and
perceived organizational support had the greatest total effects on job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, implying that the perceptions of support from and to the
organizations are likely reciprocal. The empirical findings revealed the complex nexus of the
direct and the mediated relationships (via perceived organizational support) between job/pay
equity and job satisfaction and the mediated relationships (via perceived organizational
support and job satisfaction) between job/pay equity and organizational commitment.

Managerial implications
Limitations and future research. The study has limitations. First, it was a two-survey study
relying on respondents’ self-reports of their perceptions, psychological state, attitude and
behavior. Thus, it could be subject to common method bias. A Harmon’s single-factor test was
performed. Results showed that no single factor emerged and the first factor accounted for
around 45% (i.e. less than half) of the variance, suggesting that common method bias did not
pose a serious problem. Second, the Covid-19 pandemic would have a long-lasting effect on
the economic and social conditions. As the second survey was conducted in September–
October 2020, the economic, social and psychological impacts of Covid-19 on the society and
humans (including organizations’ employees) were still manifesting themselves. It is
necessary to replicate the survey at some future time so as to identify changes in employees’
perception of equity and organizational support, their commitment, job satisfaction, and
work behavior due to the ongoing pandemic and the wake of Covid-19. Specifically, the recent
decline in Macao’s gaming revenue and cost saving measures undertaken by casinos (The
Standard, 2022) might affect casino employees’ morale and perceptions significantly.

Conclusions
The study explored the effects of job equity, pay equity, perceived organizational support and
job satisfaction on employees’ organizational commitment through the lens of social
exchange theory and equity theory in Macao’s gaming industry. It also investigated whether
and how organizational commitment affected counterproductive work behavior. A two-
MD survey study was conducted to collect employees’ responses in 2019 and 2020 – the one after
60,9 the outbreak of Covid-19. Results showed that organizational commitment was greatly and
significantly influenced by perceived organizational support and job satisfaction directly.
Organizational commitment was affected by job equity and pay equity indirectly through
perceived organizational support and job satisfaction. Results of the structural equation
modeling with multi-group analysis indicated that Covid-19 did not affect the paths
significantly between the studied variables. Item-by-item analysis indicated that employees’
2448 loyalty and feelings of “part of the family” deteriorated after the outbreak of Covid-19.
Additionally, some negative work behaviors such as delaying actions on matters that were
important to others and daydreaming in the work setting became more frequent.

References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowistz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 267-299.
Bajrami, D.D., Terzic, A., Petrovic, M.D., Radovanovic, M., Tretiakova, T.N. and Hadoud, A. (2021),
“Will we have the same employees in hospitality after all? The impact of COVID-19 on
employees’ work attitudes and turnover intentions”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 94, 102754.
Baum, T. and Hai, N.T.T. (2020), “Hospitality, tourism, human rights and the impact of COVID-19”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 2397-2407.
Blaschke, B. (2022), Macau Legislative Assembly Publishes Draft Bill on Amendments to Gaming Law,
asgam.com (Inside Asian Gaming), Macao SAR, China, available at: https://www.asgam.com/
index.php/2022/01/18/macau-legislative-assembly-publishes-draft-amendments-to-gaming-law/.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York.
Bogler, R. and Nir, A.E. (2012), “The importance of teachers’ perceived organizational support to job
satisfaction: what’s empowerment got to do with it?”, Journal of Educational Administration,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 287-306.
Bouraoui, K., Bensemmane, S., Ohana, M. and Russo, M. (2019), “Corporate social responsibility and
employees’ affective commitment: a multiple mediation model”, Management Decision, Vol. 57
No. 1, pp. 152-167.
Buttner, E.H. and Lowe, K.B. (2017a), “Addressing internal stakeholders’ concerns: the interactive
effect of perceived pay equity and diversity climate on turnover intentions”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 143 No. 3, pp. 621-633.
Buttner, E.H. and Lowe, K.B. (2017b), “The relationship between perceived pay equity, productivity,
and organizational commitment for US professionals of color”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 73-89.
Chai, D.S., Jeong, S. and Joo, B.K. (2020), “The multi-level effects of developmental opportunities, pay
equity, and paternalistic leadership on organizational commitment”, European Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 44 Nos 4/5, pp. 405-424.
Chanana, N. (2021), “The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on employees organizational commitment
and job satisfaction in reference to gender differences”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 21
No. 4, e2695.
Chen, S.C. and Chen, C.F. (2018), “Antecedents and consequences of nurses’ burnout: leadership
effectiveness and emotional intelligence as moderators”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 4,
pp. 777-792.
Cohen, A. (1992), “Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-
analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 539-558.

Culibrk, 
J., Delic, M., Mitrovic, S. and Culibrk, D. (2018), “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment
and job involvement: the mediating role of job involvement”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, 132.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and Macao’s
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1,
pp. 51-59. gaming
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. and Lynch, P. (1997), “Perceived organizational support,
industry
discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 812-820.
Ellinger, A.D. and Wu, Y.C.J. (2013), “A survey relation between job satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB)”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 248-262.
2449
Fei, Y. and Hahn, J. (2021), “Job insecurity in the COVID-19 pandemic on counterproductive work
behavior of millennials: a time-lagged mediated and moderated Model”, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 16, p. 8354.
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.
Froese, F.J. and Xiao, S. (2012), “Work values, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
China”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 2144-2162.
GGRASIA (2020), Amid Covid-19 Crisis, Macau Casino CSR Put To the Test, GGRASIA.com, Macao,
China, available at: http://www.ggrasia.com/in-times-of-covid-19-crisis-macau-casino-csr-put-to-
the-test/.
urlek, M. (2021), “Workplace ostracism, Syrian migrant workers’ counterproductive work behaviors,
G€
and acculturation: evidence from Turkey”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
Vol. 46, pp. 336-346.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Black, B., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Pearson, NJ.
Hao, F., Xiao, Q. and Chon, K. (2020), “COVID-19 and China’s hotel industry: impacts, a disaster
management framework, and post-pandemic agenda”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 90, 102636.
Hu, X., Tetrick, L. and Shore, L.M. (2011), “Understanding reciprocity in organizations: a US-China
comparison”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 528-548.
Huang, G.H. (2011), “Responsible gambling policies and practices in Macao: a critical review”, Asian
Journal of Gambling Issues and Public Health, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Huang, G.H. and To, W.M. (2018), “Importance-performance ratings of corporate social responsibility
practices by employees in Macao’s gaming industry”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 2870-2887.
Huang, G.H. and To, W.M. (2022), “Casino employees’ intention to participate in corporate community
involvement activities – an extended value-attitude-intention model”, Asian Education and
Development Studies, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 521-534.
Jiang, S., Lambert, E.G., Jin, X., Xiang, D., Shi, M. and Zhang, D. (2018), “Correlates of organizational
commitment among community correctional officers in China”, The Prison Journal, Vol. 98
No. 1, pp. 60-82.
Joiner, T.A. and Bakalis, S. (2006), “The antecedents of organizational commitment: the case of
Australian casual academics”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 439-452.
Joung, H.W., Goh, B.K., Huffman, L., Yuan, J.J. and Surles, J. (2015), “Investigating relationships
between internal marketing practices and employee organizational commitment in the
foodservice industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1618-1640.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001), “The job satisfaction–job performance
relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.
Kang, S.E., Park, C., Lee, C.K. and Lee, S. (2021), “The stress-induced impact of COVID-19 on tourism
and hospitality workers”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 3, p. 1327.
MD Karatepe, O.M., Saydam, M.B. and Okumus, F. (2021), “COVID-19, mental health problems, and their
detrimental effects on hotel employees’ propensity to be late for work, absenteeism, and life
60,9 satisfaction”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 934-951.
Kuru€
uz€um, A., Çetin, E.I. 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.
Lambert, E.G., Keena, L.D., Leone, M., May, D. and Haynes, S.H. (2020), “The effects of distributive and
2450 procedural justice on job satisfaction and organizational commitment of correctional staff”, The
Social Science Journal, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 405-416.
Lim, W.M. and To, W.M. (2022), “The economic impact of a global pandemic on the tourism economy:
the case of COVID-19 and Macao’s destination- and gambling-dependent economy”, Current
Issues in Tourism, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1258-1269.
Livingstone, L.P., Roberts, J.A. and Chonko, L.B. (1995), “Perceptions of internal and external equity as
predictors of outside salespeoples’ job satisfaction”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 33-46.
Maan, A.T., Abid, G., Butt, T.H., Ashfaq, F. and Ahmed, S. (2020), “Perceived organizational support
and job satisfaction: a moderated mediation model of proactive personality and psychological
empowerment”, Future Business Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Macao Government (2016), Policy Address for the Fiscal Year 2016 of the Macao Special Administrative
Region (MSAR) of the People’s Republic of China, Macao Government, Macao SAR, China.
Macao Statistics and Census Service (2019), Macao Industrial Structure – 2018 (and Other Issues),
Macao Statistics and Census Service, Macao SAR, China.
Macao Statistics and Census Service (2020), Employment Survey: December 2019 – February 2020,
Macao Statistics and Census Service, Macao SAR, China.
Macao Statistics and Census Service (2021), Survey on Manpower Needs and Wages – Gaming Sector,
2nd Quarter 2021, Macao Statistics and Census Service, Macao SAR, China.
Macau Daily (2021), Sands China to Hand Out Discretionary Allowance to 99% of its Employees, Macau
Daily, Macao SAR, China, available at: https://macaudailytimes.com.mo/sands-china-to-hand-
out-discretionary-allowance-to-99-of-its-employees.html.
Maidani, E.A. (1991), “Comparative study of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction among
public and private sectors”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-448.
Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. (1990), “A review of meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and
consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 171-194.
McCartney, G. (2021), “The impact of the coronavirus outbreak on Macao. From tourism lockdown to
tourism recovery”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 24 No. 19, pp. 2683-2692.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 20-52.
Moura, N. (2021), Sands China Reports US$1.5 Bln in Net Losses in 2020, Macaubusiness.com, Macao
SAR, China, available at: https://www.macaubusiness.com/sands-china-reports-us1-5-bln-in-net-
losses-in-2020/.
Paik, Y., Parboteeah, K.P. and Shim, W. (2007), “The relationship between perceived compensation,
organizational commitment and job satisfaction: the case of Mexican workers in the Korean
Maquiladoras”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 No. 10,
pp. 1768-1781.
Pan, F. and Zhang, Z. (2004), “Cross-cultural challenges when doing business in China”, Singapore
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 61-73.
Panaccio, A. and Vandenberghe, C. (2009), “Perceived organizational support, organizational Macao’s
commitment and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 224-236. gaming
Pappas, N. and Brown, A.E. (2021), “Entrepreneurial decisions in tourism and hospitality during
industry
crisis”, Management Decision, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 1025-1042.
Rahman, S., Islam, M.Z., Abdullah, A.D.A. and Sumardi, W.A. (2018), “Empirical investigation of the
relationship between organizational factors and organizational commitment in service
organizations”, Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 418-431. 2451
Reisel, W.D., Probst, T.M., Chia, S.L., Maloles, C.M. and K€onig, C.J. (2010), “The effects of job insecurity
on job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and negative
emotions of employees”, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 74-91.
noz Torres, R.I. and Gourlay, S. (2020), “Exploring the relationship between
Saridakis, G., Lai, Y., Mu~
job satisfaction and organizational commitment: an instrumental variable approach”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 31 No. 13, pp. 1739-1769.
Shore, T.H. and Strauss, J. (2012), “Effects of pay and productivity comparisons in the workplace on
employee attitudes: an experimental investigation”, International Journal of Management,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 677-686.
Shore, L.M. and Wayne, S.J. (1993), “Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective
commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 774-780.
Shore, T.H., Tashchian, A. and Jourdan, L. (2006), “Effects of internal and external pay comparisons
on work attitudes”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 2578-2598.
Sigala, M. (2020), “Tourism and COVID-19: impacts and implications for advancing and resetting
industry and research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117, pp. 312-321.
Snape, E. and Redman, T. (2003), “An evaluation of a three-component model of occupational
commitment: dimensionality and consequences among United Kingdom human resource
management specialists”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 152-159.
Somers, M.J. and Birnbaum, D. (1998), “Work-related commitment and job performance: it’s also the
nature of the performance that counts”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 621-634.
Spector, P.E., Fox, S., Penney, L.M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A. and Kessler, S. (2006), “The dimensionality
of counter-productivity: are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 446-460.
Tai, A.J.R. and Sims, R.L. (2005), “The perception of the glass ceiling in high technology companies”,
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 16-23.
Tang, C.C. (2021), “Gender characteristics and labor market of Macao: insight from the gaming sector
classification”, Asian Education and Development Studies, (in press). doi: 10.1108/AEDS-02-
2020-0034.
The Standard (2022), Galaxy Places Golden Handshake on the Table, The Standard, Hong Kong SAR,
available at: https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/2/237884/Galaxy-places-
golden-handshake-on-the-table.
Tian, Q., Zhang, L. and Zou, W. (2014), “Job insecurity and counterproductive behavior of casino
dealers–the mediating role of affective commitment and moderating role of supervisor
support”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 40, pp. 29-36.
Warr, P., Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1979), “Scales for measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of
psychological well-being”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 129-148.
Wasti, S.A. (2003), “Organizational commitment, turnover intentions and the influence of cultural
values”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 303-321.
MD Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and leader-member
exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1,
60,9 pp. 82-111.
Westwood, R., Sparrow, P. and Leung, A. (2001), “Challenges to the psychological contract in Hong
Kong”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 621-651.
Yahaya, R. and Ebrahim, F. (2016), “Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature
review”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 190-216.
2452
Zeng, Z., Forrest, D. and McHale, I.G. (2013), “Happiness and job satisfaction in a casino-dominated
economy”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 471-490.
Zhang, L. and Deng, Y. (2016), “Guanxi with supervisor and counterproductive work behavior: the
mediating role of job satisfaction”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 134 No. 3, pp. 413-427.
Zheng, W., Wu, Y.C.J., Chen, X. and Lin, S.J. (2017), “Why do employees have counterproductive work
behavior? The role of founder’s Machiavellianism and the corporate culture in China”,
Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 563-578.
Zin, M.L.B.M. (2017), “The mediating role of perceived organizational support on the relationship
between pay and intention to stay”, Management Review: An International Journal, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 57-76.
Appendix Macao’s
gaming
industry
Item mean scores
Item (standard deviation) Factor
code Item 2019 2020 loadings
2453
Job equity
JE1 I am fairly treated considering the job and responsibilities 3.27 (1.03) 3.36 (0.83) 0.802
that I have
JE2 I am fairly treated considering the amount of education 3.32 (0.95) 3.41 (0.86) 0.795
and training that I have
JE3 I am fairly treated in view of the amount of experience that 3.36 (0.92) 3.34 (0.89) 0.840
I have
JE4 I am fairly treated for the amount of effort that I put forth 3.25 (0.95) 3.23 (0.93) 0.856
JE5 I am fairly treated for work that I have done well 3.33 (0.97) 3.28 (0.84) 0.876
JE6 I am fairly treated for the stresses and strains of my job 3.08 (1.00) 3.08 (0.90) 0.748
Pay equity
PE1 My salary is fair in relation to my colleagues in the same 3.25 (1.08) 3.24 (1.01) 0.814
department
PE2 My salary is fair in relation to all other colleagues in the 3.18 (0.99) 3.14 (0.93) 0.792
company
PE3 My salary is fair in relation to other people with 3.23 (0.95) 3.18 (0.92) 0.875
comparable qualifications and experience in the same
industry
PE4 My salary is fair in relation to other people with 3.17 (0.99) 3.24 (0.91) 0.844
comparable qualifications and experience in other
industries
Perceived organizational support
POS1 Management cares about my general satisfaction at work 3.13 (1.05) 3.16 (0.93) 0.778
POS2 Management strongly considers my goals and values 2.99 (1.01) 2.83 (0.91) 0.832
POS3 Management cares about my opinions 3.08 (1.07) 2.95 (0.94) 0.836
POS4 Management takes pride in my accomplishments at work 3.15 (0.99) 3.04 (0.87) 0.847
POS5 Help is available from management when I have a 3.32 (1.04) 3.29 (0.86) 0.835
problem
Job satisfaction
JS1 The physical conditions in which you work 3.36 (0.96) 3.42 (0.79) 0.732
JS2 Relation between you and your immediate manager 3.46 (0.98) 3.48 (0.82) 0.722
JS3 The job security 3.37 (0.99) 3.26 (0.92) 0.705
JS4 Freedom to choose your own working methods 3.03 (1.01) 3.18 (0.93) 0.665
JS5 The recognition you get for good work 3.34 (0.89) 3.24 (0.94) 0.786
Organizational commitment
OC1 I really feel as if the organization’s problems are my own 3.10 (0.98) 3.02 (0.86) 0.662
problems
OC2 The organization has a great deal of personal meaning for 3.20 (0.93) 3.07 (0.86) 0.790
me
OC3 I have a strong sense of belonging to my organization 3.26 (0.97) 3.12 (0.93) 0.851
OC4 I feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization 3.62 (0.90) 3.14 (0.93) 0.811
OC5 I believe that a person must be loyal to his or her 3.53 (0.92) 3.34 (0.92) 0.629
organization
OC6 I feel that I owe the organization quite a bit because of 3.27 (1.00) 3.06 (0.91) 0.826
what it has done for me
Table A1.
(continued ) Constructs and items
MD Item mean scores
60,9 Item (standard deviation) Factor
code Item 2019 2020 loadings

Counterproductive work behavior

CWB1 Talk about in the working setting, you delayed actions on 2.28 (0.96) 2.49 (1.11) 0.597
matter that were important to others
2454 CWB2 Talk about in the working setting, you showed favoritism 2.30 (0.92) 2.48 (1.06) 0.651
CWB3 Talk about in the working setting, you made fun of a co- 1.86 (0.92) 2.10 (1.09) 0.770
worker personal life
CWB4 Talk about in the working setting, you daydreamed rather 1.90 (0.91) 2.19 (1.01) 0.832
Table A1. than you could have worked

About the authors

Wai Ming To is a Professor of Management in the Faculty of Business at Macao Polytechnic University.
He received his PhD from Imperial College London. Prof. To has published 1 book and more than 200
articles in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. His research interests include
environmental management, service management, quality management and marketing management.
Wai Ming To is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: wmto@mpu.edu.mo
Guihai Huang is an Associate Professor and the Dean of the Faculty of Business at Macao
Polytechnic University. He obtained his PhD from the University of Hong Kong. Dr. Huang has
published articles in International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making and Journal of Gambling Studies. His research interests include responsible
gambling policies, corporate social responsibility and casino management.

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