Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Tourist Destination Image (TDI) on Intention to Visit through Tourism Risk Perception (TRP) of COVID-19 in the Tourism Industry in the New Normal Era in Indonesia: Case Study in East Java
Next Article in Special Issue
Digital Technologies for Firms’ Competitive Advantage and Improved Supply Chain Performance
Previous Article in Journal
Determinants of Financial Risk Tolerance: An Analysis of Psychological Factors
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Study about Who Is Interested in Stock Splitting and Why: Considering Companies, Shareholders, or Managers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JRFM
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/jrfm16020075
jrfm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influences of Procedural Justice on Turnover Intention and Social Loafing Behavior among Hotel Employees

by
Hussein N. E. Edrees
1,
Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih
2,3,*,
Hassane Gharbi
4 and
Ahmed E. Abu Elnasr
5
1
Strategic Planning Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 31982, Saudi Arabia
2
Management Department, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 31982, Saudi Arabia
3
Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University, Cairo 12612, Egypt
4
Management Department, School of Business, University of Sfax, Sfax 3018, Tunisia
5
Higher Institute for Specific Studies, Future Academy, Cairo 11771, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16(2), 75; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020075
Submission received: 20 December 2022 / Revised: 12 January 2023 / Accepted: 20 January 2023 / Published: 26 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Business Performance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examines the influences of procedural justice on the turnover intention and social loafing behavior among employees in the hotel industry. Despite a growing body of literature regarding the relationship between organizational justice, turnover intention and social loafing, there is limited published research on the influence of procedural justice on social loafing behavior among hotel employees with the mediating effect of turnover intention. For this purpose, a questionnaire was self-administered to employees working at different hotels in Saudi Arabia. AMOS software was employed for structural equation modeling (SEM) data analysis. The results show that procedural justice significantly and negatively influences social loafing behavior. Furthermore, procedural justice significantly and negatively influences turnover intention, whereas the turnover intention significantly and positively influences social loafing behavior. Turnover intention partially mediates the link between procedural justice and social loafing. The study outcomes confirm that procedural justice is important for any organization; nevertheless, it is not enough to decrease social loafing behavior among hotel employees, especially when turnover intention exists. The results have implications for hotel practitioners and scholars in relation to reducing turnover intentions and social loafing behavior among employees.

1. Introduction

There is a growing body of academic published research that attempts to discuss the phenomenon of social loafing among employees to understand and manage this behavior appropriately (see, for instance, George 1992; Karau and Williams 1993; Alyahya et al. 2021). However, the available literature does not thoroughly investigate the role of procedural justice and turnover intention as antecedents of social loafing behavior among employees, especially in the hotel industry. Therefore, the current study is an attempt to bridge the gap in the knowledge in relation to the procedural justice and turnover intention as antecedents of social loafing behavior among hotel employees. Social loafing is a common phenomenon that may be encountered in any organizational context, regardless of gender or age, and in a wide range of occupations and cultures (Karau and Williams 1993). Certainly, teamwork is highly required and valued because work in teams is a crucial for the success of the hotel industry (Butt et al. 2013; Warrick 2014). However, some employees made limited efforts when performing co-tasks compared to their individual’s tasks (Varshney 2019). The phenomenon of exerting less effort when participating in collective activities is known as social loafing. Social loafing originally goes back to Ringelmann (1913), who described it as a person’s tendency to decrease his/her productivity when engaging in group work. The inability of an employee to recognize his/her contribution to the end performance has been linked to the prevalence of social loafing (Price et al. 2006). Social loafing may emerge when task visibility is weak, but when personal motivation is high, employees may place more effort into their work (George 1992). Luo et al. (2013) emphasized that both turnover intention and justice perceptions significantly affect social loafing behavior among hotel employees (Greenberg 1990). Earlier studies on social loafing were generally conducted based on students or in a laboratory setting (Earley 1989; Murphy et al. 2003; Price et al. 2006). Therefore, the results were seldom tested for application or external validity (George 1992; Mulvey and Klein 1998; Price et al. 2006), and important determinants of social loafing in the workplace could have been left out (Comer 1995). As result, it is important to investigate the causes of social loafing in real-world organizations, such as hotels (Murphy et al. 2003; Alyahya et al. 2021).
Social loafing behavior is a common phenomenon in the hotel industry (Luo et al. 2013) because of the intangibility of services and limited task visibility (George 1992). The hotel industry is a labor-intensive business, which is dependent for its success on the quality of service provided by employees. There is no doubt that organizational success has been linked to the absence of social loafing behavior. This is because the spread of social loafing behavior could have many negative consequences. These include the level of work efficiency (Karau and Williams 1995), team success (Mulvey and Klein 1998), performance of teamwork (Peratanasumran 2017), the quality of service (Lin and Ling 2018), the level of job stress (Tourigny et al. 2010), productivity because of high turnover rates (Mulvey and Klein 1998) and performance of the organization in the long run (Akgunduz and Eryilmaz 2018). The current study makes an attempt to understand this behavior by examining the effect of both procedural justice and turnover intention. Understanding the effect of these variables enables better management of this behavior.
This study draws on the social exchange theory (Blau 1964) and referent cognitions theory of relative deprivation for Folger (1986), which assumes that the better procedures are evaluated as fair, the lesser as turnover intention. Social exchange theory assumes that there is an exchange between an employee and his/her organization. This means that if the employee perceives that the rules and regulations treat him/her unfairly, s/he will not intend to turnover or likely become a social loafer. Folger’s theory focuses on the equal implementation of decisions, procedures and processes, which, made by the management, affect employees’ attitudes and behaviors. If employees perceive unequal procedures, they could respond with a negative attitude, such as exhibiting turnover intention and social loafing behavior. In that sense, previous studies (e.g., Aliedan et al. 2022; Alyahya et al. 2021; Sobaih et al. 2019) argued that an intention to leave is usually associated with negative outcomes, such as low job-performance levels, unethical behavior and social loafing, while pervious research results (e.g., Griffeth et al. 2000; Chong et al. 2021; Gharbi et al. 2022) confirmed that procedural justice is a key driver for employee turnover. Additionally, it was argued that procedural justice is more important than distributive justice in determining employees’ evaluations of the parties or the institution that enacted the decision (Brockner and Siegel 1996).
The effect of procedural justice on social loafing behavior through turnover has not yet been examined. The present research makes the first attempt to examine this indirect relationship. This study builds on the social exchange theory and Referent cognition theory of relative deprivation discussed above. The direct effect of procedural justice on turnover intention is confirmed (Gharbi et al. 2022). Furthermore, the direct effect of turnover intention on social loafing is also confirmed as a predicator of social loafing behavior (Akgunduz and Eryilmaz 2018; Alyahya et al. 2021). Additionally, other studies (Alyahya et al. 2021) determined the mediating role of turnover intention in the relationship between distributive injustice and social loafing behavior. Based on this, the current study attempts to examine the indirect effect of procedural justice on social loafing behavior through turnover intention.
This research aims to test the direct impact of procedural injustice on turnover intention and ultimately on social loafing. Furthermore, it examines the mediating role of turnover intention in the association between procedural justice and social loafing behavior among hotel employees. For this purpose, the Section 2 defines the research variables (procedural justice, turnover intention and social loafing behavior). A literature review and hypothesized study are presented in Section 3. Section 3 reviews the relationship between research variables among employees in general and whenever possible among hotel employees. This is because there is a limited amount of published research on these relationships in the hotel context. Section 4 presents the research design and methods used for the data collection and analysis. Section 5 shows the results of the research. Section 6 discusses the results and links them to previous studies to provide implications for scholars and industry professionals. Finally, Section 7 concludes the research and presents the limitations and future study directions.

2. Definitions of Constructs

Blau (1964) described social loafing as the tendency by a worker to make limited efforts when performing teamwork or co-tasks in comparison with efforts made individually. In the same context, Latané et al. (1979) defined social loafing as an individual’s propensity to exert less effort or motivation while working in a group than when working individually. Social loafing has two drivers, whether extrinsic or intrinsic (Baumeister et al. 2016). Previous studies (e.g., Karau and Williams 1995; Williams et al. 1981) emphasized that the extrinsic form of social loafing arises when an employee believes that his or her efforts will be ignored by others who are his/her team members and/or leaders. Furthermore, if an employee is not punished for their lack of effort, he/she is less likely to work effectively when performing collective tasks. Employees are more likely to work in an effective way on co-tasks if they believe that their efforts are appreciated by their coworkers or supervisor (Baumeister et al. 2016; Piezon and Ferree 2008). The intrinsic form of social loafing includes feelings of employees that their practices are useful and important to the team (Karau and Williams 1995). The driver of intrinsic social loafing includes justice perceptions, commitment and turnover intention (Greenberg 1990; Luo et al. 2013). Wilhau (2021) indicated that social loafing is more likely to occur among some employees rather than others. This refers to multiple attributes, whether related to an individual and/or organization level (Liden et al. 2004; Schippers 2014).
Turnover refers to the purposeful and conscious intention to leave an organization. A high level of turnover is acknowledged as one of the characteristics of the hotel industry, which has negative impacts on the industry’s employment image (Hom and Griffeth 1995; Hinkin and Tracey 2000; Pizam and Thornburg 2000). Previous studies indicated several factors that create turnover intention, e.g., organizational support (Hui et al. 2007), organizational justice (Griffeth et al. 2000; Osman and Noordin 2015; Hom et al. 2017), organizational commitment and emotional exhaustion (Boyas et al. 2012), work environment and job satisfaction (Amponsah-Tawiah et al. 2016), employee–manager relationship (Hirst et al. 2009), job insecurity and injustice (Alyahya et al. 2021) and leadership style (Sobaih et al. 2022). Referring to the literature review (e.g., Matthews and Ritter 2019; Aryani et al. 2021; Saleh et al. 2022), turnover intention is difficult to identify. This is because employees who are planning to depart from their organization may not explicitly state their intentions; instead, they may exhibit a variety of practices to indicate this intention. Among these practices is the reduction in their level of performance and the overall performance of the organization (Lin and Huang 2020). Furthermore, the employees with an intention to leave their organization usually engage in unethical and/or social loafing behaviors (Alyahya et al. 2021; Elshaer and Azazz 2021). Fishbein and Ajzen (1977) stated: “the best predictor of an individual’s behavior will be a measure of his intention to adopt this behavior” (p. 369).
Organizational justice relates to how workers feel about equality in workplaces (Cropanzano and Greenberg 1997). Researchers (e.g., Colquitt et al. 2001; Erdogan et al. 2006; Lin and Huang 2009; Nadiri and Tanova 2010) have thoroughly examined organizational justice and its three major components: procedural, distributive and interactional. Distributive justice concentrates on whether the results are compatible with standards for the outcomes, whereas procedural justice relates to the fairness of decisions concerning outcome distribution (Lord and Brown 2004). West et al. (2005) stated that a team should have equal procedures and distributions of outcomes when they produce equitable efforts. Hence, Saad and Elshaer (2017) stated that the reward should be fair and consistent with employees’ actions. George (1992) argued that social loafing was least likely to occur when contingent rewards were present, which is in agreement with the organizational justice theory. Kidwell and Bennett’s (1993) also observed that perceived equity has a negative correlation with social loafing, given the theoretical relationship between equity theory and organizational justice (Folger 1977; Tyler 1994). The level of respect shown to individuals by those conducting procedures or making decisions is measured by interactional justice (Bies 1986; Colquitt et al. 2001). According to Johnson et al. (2006), perceptions of justice are linked to organizational outcomes and are important to the individual, and the justice outcomes have been identified as, but are not limited to, leader–member relationships, job satisfaction, satisfaction with justice, turnover intention and commitment to the organization (Schneider and Bowen 1995; Lord and Brown 2004). While most of the previous studies focus on the positive attributes of employees’ behaviors and attitudes, the present study concentrates on some of the effects of procedural justice on social loafing behavior through employee turnover intention.

3. Formulation of Research Hypotheses

3.1. Procedural Justice and Turnover Intention

Drawing on the social exchange theory (Gouldner 1960; Blau 1964), an employee who experiences any kind of justice in his/her organization is more likely to continue to work for his/her organization. Organizational justice is determined by how fairly an employee perceives his/her organization to have treated him/her in terms of decision making, distribution and even equality of results (Schultz and Schultz 2020; Asadullah et al. 2017). Procedural justice is more significant than any other form of organizational justice in shaping how an employee judges his/her organization (Brockner and Siegel 1996). Thus, De Cremer and Stouten (2005) indicated that employees with a high level of procedural justice presented stronger feelings of wellbeing than those who experienced a low level of procedural justice. Employees who experience procedural fairness feel more in control of their surroundings. As a result, their absence rates decrease; hence, they have little or no incentive to quit their jobs. Furthermore, they perform better at work and become more committed to the business (Masterson et al. 2000; Rahim et al. 2001). Previous studies (Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001; Colquitt et al. 2001; Gharbi et al. 2022) emphasized a negative relationship between procedural justice and turnover intention. Employee engagement in turnover intention was observed to be less when procedural justice was viewed as being fair (Gim and Desa 2014; Chong et al. 2021). Hence, we suggest the following:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Procedural justice has a significant negative influence of on turnover intention.

3.2. Turnover Intention and Social Loafing

The antecedents of turnover intention were primarily investigated (Bridges et al. 2007; Currivan 1999; Gaertner 1999); however, the impact of turnover intention was examined less compared to its antecedents, except the cost of turnover (Kankaanranta et al. 2007; Morrow et al. 1999; Sexton et al. 2005). According to the study by Brickner et al. (1986), which was conducted in a lab environment, social loafing occurs when an employee is unmotivated to engage in tasks. In the same manner, Erkasap (2014) suggested that turnover intention drives social loafing and it has a positive relationship with social loafing. Social exchange theory suggests that there must be a mutually beneficial connection between the two parties, i.e., employee and his/her organization (Emerson 1976). Hence, rewarding employees for their performance might enhance motivation and cause them to become more active in the workplace; otherwise, the level of motivation will decline and the employees will be more inclined to avoid performing tasks (Hafiza et al. 2011). Employees with strong motivation are less likely to quit their jobs, whereas those with a low drive will have a higher turnover intention (Elshaer and Saad 2017) and exhibit social loafing behavior (Brickner et al. 1986). Employees with a stronger commitment toward their organization do not engage in social loafing, yet employees with increased turnover intentions are supposed to be social loafers (Luo et al. 2013). A recent study conducted by Alyahya et al. (2021) showed a positive influence of turnover intention on social loafing behavior among hotel workers. Thus, we suggest the following:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Turnover intention has a significant and positive influence on social loafing behavior.

3.3. Procedural Justice and Social Loafing

Procedural justice is the perception of equality in relation to policies or procedures, which are followed when making personal decisions, such as choosing the method for award distribution (Thibaut and Walker 1975; Liden et al. 2004). Employees’ feelings regarding the fairness of policies and systems may have an impact on performance-to-results expectations, which in turn may have an impact on how much effort is put into performing tasks (Karau and Williams 1993). In that sense, George (1995) revealed that social loafing was positively correlated with non-contingent punishment from a leader or manager, albeit negatively correlated with contingent rewards. These results suggest that procedural justice is important when making individual decisions about how much effort one should put into tasks (Liden et al. 2004). This is due to the fact that punishment that is not based on work behavior is viewed as procedurally unfair, while rewards that are based on contributions to the organization are more likely to be perceived as procedurally fair (Liden et al. 2004). The results of a meta-analysis showing a positive relationship between procedural justice and job performance may provide additional suggestive evidence of the significance effect of procedural justice on social loafing (Colquitt et al. 2001). The study results of Price et al. (2006) indicate that procedural justice is negatively correlated with social loafing. Yet, Luo et al. (2013) observed no significant association between perceptions of organizational justice and social loafing. A recent study showed the significant impact of distributive injustice and social loafing behavior among hotel workers (Alyahya et al. 2021). Based on these discussions, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Procedural justice has a significant negative influence on social loafing behavior.

3.4. Turnover Intention as a Mediator between Procedural Justice and Social Loafing

Previous research confirmed that employees’ turnover intentions are related to procedural justice (Luo et al. 2013). Additionally, turnover intention is also related to social loafing behavior (Erkasap 2014; Luo et al. 2013). To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, there is no published research examining the mediating role of turnover intention in the relationship between procedural justice and social loafing behavior. This study makes the first attempt to examine this mediating effect. We drew on the social exchange theory that implies that turnover intentions are expected to shape employees social loafing behaviors resulting from employees’ perceptions of procedural injustice. It is also probable that employees who feel that there is an unfair procedure are more likely to have turnover intentions; thus, they place minimal effort in performing collective work and exhibit social loafing behavior. This assumption is supported by a recent study (Alyahya et al. 2021) that observed a mediating effect of turnover intention in the relationship between distributive injustice, job insecurity and social loafing behavior among hotel employees. In the present study, we adopted a new approach to assume that turnover could play a mediating role in the relationship between procedural justice and social loafing behavior (See Figure 1). Thus, we suggest the following:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Turnover intention has a mediating effect on the link between procedural justice and social loafing behavior.

4. Methodology

4.1. Population and Sample

The population used for this study consisted of hotel workers from Saudi Arabia. The research questionnaire was directed to a random sample of hotels workers in different regions of Saudi Arabia. This random sample was taken with the support of a data collection company. According to Statista, the number of hotels in Saudi Arabia was 5600 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1019449/saudi-arabia-number-tourism-establishments; accessed on 1 December 2022). A random sample of hotels was selected from each region: Eastern, Central, Northern, Northwest, Midwest and Southwest. We contacted the management of the selected hotels to approach their employees for the study, after we explained the purpose of our study. The questionnaires were self-administered to hotel employees. Before the distribution of the forms, we explained the purpose of the study and confirmed that employee responses were confidential and only for research purposes. We adopted the framework of Krejcie and Morgan (1970) to decide upon the sample size. We intended to have a sample of 384 valid responses or more. Hence, we self-distributed 800 forms and were able to collect 507 complete forms for analysis. Our response rate was 63.4 %. There were slightly more male respondents (57%) than females (43%). The vast majority of respondents held a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent (79%), followed by those holding secondary-school certificates or the equivalent (12%) and finally those with a postgraduate degree (9%). Respondents were from food service (36%), food production (22%), front office (18%), housekeeping (14%) and maintenance (10%) sectors.

4.2. The Measures

We adopted a pre-tested questionnaire based on a critical review of the related literature (see Appendix A). We adopted the justice procedures from Colquitt et al. (2006) that included seven items. An example of these items is the following: “the procedures used in my organization have been applied consistently”. We adopted the turnover intention scale of Elshaer and Saad (2017), which included three items. An example of these items is the following: “It would not take much to make me leave this job”. Additionally, we used the social loafing scale of Price et al. (2006), which included four items. An example of these items is the following: “I loafed on my share of tasks”. We asked the participants to tick their responses on a Likert scale of five points, ranging from completely agree to completely disagree. The range of responses was between one and five. The mean ranged between 3.15 and 4.21, whereas the standard deviation ranged between 0.817 to 1.071 (see Table 1). This shows that the data are more scattered (Bryman and Cramer 2012).
The skewness coefficient “shows whether the observations are distributed equitably around the mean (the coefficient is then zero) or if they are rather concentrated towards the lowest values (positive coefficient) or if they are rather concentrated towards the highest values. High (negative coefficient)” (Hair et al. 2014). The kurtosis coefficient compares “the shape of the observation distribution curve to that of the normal law: a positive coefficient indicates a higher concentration of observations while a negative coefficient indicates a flatter curve” (Hair et al. 2014). Concerning our case, the coefficients of symmetry (skewness) and kurtosis (surtosis) do not violate the assumption of normality (Kline 2015) and reveal admissible values. We can conclude that, in this respect, all the distributions are fairly dispersed and all the variables follow the normal law (Table 1).
Because the present research used a self-reporting measure, there could be an opportunity for the common method variance (CMV). However, the current research applied the guidelines of Podsakoff et al. (2012) to ascertain that the CMV was not a concern. The following steps were undertaken. Firstly, all respondents were assured that their responses were for only study purposes and would remain anonymous. Secondly, the questionnaire was designed where the variables’ order was considered (DV before IV). Thirdly, the questionnaire was piloted using 17 professors and 20 employees for confirming face and content validity. Fourthly, Harman’s single-factor test was used, and we undertook an exploratory factor analysis (EFA); the results were fixed to the value of 1 with no rotation option. Successively, a variable explained 34% of the variance, which was below 50%, as explained by Podsakoff et al. (2012). The results confirm that the CMV is not a concern in this research.
We were also able to confirm the unidimensionality of the “procedural justice, turnover intention and social loafing” variables with the identification of a single component representing 52.20%, 50.18% and 54.09% individually of the total explained variance. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) values were all 0.8. These results confirm that our items are acceptable for factorial analysis. We conducted Cronbach’s alpha to examine the reliability of our scale. The alpha values were 0.85 for procedural justice, 0.87 for turnover intention and 0.93 for social loafing behavior. These values were excellent according to Nunnally (1978) since they all were above 0.7.

5. Results

5.1. The Results of the Factorial Analysis

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to prove the fitness of our scale and to start examining the theoretically developed model (Figure 1). We adopted the recommendations of Hair et al. (2014) to interpret the results of the CFA. The values of χ2 and SRMR had to be less than 5. The RMSEA value had to be less than 0.08, preferably less than 0.05 (Roussel 2005). With regard to the other values, such as NFI, TLI and CFI, they should be higher than 0.90 (Bentler and Bonett 1980). The results of the CFA first-order integrating all variables are presented in Table 2. The value of χ2 was 3.5 and SRMR was 0.05. The RMSEA value was 0.051. NFI = 0.950, TLI = 0.961 and CFI = 0.932. These results indicate that the model has a good fitness.
We also ensured the convergent and discriminant validities. According to Joreskog (1988), the composite reliability must be greater than 0.7 and the average variance extracted must be greater than 0.5. The results presented in Table 2 confirm that CR is approved for all items. We were able to confirm the discriminant validity by checking the “square root of the AVE” (in bold) that must be greater than the correlations it shares with the other variables (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
The AVE value for procedural justice is 0.823, turnover intention is 0.773 and social loafing is 0.786; they all considerably outpace MSV with values of 0.170; 0.106 and 0.170, respectively. Concerning the following variables that are directly below the values in bold (0.268 **, 0.412 ** and 0.326 **, Table 2), we first proceeded to their transformations and secondly calculated their bivariate correlations (Table 3). The results presented in Table 2 confirm the discriminant validity suggested by Hair et al. (2014).

5.2. The Results of SEM

We conducted SEM (structural equation modeling) to examine the influence of procedural justice (PROJUS) on social loafing (SOCIALOAF) through turnover intention (TURNINT). The results of the structural model (Table 4 and Figure 2) confirm that the model has a good fitness “χ2 = 2.227, RMSEA = 0.049, SRMR = 0.0274, GFI = 0.961, CFI = 0.937, TLI = 0.909, NFI = 0.994, PCFI = 0.749 and PNFI = 0.719)”. The results show that PROJUS significantly and negatively influences TURNINT (β = −0.409, p < 0.001) and significantly and negatively influences SOCIALOAF (β = −0.568, p < 0.001). On the other hand, TURNINT significantly and positively influences SOCIALOAF (β = 0.169, p < 0.05). As Table 4 shows, by adopting PROJUS and TURNINT, 22% of the variance of SOCIALOAF could be predicted.
We adopted the approach of Baron and Kenny (1986) to examine the mediation effect of TURNINT on the link between PROJUS and SOCIALOAF. We started by checking the relationship between PROJUS and TURNINT, which made it significant to assume that there was a possibility of the mediation effect. The results show PROJUS significantly and negatively influences SOCIALOAF. We then checked the effect of PROJUS on the mediating variable, which was TURNINT. The PROJUS results significantly and negatively influence TURNINT. We then checked the effect of the mediating variable on the dependent variable, i.e., the influence of TURNINT on SOCIALOAF, which was significant. We ended by confirming a partial mediation effect. We used the bootstrapping technique to check the mediation type (see Table 5). There was a significant influence of PROJUS on SOCIALOAF, even with the mediation effect of INTENTUR (β = +0.063, p = 0.044 < 0.05). Hence, the partial mediation of TURNINT between PROJUS and SOCIALOAF was confirmed.

6. Discussion and Implications

This study aimed to investigate the direct impact of procedural justice on turnover intention and social loafing behavior among hotel workers in Saudi Arabian hotels. Additionally, the study tested the mediating effect of turnover intention on the link between procedure justice and social loafing. Referring to the study results, all the study hypotheses are accepted and supported. The results support the first research hypothesis that procedural justice significantly and negatively influences the turnover intention of hotel employees. This result is in agreement with previous study results that procedural justice significantly and negatively influences employee turnover intention (e.g., Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001; Colquitt et al. 2001). This means that if workers agree with procedural justice, they are more strongly attached to their jobs and, consequently, their turnover intentions will be reduced. Based on the social exchange theory, employees who are unmotivated and/or feel that procedural injustice exists, they will be more likely to think about leaving the job and make less of an effort (Hafiza et al. 2011).
The results support the second research hypothesis that turnover intention significantly affects social loafing behavior, which is in consistent with the study by Alyahya et al. (2021). The most significant relationship in this study was related to the third research hypothesis that confirmed a direct, negative, significant impact of procedural justice on social loafing behavior. This significant, negative relationship between procedural justice and social loafing emphasized that employee social loafing behavior could be better managed when workers perceived procedural justice. This result supports the social exchange theory that indicates that employees respond to their perceived procedural injustice by engaging in social loafing behavior as an exchange with their organizations. Furthermore, this result supports the work of Price et al. (2006). The results support the fourth hypothesis that turnover mediates the relationship between procedural justice and social loafing behavior among hotel employees. Turnover intention has a partial mediation effect between procedural justice and social loafing behavior.
The current research has some implications for tourism scholars and professionals. The results present noteworthy insights into the body of social loafing literature for two reasons. First, most previous studies conducted in the context of social loafing behavior were processed in a laboratory setting (e.g., Earley 1989; Murphy et al. 2003; Price et al. 2006), whereas the current study responds to the request of Murphy et al. (2003) to conduct social loafing in a real-organization context, which is the hotel industry in the current study. Second, previous studies, in relation to social loafing, were conducted in either China or Western countries, whereas culture could play a significant role regarding this behavior (Hofstede 1980; Luo et al. 2013; Khan et al. 2022). Hence, there was a need to understand this phenomenon further in different cultures, such as Saudi Arabia (Hofstede and Hofstede 2001). Hence, Alyahya et al. (2021) highlighted the limitation of studies on social loafing behavior among hotel employees in some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, which was the scope of the current study. The study confirmed the direct effect of procedural justice on social loafing behavior and the indirect effect through turnover intention.
The study outcomes indicate that social loafing behavior is unethical, and that have some drivers cause it to occur. The present study highlights the role of procedural justice and turnover intention as drivers for social loafing behavior among hotel employees. Thus, to gain an appropriate understanding and control of this unethical behavior, these antecedents should be properly managed to avoid the occurrence of social loafing behavior. The culture of teamwork is necessary in the hotel industry since it is a labor-intensive industry dependent on its employees for its success. Hence, hotel managers should eliminate all incentives of social loafing behavior to engender appropriate teamwork in the workplace. Hotel managers should ensure that procedural justice exists among all workers to decrease their turnover intention. Furthermore, hotel managers should recognize that hotel employees are their most important asset. Thus, they should invest in them and treat them equally. Turnover intention could be decreased through numerous motivational tools. Motivation could be managerial/organizational (e.g., working environments and job security), economic or social (e.g., salaries and financial benefits) and psychosocial (e.g., appreciation). Finally, hotel managers can add another measure to minimize social loafing, such as rewarding employees based on their individual contribution, making tasks more interesting for them and justly treating all employees, including both rewarding and punishing them.

7. Conclusions

The current study drew on the social exchange theory (Blau 1964) and referent cognitions theory of relative deprivation for Folger (1986). The theory of social exchange implies that if employees perceive that they are not supported by other team members or managers, this could make them respond with negative behavior as a sort of exchange. Folger’s theory implies that the unequal implementation of decisions, procedures and processes, which could be performed by the management, causes employees to perceive that they are not as favored by the organization as their colleagues are. This psychological unease is then translated into unfavorable behavior, such as turnover intention, and ultimately social loafing, which is confirmed by the results of the current study. The current study confirms the significant negative impact of procedural justice on both turnover intention and social loafing behavior among hotel employees. It also confirms the mediating effect of turnover intention on this relationship. The results highlight the importance of procedural injustice and turnover intention in driving social loafing behavior among hotel workers. This confirms that hotel managers need to ensure the implementation of procedural justice in order to ensure the inexistence of social loafing behavior among their workers. They should also eliminate the antecedents of turnover intention to control social loafing behavior.
This study was conducted on a sample of employees in the hotel industry in Saudi Arabia using a self-reporting measure. Therefore, the research results may be generalized to other industries or countries without further testing. The respondents’ characteristics, e.g., gender, education level and age, can be investigated in additional studies as moderators or by conducting multigroup analysis to detect any differences in the investigated relationships due to age, education level or gender. However, it is a very good idea for future research opportunities to perform a multigroup analysis and compare, for example, the investigated relationship differences between males and females Additionally, the impact of other factors on social loafing could be examined, such as job satisfaction, engagement and organizational commitment. The consequences of social loafing on team performance and organizational performance behavior could also be a future research opportunity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.N.E.E., A.E.E.S., H.G. and A.E.A.E.; methodology, H.N.E.E., A.E.E.S., H.G. and A.E.A.E.; software A.E.E.S. and H.G.; validation, A.E.E.S. and A.E.A.E.; formal analysis, A.E.E.S. and H.G.; investigation, H.N.E.E., A.E.E.S., H.G. and A.E.A.E.; resources, A.E.E.S. and H.G.; data curation, A.E.E.S., H.G. and A.E.A.E.; writing—original draft preparation, H.N.E.E., A.E.E.S., H.G. and A.E.A.E.; writing—review and editing, A.E.E.S. and A.E.A.E.; visualization, A.E.E.S. and A.E.A.E.; supervision, A.E.E.S., H.G. and A.E.A.E.; project administration, A.E.E.S.; funding acquisition, H.N.E.E., A.E.E.S. and A.E.A.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (GRANT1797).

Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request from the researchers who meet the eligibility criteria. Kindly contact the first author privately via the e-mail address provided.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. The Measurement Scales

AbbrResearch ItemsAuthors
Procedural justice
PJ1I am able to express my views and feelings about my organization’s procedures.(Colquitt et al. 2006)
PJ2I have influence over the assessments made as a result of my organization’s procedures.
PJ3The procedures used in my organization have been applied consistently.
PJ4The procedures used in my organization are free of bias.
PJ5The procedures used in my organization are based on accurate information.
PJ6I am able to appeal the assessments made by procedures used in my organization.
PJ7The procedures used in my organization uphold ethical and moral standards.
Turnover intention
INT8I often think about leaving that job. (Elshaer and Saad 2017)
INT9It would not take much to make me leave this job.
INT10I will probably be looking for another job soon.
Social loafing
SL11I left my work to others to do. (Price et al. 2006)
SL12I claimed there were other things to do when others needed help.
SL13I avoided work and responsibility.
SL14I loafed on my share of tasks.

References

  1. Akgunduz, Yilmaz, and Gamze Eryilmaz. 2018. Does turnover intention mediate the effects of job insecurity and co-worker support on social loafing? International Journal of Hospitality Management 68: 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aliedan, Meqbel M., Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih, Mansour A. Alyahya, and Ibrahim A. Elshaer. 2022. Influences of Distributive Injustice and Job Insecurity Amid COVID-19 on Unethical Pro-Organisational Behaviour: Mediating Role of Employee Turnover Intention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 7040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Alyahya, Mansour A., Ibrahim A. Elshaer, and Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih. 2021. The Impact of Job Insecurity and Distributive Injustice Post COVID-19 on Social Loafing Behavior among Hotel Workers: Mediating Role of Turnover Intention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Amponsah-Tawiah, Kwesi, Francis Annor, and Beckham Godfred Arthur. 2016. Linking Commuting Stress to Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Burnout. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health 31: 104–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aryani, Rita, Widodo Widodo, and Chandrawaty Chandrawaty. 2021. How Adversity Quotient and Organizational Justice Reduce Turnover Intention Empirical Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 8: 1171–81. [Google Scholar]
  6. Asadullah, Muhammad Ali, Ammara Akram, Hameed Imran, and Ghulam Ali Arain. 2017. When and Which Employees Feel Obliged: A Personality Perspective of How Organizational Identification Develops. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones 33: 125–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baumeister, Roy F., Sarah E. Ainsworth, and Kathleen D. Vohs. 2016. Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39: e137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bentler, Peter M., and Douglas G. Bonett. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88: 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bies, Robert J. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations 1: 43–55. [Google Scholar]
  11. Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  12. Boyas, Javier, Leslie H. Wind, and Suk-Young Kang. 2012. Exploring the relationship between employmentbased social capital, job stress, burnout, and intent to leave among child protection workers: An age-based path analysis model. Children and Youth Services Review 34: 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brickner, Mary A., Stephen G. Harkins, and Thomas M. Ostrom. 1986. Effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 763–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bridges, Eileen, Holly H. Johnston, and Jeffrey K. Sager. 2007. Using model-based expectations to predict voluntary turnover. International Journal of Research in Marketing 4: 25–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brockner, Joel, and Phyllis Siegel. 1996. Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice. In Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Edited by Roderick M. Kramerand Tom Tyler. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 390–413. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bryman, Alan, and Duncan Cramer. 2012. Quantitative Data Analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  17. Butt, M. Rehan, Asma Imran, Faisal Tehseen Shah, and Awais Jabbar. 2013. Perception of Organizational Politics and Job Outcomes in a Public Sector Organization: The Moderating Role of Teamwork. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 55: 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chong, Alvin, Ibiwani Alisa Hussain, Noraini Ahmad, and Jugindar Singh Kartar Singh. 2021. Organisation Justice Towards’ Employees Voluntary Turnover: A Perspective of SMEs in Malaysia. International Journal of Human Resource Studies 11: 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cohen-Charash, Yochi, and Paul E. Spector. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86: 278–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Colquitt, Jason A., Brent A. Scott, Timothy A. Judge, and John C. Shaw. 2006. Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100: 110–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Colquitt, Jason A., Donald E. Conlon, Michael J. Wesson, Christopher O. L. H. Porter, and K. Yee Ng. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 425–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Comer, Debra R. 1995. A model of social loafing in real work groups. Human Relations 48: 647–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cropanzano, Russell, and Jerald Greenberg. 1997. Progress in Organizational Justice: Tunnelling through the maze. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 12: 317–72. [Google Scholar]
  24. Currivan, Douglas B. 1999. The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of employee turnover. Human Resource Management Review 9: 495–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. De Cremer, David, and Joroen Stouten. 2005. When does giving voice or not matter? Procedural fairness effects as a function of closeness of reference points. Current Psychology 24: 203–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Earley, P. Christopher. 1989. Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly 34: 565–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Elshaer, Ibrahim A., and Alaa M. S. Azazz. 2021. Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic, Unethical Behavior in the Name of the Company: The Role of Job Insecurity, Job Embeddedness, and Turnover Intention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Elshaer, Ibrahim A., and Samar. K. Saad. 2017. Political instability and tourism in Egypt: Exploring survivors’ attitudes after downsizing. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 9: 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Emerson, Richard. 1976. Social exchange theory. Annual Review Sociology 2: 335–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Erdogan, Berrin, Robert C. Liden, and Maria L. Kraimer. 2006. Justice and leader-member exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal 49: 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Erkasap, Ahmed. 2014. Social Loafing. Ph.D. Thesis, Istanbul Commerce University, Social Sciences Institute, Fatih, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 1977. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading: Addison–Wesley, p. 10. [Google Scholar]
  33. Folger, Rbert. 1986. A Referent Cognitions Theory of Relative Deprivation. In Social Comparison and Relative Deprivation: The Ontario Symposium, 1st ed. Edited by James M. Olson, C. P. Herman and Mark P. Zanna. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  34. Folger, Robert. 1977. Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of ‘voice’ and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35: 108–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gaertner, Stefan. 1999. Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in turnover models. Human Resource Management Review 9: 479–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. George, Jennifer M. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 35: 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. George, Jennifer M. 1995. Asymmetrical effects of rewards and punishments: The case of social loafing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 68: 327–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gharbi, Hassane, Nadir Aliane, Khaled A. Al Falah, and Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih. 2022. You Really Affect Me: The Role of Social Influence in the Relationship between Procedural Justice and Turnover Intention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 5162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Gim, Gabriel C. W., and Nasina Mat Desa. 2014. The Impact of Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, and Affective Commitment on Turnover Intention among Public and Private Sector Employees in Malaysia. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 4: 487–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review 25: 161–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Greenberg, Jerald. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management 16: 399–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Griffeth, Rodger W., Peter W. Hom, and Stefan Gaertner. 2000. A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Updated Moderator Tests and Research Implications for the Next Millennium. Journal of Management 26: 463–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hafiza, Nadia Sajjad, Syed Sohaib Shah, Humera Jamsheed, and Khalid Zaman. 2011. Relationship between rewards and employee’s motivation in the non-profit organizations of Pakistan. Business Intelligence Journal 4: 327–34. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hair, Joseph, E. Anderson Rolph, Tatham Rearl, and William C. Black. 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis. Saddle River: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hinkin, Timothy R., and J. Bruce Tracey. 2000. The cost of turnover. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly 41: 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hirst, Giles, Rolf Van Dick, and Daan Van Knippenberg. 2009. A Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Employee Creativity. The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 30: 963–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hofstede, Geert H., and Geert Hofstede. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization 10: 15–41. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hom, Peter W., Thomas W. Lee, Jason D. Shaw, and John P. Hausknecht. 2017. One Hundred Years of Employee Turnover Theory and Research. Journal of Applied Psychology 102: 530–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Hom, Peter W., and Rodger W. Griffeth. 1995. Employee Turnover. Cincinnati: South Western College. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hui, Chun, Alfred Wong, and Dean Tjosvold. 2007. Turnover intention and performance in China: The role of positive affectivity, Chinese values, perceived organizational support and constructive controversy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80: 735–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Johnson, Russell E., Christopher Selenta, and Robert G. Lord. 2006. When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99: 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Joreskog, Karl G. 1988. Analysis of Covariance Structures. In The Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Edited by John R. Nesselroade and Raymond B. Cattell. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 207–30. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kankaanranta, Terhi, Tapio Nummi, Jari Vainiomäki, Hannu Halila, Harri Hyppölä, Mauri Isokoski, Santero Kujala, Esko Kumpusalo, Kari Mattila, Irma Virjo, and et al. 2007. The role of job satisfaction, job dissatisfaction and demographic factors on physicians’ intentions to switch work sector from public to private. Health Policy 83: 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Karau, Steven J., and Kipling D. Williams. 1993. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Karau, Steven J., and Kipling D. Williams. 1995. Social loafing: Research findings, implications, and future directions. Current Directions in Psychological Science 4: 134–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Khan, Mahmood A., Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih, Kyuho Lee, and Inhyuck Ha. 2022. Cultural differences and McDonald’s: A multi-country comparative study. International Journal of Business and Globalisation 31: 391–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kidwell, Roland E., Jr., and Nathan Bennett. 1993. Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Academy of Management Review 18: 429–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kline, Rex B. 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  61. Krejcie, Robert V., and Daryle W. Morgan. 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30: 607–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Latané, Bibb, Kipling Williams, and Stephen Harkins. 1979. Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 822–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liden, Robert C., Sandy J. Wayne, Renata A. Jaworski, and Nathan Bennett. 2004. Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management 30: 285–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lin, Chun-Yu, and Chung-Kai Huang. 2020. Employee Turnover Intentions and Job Performance from a Planned Change: The Effects of an Organizational Learning Culture and Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower 42: 409–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lin, Meizhen, and Qian Ling. 2018. Is role stress always harmful? Differentiating role overload and role ambiguity in the challenge-hindrance stressors framework. Tourism Management 68: 355–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lin, Tung-Ching, and Chien-Chih Huang. 2009. Understanding social loafing in knowledge contribution from the perspectives of justice and trust. Expert Systems with Applications 36: 6156–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lord, Robert G., and Douglas J. Brown. 2004. Leadership Process and Follower Self-Identity. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  68. Luo, Zhenpeng, Hailin Qu, and Einar Marnburg. 2013. Justice perceptions and drives of hotel employee social loafing behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management 33: 456–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Masterson, Suzanne S., Kyle Lewis, Barry M. Goldman, and M. Susan Taylor. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal 43: 738–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Matthews, Russell A., and Kelsey-Jo Ritter. 2019. Applying Adaptation Theory to Understand Experienced Incivility Processes: Testing the Repeated Exposure Hypothesis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 24: 270–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Morrow, Paula C., James C. McElroy, Kathleen S. Laczniak, and James B. Fenton. 1999. Using absenteeism and performance to predict employee turnover: Early detection through company records. Journal of Vocational Behavior 55: 358–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mulvey, Paul W., and Howard J. Klein. 1998. The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 74: 62–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Murphy, Susan M., Sandy J. Wayne, Robert C. Liden, and Berrin Erdogan. 2003. Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human Relations 56: 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Nadiri, Halil, and Cem Tanova. 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 29: 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  76. Osman, Idris, and Fauziah Noordin. 2015. The Impact of Organisational Justice, Organisational Trust and Teamwork on Talent Retention: Mediating Role of Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. Advanced Science Letters 21: 1464–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Peratanasumran, Supaporn. 2017. The role of conflicts on teamwork effectiveness: A study of Thai and German employees of an international airline. People: International Journal of Social Sciences 3: 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Piezon, Sherry L., and William D. Ferree. 2008. Perceptions of social loafing in online learning groups: A study of public university and US Naval War College students. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 9: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Pizam, Abraham, and Steven W. Thornburg. 2000. Absenteeism and voluntary turnover in Central Florida hotels: A pilot study. International Journal of Hospitality Management 19: 211–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2012. Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Price, Kenneth H., David A. Harrison, and Joanne H. Gavin. 2006. Withholding inputs in team contexts: Member composition, interaction processes, evaluation structure, and social loafing. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 1375–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rahim, M. Afzalur, Nace R. Magner, David Antonioni, and Sahidur Rahman. 2001. Do Justice Relationships with Organization-Directed Reactions Differ U.S. and Bangladesh Employees? International Journal of Conflict Management 12: 333–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ringelmann, Max. 1913. Recherches sur le moneurs animes (accent): Travaill de l’homme. Annales de l’Institute National Agronomique 2: 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  84. Roussel, Patrice P. 2005. Méthodes de Développement d’Échelles pour Questionnaires d’Enquête. In Management des Ressources Humaines: Méthodes de Recherche en Sciences Humaines et Sociales. Edited by Patrice Roussel and Frédéric Wacheux. Paris: De Boeck Supérieur, pp. 245–76. [Google Scholar]
  85. Saad, Samar K., and Ibrahim A. Elshaer. 2017. Organizational politics and validity of layoff decisions: Mediating role of distributive justice of performance appraisal. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 26: 805–28. [Google Scholar]
  86. Saleh, Tajneen Affnaan, Wajid Mehmood, Jehanzeb Khan, and Farman Ullah Jan. 2022. The Impact of Ethical Leadership on Employees Turnover Intention: An Empirical Study of the Banking Sector in Malaysia. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 9: 261–72. [Google Scholar]
  87. Schippers, Michaéla C. 2014. Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The Academy of Management Learning and Education 13: 62–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Schneider, Benjamin, and David E. Bowen. 1995. Winning the Service Game, 1st ed. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
  89. Schultz, Duane P., and Sydney Ellen Schultz. 2020. Psychology and Work Today; An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sexton, Randall S., Shannon McMurtrey, Joanna O. Michalopoulos, and Angela M. Smith. 2005. Employee turnover: A neural network solution. Computers & Operations Research 32: 2635–51. [Google Scholar]
  91. Sobaih, Abu Elnasr E., Ahmed M. Hasanein, Meqbel M. Aliedan, and Hassan Abdallah. 2022. The impact of transactional and transformational leadership on employee intention to stay in deluxe hotels: Mediating role of organisational commitment. Tourism and Hospitality Research 22: 257–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Sobaih, Abu Elnasr E., Yasser Ibrahim, and Gaber Gabry. 2019. Unlocking the black box: Psychological contract fulfillment as a mediator between HRM practices and job performance. Tourism Management Perspectives 30: 171–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Thibaut, John W., and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  94. Tourigny, Louise, Vishwanath V. Baba, and Xiaoyun Wang. 2010. Stress episode in aviation: The case of China. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 17: 62–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tyler, Tom R. 1994. Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 850–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Varshney, Deepanjana. 2019. Relationship between social loafing and the selfconcept. Journal of Indian Business Research 11: 60–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Warrick, D. Don. 2014. What leaders can learn about teamwork and developing high performance teams from organization development practitioners. Od Practitioner 46: 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. West, Michael A., Dean Tjosvold, and Ken G. Smith. 2005. The Essentials of Teamworking: International Perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  99. Wilhau, Aric J. 2021. Dark traits, social loafing and team member exchange: Who slacks and when? Management Research Review 44: 1583–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Williams, Kipling, Stephen G. Harkins, and Bibb Latané. 1981. Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jrfm 16 00075 g001 550
Figure 1. The theoretical model.
Figure 1. The theoretical model.
Jrfm 16 00075 g001
Jrfm 16 00075 g002 550
Figure 2. The structural model (** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001).
Figure 2. The structural model (** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001).
Jrfm 16 00075 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (developed by the authors based on previous literature).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (developed by the authors based on previous literature).
FactorsMinimumMaximumMeanStandard DeviationSkewnessKurtosis
Procedural justice
PJ1153.650.985−0.543−0.046
PJ2153.880.917−1.0091.196
PJ3153.680.950−0.513−0.171
PJ4153.660.887−0.6010.311
PJ5153.610.936−0.6210.245
PJ6153.960.925−0.8010.257
Turnover intention
INT8153.151.071−0.185−0.639
INT9153.181.059−0.051−0.674
INT10153.650.901−0.5710.187
3-social loafing
SL11153.810.901−0.8130.792
SL12154.090.849−1.1031.750
SL13154.040.900−1.0191.167
SL14154.210.817−1.2012.041
Table
Table 2. Convergent and discriminant validities (developed by the authors).
Table 2. Convergent and discriminant validities (developed by the authors).
Factors Standardized LoadingCRAVEMSV123
Procedural justice 0.9700.8230.1700.907
PJ10.742
PJ20.918
PJ30.989
PJ40.854
PJ50.981
PJ60.962
Turnover intention 0.9100.7730.1060.268 **0.879
INT80.926
INT90.710
INT100.979
3-social loafing 0.9360.7860.1700.412 **0.326 **0.886
SL110.921
SL120.863
SL130.930
SL140.829
Model fit: “(χ2 (20, N = 507) = 70 p < 0.001, normed χ2 = 3.5, RMSEA = 0.051, SRMR = 0.0532, CFI = 0.932, TLI = 0.961, NFI = 0.950, PCFI = 0.684 and PNFI = 0.681)”.
Table
Table 3. Bivariate correlations (developed by the authors).
Table 3. Bivariate correlations (developed by the authors).
PROJUSTURNINTSOCIALOAF
PROJUSPearson’s correlation1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N507
INTENTURPearson’s correlation0.268 **1
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000
N507507
SOCIALOAFPearson’s correlation0.412 **0.326 **1
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.000
N507507507
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table
Table 4. Testing research hypothesis (developed by the authors).
Table 4. Testing research hypothesis (developed by the authors).
HypothesesβC-R
T-Value		R²Results
H1—PROJUS → TURNINT −0.409 ***4.775 Supported
H2—TURNINT → SOCIALOAF0.169 **2.426 Supported
H3—PROJUS → SOCIALOAF −0.568 ***5.066 Supported
PROJUS → SOCIALOAF Through TURNINT 0.219
Model fit: “(χ2 (63, N = 507) = 140,331 p < 0.001, normed χ2 = 2.227, RMSEA = 0.049, SRMR = 0.0274, GFI = 0.961, CFI = 0.937, TLI = 0.909, NFI = 0.994, PCFI = 0.749 and PNFI = 0.719), ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001”.
Table
Table 5. Mediation type (developed by the authors).
Table 5. Mediation type (developed by the authors).
ParameterEstimateLowerUpperPMediation
H6—PROJUS → TURNINT → SOCIALOAF0.0630.100.2420.0440.044 < 0.05
Partial Mediation
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Edrees, H.N.E.; Sobaih, A.E.E.; Gharbi, H.; Abu Elnasr, A.E. The Influences of Procedural Justice on Turnover Intention and Social Loafing Behavior among Hotel Employees. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020075

AMA Style

Edrees HNE, Sobaih AEE, Gharbi H, Abu Elnasr AE. The Influences of Procedural Justice on Turnover Intention and Social Loafing Behavior among Hotel Employees. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2023; 16(2):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020075

Chicago/Turabian Style

Edrees, Hussein N. E., Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih, Hassane Gharbi, and Ahmed E. Abu Elnasr. 2023. "The Influences of Procedural Justice on Turnover Intention and Social Loafing Behavior among Hotel Employees" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16, no. 2: 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020075

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop