Next Article in Journal
Corporations’ ESG for Sustainable Investment in China: The Moderating Role of Regional Marketization
Previous Article in Journal
Three-Dimensional Simulation on the Effects of Different Parameters and Pt Loading on the Long-Term Performance of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/su15042903
sustainability-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

Abusive Supervision and Individual, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Exploring the Mediating Effect of Employee Well-Being in the Hospitality Sector

by
Mahmoud AlZgool
1,*,
Qais AlMaamari
1,
Soleman Mozammel
2,
Hyder Ali
3 and
Sohel M. Imroz
4
1
Administrative Science Department, College of Administrative and Financial Science, Gulf University, Sanad 26489, Bahrain
2
Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business, University of Bahrain, Zallaq 1051, Bahrain
3
Department of Business Administration, Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur 65200, Pakistan
4
Management, Marketing and Operations Department, David B. O’Maley College of Business, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3900, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 2903; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042903
Submission received: 4 January 2023 / Revised: 26 January 2023 / Accepted: 27 January 2023 / Published: 6 February 2023
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study intends to bridge the unattended research gap and add to the knowledge base of ‘human resource management’ regarding the relationships between abusive supervision, and individual organizational citizenship behaviour (OCBI), through the mediation of ‘employee well-being’. For the given purpose, a sample of 250 cases was selected to collect data from non-managerial hotel employees from the metropolitan cities of Pakistan. Given responses were analysed in Smart PLS 3.0. Structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to conduct the necessary tests regarding measurement model and structural model assessment. The study found statistical support for three of the four hypotheses, confirming the deleterious role of abusive supervision in general and the intervening role of employee well-being. The findings have concluded that abusive supervision is harmful for workplaces, particularly when it comes to employees’ citizenship behaviours. Finally, the predictive relevance and r-squared values for the underlying model were also confirmed.

1. Introduction

Due to increasing undesirable outcomes of destructive interactions in the organizations resulting from bad behaviours, including ‘abusive supervision’ (AS), this segment of human resource management (HRM) research was granted ample attention throughout the 20th century [1]. More recently, scholars have indicated its sharp rise across various occupational sectors [2,3], particularly in the post-COVID-19 era [4]. Various factors have been considered to investigate and understand its outcomes so that business practitioners could work to tackle its deleterious effects, especially on prospects such as employee well-being [5]. Notably, organizational leadership (OL) has been termed a vital component of HRM to help businesses achieve their goals by encouraging and practicing organizational commitment (OC) and employee well-being. However, the growing evidence of bad behaviour practiced by the OL has demonstrated serious consequences [6]. Previous research highlights the bad behaviour of managers as a specific sort of destructive leadership, which is operationalized as abusive supervision [7,8,9] with serious negative consequences such as low commitment, excessive stress, and work–life conflicts, resulting in lower organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) [9,10]. Notably, evidence suggests that abusive behaviours have gone further than the conventional corporate work sectors. Studies have reported its existence even in service-based businesses (e.g., [11,12,13]). Accordingly, [14] asserted the need to investigate abusive supervision in the hotel sector, resultantly considering it one of the sectors for sampling. Importantly, organizations have witnessed a rise in abusive behaviours since the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., [4,15,16]) in general and across the hospitality sector in particular [5]. Overall, we see a potential rearing of abusive supervision in requiring empirical attention. Thus, the current study strives to provide scholarly knowledge for practitioners and policymakers in this regard. The review of the pertinent literature reveals a lack of research in the focused area. Therefore, the underlying study aimed at testing the negative impact of abusive supervision (AS) on the individual OCB, followed by the assessment of the mediating role of employee well-being (EWB) between AS and the OCBI for further insights, rather than assuming a simple negative relationship of AS and OCB because [17] and [18] suggested that the negative impact of managers’ AS on organizational outcomes can be varied through some mediation/moderation phenomenon. Taken together, this study aimed to address the following research questions: RQ1: How are abusive supervision and employees’ OCBI related? RQ2: Is there any intervening effect of employee well-being on the abusive supervision and employees’ OCBI association? While addressing these questions, the research provides numerous contributions. This study contributes to the literature on abusive supervision as a social exchange prospect and its impact on OCBI. Equally, this study also aids the understanding from a reactant theory perspective outlining how employees respond to abuse and other unintended behaviours. Through this knowledge, the current research is likely to support scholars and organizational scholars on how to outline, manage and monitor hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours. The paper is structured as follows: The next section caters to the theoretical framework and literature review on the factors investigated in the current study, followed by the methodology and data analysis. The next section of the paper offers a detailed discussion of the findings of the study and their implications for theory and practice. The paper concludes with this study’s limitations and the scope for future studies.

2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

The theoretical framework of the study can be best explained through the lens of social exchange theory (SET) and reactance theory. Therefore, the study explains how each of these theories helps connect and explain the conceptual framework of the current study.

2.1. Social Exchange Theory (SET)

SET outlines that social behaviour results from exchanging material and non-material resources between people based on perceived cost and benefits [19]. Thus, in the case of a supervisor–subordinate relationship, it is where the subordinate feels an unduly high cost of resource exchange with and threatened by the supervisor rather than due mentoring [20]. Consequently, in such an exchange, the subordinate gets demotivated and carries forward low commitment, and ultimately counterproductive/destructive behaviour, such as organizational deviance, thus withholding the organizational citizenship behaviour. Scholars have investigated how abusive supervision can result in impeding employee behaviours and outcomes through the social exchange theory perspective (e.g., [21,22]).

2.2. Reactance Theory

Ref. [9] base their point of view on reactance theory, which states that to restore the control and enjoy autonomy, the abused subordinates retaliate against their supervisor’s behaviour by withholding OCB and holding their company responsible for this. Studies have used the theoretical explanation of reactance theory and suggest that employees who experience abusive supervision feel less in control of work situations, thus resulting in decreasing organizational citizenship behaviours [9,23]. This theory sits well with the studied framework and provides an explanation in the investigation of how unpleasant behaviours at work, such as abusive supervision, can affect employee outcomes. Thus, researchers have also used reactance theory to understand employee reactions to abusive supervision or other unintended consequences.

2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Plentiful organizations credit their prosperity to the artistic workers who must, thus, be preserved. Although a considerable number of workers usually appear inefficient in simply fulfilling the given task up to their benefit level, some are willing to transcend their responsibilities to the profit of the overall organization through additional job execution (not expected from them), which has been recognized as organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) [6]. OCB refers to voluntary, extra-role behaviour that contributes to organizational effectiveness [6,24,25]. OCB can be separated into two classes, i.e., the conduct to impress different individuals (OCBI) and the conduct to benefit the organization (OCBO) [26]. Ref. [27] has contended that OCB should be conceptualized as a global, latent construct with five behavioural clusters: altruism, sportsmanship, courtesy, conscientiousness, and civic virtue. In comparison, ref. [28] took a middle-range approach by specifying OCB as having two target-based sides depending on whether the employee behaviour is individual-focused (OCB-I) or organization-focused (OCB-O). OCB-I includes altruism, exhibiting courtesy, and cooperation for employees. In contrast, OCB-O consists of compliance with legal/ethical and procedural rules/policies to promote the overall organizational image.
Ref. [29] distinguished three unique conducts that are fundamental for employee association. Firstly, based on assigned tasks, the workers must comprehend and satisfy their job prerequisites. Secondly, individuals must be roused to stay associated with their organization. Thirdly, strong associations nurture representatives that are happy to accomplish more than what is expected of them; this is the start of OCB. However, the refined definition states that OCB is "carrying out within the social and mental condition in which task execution happens." [24]. OCB is sometimes called a prospect connected with contextual performance that might not contribute directly to the primary functions of a job but instead supports the context surrounding the job-relevant tasks [30]. OCB is significant for associations [31]. As OCB has a significant effect on individual and hierarchical working, associations are keen on anticipating OCB, invigorating OCB, and compensating OCB [32,33].
Several studies prior to [34]’s meta-analysis found that among personality traits included in the five-factor model (FFM), ‘conscientiousness and agreeableness’ are two of the best predictors of OCB [35], whereby agreeableness was the better forecaster of OCB-I and conscientiousness was the better predictor of OCB-O [35]. Likewise, OCB has been investigated through the leader–member exchange (LMX) perspective. Considering the connections between administrators and subordinates to decide if LMX is a forerunner of OCB, [36] found that upright representatives exhibit OCB to improve their LMX quality. Better LMX influences work fulfilment, which results in more OCB events. This suggests that OCB can be a result of LMX, thus emphasizing the comprehension of the dynamics of leader–member conduct, if cordial (productive) or abusive (counterproductive), that may ultimately set the direction for OCBI. The most recent research related to OCB is conducted with the five-factor model of personality traits [37,38]. The different traits of the model are researched with OCB, which has revealed a huge research gap in understanding the dynamics shared by OCB and the traits of FFM.

2.4. Relationship between Abusive Supervision and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Abusive supervision (AS) is concerned with the subordinates’ perceived hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviour (excluding physical contact) of supervisors with their subordinates [17,39]. Numerous studies showed that AS strongly influences employee behaviour [40,41,42,43,44].
The negative effects of AS on OCB have been attributed to perceptions of injustice [45]. Through the Social justice perspective lens, this study considered that abusive supervision damages perceptions of fairness, thereby discouraging OCB. Although the literature review verified the main effects of AS on employee OCB (e.g., [42,43]), it could not synthesize the pathways underlying the abusive supervision–outcome relationships. Although some studies showed that the effects of abusive supervision are affected by moderators (for reviews, see [46]), more work is needed to identify boundary conditions. Considering these arguments from different researchers on the relationship between abusive supervision and individual citizenship behaviour, we tested the following:
H1: 
Abusive supervision has a direct negative relationship with an individual’s citizenship behaviour.

2.5. Relationship between Abusive Supervision and Employee Well-Being

Initially, employee well-being was linked with mental health, but recent studies have refined this explanation [47]. Studies are now relating the concept of employee well-being with organizational factors such as positive organizational behaviour and positive organizational scholarship. Positive organizational behaviour is aimed to foster positive phenomena, such as hope and resilience, among employees [48,49]. Positive organizational scholarship is the study of what is positive, flourishing, and life-giving at the organizational level [50]. Initially, research on employee well-being was limited because of its focus on job satisfaction [51].
Ref. [52] also studied the employees’ spiritual well-being, attributing it positively to transformational leadership. In comparison, the attribution of employee well-being to leader/supervisor conduct has been confirmed by later research [53]. A comprehensive longitudinal review of empirical research concluded that the leader’s behaviour and specific leadership styles were strongly associated with employee affective well-being [54]. Ref. [7] also confirmed the link between abusive supervision and employee well-being. Similarly, recent studies also indicated the significance of employee well-being due to the COVID-19 crisis and how discouraging behaviours can badly affect it [55,56,57]. Thus, based on this empirical evidence, the current study hypothesized the following:
H2: 
Employee perceptions of abusive supervision are negatively related to employee well-being.

2.6. Relationship between Employee Well-Being and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Empirically, it is evident that there is a significant positive relationship between employee well-being and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) [58,59], while the employees’ well-being in their workplace also moderates the relationship between employee satisfaction and employee performance [60]. During an investigation in the UK, the link between employee well-being and productivity was also confirmed [61], whereby it was recognized that there are striking expenses of poor prosperity on efficiency and sizable advantages in supporting representative prosperity. Social prosperity revolves around associations/connections between/among workers and their administrators affecting OCB [62]. Such a prosperity type is taken progressively, being joined in reasonable models with OCB. In comparison, employees from any level of professionalism reciprocate with OCB if they recognize the organization’s signs of their care and well-being [63]. Thus, we tested the following:
H3: 
There is a positive relationship between employee well-being and organizational citizenship behaviour.

2.7. Employee Well-Being Mediates the Relationship between Abusive Supervision and OCBI

Abusive supervision (AS), as discussed above, would negatively affect employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour (OCBI). Despite that, AS might not affect all employees in the same way [17,18]. Mediation analysis can, then, best explain the effect of OCB on AS. Therefore, this study assumes that employee well-being mediates the relationship between individual OCB and AS.
Employee well-being is mostly described in terms of two extents: firstly, the ‘strain’, that is, mental, emotional, physical, social, and behavioural reactions to stressors. Secondly, the ‘healthy lifestyle’ is a well-balanced social, psychological, mental, and emotional health [64]. Increased strain might reduce job satisfaction and organizational commitment [65], which are essential determinants of OCB. Employees that experience AS are likely to be engaged in dysfunctional activities (e.g., absenteeism, verbal abuse) [23]. Such employees also reflect low OCB [9].
The Global Wellness Institute reports that 3.2 billion of the global workforce are increasingly sinking into chronic diseases due to economic insecurities, as 74% of them earn a mere $13 per day, affecting their mental well-being and faster aging. Their cost for resistance to ill health bears the economic burden of medication as well as a big reduction in the global output of around 15% [66]. Thus, considering employee well-being would lead to having a productive workforce in place. Employee-wellness programs in an organization provide a healthy return to the employers with reduced turnover, absenteeism, increased motivation, and reduction in healthcare costs, resulting in increased job satisfaction and improved organizational commitment, ultimately indulging employees into a higher level of OCB [67]. Human beings tend to help each other to experience social well-being and develop mutually beneficial relationships. Therefore, such actions and behaviours help other employees point out the emotional connection with other employees in the organization (OCBI). Thus, the individual OCB appears to be related to employee well-being. Therefore, the following hypothesis was tested:
H4: 
Employee well-being mediates the relationship between abusive supervision and individual OCB.

2.8. Gaps in the Extant Literature

Paucity of research prevails on abusive supervision, employee well-being, and how these impact OCBI. First, though much has been studied regarding the impact of abusive supervision and OCB (e.g., [40,68]), less is known about the effect of abusive supervision on individual-level OCB (OCBI). Accordingly, the extant literature is unclear on whether employee well-being can mediate the association between abusive supervision and individual OCB (OCBI). Refs. [17,18] suggested that it is unfair to imagine the negative impact of managers’ abusive supervision on individual or organizational outcomes since they may vary due to interaction (moderation) or mediation (intervention) of different factors (variables). Therefore, there is a likelihood that the abusive supervision’s impact, role, and influence may vary across different occupational settings. Moreover, studies have reported growing concerns regarding abusive supervision in the service sector (e.g., [11,12,13]), with calls for investigation on its consequences in the hospitality sector [14], thus highlighting another important contextual gap. Figure 1 provides the conceptual framework being investigated in the current study.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants and Sample:

For this study, the survey was conducted from a sample of 250 hotel employees (non-managerial) from Pakistan as the most relevant information pertinent to the objectives of this study. The selection of hotel employees for the present study comes from recent empirical evidence indicating the presence of abusive supervision in the hotel sector (e.g., [69,70]), followed by scarce evidence in the context of emerging economies such as Pakistan [14].

3.2. Measures:

3.2.1. Abusive Supervision:

A three-item tool, adapted from [71], was used to assess abusive supervision through a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The given items measured the extent to which the employees experience adverse treatment from their supervisors.

3.2.2. Employee Well-Being:

A seven-item tool devised by [72] was adopted to assess employee well-being through a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The given items measured the employees’ psychological state, future orientation, expectations, and usefulness.

3.2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour to Individuals (OCBI):

An eight-item tool established by [73] was adopted to assess employees’ OCB through a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The given items measured the extent to which employees indulge in organizational citizenship behaviour (OCBI).

3.3. Common Method Bias:

The study deployed Harman’s single-factor analysis to assess common method bias [74]. This approach proposed by [74] assesses whether or not the variations in the data are accounted for by only one variable. Therein, if a single variable accounts for more than 50 percent of the variance in the data, then it confirms the issue of common method bias [75]. Results from the rotated factor matrix did not indicate any factor accounting for more than 50%. Henceforth, there was no potential problem of common method bias in the study.

3.4. Data Analysis

3.4.1. Assessment of Measurement Model

Structural equation modelling using Smart PLS 3 was used for data analysis [76]. Since the current study’s focus was to test the association based on theoretical explanations, PLS has been referred to as more suitable in this regard [77]. Accordingly, the significance of PLS has also been termed appropriate for hospitality and tourism research (e.g., [78,79]). Following the PLS-SEM guidelines, a two-stage approach (measurement and structural models) was adopted to assess the conceptual framework and analyse the results [80]. In the first stage, we confirmed the psychometric properties of the conceptual model by assessing construct validity, reliability, and discriminant validity. Table 1 shows that all the loadings were higher than the set acceptable threshold of 0.5 [81]. For convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) for all the constructs is also above the nominal threshold of 0.5 [82]. Furthermore, composite reliability (CR) scores were used to check the internal consistency reliability, and a threshold of 0.7 was met [83]. Thus, the study successfully achieved significant convergent reliability and scale validity, as indicated in Table 1.
Likewise, Table 2 shows that the discriminant validity of this study was also satisfactory as per the [84] method, in which every construct of the study should be less than the square root of AVE.

3.4.2. Structural Model Assessment

After confirming the psychometric properties in the measurement model stage, the study examined the structural model to test the hypothesized relationships. Table 3 summarizes the results for four hypotheses (H1; H2; H3, and H4), showing the relationship between abusive supervision (AS) and organizational citizenship behaviour to individuals (OCBI); AS and employee well-being (EWB); EWB and OCB; and AS with mediation of EWB, impacting OCBI.
In H1, the AS resulted in an insignificant relationship with OCB, meaning that the AS construct has only a negligible impact on OCB, thus resulting in the given hypothesis being unsupported (beta = −0.119, t-value = 1.559, p > 0.1). However, in H2, the AS construct has a negative relationship with a significance level of 1% with the EWB construct, depicting a strongly significant impact of AS construct on the EWB (beta = −0.295, t-value = 4.377, p < 0.01). Regarding H3, the EWB construct termed a significant positive effect on OCB with a 1% significance level, concluding that healthy employees indulge in OCB (beta = 0.456, t-value = 5.925, p < 0.01). For H4, results revealed a significant negative impact of the AS construct through the mediation of EWB on OCB with a 1% significance level, concluding that adding the mediating variable EWB increases the impact of AS on the OCB (beta = −0.134, t-value = 4.11, p < 0.01).

3.5. Predictive Power of the Model

3.5.1. R-Square

Using PLS algorithm function in the Smart PLS 3.0, the R2 was analysed to determine the model’s predictive power. The respective R2 computed for the organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) was 0.254, which is the dependent variable. For employee well-being, it was equal to 0.087, which is a dependent variable for abusive supervision in the model. The given R2 for OCB is greater than the acceptable threshold of 0.1 [85]; therefore, it is good for the model.

3.5.2. f-Square

Effect size computation was analysed based on the following formula: f2 = (R2 included – R2 excluded)/(1 − R2 included). The f 2 complements R2 in determining the proportionate impact size of specific latent variables on the latent dependent variable [81]. According to [86], the f 2 with its values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 is considered to have small, medium, and large effect sizes. The present study found that employee well-being has a medium effect size (f 2 = 0.245) over organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), and abusive supervision has a small effect size (f 2 = 0.017) over OCB.

3.5.3. Q-Square

As given in Table 4, the cross-validated redundancy Q2 was computed using the blindfolding approach, which turned out to have acceptable predictive relevance for the given model [81] since the Q2 = 0.121 value for the dependent variable OCB is greater than zero. Similarly, the Q2 = 0.042 for the dependent variable employee well-being is also greater than zero [81].

4. Discussion

The twofold purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between abusive supervision (AS) and individual citizenship behaviour (OCBI) and the role of employee well-being (EWB) as a mediator in the abusive supervision and OCBI relationship.
The structural model assessment supported all the hypothesized relationships except one, H1, which concerns the relationship between AS and OCBI that was initially hypothesized to be negative; however, the empirical findings of the study’s rejection of the hypothesis H1 may be due to the lower levels of concern of employees about OCBI at their organizations, whereby, taking abusive supervision seriously, they keep trying to improve their performance further in pursuit of better rewards [6]. Such findings reject theories such as social exchange theory [87] and reactance theory regarding the relationship between abusive supervision and OCBI [88,89].
Furthermore, the empirical findings accepted H2, in which abusive supervision (AS) is negatively related to employee well-being (EWB). This is also confirmed by the previous literature [26], which stated that employees get stressed out when they are under AS. Likewise, the empirical results also support H3, suggesting that EWB positively affects the OCBI of employees, as the literature explains that employees with good mental health and positivity are more inclined towards voluntary efforts for organizational benefit. Moreover, H4 is also accepted, as the findings of the study indicate a significant mediating effect of EWB between AS and OCBI, which means EWB enhances individual intentions toward OCBI unless any negative relationship between the constructs of AS and EWB is not visible, because AS hurts employees’ well-being, reducing their overall OCBI.

4.1. Theoretical Implications:

The study offers three important implications for theory. First, the theory has contributed to the literature on the applicability and classical explanation of social exchange theory and reactance theory regarding abusive supervision and its consequences on a larger note. Typically, when immediate supervisors abuse employees, it harms the organization’s and individual employee’s behaviours [90]. However, based on the current study’s findings (H1), there could be instances where it may serve as an energizing mechanism for people to continue working without letting it affect their behaviours and outcomes.
Second, the study has confirmed the deleterious effect of abusive supervision on employee well-being. Abusive supervision can serve as means to dampen healthy employee behaviours [21], thus resulting in employee well-being being affected. Third, the findings of the study have contributed to the literature on the role of employee well-being in harnessing OCBI. Employee well-being prospects can help the workforce become better at fulfilling organizational roles and responsibilities [91], and improving their commitment and dedication to serving the organization outside their formal job description (OCBI). Fourth, the current study has enriched the literature on the engendering effect of employee well-being (EWB) in the relationship between AS and OCBI. Lastly, the findings have enriched our understanding of the role and association between abusive supervision (AS), employee well-being (EWB), and individual organizational citizenship behaviour (OCBI) in the hospitality sector.

4.2. Practical Implications:

The study also offers three important implications for business and management, particularly in the hospitality sector. First, the findings imply that abusive supervision may not affect OCBI but is likely to harm individual employees’ mental and physical health (well-being) in the hotel sector. For this, supervisors may consider an ethical code of conduct to ensure they are maintaining employee well-being. Training interventions could be used to help supervisors defeat abusive supervision behaviours [92]. Second, the study also implies the significance of ethical training in the hotel sector. Employees may be trained to recognize abusive behaviours and learn to counter them [93,94]. Third, the findings imply that decision makers, particularly in the hotel sector, focus on improving employee well-being (EWB). HR units can play a prominent role by revising policies and work prospects, ensuring they serve to physically and mentally keep employees content. Equally, HR in hotels can also contribute by establishing policy guidelines on reporting and countering abusive behaviours at work to maintain positive employee behaviours and outcomes.

4.3. Contribution of the Study

Based on a detailed review of the literature and the empirical data analysis, the present study tries to bridge the theoretical and practical knowledge gap that is evident in the relevant literature regarding organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) as a result of supervisor–employees interaction in the organizational set-ups. The theoretical and practical clarification is provided for the dynamics behind the employees’ direction of response to their organization, which is set as a result of their “sense of supervisor’s good/bad behaviour with them”, as well as “sense of employee well-being”. Thus, employee well-being (EWB) is critical to strengthening individuals’ OCB in relation to their supervisor and ultimately to their organization. However, if the EWB gets interrupted by abusive supervision (AS), this results in stressed and unhealthy employees, diminishing their OCBI. The study results also specify some elements that lead employees towards taking voluntary actions regarding organizational effectiveness and goal achievement.

4.4. Limitations and Scope for Future Research

In the area of strategic human resource management, this study offers an extended inquiry with a set of reliable and valid findings generated via sampling hotel employees in the metropolitan cities of Pakistan. Therefore, the findings of the study offer limited generalizability. However, in pursuit of more useful, reliable, and more generalizable findings, some sort of further analysis may be conducted through respondents from multiple sectors/industries regarding the impact of supervisor behaviour and employee well-being as the determinants of individuals’ motivation for the voluntary initiatives undertaken in favour of organizational well-being as a whole. Accordingly, since the study was investigated with a cross-sectional design, future studies are encouraged to attempt a longitudinal approach to explore the nexus between the studied variables. In parallel, the current study tested a mediating framework; future scholars are welcome to consider investigating any potential moderating variables. For example, entities such as self-control [95] and empathy [96] may be considered to see how they may help interact and overcome the deleterious effects of abusive supervision. Notably, future scholars may also find it interesting to investigate the proposed framework across other levels in the hotel sector to help understand the issue and learn about it in detail. Lastly, contrary to popular beliefs and extant literature, abusive supervision did not affect OCBI in the current study, requiring further investigation prior to its generalization.

5. Conclusions

This study was conducted with the purpose of assessing the impact of abusive supervision (AS) on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour for individuals (OCBI) in the presence of employee well-being (EWB) as a mediator in the hotel sector of Pakistan. The study’s empirical findings supported three of the four hypotheses with significant empirical evidence. However, with beta = −0.119 and t-value = 1.559, the insignificant support for hypothesis H1 suggests a minimal impact of AS on supervisor-related OCBI. Thus, abusive supervision may not have a substantial impact on the OCBI. The study also implies that abusive supervision has a strong negative impact on employee well-being; thus, we conclude that the employers need to control AS to increase the EWB for the ultimate well-being of the organization as a whole.
Furthermore, the current study explains that as a result of EWB, mentally healthy employees contribute positively to OCBI, which asserts that employers focus on EWB to establish a positive environment for nurturing the desirable level of OCB in their organization. This study also suggests increasing the scope for any relevant future research by considering the sample from a more diversified population that may include middle-level managers and blue-collar employees for more generalizable findings.

Author Contributions

Methodology, Q.A. and S.M.I.; validation, M.A.; writing—original draft, S.M., H.A. and S.M.I.; writing—review and editing, M.A., Q.A. and S.M.I.; supervision, M.A.; project administration, M.A.; funding acquisition, M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Griffin, R.W.; Lopez, Y.P. “Bad behavior” in organizations: A review and typology for future research. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 988–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ateeq, A.; Ebrahim, S.; Al-Ghatam, R. The impact of stress and its influencing factors among dentists during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kingdom of Bahrain. F1000Research 2022, 11, 930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fischer, T.; Tian, A.W.; Lee, A.; Hughes, D.J. Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. Leadersh. Q. 2021, 32, 101540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shin, Y.; Hur, W.M.; Hwang, H. Impacts of customer incivility and abusive supervision on employee performance: A comparative study of the pre-and post-COVID-19 periods. Serv. Bus. 2022, 16, 309–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moin, M.F.; Wei, F.; Khan, A.N.; Ali, A.; Chang, S.C. Abusive supervision and job outcomes: A moderated mediation model. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2022, 35, 430–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bodla, A.A.; Tang, N.; Van Dick, R.; Mir, U.R. Authoritarian leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational deviance. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 583–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. O’Donoghue, A.; Conway, E.; Bosak, J. Abusive Supervision, Employee Well-Being and Ill-Being: The Moderating Role of Core Self-Evaluations. In Emotions and Organizational Governance; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2016; pp. 3–34. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tepper, B.J.; Duffy, M.K.; Henle, C.A.; Lambert, L.S. Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Pers. Psychol. 2006, 59, 101–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zellars, K.L.; Tepper, B.J.; Duffy, M.K. Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 1068–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kim, H.; Chen, Y.; Kong, H. Abusive Supervision and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Networking Behavior. Sustainability 2020, 12, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ahmad, W.; Khattak, A.J.; Ahmad, G. Impact of abusive supervision on job satisfaction and turnover intention: Role of power distance as a moderator. City Univ. Res. J. 2016, 6, 122–136. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hussain, K.; Abbas, Z.; Gulzar, S.; Jibril, A.B.; Hussain, A. Examining the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ psychological wellbeing and turnover intention: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1818998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Malik, A.H.; Iqbal, M.Z.; Haq, M.I.U. Supervisees’ reactions to a concatenation of supervisors’ resource drain, ego depletion and abusive supervision. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2020, 32, 177–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Khalid, M.; Bashir, S.; Khan, A.K.; Abbas, N. When and how abusive supervision leads to knowledge hiding behaviors: An Islamic work ethics perspective. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2018, 22, 824–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, M.; Ahmed, A.; Syed, O.R.; Khalid, N.; Muñoz, J.E., Jr. Impact of abusive leader behavior on employee job insecurity: A mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and abusive peer behavior. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 947258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alkadash, T.M.; Jun Bo, S.; Besher, B.; Almaamari, Q.; Mohsen Al-Absy, M.S. Conceptual Framework on Job Burnout of the Employees and its Correlative Factors in China During COVID-19. IJM 2020, 11, 200–215. [Google Scholar]
  17. Tepper, B. Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tepper, B.J.; Duffy, M.K.; Shaw, J.D. Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 974–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lim, P.K.; Koay, K.Y.; Chong, W.Y. The effects of abusive supervision, emotional exhaustion and organizational commitment on cyberloafing: A moderated-mediation examination. Internet Res. 2020, 31, 497–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Akram, Z.; Li, Y.; Akram, U. When employees are emotionally exhausted due to abusive supervision. A conservation-of-resources perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Choi, W.; Kim, S.L.; Yun, S. A social exchange perspective of abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: Investigating the moderating effects of psychological contract fulfillment and self-enhancement motive. J. Bus. Psychol. 2019, 34, 305–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mitchell, M.S.; Ambrose, M.L. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Organ, D.W. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Hum. Perform. 1997, 10, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Coleman, V.I.; Borman, W.C. Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2000, 10, 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bogler, R.; Somech, A. Psychological Capital, Team Resources and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. J. Psychol. 2019, 153, 784–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Organ, D.W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome; Lexington Books/DC Heath and Company: Lexington, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  28. Williams, L.; Anderson, S. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Katz, D. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behav. Sci. 1964, 9, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zeinabadi, H. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of teachers. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 5, 998–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yen, H.R.; Niehoff, B.P. Organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Examining relationships in Taiwanese banks. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 34, 1617–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. De Clercq, D.; Fatima, T.; Jahanzeb, S. Ingratiating with despotic leaders to gain status: The role of power distance orientation and self-enhancement motive. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 171, 157–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zheng, X.; Zhu, W.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, C. Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. J. Organ. Behav. 2015, 36, 621–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chiaburu, D.S.; Oh, I.S.; Berry, C.M.; Li, N.; Gardner, R.G. The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Borman, W.C.; Penner, L.A.; Allen, T.D.; Motowidlo, S.J. Personality predictors of citizenship performance. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 2001, 9, 52–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lapierre, L.M.; Hackett, R.D. Trait conscientiousness, leader-member exchange, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A test of an integrative model. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2007, 80, 539–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Neale, C.A. The Relationship between OCB, CWB, Job Crafting, Values, and Personality: The Dark Side of Job. Ph.D. Theis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  38. Shimamura, M.; Fukutake, M.; Namba, M.; Ogino, T. The relationship among factors of organizational justice, organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, and ease of work among Japanese nurses. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2021, 61, 151479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Qaiser Danish, R.; Javaid, Z.; Fawad Ali, H.; Shahid, R.; Muneeb Mehta, A.; Imtiaz, N. Impact of Abusive Supervision on Organizational Citizenship Behavior with the Mediating Role of Organizational Justice: A Study of Individuals Working in Private Sector Firms of Pakistan. Eur. Online J. Nat. Soc. Sci. Proc. 2019, 8, 119. [Google Scholar]
  40. Alzyoud, A.A.Y.; Odhiabo, O.J. Abusive Supervision and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Implications for HR Practitioners. Ann. Contemp. Dev. Manag. HR (ACDMHR) 2019, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ahmed, U.; Khalid, N.; Islam, D.M.Z.; Abro, Z. Abuse, emotions, and workload in the distribution business: Implications for employee engagement. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2019, 6, 90–99. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mackey, J.D.; Frieder, R.E.; Brees, J.R.; Martinko, M.J. Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 1940–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, Y.; Liao, Z. Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2015, 32, 959–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zheng, J.; Gou, X.; Griffin, M.A.; Goh, Y.M.; Xia, N. Temporal leadership, attentiveness, and safety behaviors: The moderating roles of abusive supervision and safety consciousness. Saf. Sci. 2022, 147, 105633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aryee, S.; Sun, L.-Y.; Chen, Z.X.G.; Debrah, Y.A. Abusive supervision and contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2008, 4, 393–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tepper, B.J. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. J. Manag. 2007, 33, 261–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Page, K.M.; Vella-Brodrick, D.A. The ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ of employee well-being: A new model. Soc. Indic. Res. 2009, 90, 441–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Luthans, F. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 695–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Luthans, F.; Youssef, C.M. Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organ. Dyn. 2004, 33, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cameron, K.S.; Caza, A. Introduction: Contributions to the discipline of positive organizational scholarship. Am. Behav. Sci. 2004, 47, 731–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wright, T.A.; Cropanzano, R. Well-Being, Satisfaction and Job Performance: Another Look at the Happy/Productive Worker Thesis. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 364–368. [Google Scholar]
  52. McKee, M.C.; Driscoll, C.; Kelloway, E.K.; Kelley, E. Exploring linkages among transformational leadership, workplace spirituality and well-being in health care workers. J. Manag. Spiritual. Relig. 2011, 8, 233–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Robertson, J.; Barling, J. Lead well, be well: Leadership behaviors influence employee well-being. Wellbeing A Complet. Ref. Guide 2014, 235–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Skakon, J.; Nielsen, K.; Borg, V.; Guzman, J. Are leaders’ well-being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work. Stress 2010, 24, 107–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bilotta, I.; Cheng, S.; Davenport, M.K.; King, E. Using the job demands-resources model to understand and address employee well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2021, 14, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yu, J.; Park, J.; Hyun, S.S. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on employees’ work stress, well-being, mental health, organizational citizenship behavior, and employee-customer identification. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2021, 30, 529–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zheng, X.; Liu, X. The buffering effect of mindfulness on abusive supervision and creative performance: A social cognitive framework. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, Y.C.; Xu, S.T.; Ma, E. Serve perfectly, being happier: A perfectionistic perspective on customer-driven hotel employee citizenship behavior and well-being. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 96, 102984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Marsden, D.; Moriconi, S. The impact of employee well-being policies and sickness absence on workplace performance. Adv. Ind. Labor Relat. 2011, 18, 115–152. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wright, T.A.; Cropanzano, R.; Bonett, D.G. The moderating role of employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Miller, J. The well-being and productivity link: A significant opportunity for research-into-practice. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2016, 3, 289–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Grant, A.M.; Christianson, M.K.; Price, R.H. Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2007, 21, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Valeau, P.J.; Paillé, P. The management of professional employees: Linking progressive HRM practices, cognitive orientations and organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 2705–2731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhang, T.; Kandampully, J.; Choi, H.Y. The role of employee wellness programme in the hospitality industry: A review of concepts, research, and practice. Res. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 4, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kernan, M.C.; Watson, S.; Fang Chen, F.; Gyu Kim, T. How cultural values affect the impact of abusive supervision on worker attitudes. Cross Cult. Manag. Int. J. 2011, 18, 464–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Global Wellness Institute. The Future of Wallness at Work. 2016. Available online: https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/industry-research/the-future-of-wellness-at-work/ (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  67. Nafiudin, N.; Andari, A.; Fauzi, R. Compensation and job satisfaction for organizational citizenship behavior (ocb) employees of bank dki. Int. J. Econ. Educ. Entrep. 2022, 2, 403–413. [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Xu, S.; Yang, L.Q.; Bednall, T.C. Why Abusive Supervision Impacts Employee OCB and CWB: A Meta-Analytic Review of Competing Mediating Mechanisms. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 2474–2497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yu, Y.; Xu, S.; Li, G.; Kong, H. A systematic review of research on abusive supervision in hospitality and tourism. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 2473–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lyu, Y.; Zhou, X.; Li, W.; Wan, J.; Zhang, J.; Qiu, C. The impact of abusive supervision on service employees’ proactive customer service performance in the hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 1992–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hornsby, J.S.; Kuratko, D.F.; Zahra, S.A. Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. J. Bus. Ventur. 2002, 17, 253–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Denison, D.R.; Goelzer, P.; Haaland, S. Corporate Culture and Organisational Effectiveness: Is Asia Different From the Rest of the World. Organ. Dyn. 2004, 33, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Deshpandé, R.; Farley, J.U.; Webster, F.E., Jr. Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  75. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 3; SmartPLS GmbH: Boenningstedt, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  77. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ahmed, U.; Umrani, W.A.; Yousaf, A.; Siddiqui, M.A.; Pahi, M.H. Developing faithful stewardship for environment through green HRM. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 3115–3133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Umrani, W.A.; Channa, N.A.; Yousaf, A.; Ahmed, U.; Pahi, M.H.; Ramayah, T. Greening the workforce to achieve environmental performance in hotel industry: A serial mediation model. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 44, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Falk, R.F.; Miller, N.B. A Primer for Soft Modeling; The University of Akron Press: Akron, OH, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  86. Cohen, J. Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 112, 1155–1159. [Google Scholar]
  87. Afsar, B.; Al-Ghazali, B.M.; Rehman, Z.U.; Umrani, W.A. The moderating effects of employee corporate social responsibility motive attributions (substantive and symbolic) between corporate social responsibility perceptions and voluntary pro-environmental behavior. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 27, 769–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zarei, M. The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. J. Manag. Stud. Dev. Eval. 2019, 27, 141–160. [Google Scholar]
  89. Kim, E.; Park, S. The role of transformational leadership in citizenship behavior: Organizational learning and interpersonal trust as mediators. Int. J. Manpow. 2019, 40, 1347–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Thau, S.; Bennett, R.J.; Mitchell, M.S.; Marrs, M.B. How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2009, 108, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Boyd, N.M.; Nowell, B. Testing a theory of sense of community and community responsibility in organizations: An empirical assessment of predictive capacity on employee well-being and organizational citizenship. J. Community Psychol. 2017, 45, 210–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gonzalez-Morales, M.G.; Kernan, M.C.; Becker, T.E.; Eisenberger, R. Defeating abusive supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2018, 23, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ahmed, Q.; Sumbal, M.S.; Akhtar, M.N.; Tariq, H. Abusive supervision and the knowledge worker productivity: The mediating role of knowledge management processes. J. Knowl. Manag. 2021, 25, 2506–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bonner, J.M.; Greenbaum, R.L.; Mayer, D.M. My boss is morally disengaged: The role of ethical leadership in explaining the interactive effect of supervisor and employee moral disengagement on employee behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 137, 731–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Baumeister, R.F.; Vohs, K.D. Self-Regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2007, 1, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ren, X.; Caudle, D. Walking the tightrope between work and non-work life: Strategies employed by British and Chinese academics and their implications. Stud. High. Educ. 2016, 41, 599–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 02903 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Sustainability 15 02903 g001
Table
Table 1. Measurement model.
Table 1. Measurement model.
Construct ItemLoadingsCRAVE
Abusive supervisionAS10.8480.8800.710
AS20.819
AS30.861
Employee well-beingEW10.6350.8640.517
EW20.684
EW40.751
EW50.810
EW60.604
EW70.802
OCBIOCBI10.7470.8520.536
OCBI20.691
OCBI40.764
OCBI50.756
OCBI60.698
Table
Table 2. Discriminant validity.
Table 2. Discriminant validity.
123
Abusive supervision0.843
OCBI–0.2530.732
Employee well-being–0.2950.4910.719
Note: Results in Bold in Table 2 refers to the Square root results of AVE scores.
Table
Table 3. Path coefficients.
Table 3. Path coefficients.
HypothesesRelationshipsBetaSEt-ValueDecision
H1Abusive supervision -> OCBI–0.1190.0761.559Not supported
H2Abusive supervision -> Well-being–0.2950.0674.377 **Supported
H3Well-being -> OCBI0.4560.0775.925 **Supported
H4Abusive supervision -> EWB
->OCBI		–0.1340.0334.11 **Supported
** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Q-square assessment.
Table 4. Q-square assessment.
SSOSSEQ2 (= 1 − SSE/SSO)
OCB1240.0001090.1910.121
Employee well-being1488.0001425.4400.042
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

AlZgool, M.; AlMaamari, Q.; Mozammel, S.; Ali, H.; Imroz, S.M. Abusive Supervision and Individual, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Exploring the Mediating Effect of Employee Well-Being in the Hospitality Sector. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042903

AMA Style

AlZgool M, AlMaamari Q, Mozammel S, Ali H, Imroz SM. Abusive Supervision and Individual, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Exploring the Mediating Effect of Employee Well-Being in the Hospitality Sector. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4):2903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042903

Chicago/Turabian Style

AlZgool, Mahmoud, Qais AlMaamari, Soleman Mozammel, Hyder Ali, and Sohel M. Imroz. 2023. "Abusive Supervision and Individual, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Exploring the Mediating Effect of Employee Well-Being in the Hospitality Sector" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 2903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042903

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop