Tourism Management 36 (2013) 401e410

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

The effect of centralization on organizational citizenship behavior and deviant

workplace behavior in the hospitality industry
Chang-Hua Yen a, *, Hsiu-Yu Teng b,1
a
b

Department of Leisure and Recreation Management, National Taichung University of Science and Technology, No. 129, Sanmin Road, Sec. 3, Taichung 404, Taiwan, ROC
Graduate Institute of Recreation, Tourism and Hospitality Management, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, No. 580, Shin-Ming Road, Chiayi City 600, Taiwan, ROC

h i g h l i g h t s
< We examine the inuence of centralization on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and deviant workplace behaviors (DWB).
< Centralization is positively related to OCB, and negatively related to DWB.
< Procedural justice partially mediates the relationship between centralization and OCB/DWB.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 16 March 2012
Accepted 3 October 2012

Worker deviant behavior, and its opposite, organizational citizenship are two key aspects of employee
discretionary behavior, and are important in hotel operations. The purpose of this study is to examine the
inuence of centralization on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and deviant workplace
behaviors (DWB). Survey data from 318 employees in Taiwans hotel industry indicate that centralization
is positively related to OCB, and negatively related to DWB. Moreover, procedural justice partially
mediated the relationship between centralization and OCB/DWB. These results have importance for
management and the paper concludes by discussing the implications of the results.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Centralization
Organizational citizenship behavior
Deviant workplace behavior

1. Introduction
One of the challenges of hospitality industry management is to
achieve a balance between the need for efciency versus that for
customization. Efciency requires rules, standardization, and often
formalized, mechanistic ways of doing work. In contrast, customization requires empowerment, openness, and more organic
organizational designs (gaard, Marnburg, & Larsen, 2008). Organizational theories generated from Western countries remain
a challenge in Oriental countries such as Taiwan, due to the
differences in cultures (Shenkar & Von Glinow, 1994). Therefore, it
is important to examine the problems of using the same management practices across cultures in the hospitality industry.
In todays struggling global economy, it is not enough for
employees to merely do their jobs. Many businesses expect organizational members to not only complete their required duties, but
also proactively assist their colleagues. Therefore, many
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 886 4 22196512; fax: 886 4 22196511.
E-mail addresses: chyan@nutc.edu.tw (C.-H. Yen), serena.alex@msa.hinet.net
(H.-Y. Teng).
1
Tel.: 886 4 22023427; fax: 886 5 2732923.
0261-5177/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.003

organizational scholars are focusing on employees positive

behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
However, research has shown that deviant workplace behavior
(DWB) is fairly prevalent (Harper, 1990; McGurn, 1988). When
employees participate in DWB, the behavior can have devastating
effects on the organization or its members (Robinson & Bennett,
1997). As a result, researchers have been encouraged to develop
a deeper understanding of the variables associated with OCBs
(Huang, Iun, Liu, & Gong, 2010; Kim, ONeill, & Cho, 2010) and DWBs
(Avey, Luthans, & Youssef, 2010; Bowling, 2010).
Prior research has indicated that hotel companies have the
characteristics of high levels of centralization (gaard et al., 2008).
Several researchers found that employees perceptions of
a centralized organization are negatively related to OCBs (DeGroot
& Brownlee, 2006; Raub, 2008). Moreover, centralization will result
in job dissatisfaction and employee DWB may be evoked (Judge,
Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Willem, Buelens, & Jonghe, 2007). In addition,
a more centralized organization may elicit work disinterest from
employees and reduce their work enthusiasm. There may be
functional aspects of employee disinterest, however, and they may
turn to their coworkers for conversation (Matheson, 2007) and
thereby strengthen workplace friendships (Sias & Cahill, 1998). If

402

C.-H. Yen, H.-Y. Teng / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 401e410

they have stronger friendships with coworkers, they might be more

inclined to help those coworkers (OCB) and less inclined to harm
them (DWB).
The above ndings indicate that centralization has signicant
inuence on OCB and DWB. However, whether the impact is
positive or negative is obviously inconclusive from the above
deductions. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to examine
the effect of centralization on OCB and DWB. Moreover, based on
the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), previous literature indicated that procedural justice is an important antecedent of OCB
(Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001) and DWB (Dineen,
Lewicki, & Tomlinson, 2006; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). This study
also examines the mediating effect of procedural justice on the
relationship between centralization and OCB and DWB.
2. Literature review and research hypotheses
2.1. Organizational structure in the hospitality industry
Several researchers considered that hotel managers are inuenced by a traditional idea of leadership and management
(Pittaway, Carmouche, & Chell, 1998; Tracey & Hinkin, 1996), and
that employees follow particular systems and instructions given by
their superiors (gaard et al., 2008). Hotel companies are characterized by higher centralization. The relative degree of centralization is signied by the hierarchy of authority and by employees
lack of participation in decision-making. Past researchers have
described the practices and policies in hotel companies as archaic
and inexible (Tracey & Nathan, 2002), and accepting the way we
do things around here may be the value that is deeply ingrained in
the culture of the hospitality industry (Raub, 2008). Thus, in
general, hospitality organizations represent relatively centralized
organizations, needing routines and formal systems to coordinate
tasks and secure efcient accomplishment of organizational
objectives (gaard et al., 2008).
However, Pavia and Pilepi
c (2010) indicated that traditional
organizational units in hotels are changed into process teams, and
tasks become more exible. The purpose of employees is no longer
to carry out the assignments given by supervisors, but rather to
fulll customer needs and enhance customer satisfaction.
Empowerment has been described as an organizational change
strategy for the hospitality industry (Erstad, 1997). Decisionmaking becomes a part of each process and takes place at the site
of each process in hotels, meaning that all employees have the
autonomy and responsibility for making decisions (Pavia & Pilepi
c,
2010). Accordingly, both centralized and decentralized structures
are prevalent in the hospitality industry.
2.2. Organizational citizenship behavior
OCB is dened as individual behaviors that are discretionary and
not rewarded directly by the organization (Organ, Podsakoff, &
MacKenzie, 2006). Williams and Anderson (1991) created a twodimensional conceptualization of OCB consisting of OCB directed
to individuals (OCBI) and OCB directed to the organization (OCBO).
OCBI immediately benets particular individuals within the organization. Such behavior may include helping colleagues who have
heavier workloads (Ertrk, 2007). OCBO benets the organization
as a whole, such as punctuality, having a positive attitude, and
making suggestions for the organizations improvement (Gilbert,
Laschinger, & Leiter, 2010). OCB is important for organizations
because it facilitates the accomplishment of organizational goals
and enhances organizational performance (Fisher, McPhail, &
Menghetti, 2010). Moreover, OCB can enhance customer satisfaction (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Therefore,

OCB has become critical in todays corporate world, where organizations have to be increasingly effective to survive.
2.3. Deviant workplace behavior
Robinson and Bennett (1995) dened employee deviance as
voluntary behavior that violates important organizational norms
and threatens the well-being of organizations, its members, or
both. Bennett and Robinson (2000) identied two facets of DWB
consisting of DWB directed at individuals (DWBI) and DWB
directed at the organization (DWBO). DWBI takes the form of
behaviors directed at specic individuals of the organization and
can include abuse, rudeness and physical assault (Mulki, Jaramillo,
& Locander, 2006; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). DWBO is directed
against the organization and includes such actions as stealing and
withholding effort (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004).
DWB produces organizational losses estimated to reach up to $200
billion annually in the United States (Harris & Ogbonna, 2006). This
justies the importance of studying DWBs in an organization.
2.4. Cross-cultural differences
Based on Hofstedes (1980) research, the dominant cultural
pattern in Western countries is individualism, whereas that in
Asian countries such as Taiwan is collectivism. Taiwan holds
distinct cultural values that reect the Confucian ethics. Confucianism places high value on total loyalty to a hierarchical structure
of authority: a code of dened conduct between subordinates and
managers, and trust among friends (Lee & Liu, 2007). These relationships are based on mutual and complementary obligations
(Hofstede, 1991). Individuals with an adherence to Confucianism
believe that social harmony and common interests are more
important than individual interests and enjoyment. Also, people
are more socio-centric and have an interdependent view of the self
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In addition, guanxi as connections or
relationships plays a critical role in the Taiwanese society. Guanxi
refers to developing interpersonal relationship through formal or
informal exchange and progressing mutual trust network with
consensus of benet and restraint (Lin & Ho, 2010). In business,
guanxi generally involves a hierarchical network of interpersonal
relationships embedded with mutual obligations to exchange
favors or affection (Wong & Tam, 2000).
Previous literature found that culture differences have impacts
on the OCB (Cohen & Avrahami, 2006) and DWB (Jackson, Colquitt,
Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006). Taormina and Gao (2010) identify
three components of guanxi behavior: seeking assistance from
family, maintaining friendships by providing help to friends, and
doing favors for associates. Lin and Ho (2010) found that people
with collectivism inclination engage in the OCB more positively
since group harmony and unity are mainly focused in collectivism.
On the contrary, people with individualism are more likely to
consider themselves as independent members of a group. Jackson
et al. (2006) also stated that collectivists performed their group
tasks better, contributed more discretionary citizenship, and were
less likely to engage in deviant behaviors. Therefore, national
culture might encourage or inhibit OCB and DWB.
2.5. Centralization and organizational citizenship behavior
Centralization refers to the concentration of power or decisionmaking authority in an organization (Schminke, Cropanzano, &
Rupp, 2002). High centralization inhibits interactions among
organizational members (Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001). Highly
centralized organizations prevent communication (Pertusa-Ortega,
Zaragoza-Sez, & Claver-Corts, 2010) and reduce intrinsic

C.-H. Yen, H.-Y. Teng / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 401e410

motivation and employee satisfaction (Zheng, Yang, & McLean,

2010), which is negatively related to OCBs (Lapierre & Hackett,
2007; Nadiri & Tanova, 2010). Raub (2008) also indicated that
centralized structure which restrict employees margin of control
will have a negative impact on their propensity to display OCB.
Therefore, employees perceptions of a centralized organization are
negatively related to OCB. Conversely, past research indicated that
participation in decision-making can lead to engagement in OCBs,
such as helping new members of the work group (Porter, Lawler, &
Hackman, 1996). Centralization is negatively associated with
empowerment. Empowerment enhances feelings of self-efcacy
among organizational members, and organizational members
may reciprocate by performing OCBs (Wat & Shaffer, 2005). Van
Yperen, van den Berg, and Willering (1999) also found that the
more employees feel that they participate in decision-making, the
more they feel supported by their supervisor, which is accompanied by the display of more OCBs. Moreover, Gilbert et al. (2010)
suggested that empowerment is more strongly related to
employee discretionary behaviors directed at the organization than
toward the individual. OCBO is more likely to be a direct function of
what employees think about their work characteristics. OCBI might
indeed reect a natural expression of employees affect at work
rather than their deliberate attempt to restore the balance with the
organization. According to the above research, it could be theorized
that centralization may be negatively related to OCBI and OCBO.
Accordingly, the following hypotheses are presented:
H1a. Centralization is negatively related to OCBI.
H1b. Centralization is negatively related to OCBO.
Alternatively, centralization may indirectly enhance OCB.
Matheson (2007) stated that centralized organizations may elicit
employees work disinterest and lower work enthusiasm. Centralization increases employees alienation by limiting their autonomy
and their selection of goals. Hence, centralization contributes to
feelings of powerlessness (Conger & Kanungo, 1988) and employees
would transfer their focus to other activities, such as conversation,
which will in turn enhance workplace friendship (Sias & Cahill,
1998). Strong friendship ties lead to reciprocity and employees
social exchange toward their friends. When workplace friendship is
increased, employees will be more willing to assist colleagues
(Bowler & Brass, 2006). In addition, highly cohesive groups are
likely to have a strong sense of social identity and belonging that
can increase organizational members desire to help one another
(Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994) and to engage in OCBs.
Hence, group cohesiveness is positively related to OCBs (Tan & Tan,
2008). In sum, we can theorize that higher centralization of organizational structure may enhance employee OCBI and OCBO.
According to the above literature review and since the effect of
centralization on OCB is somewhat ambivalent, this research
proposes the following contrasting hypotheses:
H2a. Centralization is positively related to OCBI.
H2b. Centralization is positively related to OCBO.

2.6. Centralization and deviant workplace behavior

Highly centralized organization discourages employees from
exerting more efforts in achieving organizational goals (Organ et al.,
2006). Past literature found that centralization will result in greater
dissatisfaction among employees (Willem et al., 2007). The social
exchange theory predicts that individuals who perceive that they

403

are receiving unfavorable treatment are more likely to feel angry,

vengeful, and dissatised. Employees may retaliate against dissatisfying conditions and unjust workplaces by engaging in behavior
that harms the organization or other employees. Research suggested that dissatised employees often resort to deviant behaviors
as a way of coping with frustration (Judge et al., 2006). Rusbult,
Farrell, Rogers, and Mainous (1988) also stated that employees
may express their dissatisfaction of work through deviant behaviors. Hence, Mount, Ilies, and Johnson (2006) asserted that those
employees who are less satised with their jobs are more likely to
display both interpersonal and organizational DWB. Accordingly,
higher job dissatisfaction could have an impact on increasing the
potential for DWB (Bowling, 2010; Dalal, 2005; Judge et al., 2006).
Many researchers have emphasized the importance of distinguishing between DWBO and DWBI (Bennett & Robinson, 2000;
Robinson & Bennett, 1997). If the organization is the cause of the
mistreatment, then deviance will be most likely directed against
the organization; if an individual is the cause of the mistreatment,
then deviance will most likely be directed against the individual.
Therefore, we theorize that centralization may be positively related
to DWBI and DWBO.
H3a. Centralization is positively related to DWBI.
H3b. Centralization is positively related to DWBO.
On the other hand, Matheson (2007) discovered that centralized
organizations will increase work alienation, which will in turn
promote employees workplace friendship (Sias & Cahill, 1998).
Higher workplace friendship implies that employees are more
willing to assist other colleagues (Bowler & Brass, 2006), which
reinforces affective support among employees (Berman, West, &
Richter, 2002). Therefore, employees would be less willing to
exhibit DWB (Dalal, 2005). Workplace friendship refers to informal
and personal-related interactions in a workplace setting (Berman
et al., 2002). Workplace friendship increases support and
resources that help individuals do their jobs, which will in turn
reduce DWB. According to the above, we theorize that higher
organizational centralization may be associated with lower
employee DWBI and DWBO.
According to the above literature review and since the effect of
centralization on DWB is somewhat ambivalent, this research
proposes the following contrasting hypotheses:
H4a. Centralization is negatively related to DWBI.
H4b. Centralization is negatively related to DWBO.

2.7. Mediating effect of procedural justice

Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the means
used to determine the outcomes employees receive (Folger &
Konovsky, 1989). Since less participation allows less voice, and
more authority hierarchy allows less choice, then procedural justice
decreases with each (Schminke et al., 2002). Schminke, Ambrose,
and Cropanzano (2000) also indicated that participation in decision-making is positively related to procedural justice and
authority hierarchy is negatively related to procedural justice.
Therefore, higher centralization is associated with lower procedural
justice. Ambrose and Schminke (2003) suggested that under
different organizational structures, procedural justice will play
differentially key roles in determining the quality of supervisory
social exchange and organizational social exchange. Organizational
justice facilitates the formation of social exchange relationships and

404

C.-H. Yen, H.-Y. Teng / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 401e410

thus fosters OCB (Moorman & Byrne, 2005). When employees

perceive the process by which outcome allocation decisions are
made to be fair, they are more likely to display OCBs (Niehoff &
Moorman, 1993). Employees who perceive that they are treated
fairly by the organization may develop a sense of obligation to
reciprocate by performing OCB (Lee & Allen, 2002; Zhang &
Agarwal, 2009). Hence, a variety of studies have found a positive
relationship between perception of procedural justice and OCB
(Nadiri & Tanova, 2010; Zhang & Agarwal, 2009).
Previous research also suggested that fairness perceptions play
an important role in provoking DWB (Browning, 2008; Robinson &
Bennett, 1995). If employees perceive managerial actions and
organizational decisions as unfair or unjust, they are apt to experience feelings of resentment, anger, and outrage (Greenberg, 1990;
Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999). Moreover, Hollinger and Clark
(1983) found that if employees perceive unjust and unfair feelings, they would engage in actions in violation of the organization
to restore their unjust perceptions, such as stealing, going slow in
work, being late or leaving early, and absence. In addition, when
employees perceive their organization as using unfair procedures
for resource allocations, they will develop negative attitudes
toward the organization (e.g., reduced trust and commitment and
increased dissatisfaction) (Zoghbi-Manrique & Verano-Tacoronte,
2007). In turn, these attitudes lead to DWB against the organization (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Therefore, we can theorize that the
relationship between centralization and OCB/DWB will be mediated by procedural justice.
H5a. Procedural justice will mediate the relationship between
centralization and OCBI.
H5b. Procedural justice will mediate the relationship between
centralization and OCBO.
H6a. Procedural justice will mediate the relationship between
centralization and DWBI.
H6b. Procedural justice will mediate the relationship between
centralization and DWBO.

3. Research method
3.1. Sample and data collection
The research hypotheses are examined by collecting data from
employees in Taiwans international tourist hotels. Prior to data
collection, we pre-tested our questionnaire with a sample of thirty
employees from an international tourist hotel. Based on the
pretests, the active voice of three items (items 1, 5, 6 of procedural
justice) was replaced by the passive voice in Chinese. The purpose
of rephrasing statements was to make the statements clearer and to
explicitly measure the construct. In fact, the statements are
consistent with the original statements in English (Niehoff &
Moorman, 1993). Reliability of the measurements was estimated
using Cronbachs coefcient alpha, and values were well above the
suggested cutoff of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978).
According to statistics obtained from the Tourism Bureau in
Taiwan, that city had 69 international tourist hotels in 2010. To
initiate a sample, this research contacted all human resource
managers of these hotels. Twenty-four hotels agreed to participate
by providing a complete mailing list of employees names and
addresses. The size of these hotels ranged from 200 rooms to 700
rooms (16 hotels have 200e400 rooms and 8 hotels have 400e700
rooms). In January 2011, the author mailed questionnaires to 600
employees working in these hotels (average of 20e30 employees

per hotel). Of all the samples, 24 different hotels responded by

returning at least 10 questionnaires. A total of 368 questionnaires
were received, representing a response rate of 61.33 percent.
Among the returned questionnaires, 26 incomplete surveys were
removed due to missing data, and 24 respondents had worked for
their current organization for less than 6 months. As a result, usable
questionnaires totaled 318.
3.2. Measures
The centralization instrument consisted of ve items (Ferrell &
Skinner, 1988). Employees indicated their agreement with each
item, using a ve-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly
Disagree to Strongly Agree.
We measured OCB using a 14-item, ve-point Likert scale,
ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree (Williams &
Anderson, 1991). In this study, two types of employee behaviors
were measured, including display of OCBs that immediately
beneted specic individuals and indirectly beneted the organization (OCBI), along with those behaviors that beneted the organization as a whole (OCBO). Seven items each measured the OCB
dimensions of OCBI and OCBO. Higher scores reected higher levels
of OCB.
We measured DWB using a 19-item (Bennett & Robinson, 2000),
ve-point scale, ranging from Never to Daily according to
Dunlop and Lee (2004) and Mount et al. (2006). This DWB scale was
expected to make a distinction between deviant behavior directed
against the organization (DWBO: 12 items) and that against individuals at work (DWBI: 7 items). Higher scores reected higher
levels of DWB.
Procedural justice was measured with a 6-item subscale
developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) and a ve-point Likert
scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Questions relating to demographic data, included gender, age,
education, and organizational tenure, were also included in the
questionnaire. The questionnaire was originally written in English
and then translated into Chinese. Translation was completed by the
researchers along with two other native English speakers who
worked in the hospitality industry. Before nalizing the questionnaire design, back translation was done to reduce translation bias,
as suggested by Van de Vijver and Hambleton (1996).
3.3. Data analysis
Data analyses for this study included descriptive analyses,
conrmatory factor analysis (CFA), and multiple regression analysis. The collected data were analyzed using the Statistical Package
for Social Science (SPSS). Descriptive statistics included the mean,
standard deviation of centralization, OCBs, DWBs and procedural
justice. CFA was used to assess the validity of the measures through
AMOS 7.0. This study tested the hypothesized relationships
utilizing a series of regression analyses. The mediation tests followed the approach of Baron and Kenny (1986) and Sobel (1982).
4. Results
4.1. Characteristics of the sample
Among the 318 respondents, 136 respondents (42.8%) were male
and 182 respondents (57.2%) were female. 42.4% of the respondents
were aged between 21 and 30 years. Educational levels were fairly
high, with over 90% having college experience or above. The
majority (51.9%) of the respondents had average tenure of less than
5 years.

C.-H. Yen, H.-Y. Teng / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 401e410

Table 1
Results of conrmatory factor analysis.

Constructs
Centralization
Any major decision that I make
has to have this companys approval
In my experience with this company,
even quite small matters have to be
referred to someone higher up for
a nal answer
My experiences with this company
are subject to a lot of rules and
procedures stating how various
aspects of my job are to be done
I have to ask senior management
before I do almost anything in
my business
I can take very little action on
my own until senior management
approve it
OCBI
Helps others who have been absents
Helps others who have
heavy workloads
Assists supervisor with his/her
work (when not asked)
Takes time to listen to coworkers
problems and worries
Goes out of way to help new employees
Takes a personal interest in
other employees
Passes along information to co-workers
OCBO
Attendance at work is above the norm
Gives advance notice when unable
to come to work
Takes undeserved work breaks (R)
Great deal of time spent with personal
phone conversations (R)
Complains about insignicant things
at work (R)
Conserves and protects
organizational property
Adheres to informal rules devised
to maintain order
DWBI
Made fun of someone at work
Said something hurtful to
someone at work
Made an ethnic, religious, or
racial remark at work
Cursed at someone at work
Played a mean prank on someone at work
Acted rudely toward someone at work
Publicly embarrassed someone at work
DWBO
Taken property from work
without permission
Spent too much time fantasizing or
daydreaming instead of working
Falsied a receipt to get reimbursed
for more money than you spent
on business expenses
Taken an additional or longer break
than is acceptable at your workplace
Come in late to work without permission
Littered your work environment
Neglected to follow your bosss instructions
Intentionally worked slower than
you could have worked
Discussed condential company
information with an unauthorized person
Used an illegal drug or consumed
alcohol on the job
Put little effort into your work
Dragged out work in order to get overtime

405

Table 1 (continued )
Constructs
Factor
loadings

Composite
reliability

AVE

0.83

0.50

0.69
0.77

0.75

0.73

0.59

0.88

0.58
0.86
0.79
0.87

0.50

0.74
0.81
0.65
0.78

0.73
0.57
0.90

0.58

0.92

0.51

0.70
0.83
0.74
0.75
0.68
0.82
0.78

0.75
0.73
0.71
0.68
0.65
0.67
0.75
0.79

0.55

0.81

0.72
0.70

0.79
0.77

Data for all the measures were obtained at the individual level.
However, centralization reects an organizational level variable. In
order to make the level of the data consistent with the level of the
theory, we aggregated data for this measure to the organizational
level. We tested for interrater agreement using the interrater
agreement coefcient (IRC) developed by James, Demaree, and
Wolf (1984). They recommended an IRC of 0.70 as an indicator of
interrater agreement. Across the 24 hotels that constituted our
sample, the IRC for centralization ranged from 0.74 to 0.92, suggesting that aggregation was appropriate (George, 1990).

4.3. Measurement properties

0.64

0.66

0.88
0.74

4.2. Aggregation of individual level data

0.73

0.70

AVE

0.51

0.67

0.69

Composite
reliability

Note: R refers to reversed question items; AVE refers to average variance extracted.

0.56
0.75

0.74

Procedural justice
Job decisions are made by the general
manager in an unbiased matter
My general manager makes sure that all
employee concerns are heard before job
decisions are made
To make job decisions, my general manager
collects accurate and complete information
My general manager claried decisions and
provides additional information when
requested by employees
All job decisions are applied consistently
across all affected employees
Employees are allowed to challenge or
appeal job decisions made by the
general manager

Factor
loadings

To validate the constructs, the research model was estimated

with the CFA in which all measurement items were loaded on their
expected constructs, and the constructs were correlated in the
analysis (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). Since the chi-square statistic
is sensitive to sample size, this study relied on other indices in the
testing models (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). In
the testing model for CFA, all factor loadings were signicant
(p < 0.001). The indexes of the model provide a good t:
c2 1960.83, df 887, c2/df 2.21, GFI (goodness-of-t
index) 0.92, AGFI (adjusted goodness-of-t index) 0.90, RMSEA
(root mean square error of approximation) 0.05, NFI (normed t
index) 0.91, and CFI (comparative t index) 0.95, which was
above the model adaptability standard suggested by Hair et al.
(2006) (c2/df < 3, GFI  0.90, AGFI  0.90, RMSEA  0.05,
NFI  0.90, CFI  0.90), showing unidimensionality of the scales.
Table 1 shows that the composite reliability ranged from 0.83 to
0.92, greater than the standard of 0.6 (Hair et al., 2006). The
researchers also employed a set of established procedures to check
for convergent validity and discriminant validity of our scales. The
average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was between
0.50 and 0.58, which was either equal to or higher than 0.5 (Bagozzi
& Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981), supporting convergent validity.
The researchers measured discriminant validity by calculating
the AVE for all pairs of constructs and comparing this value to the
squared correlation between the two constructs of interest. The
research results show that the squared correlation between any
pair of constructs in all cases was less than the respective AVE of
each of the constructs in the pair (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), supporting discriminant validity.

406

C.-H. Yen, H.-Y. Teng / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 401e410

4.4. Common method bias checking

Table 3
Regression results of centralization on OCB, DWB and procedural justice.

Common method bias may affect the empirical results because

the data of this study were collected through self-report questionnaires. Padsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) have
demonstrated that procedural and statistical techniques can be
used to test for common method biases. In the procedural technique, the researchers guaranteed respondents condentiality and
anonymity to diminish the social desirability bias. In addition, the
researchers separated the items of centralization from those of
employees perceived OCBs/DWBs, i.e., these two sections of the
items appeared on different pages of the questionnaire. This yielded an effect of psychological separation on the respondents
(Padsakoff et al., 2003).
In the statistical technique, the possibility of common method bias
was tested using Harmans one-factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
A principal component factor analysis was conducted on the items of
centralization, OCBs/DWBs, and procedural justice. This yielded six
factors with eigen values greater than 1. Cumulative loading was
76.42% and factor loading of the rst factor was 20.66%. Also, the
researchers employed CFA to test the t of a one-factor model and
a six-factor model. The results showed that the ts of the one-factor
model (where all items were loaded on a single factor) were worse
(c2 3795.32, df 902, c2/df 4.21, GFI 0.74, AGFI 0.70,
RMSEA 0.11, NFI 0.72, CFI 0.78). Moreover, we controlled for the
effects of a single unmeasured latent method factor in our analyses.
We compared the measurement model without the common method
variance (CMV) factor and with the factor. The t indices of the model
with the CMV factor indicate that c2 1920.61, df 878, c2/df 2.19,
GFI 0.91, AGFI 0.89, RMSEA 0.05, NFI 0.90, CFI 0.94. A
comparison of the two models indicates that the change in t indices
was not signicant. The factor loadings of these items remained
signicant. The results suggest CMV was not a major problem for the
data (Padsakoff et al., 2003).
4.5. Correlation analysis
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations
of all variables, which provide an initial examination of the proposed
relationships. Centralization was positively related to OCBI (r 0.33,
p < .01) and OCBO (r 0.28, p < .01), and negatively related to DWBI
(r 0.27, p < .01) and DWBO (r 0.34, p < .01). Centralization was
negatively related to procedural justice (r 0.19, p < .01). Finally,
procedural justice was positively related to OCBI (r 0.32, p < .01) and
OCBO (r 0.30, p < .01), and negatively related to DWBI (r 0.28,
p < .01) and DWBO (r 0.25, p < .01).
4.6. Multiple regression analysis
To test the hypotheses more adequately, a series of regression
analyses was conducted. All hypothesized independent variables
were entered into the equations for each dependent variable. In
addition, we followed the three-step procedure described by Baron

Independent variable

Centralization
R2
Adjusted R2
F

OCBI

OCBO

DWBI

DWBO

Procedural
justice

0.33**
0.12
0.10
33.52**

0.28**
0.09
0.08
24.76**

0.27**
0.08
0.07
23.98**

0.34**
0.13
0.11
39.13**

0.19**
0.05
0.04
10.49**

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Table 4
Test of the mediating effect of procedural justice.
Independent variables

Centralization
Procedural justice
R2
Adjusted R2
F

OCBI

OCBO

DWBI

DWBO

0.18*
0.27**
0.17
0.16
28.84**

0.15*
0.26**
0.13
0.12
20.31**

0.16*
0.25**
0.14
0.13
20.19**

0.19*
0.22**
0.15
0.14
21.76**

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

and Kenny (1986) to test the mediating relationships. The rst step
was to test the effect of independent variable on the dependent
variables. The second step was to test the effect of the independent
variable on the mediator variable. The third step was to test the
effects of both the mediator and independent variable on the
dependent variables. If signicant relationships emerge in all three
regressions, then a partial mediation exists. If the independent
variable in the third step is not signicant, then a full mediation
exists. The results of each step are shown in Table 3 and Table 4.
The relationships between centralization and OCBI/OCBO and
DWBI/DWBO were tested in four regression models that included
centralization as the independent variable (see Table 3). Both
models with OCBI (F 33.52, p < .01) and OCBO (F 24.76, p < .01)
as the dependent variable were found to be statistically signicant.
Centralization was positively related to OCBI (b 0.33, p < .01) and
OCBO (b 0.28, p < .01). Thus, H2a and H2b were supported.
Furthermore, both models with DWBI (F 23.98, p < .01) and
DWBO (F 39.13, p < .01) as dependent variable were found to be
statistically signicant. Centralization was negatively related to
DWBI (b 0.27, p < .01) and DWBO (b 0.34, p < .01). Thus, H4a
and H4b were supported. However, the difference between the
coefcients was not statistically signicant (Paternoster, Brame,
Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998).
It was hypothesized that procedural justice would mediate the
relationship between centralization and OCBI/OCBO and DWBI/
DWBO. This assumption was tested with mediation analysis (Baron
& Kenny, 1986). The rst step of mediation analysis is to show that
the independent variable (centralization) affects the dependent
variables (OCBI/OCBO and DWBI/DWBO), as shown in Table 3. The

Table 2
Means, standard deviations and correlations of all variables.
Variable

Mean

SD

1.Centralization
2. Procedural Justice
3.OCBI
4.OCBO
5.DWBI
6.DWBO

3.58
3.45
3.79
3.88
1.93
1.82

0.61
0.72
0.59
0.56
0.52
0.57

0.19**
0.33**
0.28**
0.27**
0.34**

0.32**
0.30**
0.28**
0.25**

0.45**
0.37**
0.31**

0.36**
0.32**

0.64**

N 318; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

C.-H. Yen, H.-Y. Teng / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 401e410

407

Table 5
Indirect effects of centralization on OCB/DWB through procedural justice (Sobels test results).

Indirect effect
Centralization/procedural
Centralization/procedural
Centralization/procedural
Centralization/procedural

justice/OCBI
justice/OCBO
justice/DWBI
justice/DWBO

Value

Se

LL 95% CI

UL 95%CI

Sig(two)

0.0513
0.0494
0.0475
0.0418

0.0112
0.0115
0.0095
0.0105

0.0733
0.0719
0.0289
0.0212

0.0294
0.0269
0.0661
0.0624

4.55
4.41
4.85
4.00

0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0005

second step is to show that the independent variable (centralization) affects the mediator (procedural justice). In the second step,
the relationship between centralization and procedural justice was
tested in a regression model that included centralization as the
independent variable. This model with procedural justice as the
dependent variable was found to be statistically signicant
(F 10.49, p < .01). Centralization was negatively related to
procedural justice (b 0.19, p < .01).
The nal step is to show that the mediator (procedural justice)
affects the dependent variables (OCBI/OCBO and DWBI/DWBO)
when the independent variable (centralization) is included in the
equation. If procedural justice has a mediator effect, a signicant
relationship between centralization and OCBI/OCBO and DWBI/
DWBO should disappear or be reduced when procedural justice is
added to the model. This analysis is shown in Table 4.
Four models that included procedural justice as the independent variable as well as centralization were found to be statistically
signicant. In both models with OCBI and OCBO as the dependent
variables, the effects of centralization were reduced to b 0.18 and
b 0.15 respectively, whereas procedural justice was positively
related to OCBI (b 0.27, p < .01) and OCBO (b 0.26, p < .01). In
both models with DWBI and DWBO as the dependent variables, the
effects of centralization were reduced to b 0.16 and b 0.19
respectively, whereas procedural justice was negatively related to
DWBI (b 0.25, p < .01) and DWBO (b 0.22, p < .01).
In addition, the Sobel test and a bootstrapping method were
used to examine the signicance of the mediating roles of procedural justice (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). The Sobel test
shows whether the indirect effect of centralization on OCBs/DWBs
via procedural justice is different from zero. If a z score is larger
than 1.96, then the hypotheses regarding the indirect effect is
substantiated. The SPSS-macro provides an estimate of the true
indirect effect and its bias-corrected 95% condence interval (CI). In
Table 5, both the Sobel test and the bootstrapping method
demonstrated that the mediating roles of procedural justice on the
relationship between centralization and OCBs/DWBs were signicant (OCBI: 95% CI 0.0733, 0.0294, p < .01; OCBO: 95%
CI 0.0719, 0.0269, p < .01; DWBI: 95% CI 0.0289, 0.0661,
p < .01; DWBO: 95% CI 0.0212, 0.0624, p < .01). Therefore, H5a,
H5b, H6a and H6b were supported.

5. Conclusion and discussion

The purpose of this research is to examine the effect of
centralization on OCB and DWB in the hospitality industry. Past
literature offered inconsistent views on the relationships between
centralization, OCB and DWB. According to literature, this study
established contrasting hypotheses. Empirical results demonstrated that centralization signicantly and positively affects OCBI/
OCBO and signicantly and negatively relates to DWBI/DWBO.
Findings indicated that from the standpoint of hospitality
employees, higher degree of organizational centralization is associated with higher employee OCB and lower employee DWB.
Moreover, procedural justice partially mediated the relationship
between centralization, OCBI/OCBO and DWBI/DWBO.

The results of this study indicated that centralization is associated with higher OCBI and OCBO. Centralization elicits employees
work disinterest and lowers work enthusiasm (Matheson, 2007).
Employees would transfer their focus to other activities, such as
conversation (Matheson, 2007), which will in turn enhance workplace friendship (Sias & Cahill, 1998) and OCBI/OCBO. In addition,
the results of this study suggested that centralization is strongly
related to OCBI. Raub (2008) suggested that centralization represents a personal form of control which is expressed through the
way in which managers or supervisors interact with their subordinates. Consequently, it could be that personalized control
mechanisms have a stronger inuence on employees.
The results of this study indicated that centralization is associated with lower DWBI and DWBO. Consistent with the above
discussion, higher workplace friendship will result in lower DWB.
Workplace friendship increases support and resources from others
that help individuals get their jobs done, which will in turn reduce
DWBI. Organizations benet from supportive climates, which will
in turn be linked to decreased DWBO.
From the standpoint of national culture, Oriental societies
emphasize collectivism (Hofstede, 1980). Although a higher degree
of centralization causes work inexibility, organizational norms
and policies facilitate the smooth completion of objectives under
the inuence of collectivism. In other words, employees of Oriental
societies still view overall performance objectives as the rst
priority. Also, collectivism is characterized as being tight, in which
group benets and in-group harmony are highly emphasized
(Triandis, 1995). There is a consensus among members on what
appropriate behavior is in a particular situation (Pelto, 1968).
Relatively speaking, employees of Western societies focus on
individualism. As a result, a higher degree of centralization would
inhibit and negatively affect employees OCBs.
In addition, this research found that procedural justice is a key
factor affecting employee behavior. A higher degree of procedural
justice reinforces employee OCB and lowers DWB intentions. These
ndings show that procedural justice partially mediated the relationship between centralization and employee discretionary
behavior. The above explains the possible reasons for the inconsistent results of past studies and this research.
The results of this study mirror the relevant research reported in
the literature, such as Matheson (2007). A more centralized organization enhances workplace friendship and reinforces affective
ties. It also raises employees OCB and lowers DWB intention.
However, empirical ndings of this study contradict those of
Stamper and Van Dyne (2003) and Raub (2008), which found that
centralization negatively relates to OCB. The result of this research
is also inconsistent with the social exchange theory (Wat & Shaffer,
2005). However, this nding is consistent with previous empirical
researches (e.g., Jogaratnam & Tse, 2006). Within the Asian context,
it would seem that decentralized structures tend to have a negative
effect on performance, while centralized structures have a positive
effect on performance. The result indicates that cultural values
would likely override values in organizational culture (Laurent,
1986), and this may help partially explain the positive association
between centralization and OCB, and the negative association
between centralization and DWB.

408

C.-H. Yen, H.-Y. Teng / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 401e410

Results of this study possess several managerial implications.

First, although previous researchers found that a centralized
organization is negatively related to OCBs (Raub, 2008), and positively related to DWBs, the ndings of this research suggest that
Western theories cannot be easily generalized to Oriental countries.
This study strongly indicates the importance of centralized organizations for individuals in the Oriental context. Second, we
recommend that hospitality managers strengthen the vertical
communication channels. Through direct contact, hospitality
organizations can reduce the time required to execute missions and
lessen the unnecessary misunderstanding and mission delays
caused by disparity of opinions. Also, organizations are recommended to strengthen employees identication and cohesion in
the organization, as well as elevate employee OCB and reduce DWB.
Third, past studies showed that organizational support and supervisory support can enhance employees OCB intention (Chen &
Chiu, 2008) and lower organizational deviance (Ferris, Brown, &
Heller, 2009), and thus suggested offering employees more positive encouragement and assistance, raise employees affective
dependence on the organization and the supervisor so that
employees are willing to provide the organization with more
assistance and lessen the likelihood of DWB.
This research has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional
design limits the extent to which causeeeffect relations can be
inferred from our research ndings. Second, DWB was measured
via self-report. Respondents may fake good under the effect of
social desirability bias. Third, we did not consider the effect of
management style (e.g., abusive or authoritarian management
style) on OCB and DWB. This factor might be considered as a limitation of this study and recommendations for future research.
Fourth, this study measured OCB/DWB with 14/19-items and
DWBO/DWBI with 12/7 items. The imbalance of data may cause
a bias in the outcome of our analyses. Finally, samples for the main
survey were drawn from the hospitality industry, which might limit
the generalizability of the results to other industries.
From an academic viewpoint, several areas for further research
arise from this study. First, we suggest future studies to make
a comparison between industries and conduct more in-depth
discussions on the effect of centralization on OCB and DWB.
Second, future research that adopts a longitudinal design would be
better suited to addressing the causal status of the variables
examined in this research. Finally, empirical ndings of this study
differ with those of Stamper and Van Dyne (2003) and Raub (2008).
This is perhaps due to Orientals different work notions than
Western employees. We thus suggest future studies to compare
employees of Oriental and Western countries and further examine
the impact of centralization on employee discretionary behavior.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.003.
References
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of
the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived
organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 295e305.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of positive
psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of
Management, 36(2), 430e452.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 76e94.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173e1182.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace

deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349e360.
Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, M. N. (2002). Workplace relations: friendship
patterns and consequences (according to managers). Public Administration
Review, 62(2), 217e230.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: a social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(1), 70e82.
Bowling, N. (2010). Effects of job satisfaction and conscientiousness on extra role
behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 119e130.
Browning, V. (2008). An exploratory study into deviant behaviour in the service
encounter: how and why front-line employees engage in deviant behaviour.
Journal of Management and Organization, 14(4), 451e471.
Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2008). An integrative model linking supervisor support and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(1/2),
1e10.
Cohen, A., & Avrahami, A. (2006). The relationship between individualism, collectivism, the perception of justice, demographic characteristics and organisational citizenship behaviour. The Service Industries Journal, 26(8), 889e901.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 599e609.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice
at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425e445.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: integrating
theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471e482.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(6), 1241e1255.
DeGroot, T., & Brownlee, A. L. (2006). Effect of department structure on the organizational citizenship behavior-department effectiveness relationship. Journal
of Business Research, 59(10/11), 1116e1123.
Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and
behavioral integrity: relationships with employee citizenship and deviant
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 622e635.
Dunlop, P., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship
behavior, and business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole
barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 67e80.
Erstad, M. (1997). Empowerment and organizational change. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(7), 325e333.
Ertrk, A. (2007). Increasing organizational citizenship behaviors of Turkish
academicians: mediating role of trust in supervisor on the relationship between
organizational justice and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22(3), 257e270.
Ferrell, O. C., & Skinner, S. J. (1988). Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure
in marketing research organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1),
103e109.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2009). Organizational supports and organizational deviance: the mediating role of organization-based self-esteem.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 279e286.
Fisher, R., McPhail, R., & Menghetti, G. (2010). Linking employee attitudes and
behaviors with business performance: a comparative analysis of hotels in
Mexico and China. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(3),
397e404.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice
on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1),
115e130.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structure equations models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39e50.
George, J. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75(2), 107e116.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing
Research, 25(2), 186e192.
Gilbert, S., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Leiter, M. (2010). The mediating effect of burnout
on the relationship between structural empowerment and organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(3), 339e348.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: an
organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1), 185e214.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal
of Management, 16(2), 399e432.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harper, D. (1990). Spotlight abuse-save prots. Industrial Distribution, 79(3),
47e51.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2006). Service sabotage: a study of antecedents and
consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 543e558.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories
apply abroad? Organization Dynamics, 9(1), 42e63.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

C.-H. Yen, H.-Y. Teng / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 401e410

Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Deterrence in the workplace: perceived
certainty, perceived severity, and employee theft. Social Forces, 62(2), 398e418.
Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance
work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects
on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31(1), 122e143.
Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006). Psychological collectivism: a measurement validation and linkage to group member
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 884e899.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1),
85e98.
Jogaratnam, G., & Tse, E. C. Y. (2006). Entrepreneurial orientation and the
structuring of organizations: performance evidence from the Asian hotel
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
18(6), 454e468.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace
deviance: test of a multi-level model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1),
126e138.
Kim, S., ONeill, J. W., & Cho, H. M. (2010). When does and employee not help
coworkers? The effect of leader-member exchange on employee envy and
organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29(3), 530e537.
Lapierre, L. M., & Hackett, R. D. (2007). Trait conscientiousness, leader-member
exchange, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour: a test of
an integrative model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
80(3), 539e554.
Laurent, R. (1986). The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource
management. Human Resource Management, 25(1), 91e102.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1),
131e142.
Lee, H. W., & Liu, C. H. (2007). An examination of factors affecting repatriates
turnover intentions. International Journal of Manpower, 28(2), 122e134.
Lin, L. H., & Ho, Y. L. (2010). Guanxi and OCB: the Chinese cases. Journal of Business
Ethics, 96(2), 285e298.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224e253.
Matheson, C. (2007). In praise of bureaucracy? A dissent from Australia. Administration & Society, 39(2), 233e261.
McGurn, J. (1988). Spotting the thieves who work among us. Wall Street Journal, 7
March, 164.
Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). How does organizational justice affect
organizational citizenship behavior? In J. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 355e380) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and
counterproductive work behaviors: the mediating effects of job satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 591e622.
Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. B. (2006). Emotional exhaustion and
organizational deviance: can the right job and a leaders style make a difference? Journal of Business Research, 59(3), 1222e1230.
Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover
intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 33e41.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the citizenship
between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527e556.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed).. New York: McGraw-Hill.
gaard, T., Marnburg, E., & Larsen, S. (2008). Perceptions of organizational structure
in the hospitality industry: consequences for commitment, job satisfaction and
perceived performance. Tourism Management, 29(4), 661e671.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. London: Sage.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct
statistical test for the equality of regression coefcients. Criminology, 36(4),
859e866.
Pavia, N., & Pilepi
c, L. (2010) Organizational structure in bringing about qualitative
change to hotel offer Tourism & Hospitality Management 2010, Conference
Proceedings, 1123e1128
Pelto, P. J. (1968). The difference between tight and loose societies. Society, 5(5),
37e40.
Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Zaragoza-Sez, P., & Claver-Corts, E. (2010). Can formalization, complexity, and centralization inuence knowledge performance. Journal
of Business Research, 63(3), 310e320.
Pittaway, L., Carmouche, R., & Chell, E. (1998). The way forward: leadership research
in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
17(4), 407e426.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879e903.
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems
and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531e544.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individualand organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors:
a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122e141.

409

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., III, & Hackman, J. R. (1996). Ways groups inuence
individual work effectiveness. In R. M. Steers, L. W. Porter, & G. A. Bigley (Eds.),
Motivation and leadership at work (pp. 346e354). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 42(1), 185e227.
Raub, S. (2008). Does bureaucracy kills individual initiative? The impact of structure
on organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 179e186.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors:
a multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2),
555e572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: its denition, its
manifestations, and its causes. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.),
Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 3e27). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rusbult, C. R., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange
variables on exit, voice, loyalty and neglect: an integrative model of responses
to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 599e627.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). The effect of organizational
structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(2), 294e304.
Schminke, M., Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2002). Organizational structure and
fairness perceptions: the moderating effect of organizational level. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 881e895.
Shenkar, O., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1994). Paradoxes of organizational theory and
research: using the case of China to illustrate national contingency. Management Science, 40(1), 56e71.
Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: the development of
peer friendships in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62(3),
273e299.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82(3), 434e443.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the
relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal,
42(1), 100e108.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic condence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290e312).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. (2003). Organizational citizenship: a comparison
between part-time and full-time service employee. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 33e42.
Tan, H. H., & Tan, M. L. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior and social
loang: the role of personality, motives, and contextual factors. Journal of
Psychology, 142(1), 89e108.
Taormina, R. J., & Gao, J. H. (2010). A research model for guanxi behavior: antecedents, measures, and outcomes of Chinese social networking. Social Science
Research, 39(6), 1195e1212.
Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1996). How transformational leaders lead in the
hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 15(2),
165e176.
Tracey, B. J., & Nathan, A. E. (2002). The strategic and operational roles of human
resources: an emerging model. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 43(4), 17e26.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. (1996). Translating tests: some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1(2), 89e99.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship
behavior: construct redenition, measurement and validation. Academy of
Management Journal, 37(4), 765e802.
Van Yperen, N. W., van den Berg, A. E., & Willering, M. C. (1999). Towards a better
understanding of the link between participation in decision-making and
organizational citizenship behaviour: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(3), 377e392.
Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality inuences on
organizational citizenship behaviors: the mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review, 34(4), 406e422.
Willem, A., Buelens, M., & Jonghe, I. D. (2007). Impact of organizational structure on
nurses job satisfaction: a questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 44(6), 1011e1020.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.
Journal of Management, 17(3), 601e617.
Wong, Y. H., & Tam, J. L. M. (2000). Mapping relationships in China: guanxi dynamic
approach. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(1), 57e70.
Zhang, H., & Agarwal, N. C. (2009). The mediating roles of organizational justice on
the relationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an investigation in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3),
676e693.
Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: mediating role of knowledge
management. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 763e771.
Zoghbi-Manrique, P., & Verano-Tacoronte, D. (2007). Investigating the effects of
procedural justice on workplace deviance. International Journal of Manpower,
28(8), 715e729.

410

C.-H. Yen, H.-Y. Teng / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 401e410

Chang-Hua Yen is an Associate Professor in Department of

Leisure and Recreation Management, National Taichung
University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. He earned
his PhD from the Chinese Culture University in Taiwan. His
areas of research include service marketing and management, and tourism management.

Hsiu-Yu Teng is a PhD Student in Graduate Institute of

Recreation, Tourism and Hospitality Management,
National Chiayi University, Taiwan. Her areas of research
include tourism management, and travel marketing.