Catalyzing Employee OCBE in Tour Companies: Charismatic Leadership,Organizational Justice,and Pro-Environmental Behaviors

Abstract

Employees are crucial contributors to their tour companies’ green strategies. The main objective of our research is to assess the role of environmentally specific charismatic leadership in fostering employees’ organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (employee OCBE). The mediation and moderation mechanisms for such a relationship were also examined drawing on social learning and social identity perspectives. The data set for our research was derived from employees and their direct managers working in tour companies in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The analysis of these data was conducted through the use of structural equation modeling. Environmentally specific charismatic leadership demonstrated a role in shaping employee OCBE via employee environmental commitment as a mediator. The positive interaction effects between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and the three dimensions of organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors—procedural, distributive, and interactional justice—were found to predict employee environmental commitment.

Keywords

environmentally specific charismatic leadership employees’ organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (employee OCBE)employee environmental commitment organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors Vietnam

Employees are the agents who enact organizational green policies (Dumont, Shen, & Deng, 2017). Employees’ green behaviors such as designing an eco-tour with tree planting activities can make the tourist organization and its tourist destinations greener (Luu, 2017a; Morrow & Mowatt, 2015). Employees’ behavior to go an extra mile to benefit the environment is known as organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE) (Daily et al., 2009).

Scholarly attention has been drawn to depicting pro-environmental behaviors and exploring their antecedents (e.g., S. H. Kim, Kim, Han, & Holland, 2016; Paillé & Boiral, 2013). Workplace green behavior studies have primarily examined the effects of organizational sustainability programs (Norton, Zacher, & Ashkanasy, 2014) and leaders’ influence (Jang, Zheng, & Bosselman, 2017). Yet most of the prior studies on employees’ green behaviors or OCBE have centered on transformational leadership (e.g., Kura, 2016; Robertson & Barling, 2013). Albeit transformational leaders can create change agents (Svendsen & Joensson, 2016), and environmentally specific transformational leaders may build change agents of eco-initiatives (e.g., Kura, 2016; Robertson & Barling, 2013); transformational leadership may be universal (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013). Scholars found that a leadership style that tones with a national culture may be likely to influence attitudes and activate latent values of individuals living in that culture (Irawanto, 2009). Charismatic leaders not only inspire their subordinates with lofty vision and goals but also role model and cultivate collective identity/value and change value among their subordinates (Banks et al., 2017; Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000). Expressed differently, sense of community and collective value are integral parts of charismatic leadership (Waldman et al., 2006). In a collectivistic culture, leaders are more prone to be perceived as charismatic when they epitomize values of group good above their own interests (Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Members in such a culture are more inclined to accept and share the values of charismatic leaders (Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Charismatic leadership was also deemed to be more desirable in humane-oriented and collectivistic cultures (Hanges, Aiken, Park, & Su, 2016) and more closely aligned with cultural collectivism values (Stephan & Pathak, 2016). Due to Confucian-rooted and collectivistic nature of Vietnamese culture (Nguyen, Lobo, & Greenland, 2017), charismatic leadership is thus likely to match Vietnamese culture and induce other-oriented behaviors among employees.

Moreover, Carmeli and Paulus (2015) highlight the magnitude of a specific leadership behavior in contributing to a specific process or a specific employee outcome. Therefore, based on the link between charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) among followers (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010), we can expect that environmentally specific charismatic leadership can influence employee OCB toward the environment, especially in the Vietnam-based hospitality industry.

Furthermore, since sustainable practice is not strongly compulsory in developing economics (Gössling, 2000; Song et al., 2018) and moral reflectiveness is a crucial factor for employees’ voluntary workplace green behavior in such economies (A. Kim, Kim, Han, Jackson, & Ployhart, 2017), environmentally specific charismatic leadership that matches Vietnamese culture as earlier discussed may activate collectivistic/community-oriented values and moral values that are latent in individuals (Ames & Hershock, 2016; Luu, 2017c). With values and symbolic signaling (Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart, & Shamir, 2016), charismatic leaders were found to influence employees’ attitudes (Sosik, 2001), role perceptions, and self-leadership (Choi, 2006). Vlachos, Panagopoulos, and Rapp (2013) also found the effect of charismatic leadership on social responsibility–induced attributions among employees. Hence, environmentally specific charismatic leaders are prone to foster employees’ pro-environmental attitudes and perceptions about their role as green change agents, leading to their pro-environmental behavior (Leonidou, Coudounaris, Kvasova, & Christodoulides, 2015; Rezapouraghdam, Alipour, & Darvishmotevali, 2017).

By extending the path of investigation into more mechanisms, especially a different leadership style, to activate employee OCBE in the tourism sector, our study makes a threefold contribution. Our first aim and contribution is to assess how environmentally specific charismatic leadership contributes to employee OCBE. Infusing collective value and change value (Banks et al., 2017) as well as pro-environmental value into employees, environmentally specific charismatic leaders may not merely catalyze employees’ engagement in environmental practices and development of eco-initiatives but also drive them into helping one another behave pro-environmentally. Our second research aim entails examining the role of employee environmental commitment as a mediator for the link between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee OCBE. Through this aim, our research expands the research stream that utilizes employee environmental commitment (e.g., Raineri & Paillé, 2016), rather than affective commitment in general, as a mediation mechanism behind pro-environmental behaviors. The third aim is to investigate the interaction effects of environmentally specific charismatic leadership and organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors in shaping OCBE among employees. Employees will be more responsive to environmentally specific charismatic leadership by demonstrating a stronger environmental commitment if they observe and receive fair treatments from the organization for employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors is prone to strengthen employees’ attitudes and perceptions about their pro-environmental role that charismatic leaders shape (Choi, 2006; Sosik, 2001).

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Environmentally Specific Charismatic Leadership and Employee OCBE

Employees are deemed to be “ambassadors” for and “agents” of an organization’s sustainable development (McShane & Cunningham, 2012). The green literature has recorded the contribution of employee initiatives to the improvement in the organization’s environmental performance (Boiral & Paillé, 2012). Pro-environmental actions are vital not only for addressing environmental issues but also for nurturing sustainable growth (De Groot & Steg, 2010). Nonetheless, in comparison with individual green behavior outside the workplace, employee workplace pro-environmental behavior has received less scholarly attention (Paillé & Boiral, 2013). Furthermore, specific forms of pro-environmental behavior that employees can engage in for corporate greening remain unclear (Paillé & Boiral, 2013).

As a form of OCB, OCBE has emerged as a concept to capture pro-environmental behaviors in the organization (Paillé & Boiral, 2013). Daily et al. (2009) viewed OCBE as employees’ discretionary acts in the workplace directed toward environmental improvement that are not formally required or explicitly rewarded. The three actions of OCBE include eco-civic engagement (voluntary engagement in environmental activities in the workplace), eco-helping (voluntarily encouraging and helping coworkers engage in environmental programs), and eco-initiatives (developing, suggesting, and sharing new environmental practices to enhance environmental performance) (Boiral & Paillé, 2012).

Antonakis et al. (2016) view charismatic leadership as “values-based, symbolic, and emotion-laden leader signaling” (p. 304). Different from other leadership forms, charismatic leadership instills faith in a better future (Gebert, Heinitz, & Buengeler, 2016) through formulating and inspirationally articulating a shared and idealized future vision, dedicating the organizational path to the vision through unconventional and innovative means, and demonstrating a high sensitivity to subordinates’ needs as well as environmental challenges and opportunities (Conger et al., 2000). Charismatic leaders are perceived as architects of radical change (Conger et al., 2000; Rast, Hogg, & Giessner, 2016) and role models of exemplary acts entailing great devotion, personal risk, and self-sacrifice. Through these actions, charismatic leaders can empower subordinates and build trust from them (Conger et al., 2000). Charismatic leadership may hence induce employees’ emotional attachment to the leader, collective identity, and high performance even beyond their work role (Xenikou, 2014). From the nature of charismatic leadership as above discussed, environmentally specific charismatic leadership can be viewed as leading with charisma to inspire employees with the environmental mission, role models’ pro-environmental value, and collective identity for the environmental mission, as well as provide empowerment and support for employees to act pro-environmentally. Based on Antonakis et al.’s (2016) view of charismatic leadership, environmentally specific charismatic leadership is pro-environmental values based and environmentally symbolic leader signaling.

While charismatic leadership has been widely investigated in organizational studies in general (Banks et al., 2017), modest scholarly attention has been paid to this leadership in the hospitality industry (e.g., Bilgin, Kuzey, Torlak, & Uyar, 2015). Charismatic leadership was found to leverage employees’ task performance as well as OCB in industries in general (Banks et al., 2017) and in the hospitality service industry in particular (Bilgin et al., 2015). Our research thus expects that environmentally specific charismatic leadership, with pro-environmental values and environmentally symbolic signaling, can foster hospitality employees’ OCB for the environment.

To cast light on why environmentally specific charismatic leadership leads to employee OCBE, our research bases on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1985) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). These two theoretical frameworks have been used to explain the nexus between charismatic leadership and OCB in managerial literature (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Xenikou, 2014).

From a social identity theory perspective, self-identity is the part of self-concept deriving from the knowledge of, and emotional attachment to, group membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Leader behaviors that can alter employees’ self-identity are likely to change their behaviors (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Based on Xenikou’s (2014) standpoint on charismatic leadership, the environmentally specific charismatic leadership aims to promote a vision of the organization’s pro-environmental future-to-be state, inspire employees to transcend their self-interests and develop a pro-environmental group identity, as well as demonstrate personal consideration in tackling environmental issues. Such leadership activity can inspire employees to internalize their leader’ pro-environmental values and beliefs (Carter, Mossholder, Feild, & Armenakis, 2014) and integrate the leader as a crucial partner in their self-identity (Zhang & Chen, 2013). Employees will be inclined to act on behalf of the leader (Zhang & Chen, 2013) by voluntarily behaving pro-environmentally beyond their work role not only to express their commitment to the leader but likewise to endeavor to be “green” followers in the role relationship.

Besides the process of employees’ internalization of pro-environmental values from the leader and identification with him or her, a social learning process (Bandura, 1977) may occur among employees who perceive and observe the environmentally specific charismatic leader’s commitment to the environmental goal and role modelling of pro-environmental behaviors. As a departure from reinforcement theories of learning, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) holds that individuals can learn through observation and replication of others’ behaviors (Liden, Wayne, Liao, & Meuser, 2014). Employee modeling of leader behavior has been found in field investigations of the “contagion” or “trickle-down” effects of leadership (Liden et al., 2014; Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012). Through their formal power and referent power, leaders are deemed to be role models (Yukl, 2010) influencing employees to emulate their behaviors (Yaffe & Kark, 2011). Employees desire to be like their leader and hence model their leader’s behaviors on perceiving the leader as possessing desirable attributes (Mayer et al., 2012). Environmentally specific charismatic leaders possess many sources of power and attractive characteristics that likely translate into employees perceiving that they are credible in terms of pro-environmental actions. Environmentally specific charismatic leaders role model by using formal power to set pro-environmental goals and programs. They also demonstrate referent power by engaging in green behaviors as well as launching eco-initiatives to change environmentally unfriendly routines in the workplace. Through their pro-environmental qualities, the environmentally specific charismatic leader nurtures employee trust in the organization’s environmental goals and their collective identity (Conger et al., 2000), which drive employees to model pro-environmental behaviors from the leader and behave beneficially toward the organization’s sustainability.

Moreover, the environmentally specific charismatic leader can also build the norms of pro-environmental change and collective identity (Conger et al., 2000) in the group. These norms will guide group members how to behave toward the environment in their daily work activities. Observing their peers behaving pro-environmentally to the group norms and helping one another behave accordingly, the image of their organization’s environmental responsibility is further embedded in their self-concept. This leads employees to further behave according to the pro-environmental norm that the leader cultivates. In addition, collective identity that the charismatic leader builds (Banks et al., 2017) will steer them to go beyond the call of duty to engage in environmental practices and contribute eco-initiatives to the organization’s green strategy as well as provide encouragement and support to their colleagues’ implementation of pro-environmental activities. In other words, environmentally specific charismatic leadership can be expected to shape the components of employee OCBE in light of social identity theory and social learning theory, leading to the following null and alternative hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1₀ (H1₀): Environmentally specific charismatic leadership is not positively related to employee OCBE.

Hypothesis 1_a (H1_a): Environmentally specific charismatic leadership is positively related to employee OCBE.

Employee Environmental Commitment as a Mediator

According to Bagozzi’s (1992) attitude theory, when employees appreciate and highly value the behaviors or treatments from the organization and the management, they have propensity to develop positive affective responses and in turn positive behaviors. Therefore, employees’ appreciation toward the leader’s charisma and support for pro-environmental actions give rise to their positive affective reactions. While Babakus, Yavas, Karatepe, and Avci (2003) found affective commitment to be one of such positive affective responses from employees toward the beneficial behavior from the management, Raineri and Paillé (2016) reported that employee environmental commitment tended to emerge among employees who highly value the leader’s commitment and support toward pro-environmental goals. Thus, employee environmental commitment, defined as employees’ discretionary sense of commitment to environmental mission (Raineri & Paillé, 2016), can serve as a mediator to bridge environmentally specific charismatic leadership to employee OCBE. When employees are environmentally committed, they attach themselves to the organization’s green mission and pro-environmental interests of its stakeholders, especially community. Moreover, organizational commitment was also found to have a link with extra-role behaviors (Srivastava & Dhar, 2016). Erdogan, Bauer, and Taylor (2015) and Montabon, Morrow, and Cantor (2016) also found the interconnection between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors targeting the environment. Therefore, with environmental commitment, employees may go extra miles beyond their role duties and contribute eco-initiatives to the organization’s green strategy as well as engage in inspiring and transforming their colleagues into green change agents. The above arguments lead us to expect that the leader with environmentally specific charisma may activate employees’ OCBE through employee environmental commitment as a mediator. The ensuing null and alternative hypotheses are consequently postulated:

Hypothesis 2₀ (H2₀): Employee environmental commitment does not mediate the positive relationship between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee OCBE.

Hypothesis 2_a (H2_a): Employee environmental commitment mediates the positive relationship between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee OCBE.

Hypothesis 2_a0 (H2a₀): Environmentally specific charismatic leadership is not positively related to employee environmental commitment.

Hypothesis 2_aa (H2a_a): Environmentally specific charismatic leadership is positively related to employee environmental commitment.

Hypothesis 2_b0 (H2b₀): Employee environmental commitment is not positively related to employee OCBE.

Hypothesis 2_ba (H2b_a): Employee environmental commitment is positively related to employee OCBE.

Organizational Justice for Pro-Environmental Behaviors as a Moderator

Organizational justice refers to the extent of fairness that employees perceive in the treatment of organizational authorities toward them (Whitman, Caleo, Carpenter, Horner, & Bernerth, 2012). Three types of organizational justice are differentiated: procedural justice (the perceived fairness of the processes through which outcomes are distributed), distributive justice (the perceived fairness of outcomes), and interactional justice (the interpersonal treatment received along with the perceived adequacy and timeliness of information given during the implementation of the procedure) (Colquitt et al., 2001).

Based on the above definition on organizational justice (Whitman et al., 2012), justice for pro-environmental behaviors can be viewed as the organization’s fair treatments toward employees’ pro-environmental contributions. This form of organizational justice can also be composed of the three components: procedural, distributive, and interactional justice for pro-environmental behaviors. Organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors can be expressed in the organization’s procedures in evaluating employees’ pro-environmental contributions in terms of their engagement in environmental practices, contributions of eco-initiatives, and helping others behave pro-environmentally (procedural justice for pro-environmental behaviors). Distributive justice for pro-environmental behaviors alludes to the organizational fairness in rewarding employees’ pro-environmental actions. Interactional justice for pro-environmental behaviors refers to the organization’s encouragement for and empowerment of employees’ viewpoint, voice, and upward communication on organizational environmental issues as well as its feedback on their pro-environmental contributions.

As earlier discussed, the environmentally specific charismatic leader can foster employee OCBE through the activation of employee environmental commitment. Employees’ psychological responses to the leadership are also contingent on contextual factors (e.g., H. Kim & Kim, 2015). Prior research has empirically found the role of procedural justice in moderating the impact of leadership on employee commitment (e.g., Emuwa, 2013). In our study, we focus on environmentally specific forms of organizational justice and expect these justice forms to act as contextual factors to strengthen the relationship between environmentally specific charismatic leader and employee environmental commitment.

Employees can be inspired by the leader’s charisma toward the environmental mission, as well as develop trust in the leader’s commitment to this mission. As per the earlier discussion, employees then will internalize pro-environmental values, redefine their self-identity, and emulate their leader’s environmental commitment and behavior. However, employees are more likely to commit themselves to and internalize pro-environmental values if they perceive the consistency in signals as to environmental issues from the leader and the organizational policies and actions (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) such as organizational justice for the environmental behaviors. On the contrary, they are less inclined to identify with the environmentally specific charismatic leader and act pro-environmentally on behalf of the leader if they do perceive the lack of justice for environmental commitment.

The three forms of organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors—procedural, distributive, and interactional justice—are presumed to influence the nexus between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee environmental commitment. Since interactional justice provides employees with a sense of identity and belonging (Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006; Zhao, Peng, & Chen, 2014), employees may more strongly respond to and identify with environmentally specific charismatic leadership if they perceive interactional justice for pro-environmental behaviors. In contrast, they may identify less with the green leadership if they find that relevant departments in the organization such as R&D display less welcoming attitudes toward their sharing or submission of eco-initiatives.

Moreover, employees may not demonstrate strong environmental commitment as an affective response to the environmentally specific leadership if they perceive unfair or even no appraisals for their OCBE (i.e., lack of procedural justice). Employees may be initially inspired by the leader’s charisma toward the green mission and goals, but then such an inspiration may decline and their green values that have just grown cannot be reinforced or “refrozen” if they find no recognition or rewards for their pro-environmental contributions (i.e., lack of distributive justice). Perceptions that resource investments in pro-environmental actions are justly recompensed by the organization through complementary resources (i.e., distributive justice) have the propensity to further spur employees to commit themselves to pro-environmental goals by investing their resources in the pro-environmental actions (Blau, 1964; Janssen, Lam, & Huang, 2010). Expressed differently, employees’ affective response to environmentally specific charismatic leadership will be stronger if they perceive procedural, distributive, and interactional justice for pro-environmental behaviors.

Furthermore, organizational justice was reported to influence learning motivation among employees (e.g., Kumar, Kumar, Jauhari, & Jauhari, 2016). Employees will thus have higher motivation to learn and absorb green values from the environmentally specific charismatic leader and express environmental commitment when they are working in an environment where employees perceive justice and fairness in evaluating and rewarding their acquisition of pro-environmental values. They also more strongly learn green beliefs and values from the leader and “emulate” his or her environmental commitment when they have opportunities to communicate and share their environmental beliefs and initiatives. In other words, when the organization displays justice for green behaviors in the work environment, employees develop a stronger impulse to learn green values from the environmentally specific charismatic leader and become more environmentally committed from a social learning perspective. As such, all dimensions of organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors can serve as moderators to intensify the effect of environmentally specific charismatic leadership on employee OCBE.

In conjunction with the previous section that discusses the role of employee environment commitment in mediating the nexus between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee OCBE, we can also postulate the positive relationship between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee OCBE via conditional indirect effects including employee environment commitment as a mediator and organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors as moderators. We hence posit the following:

Hypothesis 3_a-c0 (H3_a-c0): Organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors (including procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) does not positively moderate the relationship between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee environmental commitment such that environmentally specific charismatic leadership does not enhance employee environmental commitment when their organization displays high rather than low levels of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice for pro-environmental behaviors.

Hypothesis 3_a-ca (H3_a-ca): Organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors (including procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) positively moderates the relationship between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee environmental commitment such that environmentally specific charismatic leadership enhances employee environmental commitment when their organization displays high rather than low levels of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice for pro-environmental behaviors.

Hypothesis 4₀ (H4₀): Environmentally specific charismatic leadership will be related to employee OCBE not via conditional indirect effects such that the relationship will not be moderated by organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors (including procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) and mediated by employee environmental commitment.

Hypothesis 4_a (H4_a): Environmentally specific charismatic leadership will be related to employee OCBE via conditional indirect effects such that the relationship will be moderated by organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors (including procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) and mediated by employee environmental commitment.

The relationships among the research variables are visualized in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Research Model

Research Methods

Sampling

Forty-two tour companies in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, participated in the current research. Tour companies selected for this research met three criteria: (1) 50 employees as the minimum company size (Nieves & Haller, 2014), (2) a developed green strategy (Hsieh, 2012), and (3) 10 employees as the minimum size of their tour departments. We sought to obtain the support for data collection from each tour company’s chief executive. We then contacted the HR manager to obtain the lists of department members and their contact details.

A two-wave data collection process was implemented. The time lag between the survey waves was intended to alleviate respondent fatigue and reduce the likelihood of common method variance by introducing temporal separation between the collection of independent, mediator, and dependent variables (Newman, Miao, Hofman, & Zhu, 2016).

Prior to the main data collection process, the pilot test was conducted among 30 employees from tour companies different from the participating companies to ensure the relevancy, suitability, and clarity of the research instruments. Respondents provided feedback on the items on “environmentally specific charismatic leadership” and “organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors” scales. Then, we conducted the first-wave survey (T₁) to collate the data on environmentally specific charismatic leadership and organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors from employees. Two months following T₁, we implemented the second-wave survey (T₂) to garner the responses on employee environmental commitment from the participants of the T₁ survey. We also invited the managers to provide the data on employee OCBE.

Following Liao and Chuang’s (2004) data collection process, we telephoned employees and their direct manager in tour departments to invite their participation. We invited only subordinates who had worked under the current manager for at least 1 year (Jiang, 2012; Thatcher, 2001). Using a nonprobabilistic sampling method, survey packages comprising questionnaires and cover letters were delivered to willing participants in the survey (Nadiri & Tanova, 2010). The nonrespondents would receive a follow-up e-mail after 10 days. To match responses from employees with those from their managers as well as match employee responses in T₂ with those in T₁, we code numbered the questionnaires before delivering them.

The T₁ survey engaged 1,315 respondent employees (73.75%). In the T₂ survey, 1,196 employees (67.08%) among those participating in T₁ returned complete responses. The final sample consisting of 974 employee–direct manager dyads was formed after leaving out nonresponse from managers and departments with less than five employees (Addison, Teixeira, Pahnke, & Bellmann, 2017). Employees were nested with 161 direct managers, who were nested within 42 tour companies.

Measures

In light of Schaffer and Riordan’s (2003) back translation procedure, the items of the survey questionnaire were translated into Vietnamese language. The items were based on the “1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree” continuum unless otherwise indicated.

Environmentally Specific Charismatic Leadership

Employees assessed their managers’ environmentally specific charismatic leadership through a 5-point scale (1 = very uncharacteristic to 5 = very characteristic). This scale was built through the adaptation of items from Conger et al.’s (2000) 20-item charismatic leadership scale (α for this original scale = .82).

Employee Environmental Commitment

Eight-item scale constructed by Raineri and Paillé (2016) was utilized to gauge employee environmental commitment (α for the original scale = .90).

Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment

Employee OCBE was examined through a 10-item scale from Boiral and Paillé (2012) (α for this measure was .85; Paillé, Chen, Boiral, & Jin, 2014).

Organizational Justice for Pro-Environmental Behaviors

Procedural organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors (OJPB) and distributive OJPB were assessed through five items and four items from Colquitt (2001), respectively (α values for this original scale = 78 and .92, respectively). Five items adapted from Moorman (1991) were used to gauge interactional OJPB (α for this original scale = .93).

Control Variables

This study controlled for employee age, gender, education, and organizational tenure (years). Besides, due to the influence of employee–supervisor relationship tenure on the accuracy in rating leadership and rating employees’ behavior (Wu & Parker, 2017), this relationship length (the number of years) was controlled.

Results

Since individual-level data were nested within group-level (i.e., tour departments) data, multilevel structural equation model was utilized in our data analysis process. Multilevel structural equation model also serves as a more effective approach to analyzing mediation effects through multiple levels than traditional multilevel analysis approaches (Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010).

Measure Validation

We validated the environmentally specific charismatic leadership scale adapted from Conger et al. (2000) in the following procedure. First, we had interviews with five scholars, including two specializing in leadership and three in green tourism management and chose 12 items from Conger et al.’s scale that could be modified to reflect the leader’s sense of responsibility and attachment to workplace environmental concerns. We then removed lower scored content-overlapped items (Liden et al., 2014) and reduced the scale to six items. We assessed the relevance of these scale items by conducting interviews with a focus group of five members whom we invited from other tour companies than the participating ones. Besides the receipt of favorable views toward the applicability of these scale items, we computed the content validity index (CVI) by asking 30 employees to rate the appropriateness of the scale items. A scale achieves a high CVI when it can reflect the construct it aims to measure through an appropriate sample of items (Sirén, Kohtamäki, & Kuckertz, 2012). Through a 4-point scale (1 = not relevant, 2 = somewhat relevant, 3 = quite relevant, and 4 = highly relevant), respondents were asked to rate each item of environmentally specific charismatic leadership measure for the purpose of computing its CVI. By averaging the percentages of respondents who rated each item as 3 or 4, we computed the CVI or the agreement among raters on the relevance of the items of environmentally specific charismatic leadership scale. Surpassing the recommended benchmark of 0.8 (Sirén et al., 2012), the average CVI of 0.82 indicates the adequacy of this scale in reflecting a leader’s environmentally specific charisma.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then run on the environmentally specific charismatic leadership scale using one half of the sample. EFA was conducted since the items of environmentally specific charismatic leadership scale were adapted from the original scale on charismatic leadership in general. Moreover, the scale was translated into Vietnamese, and we do not believe that the environmentally specific charismatic leadership measure had been applied in Vietnam (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010; Luu & Vo, 2018). One item (Inspirational: able to motivate by articulating effectively the importance of what organizational members are doing for the environment) was removed on account of both low extraction communality (.21) and low factorial saturation (.28) (Hair et al., 2010). The EFA of the final five-item scale was then implemented. The coefficients all surpassed .50. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was .76 (p < .001), lending support for the factorability of the correlation matrix (Hair et al., 2010). One factor with eigenvalue surpassing 1 (eigenvalue = 2.04, accounting for 42.76% of variance) was extracted through the principal axis factoring. All individual factor loadings surpassed .70 (Hair et al., 2010).

Utilizing the other half of the sample, this study also conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on this variable. The single dimensional structure was supported through the CFA results: χ²(81) = 186.24; comparative fit index (CFI) = .97; incremental fit index (IFI) = .97; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05. From Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma’s (2003) view, a good consistency (α=.89) and all item-total correlations exceeding .50 indicate a reliability for the use of this variable as a single-dimensional scale. The final version of the scale comprised five items presented in the appendix.

In addition to the validation of the environmentally specific charismatic leadership scale, we also validated the use of the latent second-order model for OCBE in our study. The latent second-order model for OCBE (χ²/df = 314.28/162 = 1.94; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .96; IFI = .95; CFI = .95; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .051; RMSEA = .047) provides as good an empirical approximation to the data as does its correlated first-order model (χ²/df = 321.57/160 = 2.01; TLI = .95; IFI = .95; CFI = .94; SRMR = .054; RMSEA = .051). Yet the former is more parsimonious (more degrees of freedom) than the latter and the χ² difference test between the two models was nonsignificant (Δχ² = −7.29, Δdf = 2, ns). These results, in consistency with prior research (e.g., Paillé et al., 2014), voiced the support for the use of OCBE as a second-order construct (α for this measure was .85).

Measurement Models

Our research followed Dyer, Hanges, and Hall’s (2005) procedure to estimate the multilevel data structure. Lisrel 8.8 was used to conducted CFAs (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). The hypothesized six-factor model demonstrated an adequate fit with the data through the fit indices (TLI = .96; IFI = .95; CFI = .95) exceeding Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2001) relevant benchmark of .90. Below the .08 cutoff value (Hu & Bentler, 1999), SRMR (= .051) and RMSEA (= .047) indicated tolerable degrees of misfit. In addition, χ²/df = 314.28/162 = 1.94, which was less than 2 (Carmines & McIver, 1981), further reinforced the model fit. The fact that all factor loadings surpassed Gefen and Straub’s (2005) threshold of .60 (t > 1.96) demonstrated convergent validity.

Furthermore, the strong and consistent factor structure was found in the within-group model (χ² = 375.84; df = 162; χ²/df = 375.84/162 = 2.32; TLI = .96; IFI = .94; CFI = .96; SRMR = .053; RMSEA = .046) and the between-group model (χ² = 309.44; df = 162; χ²/df = 309.44/162 = 1.91; TLI = .94; IFI = .92; CFI = .93; SRMR = .061; RMSEA = .064).

The scale reliabilities were assessed via average variance extracted (AVE) and the composite construct reliability coefficients (see Table 1). AVE ranged between .61 (for environmentally specific charismatic leadership) and .74 (for employee OCBE), above Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) cutoff value of .50. Composite reliabilities, ranging from .76 (for interactional OJPB) to .87 (for employee environmental commitment), also surpassed the .70 recommended threshold (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).

Table 1

Correlation Matrix and Average Variance Extracted

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	CCR	AVE
1. Employee age	29.47	5.82	—
2. Employee gender	0.66	0.24	.01	—
3. Employee education	2.31	1.58	.04	.03	—
4. Organizational tenure	7.84	3.72	.05	.07	.03	—
5. Employee–supervisor relationship length	3.76	1.12	.03	.01	.06	.09	—
6. Environmentally specific charismatic leadership	3.38	0.45	.06	.02	.02	.07	.12*	(.78)						.82	.61
7. Employee environmental commitment	3.56	0.49	.11	.07	.13*	.08	.06	.47***	(.83)					.87	.69
8. Employee OCBE	3.49	0.37	.12*	.05	.11	.07	.09	.29**	.41***	(.86)				.84	.74
9. Procedural OJPB	3.38	0.46	.01	.03	.02	.10	.07	.21**	.25*	.24**	(.79)			.81	.62
10. Distributive OJPB	3.36	0.43	.02	.05	.01	.14*	.12*	.18*	.29*	.26**	.22*	(.84)		.79	.71
11. Interactional OJPB	3.24	0.39	.05	.07	.04	.09	.11	.23*	.21*	.19*	.11	.13*	(.81)	.76	.66

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CCR = composite construct reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; OCBE = organizational citizenship behavior for the environment; OJPB = organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors. Values in parentheses display the square root of the average variance extracted. Standardized correlations reported.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Common Method Variance Bias

In light of Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker variable approach, our study incorporated “attitude toward social media usage” as a marker variable into the survey due to its theoretical irrelevance to other variables. The data set did not contain a high common method variance (CMV) risk since partialing out the marker variable did not reduce the significance of all significant zero-order correlations. Moreover, from Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira’s (2010) stance, the interaction effects in the three moderation hypotheses can merely be deflated by CMV rather than being its artifact.

Descriptive Statistics

As presented in the zero-order Pearson correlation matrix (Table 1), environmentally specific charismatic leadership demonstrated a positive association with employee environmental commitment (r = .47, p < .001), which was correlated with employee OCBE (r = .41, p < .001).

Hypothesis Testing

Environmentally specific charismatic leadership, as Table 2 presents, exhibited the significant, positive association with employee OCBE (β = .27, p < .01), which rejected hypothesis H1₀. Additionally, environmentally specific charismatic leadership significantly predicted employee environmental commitment (β = .46, p < .001) (rejecting hypothesis H2_a0), which in turn significantly predicted employee OCBE (β = .38, p < .001) (rejecting hypothesis H2_b0).

Table 2

Findings From the Structural Equation Model

Hypothesis	Description of Path	Path Coefficient (Standardized β)	Conclusion
Step 1 (control)
Employee age		.09
Employee gender		.04
Employee education		.12*
Organizational tenure		.08
Employee–supervisor relationship length		.10
R²		.03
Step 2
H1	Environmentally specific charismatic leadership → employee OCBE	.27**	H1 (+): S
H2a	Environmentally specific charismatic leadership → employee environmental commitment	.46***	H2a (+): S
H2b	Employee environmental commitment → employee OCBE	.38***	H2b (+): S
H3a	Environmentally specific charismatic leadership × procedural OJPB → employee environmental commitment	.21*	H3a (+): S
H3b	Environmentally specific charismatic leadership × distributive OJPB → employee environmental commitment	.24**	H3b (+): S
H3c	Environmentally specific charismatic leadership × interactional OJPB → employee environmental commitment	.19*	H3c (+): S

Note: OCBE = organizational citizenship behavior for the environment; S = supported; OJPB = organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors. Model fit: χ² = 314.28; df = 162; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .96; incremental fit index (IFI) = .95; comparative fit index (CFI) = .95; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .051; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .047.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Simple mediation analysis through SPSS macros for bootstrapping indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) was employed to estimate the indirect effect of environmentally specific charismatic leadership on employee OCBE via employee environmental commitment. The statistical significance of an indirect effect is based on the absence of zero in the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) of the indirect effect (ab) (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). In case of a high level of procedural justice for pro-environmental behaviors, the indirect impact of environmentally specific charismatic leadership on employee OCBE through employee environmental commitment was of significance (ab = .10, CI [.05, .14]) and higher than that when procedural justice for pro-environmental behaviors was low (ab = .06, CI [.03, .11]). Likewise, in case of a high level of distributive justice for pro-environmental behaviors, the indirect impact of environmentally specific charismatic leadership on employee OCBE through employee environmental commitment was of significance (ab = .12, CI [.08, .16]) and higher than that when distributive justice for pro-environmental behaviors was low (ab = .07, CI [.03, .10]). Last, in case of a high level of interactional justice for pro-environmental behaviors, the indirect impact of environmentally specific charismatic leadership on employee OCBE through employee environmental commitment was of significance (ab = .08, CI [.04, .12]) and higher than that when interactional justice for pro-environmental behaviors was low (ab = .03, CI [.01, .06]). These bootstrapping results and path findings as earlier discussed (for H2a₀ and H2b₀) rejected hypothesis H2₀ on the null mediating effect of employee environmental commitment for the link between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee OCBE. These results are in tune with recent findings on the role of commitment in mediating leadership and OCB (Han, Seo, Yoon, & Yoon, 2016; H. Kim, 2014).

The interaction term of environmentally specific charismatic leadership × procedural OJPB was significantly positive (β = .21, p < .05). Following Aiken and West (1991), the interactive effect of environmentally specific charismatic leadership and procedural OJPB was further assessed by estimating the relationship between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee environmental commitment at high and low (one standard deviation above and below the mean) values of procedural OJPB through simple slope tests. As shown in Figure 2, the slope graph unveiled that environmentally specific charismatic leadership augmented employee environmental commitment when procedural OJPB was high versus low (simple slope = .69, p < .05; .11, p < .05, respectively), leading to the rejection of the hypothesis H3a₀.

Figure 2

Moderating Effect of Procedural Organizational Justice for Pro-environmental Behaviors (OJPB)

Likewise, the interaction term of environmentally specific charismatic leadership × distributive OJPB was positively significant (β = .24, p < .01). The slope graph (Figure 3) indicated that environmentally specific charismatic leadership amplified EEC when distributive OJPB was high (simple slope = .78, p < .01) versus low (simple slope = .21, p < .01), which rejected the hypothesis H3b₀.

Figure 3

Moderating Effect of Distributive Organizational Justice for Pro-environmental Behaviors (OJPB)

Moreover, the interaction equation of “environmentally specific charismatic leadership” × “interactional OJPB” was significantly positive (β = .19, p < .05). The slope graph (Figure 4) revealed that environmentally specific charismatic leadership enhanced employee environmental commitment when interactional OJPB was high versus low (simple slope = .54, p < .05; .09, p < .05, respectively), which rejected the hypothesis H3c₀. In conjunction with those that rejected hypothesis H2₀ as earlier discussed, these results rejected the hypothesis H4₀ on the null indirect effect of environmentally specific charismatic leadership on employee OCBE via employee environmental commitment as a mediator and organizational justice types for pro-environmental behaviors as moderators. These results are consistent with recent empirical inquiries that have found the role of justice in moderating the nexus between leadership and OCB (Schulz, 2017) as well as the role of organizational justice as a moderator for the impact of leadership on employee commitment (Emuwa, 2013).

Figure 4

Moderating Effect of Interactional Organizational Justice for Pro-environmental Behaviors (OJPB)

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

The data analysis established the positive relationship between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee OCBE as well as the mediation mechanism of employee environmental commitment underlying such a relationship. Besides, the three dimensions of organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors—procedural, distributive, and interactional justice—were also found to act as moderators for the influence of environmentally specific charismatic leadership on employee environmental commitment.

Our research imparts new insights into mechanisms behind OCBE among employees in tour companies, which contributes to the sustainability of tour companies in particular and the tourism industry in general. First, with the three dimensions—eco-civic engagement, eco-initiatives, and eco-helping—employee OCBE has received more scholarly attention than employees’ engagement in green behaviors alone, since with eco-initiatives employees more proactively behave pro-environmentally and with eco-helping pro-environmental values can spread through the organization, contributing to the organization’s green strategy.

Second, while the literature has witnessed the focus on environmentally specific transformational leadership as a predictive mechanism for employees’ green behavior (e.g., Kura, 2016; Robertson & Barling, 2013), the current research adds to the OCBE research environmentally specific charismatic leadership as an antecedent. Environmentally specific transformational leaders are change agents, who inspire and transform subordinates into change agents of green values (Robertson & Barling, 2013). Differently, environmentally specific charismatic leaders not only inspire employees with the environmental mission but also cultivate pro-environmental change value and collective identity (Banks et al., 2017), which drive employees to function as proactive change agents of eco-initiatives as well as change their colleagues into change agents for the green mission of the tourist organization (eco-helping).

Furthermore, according to Banks et al. (2017), charismatic leadership is mainly investigated in individualistic nations. Walter and Bruch (2009) maintain that the use of a collectivistic view could help obtain a more profound insight into charismatic leadership and its role within collectivistic cultures. Investigating environmentally specific charismatic leadership in a collectivistic cultural context (i.e., Vietnam), our research not only responds to Walter and Bruch’s call but also expands the research stream on the utility of specific leadership behaviors in fostering specific processes and employee behavioral outcomes (Carmeli & Paulus, 2015). Environmentally specific charismatic leadership, which is more closely aligned with cultural collectivism values (Stephan & Pathak, 2016), is more conducive for specific pro-environmental behaviors among employees living and operating in a Vietnamese collectivistic culture. Nonetheless, the investigation into environmentally specific charismatic leadership in a collectivistic context may lead to the limited scope of the theoretical application of our research model. There is hence a need to conduct comparative analyses of the effects of environmentally specific charismatic leadership across collectivistic versus individualistic cultures to expand the generalizability of the current findings.

Third, distinguishing itself from prior research models of pro-environmental behaviors, our research responds to Raineri and Paillé’s (2016) implication for more focus on employee environmental commitment. Our empirical inquiry turns to employee environmental commitment, rather than affective commitment in general, as the mediation mechanism for the positive link between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee OCBE.

Fourth, besides the mediation mechanism of employee environmental commitment in our research model of employee OCBE in the tourism industry, the moderating role of organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors also further extends the research stream on the leadership–OCBE relationship. While organizational justice has been reported as a mediator for the link between leadership and commitment (e.g., Emuwa, 2013), our research can be viewed as among the pioneers in developing and measuring the concept “organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors”, as well as investigating its role as an intensifier for the interconnection between environmentally specific charismatic leadership and employee environmental commitment. Organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors reflects fairness in evaluating and rewarding pro-environmental behaviors (procedural and distributive justice) as well as fair empowerment for employees’ upward communication of their eco-initiatives (interactional justice). These forms of organizational justice therefore further reinforce pro-environmental values that the leader is endeavoring to foster in employees, which further strengthens their environmental commitment.

Fifth, the current research model provides further support for the magnitude of social identity theory and social learning theory in underpinning the relationship between leadership (here, environmentally specific charismatic leadership) and OCB (here, employee OCB for the environment). Social identity perspective elucidates the leadership–OCBE linkage through the impact of the leader’s environmentally specific charisma on employees’ internalization of pro-environmental values, identification with the leader, and in turn engagement in OCBE. Social learning theory, on the other hand, elucidates such a relationship through employees’ observation—that is, learning and modelling of pro-environmental behaviors from their leader as a role model for commitment to the environmental mission and initiatives for green actions.

Last, the current research model of employee OCBE contributes to the green tourism literature. This research model provides tourism practitioners with new levers to promote employee environmental commitment and in turn employee OCBE. These new levers include the predictor “environmentally specific charismatic leadership” and the moderator “organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors”. In addition, we also add the contextual attribute of the research to the green tourism literature. Since Vietnam is the context from which the research derived the data set, the collectivist foundation of Vietnamese culture (Luu, 2011; Sriratanaviriyakul et al., 2017) may facilitate the embedment of community-oriented values in employees that the environmentally specific charismatic leader fosters. Although Vietnamese tourist destinations have been suffering from antienvironmental actions of both local and foreign tourists (e.g., Becker, 2015), the leader with environmentally specific charisma can activate pro-environmental value and collectivistic value in tourism employees and transform them into environmental activists inside the tour company as well as in the tourism industry.

Furthermore, albeit Vietnam has been implementing the environmental law (Luu, 2017b), like other developing economics, but sustainable practices are not strongly compulsory (Gössling, 2000; Song et al., 2018). This hence further demonstrates the magnitude of environmentally specific charismatic leadership in fostering pro-environmental attitudes, perceptions, and green behavior-induced attributions among employees in Vietnam-based tourism organizations. The differences between Vietnam and other business contexts in terms of sustainable practices further suggest comparative analyses of our research models in Vietnamese versus other markets.

Practical Implications

To attain its pro-environmental goals and transform itself into a green tour company, contributing to sustainable tourism, a tour company needs to pay profound attention to the cultivation of OCBE among employees. When employees develop OCBE, they can contribute to the greening of tourist destinations by engaging themselves in eco-tour designing, contributing eco-initiatives to the green strategy and eco-tour designs, as well as helping colleagues contribute to the sustainability of the tour company (Boiral & Paillé, 2012). Consequently, environmentally specific charismatic leadership should be built in leaders at all tiers of the tour company. Managers should be trained to develop inspirational persuasion skills so as to translate the green strategy into pro-environmental tactics and action plans in an inspirational fashion. They should also demonstrate their commitment to the green strategy of the tour company, and role model pro-environmental behaviors to build employees’ commitment to the green strategy and their green values, with which employees will develop OCBE and transform themselves into green change agents in the tour company.

Furthermore, besides the development of environmentally specific charismatic leadership, the tour company should further leverage employee environmental commitment and in turn their OCBE by engendering justice for pro-environmental behaviors. Procedures, which deal with employees’ pro-environmental contributions such as the welcoming and processing of eco-initiatives or appraising pro-environmental behaviors, must be conducted without prejudice. In addition to procedural justice, employees’ pro-environmental behaviors should be timely recognized and fairly rewarded (distributive justice for pro-environmental behaviors). For instance, a tour guide who successfully immerses tourists in a funny tree planting game with elephants, instead of elephant riding, should receive an e-mail of recognition from the leader at least at the end of the highland eco-tour. Moreover, employees of the tour company should have chances to communicate and interact upward with managers of related departments to submit eco-initiatives (interactional justice for pro-environmental behaviors). The tour company should also organize workshops for green champions to share with their colleagues their success in designing ecotours and implementing eco activities with tourists.

Limitations and Future Research Paths

Future research paths may emerge from some limitations of our study. Some current research variables should be reestimated via more objective yardsticks than perceptual measures in the retesting of the current research model. Employee OCBE can be appraised via an individual performance measure (Luu, 2014). Furthermore, to grasp the perceived differences in environmentally specific charismatic leadership and organizational justice for pro-environmental behaviors among employees and managers, future research should collect data for these variables from both groups of participants. CMV risk, in addition, may occur in the self-reported data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). Nonetheless, utilizing the multisource data (i.e., managers and employees), the interaction effect tests, and the marker variable test, this study reduced the threat of CMV.

Further research should be conducted on cross-cultural comparative analysis of the effects of environmentally specific charismatic leadership on employee OCBE. Besides, future research should consider other organizational antecedents and other moderated mediation mechanisms for the dependent variable “employee OCBE.” The role of other leadership styles such as environmentally specific servant leadership in fostering employee OCBE should be examined. Future empirical studies should also delve into other organizational moderators such as organizational support for pro-environmental behaviors or green HR management practices that may interact with leadership to nurture OCBE among employees. Green culture that may contribute to green commitment (Kucukusta, Guillet, & Chan, 2016) may also serve as an organizational moderator to fortify the impact of leadership on employees’ environmental commitment. Dumont et al. (2017) also called for more inquiries for individual moderators in employee green behavior models. Since employees who are high in conscientiousness and moral reflectiveness may have propensity to behave pro-environmentally (A. Kim et al., 2017), these attributes can serve as individual moderators that interact with leadership to shape employee OCBE.

Footnotes

Appendix

Luu Trong Tuan, PhD (e-mail: luutrongtuan@gmail.com), is a senior lecturer at Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.

References

Addison

J. T.

Teixeira

Pahnke

Bellmann

(2017). The demise of a model? The state of collective bargaining and worker representation in Germany. Economic & Industrial Democracy, 38, 193-234.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ames

R. T.

Hershock

P. D.

(2016). Introduction to special issue commemorating the establishment of The World Consortium for Research in Confucian Cultures. International Communication of Chinese Culture, 3, 543-547.

Antonakis

Bastardoz

Jacquart

Shamir

(2016). Charisma: An ill-defined and ill-measured gift. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 293-319.

Avolio

B. J.

Yammarino

F. J.

(2013). Reflections, closing thoughts, and future directions. In Avolio

B. J.

Yammarino

F. J.

(Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead 10th anniversary edition (pp. 449-470). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.

Babakus

Yavas

Karatepe

O. M.

Avci

(2003). The effect of management commitment to service quality on employees’ affective and performance outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 272-286.

Babcock-Roberson

M. E.

Strickland

O. J.

(2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Psychology, 144, 313-326.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 178-204.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1988). On the evaluation for structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.

10.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

11.

Banks

G. C.

Engemann

K. N.

Williams

C. E.

Gooty

McCauley

K. D.

Medaugh

M. R.

(2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 28, 508-529.

12.

Becker

(2015, July 17). The revolt against tourism. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/opinion/sunday/the-revolt-against-tourism.html?_r=0

13.

Bilgin

Kuzey

Torlak

Uyar

(2015). An investigation of antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior in the Turkish hospitality industry: A structural equation approach. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9, 200-222.

14.

Blau

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

15.

Boiral

Paillé

(2012). Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 431-446.

16.

Bowen

D. E.

Ostroff

(2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203-221.

17.

Brown

M. E.

Treviño

L. K.

(2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954-962.

18.

Carmeli

Paulus

P. B.

(2015). CEO ideational facilitation leadership and team creativity: The mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Creative Behavior, 49, 53-75.

19.

Carmines

McIver

(1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In Bohrnstedt

Borgatta

(Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65-115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

20.

Carter

M. Z.

Mossholder

K. W.

Feild

H. S.

Armenakis

A. A.

(2014). Transformational leadership, interactional justice, and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of racial and gender dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates. Group & Organization Management, 39, 691-719.

21.

Choi

(2006). A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13, 24-43.

22.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

23.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

Menon

S. T.

(2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767.

24.

Daily

B. F.

Bishop

J. W.

Govindarajulu

(2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business & Society, 48, 243-256.

25.

De Groot

J. I.

Steg

. (2010). Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 368-378.

26.

Dumont

Shen

Deng

(2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, 56, 613-627.

27.

Dyer

N. G.

Hanges

P. J.

Hall

R. J.

(2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149-167.

28.

Emuwa

(2013). Authentic leadership: Commitment to supervisor, follower empowerment, and procedural justice climate. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6, 45-65.

29.

Erdogan

Bauer

T. N.

Taylor

(2015). Management commitment to the ecological environment and employees: Implications for employee attitudes and citizenship behaviors. Human Relations, 68, 1669-1691.

30.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

31.

Gebert

Heinitz

Buengeler

(2016). Leaders’ charismatic leadership and followers’ commitment: The moderating dynamics of value erosion at the societal level. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 98-108.

32.

Gefen

Straub

D. W.

(2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 91-109.

33.

Gössling

(2000). Sustainable tourism development in developing countries: Some aspects of energy use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8, 410-425.

34.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

35.

Han

S. H.

Seo

Yoon

S. W.

Yoon

D. Y.

(2016). Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing: Mediating roles of employee’s empowerment, commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28, 130-149.

36.

Hanges

P. J.

Aiken

J. R.

Park

(2016). Cross-cultural leadership: Leading around the world. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 64-69.

37.

Hsieh

Y. C.

(2012). Hotel companies’ environmental policies and practices: A content analysis of their web pages. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24, 97-121.

38.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

39.

Irawanto

D. W.

(2009). An analysis of national culture and leadership practices in Indonesia. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(2), 41-48.

40.

Jang

Y. J.

Zheng

Bosselman

(2017). Top managers’ environmental values, leadership, and stakeholder engagement in promoting environmental sustainability in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 63(4), 101-111.

41.

Janssen

Lam

C. K.

Huang

(2010). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The moderating roles of distributive justice and positive affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 787-809.

42.

Jiang

(2012). A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives. Public Relations Review, 38, 231-245.

43.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(2006). LISREL for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

44.

Kim

Han

Jackson

S. E.

Ployhart

R. E.

(2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43, 1335-1358.

45.

Kim

(2014). Transformational leadership, organizational clan culture, organizational affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: A case of South Korea’s public sector. Public Organization Review, 14, 397-417.

46.

Kim

(2015). A cross-level study of transformational leadership and organizational affective commitment in the Korean local governments: Mediating role of procedural justice and moderating role of culture types based on competing values framework. Leadership, 11, 158-185.

47.

Kim

S. H.

Kim

Han

H. S.

Holland

(2016). The determinants of hospitality employees’ pro-environmental behaviors: The moderating role of generational differences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 56-67.

48.

Kucukusta

Guillet

B. D.

Chan

H. L.

(2016). The effect of CSR practices on employee affective commitment in the airline industry. Journal of China Tourism Research, 12, 451-469.

49.

Kumar

Jauhari

(2016). Employee participation and turnover intention: Exploring the explanatory roles of organizational justice and learning goal satisfaction. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28, 496-509.

50.

Kura

K. M.

(2016). Linking environmentally specific transformational leadership and environmental concern to green behaviour at work. Global Business Review, 17(3 Suppl.), 1S-14S.

51.

Leonidou

L. C.

Coudounaris

D. N.

Kvasova

Christodoulides

(2015). Drivers and outcomes of green tourist attitudes and behavior: Sociodemographic moderating effects. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 635-650.

52.

Liao

Chuang

(2004). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 41-58.

53.

Liden

R. C.

Wayne

S. J.

Liao

Meuser

J. D.

(2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1434-1452.

54.

Lindell

M. K.

Whitney

D. J.

(2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114-121.

55.

Luu

T. T.

(2011). Matching and stretching learners’ learning styles. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2, 285-294.

56.

Luu

T. T.

(2014). From corporate governance to balanced performance measurement. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12, 12-28.

57.

Luu

T. T.

(2017a). Activating tourists’ citizenship behavior for the environment: The roles of CSR and frontline employees’ citizenship behavior for the environment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26, 1178-1203.

58.

Luu

T. T.

(2017b). CSR and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in hotel industry: The moderating roles of corporate entrepreneurship and employee attachment style. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29, 2867-2900.

59.

Luu

T. T.

(2017c). Discretionary HR practices and proactive work behaviour: The mediation role of affective commitment and the moderation roles of PSM and abusive supervision. Public Management Review, 20, 789-823.

60.

Luu

T. T.

(2018). Charismatic leadership and public service recovery performance. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36, 108-123.

61.

Mayer

D. M.

Aquino

Greenbaum

R. L.

Kuenzi

(2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151-171.

62.

McShane

Cunningham

(2012). To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 81-100.

63.

Montabon

Morrow

P. C.

Cantor

D. E.

(2016). Promoting environmental citizenship behavior. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 10, 63-88.

64.

Moorman

R. H.

(1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.

65.

Morrow

Mowatt

(2015). The implementation of authentic sustainable strategies: i-SITE middle managers, employees and the delivery of 100% pure New Zealand. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 656-666.

66.

Nadiri

Tanova

(2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 33-41.

67.

Netemeyer

Bearden

Sharma

(2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

68.

Newman

Miao

Hofman

P. S.

Zhu

C. J.

(2016). The impact of socially responsible human resource management on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of organizational identification. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, 440-455.

69.

Nguyen

T. N.

Lobo

Greenland

(2017). The influence of Vietnamese consumers’ altruistic values on their purchase of energy efficient appliances. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 29, 759-777.

70.

Nieves

Haller

(2014). Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources. Tourism Management, 40, 224-232.

71.

Norton

T. A.

Zacher

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2014). Organisational sustainability policies and employee green behaviour: The mediating role of work climate perceptions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38(2), 49-54.

72.

Olkkonen

M. E.

Lipponen

(2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202-215.

73.

Paillé

Boiral

(2013). Pro-environmental behavior at work: Construct validity and determinants. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36(4), 118-128.

74.

Paillé

Chen

Boiral

Jin

(2014). The impact of human resource management on environmental performance: An employee-level study. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 451-466.

75.

Pillai

Meindl

J. R.

(1998). Context and charisma: A “meso” level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24, 643-671.

76.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.

77.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

78.

Preacher

K. J.

Zyphur

M. J.

Zhang

(2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233.

79.

Raineri

Paillé

(2016). Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 129-148.

80.

Rast

D. E.

III Hogg

M. A.

Giessner

S. R.

(2016). Who trusts charismatic leaders who champion change? The role of group identification, membership centrality, and self-uncertainty. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 259-275.

81.

Rezapouraghdam

Alipour

Darvishmotevali

(2017). Employee workplace spirituality and pro-environmental behavior in the hotel industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26, 740-758.

82.

Robertson

J. L.

Barling

(2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 176-194.

83.

Schaffer

B. S.

Riordan

C. M.

(2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 169-215.

84.

Schulz

K. M.

(2017). The moderating effect of perceived job mobility and procedural justice on the transformational leadership–organizational citizenship behavior relationship. (Unpublished master’s thesis). San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.

85.

Siemsen

Roth

Oliveira

(2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476.

86.

Sirén

C. A.

Kohtamäki

Kuckertz

(2012). Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6, 18-41.

87.

Song

Hou

Zhang

O’Connor

. . . Liu

(2018). Environmental and socio-economic sustainability appraisal of contaminated land remediation strategies: A case study at a mega-site in China. Science of the Total Environment, 610, 391-401.

88.

Sosik

J. J.

(2001). Self-other agreement on charismatic leadership: Relationships with work attitudes and managerial performance. Group & Organization Management, 26, 484-511.

89.

Sriratanaviriyakul

Nkhoma

Felipe

A. L.

Cao

T. K.

Tran

Q. H.

Epworth

. . . Le

Q. H.

(2017). ASEAN users’ privacy concerns and security in using online social networks. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics, 9, 84-99.

90.

Srivastava

A. P.

Dhar

R. L.

(2016). Impact of leader member exchange, human resource management practices and psychological empowerment on extra role performances: The mediating role of organisational commitment. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65, 351-377.

91.

Stephan

Pathak

(2016). Beyond cultural values? Cultural leadership ideals and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 505-523.

92.

Svendsen

Joensson

T. S.

(2016). Transformational leadership and change related voice behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37, 357-368.

93.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

94.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

95.

Thatcher

S. M. B.

(2001, January). The mediating role of identity fit: Understanding the relationship between communication media, demographic differences, and creativity. Paper presented at the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.

96.

Vlachos

P. A.

Panagopoulos

N. G.

Rapp

A. A.

(2013). Feeling good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 577-588.

97.

Waldman

D. A.

De Luque

M. S.

Washburn

House

R. J.

Adetoun

Barrasa

. . . Dorfman

(2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 823-837.

98.

Walter

Bruch

(2009). An affective events model of charismatic leadership behavior: A review, theoretical integration, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 35, 1428-1452.

99.

Whitman

D. S.

Caleo

Carpenter

N. C.

Horner

M. T.

Bernerth

J. B.

(2012). Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 776-791.

100.

C. H.

Parker

S. K.

(2017). The role of leader support in facilitating proactive work behavior: A perspective from attachment theory. Journal of Management, 43, 1025-1049.

101.

Xenikou

(2014). The cognitive and affective components of organisational identification: The role of perceived support values and charismatic leadership. Applied Psychology, 63, 567-588.

102.

Yaffe

Kark

(2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 806-826.

103.

Yukl

(2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

104.

Zhang

Chen

C. C.

(2013). Developmental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating effects of self-determination, supervisor identification, and organizational identification. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 534-543.

105.

Zhao

Peng

Chen

H. K.

(2014). Compulsory citizenship behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of organizational identification and perceived interactional justice. The Journal of Psychology, 148, 177-196.