Employee workplace spirituality and pro ...

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Employee workplace spirituality and proenvironmental behavior in the hotel industry Hamed Rezapouraghdam, Habib Alipour & Mahlagha Darvishmotevali To cite this article: Hamed Rezapouraghdam, Habib Alipour & Mahlagha Darvishmotevali (2017): Employee workplace spirituality and pro-environmental behavior in the hotel industry, Journal of Sustainable Tourism To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1409229

Published online: 19 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20 Download by: [Dogu Akdeniz University]

Date: 19 December 2017, At: 03:28

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1409229

Employee workplace spirituality and pro-environmental behavior in the hotel industry Hamed Rezapouraghdama, Habib Alipoura and Mahlagha Darvishmotevalib

Downloaded by [Dogu Akdeniz University] at 03:28 19 December 2017

a Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkey; bSchool of Tourism and Hotel management, Near East University, Nicosia, Turkey

ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

Pro-environmental behaviors in the workplace are less investigated than those in the public and private spheres. With this in mind, and through the values framework of workplace spirituality (WPS), synthesizing the theories of connectedness and organizational citizenship, the current study proposed a theoretical model to gauge the influence of WPS, a relatively new area of inquiry in organizational research and a neglected field in tourism and hospitality, on hotel employees’ organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE). In this framework, the emerging concept of connectedness to nature (CNS) – a strong cognitive and affective predictor of pro-environmental behavior – was depicted as a mediator, and the construct of environmental awareness (EA) was deemed a moderator. The intended model received support through empirical testing, and results confirmed that WPS is significantly associated with employees’ OCBE, and CNS indirectly affects the relationship between WPS and OCBE, while EA functions as a booster. The theoretical and practical implications of the study were discussed, and a series of contributory managerial implications were described accordingly.

Received 5 December 2016 Accepted 20 October 2017 KEYWORDS

Workplace spirituality; connectedness to nature; organizational citizenship behavior for the environment; environmental awareness; hotel industry

The willingness to sustain nature derives as much from moral and spiritual inspiration as from any calculated materialism and regulatory mandate. (Kellert, 2012, p. 57)

Introduction Notwithstanding the abundance of research observing the motivational factors underlying people’s participation in pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) in public and private settings (Ozaki, 2011; Steg, Bolderdijk, Keizer, & Perlaviciute, 2014; Tudor, 2011), there is still room for further exploration of employees’ engagement in PEB in the workplace (Ruepert et al., 2016; Temminck, Mearns, & Fruhen, 2015). Substantial changes to human behavior are required to address the deteriorating ecological environment (Boeve-de Pauw & Van Petegem, 2017). Previous research drawing on self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000) asserts that, as opposed to extrinsically motivated persons, individuals with intrinsic motivations have a greater tendency to engage in PEB and to act accordingly (Osbaldiston & Sheldon, 2003; Pelletier, Tuson, Green–Demers, Noels, & Beaton, 1998). Other studies also indicate that less tangible motivations are more significant drivers of individuals’ PEB than tangible ones (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001; Zibarras & Ballinger, 2011), especially when PEBs are non-obligatory (De Groot & Steg, 2009). It is, therefore, feasible to focus on employees’ PEB through the lens of CONTACT Hamed Rezapouraghdam

[email protected]

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group


2

H. REZAPOURAGHDAM ET AL.

organizational citizenship behavior, spirituality and connectedness to nature theories, an under-theorized perspective in tourism and hospitality. Based on the theoretical debates, WPS contributes effectively to individuals’ sustainable behavior through affecting their higher order spiritual needs (Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009). It has been suggested that WPS intrinsically motivates people to protect nature by giving them inner purpose in life and helping them think about nature, which energizes them to make the world a better place for both current and future generations (Afsar, Badir, & Kiani, 2016). The rationality of the effect of WPS on individuals’ PEB is also compelling based on the argument of Steg et al. (2014); according to goal framing theory (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007), they emphasize situational cues and signals to remind individuals what is important in life and thus strengthen the normative considerations and value-congruent actions. Connectedness to nature, on the other hand, has been acknowledged and asserted to be a vital remedy for the world’s environmental crisis, and some scholars believe that “the root of environmental problems is the human sense of disconnection from nature” (Hirsh & Dolderman, 2007, p. 1586). As declared by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “to pursue sustainability is to create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations” (EPA, 2015). Scholars have argued that the development of a sense of harmony and connection to nature is an indispensable step toward sustainability (Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, 2009). As Boiral and Paill e (2012) stated, corporate environmental policies typically make general requests for the employees’ engagement and stewardship. In other words, “such behavior is often requested but not demanded from employees” (Chou, 2014, p. 437). Since sustainability and PEB are mostly voluntary in the workplace, as in this study, they can be classified as organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE; Temminck et al., 2015; Zientara & Zamojska, in press). Additionally, when the external factors such as incentives are not dominant, it is the internal motivation that can energize the employees to act in an environmentally friendly way (Darner, 2009). This paper explores the impact of WPS on employees’ OCBEs through the mediating role of CNS in hotels in North Cyprus, a small Mediterranean island. Hotels generate substantial environmental impacts (Singh, Cranage, & Lee, 2014), especially in sensitive island destinations that are attractive for their natural scenery and tranquility. The aim is to synthesize the previous experiments on WPS and CNS into a comprehensive model that explains the psychological processes that promote employees’ sustainable behavior at work. Although adopting green organizational practices is important, the role of individual employees is equally significant (Lamm, Tosti-Kharas, & King, 2015); implementation will be impossible without their active participation (Jenkin, Webster, & McShane, 2011). Notwithstanding the growing attention to OCBE, more research is required to understand factors motivating employees to engage in such behaviors. This article contributes to both the theory and the literature of sustainable tourism, workplace environmental behaviors, workplace spirituality (WPS) and connectedness to nature in several ways. First, this article investigates the factors that drive hotel employees’ intentions to participate in green practices, which are highly important to the success of environmental programs (Chan, Hon, Chan, & Okumus, 2014). It also extends the limited literature on employees’ motivation related to sustainability behaviors and PEB (Kim, Kim, Han, & Holland, 2016). Second, this paper adds to the knowledge about hospitality employees’ PEB, an area that requires further attention (Daily, Bishop, & Govindarajulu, 2009). Third, it explores the impact of spiritual motives on individuals’ association in OCBE, which has received little attention. Fourth, in spite of the widespread discussions about the role of WPS in organizational management literature (Bell & Taylor, 2004; Driver, 2005), there are only four studies in tourism and hospitality literature that have empirically extended this significant variable (Ayoun, Rowe, & Yassine, 2015; Crawford et al., 2009; Gatling, Kim, & Milliman, 2016; Ming-Chia, 2012). Moreover, spirituality is an under-researched phenomenon in the tourism context (Jepson & Sharpley, 2015). Fifth, connectedness to nature, which has recently attracted considerable attention in environmental psychology literature as a determinant of PEBs, needs more investigation in

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

3

organizational settings (Huffman & Klein, 2013). Finally, there is no empirical study in tourism that measures the impact of WPS on employees’ OCBE, and this study is aimed to accomplish that objective.

Theoretical background and hypotheses


Environmental discourses in the hotel industry Due to the continuous environmental problems hotels face, the industry struggles to decrease the level of environmental threats and become more environmentally friendly (Jones, Hillier, & Comfort, 2014). As the industry seeks to overcome environmental problems, it is important that its employees participate actively in PEB (Boiral, 2009). The importance of employees’ PEB in hospitality and tourism is more acute because of the sector’s reliance on the attractiveness of the natural environment (Kim et al., 2016). In the face of increasing environmental concerns, this industry has an obligation to establish strategies that integrate ecological ingenuity with a company’s bottom line (Van Vugt, 2009). PEBs in the tourism and hospitality industry, however, have received little attention (Daily et al., 2009), and the tools used to promote environmentally friendly behavior among the employees in tourism and hospitality have been reported to be less effective (Cialdini, 2007). North Cyprus is a small Mediterranean island, and thus its economy is tightly interwoven with the tourism industry. Although limited, the unspoiled natural scenery of this destination makes it an attractive target for travelers, specifically for European tourists. In the meantime, the future of the tourism industry there is being threatened by the decline in the quality of the man-made and natural environments (Bramwell, 2004). The rapidly growing accommodation sector in North Cyprus represents an enormous share – not only in the island’s gross domestic product (GDP), but also in its energy and water consumption and waste production. Research has revealed that the majority of five-star hotels in North Cyprus have recently started to adopt and implement environmental policies and green organizational strategies (Safshekan, 2014). It is, therefore, crucial that the hotels’ employees engage in green organizational behavior. The hotel industry faces a number of challenges in encouraging such behavior. First, the behavior of employees in the workplace is different from their behavior at home (Carrico & Riemer, 2011). Furthermore, Leondakis (2009) revealed that a majority of hotel employees are uninterested in environmental behavior. There is skepticism that hotel staff will be keen to engage in PEB as many such behaviors are considered extra work (Chan et al., 2014). On this ground, PEB in the workplace, which is known as OCBE (Boiral & Paill e, 2012; Zientara & Zamojska, in press), is also considered an unorthodox strategy. Because OCBE involves the prosocial dimension of the workplace, it is challenging for managers to motivate their employees to perform such behaviors through traditional approaches (Paille & Boiral, 2013). SDT proposes that individuals can be motivated to behave at various levels of motivation. An extensive body of literature has examined the implications of behavior during an activity when motivated either intrinsically or extrinsically (Lavergne, Sharp, Pelletier, & Holtby, 2010). Mainly, the research guided by SDT (see Deci & Ryan, 2002, for reviews) has manifested that the quality and maintenance of the behaviors are linked to what extent they have been provoked by intrinsic or extrinsic motivations (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Osbaldiston & Sheldon, 2003). In sum, research has suggested that the intrinsic and self-determined motivations are vital elements for the promotion of the PEB (Lavergne et al., 2010). Intrinsic aspirations are not only associated with psychological well-being and sense of meaning and purpose (Ryan and Spash, 2008) but also to the prosocial and other-centeredness value orientations (Weinstein, Przybylski, & Ryan, 2009). In contrast, Brown and Kasser (2005) opined that people embracing the extrinsic goal of materialism had more environmental footprints. While the PEB can be motivated by extrinsic goals such as incentives and status, these behaviors seem to be more affected by intrinsic motivations like satisfying the psychological needs or


4


Figure 1. The conceptual model.

connectedness and harmony with others and the nature (Hedlund-de Witt, De Boer, & Boersema, 2014) when they are discretionary and do not lead to rewards and punishments. In this vision, invoking spirituality at work through promoting the employees’ sense of social connection, membership and transcendence motivates them intrinsically to strive for the social good out of concern for future generations (Afsar et al., 2016). Previous studies have found that spirituality is a very strong motivator for people to engage in prosocial and volunteer work (Nash & Stewart, 2002), and the stronger the spirituality factor in individuals, the more altruistic and citizenship behavior they exhibit (Amin Mohamed, Wisnieski, Askar, & Syed, 2004). Given the non-obligatory nature of OCBE, it is vital for organizations to know how to motivate employees to participate in activities that go beyond their normal work duties (Ramus & Killmer, 2007). Scholars believe that the combination of organizational and individual factors influence these behaviors (Raineri & Paille, 2016). Considering spirituality as a universal motivator in the workplace (Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013; Thompson, 2001) and OCBE as an untouched research area upon which to focus, this study proposes and tests a model (Figure 1) that explains employees’ environmental citizenship behavior in the workplace.

Workplace spirituality and employees’ pro-environmental behaviors “Spirituality and sustainability are vitally interlinked and that there is no sustainability without spirituality” (Dhiman & Marques, 2016, p. 3). The employee’s experience of spirituality in the workplace is called workplace spirituality (Pawar, 2009). This concept refers to an employee-friendly work setting that cultivates and supports the spirit of the employees (Pandey, Gupta, & Arora, 2009). A moralistic and spiritual perspective encourages and motivates people to protect and conserve nature (Kellert, 2012). WPS “is about feeling connected with and having compassion toward others, experiencing mindful inner consciousness in the pursuit of meaningful work and that enables transcendence” (Petchsawang & Duchon, 2009, p. 461). WPS enhances employees’ self-transcendence values (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003) and motivates them to participate in activities that care for others and environment – a state that the value basis theory of Schwartz (1994) also asserts. WPS develops the sense of unity and connectedness among employees (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). This sense of community motivates employees to demonstrate prosocial behaviors and care for others at work and makes them go beyond their own responsibilities to perform citizenship behavior (Boyd & Nowell, 2014). Empirical studies have suggested that employees with a high sense of WPS are bound to exhibit OCB (Paul, Dutta, & Saha, 2016). Nash and Stewart (2002) state that spirituality is a strong motivator and a life-giving energy that spurs individuals to participate in volunteering for social work and acting for the social good and the welfare of others and the community.


5


Many studies have asserted that the activation of concepts related to spirituality positively affects people’s prosocial attitudes and behavior (Wierzbicki & Zawadzka, 2016). Stead and Stead (2014) believed that sustainability has roots in spirituality. The literature also includes many references that affirm the relationship between spirituality and environmentally sustainable behavior. For example, Pandey and Gupta (2008) explained that WPS is about finding harmony between one’s self, the comka (2014) found a meaningful correlation munity and the natural environment. Csutora and Zso between people’s spirituality, on the one hand, and their environmental concerns and the sustainability of their lifestyles, on the other. Furthermore, WPS nourishes the spirits of employees in diverse ways and makes them think about the well-being of society and the environment (Fairholm, 1996). Since OCBE is derived from OCB (Boiral & Paill e, 2012; Daily et al., 2009), and given the positive relationship between WPS and OCB (Kazemipour, Mohamad Amin, & Pourseidi, 2012; Rastgar, Zarei, Davoudi, & Fartash, 2012), it is quite plausible to assume the following: H1: There is a positive relationship between workplace spirituality and employees’ OCBE.

Workplace spirituality and connectedness to nature Many scholars advocate that disconnection and self-centeredness are crucial factors of humans’ irresponsible behaviors toward nature and the environment (Hinds & Sparks, 2008). Consequently, the idea that reconnecting individuals with nature may help mitigate environmental problems is widely gaining popularity (Tam, 2013). Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico, and Khazian (2004) argued that humans’ initial beliefs about the extent to which they constitute an integral part of nature help formulate their attitudes and concerns. Mayer and Frantz (2004) called this integration “connectedness to nature”. Hedlund-de Witt et al. (2014) argued that recognizing intrinsic meaning, value and consciousness makes people feel connected to nature. Pandey and Gupta (2008) described spirituality as the “harmony with self, with social and natural environment” (p. 70). Until now, various approaches have postulated the origins of the human–environment nexus. Stern’s (2000) value–belief–norm theory argues that three dimensions of value orientation – egoistic, altruistic and biospheric – determine how individuals perceive environmental issues and act pro-environmentally as a response to moral norms. Canda (2008) argued that “one of the key qualities of spirituality as an aspect is the theme of seeking integration, integrity, and connectedness” (p. 28). WPS refers to an inner life that nourishes a sense of transcendence in employees and facilitates their sense of connectedness to others based on the values of altruistic love (Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013). The sense of community and membership created by WPS “expands beyond humanity towards a sense of membership in the community of all living things” (Fry & Nisiewicz, 2013, p. 145). For organizations to meet the challenges of the new century, they should ideally advocate for spirituality within their managerial procedures (Pruzan & Mikkelsen, 2007). Many studies have suggested that the realms of spirituality comprise the entirety of the universe and nature. For instance, as stated by Driscoll and McKee (2007), “connectedness” is the key feature of the initial steps that organizations may take toward spirituality. This “connectedness”, as emphasized by Mitroff (2003), is acknowledged to comprise union with the whole universe. It has been argued that the realm of WPS is not limited to the interconnectedness of human beings (Pavlovich & Corner, 2009), but rather extends to the wider environment and all forms of life (e.g. nature, the earth, animals; Drivers, 2007). Marques (2007) postulated that spirituality is a transcendent experience that helps us to reach beyond ourselves. Many scholars have pointed to the sense of transcendence as one of the main outcomes of spirituality that employees can achieve at spiritual workplaces (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Marques, 2007; Pandey & Gupta, 2008). Accordingly, it can be hypothesized that: H2: There is a positive relationship between workplace spirituality and employees’ sense of connectedness to nature.

6



Connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior The prosocial effects of CNS on nature have been explicitly demonstrated in the literature (Zelenski, Dopko, & Capaldi, 2015). Previous studies have found that CNS is positively related to humanitarianism (Nisbet, Zelenski, & Murphy, 2009), kindness (Leary, Tipsord, & Tate, 2008), empathic concern (Zhang, Piff, Iyer, Koleva, & Keltner, 2014), altruistic concern and concern for the future (i.e. sustainability; Schultz, 2001). Based on the eco-psychology theory (Bragg, 1996; Wilson, 1996), a broad spiritual interconnection with the environment assists individuals in developing more sustainable lifestyles. Connectedness to nature was also found to affect citizenship behavior, such as petitioning for environmental concerns (Gosling & Williams, 2010). Raymond, Brown, and Robinson (2011) stated that the environmental concerns of those who consider themselves part of nature and connected with others emanate from a desire to avoid the consequences of complacency. Individuals temper their tendencies to harm nature when they perceive a fundamental connection and kinship to other aspects of creation (Kellert, 2012). Mayer, Duval, Holtz, and Bowman (1985) used the helping model to argue that the sense of connectedness is necessary between individuals and the target of the help. Mayer and Frantz (2004) indicated that if people, themselves, feel connected to the natural environment, they will try not to harm it. Previous studies have found a positive relationship between CNS and PEB (Geng, Xu, Ye, Zhou, & Zhou, 2015; Mayer et al., 2009). Studies have also suggested that the spiritual connection of people with nature can be a substantial factor in explaining individuals’ sustainable behaviors (Dutcher, Finley, Luloff, & Johnson, 2007; Stokols, 2004). Other scholars emphasized that the prerequisite of environmental protection might be an individual’s sense of belonging to the natural community (Fisher, 2002; Roszak, 1992). It is argued that people’s focus on their own “selves” instead of on the “community” and “others” is the root cause of environmental problems (Hinds & Sparks, 2008; Kidner, 2001). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed: H3: Employees’ connectedness to nature is positively related to their OCBE.

CNS as a mediator In previous studies, scholars have considered connectedness to nature as a mediator between anthropomorphism and PEB by relying on the logic that anthropomorphism enhances the social connection with nature and highlights the similarity between humans and nature (Tam, 2013). In this regard, Hedlund-de Witt et al. (2014) found that CNS serves as a mediator between contemporary spirituality – one type of worldview – and sustainable lifestyles of people. In parallel with SDT, they proposed that people who perceive an intrinsic dimension of meaning, value or consciousness to reality feel more connected to nature and tend to act more prosocially and pro-environmentally. In a recent psychopharmacological study, Forstmann and Sagioglou (2017) found that nature relatedness (i.e. connectedness) mediates the relationship between lifetime experience with psychedelics (through changing self-construal, increase of self-awareness, decrease of egoism, and blurring the boundaries between self and environment) and people’s PEB. In accordance, connectedness to nature has also been found to have a mediating role between mindfulness and individuals’ PEB (Barbaro & Pickett, 2016). Mindfulness, which refers to acting with awareness (Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004), has also been mentioned in a variety of studies as one of the main dimensions of WPS (Petchsawang & Duchon, 2009). Scholars assert that mindfulness is the heightened awareness of experiences (Brown & Ryan, 2003). In this regard, Skamp (1991) stated that spirituality is “an awareness within individuals of a sense of connectedness that exists between inner selves and the world” (p. 80). The relationship between WPS, connectedness to nature and PEB is well-supported by objective self-awareness theory, value basis theory, the theory of inclusion of self in nature and self-construal theory (Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Schultz, 2001; Schwartz, 1994). The more employees experience spirituality at workplace, the better they will achieve self-transcendence. This


7

will help them feel a sense of harmony and connection with nature. The following hypothesis can, therefore, be made: H4: Connectedness with nature mediates the relationship between workplace spirituality and OCBE.


Moderation by environmental awareness Finally, the authors tested one potentially important moderator of WPS, environmental awareness (EA). Qu, Liu, Nayak, and Li (2015) defined EA as the concern and the knowledge people have about anthropogenic influences on the environment and climate. Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) argued that “because of the non-immediacy of ecological destruction, emotional involvement requires a certain degree of environmental knowledge and awareness” (p. 254). Notwithstanding the evidence that the WPS can lead to OCBE, according to its definition, WPS leaves employees with considerable latitude. The interaction of EA with WPS is likely to strengthen this relationship and increase employees’ participation in environmentally friendly behaviors (Afsar et al., 2016). The social–psychological model of Stern, Dietz, and Kalof (1993), which was originally based on Schwartz’s (1977) norm activation model (NAM), also assumes that for individuals to exhibit altruistic behavior, it is essential that they have awareness about the results of performing or not performing a behavior in terms of social harm. Indeed, based on the NAM, some researchers agree that treating EA as a moderator rather than the direct effect plays a better role in the activation process of behaving prosocially (De Groot & Steg, 2009; Han, Hwang, Kim, & Jung, 2015; Han, Kim, & Kiatkawsin, 2017; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999; Schultz & Zelezny, 1998; Schwartz, 1977; Steg & De Groot, 2010; Vining & Ebreo, 1992). Afsar et al. (2016) proved that the interaction of individuals’ senses of responsibility and concern about the results of their activities (i.e. EA) with their senses of community membership and meaningfulness in life (i.e. WPS) can activate their moral obligations and result in PEB. Moreover, numerous studies have indicated that when employees are aware of environmental problems, they are more likely to exhibit eco-friendly behaviors (Crossman, 2011; Zilahy, 2004). Finally, Schultz and his colleagues, referring to NAM, argue that an altruistic behavior is more likely to occur if the actor is aware of the potential harm to the valued other, and then they finalize that “the relationship between values and behavior is moderated by awareness of harmful consequences and ascription of responsibility” (2005, p. 460). We, therefore, hypothesize the following: H5: Environmental awareness strengthens the relationship between workplace spirituality and OCBE. The conceptual model and the hypothesis of the study are presented in Figure 1.

Methodology Sample and data collection Data were collected through judgmental sampling from upscale (i.e. five-star) hotels located in different parts of North Cyprus. The reason for this selection was that, according to the literature, larger, more upscale hotels have a higher propensity to engage in environmental practices compared to the smaller ones (Chan, 2011; Smerecnik & Andersen, 2011). Moreover, a recent study on North Cyprus hotels (Safshekan, 2014) revealed that only five-star hotels are involved in green environmental practices. In the initial phase of the empirical study in 2016, the research team contacted management of all upscale hotels through a letter which explained the objectives of the study and requested permission for data collection. Out of 15 five-star hotels, 12 agreed to participate in the research. In total, 600 questionnaires were administered to the hotel employees. A total of 387 responses were returned, out of which 7 were unusable. Consequently, 380 questionnaires were used for further analysis – a response rate of 63.3%. The demographic information of the respondents indicates that the sample

8



was 52.6% male and that 39.5% of respondents were between 30 and 35 years of age. Of the respondents, 53.7% had obtained a first university degree. As for job tenure, 42.6% of the respondents had one to five years of experience with their hotels. In order to avoid common method variance, a number of procedural remedies were applied before the data collection. First, the demographic information was added at the end of the questionnaires. Second, the order of the questions was counterbalanced, and the confidentiality of the respondents was guaranteed. Moreover, to come up with the same source problem issue, employees’ OCBE was rated by their immediate supervisors, and the rest of the questions were answered by the employees (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The managers’ and employees’ questionnaires were coded to allow the matching of the surveys and the linking of employees to their immediate supervisors (Karatepe, 2016).

Measures WPS was measured by 21 items from Milliman, Czaplewski, and Ferguson (2003). Sample items included the following: “I feel part of a community”; and “My work is connected to what I think is important in life.” Employees’ CNS was measured by six items from Gosling and Williams (2010). Sample items included the following: “I often feel that I am a part of nature.” OCBE was measured by seven items adopted from Boiral and Paille (2012). A sample item from the scale was “This employee volunteers for projects, endeavors or events that address environmental issues in this organization.” EA was measured by four items from Han and Yoon (2015) and Ryan and Spash (2008). A sample item from the scale was the following: “The effects of pollution on public health are worse than we realize.” All constructs were measured by a five-point Likert scale. Prior to the main survey, a pilot study had been conducted with 15 employees in different hotel departments (i.e. food and beverage, kitchen, accounting, housekeeping, and front line) and their 3 immediate supervisors to make sure that there was no ambiguity in understanding the formerly back-translated questions (McGorry, 2000) and to ensure the clarity and precision of the hypotheses. The pilot study gave the researchers clarity and confidence to proceed with the main study.

Findings Measurement model and descriptive statistics A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) using LISREL 8.54 was conducted to test the factorial validity of the measurements. The researchers first defined a four-factor base model (M0), where in (F1) WPS, (F2) CNS, (F3) EA, and (F4) OCBE were considered individually as single factors. Then, the proposed model (M0) was compared with several substitute models (M1, M2 and M3). The result in Table 1 shows that the four-factor model (M0) based on CFA has an acceptable fit to the data (x2 = 2279.40, df = 659; x2/df = 3.46; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.97; relative fit index [RFI] = 0.96; normed fit index [NFI] = 0.96; incremental fit index [IFI] = 0.97; root-mean-square residual [RMR] = 0.04, and root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.08). The Cronbach’s alphas (a) of all Table 1. Results of model comparisons using a CFA approach. df Models Descriptions x2 Four-factor F1: WPS; F2: CNS 2279.40 659 Model (M0) F3: EA; F4: OCBE Three-factor F1: WPS and EA; F2: CNS 3812.94 662 Model (M1) F3: OCBE Two-factor F1: WPS, EA and CNS 5722.00 682 Model (M2) F2: OCBE One-factor F1: WPS, EA, CNS and OCBE 9491.25 692 Model (M3)

Dx2

Ddf

MC

CFI 0.97

NFI 0.96

IFI 0.97

1533.54

3

M0 and M1

0.93

0.94

0.11

3442.60

23

M0 and M2

0.91

0.92

0.15

7211.85

33

M0 and M3

0.87

0.88

0.19

Note: All models (M1, M2 and M3) compared with the four-factor model (M0).

RMSEA 0.08


9

constructs exceeded the cutoff value of 0.70, indicating the constructs had internal consistency. Convergent validity was evaluated by observing the composite reliability (CR) and average varianceextracted (AVE). Table 2 shows the CR values for all four constructs ranged from 0.94 to 0.98, which is greater than the minimum threshold value of 0.70, and AVE values ranged from 0.70 to 0.83, exceeding the acceptable value of 0.50. Table 2 depicts standardized loadings, AVE and CR for all constructs.


Table 2. Factor analysis results. Items Workplace spiritually (Milliman et al., 2003) WPS1 I experience joy in work WPS2 My spirit is energized by work WPS3 My work is connected to what I think is important in life WPS4 I look forward to coming to work WPS5 I see a connection between work and social good WPS6 I understand what gives my work personal meaning WPS7 Working cooperatively with others is valued WPS8 I feel part of a community WPS9 I believe people support each other WPS10 I feel free to express my opinions WPS11 I think employees are linked with a common purpose WPS12 I believe employees genuinely care about each other WPS13 I feel there is a sense of being a part of a family WPS14 I feel positive about the values of the organization WPS15 My organization is concerned about the poor WPS16 My organization cares about all its employee WPS17 My organization has a conscience WPS18 I feel connected with the organization’s goals WPS19 My organization is concerned about health of employees WPS20 I feel connected with the mission of the organization WPS21 My organization cares about whether my spirit is energized Connectedness to nature (Gosling & Williams, 2010) CNS1 I often feel that I am a part of nature CNS2 I often feel close to the natural world around me CNS3 I never feel a personal bond with things in my natural surroundings like trees, wildlife or the view on the horizon CNS4 I often feel disconnected from nature CNS5 My own welfare is linked to the welfare of the natural world CNS6 I recognize and appreciate the intelligence of other living things Environmental awareness (Han & Yoon, 2015) EA1 The effects of pollution on public health are worse than we realize EA2 Over the next several decades, thousands of species will become extinct EA3 Claims that current levels of pollution are changing earth’s climate are exaggerated EA4 Environmental protection will provide a better world for me and my children Organization citizenship for the environment (Boiral & Paille, 2012) OCBE1 This employee encourages co-workers to adopt more environmentally conscious behavior OCBE2 This employee spontaneously gives time to help colleagues take the environment into account in everything they do at work. OCBE3 This employee actively participates in environmental events organized in and/or by this hotel. OCBE4 This employee suggests new practices that could improve the environmental performance of this hotel. OCBE5 This employee volunteers for projects, endeavors or events that address environmental issues in the hotel. OCBE6 This employee weighs the consequences of actions before doing something that could affect the environment. OCBE7 This employee voluntarily carries out environmental actions and initiatives in daily work activities.

Standardized loadings

Ca AVE CR .98 .70 .98

.84 .83 .84 .82 .85 .92 .81 .88 .82 .85 .91 .85 .84 .83 .84 .83 .83 .83 .81 .83 .84 .94 .72 .94 .83 .89 .82 .82 .90 .82 .97 .83 .95 .93 .89 .90 .92 .94 .71 .94 .83 .82 .81 .92 .83 .83 .82

Notes: All loadings are significant at the 0.01 level. AVE: average variance extracted; CR: composite reliability.

10


Table 3. The result of assessment of the structural model. GFI AGFI Model x2/df Initial 1.54 1.00 0.98

NFI 0.99

NNFI 0.99

RFI 0.97

RMR 0.08

RMSEA 0.04


GFI: goodness-of-fit- index; AGFI: adjusted goodness of fit index; NFI: normed fit index; NNFI: non-normed fit index; RFI: relative fit index; RMR: root-mean-square residual; RMSEA: root-mean-square error of approximation. Table 4. Means, SD and intercorrelations. Variables M SD 1 1. Age 2.54 1.02 1.00 2. Gender 1.53 0.50 ¡.06 3. Tenure 2.64 0.92 .79 4. Education 3.80 0.73 .02 5. WPS 4.27 0.64 .12 6. CNS 3.41 0.86 .10 7. EA 4.05 1 .11 .09 8. OCBE 4.14 0.71 .17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1.00 ¡.12 ¡.10 .03 ¡.11 .11 ¡.01

1.00 .00 .12 .14 .02 .17

1.00 .16 .18 ¡ .03 .14

1.00 .15 .22 .40

1.00 .10 .19

1.00 .25

1.00

P < .001, P < .01, P< .05, P < .10 (two-tailed test). Note: Composite scores for each variable were computed by averaging respective item scores.

Next, discriminant validity was assessed by determining whether the square root of every AVE value belonging to each construct is much larger than any correlation among any pair of latent constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The results showed that the square roots of AVE belonging to WPS (0.84), CNS (0.85), AE (0.91) and OCBE (0.84) were greater than the correlation among any pair of constructs. A set of fit indices was used to test the structural model (see Table 3). The results showed that the hypothesized four-factor structural model, including WPS, CNS, EA, and OCBE, fit the data well (x2 = 1.54, df = 1; x2/df = 1.54; GFI = 1.00; AGFI = 0.98; NFI = 0.99; RFI = 0.97; RMR = 0.08; and RMSEA = 0.04). The structural model tested the mediating role of CNS, as well as the moderating impact of EA on the relationship between WPS and OCBE. The means (M), standard deviations (SD) and intercorrelations among research variables have been presented in Table 4. WPS correlated significantly with education (r = .16, p < .01), CNS (r = .15, p < .01), EA (r = .22, p < .001) and OCBE (r = .40, p < .001).

Hypothesis test results The researchers employed SPSS 22 to test the study hypotheses (Zhang et al., 2014). Hypotheses H1 and H2 proposed that WPS would be positively related to employees’ OCBE and CNS, respectively. As shown in Table 4, there is a significant positive relationship between WPS and OCBE (r = 0.40, p < .001), and also CNS (r = 15, p < .01), thus supporting H1 and H2. H3 proposed that employees’ CNS is positively related to their OCBE. The result shows that there is a significant positive relationship between CNS and OCBE (r = 0.19, p < .001), thus supporting H3. The findings regarding the indirect effect of WPS on OCBE via CNS is summarized in Table 5. As mentioned before, H2 proposed CNS as a partial mediator of the impact of WPS on OCBE. Following Baron and Kenney’s (1986) model, in the analysis predicting CNS: age, tenure and education were entered in step 1 and WPS in step 2. For predicting OCBE, age was entered in step 1, WPS in step 2 and CNS in step 3. The results showed that when CNS (b = 0.11, p < .05) was entered in the analysis, the magnitude of the WPS impact (b = 0.36, p < .001) on OCBE decreased but remained significant. The findings showed, therefore, that CNS partially mediated the impact of WPS on OCBE, supporting H4. Table 6 shows the results of a multiple moderated regression analysis to test H5, which proposed the interactive impacts of WPS and EA on OCBE. Once again, following Baron and Kenney’s (1986) model, the first control variable was entered into the analysis; in the second step, WPS was entered along with the EA to predict OCBE. Then, in step 3, the interaction terms of WPS and EA were entered.


Table 5. Regression results: direct and indirect effects. Connectedness to nature Variables b t b t Step 1 Age ¡.02 ¡.30 ¡.03 ¡.39 3.66 .16 3.27 Education .18 1.88 .15 1.79 Tenure .15 Step 2 Workplace spiritually

.12


Step 3 Connectedness to nature F R2 at each step DR2

6.84 .05

b

Organization citizenship for the environment t b t b t

.09 .14 .09

1.16 2.77 1.13

2.26

6.46 .06 .01

11

.07 .08 .07

.97 1.70 .91

.07 .06 .05

.96 1.32 .71

.37

7.84

.36

7.57

6.74 .05

21.24 .19 .14

.11

2.20 18.14 .20 .01

P < .001, P < .01, P < .05, P < .10 (two-tailed test). Note: The result of variance inflation factor (VIF) did not show any problem of multicollinearity.

Table 6. Regression results: moderating effects. Variables Step 1 Age Education Tenure

b

t

.09 .14 .09

1.16 2.77 1.13

Step 2 Workplace spiritually Environmental awareness Step 3 WPS EA F R2 at each step DR2

7.75 .05

Organization citizenship for the environment b t b .03 .09 .10

2.48 1.98 1.29

.33 .18

6.94 3.76

20.42 .21 .16

.03 .09 .11 .03 ¡.41 .72

t .35 1.86 1.47 4.06 ¡1.44 2.10 17.91 .22 .01

P < .001, P < .01, P < .05, P < .10 (two-tailed test). Note: The result of variance inflation factor (VIF) did not show any problem of multicollinearity.

The results in Table 6 show the positive relationship of WPS (b = 0.33, p < .001), EA (b = 0.18, p < .001), with OCBE. The analysis shows that the joint effects of WPS £ EA (b = 0.72, p < .05) on OCBE are significant, suggesting that EA increases the positive impact of WPS on OCBE. In addition, the researchers plotted the WPS £ EA interactions at two levels of EA (e.g. +1 SD, ¡1 SD; Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006) and conducted a simple slope test to test the nature of the interaction. The interaction is graphically displayed in Figure 2. The result shows that EA augments the positive impact of WPS on OCBE. H5 was, therefore, supported.

Discussion In response to the environmental pressures and laws from the market and also the ever-growing global ecological problems, it is crucial for the industry to understand the psychological mechanisms through which hotel employees can be motivated to engage in PEBs at their workplaces. Although the “demanded” sustainable behaviors of employees in hotels can be activated by external motivations, it is the intrinsic motivations that undeniably play a larger role in persuading employees’ “requested” and discretionary PEBs in hotels. This study examined the effects of WPS on employees’ OCBE and the indirect effect of CNS on the relationship between WPS and OCBE. The results of the study indicated that WPS was positively correlated with greater engagement in OCBE. The findings


12


Figure 2. Interactive effect of workplace spirituality and environmental awareness.

also supported the mediating and indirect effects of CNS on the relationship between WPS and OCBE. That is, the employees who reported the experience of higher spirituality at work exhibited more engagement in OCBE in the hotels. In fact, the results of this study affirmed that satisfying the spiritual needs of employees at workplaces and their experiences of spirituality, combined with their sense of connectedness to nature, provides a condition that enhances their tendency to exhibit citizenship behaviors in favor of the environment at their workplaces. The findings of this study are in line with rhetorical experiments (Dutcher et al., 2007), which alluded to the significant role of spirituality in motivating people to participate in environmental stewardship. Furthermore, in line with SDT of Ryan and Spash (2008), the current study also asserted that the intrinsic aspirations are linked to more prosocial and other-focused behaviors. As a result of this increased connection, which is associated with individuals’ PEB (e.g. Davis, Green, & Reed, 2009; Gosling & Williams, 2010; Hoot & Friedman, 2011; Zylstra, Knight, Esler, & Le Grange, 2014). This study contributes to the literature of sustainable organizational behavior by describing workplace conditions through which OCBE can be fostered. The employees who can align their spiritual selves with their organizations are more likely to display OCBE. This study responds to the call of Zylstra et al. (2014) for the promotion of the con€nsson, nectedness with nature in theory and practice as a precursor for PEB and to the call of Beery, Jo and Elmberg (2015) for more empirical studies demonstrating human–environment connectedness and the importance of PEB for a sustainable future. The results further suggest that CNS plays a partially mediating role in the association of WPS and OCBE. Specifically, the employees who experience spirituality at work transcend their senses of self to the whole of nature and, therefore, try to protect the environment through sustainable behavior. The buffering role of EA in the relationship between WPS and employees’ OCBE, however, should be considered as well.

Theoretical implications The proposed framework and reported outcomes add to the extant tourism and hospitality research in various ways. More concretely, the first strength of our study is that it concerns engagement of spirituality and environmental issues in tourism literature and enhances current knowledge by investigating the antecedents of OCBE. This discourse can make tangible contributions to sustainability in tourism organizations. As spirituality is a universal phenomenon and engages every individual regardless of religion or nationality, the adoption of strategies to disseminate spirituality throughout workplaces will be a game changer (Afsar et al., 2016). However, as Weaver and Jin (2016) pointed out, epistemologically emotional and spiritual discourses have been marginalized in tourism research. The second strength of this study relates to the underlying mechanism that explains employees’ aspirations to engage in sustainable behavior at workplaces. While this study, to the best of our


13


knowledge, is the first to test and report this specific pathway, the data pattern fits well within theoretical accounts of how WPS and CNS might influence employee participation in sustainable behavior at work. We suggest that spirituality in the workplace can be a catalyst for organizations to achieve the ever-growing global demand for greening organizations. Developing spirituality in the workplace enables individuals to expand their consciousness to see the world free of constraints and to enrich their human relationships (Howard, 2002). Burkhardt (1989) stated that spirituality brings meaning in life and allows one to transcend beyond the present context. A sense of transcendence is a powerful reason for employees to consider future generations, which is in line with the notion of sustainability: the belief that humans share a common future and should consider the benefits of future generations (EPA, 2015). The current study adds to the emerging body of research contributing to PEB in work settings (Andersson, Shivarajan, & Blau, 2005; Boiral & Paill e, 2012; Paill e& Boiral, 2013).

Practical implications The current study proposes a number of practical implications for both hoteliers and managers who wish to encourage their employees’ participation in PEB. Since the findings indicate that WPS affects the sustainability of employees’ behavior, it is important for organizations to foster such a climate among employees (Rego & Pina e Cunha, 2008). Lee, Lovelace, and Manz (2014) stated that WPS can be facilitated through respect, humanism and integrity within organizations. Treating hotel employees accordingly can, therefore, provide a spiritual climate in the workplace that motivates employees to aim toward self-transcendence, to go beyond their own selves and their own tasks, to care for the environment, and to align themselves with the organization’s values. As OCBE of the employees at work is discretionary, WPS was found to be a strong predictor tool through which the managers can indirectly encourage their employees to participate in such activities. In other words, managers should note that promotion of such behaviors can be achieved by strengthening intrinsic motivation; thus, they should consider that utilizing only external motivations are not instructive for the promotion of the behaviors that are mainly explained by intrinsic drivers. With regard to the impact of WPS on the employees’ environmental behavior, however, the role of environmental awareness should not be underestimated. The results of the study assert that EA moderated the relationships among ^ t the main constructs, a finding that is also in line with previous studies (e.g. Perron, Co e, & Duffy, 2006). Providing employees with suitable environmental training is, therefore, crucial to cultivating their awareness and knowledge and enhancing their engagement in environmental behaviors (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Chan et al., 2014). The other important finding of this study that has a practical implication for hoteliers is the partially mediating role of CNS. This is in line with the models of helping and coping (Duval, Duval, & Neely, 1979), which suggest that a sense of connection is the basis upon which helping behavior will occur. Research has shown that when individuals feel themselves closer and connected to the subject in need of help, their tendency to act surges (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991). As CNS increases, so does the intention to help and empathize (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). This principle is in line with the value-based hierarchy models of the PEB, which alludes to the value orientation one has toward other humans and nature (Schultz, 2000). Since the feeling of connectedness to nature takes time to form (Geng et al., 2015), managers should consider this point when recruiting employees. For the current staff, however, the managers may also use strategies for continuously facilitating their contact with nature or natural elements. Especially with the employees from divisions where there is limited direct contact with nature, the managers can use a number of mechanisms to expose them to nature continuously. Scholars have demonstrated that changes in feelings and ideas about the human-nature relationship are possible (Feral, 1998; Kaplan, 1995), and environmental experience and education can increase one’s sense of connectedness to nature (Nisbet et al., 2009).

14



Limitations and future research The findings of the present research should be interpreted in the context of its limitations. First, due to the cross-sectional nature of data, this study was unable to establish causality. Second, the limited number of participants in this study restricts the generalizability of these results. The partially mediating role of CNS identified in this study indicates that other factors may contribute to the effect of WPS and OCBE; future research can identify these factors, since contextual effects and cultural differences may affect individuals’ attitudes and behavior toward environmental issues (M€ uller, Kals, & Pansa, 2009). The study was conducted in a small island state where people continuously are in direct contact with nature; the findings of this study should, therefore, be treated cautiously, and future studies may replicate the proposed model in other settings. Collado, Corraliza, Staats, and Ruiz (2015) found that the direct contact of individuals with nature is a valid tool to increase their PEB; however, the type of contact with nature and its frequency are also determining factors. We, therefore, suggest these elements should be considered for future research. This study did not differentiate between the emotional and cognitional connectedness discussed by Perrin and Benassi (2009); therefore, it is suggested that future research consider embedding these variables in the model to measure separately the influences of each of these conditions on employees’ OCBE. On a closing note, future research can work on the antecedents of WPS and their contributions to the organizations’ sustainability.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors Hamed Rezapouraghdam is a PhD research assistant at the faculty of tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus. He got his MS degree in tourism management. His research interests include sustainable and critical tourism studies. He also holds a BA degree from Isfahan University. E-mail: [email protected] Habib Alipour is a professor of tourism policy and planning at the Eastern Mediterranean University, Faculty of Tourism in Famagusta, North Cyprus. He completed his MS degree in urban and regional planning and his PhD degree in urban studies, with a focus on policy analysis. His research interests include sustainable development, tourism planning, institutional analysis and environmental impact assessment. E-mail: [email protected] Mahlagha Darvishmotevali is a full-time lecturer at the School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus. She completed her PhD degree in tourism management with a focus on organizational behavior and human resource management in hotel industry. E-mail: [email protected]

References Afsar, B., Badir, Y., & Kiani, U. S. (2016). Linking spiritual leadership and employee pro-environmental behavior: The influence of workplace spirituality, intrinsic motivation, and environmental passion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 79–88. Amin Mohamed, A., Wisnieski, J., Askar, & Syed. (2004). Towards a theory of spirituality in the workplace. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 14(1/2), 102–107. Andersson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: A test of an adapted valuebelief-norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 295–305. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.



15

Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134–145. Ayoun, B., Rowe, L., & Yassine, F. (2015). Is workplace spirituality associated with business ethics? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(5), 938–957. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills. Assessment, 11(3), 191–206. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736. Barbaro, N., & Pickett, S. M. (2016). Mindfully green: Examining the effect of connectedness to nature on the relationship between mindfulness and engagement in pro-environmental behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 137–142. 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), 1173–1182. Beery, T., J€ onsson, K. I., & Elmberg, J. (2015). From environmental connectedness to sustainable futures: Topophilia and human affiliation with Nature. Sustainability, 7(7), 8837–8854. Bell, E., & Taylor, S. (2004). From outward bound to inward bound’: The prophetic voices and discursive practices of spiritual management development. Human Relations, 57(4), 439–466. Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). Because my friends insist or because it makes sense? Adolescents’ motivation towards the environment. Sustainability, 9(5), 750. Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 221–236. Boiral, O., & Paill e, P. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 431–446. Boyd, N. M., & Nowell, B. (2014). Psychological sense of community: A new construct for the field of management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(2), 107–122. Bragg, A. E. (1996). Towards ecological self: Deep ecology meets constructionist self-theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 93–108. Bramwell, B. (Ed.). (2004). Coastal mass tourism: Diversification and sustainable development in Southern Europe (Vol. 12). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Brown, K. W., & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74(2), 349–368. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. Burkhardt, M. A. (1989). Spirituality: An analysis of the concept. Holistic Nursing Practice, 3(3), 69–77. Canda, E. R. (2008). Spiritual connections in social work: Boundary violations and transcendence. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 27(1–2), 25–40. Carrico, A. R., & Riemer, M. (2011). Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of grouplevel feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 1–13. Chalofsky, N., & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 189–203. Chan, E. S., Hon, A. H., Chan, W., & Okumus, F. (2014). What drives employees’ intentions to implement green practices in hotels? The role of knowledge, awareness, concern and ecological behaviour. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 20–28. Chan, E. S. W. (2011). Implementing environmental management systems in small and medium-sized hotels: Obstacles. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(1), 323. Chou, C. J. (2014). Hotels’ environmental policies and employee personal environmental beliefs: Interactions and outcomes. Tourism Management, 40, 436–446. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Collado, S., Corraliza, J. A., Staats, H., & Ruiz, M. (2015). Effect of frequency and mode of contact with nature on children’s self-reported ecological behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 65–73. Crawford, A., Hubbard, S. S., Lonis-Shumate, S. R., & O’Neill, M. (2008). Workplace spirituality and employee attitudes within the lodging environment. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 8(1), 64–81. Crossman, J. (2011). Environmental and spiritual leadership: Tracing the synergies from an organizational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 553–565. (2014). May spirituality lead to reduced ecological footprint? Conceptual framework and empiriCsutora, M., & Zs oka, A. cal analysis. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 10(1), 88–105. Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Bus Society, 48(2), 243–256. Darner, R. (2009). Self-determination theory as a guide to fostering environmental motivation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 39–49.


16


Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 173–180. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(1), 14. De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425–449. Dhiman, S., & Marques, J. (2016). Spirituality and sustainability. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Driscoll, C., & McKee, M. (2007). Restorying a culture of ethical and spiritual values: A role for leader storytelling. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(2), 205–217. Driver, M. (2005). From empty speech to full speech? Reconceptualizing spirituality in organizations based on a psychoanalytically-grounded understanding of the self. Human Relations, 5(9), 1091–1110. Driver, M. (2007). Meaning and suffering in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(5), 611–632. Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39, 474–493. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York, NY: Academic Press. Duval, T. S., Duval, V. H., & Neely, R. (1979). Self-focus, felt responsibility, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1769–1778. Fairholm, G. W. (1996). Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling whole-self needs at work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(5), 11–17. Feral, C. H. (1998). The connectedness model and optimal development: Is ecopsychology the answer to emotional wellbeing? The Humanistic Psychologist, 26(1–3), 243–274. Fisher, A. (2002). Radical ecopsychology: Psychology in the service of life. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39–50. Forstmann, M., & Sagioglou, C. (2017). Lifetime experience with (classic) psychedelics predicts pro-environmental behavior through an increase in nature relatedness. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 31(8), 975–988. Fry, L., & Nisiewicz, M. (2013). Maximizing the triple bottom line through spiritual leadership. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Gatling, A., Kim, J., & Milliman, J. (2016). The relationship between workplace spirituality and hospitality supervisors’ work attitudes: A self-determination theory perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(3), 471–489. Geng, L., Xu, J., Ye, L., Zhou, W., & Zhou, K. (2015). Connections with nature and environmental behaviors. PloS One, 10(5), e0127247. Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. New York, NY: Sharpe. Gosling, E., & Williams, K. J. (2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: Testing connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 298–304. Han, H., Hwang, J., Kim, J., & Jung, H. (2015). Guests’ pro-environmental decision-making process: Broadening the norm activation framework in a lodging context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47, 96–107. Han, H., Kim, W., & Kiatkawsin, K. (2017). Emerging youth tourism: Fostering young travelers’ conservation intentions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(7), 905–918. Han, H., & Yoon, H. J. (2015). Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention: Impact of key constructs on decision in green consumerism. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 45, 22–33. Hedlund-de Witt, A., De Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2014). Exploring inner and outer worlds: A quantitative study of worldviews, environmental attitudes, and sustainable lifestyles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 40–54. Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 109–120. Hirsh, J. B., & Dolderman, D. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1583–1593. Hoot, R. E., & Friedman, H. (2011). Connectedness and environmental behavior: Sense of interconnectedness and proenvironmental behavior. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 30, 89–100. Howard, S. (2002). A spiritual perspective on learning in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 230–242. Huffman, A. H., & Klein, S. R. (2013). Green organizations: Driving change with IO psychology. New York, NY: Psychology Press/Routledge. Jenkin, T. A., Webster, J., & McShane, L. (2011). An agenda for ‘Green’ information technology and systems research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 17–40. Jepson, D., & Sharpley, R. (2015). More than sense of place? Exploring the emotional dimension of rural tourism experiences. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(8–9), 1157–1178.



17

Jones, P., Hillier, D., & Comfort, D. (2014). Sustainability in the global hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26, 5–17. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182. Karatepe, O. M. (2016). Does job embeddedness mediate the effects of coworker and family support on creative performance? An empirical study in the hotel industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(2), 119–132. Kazemipour, F., Mohamad Amin, S., & Pourseidi, B. (2012). Relationship between workplace spirituality and organizational citizenship behavior among nurses through mediation of affective organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44(3), 302–310. Kellert, S. R. (2012). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kidner, D. W. (2001). Nature and psyche. Albany: State University of New York Press. Kim, S. H., Kim, M., Han, H. S., & Holland, S. (2016). The determinants of hospitality employees’ pro-environmental behaviors: The moderating role of generational differences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 56–67. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to proenvironmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260. Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J., & King, C. E. (2015). Empowering employee sustainability: Perceived organizational support toward the environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 207–220. Lavergne, K. J., Sharp, E. C., Pelletier, L. G., & Holtby, A. (2010). The role of perceived government style in the facilitation of self-determined and non-self-determined motivation for pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 169–177. Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M., & Tate, E. B. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the social and natural worlds into one’s sense of self. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of a quiet ego. Washington, DC: APA Books. Lee, S., Lovelace, K. J., & Manz, C. C. (2014). Serving with spirit: An integrative model of workplace spirituality within service organizations. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 11(1), 45–64. Leondakis, N. (2009, August). The green room. Association Meetings, 35. Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117–137. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224. Marques, J. F. (2007). The reciprocity between spirituality in the workplace and thinking outside the box. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 2(3), 93–117. Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. P. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515. Mayer, F. S., Duval, T. S., Holtz, R., & Bowman, C. (1985). Self-focus, helping request salience, felt-responsibility, and helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 133–144. Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and behavior, 41(5), 607–643. McGorry, S. Y. (2000). Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: Survey translation issues. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 74–81. Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. J., & Ferguson, J. (2003). Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: An exploratory empirical assessment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(4), 426–447. Ming-Chia, C. (2012). The influence of workplace spirituality on motivations for earnings management: A study in Taiwan’s hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism, 3(1), 1–11. Mitroff, I. I. (2003). Do not promote religion under the guise of spirituality. Organization, 10(2), 375–382. M€ uller, M. M., Kals, E., & Pansa, R. (2009). Adolescents’ emotional affinity toward nature: A cross-societal study. Journal of Developmental Processes, 4(1), 59–69. Nash, M., & Stewart, B. (2002). Spirituality and social care: Contributing to personal and community well-being. London: Jessica Kingsley. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740. Osbaldiston, R., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Promoting internalized motivation for environmentally responsible behavior: A prospective study of environmental goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(4), 349–357. Ozaki, R. (2011). Adopting sustainable innovation: What makes consumers sign up to green electricity? Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(1), 1–17. Paille, P., & Boiral, O. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior at work: Construct validity and determinants. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 118–128. Pandey, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2008). Spirituality in management a review of contemporary and traditional thoughts and agenda for research. Global Business Review, 9(1), 65–83.


18


Pandey, A., Gupta, R. K., & Arora, A. P. (2009). Spiritual climate of business organizations and its impact on customers’ experience. Journal of business ethics, 88(2), 313–332. Paul, M., Dutta, A., & Saha, P. (2016). Improving organizational effectiveness through workplace spirituality and organizational citizenship behaviour: A conceptual review. In Globsyn management conference 2015 (Vol. 1, p. 79). New Delhi: Allied Publishers. Pavlovich, K., & Doyle Corner, P. (2009). Spiritual organizations and connectedness: The Living Nature experience. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 6(3), 209–229. Pawar, B. S. (2009). Workplace spirituality facilitation: A comprehensive model. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3), 375–386. Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green Demers, I., Noels, K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Why are you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 437–468. Perrin, J. L., & Benassi, V. A. (2009). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 434–440. Perron, G. M., C^ ot e, R. P., & Duffy, J. F. (2006). Improving environmental awareness train-ing in business. The Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(6–7), 551–562. Petchsawang, P., & Duchon, D. (2009). Measuring workplace spirituality in an Asian context. Human Resource Development International, 12(4), 459–468. 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), 879–903. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. Pruzan, P., & Mikkelsen, K. (2007). Leading from a spiritual basis. Asian Management Review, 2(1), 104–112. Qu, Y., Liu, Y., Nayak, R. R., & Li, M. (2015). Sustainable development of eco-industrial parks in China: Effects of managers’ environmental awareness on the relationships between practice and performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 328–338. Raineri, N., & Paill e, P. (2016). Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 129–148. Ramus, C. A., & Killmer, A. B. (2007). Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviours – a conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 554–570. Rastgar, A. A., Zarei, A., Davoudi, S. M. M., & Fartash, K. (2012). The link between workplace spirituality, organizational citizenship behavior and job performance in Iran. Arth Prabhand: A Journal of Economics and Management, 1(6), 51–67. Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Robinson, G. M. (2011). The influence of place attachment and moral and normative concerns on the conservation of native vegetation: A test of two behavioral models. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 323–335. Rego, A., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2008). Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 53–75. Roszak, T. (1992). The voice of the earth: An exploration of ecopsychology. New York: Simon & Schuster. Ruepert, A., Keizer, K., Steg, L., Maricchiolo, F., Carrus, G. … & Moza, D. (2016). Environmental considerations in the organizational context: A pathway to pro-environmental behaviour at work. Energy Research & Social Science, 17, 59–70. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. Ryan, A., & Spash, C. L. (2008). Measuring awareness of environmental consequences: Two scales and two interpretations. Canberra: CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems. Safshekan, S. (2014). The effect of environmental policy by considering the mediating role of customer satisfaction and loy€ € alty (Doctoral dissertation). Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)-Do gu Akdeniz Universitesi (DAU). Schultz, P. (2000). New environmental theories: Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 391–406. Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339. Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franek, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457–475. Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 31–42. Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 540–558. Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(3), 255–265. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221–279. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.



19

Singh, N., Cranage, D., & Lee, S. (2014). Green strategies for hotels: Estimation of recycling benefits. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 43, 13–22. Skamp, K. (1991). Spirituality and environmental education. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 7, 79–86. Smerecnik, K. R., & Andersen, P. A. (2011). The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in North American hotels and ski resorts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(2), 171–196. Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. (2014). Building spiritual capabilities to sustain sustainability-based competitive advantages. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 11(2), 143–158. Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J. W., Keizer, K., & Perlaviciute, G. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104–115. Steg, L., & Groot, J. (2010). Explaining prosocial intentions: Testing causal relationships in the norm activation model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 725–743. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407– 424. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322–348. Stokols, D. (2004). Instrumental and spiritual views of people–environment relations. American Psychologist, 45, 641–646. Tam, K. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78. Tam, K. P. (2013). Dispositional empathy with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 92–104. Temminck, E., Mearns, K., & Fruhen, L. (2015). Motivating employees towards sustainable behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 402–412. Thompson, W. (2001). Spirituality at work people want to work in a spirited place. Executive Excellence, 18(9), 10–10. Tudor, T. L. (2011). The role of organisations in enhanced global environmental management: Perspectives on climate change and waste management strategies. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management, 7(3–4), 250– 266. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). What is sustainability? Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sus tainability/learn-about-sustainability#what Van Vugt, M. (2009). Averting the tragedy of the commons: Using social psychological science to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 169–173. Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16–21. Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(20), 1580–1607. Weaver, D. B., & Jin, X. (2016). Compassion as a neglected motivator for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(5), 657–672. Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1315–1329. Well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14–23. Wierzbicki, J., & Zawadzka, A. M. (2016). The effects of the activation of money and credit card vs. that of activation of spirituality–which one prompts pro-social behaviours. Current Psychology, 35(3), 344–353. Wilson, R. A. (1996). The development of the ecological self. Early Childhood Education Journal, 24(2), 121–123. Zelenski, J. M., Dopko, R. L., & Capaldi, C. A. (2015). Cooperation is in our nature: Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 24–31. Zhang, J. W., Piff, P. K., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Keltner, D. (2014). An occasion for unselfing: Beautiful nature leads to prosociality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 61–72 Zibarras, L., & Ballinger, C. (2011). Promoting environmental behavior in the workplace: A survey of UK organizations. In D. Bartlett (Ed.), Going green: The psychology of sustainability in the workplace (pp. 84–90). Leicester: British Psychological Society. Zientara, P., & Zamojska, A. (in press). Green organizational climates and employee pro-environmental behaviour in the hotel industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, doi:10.1080/09669582.2016.1206554 Zilahy, G. (2004). Organisational factors determining the implementation of cleaner production measures in the corporate sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(4), 311–319. Zylstra, M. J., Knight, A. T., Esler, K. J., & Le Grange, L. L. (2014). Connectedness as a core conservation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice. Springer Science Reviews, 2(1–2), 119–143.