Does gender moderates the relationship between ...

Tourism Management Perspectives 23 (2017) 129–139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management Perspectives journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tmp

Does gender moderates the relationship between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility, cynicism and workplace withdrawal: A neural network and SEM approach A. Mohammed Abubakar a,⁎, Boshra Hejraty Namin c, Ibrahim Harazneh b, Huseyin Arasli c, Tuğba Tunç a a b c

Department of Management Information System, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey Hospitality and Tourism department, Girne American University, North Cyprus via Mersin 10, Turkey Faculty of Tourism Eastern Mediterranean University, P.O. Box 95, Famagusta North Cyprus via Mersin 10, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 19 May 2016 Received in revised form 16 May 2017 Accepted 7 June 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Favoritism/nepotism Employee cynicism Supervisor incivility Gender Work withdrawal Northern Cyprus

a b s t r a c t Organizational politics and workplace victimization are social stressors with significant implications on the wellbeing of employees. Applying Job Demand Resources framework, this study examines the impact of favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility on employee cynicism, and work withdrawal, and the moderating role of gender. Utilizing a cross-sectional design, data were gathered from frontline employees working in 3-star hotels in Northern Cyprus. Results from structural equation modeling and artificial neural network revealed that: (1) favoritism/nepotism has a positive impact on employee cynicism and work withdrawal; (2) employee cynicism has a positive impact on work withdrawal; (3) employee cynicism mediates the relationship between favoritism/nepotism, and work withdrawal; (4) the impact of employee cynicism on work withdrawal was about 6.7 times stronger for women; (5) the impact of favoritism/nepotism on work withdrawal was about 2.1 times stronger for men. Strategies to reduce this unwanted practices and how to keep employees productive are discussed. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Today, organizations are continuously looking for ways to encourage, satisfy and keep effective employees (Gripentrog, Harold, Holtz, Klimoski, & Marsh, 2012). It is not only desirable to have skillful employees who work hard, but keeping and taking advantage of their human capital contribution is more important (Murphy, 1986). The retention of employees is a strategic issue that is widely accepted by practitioners, top level managers and researchers (Karatepe & Nkendong, 2014; Paliaga & Strunje, 2011; Yirik, Oren, & Ekici, 2015). This is not surprising, because of the fact that employees have one to one relationship with customers. Nevertheless, the existence of favoritism and nepotism send an undesired signal to employees, that the organization does not care about their human capital; as a result of unfair distribution of resources, promotions, and others (Abdalla, Maghrabi, & Raggad, 1998; Arasli, Ali Bavik, Ekiz, & E., 2006). It is also very important for employees to have the perception of mutual respect from their supervisors. Prior scholars asserted that cynicism is contingent upon supervisor–subordinate relationship (Chiaburu, Peng, Oh, Banks, & Lomeli, 2013), a sour relationship with

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.M. Abubakar), [email protected] (H. Arasli).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.06.001 2211-9736/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

supervisors simply demoralizes employees. This is because a supervisor can jeopardize an employee's future in the organization, as such employees tend to become cynic (Abubakar & Arasli, 2016); logically supervisor incivility is an inclusive category. Researchers have indicated that hotel employees are very sensitive to uncivil behaviors from supervisors; both interpersonally and informational (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Erdogan, 2002). Employee cynicism refers to employee's negative attitudes and behavioral outcomes (Koçoğlu, 2014). Dean, Brandes, and Dharwadkar (1998) described cynicism as a negative attitude toward one's employing organization, including three dimensions: (1) to believe that the organization is deficient in integrity, (2) negative effects on organization, and (3) tendencies to undervaluing and negative behaviors toward the organization that are in agreement with these beliefs and effects. Employees cynicism has a negative impact on organizational processes and productivity (Aslan & Eren, 2014), thus employees may choose to engage in loafing rather than accomplishing tasks, duties and other organizational functions (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003). Equally this is a first step toward work withdrawal (Cole, Bernerth, Walter, & Holt, 2010). Hanisch and Hulin (1990) defined work withdrawal as a “behavior that dissatisfied employees take to reduce the time spent on their specific work tasks”. It subsume actions like lateness to work, absenteeism, taking long breaks, fake sick leave, and eventual turnover (Berry, Lelchook, & Clark, 2010). It is reported that turnover in the hospitality

130

A.M. Abubakar et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 23 (2017) 129–139

industry is “nearly twice the average rate for all other sectors” (Deloitte, 2010, p. 35). As a result, this incur recruiting and training costs for organizations (Panwar, Dalal, & Kaushik, 2012), and the loss of organizational knowledge (Hinkin & Tracey, 2008). Davidson and Timo (2006) found that in the Australian hotel industry, the average employee turnover rate was 39.1%; and the related annual cost to replace them was $109,909.00. Therein, it has become a pressing issue and there is a need to examine the antecedents of work withdrawal. The Job Demand Resources (JD-R) model subsumes two job facets: (1) job demands entails the “physical, psychological, social and organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (i.e., cognitive or emotional) effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). (2) Job resources which entails the “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that either/or (i) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; (ii) are functional in achieving work goals, and (iii) stimulate self- development, personal growth and, learning” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). With few exceptions (e.g., Babakus, Yavas, & Karatepe, 2008; Chen, Yen, & Tsai, 2014; Karatepe, 2011, 2015). Most of the studies utilizing the JD-R model have been conducted in different work settings like call center services, manufacturing, health care services, pension funds, and transportation (Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2003; Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Moreover, job demands are strongly associated to negative work outcomes such as impaired health (i.e., cynicism, burnout) and deviant behaviors through energetic process. On the other hand, job resources are related to positive work outcomes through motivational process (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). In this view, this paper argues that job resources are not only necessary to deal with job demands and to ‘get things done,’ but they also are important in their own right (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). This article argues that supervisor incivility and favoritism can deplete employees' mental and psychological energy. The energetic process links job demands with negative outcomes via cynicism, as it offers a cognitive–emotional framework for understanding human performance under stress and politics. While the motivational process links job resources to intrinsic motivational (i.e., growth, learning and development) or extrinsic motivational that are instrumental in achieving work goals. Therein, absence of justice resulting from favoritism and the presence of workplace mistreatment incivility absorb resources that are deem important by employees. Thus, uncivil behaviors alongside favoristic/nepotistic practices may inflict cynic attitudes, and employee's turnover intention or turnover (Kwon, 2006). Further, the effects of cynicism on work withdrawal and turnover has been proven empirically by (Jung & Kim, 2012; Dolen, de Cremer, & D.,, & de Ruyter, K., 2012). This article incorporates favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility, employee cynicism and work withdrawal into a single model. According to a report “The Travel and Tourism Economy” in 2017 shows that Republic of Cyprus as a whole earns around $1.2 m annually. An important part of this sum goes to Northern Cyprus, this makes it an important industry that requires professional HRM practices. In doing so, we extend the domain of investigation both conceptually and theoretically into the hotel industry in Northern Cyprus. Social role theory is a social psychological theory that pertains to sex differences and similarities in social behavior (Eagly, 1987; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986). The theory posits that women shaped by culture and tradition are more likely to adopt a relationshiporiented position, and attempt to use problem-solving techniques when confronted with problems than men (Eagly & Steffen, 1986; West & Zimmerman, 1987). Empirical evidence also proved that there are gender differences in the kinds of strategies that men and women employ when confronted with organizational conflict. For example, gender has been found to moderate the relation between procedural justice

and intent to stay with an organization (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997); job performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (Hitlan, Cliffton, & DeSoto, 2006). The aforementioned findings also received support from a meta-analysis conducted by Rotundo, Nguyen, and Sackett (2001). Henceforth, exploring the role of gender in the interplay between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility, employee cynicism and work withdrawal will provide additional insight to our existing knowledge. 1.1. Purpose and contribution of the study Drawing on JD-R model as a theoretical framework and the aforementioned empirical associations, this study aim to test an empirical model which investigates the mediating role of employee cynicism in the relationship between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility and work withdrawal in the hotel industry. To do so, the research has the following objectives: ➢ Prior findings suggest that there is a link between supervisor-caused stressors and turnover intention (Kao, Cheng, Kuo, & Huang, 2014), a relationship between favoritism/nepotism and turnover also exist (Arasli & Tumer, 2008; Kwon, 2006). However, researchers have ignored the potential relationship between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility and work withdrawal, as work withdrawal is a station that precedes turnover. This paper attempt to advance our knowledge concerning other unknown reactional responses to organizational politics (i.e., favoritism/nepotism) and workplace mistreatment (i.e., supervisor incivility). ➢ Despite the existence of studies exploring the relationship between organizational politics and employee cynicism, research exploring the relationship between favoritism/nepotism and cynicism with incivility are limited. In particular, incivility and cynicism were found to result in lesser job satisfaction and commitment (Laschinger, Leiter, Day, & Gilin, 2009). Further, employee cynicism mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational identification (Kurt, 2016). In fact, favoritism/nepotism and supervisor incivility are stressors from the above. Therein, employee cynicism is likely to play a mediating role in the relationship between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility and work withdrawal. In doing so, the study strives to extend the number of antecedents of work withdrawal. ➢ Over the past 10 years, research pertaining to the consequence of organizational politics, workplace incivility and their adverse health and organizational outcomes paid comparatively less attention to race and gender disparities (Escartín, Salin, & Rodriguez-Carballeira, 2011). It is important to understand the dynamics of gender in the hospitality context, Magley, Bauerle, and Walsh (2010) argued that women have relatively little organizational power compare to men, this limits their political power. As such women response to injustice like favoritism/nepotism might be docile as oppose to men responses. Research also shows that women often use passive strategies are the result of a “caring” rather than a “justice” moral orientation to respond to workplace mistreatment (Cortina et al., 2002); while men are more likely to display direct, overt retribution against their instigators (Loi, Loh, & Hine, 2015). This empirical study tries to improve the understanding of gender's moderating effects on the relationships between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility, employee cynicism, and work withdrawal in the hospitality industry. ➢ Finally, this study aims to deepen our understanding on how favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility and employee cynicism interacts using the JD-R framework when structural equation modeling (SEM) and artificial neural network (ANN) analyses are employed. The methods provide significant methodological contribution, as the non-compensatory ANN is able to complement the weaknesses of compensatory linear SEM (Shmueli & Koppius, 2010). Apart from addressing the aforementioned gaps in the literature, the findings in this study provides several answers for practitioners.


2. Theoretical framework, hypotheses, and research model 2.1. Job demand resource theory (JD-R) Job Demands Resources (JD-R) framework assumes that every career and profession may have its own particular risk factors related to job stress (Demerouti et al., 2001). Such factors can be categorized into two general groups: job demands and job resources. Job demands includes work overload, unsupportive work environment, and emotional demands (Bakker et al., 2004). Job resources include involvement in decision-making, social and organizational support, and performance feedback (Bakker et al., 2003; Demerouti et al., 2001). Based on the JD-R model, job demands and job resources elicit two different kinds of processes; the health impairment and motivational process. The health impairment process claims that severe job demands may exhaust employees' physical and mental resources, and may even cause health problems (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Whereas, the motivational process claims that the available job resources in the organization can decrease job demands, and may play motivational role intrinsically or extrinsically (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Specifically, due the intrinsic motivational role of job resources, they can foster employees' skills, growth, and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The availability of extra job resources can foster the desire to devote one's efforts and capabilities to the work related activities (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). 2.2. Favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility and employee cynicism One of the prevalent issues in today's workplace is nepotism which is related to a family oriented culture and signals lack of confidence to nonmembers (Namazie & Frame, 2007). Favoritism is another related issue which is a biased behavior toward close allies rather than fair treatment for all. Actually, favoritism/nepotism grant family members, friends, and relatives priority in the allocation of organizational resources (Abdalla et al., 1998; Aladwan, Bhanugopan, & Fish, 2014; Arasli & Tumer, 2008; Arasli et al., 2006). Favoritism/nepotism is a type of conflict of interest, and are widespread in service-related work environment (Arasli & Karadal, 2009; Daskin & Tezer, 2012; Wan, 2010). Such practice is a major hindrance to the organizational performance and development (Daskin, Saydam, & Arasli, 2013); and can decrease organizational commitment and increase turnover intentions (Colquitt et al., 2001). In fact, favoritism/nepotism has been criticized due to its unprofessional nature (Arasli & Tumer, 2008). Karimi (2008) added that kinship relations within favoritism/nepotism realm can affect managerial decisions in an organization. There is a typical belief among employees that managers are unable to conduct reliable performance appraisal processes because of favoritism, unjust treatment, and subjectivity (Namazie & Frame, 2007). Incessant favoritism/nepotism, unfair rewards and promotions in organizations often create the perception of impressive politics from the employees' point of view (Wan, 2010); this results in having cynic employees, who distrust and are suspicious of management's activities. Undermining, ostracism, unwanted sexual attention, abusive supervision, and incivility have been identified as the five major types of intangible workplace mistreatment by (Sulea, Filipescu, Horga, Ortan, & Fischmann, 2012). Unlike other types of workplace mistreatment, incivility is often vaguely intentional as the perpetrators intentionally try to irritate or exclude the target person (Britton, Sliter, & Jex, 2012; Kim, 2014; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Williams, 2007). This “violation of workplace norms” is the key aspect which puts incivility as one type of workplace mistreatment (Leiter, Peck, & Gumuchian, 2015). Incivility is characterized as rude, impolite, insensitive, and neglectful behavior with vague purpose to mistreat which targets individuals directly (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000) and teams/groups (Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008; Reio & Ghosh, 2009). The effect may expand beyond the victim and penetrates other agents in the organization (Lim et al., 2008).

131

This study focus on supervisor incivility, which refers to uncivil behaviors that are initiated by individual supervisor such as hurtful comments, “snippy” emails, gossip, and deliberately avoiding (Reio, 2011). Supervisor incivility is a problematic issue because of their organizational authority to manage work related behaviors, this may create the perception of losses related to autonomy, identity and justice (Reio, 2011). In an uncontrolled situation, incivility can negatively affect organizational outcomes (Holm, Torkelson, & Bäckström, 2015) ranging from organizational commitment (Lim & Teo, 2009), employee physical health (Lim et al., 2008), job satisfaction (Reio & Ghosh, 2009) to job performance (Porath & Pearson, 2010). Research has also linked supervisor incivility to turnover intention (Kao et al., 2014), decreased productivity and higher psychological distress (Ghosh, Dierkes, & Falletta, 2011; Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010; Pearson et al., 2000). More subtly, favoritism/nepotism and incivility can bring imbalance in organizations, which triggers employee cynicism and may also result in employee withdrawal. Based on the tenets of JD-R theory, employees subjected to unfairness and uncivil behavior through the evil rooted practices (favoritism/nepotism and incivility), tend to be distrustful and unfaithful. This employees lose their resources, and become cynic which ends up exerting withdrawal behavior. Thus, the following hypotheses were proposed: H1. Frontline employees' perception of (a) favoritism/nepotism and (b) supervisor incivility are positively related to cynicism. H2. Frontline employees' perception of (a) favoritism/nepotism and (b) supervisor incivility are positively related to work withdrawal behavior.

2.3. Employee cynicism and work withdrawal Previous studies have defined cynicism as “an attitude like disillusion and frustration recognized by a negative feeling toward and distrust of a person, group, social convention, or organization” (Andersson & Bateman, 1997). Distrust or suspicion about the management is a brief description of organizational cynicism (Li, Wong, & Kim, 2016); which refers to employees' belief in the lack of moral principles in their supervision (Leung, Ip, & Leung, 2010). Cynicism can result in negative outcomes such as lower job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational commitment (Jung & Kim, 2012); and lower performance (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005). This is because cynicism is connected to demotivation and interpersonal conflict (Nair & Kamalanabhan, 2010), organizational identification (Bedeian, 2007), absenteeism and turnover intention (Dolen et al., 2012). Work withdrawal is the most typical type of work disengagement, which is refer to as employee behavior to avoid a particular work-role or reduce the time spent on a job so as to keep their present organizational role (Hanisch & Hulin, 1991; Wang & Yi, 2012). Cynicism and withdrawal behavior can be consider as workers behavioral responses to certain organization practices (Laschinger et al., 2009). In short, the presence of favoritism/nepotism and supervisor incivility shapes an unhealthy work environment where employees seem to lose their loyalty, trust, energy and enthusiasm. As a response they become cynic and further develop withdrawal behaviors. Thus, the following hypotheses were proposed: H3. Employee cynicism is positively related to work withdrawal. H4. Employee cynicism mediates the relationship between (a) favoritism/ nepotism and work withdrawal, and (b) between supervisor incivility and work withdrawal.

2.4. Moderating role of gender According to Jaja (2004), gender difference depicts a social role, attitude and values that is describe as appropriate by communities. Gender

132


Fig. 1. Conceptual Model.

differences are related to different behavioral and ethical structures used by men and women in their ethical decision making (Loo, 2003). Prior findings on the relationship between gender and workplace behaviors shows mix results. Research papers related to cynicism found that male employees are more cynic than female employees (Töyry et al., 2004). Greenglass, Burke, and Fiksenbaum (2001) asserted that female

nurses display higher level of cynicism. Others revealed that there is a lower level of job satisfaction among female employee (Burke & Matthiesen, 2009). Due to the common “traditional assumptions”, men are meant to be leaders, this makes it more difficult for women to take leading roles (Schaap, Stedham, & Yamamura, 2008). Even in USA, only a small number of highly educated women are able get managerial

Table 1 Psychometrics properties of the measures. Scale items

Mean (S.D)

Loading

3.41(1.25) 3.46(1.21) * 3.44(1.17) 2.79(1.21) 3.27(1.14) 3.43(1.16) * 3.52(1.19)

0.72 0.97 * 0.96 0.66 0.56 0.62 * 0.99

3.29(1.15) 3.73(1.12) 3.48(1.18) 3.46(1.17)

0.58 0.50 0.99 0.66

3.67(1.12)

0.50

Supervisor incivility “Sometimes, I feel unjustly criticized, bullied or shown up in front of others by my supervisor”. “I sometimes feel that my supervisors put me down and condescend on me”. “I sometimes feel that my supervisors ignore or excluded me”. “Supervisors, I work with usually pay little attention to my statements or showed little interest in my opinion,”

4.45(0.69) * 4.41(0.70) 4.27(0.72)

0.99 * 0.99 0.50

Employee cynicism “I believe the hotel management says one thing and does another”. “Hotel management's policies, goals, and practices, seem to have little in common”. “When hotel management says it is going to do something, I wonder if it will really happen” “Hotel management expects one thing of its employees, but rewards another”. “When I think about the hotel management, I feel irritation”. “When I think about the hotel management, I feel aggravation”. “When I think about the hotel management, I feel tension”. “When I think about the hotel management, I experience anxiety” “I criticize the hotel management's practices and policies with others”. “I often talk to others about the way things are run at top management”. “I complain about how things happen at top management to friends outside the hotel”

3.97(1.10) * * * 4.01(1.11) * * * 4.00(1.11) * 3.98(1.11)

0.98 * * * 0.99 * * * 0.99 * 0.97

Work withdrawal “Completed work assignments late” “Took frequent/long coffee/lunch breaks” “Made excuses to get out of the office” “Been late for work” “Neglected tasks that wouldn't affect your evaluation/pay rise” “Though about quitting because of work related issues”

3.54(1.15) 3.61(1.16) 3.62(1.20) 3.60(1.15) 3.56(1.18) 3.58(1.17)

0.97 0.75 0.99 0.76 0.96 0.99

Favoritism/nepotism “Employees at this hotel always feel that they need a relative in a high-level position”. “Employees at this hotel always feel that they need someone they know or a friend in a high-level position”. “Managers at this hotel are uncomfortable with the presence of those employees with close personal ties to high-level executives”. “Employees who were appointed only because of family ties have negative influence at the hotel”. “Employees who were appointed only because of friends or connections have negative influence at the hotel”. “I am always careful when speaking to my colleagues about hotel's top managers”. “I am always careful when speaking to friends or acquaintances of hotel's top managers” “Top managers' relatives are frustrated by never really knowing whether they were appointed because of their talent or family ties” “Friends and acquaintances of the hotel's top managers are frustrated by the fact that they never really know if they were appointed based on merit or personal reasons”. “If a relative of a top managers in this hotel is employed, he/she can never live up to the expectations of the other employees”. “A friend or acquaintance of top managers at the hotel can never meet the expectation of other employees if he/she appointed in the hotel”. “Hotels permitting employment of top managers' relatives have a hard time attracting and retaining quality employees who are not relatives” “Hotels permitting employment of top managers' acquaintances have a hard time employing and retaining high quality employees who are not acquaintances”. “Hotels permitting employment of top managers' relatives, friends and acquaintance have a difficult time firing or demoting them if they prove inadequate”


133

Table 2 Goodness fit of the model. Measurement model

Single factor model (Constrained)

Cut-off points

Chi-square (×2) = 591.2, df = 264, p b 0.001, GFI = 0.86 NFI = 0.96 CFI = 0.98 TLI = 0.98 RMSEA = 0.065 CMIN/DF = 2.24

Chi-square (×2) = 10,885.9, df = 275, p b 0.001, GFI = 0.33 NFI = 0.28 CFI = 0.29 TLI = 0.22 RMSEA = 0.365 CMIN/DF = 39.59

1 = maximum fit (Tanaka & Huba, 1985) 1 = maximum fit (Bentler & Bonett, 1980) 1 = maximum fit (McDonald & Marsh, 1990) 1 = maximum fit (Bentler & Bonett, 1980) Values b0.08 indicating good fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Values N1 and b5 were accepted (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985)

Note: df, degree of freedom; GFI, goodness-of-fit indices; NF, Normed Fit Index; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CMIN/DF, Relative Chi-square.

appointments (Li & Leung, 2001). Empirical evidence suggests that women in managerial position are often denied equal earnings (Skalpe, 2007). Providing equivalent gender-base job opportunities is a popular slogan in contemporary organizations. In general, working women are quite vulnerable to competition from their male colleagues, due to challenging obstacles ranging from motherhood, discrimination, and stereotyping (Kara, Uysal, & Magnini, 2012). It is more challenging specifically in the hospitality industry that requires long working hours and high level of flexibility (Pinar, McCuddy, Birkan, & Kozak, 2011). These barriers discourage women from carrying their professional jobs in the industry, because they are afraid of interference with their personal and social life. Some researchers argued that the industry does not provide sufficient promotional opportunities to meet females' expectations (McCuddy, Pinar, & Birkan, 2010). The hospitality industry in Northern Cyprus is harsh, as there are few vacant positions for women, mostly low paid and non-managerial positions (Lisaniler & Kalmaz, 2012), couple with tremendous favoritism/ nepotism and workplace victimization. In service industry, men and women have different reaction to role stress, and role stress has an intensive effect on women job satisfaction than men (Kim, Bateman, Gilbreath, & Andersson, 2009). Anwar, Sarwar, Awan, and Arif (2011) found that men exhibited more deviant behaviors than women, similarly, Olabimitan and Alausa (2014) found that male nurses display higher amount of deviant behaviors compared to female nurses. In response to maltreatment, men tend to retaliate overtly via physical confrontation, while women often take a more covert strategy via cynicism, backbiting and/or gossiping (Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). Belenky et al. (1986) added that men are more likely to confront or to “spread the word” about their instigators than women targets. Bodla and Danish (2008) found that female employees perceived a higher level of organizational politics in their workplace, which resulted to lower levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and increased level of stress. Research also shows that men are more involve with organizational politics, and that the closeness with workplace politics make it's a normative part of organizational life (Drory & Beaty, 1991). Based on this reasoning, we posit that men will be worse affected by favoritism/nepotism than women, and that men are more likely to engage in work withdrawal and engage in a physical or verbal aggression in response to supervisor incivility. Whereas, women are more likely to become cynic when faced with favoritism/nepotism and supervisor incivility, prior to work withdrawing. Based on the extent theoretical claims,

this study explores the potential moderating effect of gender on aforementioned relationships. Thus, the following hypotheses were proposed: H5. Gender will moderate the relationship between (a) favoritism/nepotism and employee cynicism, (b) supervisor incivility and employee cynicism, (c) employee cynicism and work withdrawal, (d) favoritism/ nepotism and work withdrawal, and (e) supervisor incivility and work withdrawal.

3. Methodology 3.1. Research context Northern Cyprus is a self-declared state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus, having a population of 313,626, and is a small tourist's destination. Tourism is one of the main pillars of Northern Cyprus economy, receiving about 1.7 million visitors every year (TRNC State Planning Organization, 2015). The hospitality industry in the island suffers from inadequate infrastructure, lack of standardized labor legislation, labor shortage, and the absence of top management commitment, and pollution (Altinay, Altinay, & Bicak, 2002). Low wages, long work hours, lack of empowerment and rewards, excessive job demands, and irregular and inflexible work schedules are other pressing issues in the industry (Yavas, Karatepe, Babakus, & Avci, 2004). Northern Cyprus has thirteen 3-star chain hotels with 2260 bed capacity. The motive behind the choice of the hotel star is that the majority of 3 star hotels are family owned (TRNC State Planning Organization, 2015). Moreover, some of the employees have maternalistic and social ties with the hotel top management, on the other hand, majority of the remaining employees are from poor families in Turkey, Northern Cyprus, and foreigners from central Asia, Africa and Russia. This shows that the island hospitality industry is devoid of contemporary human resource managerial practices. 3.2. Procedures Fig. 1 depicts the research model and the proposed hypotheses. Utilizing convenience sampling technique, data were obtained from 3 star hotels in Northern Cyprus. The survey items were developed in English and then back-translated to Turkish by two linguistic experts. Five frontline employees were selected at random to participate in a pilot survey, the result shows that the questions were fully understood as

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations of study variables. Variables

CR

α

AVE

Mean

SD

1

2

1. Favoritism/Nepotism 2. Supervisor incivility 3. Cynicism 4. Work withdrawal

0.94 0.88 0.99 0.97

0.95 0.85 0.99 0.97

0.57 0.74 0.98 0.83

3.41 4.32 3.99 3.59

0.93 0.62 1.09 1.09

– −0.048 0.313⁎⁎ 0.336⁎⁎

–

Note: Composite scores for each variable were computed by averaging respective item scores. SD, standard deviation; CR, composite reliability; α Cronbach's alpha; AVE, average variance extract; ⁎⁎ Correlations are significant at the 0.01 level.

3

4

– −0.028 0.042

0.258⁎⁎

–

134


Table 4 Maximum likelihood estimates for the research model (n = 291). Regressor

Regressand

Standardized

Unstandardized

t-

p

Variables Favoritism/Nepotism Supervisor incivility Favoritism/Nepotism Supervisor incivility Cynicism

Variables Cynicism Cynicism Work withdrawal Work withdrawal Work withdrawal

estimates 0.312 −0.013 0.286 0.060 0.170

estimates 0.366 −0.023 0.333 0.106 0.169

statistics 5.594 −0.234 4.996 1.108 2.968

*** 0.815 *** 0.268 ***

Notes: *Significant at the p b 0.05 level (two-tailed); **significant at the p b 0.01 level (two-tailed).

they did not had any difficulties. Then a total of four hundred questionnaires were distributed to the respondents through their respective front offices. The questionnaires were accompanied with a cover letter explaining the voluntary nature of the study. Completed questionnaires were sealed in envelopes to make responses anonymous and confidential, this was done to decrease the potential threat of common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). At the end only 302 questionnaires were returned, resulting to 75% response rate, and 291 one were used for analysis due to missing data. 3.3. Measures Favoritism/Nepotism was measured with 14 items borrowed from (Arasli & Tumer, 2008), using five point scale ranging from (1 = strongly disagree) and (5 = strongly agree). Supervisor incivility was measured with 4 items borrowed from (Sliter, Sliter, & Jex, 2012) using five point scale ranging from 1 (never) and 5 (very often). Cynicism was measured with 11 items borrowed from (Kim et al., 2009), using five point scale ranging from (1 = strongly disagree) and (5 = strongly agree). Work withdrawal was measured with 6 items borrowed from (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990) using five point scale once ranging from (1 = once a year) and (5 = one a week or more). Demographics variables: Descriptive statistic shows that (51%) of the respondents were males; (64%) of the respondents were married. About (32%) of the respondents have some college degrees, (27%) have bachelors, another (27%) have high school diplomas and the rest have higher degrees. Age wise, (14%) of the respondents were b20 years old; (44%) were between the ages of 21 and 30; (17%) were between the ages of 31 and 40; (16%) were between the ages of 41 and 50, and the rest were above 50 years old. Thirty one percent of the respondents had b 1 years' work experience; (26%) have worked between 1 and 3 years, (19%) have worked between 4 and 6 years; (12%) have worked between 7 and 9 years, and the rest have N10 years working experience. Consonant to Rogelberg and Stanton (2007) triangulation method, the sample profile in this study has similar characteristics to the previous studies conducted using data from Northern Cyprus hospitality industry (Arasli et al., 2006; Karatepe & Uludag, 2008). 4. Research findings IBM SPSS AMOS version 21 program was used for structural equation modeling and neuralnet package in R was used for predictive analysis. A single factor model provided a poorer fit, while the measurement model provided an acceptable fit as evident in Table 2. In addition the standardized loadings in Table 1, alphas, CR and AVE, inter-correlation coefficients provided evidence of convergent and discriminant validity as evident in Table 3. The eliminated items had low standardized b0.50 loading as recommended by (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Overall, this provided additional evidence that common method variance is not a problem (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The result presented in Tables 3 and 4 confirmed that favoritism/nepotism has an impact on employee cynicism (r = 0.313, p b 0.01) (β = 0.312, p b 0.01) thus [H1a gained support]. Supervisor incivility did not

explain employee cynicism as no significant impact was uncover (r = −0.028, p N 0.10) (β = −0.013, p N 0.10), thus [H1b was rejected]. Favoritism/nepotism has an impact on work withdrawal (r = 0.336, p b 0.01) (β = 0.286, p b 0.01), thus [H2a gained support]. Next, supervisor incivility did not explain work withdrawal as no significant impact was uncover (r = 0.042, p N 0.10) (β = 0.060, p N 0.10), thus [H2b was rejected]. Finally, employee cynicism has an impact on work withdrawal (r = 0.258, p b 0.01) (β = 0.170, p b 0.01), thus [H3 gained support]. The indirect effect of favoritism/nepotism and supervisor incivility on work withdrawal through cynicism was evaluated using AMOS. To augment the evidence of the indirect effect, we bootstrapped the model to produce a bias-corrected confidence interval for the standardized parameter estimate as recommended by (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Shrout & Bolger, 2002), utilizing a validation sample of (n = 5000). The outcome shows that the standardized indirect effect of favoritism/nepotism on work withdrawal through cynicism was (β = 0.053, p b 0.05) as presented in Table 5; further bias-corrected estimates suggested that (p b 0.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.012–0.113). Although there was no relationship between supervisor incivility and work withdrawal, but we bootstrapped the relationship to get confirmatory support that sample size was not a problem. The outcome shows that the standardized indirect effect of favoritism/nepotism on work withdrawal through cynicism was (β = −0.002, p N 0.10) as presented in Table 5; further bias-corrected estimates suggested that (p = 0.706, 95% confidence interval: − 0.025–0.016). Based on the above said results, H4a gained empirical support, while H4b was rejected. As an artificial intelligence method artificial neural network (ANN) outsmart other methods like (i.e., Regression and SEM), as it can detect both linear and nonlinear relationships with high predictive accuracy (Leong, Hew, Lee, & Ooi, 2015). Moreover, ANN requires no multivariate assumptions such as normality, linearity or homoscedasticity to be fulfilled. Even with its capacity ANN is not so ideal for testing causal relationships due to it's black-box operating nature and since linear models (e.g. SEM) have the possibilities of over-simplifying the complexities in decision making processes (Sim, Tan, Wong, Ooi, & Hew, 2014). However, the use of the SEM–ANN approach in this study would complement each other (Leong et al., 2015). ANN multi-layer perceptron utilizing Resilient Backpropagation with Weight Backtracking algorithm provided in R (neuralnet package) was employed for the purpose of this study. Logistic function is used as the activation function for both hidden and output layer of the ANN model and sum squared errors (sse) was used as differentiable error function. The number of hidden nodes generated was (2, 2). First, a generalized linear model (GLM) function was employed to check the model predictive accuracy. Using prediction function in neuralnet GLM predicted a Table 5 Break down of total standardized effect of the research model (n = 291). Regressor

Regressand

Total

Direct

Indirect

Variables Favoritism/nepotism Supervisor incivility Favoritism/nepotism Supervisor incivility Cynicism

Variables Cynicism Cynicism Work withdrawal Work withdrawal Work withdrawal

Effect 0.312 −0.013 0.339 0.058 0.170

Effect 0.312 −0.013 0.286 0.060 0.170

Effect 0.000 0.000 0.053 −0.002 0.000

ρ

0.011 0.706


135

Fig. 2. Neural network model.

Root Mean Square of Error (RMSE) that is equals to 1.11, neural network predicted the model better with an RMSE of 0.08. The synaptic weights of the input nodes on the hidden and output nodes are shown in Fig. 2. The training process needed 3587 steps until all absolute partial derivatives of the error function were smaller than 0.01. The estimated weights shows that favoritism/nepotism, and employee cynicism exerts significant effects on work withdrawal corroborating the findings in SEM. The generalized weights are given for all covariates within the same range. The distribution of the generalized weights in Figs. 3 and 4 suggests that favoritism/nepotism and employee cynicism have a nonlinear effect as the variance of their generalized weights is greater than one. While supervisor incivility has no effect on work withdrawal since majority of the generalized weights are nearly zero (See Fig. 5). To bypass the problem of potential bias as a result of model overfitting, a 10-fold cross-validation test was carried with a ratio of 75:25 data for training and testing. RMSE from ten networks was used to examine the accuracy of the model. The RMSEs are presented in Table 6, overall the results shows that model predictions are is reliable. Hypothesis 5a, b, c, d and e posits that gender will moderate the relationship between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility, cynicism and work withdrawal, to do this a multi-group moderation analysis was used to assess if there is a difference in the strength of the relationships gender wise. However, hypothesis 5b and e were not assessed due to absence of significant relationship between the Regressor (i.e., supervisor incivility) and the Regressand (i.e., cynicism and work withdrawal). The data presented in Table 7 suggests that gender does not moderate the relationship between favoritism/nepotism and cynicism, asserting that there is no difference across gender. Based on this evidence [H5a was rejected].

As a next step, the moderating effect of gender between cynicism and work withdrawal relationship was diagnosed. The data presented in Table 7 suggests that gender moderates the relationship; asserting that the impact of employee cynicism on work withdrawal was about 6.7 times stronger in women. Based on this evidence [H5c gained support]. Furthermore, the moderating effect of gender between favoritism/nepotism and work withdrawal relationship was diagnosed. The result suggests that gender moderates the relationship; asserting that the impact of favoritism/nepotism on work withdrawal was about 2.1 times stronger in men. Based on this evidence, [H5d gained support].

Fig. 3. Plot for favoritism/nepotism generalized weights.

Fig. 4. Plot for employee cynicism generalized weights.

5. Discussion and managerial implication 5.1. Discussion The health impairment of JD-R theory put forwards that unethical job demands and improper practices may reduce employees' mental and physical resources which result in negative job outcomes (i.e. Absenteeism, counterproductive behavior and turnover). Applying JD-R framework, SEM and predictive neural network, this study designed and tested a research model that tested employee cynicism as a mediator in the relationship between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility and work withdrawal behavior. This study also examined the effects of favoritism/nepotism and supervisor incivility on work withdrawal behavior, and the moderating role of gender in 3-star hotels in Northern Cyprus. The first finding in this study conforms to JD-R claims, simply, the greater the perception of favoritism/nepotism among employees, the greater the level of cynicism. Prior scholars noted a similar pattern of

136


Fig. 5. Plot for supervisor incivility generalized weights.

finding, for instance Daskin (2013) concluded that favoritism/nepotism practices can lead to work stress and disengagement among workers. Second, interestingly enough, the current study did not observe any statistically significant relationship between supervisor incivility and employee cynicism. This finding is somewhat contradictory to prior empirical work. As a research in the US underlined that every year about 12% of employees leave their jobs due to incivility (Glendinning, 2001). Recently, Smidt, De Beer, Brink, and Leiter (2016) noted that organizational commitment tends to decrease and turnover tends to increase with the presence of such practices. So, a plausible explanation for the current outcome can be inferred from cultural differences and tolerance level of workplace incivility by the victims. Third, the greater the perception of favoritism/nepotism among employees, the more likely that employees will exhibit work withdrawal behavior. The obtained result also match a study by Daskin and Tezer (2012), which found that organizational politics like favoritism/nepotism can motivate turnover intentions. Accordingly, the absence of favoristic/nepotistic practices may reduce the level of disengagement and work withdrawal. Fourth, the direct relationship between supervisor incivility and work withdrawal was insignificant. The result is not congruent with those of (Colquitt et al., 2001; Erdogan, 2002), which argued that job demands can cause negative job outcomes. A possible explanation for these finding can be explained as follows. It was acknowledged that frontline employees often face favoritism/nepotism practices during selections, promotions and evaluations in North Cyprus (Arasli & Tumer, 2008). The availability of favoritism/nepotistic relationship might have been widespread, that, it is threatening the voice behavior of front line staff in these small settings. More specifically, those employees (supervisors) who did not get their job via these channels may reluctant to show incivility behaviors to their colleagues. Moreover, middle managers who are not friends or relatives of the upper supervisory/owner positions are occupying the lower positions, thus they may be reluctant to show

Table 6 Neural network - RMSEs. Neural network

Training

Testing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean RMSE

0.057 0.059 0.061 0.053 0.058 0.065 0.057 0.056 0.061 0.064 0.059

0.058 0.032 0.047 0.069 0.059 0.034 0.049 0.039 0.044 0.040 0.047

Notes: Input nodes – favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility, cynicism; Output nodes – work withdrawal.

uncivil behaviors. Surveillance cameras might have played a leading role to reduce these behaviors. Fifth, the current study also revealed that employee cynicism has a statistically significant influence on work withdrawal. This is in line with JD-R model as emotional demands made on people often elevate stress levels, which in turn results to negative outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). This finding echo the ones obtained by Abubakar and Arasli (2016), which demonstrated that cynicism predicts intention to sabotage among bank employees; and by Chiaburu et al. (2013) which confirmed the negative effects of cynicism on employee outcomes. Six, the result verified the mediating effect of employee cynicism between favoritism/nepotism and work withdrawal. This finding aligns with the findings of previous studies (Chiaburu et al., 2013), in which employee cynicism was proposed conceptual as a potential mediator, and by (Kurt, 2016), which asserts the mediating role of cynicism between leadership and organizational identification. This means that employees tend to feel higher levels of cynicism if top management practice favoritism/nepotism, these resentments may develop to work withdrawal. Seven, in contrast the findings do not lend any empirical support to employee cynicism as a mediator in the relationship between supervisor incivility and work withdrawal behavior. This is not surprising as supervisor incivility did not exerts any effects in the measurement model. Eight, based on this the moderating role of gender in the supervisor incivility chain was not assessed. Nine, we uncover a moderating role of gender in the relationship between employee cynicism and work withdrawal. In fact, the finding indicates that women are 6.7 times more likely to exhibit work withdrawing behaviors than men when the level of cynicism is high. This influence may be explained by women covert strategy in response to organizational politics (Pearson et al., 2001), ranging from lower levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Bodla & Danish, 2008). This means that cynic female employees have higher tendency to withdraw work efforts than men initiated by favoritism/nepotism practices. Ten, gender also moderated the relationship between favoritism/ nepotism and work withdrawal. This finding is consistent with the results of a study by Anwar et al. (2011), who demonstrated high level of deviant behavior among male teachers, and male nurses. It also corroborated by (Olabimitan & Alausa, 2014). The result of current study revealed that the presence of favoritism/nepotism in the workplace stimulates male employees about 2.1 times more than females to show withdrawal behaviors as a reactional response to the organizational politics. A possible explanation is might be explained by men overt strategy in response to organizational politics (Belenky et al., 1986). 5.2. Managerial implication The results of the current study provide a number of useful implications for hotel managers to minimize withdrawal behaviors in their organization as a result of employee cynicism generated by favoritism/ nepotism. This study contributes to the theoretical advancement in the hospitality management industry by empirically testing the interrelationships aforementioned variables. We expect to provide useful information to managers in 3-star hotel chains who are interested in undertaking contemporary HRM practices in Northern Cyprus. First, transparent human resource processes should be designed. The available staff and new candidates should be assured that there are fair policies in action such as transparent selection, promotion, rewarding, performance appraisal, training as well as quality of communication and information between managers and employees. For instance, Li et al. (2016) noted that a highly competitive organizational climate enacts pressures and motives for employees to put extra efforts in delivering a high level of in-role performance. Henceforth, this may boost employees' motivation to get engaged and stay in their job. Second, in addition, it is essential for hotel managers to retain qualified employees in the organization by offering incentives such as


137

Table 7 Multi-group moderation (n = 216). Regressor

Regressand

Male (n = 149)

Female (n = 142)

×2 (p)

Decision

Variables Favoritism/nepotism→ Cynicism Favoritism/nepotism

Variables Cynicism →Work withdrawal →Work withdrawal

β(t) 0.247(3.09⁎⁎⁎) 0.044(0.57) 0.384(4.94⁎⁎⁎)

β(t) 0.380(4.89⁎⁎⁎) 0.293(3.52⁎⁎⁎) 0.184(2.21⁎⁎)

0.95 (p N 0.10) 5.30 (p b 0.05) 2.94 (p b 0.05)

Rejected Accepted Accepted

Notes: ⁎⁎Significant at the p b 0.05 level (two-tailed); t ≥ 1.960; ⁎⁎⁎significant at the p b 0.01 level (two-tailed); t ≥ 3.291.

attractive career and promotional opportunities, clear job descriptions, compensation and adequate performance feedback systems. Having such systems will help and enable the management to select and keep ethically the right individuals who are competent, educated, experienced and really demanded by the positions. Third, supervisors and the management as a whole should respect employees and make them feel that they do not just matter to the organization, but are also valuable for the success of the organization. This would be possible through listening and giving them a certain amount of job autonomy and empowerment, encouraging them to come up with innovative ideas related to their work, involving them in strategic meetings and decision–making processes. These privileges are vital to eliminate or at least in lowering the cynical perception of these employees that may result in withdrawal behaviors. Forth, based on JR-D theory, hotel managers should bring balance between job resources and demands. Effective and continuous training programs should be organized by hotel managers in order to introduce employees with the effective communication, team work, uplifting culture, performance appraisal criteria and relevant rewarding systems to encourage, strengthen and motivate them in their current jobs. Additionally, supervisor training program is also needed, because, supervisors are mentors for their employees and can assist them to be fitted with their specific job demands. Such trainings should raise the supervisors' openness, fairness and the transparency in decision-making, resources distributions, interactions, rewarding and punishment practices. Lastly, the results relating to perceptions of favoritism/nepotism and cynicism suggest that one's gender may influence their views and understanding. The higher cynicism rate reported by women is as result of the fact that women are still underrepresented in top positions, which makes them vulnerable and exposed to favoritism/nepotism. Women use avoidance as a coping strategy, this strategy includes becoming cynic toward one's working place, the persistence of the practice may later force them to engage in work withdrawal. On the other hand, men who have higher perceptions of favoritism/nepotism are more likely to engage in work withdrawal because they do not use avoidance as a coping strategy, rather “tit for tat”. In our opinion, firms could halt such practices by adopting fair and/or equal employment opportunities, such laws must be passed by national government. 6. Limitations and future of the study Although this study notably contributes to current knowledge by linking favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility and work withdrawal through employee cynicism in the hotel workplace and simultaneously testing moderating role of gender, several limitations should be noted. First one is related to the sample of present study, which is limited to 3-star hotels in north Cyprus. Therefore, the scope and generalization of current result should consider with extreme caution. Future studies should be conducted in different service sectors such as airlines or restaurants; as well as, different countries in order to test the applicability of the research model. Using a larger sample and a longitudinal approach is also suggested for future researches. Due to the important role of gender and incivility in service environment, future studies may concentrate on different kind of incivilities in workplace (customer, coworker and supervisor incivility) and investigate the moderating role of gender in the relationship between perceived incivilities, cynicism, ostracism and

important job outcomes like job performance, intention to sabotage, work withdrawal behavior among frontline employees in different service sectors. References Abdalla, F. H., Maghrabi, A. S., & Raggad, B. G. (1998). Assessing the perceptions of human resource managers toward nepotism: A cross cultural study. International Journal of Manpower, 19(8), 554–570. Abubakar, A. M., & Arasli, H. (2016). Dear top management, please don't make me a cynic: Intention to sabotage. Journal of Management Development, 35(10), 1266–1286. Aladwan, K., Bhanugopan, R., & Fish, A. (2014). Managing human resources in Jordanian organizations: Challenges and prospects. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 7(1), 126–138. Altinay, L., Altinay, M., & Bicak, H. A. (2002). Political scenarios: The future of the North Cyprus tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14(4), 176–182. Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449–469. Anwar, M. N., Sarwar, M., Awan, R. N., & Arif, M. I. (2011). Gender differences in workplace deviant behavior of university teachers and modification techniques. International Education Studies, 4(1). Arasli, H., Ali Bavik, A., Ekiz, H., & E. (2006). The effects of nepotism on human resource management: The case of three, four, and five star hotels in Northern Cyprus. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26(7/8), 295–308. Arasli, H., & Karadal, H. (2009). Impacts of superior politics on frontline employees' behavioral and psychological outcomes. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(2), 175–190. Arasli, H., & Tumer, M. (2008). Nepotism, favoritism and cronyism: A study of their effects on job stress and job satisfaction in the banking industry of north Cyprus. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(9), 1237–1250. Aslan, Ş., & Eren, Ş. (2014). The effect of cynicism and the organizational cynicism on alienation. Munich, Germany: The Clute Institute International Academic Conference (2014). Babakus, E., Yavas, E., & Karatepe, O. M. (2008). The effects of job demands, job resources and intrinsic motivation on emotional exhaustion and turnover intentions: A study in the Turkish hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 9(4), 384–404. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Dual processes at work in a call center: An application of the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(4), 393–417. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83–104. Bedeian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is “ivory,” it isn't “white:” Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 9–32. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's way of knowing. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. Berry, C. M., Lelchook, A. M., & Clark, M. A. (2010). A meta-analysis of the interrelationships between employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover: Implications for models of withdrawal behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 678–699. Bodla, M. A., & Danish, R. Q. (2008). The gender differences in the relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and work performance. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 8(6), 9–18. Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753. Britton, A. R., Sliter, M. T., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Is the glass really half-full? The reverse buffering effect of optimism on undermining behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 712–717. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burke, R. J., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2009). Workaholism among Norwegian journalists: Gender differences. Equal Opportunities International, 28(6), 452–464. Chen, C. Y., Yen, C. H., & Tsai, F. C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating role of person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 21–28. Chiaburu, D. S., Peng, A. C., Oh, I. S., Banks, G. C., & Lomeli, L. C. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(2), 181–197.

138


Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Walter, F., & Holt, D. T. (2010). Organizational justice and individuals' withdrawal: Unlocking the influence of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 367–390. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. L., Magley, V. J., Freeman, L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). What's gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts. Law and Social Inquiry, 27(2), 235–270. Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160–169. Daskin, M. (2013). Favouritism and self-efficacy as antecedents on managers' politics perceptions and job stress. Anatolia, 24(3), 452–467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917. 2013.807396. Daskin, M., Saydam, S., & Arasli, H. (2013). The critical antecedents to organizational citizenship behaviors: Empirical evidences from North Cyprus service industry. Journal of Management Research, 5(2) (1941–899). Daskin, M., & Tezer, M. (2012). Organizational politics and turnover: An empirical research from hospitality industry. Original scientific paper (pp. 273–291). Davidson, M., & Timo, N. (2006). Labor turnover and costs in the Australian accommodation industry. Royal Exchange, NSW: Griffith University. Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 341–352. Deloitte (2010). Hospitality 2015: Game changers or spectators. (London, England). Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands: Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512. Dolen, V., de Cremer, W. M., & D., & de Ruyter, K. (2012). Consumer cynicism toward collective buying: The interplay of others' outcomes, social value orientation, and mood. Psychology and Marketing, 29(5), 306–321. Drory, A., & Beaty, D. (1991). Gender differences in the perception of organizational influence tactics. Journal of Organization Behavior, 12, 249–258. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. In A. H. Eagly (Ed.), Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation (pp. 128–135). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale. Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555–578. Escartín, J., Salin, D., & Rodriguez-Carballeira, A. (2011). Conceptualization of workplace bullying: Gendered rather than gender neutral? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(4), 157–165. Ghosh, R., Dierkes, S., & Falletta, S. (2011). Incivility spiral in mentoring relationships: Reconceptualizing negative mentoring as deviant workplace behavior. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 22–39. Glendinning, P. M. (2001). Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American workplace. Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 269–286. Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2001). Workload and burnout in nurses. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 211–215. Gripentrog, B. K., Harold, C. M., Holtz, B. C., Klimoski, R. J., & Marsh, S. M. (2012). Integrating social identity and the theory of planned behavior: Predicting withdrawal from an organizational recruitment process. Personal Psychology, 65, 723–753. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(1), 60–78. Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 110–128. Hinkin, T., & Tracey, J. (2008). Contextual factors and cost profiles associated with employee turnover. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49(1), 12–27. Hitlan, R. T., Cliffton, R. J., & DeSoto, M. C. (2006). Perceived exclusion in the workplace: The moderating effects of gender on work-related attitudes and psychological health. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 217–236. Holm, K., Torkelson, E. & Bäckström, M. (2015). Models of workplace incivility: The relationships to instigated incivility and negative outcomes. Hindawi Publishing Corporation BioMed Research International Article ID 920239. Jaja, S. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship paradigm. Port Harcourt: Pearl Publishers. Jung, J., & Kim, Y. (2012). Causes of newspaper firm employee burnout in Korea and its impact on organizational commitment and turnover intention. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(17), 3636–3651. Kao, F., Cheng, B., Kuo, C., & Huang, M. (2014). Stressors, withdrawal, and sabotage in frontline employees: The moderating effects of caring and service climates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 755–780. Kara, D., Uysal, M., & Magnini, V. P. (2012). Gender differences on job satisfaction of the fivestar hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(7), 1047–1065. Karatepe, O. M. (2011). Do job resources moderate the effect of emotional dissonance on burnout? A study in the city of Ankara, Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(1), 44–65. Karatepe, O. M. (2015). Do personal resources mediate the effect of perceived organizational support on emotional exhaustion and job outcomes? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(1), 4–26. Karatepe, O. M., & Nkendong, R. A. (2014). The relationship between customer-related social stressors and job outcomes: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 27(1), 414–426.

Karatepe, O. M., & Uludag, O. (2008). Role stress, burnout and their effects on frontline hotel employees' job performance. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(2), 111–126. Karimi, L. (2008). A study of a multidimensional model of work-family conflict among Iranian employees. Community, Work and Family, 11(3), 283–295. Kim, P. (2014). A simple model of ostracism formation. PloS One, 9(4), 1–6. Kim, T., Bateman, T. S., Gilbreath, B., & Andersson, L. M. (2009). Top management credibility and employee cynicism: A comprehensive model. Human relation, 62(10), 1435–1458. Koçoğlu, M. (2014). Cynicism as a mediator of relations between job stress and work alienation: A study from a Developing country – Turkey. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 6(1), 24–36. Kurt, I. (2016). The mediating role of cynicism on authentic leadership and organizational identification relationship. In M. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, & U. Can (Eds.), Business challenges in the changing economic landscape. Eurasian studies in business and economics, 2. Cham: Springer 2/2. Kwon, I. (2006). Endogenous favoritism in organizations. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 6(1), 1–10. Laschinger, H. K., Leiter, M., Day, A., & Gilin, D. (2009). Workplace empowerment, incivility, and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 17, 302–311. Leiter, M. P., Peck, E., & Gumuchian, S. (2015). Workplace incivility and its implications for well-being in mistreatment in organizations. Research in occupational stress and well being. 13. (pp. 107–135). Leong, L. Y., Hew, T. S., Lee, V. H., & Ooi, K. B. (2015). An SEM-artificial-neural-network analysis of the relationships between servperf, customer satisfaction and loyalty among low-cost and full-service airline. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(19), 6620–6634. Leung, K., Ip, O. K. M., & Leung, K. (2010). Social cynicism and job satisfaction: A longitudinal analysis. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 59(2), 318–338. Li, J., Wong, I. A., & Kim, W. G. (2016). Effects of psychological contract breach on attitudes and performance: The moderating role of competitive climate. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.02.010. Li, L., & Leung, R. (2001). Female managers in Asian hotels: Profile and career challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13, 189–196. Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 483–496. Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107. Lim, V. K. G., & Teo, T. S. H. (2009). Mind your e-manners: Impact of incivility on employee's work attitude and behavior. Information Management, 46, 419–425. Lisaniler, G. F., & Kalmaz, B. D. (2012). Gendered labor market and labor force participation of women: Case of North Cyprus. 8th international congress on Cyprus studies. Famagusta, North Cyprus. Loi, N. M., Loh, J. M. I., & Hine, D. W. (2015). Don't rock the boat: The moderating role of gender in the relationship between workplace incivility and work withdrawal. Journal of Management Development, 34(2), 169–186. Loo, R. (2003). Are women more ethical than men? Findings from three independent studies. Women in Management Review, 18(4), 169–181. Magley, V. J., Bauerle, T. J., & Walsh, B. M. (2010). Sexual harassment in the workplace. In R. Burke, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Risky business: psychological and behavioral costs of high risk behavior in organizations, Gower, Surrey (pp. 239–262). Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher-order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562–582. McCuddy, M., Pinar, M., & Birkan, I. (2010). Gender bias in managing human resources in the Turkish hospitality industry: Is bias impacted by demographic context? Proceedings of ASBBS, 17(1), 479–493. McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Non-centrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (247–25). Miner-Rubino, K., & Reed, W. D. (2010). Testing a moderated mediational model of workgroup incivility: The roles of organizational trust and group regard. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 3148–3168. Murphy, K. A. (1986). When your top choice turns you down: Effect of rejected job offers on the utility of selection tests. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 128–133. Nair, P., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2010). The impact of cynicism on ethical intentions of Indian managers: The moderating role of seniority. Journal of International Business Ethics, 3(1), 14–29. Namazie, P., & Frame, P. (2007). Developments in human resource management in Iran. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(1), 159–171. Olabimitan, B., & Alausa, W. M. (2014). Psychological factors predicting workplace deviance behavior among nurses in the public health sector in Lagos. Nigerian Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 2, 137–152. Paliaga, P., & Strunje, Z. (2011). Research of implementation of internal marketing in companies in the Republic of Croatia. Ekonomska Istraživanja-Economic Research, 24, 107–121. Panwar, S., Dalal, J. S., & Kaushik, A. K. (2012). High staff turn over in hotel industry, due to low remunerations and extended working hours. VSRD International Journal of Business and Management Research, 2(3), 81–89. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54(11), 1387–1419. Pinar, M., McCuddy, M., Birkan, I., & Kozak, M. (2011). Gender diversity in the hospitality industry: An empirical study in Turkey. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 73–81. 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.

A.M. Abubakar et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 23 (2017) 129–139 Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2010). The cost of bad behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 64–71. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. Reio, T. G., Jr. (2011). Supervisor and coworker incivility: Testing the work frustration-aggression model. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 54–68. Reio, T. G., Jr., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: Implications for human resource development and practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 237–264. Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195–209. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D. H., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914–922. Schaap, J., Stedham, Y., & Yamamura, J. (2008). Casino management: Exploring genderbased differences in perceptions of managerial work. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 87–97. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. R. (2010). Predictive analytics in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 553–572. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. Sim, J., Tan, G. W., Wong, J. C. J., Ooi, K., & Hew, T. (2014). Understanding and predicting the motivators of mobile music acceptance – A multi-stage MRA-artificial neural network approach. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 569–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele. 2013.11.005. Skalpe, O. (2007). The CEO gender pay gap in the tourism industry – Evidence from Norway. Tourism Management, 28, 845–853. Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & Jex, S. (2012). The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 121–139. Smidt, O., De Beer, L. T., Brink, L., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). The validation of a workplace incivility scale within the South African banking industry. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 42(1), 1–12. Statistical Yearbook (2015). Prime ministry, TRNC state planning organization. http:// www.devplan.org/ISTYILLIK/IST-YILLIK-2015.pdf. Sulea, C., Filipescu, R., Horga, A., Ortan, C., & Fischmann, G. (2012). Interpersonal mistreatment at work and burnout among teachers. Cognitie, creier, comportament [Cognition, brain, behavior]. 16. (pp. 553–570). Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83–98. Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 197–201. Töyry, S., Kalimo, R., Äärimaa, M., Juntunen, J., Seuri, M., & Räsänen, K. (2004). Children and work - related stress among physicians. Stress and Health, 20, 213–221. Wan, Y. K. P. (2010). Exploratory assessment of the Macao casino dealers' job perceptions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 62–71. Wang, S., & Yi, X. (2012). Organizational justice and work withdrawal in Chinese companies: The moderating effects of allocentrism and idiocentrism. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(2), 211–228. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002. Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. Yavas, U., Karatepe, O. M., Babakus, E., & Avci, T. (2004). Customer complaints and organizational responses: A study of hotel guests in Northern Cyprus. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 11(2/3), 31–46. Yirik, S., Oren, D., & Ekici, R. (2015). Determination of organizational stress and organizational burnout levels of mid-level managers working in four and five star hotel businesses. International Review of Management and Marketing, 5(2), 52–60. A. Mohammed Abubakar serves as Assistant Professor in the Department of Management Information Systems at Aksaray University, Turkey. His research spans into organization behavior and management information system domains. His focus include the socioeconomic implications of digital marketplaces (i.e., e-WOM, and e-Referral) platforms, online labor platforms (i.e., virtual economies like , upwork. com) and workplace conflicts (i.e., work-family interference, workplace incivility, and psychological health). His work has appeared in top-tier journals including: Marketing Planning & Intelligence, Online Information Review, Journal of Management Development, The Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Tourism Management Perspectives, and Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management.

139

Boshra Hejraty Namin obtained her M.Sc. in Tourism Management from Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus and B.A. in Tourism Management from Payam Noor University of Tehran, Iran in 2016 and 2012 respectively. Her current research interests include Organizational Behavior, Leadership, and Incivility in hospitality industry.

Ibrahim Harazneh recently finished his Ph.D from Girne American University, North Cyprus in Tourism and Hospitality Management. His research interests are HRM, CRM, and technology in the tourism sector.

Huseyin Arasli is a Professor of management and organizational studies at Eastern Mediterranean University in North Cyprus. He has been teaching management, hospitality, and tourism related courses for 20 years. He has attended and presented many papers at international conferences as well as published several national and international scholarly articles in different journals such as Tourism Management, Journal of Small Business Management, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence Journal, Services Marketing Quarterly Journal, Managing Service Quality Journal, International Journal of Bank Marketing and International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance.

Tuğba Tunç is affiliated with the Department of Management Information Systems, Aksaray University, Turkey.