498300
research-article2013
CQXXXX10.1177/1938965513498300Cornell Hospitality QuarterlyRaub and Blunschi
Sustainability and Human Resources
The Power of Meaningful Work: How
Awareness of CSR Initiatives Fosters Task
Significance and Positive Work Outcomes
in Service Employees
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
2014, Vol. 55(1) 10­–18
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1938965513498300
cqx.sagepub.com
Steffen Raub1 and Stephan Blunschi2
Abstract
This paper develops and tests a model of the impact of employees’ awareness of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
initiatives on perceived task significance and important attitudinal and behavioral work outcomes of service employees in
the hospitality industry. Data from 211 employees of a United Kingdom–based hotel chain provide support for the concept
that employees should be made aware of CSR actions. Results suggest that employees’ awareness of CSR activities is
positively related to job satisfaction, engagement in helping and voice behavior, and personal initiative, and CSR awareness
is negatively related to emotional exhaustion. These relationships are partly or fully mediated by perceived task significance.
We discuss implications of this research for theory and practice, and provide several recommendations for how managers
in the hospitality industry can increase employees’ awareness for corporate engagement in CSR initiatives.
Keywords
corporate social responsibility (CSR), hospitality industry, task significance; work design
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has received considerable attention in the hospitality industry (e.g., Lane 1982;
Rowe 1986; Stuckey and Jones 1996; Woods and Berger
1989), and guests’ attention to this phenomenon continues
to grow. CSR researchers have suggested that to gain a balanced view of organizational effectiveness, service firms
should consider both the financial and the CSR-related performance of their business (Jackson and Parsa 2009), and
have urged them to integrate CSR into their business strategies (Bohdanowicz and Zientara 2008; Manson 2006;
Mullen 2006; Pérez and Rodriguez del Bosque 2012).
Moreover, there is increasing evidence that large, multinational hospitality organizations not only implement CSR
activities but also report on these activities on their websites
and in their annual reports (Holcomb, Upchurch, and
Okumus 2007). Similar evidence is available for small,
independent hotels (Njite, Hancer, and Slevitch 2011), as
well as for the restaurant industry (Jones, Comfort, and
Hillier 2006).
The increasing business relevance of the topic has been
accompanied by a steady surge in research on the impact of
corporate CSR activities (Kechiche and Soparnot 2012;
Scherer and Palazzo 2011). To date, this research has been
predominantly focused on three distinct groups of stakeholders: shareholders and investors, customers, and prospective employees. With regard to shareholders and potential
investors, the launch of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index
(DJSI) in 1999 highlights the relevance of CSR initiatives.
The DJSI rates companies according to fixed categories and
compares them within their industry. The success of this
index over the last eleven years shows that sustainability
initiatives are of significant interest for shareholders and
potential investors. Moreover, research suggests that CSR
performance is related to the financial success of organizations (Cochran and Wood 1984; Johnson and Greening
1994; McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988). Such a
positive effect of engagement in CSR on organizational
effectiveness (Kraft 1991), volume of business (Boluk
2013), and financial performance (Park and Lee 2009) has
also been suggested for service industries in general and the
hospitality industry in particular.
In a similar vein, the consequences of CSR activities for
customers have been investigated, and evidence for a relationship between CSR performance and consumer decisions has accumulated (Romm 1994; Solomon and Hanson
1
Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne, Le Chalet-à-Gobet, Switzerland
MIGROS, Zürich, Switzerland
2
Corresponding Author:
Steffen Raub, Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne, Le Chalet-à-Gobet, Route de
Cojonnex 18, CH-1000 Lausanne 25, Switzerland.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
11
Raub and Blunschi
1985; Vandermerwe and Oliff 1990). Service industry
research also suggests that corporate engagement in CSR is
positively associated with customer assessments of service
quality, customer loyalty, brand identification, and brand
equity (Calabrese and Lancioni 2008; de los Salmones,
Crespon, and del Bosque 2005; He and Li 2011; Poolthong
and Mandhachitara 2009), and similar findings are reported
in research specifically focused on the restaurant industry
(Choi 2011; Hsin-Hui, Parsa, and Self 2010).
As far as prospective employees are concerned, research
has suggested that firms that engage in CSR activities may
develop more positive images and that, as a result, CSR
may contribute to creating a competitive advantage in the
labor market (Davis 1973; Fombrun and Shanley 1990).
Drawing on social identity theory and signaling theory,
Turban and Greening (1996) showed that firms’ corporate
social performance (CSP) is positively related to reputation
and increases their attractiveness as employers. Along the
same lines, other researchers have argued that prospective
employees could be more strongly attracted to organizations that engage in CSR activities (e.g., Brammer,
Millington, and Rayton 2007; Greening and Turban 2000;
Peterson 2004; Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, and Williams
2006; Turban and Greening 1996). CSR also becomes more
relevant from the employers’ perspective. For instance,
recent hospitality research suggests that recruiters in the
hospitality industry are increasingly sensitive to CSRrelated values in job candidates and use these value orientations as an additional selection criterion (Day et al. 2013).
Given the depth of research on the impact of corporate
CSR activities on shareholders and investors, customers,
and prospective employees, there is a surprising lack of
research on its impact on another important set of stakeholders: the organization’s current employees. In this
research, we attempt to fill this gap and investigate the relationship between corporate CSR activities and important
outcomes at the employee level.
CSR and Job Design: The Importance
of Meaningful Work
Research on job design has a long tradition in the organizational behavior field, dating back to Frederick Taylor’s
work on scientific management at the turn of the twentieth
century (see, for example, Taylor 1911) and to the human
relations movement (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939). A
dominant place in research on work design is occupied by
Hackman and Oldham’s (1975; 1976) path-breaking work
on job characteristics theory. Hackman and Oldham identified five “core job characteristics,” which predict important
outcomes such as job satisfaction, motivation, performance,
and turnover. These core job characteristics include skill
variety (the variety of different activities that need to be carried out in a job), task identity (the degree to which the job
allows for the completion of a “whole” identifiable piece of
work), autonomy (the extent to which the job provides for
independence and discretion), and feedback (the extent to
which the job or other people provide feedback on the
effectiveness with which the job is carried out). For our purposes, a fifth core job characteristic is most essential: task
significance.
Task significance is defined as “the degree to which the
job has a substantial impact on the lives or work of other
people—whether in the immediate organization or in the
external environment” (Hackman and Oldham 1975, 161).
The task significance construct has triggered a substantial
amount of research on how individual perceptions of being
able to make a difference for others are related to individual
job attitudes and work performance (Grant 2007; 2008). Job
design researchers have argued that job characteristics are
not simply an objective given, but that jobholders actively
participate in shaping the characteristics of their jobs and
develop their own perceptions of these characteristics
(Wrzesniewski and Dutton 2001). One of the driving forces
in this process is the search for meaning in work. In short,
meaningful work requires that employees understand the
significance of what they do (Wrzesniewski, Dutton, and
Debebe 2003).
We suggest that organizational engagement in CSR is
one mechanism by which the perceived meaning in work
can be increased. When organizations engage in CSR activities, they actively contribute to the economic, ecological,
or social environment around them. Such activities enhance
the image of the organization and allow employees to construct a positive identity for themselves and the organization in which they work as a place that cares for and
contributes to the well-being of others. This perception
should increase task significance, which involves the perception of making a positive difference in the lives of
others.
For organizational CSR activities to have positive consequences for individual perceptions of task significance, personal involvement or engagement in such initiatives would
certainly be beneficial. But this does not constitute a necessary condition. Rather, what is critical is that employees are
aware of the organization’s engagement in CSR initiatives.
Hence, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1: Awareness of CSR activities is positively
related to perceived task significance.
Task significance is one of the job characteristics that,
according to Hackman and Oldham (1975; 1976), contribute to positive individual work outcomes. They suggest that
when work is experienced as being meaningful, individual
job satisfaction should increase. As a baseline to our investigation, and in replication of the findings of previous work
design research, we suggest the following:
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
12
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(1)
Hypothesis 2: Task significance is positively related to
job satisfaction.
Beyond its attitudinal impact, however, task significance
should also have behavioral consequences. Since high task
significance is associated with strong internal work motivation (Hackman and Oldham 1975; 1976), employees who
experience high task significance should be more likely to
engage in discretionary types of work behavior, such as
organizational citizenship behavior (Organ 1988), for which
intrinsic motivation is an important antecedent.
Discretionary work behaviors are of particular importance in the service industry, as they are strongly related to
customer satisfaction (Raub and Liao 2010). Two types of
organizational citizenship behavior that are frequently studied in the hospitality industry are helping behavior and
voice behavior (Stamper and Van Dyne 2001). Helping
behavior involves supporting or assisting colleagues who
are faced with difficult tasks or suffer from work overload.
Voice behavior involves making constructive suggestions
for improvements in work processes or procedures. More
recently, research on discretionary work behaviors has been
extended to include “proactive” types of work behavior,
including personal initiative (Frese et al. 1997; Griffin,
Neal, and Parker 2007). Personal initiative at work involves
a long-term oriented, proactive, change-oriented, and persistent approach to work. The positive relationship between
individual initiative in service work and desirable individual and organizational outcomes has been established (Rank
et al. 2007; Raub and Liao 2012). Given that the internal
motivation generated by high task significance should be
translated into more engagement in discretionary work
behaviors, we suggest the following:
Hypothesis 3: Task significance is positively related
to helping behavior, voice behavior, and personal
initiative.
Service work is often emotionally challenging (Grandey,
Dickter, and Sin 2004; Hochschild 1983). The diversity and
range of customer demands, the need for frequent emotional labor, and encounters with demanding or even
aggressive customers take a toll on service employees’
emotional resources. Coping with the emotional demands
of service work should be facilitated when service employees perceive their work as meaningful. As a result, with
high experienced task significance, the potential negative
impact of emotionally challenging service work should be
at least partly buffered, and task significance should be negatively related to emotional exhaustion. We therefore suggest the following:
Hypothesis 4: Task significance is negatively related to
emotional exhaustion.
Exhibit 1:
Theoretical Model.
CSR
Awareness
H1
Task
Significance
H5
H2
H3
H4
H5
Job Satisfaction
Emotional Exhaustion
Helping Behavior
Voice Behavior
Personal Initiative
In the preceding hypotheses, we suggested that the
awareness of organizational involvement in CSR activities contributes to perceived task significance, which, in
turn, should be beneficially related to a range of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The combination of these
hypotheses suggests a mediated model in which the beneficial effect of employees’ awareness of corporate CSR
activities is fully or partly mediated by task significance.
Therefore,
Hypothesis 5: Awareness of CSR activities is positively
related to job satisfaction, helping behavior, voice
behavior, and personal initiative, and negatively
related to emotional exhaustion, and this relationship
is at least partly mediated by task significance.
Exhibit 1 provides an overview of our hypothesized
model.
Method
Sample and Procedures
We collected data with the support of a hotel chain based in
the United Kingdom, which comprises two sister brands.
The data came from four hotel properties, which belonged
to the two different brands and were located in two primary
cities in the United Kingdom. Due to the fact that a substantial proportion of the employees in our sample had limited
access to a computer, we used paper-based questionnaires.
The data collection process was officially announced by the
human resources managers of the participating properties,
and employees were allowed to fill out questionnaires during their remunerated working hours. Data collection was
personally overseen by a member of the investigating
team to guarantee full confidentiality for the participating
employees.
The sample was limited to the four hotel properties
with a total of 330 eligible employees. Overall, 211
employees completed questionnaires, corresponding to a
64 percent response rate. The mean age of respondents
was 28.25 years (SD = 8.51), their mean tenure was 2.46
years (SD = 2.51), and 52 percent of the respondents were
female.
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
13
Raub and Blunschi
Exhibit 2:
Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Zero-Order Correlations.
Variable
Mean
SD
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
28.25
0.48
2.46
3.05
3.50
3.60
2.57
3.95
3.57
3.84
8.51
0.50
2.51
0.88
0.85
0.76
0.80
0.66
0.74
0.68
—
.02
.45**
.11
.02
−.05
−.04
.05
.14
.04
—
.03
−.06
−.04
.15*
−.11
.15*
.17*
.17*
Age
Gender
Tenure
CSR awareness
Task significance
Job satisfaction
Emotional exhaustion
Helping behavior
Voice behavior
Personal initiative
3
4
—
.27**
.20**
−.07
.06
.1
.16*
.11
.86
.23**
.12
−.15*
.20**
.25**
.15*
5
.85
.38**
−.16*
.41**
.41**
.42**
6
.83
−.45**
.40**
.28**
.44**
7
.90
−.19**
−.08
−.15*
8
.91
.62**
.76**
9
10
.92
.66**
.93
Note. Bold figures on the diagonal are scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha). Age and Tenure measured in years. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male. CSR =
corporate social responsibility.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Measures
The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first part
assessed employees’ awareness of CSR initiatives. The second part focused on their perception of several work design
variables, including perceived task significance. The third
part included work outcome dimensions. We used established measures to assess the central variables of the theoretical model, as described below. The survey instrument
was pre-tested on a medium-size sample of hospitality students and hospitality managers. This pilot test did not reveal
any issues with regard to the face validity of the items in the
instrument. Scale reliabilities proved to be acceptable and
similar in range to those observed in the main study.
Awareness of sustainability initiatives. The four items addressing awareness of sustainability initiatives were adapted
from Raub (2008). Sample items include, “I am very aware
of HOTEL’s CSR initiatives” and “I have a great deal of
knowledge about HOTEL’s CSR initiatives” (α = .86).
Task significance. Task significance was assessed with three
items from Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) Work Design
Questionnaire (WDQ). Sample items include, “The results
of my work are likely to significantly affect the lives of
other people” and “My job itself is very significant and
important in a broader scheme of things” (α = .85).
Job satisfaction. We used the four-item scale developed by
Quinn and Shepard (1974) to measure job satisfaction.
Sample items include, “If a good friend told me she or he
was interested in working in a job like mine we would
strongly recommend it” and “All in all, I am very satisfied
with my current job” (α = .83).
Emotional exhaustion. The eight-item scale from Maslach
and Jackson (1981) was used to measure emotional
exhaustion. Sample items include, “I feel emotionally
drained from my work” and “I feel frustrated by my job”
(α = .90).
Helping behavior. Helping behavior was measured with five
items from Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) Altruism scale. Sample
items for helping include, “I help others who have been
absent” and “I help orient new people even though it is not
required” (α = .91).
Voice behavior. Voice behavior was measured with five
items adapted from Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Sample
items for voice include, “I speak up in this department with
ideas for new projects or changes in procedures” and “I
communicate my opinions about work issues to others in
this department even when my opinion is different and others in the department disagree with me” (α = .92).
Personal initiative. We used the seven-item scale developed
by Frese et al. (1997) to measure personal initiative. Sample
items include, “I actively attack problems” and “I am particularly good at realizing ideas” (α = .93).
The response format for all items was a five-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree. The control variables included gender, age, and tenure.
Findings
Descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities, and correlations are
shown in Exhibit 2. Cronbach’s alphas range from .83 to
.93, demonstrating good scale reliabilities for all the measurement scales used in this research.
In an effort to assess the discriminant validity of our key
constructs, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor
analyses. Results of these confirmatory factor analyses
(CFAs) are reported in Exhibit 3. We compared the proposed seven-factor model with three theoretically plausible
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
14
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(1)
Exhibit 3:
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Model
df
Model 1: Single factor
Model 2: 2 factors (predictors, outcomes)
χ2
Δχ2
NFI CFI IFI RMSEA
665 8192.38 .69
664 5723.86 .75
.71 .71 .22
.78 .78 .18
Model 3: 5 factors (CSR awareness, task significance, job
655 3836.02 .81
satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, performance outcomes)
Model 4: 7 factors (CSR awareness, task significance, job
644 2459.04 .85
satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, helping, voice, personal
initiative)
.81 .84 .15
.88 .88 .11
Model 2 vs. Model 1 Δχ2(1) =
2468.52; p < .001
Model 3 vs. Model 2 Δχ2(9) =
1887.84; p < .001
Model 4 vs. Model 3 Δχ2(11) =
1376.98; p < .001
Note. NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CSR =
corporate social responsibility.
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Mediation Analysis—Step 1.
Independent Variables
Age
Gender
Tenure
CSR awareness
Mediation Analysis—Steps 2 and 3 for Job Attitudes.
DV: Task Significance
−.10
−.01
.19*
.18*
Note. Table entries are standardized regression coefficients (betas).
DV = dependent variable; CSR = corporate social responsibility.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
alternative models, including a one-factor model, a twofactor model separating predictor and outcome variables,
and a five-factor model in which the behavioral outcome
measures were collapsed into a single factor. The results
reveal that the seven-factor model shows acceptable fit to
the data (normed fit index [NFI] = .85, comparative fit
index [CFI] = .88, incremental fit index [IFI] = .88, root
mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .11) and,
more importantly, also fits the data significantly better than
the alternative models.
To assess the hypothesized mediated model, we applied the
widely used Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure. As a first
step, we assessed whether CSR awareness was positively
related to task significance (our presumed mediator). As shown
in Exhibit 4, when controlling for age, gender, and tenure, CSR
awareness predicts task significance (β = .18, p < .05). This
result provides support for hypothesis 1 and indicates that the
first condition of the Baron and Kenny procedure is fulfilled.
As a second step, we tested whether CSR awareness predicted the outcome variables (while controlling for age,
gender, and tenure), with the results shown in Exhibits 5
and 6 under “Model 1.” As predicted, CSR awareness was
positively related to job satisfaction (β = .15, p < .05), helping behavior (β = .21, p < .01), voice behavior (β = .22, p <
.01), and personal initiative (β = .16, p < .05), and was negatively related to emotional exhaustion (β = −.19, p < .05).
DV: Job Satisfaction
Independent
Variables
Age
Gender
Tenure
CSR awareness
Task significance
Type of mediation
Model 1
Model 2
−.03
.14
−.10
.15*
.01
.14*
−.18*
.07
.43**
Full
DV: Emotional
Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
−.07
−.10
.13
−.19*
−.08
−.11
.17*
−.16*
−.18*
Partial
Note. Table entries are standardized regression coefficients (betas).
DV = dependent variable; CSR = corporate social responsibility.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The third step in the Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure
consists of examining a model in which the independent
variable (CSR awareness) and the mediator (task significance) are jointly introduced as predictors of an outcome
variable. These models are designated as “Model 2” in
Exhibits 5 and 6. For mediation to occur, the effect of the
independent variable should be reduced in the last step of
the analysis. Full mediation occurs if this effect becomes
nonsignificant. A reduced but still significant regression
coefficient for the independent variable provides evidence
for partial mediation.
As shown in Exhibits 5 and 6, the introduction of task
significance in Model 2 leads to a reduction in the effect of
CSR awareness for every outcome variable.
In the case of job satisfaction (β = .15, p < .05 → β = .07,
ns) and personal initiative (β = .16, p < .05 → β = .09, ns),
the nonsignificant regression coefficients for CSR awareness provide evidence for full mediation. For emotional
exhaustion (β = −.19, p < .05 → β = −.16, p < .05), helping
behavior (β = .21, p < .01 → β = .15, p < .05), and voice
behavior (β = .22, p < .01 → β = .16, p < .05), the results
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
15
Raub and Blunschi
Exhibit 6:
Mediation Analysis—Steps 2 and 3 for Behavioral Outcomes.
Helping Behavior
DV
Age
Gender
Tenure
CSR awareness
Task significance
Type of mediation
Voice Behavior
Personal Initiative
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
−.02
.27*
.05
.21**
.00
.17*
−.02
.15*
.38**
.05
.17*
.09
.22**
.07
.17*
.02
.16*
.36**
−.04
.20**
.07
.16*
−.01
.20**
−.01
.09
.43**
Partial
Partial
Full
Note. Table entries are standardized regression coefficients (betas). DV = dependent variable; CSR = corporate social responsibility.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
provide evidence for partial mediation. Taken together,
these results provide support for hypotheses 2 through 5.
Discussion
Implications for Theory
From a theoretical perspective, the findings of this research
provide support for the notion that corporate engagement
in CSR initiatives can have beneficial effects for an
important stakeholder group, namely, current employees.
Whereas previous research provides evidence for the
impact of engagement in CSR on an organization’s financial performance (e.g., Cochran and Wood 1984; Johnson
and Greening 1994; McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis
1988), as well as on its reputation and attractiveness in the
labor market (e.g., Greening and Turban 2000; Turban and
Greening 1996), its impact on the workforce has not been
studied to a similar extent. The fact that awareness of CSR
initiatives is positively related to discretionary work behaviors (including OCB and personal initiative) and negatively
related to emotional exhaustion is of particular relevance to
the service industries in general, and the hospitality industry in particular, given the importance of these work behaviors in a service context and the frequent strain put on
employees’ emotional resources that are characteristic for
the industry.
These results also underscore the importance of task significance as a mediating mechanism in this relationship.
When employees are aware of corporate engagement in
CSR, they perceive that together with their organization,
they can make a positive difference for other people and for
the environment. This perception of “meaningful work”
plays an important role in transmitting the effect of CSR
awareness on the outcomes we studied. These results also
underscore the importance of task significance as an important work design variable that has long been neglected by
research and has recently benefited from a surge of interest
among organizational researchers (Grant 2008).
Limitations
As with all research, this study has a number of limitations.
The use of measures obtained from employees may suggest
possible concerns about common method bias. Also, the
cross-sectional design of our study does not allow for drawing conclusions about causal relationships. Finally, the fact
that our sample of employees was drawn from a limited
number of establishments of a single organization operating
in a single country and a specific segment of the hospitality
industry limits the generalizability of our results. Future
replications and extensions of this study should attempt to
investigate these relationships with multiple measures
obtained from different cultural and industry contexts, and,
if possible, use a longitudinal design.
Implications for Practice
From the viewpoint of hospitality industry practice, the
most important implication of our findings is that when hospitality organizations engage in CSR activities and make
their employees aware of these activities, they can reap substantial benefits in terms of improved job attitudes and
greater engagement in discretionary work behaviors. This is
an important finding because research suggests that engagement in CSR may be driven by the objective of projecting a
better image to financial investors, potential customers, or
potential employees, or may simply reflect a trend to follow
the latest management fashion (Abrahamson and Fairchild
1999), rather than being explicitly focused on promoting
outcomes at the level of the organization’s employees.
When engagement in CSR is not motivated by an explicit
concern for the attitudes and performance of current
employees, it is more likely that organizations miss out on
multiple opportunities of making their employees aware of
ongoing CSR initiatives. However, this study suggests that
it is the employees’ awareness of these initiatives that
drives results. Observation of CSR practices in the organization under investigation in our study and discussion with
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
16
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(1)
managers revealed multiple starting points for thinking
about how hospitality businesses can foster greater awareness of corporate CSR initiatives in their employees.
An important facilitating factor for fostering such an
awareness seems to be the extent to which CSR initiatives
are closely linked to and integrated with the organization’s
core business. Employees are more likely to be aware of
CSR initiatives that demonstrate a visible impact in their
immediate work environment. For instance, a hospitality
firm’s engagement in promoting sustainable development
through the local sourcing of food products or its pledge to
contribute to energy conservation through the systematic
use of energy-saving technologies in its properties is more
likely to contribute to the employees’ awareness of CSR
initiatives than is a development project in a country that is
thousands of miles away or a sponsorship of a lofty cultural
event. In essence, employees will more readily perceive the
organization’s core business as meaningful when they have
the opportunity to observe how the organization is doing
good in their daily work environment.
A second facilitating factor for greater awareness of
CSR initiatives is their degree of “localization.” Engagement
in CSR is frequently guided by overarching corporate policies. Greater awareness at the level of the organization’s
employees can be achieved when sizable portions of the
planning and execution of concrete CSR-related activities
are left to lower levels of the hierarchy (i.e., to decision
makers in individual hotel properties). For instance,
appointing a “local CSR champion” in each property puts a
face on the organization’s engagement, facilitates rapid decision-making, fosters widespread participation, and allows
recognition and rewarding of special efforts of individual
team members.
A related factor is the effective communication of CSR
initiatives. It is not sufficient to inform employees by newsletter that the organization is supporting a particular charity.
To identify with and derive meaning from CSR initiatives,
employees need to be able to understand why a company is
engaging in the chosen initiative and how this initiative is
contributing to the welfare of others. This requires not only
continuity and coherence in the company’s engagement in
CSR but also well-orchestrated communication efforts to
help employees understand on a continuous basis what
drives the organization’s CSR philosophy, what concrete
positive impact can be generated through engagement in
CSR, and possibly also how employees themselves can
contribute to the ongoing success of these initiatives.
Last but not least, awareness of organizational engagement in CSR can be facilitated when CSR initiatives are
implemented in such a way that they allow for active participation of employees. Personal involvement fosters a better understanding of what the company is trying to achieve.
If the participation in CSR initiatives brings the possibility
of direct contact with beneficiaries of these efforts, task
significance can be enhanced, direct connection to the daily
work can be ensured, and positive effect of the participation
can be sustained.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Abrahamson, E., and G. Fairchild. 1999. Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes.
Administrative Science Quarterly 44:708-40.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 51:1173-82.
Bohdanowicz, P., and P. Zientara. 2008. Corporate social responsibility in hospitality: Issues and implications. A case study
of Scandic. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
8:271-93.
Boluk, K. 2013. Using CSR as a tool for development: An investigation of the Fair Hotels Scheme in Ireland. Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 14:49-65.
Brammer, S., A. Millington, and B. Rayton. 2007. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational
commitment. International Journal of Human Resource
Management 18:1701-19.
Calabrese, A., and F. Lancioni. 2008. Analysis of corporate social
responsibility in the service sector: Does exist a strategic
path? Knowledge and Process Management 15:107-125.
Choi, G. 2011. Corporate social and environmental responsibility in services: Will consumers pay for it? Academy of
Management Annual Meeting Proceeding 1:1-6.
Cochran, P. L., and R. A. Wood. 1984. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management
Journal 27:42-56.
Davis, K. 1973. The case for and against business assumption
of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal
16:312-22.
Day, J., A. Karani, H. Adler, and A. Nicely. 2013. Corporate
social responsibility and college recruiting in the hospitality industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and
Tourism 12:71-90.
de los Salmones, M., A. Crespo, and I. del Bosque. 2005. Influence
of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of
services. Journal of Business Ethics 61:369-85.
Fombrun, C., and M. Shanley. 1990. What’s in a name? Reputation
building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management
Journal 33:233-58.
Frese, M., D. Fay, T. Hilburger, K. Leng, and A. Tag. 1997. The
concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability
and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology 70:139-61.
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
17
Raub and Blunschi
Grandey, A. A., D. N. Dickter, and H.-P. Sin. 2004. The customer is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion
regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 25:397-418.
Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to
make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review
32:393-417.
Grant, A. M. 2008. The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology 93:108-24.
Greening, D. W., and D. B. Turban. 2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality work
force. Business and Society 39:254-80.
Griffin, M. A., A. Neal, and S. K. Parker. 2007. A new model
of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and
interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal
50:327-47.
Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1975. Development of the Job
Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60:159-70.
Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1976. Motivation through the
design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance 16:250-79.
He, H., and Y. Li. 2011. CSR and service brand: The mediating
effect of brand identification and moderating effect of service
quality. Journal of Business Ethics 100:673-88.
Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The managed heart. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Holcomb, J. L., R. S. Upchurch, and F. Okumus. 2007. Corporate
social responsibility: What are top hotel companies reporting? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 19:461-75.
Hsin-Hui, H., H. G. Parsa, and J. Self. 2010. The dynamics of
green restaurant patronage. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
51:344-62.
Jackson, L. A., and H. G. Parsa. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A typology for service
industries. International Journal of Business Insights and
Transformation 2:13-21.
Johnson, R. A., and D. W. Greening. 1994. The effect of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Proceedings of the International
Association for Business and Society, 222-27.
Jones, P., D. Comfort, and D. Hillier. 2006. Reporting and reflecting on corporate social responsibility in the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 18:329-40.
Kechiche, A., and R. Soparnot. 2012. CSR within SMEs: Literature
review. International Business Research 5:97-104.
Kraft, K. L. 1991. The relative importance of social responsibility
in determining organizational effectiveness: Managers from
two service industries. Journal of Business Ethics 10:485-91.
Lane, H. E. 1982. The corporate conscience and the role of business in society. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly 23:8-18.
Manson, E. 2006. Hotel groups missing out on benefits of CSR.
Caterer and Hotelkeeper 196:6.
Maslach, C., and S. Jackson. 1981. The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior 2:99-113.
McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren, and T. Schneeweis. 1988. Corporate
social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy
of Management Journal 31:854-72.
Morgeson, F. P., and S. E. Humphrey. 2006. The Work Design
Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of
work. Journal of Applied Psychology 91:1321-39.
Mullen, R. 2006. CSR: Hotel groups must reap what they sow.
Caterer and Hotelkeeper 196:16.
Njite, D., M. Hancer, and L. Slevitch. 2011. Exploring corporate
social responsibility: A manager’s perspective on how and
why small independent hotels engage with their communities. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism
12:177-201.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Park, S. Y., and S. Lee. 2009. Financial rewards for social responsibility: A mixed picture for restaurant companies. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly 50:168-79.
Pérez, A., and I. Rodríguez del Bosque. 2012. The role of CSR in
the corporate identity of banking service providers. Journal of
Business Ethics 108:145-66.
Peterson, D. K. 2004. The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business
and Society 43:296-319.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, R. H. Moorman, and R. Fetter.
1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on
followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 1:107-42.
Poolthong, Y., and R. Mandhachitara. 2009. Customer expectations
of CSR, perceived service quality and brand effect in Thai retail
banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing 27:408-27.
Quinn, R., and L. Shepard. 1974. The 1972-73 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor: Michigan Survey Research Center
of the Institute for Social Research.
Rank, J., J. M. Carsten, J. M. Unger, and P. E. Spector. 2007.
Proactive customer service performance: Relationships with
individual, task, and leadership variables. Human Performance
20:363-90.
Raub, S. 2008. Merck Thailand: The role of “meaning” for work
attitudes and behaviors—Executive summary of results
(Unpublished report).
Raub, S. P., and H. Liao. 2010. Antecedents and outcomes of
proactive customer service: A cross-level model. Poster presented at the 25th Annual SIOP Conference, Atlanta.
Raub, S. P., and H. Liao. 2012. Doing the right thing without being
told: Joint effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology 97:651-667.
Roethlisberger, F. J., and W. J. Dickson. 1939. Management and
the worker. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Romm, J. J. 1994. Lean and clean. New York: Kodansha
International.
Rowe, P. D., Jr. 1986. Opening your minds to community
responsibility. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly 27: 8.
Rupp, D. E., J. Ganapathi, R. V. Aguilera, and C. A. Williams.
2006. Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility:
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
18
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(1)
An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organi­
zational Behavior 27:537-43.
Scherer, A., and G. Palazzo. 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective
on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and
democracy. Journal of Management Studies 48:899-931.
Solomon, R. C., and K. R. Hanson. 1985. It’s good business. New
York: Atheneum.
Stamper, C. L., and L. Van Dyne. 2001. Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22:
517-36.
Stuckey, B., and S. Jones. (1996). Learning social responsibility. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly
37:10.
Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management.
New York and London: Harper and Brothers.
Turban, D. B., and D. W. Greening. 1996. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective
employees. Academy of Management Journal 40:658-72.
Van Dyne, L., and J. A. LePine. 1998. Helping and voice extrarole behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity.
Academy of Management Journal 41:108-19.
Vandermerwe, S., and M. D. Oliff. 1990. Customers drive corporations green. Long Range Planning 23:3-9.
Woods, R. H., and F. Berger. 1989. Teaching social responsibility. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly
30:61-63.
Wrzesniewski, A., and J. E. Dutton. 2001. Crafting a job:
Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work.
Academy of Management Review 26:179-201
Wrzesniewski, A., J. E. Dutton, and G. Debebe. 2003. Interpersonal
sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in
Organizational Behavior 25:93-135.
Author Biographies
Steffen Raub is a full professor of organizational behavior at
Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Switzerland ([email protected]).
His research interests include empowerment, organizational citizenship behavior, proactivity, organizational climate, and work
design, with a special focus on service industries.
Stephan Blunschi graduated from Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne.
He currently works as supply chain manager in international fruit
and vegetable sourcing for the leading Swiss retailer MIGROS
([email protected]).
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016