Inglês (pdf)
Artigo em XML
Referências do artigo
Tradução automática
Enviar este artigo por email
Citado por SciELO 
Similares em
SciELO 
Permalink
1. Introduction
In many service sectors, it is widely acknowledged that consumers' perceptions of a firm are frequently connected to their judgments of the performance quality of service personnel. Due to the critical importance of frontline employees in service businesses, managers should view them as the heart of management responsibilities. Managers must recognize the facets of service personnel's jobs that can enhance organizational performance. When it comes to increasing hotels' capability to acquire a competitive edge, the ability of staff to be innovative and creative is critical. Innovative work behavior is required by constantly producing unique ideas in work procedures, strategies, services, or new goods, to create the best results in the hospitality industry (Eliyana & Christiananta, 2020). Employees' innovative work behaviors or creativity are viewed as the foundation of corporate innovation (Muñoz-Pascual & Galende, 2020). Thus, further research is required to increase our knowledge of the elements that contribute to high-level individual creative behavior (Saether, 2019).
To supply their services, hospitality service providers rely on various tangible and intangible, technological and non- technology offers and assets (Goffin & Mitchell, 2016). Thus, innovation in hospitality represents a combination of technical, non-technological, tangible, and intangible areas that result in enhanced programs and service offerings (Drejer, 2004). In addition, the hospitality sector is adopting sustainable or environmentally friendly operations as critical components of its overall appearance in this quest for innovation. As a result, promoting employees' innovative behavior (INB) is becoming increasingly important in the development of organizations. The prevailing belief is that employees' INB is always helpful in improving processes and is viewed as an essential source of an organization's competitive advantage (Zhang et al., 2018). Hence, the majority of researchers have concentrated on finding variables that encourage inventive behaviors (e.g., Bani- Melhem et al., 2018; Sousa et al., 2019), while some others have begun to investigate the impacts of innovation as a valued independent variable (e.g., Khessina et al., 2018). Various studies have focused their research on INB as the outcome of organizational culture and resources (Hogan & Coote, 2014; Irani & Rahimizhian, 2021; Jeong & Chun, 2019; Khan et al., 2020) as well as internal and external sources that can influence innovativeness (Ferraris et al., 2017; Segarra-Ciprés et al., 2014). Prior studies have attempted to recognize different types of leadership that might contribute to employees' INB (Alheet et al., 2021; Chen & Hou, 2016; Hunter et al., 2017; Jaiswal & Dhar, 2015).
Several recent studies have focused on the antecedents of employees' INB that lead to a deeper understanding of employees' innovativeness. In addition to personality and contextual factors (Bammens, 2016), factors such as work design, organizational assets and job features (Amabile et al., 2018), trust, connection, performance expectations, and image construction are some of the identified antecedents of INB (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Other research identifies a strategy, organizational structure, and environment, as well as individual and group competencies, as significant predictors of INB (Mumford & Licuanan, 2004). Additionally, recent studies have demonstrated the critical impact of effective leadership in developing employees' INB (Arasli et al., 2020; Mokhber et al., 2018). Thus, the demand for organizational innovation has led to a growing emphasis on the role of leaders in determining the nature and success of creative endeavors.
Organizational leadership and leadership theories have long been studied over the years. According to Bass and Stogdill (1990), leadership can be defined as “an interaction among members of a group that involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the accompanying perceptions and expectations of members.” A leader plays a vital role in motivating people and guiding organizational culture, affecting individual performance and organizational effectiveness (Buil et al., 2019). Leadership is needed at every level of any organization to ensure success. Notably, it has been associated with workplace safety, goal achievement, and efficiency (Christian et al., 2009). Leadership behavior is mainly intended to increase safety within the workplace. In a supportive work environment, employees feel more convinced to do their work without suffering from potential problems as they act more proactively.
Constructive leaders (CL) are supportive leaders who encourage their employees to take more responsibilities (Hadi et al., 2020; Wu & Parker, 2017). They can also promote employees’ proactive behaviors (PB). While the impact of various types of leadership on employees’ innovativeness has been well studied, to the best of our knowledge, the relationship between CL and employees’ INB through safety climate (SC) has not been explored yet. The primary intention of a constructive leader is to provide the follower’s welfare while considering the fulfillment of organizational goals and efficient use of the organization’s resources. Constructive leaders combine human traits such as loyalty, honor, respect, honesty, and fairness with team strengths, including trust, control, success, and trying for the greater good (Burns, 2017). Notably, as innovation contributes to the competitiveness of organizations and destinations, it is a crucial factor for the success of tourism businesses (Hadood & Irani, 2020). However, the concept of innovation in the tourism industry is questionable as there are various opinions concerning its measurement and application in different sectors and places over time (Carlisle et al., 2013; Krizaj et al., 2014; Mhlanga, 2020).
The person-environment fit (P-E fit) theory will clarify the overall context of the research since it focuses on the relationship between CL, SC, employees' PB, and INB. According to Choi (2004), P-E fits creative abilities and innovation culture, proposing that personal and environmental factors’ cooperation positively affects INB. Constructive leaders actively support subordinates in approaching their job creatively and stimulating people to experiment with innovative solutions to problems. The leaders should provide a workplace atmosphere that promotes a sense of confidence that allows people to thrive by discussing things in a friendly and open manner. This study contributes to the current understanding of how constructive contributions of leaders might change the outcome for the benefit of the decision without much effort wasted. They take a risk, leap, and opportunity with thoughtful offerings to help subordinates produce something unique, better, or freely encourage redesign. Due to the industry's overall influence on the global environment, hospitality businesses are under intense pressure to introduce eco-friendly activities and urge employees to do the same (Gui et al., 2020). Thus, it should be encouraged to investigate how leaders' constructive behavior affects employee performance in green hotels. Researchers in the hospitality industry have discussed that employees in this industry must adapt to quick workplace changes and have recommended appropriate rules and practices for hospitality firms, mainly green hotels (Moin et al., 2021). Specifically, the study's outcomes will benefit managers of green hotels as previous research focused on different types of leadership in the organizational setting rather than investigating its impact in a hospitality setting. To achieve the study's objectives, a research model was created to demonstrate the relationship between CL, SC, PB, and INB (figure 1).
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses development
2.1 Green hotels
The phrase "green hotel" refers to an environmentally conscious hotel. According to the Green Hotel Association (2007), green hotels are environmentally friendly enterprises that are institutionally supported and encouraged to reduce solid waste and preserve water and electricity, saving the earth while saving money. Since the 1970s, environmental issues have been a constant source of contention (Choi et al., 2015). The current fads focus the attention of various stakeholders on environmental protection (Choi et al., 2015; Irani et al., 2021). With an ever-increasing number of green customers, hotels must change their management to be compatible with society's environmental concerns (Han et al., 2010). In response to the matters mentioned earlier, hotels use innovative approaches to improve product and service sustainability. These include employee participation in developing and implementing unique processes, goods, or services, referred to as innovative behavior (Kim & Lee, 2013). When combined with PB among employees, INB has been an essential component in hospitality organizations to gain a competitive advantage and long-term success (Karatepe et al., 2020; Tuan, 2021).
2.2 Constructive leadership and safety climate
According to the literature on P-E fit, a good match between people and their environment (e.g., leader, employees, organization) on relevant dimensions (e.g., task requirements, organizational climate) results in increased commitment, more positive affective experiences at work, and improved performance (Kristof, 1996). Furthermore, P-E fit is a substantial predictor of a range of personal outcomes, including innovative action. Previous leadership studies have attempted to establish environmentally friendly leadership styles from various environmental perspectives, such as transformational leadership (Zhang et al., 2020) and servant leadership (Luu, 2020). However, the impact of different leadership styles such as CL on green hotels' operations in the hospitality industry is limited. In addition, there have been few empirical studies examining the INB of green hotel leaders and employees and attempting to map the interaction between these principles.
The concept of SC was developed by Zohar (1980) as “a unified set of cognitions regarding the safety aspects of the organization” (p. 101). Accordingly, five fundamental constructs of SC were introduced as safety support of the supervisor, management commitment to safety, colleague safety support, staff safety participation, and competence level. Safety in the workplace is about principal policies and procedures set by an organization to ensure employees’ safety, health, and well- being. SC is the perception of these policies and procedures that employees share with others in the organization at a given point in time, often related to the accuracy and consistency of the actual conditions with the given policies (Garrick et al., 2014). Several environmental factors might affect workplace safety, but leadership could be the most crucial factor influencing it (Clarke, 2013; Eid et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2021). A positive SC relates to the extent that the organization encourages safety despite the conflict between safety goals and production or time pressure. Previous studies have examined CL and discussed determinants and outcomes of leadership such as safety and SC (Barling et al., 2002; Eid et al., 2012; Nielsen et al., 2016). Thus, the following proposition has been developed:
H1: CL has a direct positive influence on the workplace’s SC.
2.3 Constructive leadership and proactive behavior
Beyond expressly set performance objectives, proactive behavior refers to an employee's consciousness, long-term- oriented, and continuous service behavior (Rank et al., 2007).
As Wu and Parker (2017) stated, it is not easy to train proactive employees as they produce unknown consequences with high uncertainty. Being proactive means making changes, though those changes are not welcome by supervisors in many situations. Accordingly, a supportive work climate in which employees are encouraged to take risks despite uncertainties is vital to promote PB.
One way to create such a supportive atmosphere within the organization is by having leaders who encourage and empower their subordinates to take on more responsibilities (Wu & Parker, 2017). Constructive leaders can guide their followers in a way that sustains their effort to reach the goals they set. This style of leadership can foster an environment in which employees feel free to perform proactively. Previous studies have proved that various types of constructive leadership (e.g., transformational leadership) are positively associated with different sorts of PB (Afsar et al., 2019; Wang & Yang, 2021).
Constructive leaders can cultivate PB by allowing their subordinates to make decisions independently and solve themselves or within the group. Furthermore, since these leaders are more goal-oriented and future-oriented, they are more likely to be perceived as proactive role models who provide a positive atmosphere in which behaving proactively is supported (Schmitt et al., 2016). Thus, we proposed that:
H2: CL has a direct positive influence on employees’ PB.
2.4 Safety climate and employee’s innovative behavior
An appropriate workplace climate plays a vital role in enhancing employees’ innovativeness. Employees need to feel safe to take a risk and feel free to voice their problems (Javed et al., 2017). Kessel et al. (2012) state that employees need a SC when talking about new ideas, ignoring traditional ways of operating their tasks. High risk is associated with generating and implementing novel ideas (Mathisen et al., 2012). According to Gong et al. (2012), these new thoughts might fail and fail to achieve desired goals because they might be unhealthy behavior in the organization. Thus, employees need a safe work environment for their risk-taking actions, essential for innovation (Edmondson, 1999). According to the research findings conducted by Bani-Melhem et al. (2018), the workplace climate (which includes moods and happiness) has a significant impact on employees' positive emotions and motivation, motivating them to engage in INB. Moreover, the SC and engagement in creative work tasks indirectly influenced the CL role in enhancing employee perceptions regarding their service- innovation culture (Arasli et al., 2020). Thus, the following proposition has been developed:
H3: The SC has a direct positive influence on employees’ INB.
2.5 Proactive behavior and employee’s innovative behavior
According to Bindl & Parker (2011), proactive work behavior can be expressed as actions that explicate the empowerment received by upper administration levels. Individuals attempt to make changes for further progress, individually or cumulatively. Proactive employees actively initiate changes to attain their goals. These employees successfully explore new ways of doing their job if they have the authority to do so. Proactive employees actively begin changes in achieving their goals. These employees successfully explore new ways of doing their job if they have the power to do so. Proactive employees are required to make a constructive change and redefine their performance to make the necessary efforts to change the conditions, promote new methods, and resolve recent conflicts (Fuller et al., 2006). Previous studies have found a positive linkage between PB and employees' INB (Kim et al., 2009; Rahimizhian & Irani, 2020; Seibert et al., 2001). People with PB will often produce innovative ideas and will be motivated to explore these thoughts. An employee's desire to achieve a new vision can boost their INB. Therefore, we proposed that:
H4: PB has a direct positive influence on employees’ INB.
2.6 Mediating role of SC between the association of CL and INB
The companies' desire for innovation emphasized the leadership role as a factor in the success of creative pursuits (Arici & Uysal, 2021). Leaders have a direct impact on the behaviors of their employees in a variety of ways, including role modeling, goal setting, incentive allocation, and resource distribution (Sagnak, 2012). Moreover, leaders indirectly affect members by encouraging them to try different ways without fear of adverse outcomes. Therefore, leadership style is one of the most important factors affecting organizational innovation. As a result, the importance of leadership in fostering employee creativity has recently gained more attention (Arici & Uysal, 2021; Chen et al., 2020), not least in terms of constructive leadership (Arasli et al., 2020).
The significance of the SC in the workplace has been widely studied. Previous studies have shown the significant effects of the SC on employees' inventiveness (Tu et al., 2019). On a conceptual level, the SC is a second-order variable arising from some first-order variables, such as management forces. Given that innovation is widely recognized as a risky and unpredictable activity (Madjar et al., 2011), employees may display innovativeness only when uncertainty is adequately managed. According to uncertainty reduction theory (Lind & van den Bos, 2002), it is an unpleasant experience that reduces predictability and manageability, hence endangering one's sense of control (Tu et al., 2019). Psychological safety in the workplace refers to a climate that offers individuals enough certainty and stability to be innovative. Given the uncertainty and risks associated with innovation (Madjar et al., 2011), a mediating process that reduces employee uncertainty is reasonable. Thus, we suggest that CL decreases workplace uncertainty by creating a comfortable environment for employees, encouraging them to perform creatively and innovate. Therefore, we recommend the following mediation hypothesis:
H5: SC mediates the relationship between CL and INB
2.7 Mediating role of PB between the association of CL and INB
Constructive leaders with constructive-oriented leadership traits can support and assist their subordinates in achieving commonly shared goals (Arasli et al., 2020). According to researchers (Ylmaz et al., 2018), services are developed due to employees' interactions with clients, emphasizing the importance of employees' personality characteristics in the service sector. According to Li et al. (2010), proactive employees develop high-quality exchange connections with their superiors since these partnerships give critical data for self-development. According to Grant and Ashford (2008), PB enable employees to undertake change, and originations frequently rely on proactive workers to foster innovation. In a dynamic work context such as the hospitality sector, where work becomes increasingly dispersed, there is an urge to innovate development, and employees must work independently. Thus, the proactive personality of workers is increasingly crucial to corporate success. Kim et al. (2009) hypothesized that proactive workers are more likely than inactive employees to update their expertise and abilities and identify new working practices. A proactive personality was significantly associated with an individual's inclination for invention, according to Yamak and Eyupoglu (2021). Hence, the following mediation hypothesis has been suggested:
H6: PB mediates the relationship between CL and INB
3. Method
3.1 Sample and Procedure
A questionnaire survey was designed to examine the conceptual model and the hypotheses of the study. A judgmental sampling method was used to collect data from full- time employees of green hotels located in Turkey. The green globe received UNWTO affiliation, and the sustainable tourism standards are based on the global sustainable tourism council. According to the UNWTO 2020 report, Turkey is listed among the first top ten attractive destinations. According to the Green Globe institution, Turkey’s green hotels are seven and vary from 3-stars to 5-stars. There are four 5-star green hotels and one 3- star green hotel. The research team requested permission to collect data from the abovementioned green hotel’s human resource (HR) directors by explaining the purpose of this research. Thus, all HR directors agreed to conduct the data collection in their green hotels.
The procedural and statistical remedies were conducted with a two-week time lag to reduce the potential for common method bias (CMB) that can devalue the correlations between the constructs (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The survey asked questions about CL, SC, and demographics during the first phase. The second period included PB and innovative INB items. The respondents’ participation in the survey was voluntary, and the anonymity of the data was guaranteed (Hair et al., 2014). The questionnaires were received in a sealed envelope, and unsealed envelopes were discarded from further consideration in this study. A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed at two periods of time to the participants. First, 283 (94%) employees participated in the survey. The questionnaires were then sent to the same respondents during the second data collection session. After discarding the incomplete questionnaires, 272 (90.7%) surveys were retained.
3.2 Measurement
The scale items were adapted from relevant literature and were measured using a 5-points Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). CL was measured by adopting six items developed by Ekvall and Arvonen (1991). These items measured the employee’s perception regarding their leadership’s attitude and style. A five-item scale has been utilized to measure the SC by Edmondson (1999). They concentrated on a secured environment at the workplace. PB was examined by adopting four items Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999) developed. These items focused on acting in advance of future performance rather than reacting. Finally, INB was measured through six items adapted from Hu et al. (2009). INB introduces and applies new ideas, products, processes, and procedures to a person's work role, work unit, or organization. All items were initially developed in English and then translated into Turkish using the back-translation method. Two independent multilingual experts participated independently in the translation process to translate the original versions to Turkish and vice-versa (Parameswaran & Yaprak, 1987; Schaufeli et al., 2006). The measuring instrument's content validity was tested by submitting it to six experts, three of whom were hotel human resource managers and three of whom were assistant professors with specialized education in hospitality management. Some slight changes were made in response to their comments. Furthermore, a pilot test with 20 hotel employees was performed to control the validity of questionnaire items. It demonstrated that the wording, questionnaire items, and sequence of questions appear to be explicit.
3.3 Data Analysis
Data analysis was utilized by using version 26 of SPSS and version 2.1.1 of ADANCO. The descriptive statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS, and ADANCO was used to examine the proposed hypothesized model (Ringle et al., 2015). The common method bias (CMB) was assessed by applying SPSS. In this study, the common method variance (CMV) was tested using Harman’s single-factor assessment to address the issue of common method bias statistically. The single factor showed 44%. The value is less than the threshold of 50%, which shows that common method bias is not an issue (Chang et al., 2020; Hew et al., 2015). The research model's validity and reliability were evaluated, and the structural model was implemented (Hair et al., 2013). The bootstrapping procedure with 4999 subsamples was used to validate the relevance of all loadings and path coefficients (Hair et al., 2013).
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
This section includes a demographic profile of the respondents. The findings revealed that 52.2% (142) of the 272 participants were male, and 47.8% (130) were female. The majority of participants, 56.2 % (153), were between the ages of 28 and 37, while 22.1 % (60) were between the ages of 18 and 27, and the remaining 21.7 % (59) were between the ages of 38 and 47. 59.9% (163) were married regarding marital status, while the remaining 40.1% (109) were single. Regarding educational level, approximately half of the respondents, 49% (133), had a bachelor's degree, 27.2% (74) had an associate's degree, and the rest, 23.9% (65), had a high school diploma. Regarding organizational tenure, 41.5% (113) had the experience of between 6 to 10 years, 31.5% (86) had experience of 1 to 5 years, while the remaining 27% (73) had less than a year of experience.
Table 1 Respondents’ Profile (n=272)
| Frequency | % | |
| Age | ||
| 18-27 | 60 | 22.1 |
| 28-37 | 153 | 56.2 |
| 38-47 | 59 | 21.7 |
| 47 and above | ||
| Gender | ||
| Male | 142 | 52.2 |
| Female | 130 | 47.8 |
| Marital Status | ||
| Single | 109 | 40.1 |
| Married | 163 | 59.9 |
| Education | ||
| High School | 65 | 23.9 |
| Associate Degree | 74 | 27.2 |
| Bachelor Degree | 133 | 49 |
| Master Degree | ||
| Organizational Tenure | ||
| Less than one year | 73 | 27 |
| 1-5 years | 86 | 31.5 |
| 6-10 years | 113 | 41.5 |
| Longer than ten years |
4.1 Psychometric Properties
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in ADANCO2.1.1, and the adequacy for the data was confirmed using the following factors: indicator loadings, AVE, Cronbach’s alpha (α), Jöreskog’s ρ (ρC), and Dijkstra-Henseler’s ρ (ρA) indicator reliabilities (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015). The reliability and internal consistency of the constructs are represented in Table 2; the Cronbach Alpha (α) and composite reliability (CR) cut-off level are to be higher than 0.7 for the constructs to be reliable (Hair et al., 2013). Thus, the current study's constructs met this condition. Also, Table 2 shows the KMO tests for our research constructs, which range between 0.809 to 0.867, indicating substantial homogeneity since the results are between 0.8 and 0.9 (Morocco, 2011).
The indicators are loaded adequately under their underlying constructs. For instance, the six leadership constructs had loadings ranging from 0.721 to 0.834. The loadings of SC indicators ranged from 0.742 to 0.883; PB loadings ranged from 0.813 to 0.890, and INB loadings ranged from 0.745 to 0.856. Overall, all the indicator loadings of the constructs under investigation ranged from 0.721 to 0.890, suggesting initial evidence of convergent validity. Furthermore, the AVE values for all the constructs were above 0.5, which is the required threshold (Hair et al., 2013).
To assure the reliability of the scales, we used a combination of Cronbach’s alpha criterion and Jöreskog’s ρ (ρC), and Dijkstra- Henseler’s ρ (ρA) indicator reliabilities scores. As a rule of thumb, a reliable scale will have values of 0.7 or more. As shown in Table 1, all the constructs met the threshold, which confirms the scale reliability (Henseler et al., 2016).
Table 2 Measurement Model Evaluation
| Items | Loadings | KMO tests | (ρA) | (ρC) | (α) | AVE | CR |
| Constructive Leadership | 0.846 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.58 | 0.89 | |
| CL1 | 0.752 | ||||||
| CL2 | 0.721 | ||||||
| CL3 | 0.736 | ||||||
| CL4 | 0.834 | ||||||
| CL5 | 0.770 | ||||||
| CL6 | 0.754 | ||||||
| Safety Climate | 0.867 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.72 | 0.93 | |
| SC1 | 0.869 | ||||||
| SC2 | 0.863 | ||||||
| SC3 | 0.874 | ||||||
| SC4 | 0.883 | ||||||
| SC5 | 0.742 | ||||||
| Proactive Behavior | 0.809 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.86 | 0.70 | 0.90 | |
| PB1 | 0.830 | ||||||
| PB2 | 0.819 | ||||||
| PB3 | 0.890 | ||||||
| PB4 | 0.813 | ||||||
| Innovative Behavior | 0.863 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.64 | 0.91 | |
| INB1 | 0.808 | ||||||
| INB2 | 0.787 | ||||||
| INB3 | 0.773 | ||||||
| INB4 | 0.856 | ||||||
| INB5 | 0.811 | ||||||
| INB6 | 0.745 |
Note: ρA implies Dijkstra-Henseler's rho, ρC implies Jöreskog's rho, α implies Cronbach’s alpha, AVE implies average variance extracted, CR implies composite reliability. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Discriminant validity was assessed using a combination of the widely accepted conventional criterion of Fornell and Larcker (1981) in conjunction with the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio criterion. As provided in Table 3, the study results confirmed the discriminant validity of all constructs of interest. Based on Fornell and Larcker’s requirement, the AVE of all constructs is higher than the squared correlations of the constructs. Furthermore, as required by the HTMT ratio, all inter-construct correlation values were below the cut-off level of 0.9.
Table 3 Evidence of Discriminant Validity
| HTMT Ratio Criterion | ||||
| Construct | CL | SC | PB | INB |
| CL | ||||
| SC | 0.6045 | |||
| PB | 0.4691 | 0.6211 | ||
| INB | 0.5666 | 0.7171 | 0.8110 | |
| Fornell and Larcker Criterion | ||||
| Construct | CL | SC | PB | INB |
| CL | 0.5808 | |||
| SC | 0.3003 | 0.7188 | ||
| PB | 0.1722 | 0.3107 | 0.7031 | |
| INB | 0.2536 | 0.4497 | 0.5094 | 0.6357 |
Note: Squared correlations; AVE in the diagonal, CL implies constructive leadership, SC implies safety climate, PB implies proactive behavior, and INB implies innovative behavior. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
4.3 Results of Hypothesized Relationship
The research model proposed a direct impact of CL on employees’ SC and PB. Likewise, the model proposed the direct effect of SC on INB as well as PB on INB. Moreover, the indirect effect of CL on INB through SC and PB was examined. Thus hypotheses 1 and 2 postulated that CL exerts a positive and significant impact on employees’ SC and PB. As reported in Table 4, the direct effects of CL were positive and significant. Specifically, CL exerts (β = 0.55, 14.08***) on SC and (β = 0.41, 7.72***) on PB. Thus, hypotheses 1 and 2 that suggested the positive and significant impact of CL on SC and PB are supported.
Table 4 Result of Direct, Indirect and Total effects
| Effect | Beta | t-value | Cohen’s f2 | R2 | Remark |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CL -> SC | 0.55 | 14.08*** | 0.43 | Supported | |
| CL -> PB | 0.41 | 7.72*** | 0.21 | Supported | |
| SC -> INB | 0.39 | 7.53*** | 0.28 | Supported | |
| PB -> INB | 0.49 | 9.17*** | 0.44 | Supported | |
| SC | 0.30 | ||||
| PB | 0.17 | ||||
| INB | 0.62 |
Note: **P ≤ 0.001, Bootstrapped resample size 9.999, CL implies constructive leadership, SC implies safety climate, PB implies proactive behavior, INB implies innovative behavior. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 proposed that the direct impact of SC on INB and PB on INB were also empirically supported. The path coefficient of the link between SC and INB (β = 0.39, 7.53***) showed a significant and positive association between SC and INB. Thus, hypothesis 3 is supported. Hypothesis 4 investigated the path through which PB impacts INB and yielded a path coefficient value of (β = 0.49, 9.17***). Thus, hypothesis 4 is supported.
Table 5 Mediation Effects
| IV | MV | DV | Effect of IV on MV | Effect of MV on DV | Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect | CL-CU |
| CL | SC | INB | 0.548 | 0.396 | 0.421 | 0.217 | 0.638 | 0.325-0.453 |
| CL | PB | INB | 0.415 | 0.493 | 0.421 | 0.204 | 0.626 | 0.349-0.503 |
Notes: IV, independent variable; MV, mediating variable; DV, dependent variable, CL: Constructive Leadership, INB: Innovative Behavior, SC: Safety Climate, PB: Proactive Behavior, CL=2.5% lower percentile bootstrap quantiles, CU=97.5% upper percentile bootstrap quantiles.
The indirect effects of CL on INB through SC and PB were proposed in hypotheses 5 and 6, respectively. The hypotheses mentioned above were also statistically supported (see Table 5). According to the findings, full-time employees of green hotels have a more vital link with INB via a SC and PB.
The direct effects in the model are further supported by the determination coefficient (R2) and Cohen's effect size (f2). As
reported, CL had a substantial predictive effect power on INB with about 0.62% variance. The determination coefficient (R2) and Cohen’s effect size (f2) support the direct effects. As reported, CL had a substantial predictive effect power on INB with about 0.62% variance. Also, according to the result of f2, CL exerted a medium impact on PB, and SC exerted a medium effect on INB. Respectively, CL and PB exerted a more potent influence on SC and INB.
5. Discussion and conclusion
The current study investigates the relationship between CL and employees to understand how positive leadership approaches might drive employees to seek innovative solutions to environmental concerns at work. Drawing from the P-E fit framework, we evaluated and found evidence of the relationships between CL and employees' INB among green hotel employees in Turkey, both directly and indirectly, via SC and PB practices. CL has been shown to have a notable effect on workers' innovative work behaviors. Although earlier research has demonstrated that CL has a significant role in enhancing service innovative behavior (Arasli et al., 2020), the link between the two has received less attention among employees of green hotels. Furthermore, among different leadership styles, research on the effectiveness of CL in the hospitality context is still very scarce and inconclusive. This study's findings add to the body of empirical data on the efficacy of CL in the hospitality setting and, as a result, in the fields of green hotel management and leadership studies.
5.1 Theoretical implications
Consistent with a study by Dedahanov et al. (2019), we discussed that constructive leaders could positively affect the SC and encourage their subordinates to act proactively to produce more innovative outcomes. Therefore, we anticipated constructive leadership as one of the leadership types that can be considered a vital factor in enhancing the organization’s performance in the hospitality industry. Consequently, the study's notable contribution lies in addressing critical aspects of leadership, particularly constructive leadership, which confirms previous studies' findings on the impact of this variable in producing positive behavioral consequences such as employees' INB in the context of hospitality. It provides hospitality management with a more profound comprehension of improving quality by increasing the innovativeness among the employees. A constructive leader who approaches responsibilities positively helps employees become available, reliable, and efficient and can be adaptable and quickly change tasks using their creativity. Innovative employees are particularly needed in unpredictable, dynamic, and highly competitive business settings such as the hospitality industry. The findings proved that constructive leaders positively and significantly produce a safe environment that leads to innovative performance. Moreover, the significant direct and indirect effects of CL on employees' INB demonstrate that the outcomes of the current study add to hospitality knowledge in several ways. Our findings extend prior research findings such that it impacts employees' INB through an underlying process in hospitality organizations, specifically green hotels.
We extend this study by demonstrating that constructive leaders are needed for creative workers in the hospitality sector. The study's results regarding the mediating role of SC between CL and INB relationships imply that safety perceptions at work increase employees' INB since employees believe they are safe and have a higher sense of well-being when working for supportive and moral supervisors. A constructive leader's standards of support and inspiration have a beneficial effect on employees' trust and psychological well-being (Conchie, 2014). Employees who work for such leaders believe it is eligible to work for them since they do not backstab. Additionally, they are not in danger of losing their jobs and have higher engagement, responsibility, and autonomy at work (Moin et al., 2021). Thus, it improves both the SC and the innovative culture of hospitality businesses.
Our first finding supports the significant relationship between CL and SC in expected directions. This result is in line with a study by Arasli et al. (2020). SC is a means to evaluate how employees feel about their corporation's safety culture at any given point in time. The term "safety climate" refers to employees' collective opinions of their employers' and leaders' attention to safety. Additionally, it serves as a focal point for implementing improvements to enhance workplace safety and employees' well-being that result in better work performance.
The findings of this study also demonstrate that PB is a significant predictor of INB in the hotel industry.
Additionally, hotels seeking to foster INB may be more effective by hiring proactive personnel and implementing appropriate selection procedures. Moreover, hotel managers could participate in similar motivational activities that constructive leaders do to encourage employees' PB. Also, this study contributes to the literature by being one of the few to suggest and validate the beneficial effects of CL on PB. Thus, the current study contributes to a better understanding of the link between CL and PB, filling a gap in the related literature. Additionally, the study demonstrates that CL affects employees' PB, with PB acting as a mediator. This finding is significant because it shows how leaders' constructive personalities support hotel workers' PB, influencing their innovative work behaviors.
5.2 Practical implications
With economies facing difficulties and attempting to remain competitive, companies are becoming more interested in innovation, which results in increased economic efficiency. Businesses can improve their innovation capabilities by empowering employees to generate new ideas. The results of this study will serve as a guide for leaders seeking to improve their organization's innovative work behavior.
A leader's leadership style may inspire workers to demonstrate INB through SC and PB. An optimistic and constructive leader will improve the SC in the workplace. As a result, hospitality managers must understand the impact of their leadership style on the workplace climate that affects employees' wellbeing. Hence, they should act constructively toward employees by adhering to CL techniques and remaining aware of the significant connection between leadership style and employees' performance. In a dynamic and unpredictable work environment, it can become an increasing concern for managers and leaders to establish a safe work environment that their subordinates can offer and share novel ideas. Uncertainty issues can limit INB, which has an adverse influence on both employee and organizational outcomes. As a result, leadership styles that foster a healthy environment and psychological well-being are highly significant in the highly competitive and diverse hospitality industry. Therefore, it is indispensable to assess the manager’s approaches to ensure that the SC provided by managers is perceived positively by the employees at the workplace. A SC can enact the PB of employees that results in outcomes such as creativity. A proper leadership approach, particularly constructive leadership, encourages employees to express their ideas in a complex work environment.
Within the particular context of this study, constructive leaders should cultivate a green environment if they want their workers to engage in green practices. Employees should be given clear messages, and such a vision should be expressed by leaders and organizations who emphasize the importance of sustainable development aspirations in the workplace.
The hospitality industry might benefit from hiring supervisors who are aware of the situational antecedents of INB. Constructive leaders who provide autonomy and support to their subordinates could stimulate such behavior in their employees. Moreover, as the foremost hospitality industry organizations, hotels should reinstruct their job recruiting process by assessing proactive personality job applicants. Meanwhile, managers in the hospitality industry should be aware of their leadership style's influence on the SC in the workplace.
Furthermore, findings show that empowering employees to actively make changes while creating a safe work environment assists leaders in promoting new ideas and generations. Indeed, leaders who generally show interest in employees' ideas and try to keep them motivated can increase the INB of their subordinates. Thus, managers following CL practices need to know that maintaining a feedback culture, support for implementing better ideas, promising rewards, and providing resources for implementation can lead to innovation achievement.
5.3 Limitations and future suggestions
There could be some limitations to this study, as with any other research. There is a need for further research to study other determinants apart from SC and PB that may trigger employees’ INB in a work setting in the hospitality industry. Since this study explores the influence of constructive leadership through SC and PB on employees’ INB, it may be helpful to expand the author’s view by considering the same framework in other sectors of the hospitality industry to have a better understanding that can positively influence the outcomes for hospitality industry performances such as gaining competitive advantages. The current study is aimed at employees working in workplaces such as hotels; the same approach can be applied among the managers of different sectors in the hospitality industry. Therefore, it is suggested to conduct a similar study among different hierarchical levels of management to explore the effect of constructive leadership on the INB of managers. Finally, the connection between SC and PB was not investigated in the current study. Therefore, future studies are recommended to explore the effect of the SC on PB within the hospitality context.
