The impact of exploitative leadership on hospitality employees’ proactive customer service performance: a self-determination perspective

Abstract

Purpose Based on self-determination theory, this research paper aims to explore the implication of exploitative leadership for hospitality employees’ proactive customer service performance (PCSP) via harmonious passion for work (HPFW) and the moderating mechanism of power distance. Design/methodology/approach The authors’ sample included a total of 207 leader–follower dyads from three Chinese hotels. Hierarchical multiple regression and the PROCESS macro were used to analyze the data. Findings The results indicated that exploitative leadership has a negative indirect relationship with hospitality employees’ PCSP through decreased HPFW, and power distance plays a protective role of alleviating the negative implications of exploitative leadership for hospitality employees’ HPFW and PCSP. Practical implications Hotels are suggested to develop strict codes of conduct and adopt zero-tolerance policies for exploitative leadership. Additionally, hotels should also act to improve employees’ HPFW and pay attention to low-power-distance employees. Originality/value This research enriches exploitative leadership literature by investigating its effect on PCSP. Further, this research investigates HPFW as a mechanism linking exploitative leadership to PCSP. Finally, this research establishes the relationships among exploitative leadership, HPFW and PCSP by investigating the contingent impact of power distance.

Translating responsible leadership into team customer relationship performance in the tourism context: the role of collective job crafting

“…However, our result is partially consonant with Menguc et al ’s (2013) report of the indirect effect of empowering leadership on customer relationship performance. It also partly resonates with the findings of some inquiries into the effects of leadership on customer service performance in general in the tourism and hospitality context such as Sun et al ’s (2022) finding regarding the negative indirect link of exploitative leadership with proactive customer service performance, Wu et al ’s (2020) finding on the positive impact of leader humor on proactive customer service performance, Ji et al ’s (2022) finding regarding the positive effect of shared leadership on proactive customer service performance and Jiang et al ’s (2020) finding on positive association of leader positive affective presence with proactive customer service performance.…”

The role of leader favoritism, unfairness, and employability in employee psychological withdrawal behavior

“…Advancing research knowledge, we introduce perceived unfairness, defined as an employee's subjective perceptions and feelings of injustice, inequality, mistreatment, and bias individuals witness from their leaders (Shapoval, 2019), as a mediator to substantiate the former relationship offering the rationale that non-favored employees experience feelings of betrayal, humiliation, and contempt, better termed as psychological contract violations (Arasli et al, 2019), when they perceive leader focused organizational injustice in the form of favoritism. Such unethical behavior of a leader undermines the employee contributions and capabilities (Sun et al, 2023), resulting in negative perceptions and emotions in the form of perceived unfairness, provoking them to consciously and/or unconsciously express their resentment by engaging in defensive behavioral responses (Tepper et al, 2017), such as daydreaming, intentional work delays, disregarding deadlines, and sub-optimal effort investments in completing assigned tasks, eventually harming the organization's interests and wellbeing. On this note, the culmination of withdrawal behavior due to the preferential treatment of a leader that gives rise to perceived unfairness is consistent with the notion of reciprocity embedded in the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964).…”

Analyzing hospitality leader–follower dyads with polynomial regression: a critical reflection

“…When collecting data in dyadic research, it is necessary to collect multi-source data from both parties. Several recent studies (Guchait et al , 2020; Senbeto and Hon, 2021; Sun et al , 2022; Wu et al , 2020) have emphasized the importance of using multi-source approaches when studying leadership, particularly in the hospitality context. However, collecting multi-source data alone does not indicate that the study involves dyadic research.…”