The objective of this chapter is to review the previous studies concerning grit, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational identification. Also, the relationship between each variable is discussed, and the hypothesis statement of the present study is proposed at the end of the chapter.
Grit
Grit was first introduced by Duckworth et al. (2007) that defined grit as “perseverance and passion for pursuing long-term goals” (p. 1087). Grit has received a great deal of attention from people around the world because it was proposed as the non-cognitive trait, which can predict success. Even though the concept of grit just was proposed worldwide in less than 15 years, the previous studies show a dramatic increase in research on grit. The purpose of those studies can be categorized into two groups: a) to distinguish grit from other non-cognitive trait constructs; b) to examine grit’s predictive validity in both educational and workplace settings.
Duckworth et al. (2007) identified the grit construct with two dimensions: consistency of interests refers to individuals consistently concentrate on their long-term goals and perseverance of effort, which is the degree to which people can face challenges while maintaining their effort until they are successful. The previous study demonstrated that grit different from other non-cognitive traits such as conscientiousness (Duckworth et al., 2007), self-control (Stewart, 2015), need for achievement (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), and resilience (Arouty, 2015).
Later, when the empirical study of grit construct was proposed, the area of research on grit changed to examine grit’s predictive validity. Grit has been mainly studied in educational settings, i.e., grit was a predictor of achievement among West Point cadets (Kelly et al., 2014), Ivy League student to national spelling bee participants (Duckworth et al., 2011), surgical residents (Salles et al., 2014), and novice teachers (Robertson-Kraft & Duckworth, 2014). In the workplace setting, grit can predict work engagement, OCB, in-role performance, and job satisfaction (Ion, Mindu, & Gorbănescu, 2017; Suzuki, Tamesue, Asahi, & Ishikawa, 2015).
However, there exists little empirical evidence of the benefit of grit. Therefore, additional research is still needed to examine grit as a predictor of organizational outcomes.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) relates to the behaviors of individuals that are discretionary, not be recognized in the employee rewards system, and those behaviors support the organization's performance targets (Organ, 1988). The construct of OCB was first introduced by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) which consist of two dimensions: altruism which is helping behavior that intentionally performs to support a specific person, while on the contrary generalized compliance was defined by behaviors related to helping the organization in several ways and to serve a non-specific or indefinite person. Later, Organ (1988) expanded the OCB constructs by identifying under five main categories: conscientiousness, altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. According to the five dimensions of OCB, the numerous previous studies used this concept to define and measure OCB. Furthermore, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990), also adopt Organ (1988) conception to develop a measure of OCB which based on five dimensions.
Further, OCB is divided into three dimensions as a three-factor model by Williams and Anderson (1991). Firstly, organizational citizenship behavior-organizational (OCBO) refers to behaviors directed to target the benefits of the organization as a whole. This set of behavior is similar to conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue dimensions as postulated by Organ (1988), whereas organizational citizenship behavior directed at the individuals (OCBI) is also similar to courtesy and altruism dimensions. And the last dimension is in-role behaviors (IRB), which relate to the desired behaviors that the organization has mentioned in the job description.
The antecedent of the OCB has been studied in a variety of literature. The empirical research on the antecedents of OCB can be divided into two categories of resources from previous studies: personal resources and job resources. In general, personal resources such as organizational commitment (Lavelle et al., 2009), organization-based self-esteem (Van Dyne et al., 2000), self-efficacy (Chen & Kao, 2011) can predict OCB.
Besides, personality was considered as antecedent conditions of OCB. Research has shown some of the Big 5 personality traits significantly predict OCB. For instance, the study of retail sales employees demonstrated agreeableness, and consciousness can predict OCB (Neuman & Kickul, 1998). By investigating the staff of the university in Iran, the result found that OCB is influenced by agreeableness, consciousness, and openness. (Mahdiuon, Ghahramani, & Sharif, 2010).
Another antecedent sourced from job resources. The cause of OCB was related to perceived organizational support (Coyle‐Shapiro & Kessler, 2003), work environment
(Involvement and task orientation) (Turnipseed, 1996), and procedural justice and interactional justice (Kessler et al., 2004). Turnipseed (1996) suggests that the organization should focus on the work environment, particularly in task orientation and involvement, to increase OCB in the workplace rather than relate to improving HRM practice to find the candidate who tends to perform OCB.
Breaking into hospitality management, especially in the hotel industry, OCB is the crucial factor in flourishing this industry in the future (Hemaloshinee & Nomahaza, 2017). If the hotel can encourage their employee to dedicate and perform in extra-role performance behaviors, the results will benefit following: to improve the productivity of services, to be the leader in the hotel industry, and to make the hotel much more profitable (Ruizalba, Bermúdez-González, Rodríguez-Molina, & Blanca, 2014). Eventually, previous studies exposed OCB brings a variety of benefits to the organization, extending the factors related to OCB should be considered for further studies.
Grit and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Empirical studies have indicated that grit is positively correlated with OCB. For instance, the study of South Korean workers showed that gritty workers are likely to perform more in extra-role behavior (Lee, Shin, Park, & Sohn, 2018). By investigating the working adults in Romania, Ion et al. (2017) found that grit can predict organizational outcomes, namely, OCB, CWB, and job satisfaction.
The relationship between grit and OCB is explained by the job demands-resources model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). This model was proposed to understand the process of predicting employee burnout and employee engagement and may have important impacts on organizational outcomes. According to JD-R model, job characteristics were divided into two groups: job demands refer to “those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort and are, therefore, associated with physiological and/or psychological costs” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501); and job resources are “those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are functional in achieving work-related goals, reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, and stimulate personal growth and development.”
(Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501).
Later, Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) proposed an additional factor that is not a part of job characteristics, and this factor has the same motivational potential as a job resource. Therefore,
personal resources were included in the model to emphasize the human factor. Personal resources refer to characteristics of the self that are linked to resilience and the ability to handle and have an effect on the environment (Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003). Moreover, Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli (2009) suggest that personal resources have a positive correlation with work-related outcomes. Based on the JD-R model, grit can be considered as one of the personal resources, and one of the work-related outcomes is OCB.
Hence, the relationship between grit and OCB is supported by this model.
Since there is still a lack of empirical evidence examined the direct effect of grit on OCB among hotel employees, especially in luxury hotels in Asia, this study focused on the relationship between grit and OCB among hotel employees from four-star and five-star hotels in Bangkok, Thailand. Hence, based on the JD-R model and previous empirical studies, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Grit will influence organizational citizenship behavior.
Organizational Identification
The first explanation of organization identification was provided by Foote (1951). At early concept development, the term of “Organizational Identification” was not proposed.
Foote (1951) firstly began studying in social identification which was identified as “‘fellows in groups that they categorize the social world around them in order to regularize their doings, and these categorizations of experience motivate behavior through the necessary commitment of individuals in all situations” (p. 21). After that, Brown (1969) empirically tested Foote (1951)’s concept by examining in organizational contexts. Also, Hall, Schneider, and Nygren (1970) extended the study of identification to the organization and gave the meaning of organizational identification as the degree of congruence between the individual’s goal and the organization’s goal.
Later, when the social identity theory was proposed by Tajfel (1974), organizational identification in the literature was changed and related to this theory. Edwards (2005) suggests that “human beings need to simplify the social world by categorizing people into groups (i.e., gender, race, nationality, etc.) and that people assign themselves (or are assigned by others) as being members of a particular group or category” (p. 211).
According to the social identity theory, researchers adopted this theory to conceptualize their framework and gave the new definition of organizational identification such as Mael and Ashforth (1992) defined organizational identification as a feeling of being a part of the
organization. Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994); Rousseau (1998) focus on the perception of individuals who liked their self to the organization. Further, Pratt (1998) argued that
“organizational Identification occurs when an individual’s beliefs about his or her organization become self-referential or self-defining” (p.172).
The outcome of organizational identification has been studied extensively in many business areas such as by investigating employees who work in a Finnish research institution, Olkkonen and Lipponen (2006) found organizational identification has a positive relationship with OCB and has a negative relationship with employees’ intent to leave the organization.
Besides, the study of frontline employees in travel agencies showed that employees’customer orientation was influenced by organizational identification.
Previous studies also have been done on organizational identification in the hotel industry. Buil, Martínez, and Matute (2016) examined frontline employees who work in a hotel in Spain. This finding showed a strong relationship between organizational identification and OCB. Similarly, the study of frontline hotel employees in the Philippines also found organizational identification has a positive relationship with both service-oriented in-role performance and OCB (Lu, Capezio, Restubog, Garcia, & Wang, 2016). Therefore, the previous studies demonstrated organizational identification plays a vital role in the hotel industry, and it is still continuously studied by emphasizing on consequences.
The Moderating Effect of Organizational Identification between Grit and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
A meta-analysis of the correlations between organizational identification and both in-role and extra-in-role performance found that organizational identification and extra-in-role performance have a strong relationship with each other. (Bellou et al., 2005; Riketta, 2005).
Ashforth, Harrison, and Corley (2008) argued that the individual with a high level of organizational identification is likely to have more identification results in both affective and cognitive traits and OCB, as well as some empirical studies, also supported that organizational identification was positively related to OCB. For example, Qureshi, Zeb, and Saifullah (2011) found higher organizational identification to be associated with more employee’s intention to perform OCB, and they suggested that in public sector organizations should develop a strategy which included increasing organizational identification to encourage the employee to perform OCB. In addition, Choi, Moon, Ko, and Kim (2014) examined the relationship between organizational identification and OCB within ten companies in South Korea; they found that
organizational identification also had a positive relationship with OCB. Apart from emphasizing the workplace setting, Kane, Magnusen, and Perrewé (2012); LeBlanc (2014) found that the college students who are highly identified with their university display more OCB. Also, Van Dick, Grojean, Christ, and Wieseke (2006) examined the relationship between organizational identification and OCB in educational institute staff. The results are congruent with that of LeBlanc (2014).
The previous research also has shown that organizational identification can moderate psychological factors-OCB relationships, such as affecting the strength of the relationship between servant leadership and OCB (Vondey, 2010). Van Dick et al. (2008) found that the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB was positively stronger when the employee identified himself/herself more with the organization or the group which they belong to.
In this study, the moderating effect of organizational identification on grit and OCB is explained by the Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel, 1974). Social identity theory was developed to explain intergroup behavior. Tajfel, Turner, Austin, and Worchel (1979) defined social identity as a person's self-concept, which is acquired from the group which they belong to and where they are valuable to the person or hold some emotional significance. A binary self in which each individual has his/her personal and social identities were used to view the individual. According to SIT, when facing challenges and conflicts, social identity is more dominant than personal identity. People tend to get involved with ingroup behavior because of the internalization of group norms. Moreover, when viewing outgroup members, people tend to perceive the characteristics of the group which they belong to rather than on the individual characteristics that differentiate between them.
Furthermore, the SIT framework has been applied to workplace settings. In this case, organizational identification plays an important role because employees who identify themselves with the company; they are likely to dedicate and maintain their effort to the organization (Baruch & Cohen, 2007). Also, Turner and Tajfel (1986) suggested that highly identified employees perceived their self-concept related to organizational success. Therefore, when their job required them to perform outside of the job description, they tend to perform more extra-role behaviors in their work because the extra-role behaviors might have contributions to organizational success.
Based on the hotel industry environment, OCB was emphasized in hospitality jobs including front and back office because the nature of work within the hotel industry always require extra-role performance behaviors which are not included in their formal job
as personality traits can influence the extra-role performance behavior, but also the positive or negative identification between the employee and the organization can change the strength of a relationship between personal resources and OCB. Hence, based on social identity theory and previous empirical studies, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: The relationship between grit and organizational citizenship behavior is moderated by organizational identification.