Next Article in Journal
Do Age and Gender Change the Perception of Workplace Social Sustainability?
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Interface of Sustainable Plant Factory Based on Digital Twin
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15065012
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Does Green Mindfulness Promote Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model

by
Chunyan Chen
1,2,
Anmol Rasheed
3 and
Arslan Ayub
4,*
1
School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410000, China
2
School of Business Administration, Hunan University of Finance and Economics, Changsha 410205, China
3
Department of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2055, Australia
4
National School of Management Studies, The University of Faisalabad, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 5012; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065012
Submission received: 15 January 2023 / Revised: 28 February 2023 / Accepted: 2 March 2023 / Published: 11 March 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The study aims to assess the impact of frontline managers’ green mindfulness on green organizational citizenship behavior (G-OCB). Moreover, the authors propose that the mediator effect of green intrinsic motivation and the moderator effect of green transformational leadership influence the direct relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB. By employing a time-lagged, multisource research design, the authors analyze data collected from service firms’ frontline managers in the tourism and hospitality industry using SmartPLS SEM (v 4). Our findings indicate that green mindfulness significantly influences G-OCB through the mediator effect of green intrinsic motivation. Further, the study finds a significant intervening role of green transformational leadership in the underlying associations; the direct association between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation, and the indirect relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB through green intrinsic motivation, are stronger(/weaker) at higher(/lower) levels of green transformational leadership. The study presents an essential framework that underpins the association between frontline managers’ green mindfulness and G-OCB by casting green intrinsic motivation as a mediator and green transformational leadership as a moderator. Service firms in the tourism and hospitality industry may benefit from our hypothesized framework by implementing the necessary interventions to foster employees’ G-OCB with the help of green transformational leadership as a contextual antecedent, and green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation as individual-level antecedents.

1. Introduction

Management scholars and practitioners recognize the importance of the tourism and hospitality industry as a significant contributor toward ecosystem protection and development [1,2,3]. That is why service firms in the tourism and hospitality industry face escalating pressures to entrench green practices across all their business activities and offer “eco-friendly” products [4]. To address environmental concerns, employees’ extra-role behaviors, i.e., green organizational citizenship behaviors (G-OCB), are considered as vital sources that determine sustainable business practices, products, and services [5]. Employees’ G-OCB—“individual discretionary behaviors, not formally rewarded, and that collectively promote effective organizational environmental management” [5]—facilitates organizations in the inculcation of green practices across business activities [6]. A preponderance of research suggests that employees’ G-OCB benefits the tourism and hospitality industry [4,7,8]. However, little is known about the antecedents of G-OCB [5]. Although it has been theorized that employees’ green mindfulness can be associated with G-OCB, empirical research is scant in assessing this linkage. We address this gap by investigating green mindfulness as an antecedent of G-OCB.
Green mindfulness reflects “a state of conscious awareness in which individuals are implicitly aware of the context and content of environmental information and knowledge” [9], p. 1170. Green mindfulness allows individuals to make non-judgmental observations of the environment by paying attention to different stimuli based on the present moment-to-moment experience by drawing on their full awareness, and offers non-evaluative descriptions of these observations to elevate the practice [10]. Hence, a plausible assertion can be developed such that green mindfulness translates into employees’ inclination towards environmentalism beyond the workplace expectations, ultimately influencing the tourism and hospitality industry to meet their environmental performance targets [11,12]. In this perspective, the study builds on mindfulness and predicts that green mindfulness relates positively to G-OCB.
This study seeks to broaden this line of inquiry by investigating an unexplored causal mechanism that might also underpin the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB: green intrinsic motivation, which refers to “the motivation that engages in a green behavior that arises from within the individual because it is naturally gratifying to you” [13], p. 256. Despite burgeoning research interest in investigating individual factors that explain individuals’ in-role and extra-role green behavior [5,14], studies encompassing green intrinsic motivation are absent in the extant literature. This study answers the call of Li et al. [13] to examine the mediating role of green intrinsic motivation in the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB. Exploring green intrinsic motivation as a causal mechanism may present opportunities to understand the locus of causality as an internal factor that offers the maximum capacity to elevate G-OCB stimulated by green mindfulness.
Moreover, the study outstretches the green mindfulness–G-OCB nexus boundary conditions. We propose that green transformational leadership moderates the association between green mindfulness and G-OCB, mediated by green intrinsic motivation. This is in line with the recommendations of Hooi et al. [5] to explore the boundary effects of contextual factors in the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB. In this study, we propose specifically that (1) green intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB; and (2) green transformational leadership moderates the direct relationship between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation, and the indirect relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB, mediated by green intrinsic motivation.
The study’s contributions are threefold. First, research studies exploring the antecedents of G-OCB have yet to examine the influence of employees’ green mindfulness in cultivating employees’ extra-role green behaviors in the tourism and hospitality industry. Service firms in the tourism and hospitality industry require an imperative that their employees must address burgeoning environmental issues by manifesting eco-friendly behaviors [1,2,3]. Hence, we expect that mindfully green employees are not only engaged in green in-role behaviors, but also have a higher tendency to exhibit extra-role behaviors, i.e., G-OCB. Second, we propose that employees’ green mindfulness translates into superior G-OCB through green intrinsic motivation. The self-determination theory supports this relationship, such as mindfully green employees developing greater environmental concerns. Hence, they are intrinsically motivated to execute behaviors that may promote environmentalism. Third, the study expands the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB by predicting the contextual factor, i.e., green transformational leadership, in strengthening the underlying associations. Employees’ perception of leadership proactively engaged in promoting eco-friendly business activities and supporting employees in demonstrating behaviors that may leverage sustainable environmental performance underpins the association between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation (and G-OCB).

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Intrinsic Motivation through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory

Motivation is embedded in the self-determination theory (SDT), which describes “the factors of intrinsic motivation (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and of extrinsic motivation (internalization and integration) that support personality development and behavioral self-regulation to improve personal wellbeing and performance of people in organizations and society” [15]. Human motivation is determined by the SDT which constitutes of a metatheory and six sub-theories [16,17]. The metatheory implies the significance of individuals’ evolved inner resources that are crucial in their behavioral self-regulation and personality development in organizations [16,17]. By and large, people have a natural tendency to expand their capacities, to learn and explore, and to seek out challenges and novelty [15]. In this milieu, the SDT specifies individuals’ inner growth potential and innate psychological needs that are responsible for personality integration and self-motivation [15]. Specifically, the SDT engenders both internal and external factors, such as innate developmental tendencies and social environments, that can navigate the individual’s social functioning, self-motivation, and personal well-being. The sub-theory of self-determination are “Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)”, “Organismic Integration Theory (OIT)”, “Causality Orientations Theory (COT)”, “Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT)”, “Goal Contents Theory (GCT)”, and “Relationship Motivation Theory” [16].
SDT emanates from analyzing the bases of individuals’ intrinsic motivation and tendency towards creativity and learning that maintain motivation, well-being, and performance [15]. People can find intrinsic motivation in the job itself as it is attributed to personal satisfaction, e.g., empowerment, trust, expense preference, recognition, and autonomy [18]. Further insights on intrinsic motivation can be drawn from CET, which explains intrinsic motivation. The underlying premise of CET is rooted in the social and environmental factors that elevate or depreciate intrinsic motivation. CET complements the BSNT of people in organizations. For instance, CET purports that an individual’s intrinsic motivation cannot be developed if it lacks autonomy. Autonomy is not selfish, detached, or independent; rather, it is integrated with the volitional feelings accompanying any act (e.g., G-OCB in our study’s context). Besides, these two factors combine with a third factor, relatedness. CET specifies that intrinsic motivation can be facilitated by social environment, and that human motivation is intrinsically steered for activities that possess intrinsic interest and have the appeal of challenge and novelty [15]. Hence, drawing on self-determination theory, we propose that mindfully green individuals are self-driven and energetic and perform actions irrespective of external rewards or benefits that yield inner satisfaction and a sense of fulfilment, i.e., green intrinsic motivation [19]. Hence, mindful individuals are internally driven to manifest behaviors, i.e., G-OCB, because of an escalated green intrinsic motivation. On the contrary, employees’ perception of green transformational leadership might serve as a controlled motivation because of the culmination of green intrinsic motivation into G-OCB by an external factor such as green transformational leadership. However, both forms of motivation, i.e., intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, complement and reinforce each other [20], thereby underpinning the underlying associations between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation (and G-OCB). Insights for such inferences are drawn from the second sub-component of SDT: OIT. According to [16,17], internalization and integration of behavioral regulations may also be steered by contextual factors and extrinsic motivation. Both of these components are eminent for the development of intrinsic motivation. For instance, internalization reflects an individual’s adoption of a value or regulation, while integration refers to “the transformation of regulation into their own that, as a consequence, it will emanate from their sense of self” [15]. Conclusively, green transformational leadership underpins the association between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation (and G-OCB).

2.2. Green Mindfulness and Green Organizational Behavior

G-OCB refers to “individual discretionary behaviors, not formally rewarded, and that collectively promote effective organizational environmental management” [5]. Prior research has shown substantial reportage of OCB on individuals, groups, and organizations pursuing creative and innovative efforts [21,22,23,24]. According to Jonassen [25], “in most organizations where employees are not always given clear guidelines on routine, as well as occasional job matters, employees frequently need to identify problems (which frequently happen in a dynamic and iterative way), encode them and search for the solution, which fits best in the context”. This allows individuals to perform their duties under certain circumstances and helps them exploit novel and unique ideas that might be useful for problem solving and accomplishing tasks [26].
G-OCB, in a similar way, is related to “employee contributions to the environmental initiatives by the organization, such as participation in environmental events, promotion of the organization’s green identity, and voluntary involvement in events regarding the pro-environmental practices of the organization” [27]. G-OCB reflects employees’ voluntary engrossment that maximizes their pro-environmental performance and hence, motivated organizations to achieve numerous pro-environmental outcomes such as sustainable environmental performance [5,13], green product development [7], and eco-friendly business practices [4]. However, to exaggerate green performance, individuals need to draw on their unique resources (i.e., “mindfulness”), which constitute the foundation for green behavior. That is to say, employees need to equip themselves with sufficient cognitive resources in terms of green mindfulness to allow them to identify and encode environmental problems, search for information, and develop novel and innovative ideas for rendering solutions to pro-environmental problems. Consequently, green mindfulness is the recipe for nourishing G-OCB that will enable tourism and hospitality service firms to elevate the environmental impact and alleviate eco-degradation [28]. Mindfully green employees infuse unique and innovative pro-environmental ideas, processes, products, and services based on G-OCB [6,27]. This is because individuals who draw on green mindfulness pay active attention to updated information and knowledge about the environment. Thus, they are more likely to infuse their cognitive needs into idea generation or exploration in the pro-environmental context. A host of research in this milieu found a positive connection between green mindfulness and green creativity [4]. In addition, insights from the literature on general mindfulness suggest that mindfulness enhances individuals’ abilities that augments concentration and attention, elevates interaction and communication skills, and fosters extra-role behavior [29,30]. Therefore,
Hypothesis 1. 
It will be determined that green mindfulness significantly influences G-OCB.

2.3. Green Mindfulness and Green Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation refers to a state of love and passion that drives people to perform tasks rather than being influenced by external benefits or rewards [18]. Individuals guided by their inner selves, based on their love, curiosity, and passionate interest in the work, are more likely to feel satisfied, engaged, and excited [31,32]. For example, people often enjoy playing golf, bargaining, gardening, etc. [33]. This is because, by doing so, they feel intrinsic motivation, happiness, and enjoyment. In a similar vein, passion for green and pro-environmental behavior is driven by green intrinsic motivation which refers to “the love, passion, or interest for green and pro-environmental behavior that is driven by internal drive or rewards” [34]. People with green intrinsic motivation develop a higher tendency towards love and passion for the environment [13]. Green intrinsic motivation elevates their interest and engagement in green activities and provokes pro-environmental behaviors.
In this study, we predict that green mindfulness is an individual’s cognitive resource that triggers green intrinsic motivation. According to Brown and Ryan [35], mindful individuals do not contemplate, fantasize, or worry about the future because of their ability to monitor their inner and outer environment. Mindfulness allows people to observe their experiences without analyzing, evaluating, reflecting, or judging them; hence they leverage them to become less vulnerable to the negative feelings linked with status and conflicts, rewards, failure, and opinions of others [36]. Subsequently, mindful individuals develop a capacity to discern the positive aspect of life [37]. Furthermore, Brown and Ryan [35] found that high levels of mindfulness relate positively to positive affect, while low mindfulness levels relate negatively to negative affect. Moreover, mindful individuals are more likely to attend to prompts arising from their basic needs and regulate their behavior in a way that accomplishes these needs [35], nurturing their intrinsic motivation [38]. Some preliminary studies encapsulating the assessment of mindfulness and intrinsic motivation have found a positive correlation among them [38,39,40]. Marrying these allusions, we hypothesize that green mindfulness drives green intrinsic motivation among individuals, nourishing their pro-environmental behaviors. Therefore,
Hypothesis 2. 
It will be determined that green mindfulness significantly influences green intrinsic motivation.

2.4. The Mediating Role of Green Intrinsic Motivation

The combination of these hypotheses suggests a mediating role for green intrinsic motivation; G-OCB is nurtured by internal drive or rewards, which promotes pro-environmental behavior, primarily triggered by green mindfulness that nurtures green intrinsic motivation. Several studies have proposed a mediating role for intrinsic motivation in the relationship between openness to experience and creativity [41], ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior [42], and environment support and creativity [43]. Green intrinsic motivation fosters love and passion for the environment [13], driven by the perception of self-determination and autonomy in manifesting pro-environmental behaviors, which are the key ingredients of G-OCB. In short, green intrinsic motivation explains how green mindfulness transforms into G-OCB due to employees’ augmented concern for the environment. Therefore,
Hypothesis 3. 
It will be determined that the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB is mediated by green intrinsic motivation.

2.5. The Moderating Role of Green Transformational Leadership

Although we generally expect a positive link between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation (and G-OCB), the variability observed in the association between green mindfulness and G-OCB in the literature suggests the potential for moderators [44]. We expect a moderating effect of green transformational leadership on the relationship between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation (and G-OCB.) Green transformational leadership is defined as “behaviors of leaders who motivate followers to achieve environmental goals and inspire followers to perform beyond expected levels of environmental performance” [7]. According to the transformational leadership theory, green transformational leadership serves as a catalyst that facilitates the development of green intrinsic motivation because it can elevate employees’ keenness for the pro-environmental context [13,45].
Bass and Riggio [46] argued that transformational leadership constitutes four interrelated behavioral dimensions: individualized consideration, intellectual simulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence. Each behavioral dimension can intervene in the association between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation. Notably, transformational leadership can better augment pro-environmental concerns among employees through inspirational motivation “since inspirational motivation can make their followers think and perceive the content and context of their work” [47]. In particular, when employees perceive their leaders as “society-specific” and “ecologically answerable”, they extend their participation in environment-related activities [9]. Vogus and Sutcliffe [48] contended that followers’ perception of green transformational leadership helps them view their work in a larger and more mindful context, ultimately provoking green intrinsic motivation. Moreover, transformational leadership cultivates a collective vision by exerting an idealized influence that unifies employees’ goals and values with that of the organization and assigns imperative meaning to employees’ tasks, which ultimately exaggerates intrinsic valence of their efforts [49]. Thus, by provoking positive feelings such as enthusiasm and optimism, transformational leadership elevates satisfaction and pleasure inherent to the task [17]. In addition, transformational leadership triggers intellectual simulation that encourages employees to draw on their unique resource (mindfulness), “in questioning their own assumptions, refraining problems, and thinking out of the box” [46]. They are motivated to generate novel and creative environment-related ideas [4]. This is because intellectual simulation enhances the self-determination of employees and gives them autonomy and freedom to decide how they can come up with unique and innovative ideas concerning the environment at large. Therefore,
Hypothesis 4. 
It will be determined that green transformational leadership strengthens the association between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation, such that the relationship is stronger(/weaker) at higher(/lower) levels of green transformational leadership.

2.6. Moderated Mediation Model

Cumulatively, the above projections suggest a moderated mediation model. As argued above, green transformational leadership moderates the relationship between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation. Hence, this engagement, in turn, predicts G-OCB. We therefore submit that green transformational leadership intervenes in the indirect relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB, mediated by green intrinsic motivation (Figure 1). Therefore,
Hypothesis 5. 
It will be determined that green transformational leadership strengthens the association between green mindfulness and G-OCB, mediated by green intrinsic motivation, such that the relationship is stronger(/weaker) at higher(/lower) levels of green transformational leadership.

3. Method

3.1. Research Design

Guided by the objective of the study, the authors employed a “positivist epistemological philosophical” stance in this study [50]. Subsequently, the authors utilized the statistical tools to perform the scientific methods for assessing the hypothesized relationships [51]. The positivist philosophical stance allowed the researchers to conduct a “non-experimental” approach to measure the association between the study variables. Since the researchers could not manipulate factors that might influence the participants [52], the non-experimental approach is an appropriate choice for this study [50]. Further, the study assessed quantitative variables from data gathered through the established research instruments; therefore, the study’s design is correlational [52]. Accordingly, the authors conducted the survey using a face-to-face mode of data collection by employing the purposive sampling technique in which the respondents completed a paper-based questionnaire. The choice of the purposive sampling technique was made because of (a) the unavailability of detailed lists of participants; (b) the capability of the purposive sampling technique to harvest the arbitrary responses; and (c) to achieve the purpose of the study [50]. The data were compiled in Excel and run in SmartPLS (V 4.0) for analyzing the measurement and the structural models [53]. The second generation multivariate technique was adopted to confirm the study’s hypotheses [54]. Hence, it can be inferred that the study largely followed a deductive approach based on the apposite theoretical underpinning of the constructs [50].

3.2. Participants

The authors collected “self-rated” and “peer-rated” responses from service firms’ frontline managers in the tourism and hospitality industry in three waves from April 2022 to September 2022. The authors distributed questionnaires to the study participants with a time interval of eight weeks between each wave to enhance the aptness of responses and minimize biases in estimating parameters in the study [55,56]. The questionnaires were administered to the participants using a “purposive sampling” technique. The participants were given the research instrument and a cover letter specifying the study’s purpose and ensuring their responses’ confidentiality. Moreover, they were also instructed to generate keys by providing the initials of their names and birth months. The keys generated by the participants allowed the researchers to distinguish between the responses and consolidate all the questionnaires collected across waves using multisource responses. In the first wave, the authors approached 500 participants to respond with respect to green mindfulness, green transformational leadership, and their demographic details. A total of 443 respondents returned the questionnaires, of which 430 were processed in the second wave after eliminating 13 poorly/incompletely-filled questionnaires. A total of 413 respondents responded for green intrinsic motivation, of which 405 matched the original responses. After eight months, the authors collected responses for G-OCB. Finally, all the responses collected across three waves were consolidated, and 405 responses were processed to assess the relationship between the study variables (response rate: 81%). The survey sample included 57% men and 43% women, with a mean age of 34.99 years (standard deviation: 5.67). Concerning occupation, 40% and 60% of the respondents were in “lower” and “middle” managerial positions, respectively. With respect to tenure, 12% of the respondents worked in their organizations for six to twelve months, 20% of the respondents worked for one year to four years, 26% have worked for four to seven years, 22% have worked between seven and twelve years, and 20% have worked for more than 12 years. Moreover, 43% of the respondents worked for “public sector organizations” and 57% were for “private sector firms”.

3.3. Materials/Instruments

We adopted established scales from previous studies and distributed them in English, as English is a medium of instruction at the school/university level and is used as an official language in the business sector in Pakistan. The questionnaires were anchored on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

3.3.1. Green Mindfulness

The research instrument to measure green mindfulness was adopted from Williams and Seaman [57]. The instrument contained 6 items, and the sample items included “I am encouraged to express different views with respect to environmental issues and problems”, and “I am inclined to report environmental information and knowledge that have significant consequences”.

3.3.2. Green Transformational Leadership

The research instrument to measure green transformational leadership was adopted from Chen and Chang [7]. The instrument contained 6 items, and the sample items included “The leader provides a clear environmental vision for the employees to follow”, and “The leader inspires employees with the environmental plans”.

3.3.3. Green Intrinsic Motivation

The research instrument to measure green intrinsic motivation was adopted from Amabile et al. [58], modified by Li et al. [13]. The instrument contained 6 items, and the sample items included “He/she enjoys coming up with new green ideas”, and “He/she enjoys tackling with environmental tasks that are completely new”.

3.4. Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The research instrument to measure G-OCB was adopted from Pham et al. [59]. The instrument contained 7 items, and the sample items included “I suggest new practices that could improve the organization’s environmental performance” and “I encourage my colleagues to adopt more environmentally conscious behaviors”.

3.5. Control Variables

Following the previous studies, individual demographics, such as age, gender, occupation, and tenure, were taken as controlled variables.

3.6. Data Analysis

The study analyzed data using “partial least square structural equation modelling” (PLS-SEM) through SmartPLS (v 4). We justify the use of PLS-SEM over CB-SEM based on the following reasons: the study’s objective is to assess the “predictive capability” of the structural paths, i.e., “to maximize explained variance in the latent endogenous variables rather than theory confirmation” [53]; moreover, the study assessed a complex moderated mediation model, i.e., in addition to estimating the main effects, the study also assessed the moderator effect of green transformational leadership [54].

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model

The “measurement model” is examined using the “internal consistency”, “convergent”, and “discriminant” validity criteria [53]. For evaluating “internal consistency”, in addition to the “Cronbach’s alpha”, the study measured the “composite reliability” (CR) of constructs [53]. “Cronbach’s alpha” and CR values reported in Table 1 are greater than the minimum acceptable threshold of 0.6 and 0.7 [53], establishing “internal consistency”. For the “convergent validity”, the authors evaluated “outer loadings” and AVE with the acceptable minimum threshold of 0.5 [60]. Results of the analysis show that all the values are above the minimum acceptable threshold, thus ensuring the “convergent validity” of the study.
In addition, the study assessed the “discriminant validity” that reflects the degree to which a latent variable empirically differs from other latent variables [53]. For assessing the discriminant validity, the study examined the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio [53]. Table 2 shows the results of Fornell–Larcker. In addition, the HTMT ratio were assessed using the “bias-corrected and accelerated” (BCa) bootstrapping technique, using a resample of 5000 by employing a one-tailed t-test with a 90% significance level (to warrant an error probability of 95%). Table 2 presents the HTMT ratio, indicating values below the acceptable threshold of HTMT.85 and thus establishing the discriminant validity of the study.

4.2. Structural Model

Further, we evaluated the “structural model” by analyzing the path analysis to examine the study’s hypotheses. The study utilized a “non-parametric” bootstrapping procedure to obtain the β and corresponding t-values. In addition to the “path coefficients”, we also assessed the structural model by employing the following criteria, such as “coefficient of determination” (R2), “predictive relevance” (Q2), and the “effect sizes” (f2). The value of “cross-validated redundancy” above 0 indicates the “predictive capability” of the model. In addition, we reported the effect sizes to ensure the “predictive accuracy” of the model. The results of the structural model are presented in Table 3. The analysis indicates that green mindfulness has a significant positive association with G-OCB (β = 0.452, t = 13.271, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.252), supporting Hypothesis 1. Besides, green mindfulness positively impacts green intrinsic motivation (β = 0.491, t = 11.705, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.331), supporting Hypothesis 2.
Moreover, Hair et al. [53] recommended employing the two-stage approach to examine the moderating effect. According to Henseler and Fassott [54], the two-stage approach “exhibits a high statistical power”, compared to the orthogonal or product indicator approach. We measured the moderator effect size using the BCa bootstrapping approach with a resample of 5000. Table 3 shows that the interaction term (green mindfulness–green transformational leadership) has a significant positive impact on green intrinsic motivation (β = 0.422, t = 9.529, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.288) with large effect size, and on G-OCB (β = 0.376, t = 5.708, p = 0.001, f2 = 0.222) with medium effect size, supporting hypotheses 4 and 5.
Further, we plotted a simple slope analysis to understand the interaction effect of green mindfulness–green transformational leadership on green intrinsic motivation and G-OCB (shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3). The simple slope analyses illustrate that at high levels of green transformational leadership, the direct association between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation, and the indirect relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB, mediated by green intrinsic motivation, is more potent than at low levels of green transformational leadership.
In addition, we also predicted the mediating role of green intrinsic motivation in the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB. We adopted Zhao et al.’s [61] mediation approach to evaluate the mediation analysis. We obtained point estimates of the indirect effect using the BCa bootstrapping technique with a 5000 resample [53]. Table 4 shows that the total effect of green mindfulness on green intrinsic motivation is significant, with 95% CIs (0.653, 0.813), and the indirect effect of green mindfulness on G-OCB through the mediating role of green intrinsic motivation is significant, with 95% CIs (0.234, 0.368), indicating complementary mediation. In addition, we also assess “variance accounted for” (VAF) to assess the mediation analysis. VAF value of 39.65% indicates that green intrinsic motivation partially mediates the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB, supporting Hypothesis 3.
In addition, the study also measured the “goodness-of-fit index” (GFI), using Tenenhaus et al.’s [62] diagnostic tool. GFI refers to “the geometric mean of the average communality and average R2” [62]. GFI results are reported in Table 5, and the value of 0.551 indicates a large effect size of R2 by exceeding the cutoff value of 0.36, ensuring a good model fit [63]. Finally, we also examined Stone–Geisser’s Q2 with an “omission distance” of 5. The analysis produced a value significantly greater than 0, thus establishing the model’s “predictive relevance”.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Given the substantial contribution of the tourism and hospitality industry to the ecosystem protection and development, employee G-OCB is of paramount importance in the delivery of superior services, value, and experience to customers [5]. Hence, the main contribution of this study is the theorization and assessment of a hitherto unexplored, moderated mediation model that translates into inflated G-OCB. For the stated cause, the study determined the impact of green mindfulness in eliciting G-OCB through the mediating role of green intrinsic motivation and the moderating role of green transformational leadership. The study utilized a time-lagged, multi-source research design to collect data from the service firms in the tourism and hospitality industry. As predicted, the study found that mindfully green employees are more likely to exploit innovative and unique environment-related ideas by inducing extra-role behaviors, and hence think out of the box in manifesting pro-environmental behavior. Moreover, the study found a positive influence of individual and contextual factors in the underlying linkage. Specifically, the findings support our hypothesized relationships such that:
i.
Green mindfulness has a significant positive relationship with G-OCB;
ii.
Green intrinsic motivation significantly mediates the association between green mindfulness and G-OCB;
iii.
Green transformational leadership underpins the direct association between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation, and the indirect relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB, mediated by green intrinsic motivation.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

The study offers several novel insights by determining a nexus between green mindfulness and G-OCB in the tourism and hospitality industry. First, past studies provide accumulated evidence for the influence of breath-of-attention on G-OCB [5,26]. However, encapsulating environmental concerns—specifically, employing the cognitive faculty of human intellect (i.e., green mindfulness) culminating in G-OCB—is unique. This just makes our study all the more salient. Our findings infer that individuals’ cognitive resource, i.e., green mindfulness (i.e., intentional awareness, non-judgmental observation, and non-reactivity to present-moment stimuli), is a relevant recipe of G-OCB that enables hospitality service firms’ employees to draw greater attention towards pro-environmental issues and connectedness to nature. Thus, individuals who draw on their mindfulness are more open to experience and demonstrate extra-role behavior, leading to greater environmentalism.
Second, we predicted that mindfully green employees deliver superior environmental performance; however, the process is interceded by a causal mechanism. We examined the mediating role of green intrinsic motivation and found that mindfully green employees develop a love and passionate interest for the environment [4] based on non-evaluative, moment-to-moment judgment [48], and are thereby compelled by an internal drive or rewards that translate into elevated G-OCB. Thus, the contribution of this study is novel and meaningful. For instance, extant literature has explored the eminent role of intrinsic motivation on employee’s OCB [41,64,65]. However, assessing green intrinsic motivation in the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB has not been previously tested. Our assessment of green intrinsic motivation as a mediating variable is congruent with the previous literature, which corroborates that green intrinsic motivation reflects an autonomous motivation in executing pro-environmental behavior [13,38].
Third, the study outstretched the green mindfulness–G-OCB nexus boundary conditions by assessing the boundary effects of green transformational leadership. The study answered the call of Hooi et al. [5] to examine the boundary effects of contextual factors that might also underpin the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB. We found that employees who perceive their leaders to have a greater concern for the environment are more likely to develop enthusiasm and optimism for executing extra-role behavior that involves their creative input to solve environment-related problems. Thus, green transformational leadership serves as a catalyst that enhances the mindful organizing of the subordinates and provokes internal motivation, spurred through inspirational motivation, and ultimately turning into G-OCB. Hence, the present study contributes to the leadership literature by examining green transformational leadership as a boundary condition in the green mindfulness–G-OCB nexus.

5.2. Practical Implications

The findings of this study provide imperative implications for managers and firms in the tourism and hospitality industry. Given the significant role of G-OCB in the tourism and hospitality industry, the hypothesized model offers insights for service firms to take advantage of the first-mover effect by exploiting pro-environmental creative measures through utilizing individual and contextual factors. This will allow firms to enhance their image and reputation [4]. According to Arshad et al. [66], Pakistan’s regulatory institutions are putting increased pressure on service firms in the tourism and hospitality industry in compliance with the UN’s sustainable development goals to take environment-friendly initiatives by embedding green practices in business strategy and processes. As the findings of our study indicate that green mindfulness is a substantial contributor to G-OCB for firms in the hospitality industry, appropriate organizational interventions should be taken to enhance green mindfulness of employees. In addition to conducting mindfulness trainings and workshops, managers should devise a parameter for selecting employees based on green mindfulness to catalyze G-OCB.
Second, our findings endorse the applicability of green motivation as an indispensable element that enhances employees’ engrossment in fostering environment-friendly innovation in the tourism and hospitality industry. Although increased job demands and external pressures significantly influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors [13], we suggest that management should encourage employees to promote pro-environmental initiatives based on the internal drive and rewards. As discussed above, individuals who are guided by their intrinsic motivation feel a heightened degree of self-determination because it gives them freedom and autonomy in performing tasks to achieve shared goals and objectives. Therefore, job characteristics and green workplace environments leverage employees to manifest pro-environmental behaviors.
Last but not the least, our findings emphasize the imperative role of green transformational leadership as a boundary condition of the green mindfulness–G-OCB nexus. We suggest that to inculcate a green mindset in the workplace; organizations should instill the impression of environmentalism in the top leadership to yield the trickle-down effect. As leaders inspire their followers through their pro-active attitudes and behaviors, they should be aware of the importance of green leadership behaviors in leveraging mindful organization to enhance G-OCB. Team leaders should demonstrate green transformational leadership behaviors that elevate subordinates’ green mindfulness, green intrinsic motivation, and G-OCB.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

There are several limitations of this study. First, we suggest future studies carry out a longitudinal research design to assess the hypothesized relationships to overcome the time-lagged research design’s limitation. Second, we addressed the call of Kalyar et al. [4] and determined the mediating role of motivational mechanisms in the relationship between green mindfulness and G-OCB. Although the present study assesses the mediating role of green intrinsic motivation in the underlying linkage, future studies should nevertheless consider cognitive mechanisms that might also underpin the association. Third, the present study examines the boundary effect of green transformational leadership in the green mindfulness–G-OCB linkage. We suggest that future studies investigate the boundary effects of other individual and/or contextual factors to examine the contingent effect. Fourth, this study is conducted in a non-western cultural context. Studies conducted in western countries may present interesting yet distinct insights into the proposed theoretical framework. Fifth, despite the significant influence of green mindfulness on G-OCB through green intrinsic motivation and green transformational leadership, employees in the tourism and hospitality industry may experience lower motivation to engage in extra-role green behaviors because of low expectations of monetary benefits. The benefits of these projections will less likely be achievable, particularly in lower-income countries, where employees’ salaries and working conditions might also intervene in these associations. We therefore invite future studies to investigate other contingent factors such as working conditions [67], person-job fit [68], and perceived organizational support [69] as boundary conditions of the green mindfulness–G-OCB link. Last but not least, we suggest that future studies also consider societal factors coupled with organizations’ sustainable initiatives to safeguard the interest of the chief stakeholders, i.e., the customers, who might be price sensitive and/or less inclined to consume sustainable services [70].

Author Contributions

C.C., A.R. and A.A. made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis, and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising, and critically reviewing the article; gave final approval to the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study adheres to the guidelines of the ethical re-view process of the associated universities and was approved by the ethics committees of these universities.

Informed Consent Statement

The study sought informed consent from the participants for their volunteer contribution in the survey.

Data Availability Statement

Data are confidential and may be requested from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hole, Y.; Snehal, P. Challenges and solutions to the development of the tourism and hospitality industry in India. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leisur. 2019, 8, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lei, S.I.; Ye, S.; Wang, D.; Law, R. Engaging customers in value co-creation through mobile instant messaging in the tourism and hospitality industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2020, 44, 229–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Moin, M.F.; Omar, M.K.; Wei, F.; Rasheed, M.I.; Hameed, Z. Green HRM and psychological safety: How transformational leadership drives follower’s job satisfaction. Curr. Issue Tour. 2021, 24, 2269–2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kalyar, M.N.; Ali, F.; Shafique, I. Green mindfulness and green creativity nexus in hospitality industry: Examining the effects of green process engagement and CSR. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 2653–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hooi, L.W.; Liu, M.S.; Lin, J.J. Green human resource management and green organizational citizenship behavior: Do green culture and green values matter? Int. J. Man. 2021, 43, 763–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mittal, S.; Dhar, R.L. Effect of green transformational leadership on green creativity: A study of tourist hotels. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity. J. Bus. Ethic. 2013, 116, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Song, W.; Yu, H. Green innovation strategy and green innovation: The roles of green creativity and green organizational identity. Corp. Soc. Res. Env. Manag. 2018, 25, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H.; Yeh, S.L.; Cheng, H.I. Green shared vision and green creativity: The mediation roles of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Qual. Quant. 2015, 49, 1169–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hwang, K.; Lee, B. Pride, mindfulness, public self-awareness, affective satisfaction, and customer citizenship behaviour among green restaurant customers. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 83, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jia, J.; Liu, H.; Chin, T.; Hu, D. The continuous mediating effects of GHRM on employees’ green passion via transformational leadership and green creativity. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Geiger, S.M.; Otto, S.; Schrader, U. Mindfully green and healthy: An indirect path from mindfulness to ecological behavior. Front. Psy. 2018, 8, 2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, W.; Bhutto, T.A.; Xuhui, W.; Maitlo, Q.; Zafar, A.U.; Bhutto, N.A. Unlocking employees’ green creativity: The effects of green transformational leadership, green intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dumont, J.; Shen, J.; Deng, X. Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Hum. Res. Manag. 2017, 56, 613–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Coccia, M. Theories of Self-Determination. In Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance; Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 10, pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  16. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Conceptualizations of Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination. In Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1985; pp. 11–40. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Amer. Psy. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Coccia, M. Comparative Incentive Systems. In Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance; Farazmand, A., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Deci, E.L.; Koestner, R.; Ryan, R.M. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125, 627–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bowles, S.; Polania-Reyes, S. Economic incentives and social preferences: Substitutes or complements? J. Econ. Lit. 2012, 50, 368–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Clarke, E.F. Creativity in performance. Mus. Imagin. Mult. Persp. Create. Perf. Percep. 2012, 9, 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  22. Crosby, A. Creativity and Performance in Industrial Organization; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lofquist, E.A.; Matthiesen, S.B. Viking leadership: How Norwegian transformational leadership style effects creativity and change through organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Int. J. Cros. Cultur. Manag. 2018, 18, 309–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sawyer, R.K. The interdisciplinary study of creativity in performance. Create. Res. J. 1998, 11, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jonassen, D. Can you train employees to solve problems? Perf. Imp. 2001, 40, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Martz, B.; Hughes, J.; Braun, F. Creativity and problem-solving: Closing the skills gap. J. Comp. Info. Sys. 2017, 57, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chang, T.W.; Chen, F.F.; Luan, H.D.; Chen, Y.S. Effect of green organizational identity, green shared vision, and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment on green product development performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dharmesti, M.; Merrilees, B.; Winata, L. “I’m mindfully green”: Examining the determinants of guest pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) in hotels. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2020, 29, 830–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Celik, D.A.; Çetin, F. Shedding Some Light on the Blind Spots Concerning Organizational Citizenship Behavior. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Bass, B.M., Riggio, R.E., Eds.; Transformational Leadership; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2006; p. 10510. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nguyen, T.N.Q.; Ngo, L.V.; Surachartkumtonkun, J. When do-good meets empathy and mindfulness. J. Retail. Consum. Ser. 2019, 50, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Deci, E.L. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination. Ref. Modul. Neurosci. Biobehav. 2015, 11, 437–448. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fischer, C.; Malycha, C.P.; Schafmann, E. The influence of intrinsic motivation and synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Self-Determination Theory. Int. Encycl. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 21, 486–491. [Google Scholar]
  34. Amabile, T.M. Componential Theory of Creativity. In Encyclopedia of Management Theory; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  35. Brown, K.W.; Ryan, R.M. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psy. 2003, 84, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Creswell, J.D. Mindfulness interventions. Ann. Rev. Psy. 2017, 68, 491–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Glomb, T.M.; Duffy, M.K.; Bono, J.E.; Yang, T. Mindfulness at Work. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kroon, B.; van Woerkom, M.; Menting, C. Mindfulness as substitute for transformational leadership. J. Manag. Psy. 2017, 32, 284–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Neace, S.M.; Hicks, A.M.; DeCaro, M.S.; Salmon, P.G. Trait mindfulness and intrinsic exercise motivation uniquely contribute to exercise self-efficacy. J. Am. Colleg. Health 2020, 70, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ruffault, A.; Bernier, M.; Juge, N.; Fournier, J.F. Mindfulness may moderate the relationship between intrinsic motivation and physical activity: A cross-sectional study. Mindfulness 2016, 7, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tan, C.S.; Lau, X.S.; Kung, Y.T.; Kailsan, R.A.L. Openness to experience enhances creativity: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation and the creative process engagement. J. Create. Behav. 2019, 53, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shareef, R.A.; Atan, T. The influence of ethical leadership on academic employees’ organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention: Mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Manag. Dec. 2018, 57, 583–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Paramitha, A.; Indarti, N. Impact of the environment support on creativity: Assessing the mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Pro.-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 115, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Panditharathne, P.N.K.W.; Chen, Z. An integrative review on the research progress of mindfulness and its implications at the workplace. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Freire, C.; Pieta, P. The impact of green human resource management on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of organizational identification and job satisfaction. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bass, B.M.; Riggio, R.E. Transformational Leadership; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  47. Arendt, L.A. Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The moderating effect of leader humor. Rev. Bus. Res. 2009, 9, 100–106. [Google Scholar]
  48. Vogus, T.J.; Sutcliffe, K.M. Organizational mindfulness and mindful organizing: A reconciliation and path forward. Acad. Manag. Lear. Educ. 2012, 11, 722–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chua, J.; Ayoko, O.B. Employees’ self-determined motivation, transformational leadership and work engagement. J. Manag. Organ. 2021, 27, 523–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Saunders, M.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  51. Firestone, W.A. Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educ. Res. 1987, 16, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Johnson, B. Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Educ. Res. 2001, 30, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  54. Henseler, J.; Fassot, G. Testing Moderating Effects in PLS Models: An Illustration of Available Procedures. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications in Marketing and Related Fields; Vinziv, E., Chinw, W., Henseler, J., Wang, H., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2010; pp. 195–218. [Google Scholar]
  55. Cole, D.A.; Maxwell, S.E. Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2003, 112, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Maxwell, S.E.; Cole, D.A. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychol. Methods 2007, 12, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Williams, J.J.; Seaman, A.E. Corporate governance and mindfulness: The impact of management accounting systems change. J. App. Bus. Res. 2010, 26, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Amabile, T.M.; Hill, K.G.; Hennessey, B.A.; Tighe, E.M. The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 66, 950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pham, N.T.; Phan, Q.P.T.; Tučková, Z.; Vo, N.; Nguyen, L.H. Enhancing the organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The roles of green training and organizational culture. Management & Marketing. Chall. Know Soc. 2018, 13, 1174–1189. [Google Scholar]
  60. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G., Jr.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.M.; Lauro, C. PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hoffmann, A.; Birnbrich, C. The impact of fraud prevention on bank-customer relationships: An empirical investigation in retail banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2012, 30, 390–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Finkelstein, M.A. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and organizational citizenship behavior: A functional approach to organizational citizenship behavior. J. Psy. Iss. Organ. Cultur. 2011, 2, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lazauskaite-Zabielske, J.; Urbanaviciute, I.; Bagdziuniene, D. The role of prosocial and intrinsic motivation in employees’ citizenship behaviour. Bal. J. Manag. 2015, 10, 345–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Arshad, M.I.; Iqbal, M.A.; Shahbaz, M. Pakistan tourism industry and challenges: A review. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 23, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Winchenbach, A.; Hanna, P.; Miller, G. Rethinking decent work: The value of dignity in tourism employment. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1026–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sekiguchi, T. Person-organization fit and person-job fit in employee selection: A review of the literature. Osak. Keid. Rons. 2004, 54, 179–196. [Google Scholar]
  69. Rhoades, L.; Eisenberger, R. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. J. App. Psychol. 2002, 87, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Stanislavská, L.K.; Pilař, L.; Margarisová, K.; Kvasnička, R. Corporate social responsibility and social media: Comparison between developing and developed countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 05012 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Sustainability 15 05012 g001
Sustainability 15 05012 g002 550
Figure 2. Interaction effect of green mindfulness and green transformational leadership on green intrinsic motivation.
Figure 2. Interaction effect of green mindfulness and green transformational leadership on green intrinsic motivation.
Sustainability 15 05012 g002
Sustainability 15 05012 g003 550
Figure 3. Interaction effect of green mindfulness and green transformational leadership on G-OCB.
Figure 3. Interaction effect of green mindfulness and green transformational leadership on G-OCB.
Sustainability 15 05012 g003
Table
Table 1. Validity and reliability for constructs.
Table 1. Validity and reliability for constructs.
LoadingsAVECRCronbach’s Alpha
Green mindfulness 0.5850.88100.843
GMF10.723
GMF20.811
GMF30.687
GMF40.800
GMF50.765
GMF60.792
Green transformational leadership 0.5350.8900.856
GTL10.667
GTL20.782
GTL30.712
GTL40.784
GTL50.612
GTL60.812
Green intrinsic motivation 0.5290.8560.814
GIM10.646
GIM20.764
GIM30.742
GIM40.653
GIM50.731
GIM60.814
Green organizational citizenship behavior 0.5230.8000.771
G-OCB10.702
G-OCB20.750
G-OCB30.724
G-OCB40.734
G-OCB50.723
G-OCB60.672
G-OCB70.754
Notes: GM: green mindfulness; GTL: green transformational leadership; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; G-OCB: green organizational citizenship behavior; AVE: average variance extracted; CR: composite reliability.
Table
Table 2. Discriminate validity.
Table 2. Discriminate validity.
Fornell–Larcker CriterionHTMT Criterion
GMGTLGIMG-OCBGMGTLGIMG-OCB
GM0.764
GTL0.5430.731 0.653
CI.0.900
[0.550;0.711]
GIM0.5740.4520.727 0.816
CI.0.900
[0.756;0.882]		0.660
CI.0.900
[0.612;0.732]
G-OCB0.6120.5180.3560.7230.524
CI.0.900
[0.453;0.582]		0.713
CI.0.900
[0.630;0.795]		0.776
CI.0.900
[0.718;0.842]
Notes. GM: green mindfulness; GTL: green transformational leadership; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; G-OCB: green organizational citizenship behavior; CI: bootstrapping 90% confidence intervals (n = 5000) (one-tailed).
Table
Table 3. Effects on endogenous variables.
Table 3. Effects on endogenous variables.
HypothesesβCI (5%, 95%)SEt-Valuep-ValueDecisionf2R2Q2
Age 10.023 (n.s.)(−0.050, 0.044)0.0220.5320.615
Gender 20.079 (n.s.)(−0.011, 0.123)0.0900.6680.645
Occupation 30.033 (n.s.)(−0.052, 0.088)0.0110.2650.442
Tenure 40.076 (n.s.)(−0.011, 0.147)0.0240.8870.746
H1 GM → G-OCB0.452 ***(0.375, 0.523)0.08213.2710.000Supported0.2520.5460.342
H2 GM → GIM0.491 ***(0.407, 0.570)0.06411.7050.000Supported 0.3310.5740.258
H4 GM × GTL → GIM0.422 ***(0.334, 0.501)0.0429.5290.000Supported0.288
H5 GM × GTL → G-OCB0.376 ***(0.275, 0.475)0.0525.6080.001Supported0.222
Notes. GM: green mindfulness; GTL: green transformational leadership; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; G-OCB: green organizational citizenship behavior; *** significance p < 0.05 (1.96); 1,2,3,4 = control variables.
Table
Table 4. Summary of mediating effect tests.
Table 4. Summary of mediating effect tests.
Patht-ValueBCCI Patht-Value95% BCCIDecisionVAF
Total effect
GM → G-OCB		0.74911.428(0.653, 0.813)Indirect effect
GM → GIM → G-OCB		0.2977.321(0.234, 0.368)Supported39.65%
Notes. GM: green mindfulness; GTL: green transformational leadership; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; G-OCB: green organizational citizenship behavior; VAF: variance accounted for (indirect effect/total effect *) * total effect: direct effect + indirect effect).
Table
Table 5. Goodness-of-fit tndex (GFI).
Table 5. Goodness-of-fit tndex (GFI).
ConstructsAVER2
GM0.585
GTL0.535
GIM0.5290.574
G-OCB0.5230.546
Average scores0.5430.560
(GFI = A V E ¯ × R 2 ¯ )0.551
Notes. AVE: average variance extracted; GM: green mindfulness; GTL: green transformational leadership; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; G-OCB: green organizational citizenship behavior.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, C.; Rasheed, A.; Ayub, A. Does Green Mindfulness Promote Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5012. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065012

AMA Style

Chen C, Rasheed A, Ayub A. Does Green Mindfulness Promote Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):5012. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065012

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Chunyan, Anmol Rasheed, and Arslan Ayub. 2023. "Does Green Mindfulness Promote Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 5012. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065012

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop