Examining the Mediation Effect of Anti-Citizen Behaviour in the Link Between Job Insecurity and Organizational Performance: Empirical Evidence from Tunisian Hotels

Abstract

Grounded in Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, this study tests the influence of job insecurity (JI) on organisational, particularly hotel, performance (OP) via the adoption of anti-social behaviour (ACB). To this end, responses were collected from 429 employees working in three renowned five-star hotels in Hammamet, Tunisia. By analysing the data with AMOS (v.25), we found that the research hypotheses were confirmed. The results showed, on one hand, that JI significantly and negatively affects OP and, on the other hand, significantly and positively affects ACB, which, in turn, significantly and negatively affects OP. Additionally, the link between JI and OP became insignificant post the initiation of ACB as a mediator. As a result, we found that ACB fully mediates the link between JI and OP. This undoubtedly shows that when employees experience JI, they adopt ACB to restore equilibrium, with adverse consequences for hotel performance. In addition to the theoretical implications, managerial recommendations for practitioners are presented.

1. Introduction

Those in charge of the organisation, who had considered it exclusively from an economic point of view, have gradually realised that the new foundations of an honourable HRM revolve around the emphasis of job stability (Marane & Asaad, 2025) with open career advancement horizons (Aliane et al., 2023). As a result, a relationship of social exchange is created within the organisation, linking two partners through a mosaic of exchanges that are both reciprocal and intertwined. This is more legitimate now that human resources are considered to be a strategic asset for companies and, more than ever, a subject of attention not only for management but also for researchers. To meet the many and varied challenges facing any company (e.g., competition, the quest for performance, globalisation), effective and efficient human resources management is a major issue and an imperative that no company, i.e., hotel, can avoid in order to achieve the required performance (Sobaih et al., 2019).

This research builds on Social Exchange Theory (SET) (P. M. Blau, 1964; P. Blau, 2017) to understand hotel employee behaviour, i.e., anti-citizen behaviour, based on perceived benefits and costs, particularly perceived JI. In addition, it draws on the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) to understand the interrelationship between perceived JI, ACB, and OP. While the COR theory was originally developed to explain how individuals could experience and cope with stress, it was further developed in organisational behaviour beyond stress (Hobfoll et al., 2018). The COR theory could be used, as in the current study, to understand employee behaviour and performance in response to JI. This perception of JI by employees could lead them to respond with negative behaviour, i.e., ACB, as well as being translated into resource loss and poor performance of employees and overall OP. In concrete terms, our problem is as follows: does unstable employment shape the future? (Ramaux, 2006). This is a crucially important question for any employer concerned about OP and profitability. The integration of both SET and COR could enable us to better understand these relationships and answer the research question, particularly in the Tunisian context, where tourism and the hotel industry are crucial to the national economy.

Consideration has been paid to ACB (Aliane et al., 2023; Gheitarani et al., 2024) since it has an association with organisational behaviour. JI could be the cause, leading to irreversible pathological relationships within the organisation, which may be detrimental to its performance. This perception of indolence experienced by the employee can give rise to dysfunctions, which can have harmful repercussions on the work process, particularly through social laziness (Alyahya et al., 2021) or withdrawal behaviours undertaken intentionally by employees (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998) to restore balance. Grounded in both the SET and COR frameworks, the research question of this research can be developed as follows: What role can ACB play in the link involving JI and OP? The objectives of this research are to measure the direct effect of JI on OP and to measure the indirect effect of JI on OP through ACB. It focuses on the nature of the mediating role that ACB could play in the link between perceived JI by hotel employees and the OP of hotels.

2. Operationalisation of Research Hypotheses

2.1. Job Insecurity and Organisational Performance

JI is the perception of the permanency of the job as we know it (Probst, 2003). The transition from a secure to an insecure work environment can be detrimental not only to employees, a situation that will affect their behaviour and manifest itself in a feeling of ill-being in the workplace and elsewhere, but also to their organisations, which will suffer a drop in performance as a result (Lim & Loosemore, 2017; Xu, 2019; Lei et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2025). In this respect, Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) stated that “Faced with job insecurity, employee responses will have adverse consequences for organisational performance” (p. 438). This linkage was confirmed with a recent systematic review analysis of the JI-employee performance relationship (Muñoz Medina et al., 2023).

For their part, Sverke et al. (2002), following a meta-analysis, found that JI was linked to unfavourable work results, including harmful attitudes towards the job and the organisation, and work-related behaviours such as reduced performance. This could be explained by the fact that JI has been associated with a decrease in employees’ commitment to their organisations (Armstrong-Stassen, 1993; Davy et al., 1997). In extreme cases, JI, as one of the stress factors, can lead to a withdrawal reaction (Li et al., 2025; Peng et al., 2025; Semba, 2025), leading to an irreversible desire to quit the organisation (Alyahya et al., 2024).

In the same vein, a great deal of studies have been carried out in this area. For example, recently, research was carried out in Nigeria on a sample of 342 workers belonging to the Nigerian banking sector and revealed that JI is significantly and negatively associated with OP (Adekiya, 2024). Furthermore, Haldorai et al. (2024) found that job insecurity negatively affected employees’ work performance in the Thai hotel and restaurant industry. For their part, Wu et al. (2024) conducted an online experiment on two separate samples, N = 226 and N = 350, consisting mainly of Chinese employees who work with AI daily. The research results led to the finding that JI negatively influences creative performance, on-the-job learning, and employee well-being. Sobaih et al. (2019) found that meeting employee needs and ensuring their security within hotels directly affect their job performance. Additionally, the study of O. M. Karatepe et al. (2024) on hotel employees in Turkey showed that JI resulting from COVID-19 has worsened job tension and negatively affected their trust in the organisation; hence, their overall behaviour. JI can weaken performance through a hindrance consequence directly and indirectly via job satisfaction and affective commitment (Piccoli et al., 2021). The negative linkage between JI and job performance is verified and supplemented with a lack of support from the organisation (De Angelis et al., 2021). Thus, from the above discussion, we can state the first hypothesis of this research:

H1. 

Job insecurity has a negative impact on organisational performance.

2.2. Job Insecurity and Anti-Citizen Behaviour

The development of research into organisational behaviour has pushed for more emphasis on ACB (Gheitarani et al., 2024). ACB could be defined as any intentional action that impedes the performance of the team or organisation (Pearce & Giacalone, 2003). Thévenet (1992) rightly adopted the expression “present-absent” to depict employees who drift by sometimes adopting counter-productive behaviours, or some others who engage in “pirate retribution”, in Peretti’s (2004) terms, by voluntarily squandering certain resources belonging to the organisation. Lack of sensitivity can lead to the development of pathological relationships within the organisation and to a questioning of trust. In fact, this feeling of neglect can lead to dysfunctions that can have harmful repercussions on the work process, including social loafing (Alyahya et al., 2021), employee withdrawal (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998), complaints (Bies et al., 1988), theft (Greenberg, 1993), strikes (Sayles, 1958), revenge (Sommers et al., 2002), and so on. In the same vein, Vardi and Wiener (1996) evoke the concept of organisational misbehaviour, describing the intentional behaviour of certain employees who harm their organisation or offend their colleagues by violating the organisation’s norms and values.

Moreover, Robinson and Bennett (1995) have no hesitation in showing, based on an empirical investigation, that between 33% and 75% of employees are said to engage in acts of degradation such as theft and computer deception. Thus, the perceived quality of interpersonal treatment will set the direction for behaviour that may be civic-minded or counterproductive. Furthermore, the studies undertaken by Robinson and Bennett (1995) to take a closer look at the anti-social behaviour of employees have often recognised two kinds of behaviour, production and ownership deviance. The first one is behaviour of a counter-productive nature, e.g., absenteeism and time wasting, while the second one targets the organisation’s resources and assets, such as theft and acts of vandalism. Alyahya et al. (2021)’s study on hotel workers noted a strong link between JI and social loafing behaviour. Similarly, the study of Aliedan et al. (2022) found a positive association between JI and unethical behaviour of hotel employees. Recent research on hotel employees, where the results showed, among other things, a significant and positive link between job insecurity and the anti-citizen behaviour of the team (Aliane et al., 2023). These research results align with both SET and COR assumptions that when employees perceive JI, they would respond with negative behaviour such as ACB. Thus, we suggest the following:

H2. 

Job insecurity has a positive effect on anti-citizen behaviour.

2.3. Anti-Citizenship Behaviour and Organisational Performance

ACB impedes other employees, teams, and overall organisations (Giacalone et al., 1997). According to Clark (2024), anti-citizen behaviour is characterised by the refusal or reduction in extra-role behaviours that could be beneficial to the organisation. Additionally, it includes practices that negatively affect other members of the team and organisation (Pearce & Giacalone, 2003). In the JI context, employees’ ACB may manifest itself in terms of dysfunctional or even anti-social behaviours of a counterproductive nature undertaken voluntarily by employees. Pearce and Giacalone (2003) show that such anti-social behaviour can cause annual losses of several billion dollars. Such an assumption is in line with COR theory, which presents an employee who perceives JI and other practices. Such employees with ACB react negatively to their team and organisation in poor and/or negative performance.

Recent research (Tsou et al., 2025; Nakra & Kashyap, 2025; Jangbahadur et al., 2025), which has studied the importance of human resource management within organisations suggests that companies which are concerned with the development of their human resources by being sensitive to their present and future needs and by trying to value their employees can expect to gain in return in terms of OP. Conversely, those who have chosen to abandon this principle by showing little or no concern for the social dimension risk damaging their economic situation (Liouville & Bayad, 1995) and consequently their OP. Deviant behaviours such as withdrawal, social laziness, theft, resistance to change, and absenteeism are like a spectre that haunts organisations wishing to develop. These behaviours affect their performance (Puffer, 1987; Ball et al., 1994), interpersonal relationships (R. A. Baron, 1994), and the very meaning of cooperation (Gholipour et al., 2009).

Despite there being some attempts (e.g., Piccoli et al., 2021; De Angelis et al., 2021) to examine the indirect link between JI and OP, none of these studies, or other recently published research, examined the mediating effect of ACB in the link between JI and OP. Piccoli et al. (2021) found that both job satisfaction and affective commitment play a mediating role in the link between JI and job performance. De Angelis et al. (2021) found that work-family conflict and burnout have a serial mediation between JI and job performance. This means that JI increases the work–family conflict and leads to burnout, which deteriorates job performance. This research takes a new attempt to examine the role of ACB in the link between JI and OP, drawing on these results and both the SET and COR frameworks. Hence, we suggest the following:

H3. 

Anti-citizen behaviour has a negative impact on organisational performance.

H4. 

Anti-citizen behaviour mediates the relationship between job insecurity and organisational performance.

Relying on the discussion above and the results that we have formulated beforehand, we develop the research model (Figure 1).

3. Methodology

3.1. Measurement and Sample

To ensure an in-depth examination of the relationships linking our three research variables (JI, ACB, and OP), the measurement scales were carefully chosen to construct the questionnaire for data collection. Therefore, we chose the T. Karatepe (2022) scale to measure JI. Moreover, we chose the Pearce and Giacalone (2003) scale to measure ACB. Finally, we chose the Kachali et al. (2012) scale to measure OP. Despite this, the OP scale was originally developed to assess post-disaster organisational resilience; it was later adopted to examine hotel performance amid the COVID-19 pandemic (Sobaih et al., 2021). Back translation by bilingual English French university experts was adopted to ensure the quality of translation. We then piloted the instrument with 12 business research professors and 21 hotel workers to ensure face and content validity. Cronbach’s α was ensured for all scale items, as it was 0.96 for JI and 0.93 for both ACB and OP. The α for all variables was excellent and above 0.7, as recommended by Nunnally (1978).

Since this research adopted a single data collection tool of a self-reported questionnaire, especially when collecting data on independent and dependent variables, there might be a risk of common method variance (CMV). CMV could affect the quality of results, particularly the relationship between variables, by resulting in false relationships (Spector, 2006). Therefore, we adopted several steps to ensure that CMV is not an issue in this research. This includes a combination of procedural and statistical steps before and after collecting the data (Podsakoff et al., 2003). For example, we made sure that the items are clearly worded, with a mix of positive and negative wording, to reduce the tendency to agree. We also randomised the item order. We made sure that the design of the questionnaire does not lead to typical response patterns or common responses. Furthermore, we adopted Harman’s single-factor test by performing an unrotated exploratory factor analysis. This test result confirms that there was no issue with CMV, as none of the single factors resulted in more than 40% of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

To complete the exploratory phase, we self-administered the questionnaire to 600 employees in various positions in the hotel and restaurant sector, in three well-known five-star hotels located in Hammamet, Tunisia. These hotels were purposively selected for data collection based on the research team’s network. The study took four months to collect the data. The questionnaire was given to all employees. At the end of the four months, 429 completed forms were gathered and a valid four analysis, representing a response rate of 71.5%. The profile of the sample is presented in

Table 1. Respondents’ demographics.

Items	Class	Numbers	%
Gender	Male	275	64.1
	Female	154	35.9
Marital status	Married	318	74.13
	Single	111	25.87
Length of service in tourism	Less than 5 years	36	8.39
	Between 6 and 10 years	77	17.95
	Between 11 and 15 years	112	26.11
	More than 15 years	204	47.55
Age	<30	34	7.93
	30–40	72	16.78
	41–50	240	55.94
	>50	83	19.35
Income level	<1000 dt	0	0
	1001 dt–2000 dt	101	23.54
	2001 dt–3000 dt	265	61.77
	>3000 dt	63	14.69
Academic level	Professional diploma	35	8.16
	Bachelor’s degree	205	47.79
	Bachelor’s degree plus 2	137	31.93
	Bachelor’s degree plus 4	52	12.12
Have you witnessed any anti-citizen behaviour in your department or elsewhere in your hotel?	Yes	328	76.46
	No	101	23.54
Have you ever felt job insecurity in this hotel or elsewhere?	Yes	341	79.49
	No	88	20.51
Total		429	100%

.

As highlighted earlier, we opted for pre-tested measurement scales. All variables were measured with 5-point Likert-type scales (1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree”). Responses for all items varied between 1 and 5; i.e., from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Means ranged from 1.73 to 4.42, and standard deviations from 0.961 to 1.491 (see

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Abbreviation	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Standard Deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
Job Insecurity
JI1	1	5	4.09	1.177	−1.265	−1.269
JI2	1	5	4.16	1.175	−1.124	−1.735
JI3	1	5	4.25	0.961	−1.081	−1.627
JI4	1	5	4.21	0.953	−1.073	1.638
JI5	1	5	4.26	0.982	−1.043	1.623
JI6	1	5	4.42	1.327	−1.009	1.518
JI7	1	5	3.39	1.432	−0.956	1.365
JI8	1	5	3.17	1.173	−0.962	−1.238
Anti−citizenship Behaviour
ACB9	1	5	3.28	1.489	−0.627	−1.376
ACB10	1	5	3.81	1.491	−0.618	−1.772
ACB11	1	5	3.78	1.379	−0.539	−1.745
ACB12	1	5	3.63	1.415	−0.523	−1.624
ACB13	1	5	2.42	1.428	−0.476	−1.424
Organisational Performance
OP14	1	5	1.73	1.002	−1.276	−1.163
OP15	1	5	1.78	1.017	−1.441	−1.284
OP16	1	5	2.15	1.025	−1.482	−1.633
OP17	1	5	2.67	1.099	−1.227	−1.619

). The results of the skewness and kurtosis coefficients also confirmed that responses were spread and less concentrated around the average (Bryman & Cramer, 2012) (see Table 2).

3.2. Purification of the Scales

Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to ensure the quality of the representation. For all the factors measured in this case (JI, ACB, and OP), their KMO indices showed values between 0.774 and 0.801. We can therefore conclude that our variables lend themselves well to factorisation. Additionally, the Alpha values are brilliant in the sense of Nunnally (1978), ranging from 0.930 to 0.960.

4. Results

The first-order confirmatory factor analysis indicates that the grouped variables are in line with the data (see Figure 2). Indeed, the results show a ratio of chi-square to its degrees of freedom x²/ddl (2.5). This ratio is identified as more than adequate since it is less than 3. In addition, the RMSEA index is equal to 0.059, i.e., near zero, which indicates that the fit is normal. The indices “NFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.978, IFI = 0.969 and CFI = 0.975” also confirm they are excellent. We note that the first-order results meet the standards required by Roussel et al. (2005). The results of the skewness and kurtosis coefficients confirm that we do not violate the normality assumption (Kline, 2015) and display admissible values and follow the normal distribution (Table 2).

The results in

Table 3. Convergent and discriminant validity.

Factors and Items	SL	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	1	2	3
1—Job Insecurity, (T. Karatepe, 2022) (α = 0.960)		0.911	0.563	0.399	0.349	0.750
JI1	0.86
JI2	0.82
JI3	0.74
JI4	0.77
JI5	0.67
JI6	0.71
JI7	0.69
JI8	0.72
2—Anti-Citizenship Behaviour (Pearce & Giacalone, 2003) (α = 0.933)		0.856	0.543	0.530	0.465	0.632 **	0.737
ACB9	0.72
ACB10	0.78
ACB11	0.77
ACB12	0.69
ACB13	0.72
3—Organisational Performance (Kachali et al., 2012) (α = 0.930)		0.854	0.598	0.530	0.415	−0.548 **	−0.728 **	0.773
OP14	0.68
OP15	0.67
OP16	0.85
OP17	0.87

Note: SL = Standard Loading From The First-Order Model; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; MSV = Maximum Shared Value; ASV = Average Shared Value; Bold items are the square root of AVE. ** = p < 0.01.

show that convergent validity was ensured (Joreskog, 1988; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1989). To find out whether two theoretically distinct variables are also distinct in practice, we tested discriminant validity. This involved checking whether the square root of the AEV of each variable is strictly greater than the correlations it shares with the other variables. The results (Table 3) show that discriminant validity was verified for all three variables. The results showed that discriminant validity is guaranteed as suggested by Hair et al. (2014).

Following the check of validity and reliability, structural equation modelling was employed to examine the influence of JI on OP through ACB. The results in

Table 4. Result of hypotheses.

Result of the Structural Model	β	C-R T-Value	Sig	R2	Hypotheses Results
H1-JI → OP	0.629	5.138	***		Supported
H2-JI → ACB	−0.546	−7.641	0.047		Supported
H3-ACB → OP	−0.725	−9.118	***		Supported
H4-JI → OP Through ACB				0.552

Model fit: “(χ²(250, N = 429) = 630, p < 0.001, normed χ² = 2.52, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.036, RFI = 0.982, IFI = 0.977, CFI = 0.985, TLI = 0.986, NFI = 0.989”. *** = p < 0.001.

confirm the study fit the data. The values are satisfactory, e.g., “RMSEA = 0.6, NFI = 0.989, TLI = 0.986 and CFI = 0.985, SRMR = 0.036”. All the hypotheses formulated in the introduction were approved by showing significant relationships (Table 4, Figure 3).

Indeed, JI was found to significantly and negatively influence OP (β = −0.546, p < 0.001) and significantly positively affect ACB (β = +0.629, p < 0.05), which significantly and negatively affects OP (β = −0.725, p < 0.001). As for the robustness of the final model, it has a coefficient of (R² = 0.552) (see Table 4), which in our case shows the proportion of OP described by JI and ACB in the regression model. In fact, by applying JI and ACB, we can explain around 56% of the variance in OP.

In the case of this mediation and its potential occurrence, we used the four steps of R. M. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) methodology to verify the existence of ACB’s mediation role in the link between JI and OP. First, checking the link between JI and OP, which must be significant to ensure the possibility of meditation. Decidedly, the model shows that JI significantly and negatively affects OP (β = −0.546, p < 0.001). Next, we need to show that JI significantly influences the mediator. Indeed, the model shows that JI significantly and positively affects ACB (β = +0.629, p < 0.05). Subsequently, we need to demonstrate that the relationship between ACB and OP is significant. The results indicate that ACB significantly and negatively affects OP (β = −0.725, p < 0.001) (

Table 5. Type of identity concealment mediation.

Parameter	Est	Lower Bounds (BC)	Upper Bounds (BC)	Tow Tailed Significance (BC)	Mediation
H4-JI → CB → OP	−0.381	−0.410	0.029	0.067	0.067 > 0.05 Total Mediation

).

To check the partial or perfect nature of ACB by examining the importance of the indirect links between ‘JI’ and ‘OP’ (see Table 4 and Table 5). Indeed, by applying the bootstrapping technique provided by the AMOS (v 25), in this case ‘The user-defined estimands’, Table 5 shows that the link between JI and OP became insignificant post the provision of ACB as a mediator (β = −0.381, p = 0.067 > 0.05). Therefore, we find that the mediation by ‘ACB’ is complete between ‘JI’ and ‘OP’.

5. Discussion

The problem that this research set out to understand is the nature of the effect of ACB, which is merely a consequence of JI, on the negative link between JI and the performance of five-star hotels in Tunisia. This research has achieved its initial objective of exploring the effect of JI on OP directly and indirectly through ACB. While answering the research question, which was to find out how JI affects OP, directly and indirectly, via the adoption of ACB? Moreover, all the hypotheses formulated in the research were supported by showing significant relationships with p < 0.001 for H1 and H3 and p < 0.05 for H2 (see Table 4, Figure 3).

The result of the first hypothesis shows that when JI increases by 1, OP decreases by 0.546, which verifies H1. This confirms the results obtained by Adekiya (2024); Haldorai et al. (2024); and Wu et al. (2024). More specifically, the transition from a safe work environment to one that is less safe, or not safe at all, can be detrimental not only to employees, a situation that will affect their behaviour and manifest itself in a feeling of well-being in the workplace and elsewhere, but also to their organisations, which will consequently suffer a drop in performance.

Regarding the second hypothesis, it produces a result stating that when JI increases by 1, employees’ subscription to ACB will increase by 0.629. This agrees with quantitative research conducted by Aliane et al. (2023) on a sample of 457 employees working in five-star hotels and category (A) travel agencies in Egypt, where the results showed, among other things, that there is a significant and positive relationship between JI and the adoption of ACB. ACB can take several forms, including “presence-absence” behaviour in the sense of Thévenet (1992), or behaviour expressing theft, or even ‘pirate retribution’ in the terms of Peretti (2004). They can also take the form of social loafing (Alyahya et al., 2021), lodging a complaint (Bies et al., 1988), theft (Greenberg, 1993), strike action (Sayles, 1958), and revenge (Sommers et al., 2002).

The third hypothesis shows that when the adoption of ACB increases by 1, OP decreases by 0.725. This result is in line with the research of Pearce and Giacalone (2003), which demonstrated that ACB could cause annual losses of several billion dollars to organisations. It is also in agreement with the work of some recent research (Tsou et al., 2025; Nakra & Kashyap, 2025; Jangbahadur et al., 2025), which has studied the importance of human resource management within organisations, demonstrating that those that have chosen to neglect their human resources by paying little or no attention to the social dimension risk damaging their economic situation (Liouville & Bayad, 1995) and consequently their OP. In this sense, the third hypothesis is verified.

Once our first three hypotheses have been discussed (direct links), the nature of ACB as a mediator was checked by testing the importance of the indirect links between JI and OP (see Table 4 and Table 5). Indeed, by applying the bootstrapping method offered by AMOS, we find through Table 5 that the relationship between JI and OP became insignificant after the provision of ACB as a mediator (β = −0.381, p = 0.067 > 0.05). Consequently, we find that the mediation by ACB is total or perfect between JI and OP of Tunisian five-star hotels. This result means that the most effective approach for hotels to mitigate the negative impact of JI on OP is not to pay the highest attention to OP, albeit is to reduce the ACB that has arisen from JI. Hence, hotels should develop more transparent communication and support programmes to address the stress of JI.

6. Implications

Like all research, this research has theoretical and managerial implications. Theoretically, this research provides empirical evidence in support of the theory of social exchange (P. M. Blau, 1964) and COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989). Indeed, it can be seen as one of the first attempts to mediate between variables that have certainly been addressed in previous research but never simultaneously. By encompassing them, our research extends the literature on organisational behaviour in the presence of JI coupled with the adoption of ACB, especially the perfect mediation, which was not previously examined to our best knowledge. Understanding these phenomena would enable researchers and human resources professionals to grasp the importance of psychosocial factors in human resources management. The results highlight the importance of ACB in driving the negative impact of stress arising from JI on the OP of hotels.

From a managerial point of view, it should be noted that if we take into consideration P. M. Blau’s (1964) SET and Hobfoll’s (1989) COR theory, organisations should admit that they will reap what they sow a priori. In this respect, Thibaut and Kelley (1959) stipulate that the players in a given relationship evaluate the benefits and costs of the exchange relationship. For their part, Cook et al. (1993) consider that the players in an exchange process depend on each other to obtain the results they value. They behave in such a way as to increase the results that they value positively, and vice versa.

If the benefits outweigh the costs of the exchange, the relationship will continue. If not, problems will arise. In our case, employees react according to how they have been treated by their organisation. Indeed, the way in which employees are viewed can dictate their behaviour, i.e., they may adopt a passive or even anti-social attitude if they have been considered as such a priori. When they feel that their organisation does not provide them with the appropriate support, in this case, organisational stability with open career and salary advancement horizons, this may generate an unsatisfactory exchange with the organisation (Sobaih et al., 2025), leading them to engage in non-citizen behaviour, which will certainly have harmful consequences on organisational performance.

Decision-makers of hotels in Tunisia, and those of a similar context, should be aware that the organisational environment is already characterised by fierce interpersonal rivalry and conflictual relationships, which emerge whenever the interests of agents are motivated essentially by maximising the utility of their actions. Moreover, in the face of the opportunism of the agents and the asymmetry of information that characterise the employment relationship, the employer is always hounded by what is known as “moral hazard”, as strongly stipulated by agency theory (Meckling & Jensen, 1976). In fact, this state describes the reticence or even perplexity materialised by the employer’s distrust of the difficulty or even impossibility of predicting the employees’ behaviour and their possible willingness to intentionally reduce their personal contribution or even undertake uncivil behaviour to intentionally harm their organisation, their colleagues, or their hierarchical superiors. Of course, the instigators of agency theory have tried to remedy the problems inherent in employee opportunism by putting forward several incentives, such as job stability, financial incentives, and persistent monitoring.

It is important that senior management of hotels in Tunisia recognise the value of creating a positive working environment, where they feel secure, safe, and with no stress, especially in today’s working environment with high tech and innovation (Sobaih et al., 2025), as this would make employees respond to their organisation with positive behaviour. However, when employees feel insecure, they respond with ACB, which deteriorates the performance of hotels. It is also important that Tunisian hotel managers pay close attention to ACB, which has arisen from JI. They should develop more transparent communication and support programmes for their employees as key resources in their organisation to address the stress resulting from JI, which negatively affects hotel performance.

7. Conclusions and Future Research

The results of this study showed, on the one hand, that JI has a significant and negative influence on OP and a significant and positive influence on ACB, which, in turn, has a significant and negative influence on OP. On the other hand, the link between JI and OP became insignificant after the provision of ACB as a mediator. As a result, we found that ACB is fully mediated between JI and OD. Consequently, ACB is able to condition the link between JI and OP. This study, like many others, has some limitations. The results cannot be generalised because they are inherent to a specific population, in this case, those of the three Tunisian hotels. On the other hand, it would seem appropriate in future research to test the role of the psychological contract as a second mediator alongside ACB.

At the very beginning of this article, the 429 respondents were asked two closed questions in Table 1, to which they could only answer yes or no. The first question, ‘Have you witnessed any anti-citizen behaviour in your department or elsewhere in your hotel? This is an indirect question, because we are assuming that no one will have the impudence to say that they have previously engaged in dysfunctional behaviour to the detriment of their organisation. Almost 77% of our sample answered yes. This indicates the seriousness of the situation and the importance of taking swift remedial action. The second question, ‘Have you ever felt JI in this hotel or elsewhere?’, was answered in the affirmative by almost 80% of our sample. At this point, let us stop for a moment and ask ourselves the following question: Can an average employee who is under a great deal of stress, due to organisational insecurity where they are threatened with dismissal at any time, perform well?

This research adopted a cross-sectional study design using a self-reporting survey in a specific region of Tunisia. This may limit the generalisation of the study’s results. However, this makes room for future studies. Hence, there is a need to examine the results of the research in other contexts. This could include conducting cross-industry or cross-cultural comparisons, i.e., a comparison between two culturally different countries. Future research could also examine the moderating role of gender in these relationships. Religiosity could also be an interesting moderating variable as it could moderate the effect of ACB on employee performance, OP, or other behaviour such as pro-behaviour.