The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1755-4217.htm

WHATT
11,4 Employee loyalty and
counter-productive work
behaviour among employees in
438 the Indian hospitality sector
Rishipal
AIBAS, Amity University, Gurgaon, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to identify the characteristics of employee loyalty and counter-
productive work behaviour (CWB) among employees working in the Indian hospitality sector. The study also
compared the status of employee loyalty among managers, who exhibit either very high and or very low traits
of CWB. The study also examined the factors responsible for the high tendency of employee loyalty and for
that of CWB.
Design/methodology/approach – Primary data were collected by using questionnaire and interview
methods from employees and managers working in hotels situated in the National Capital Region (NCR),
Delhi, India. A sample of total 220 junior and middle level managers and other employees was taken and a
selected sample was tested for tendencies of employee loyalty and CWB and analyzed to interpret the
findings.
Findings – The findings reveal that the tendency of employee loyalty among managers in the hospitality
sector was high, whereas the status of CWB was low. Results also predicted that the tendency of employee
loyalty was high among the managers with low traits of counter-productive behaviour and very low among
managers with a higher tendency of CWB. Factors such as compensation and benefits, job security and
growth and satisfaction were found to be responsible for high tendency of employee loyalty; the controlling of
factors such as ignoring or arguing with others, physically damaging organizational property, stealing
organizational or employee’s property, intentionally working slowly, doing work incorrectly, neglecting to
follow procedures, taking longer breaks than allowed, coming late and leaving early was responsible for a
high degree of CWB.
Research limitations/implications – This study was conducted by involving lower and middle level
hospitality sector managers in the NCR Delhi region only. To generalize the findings effectively, a more
comprehensive study should be conducted that also involves senior level managers.
Originality/value – There are relatively few prior studies of the factors addressed in this study which has
sought to explore an under-research aspect of workplace behaviour.
Keywords Counterproductive work behavior, Hospitality sector, Employee loyalty
Paper type Research paper

Worldwide Hospitality and
Tourism Themes
Vol. 11 No. 4, 2019
pp. 438-448
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1755-4217
DOI 10.1108/WHATT-04-2019-0020
Introduction
The tourism and hospitality sector is one of the fastest growing industries of India and it is
making a significant contribution to the economic structure and development of the country.
A recent economic slowdown has a negative impact on nearly all the major industrial
sectors, excluding tourism and hospitality. There is consistent growth in the international
travel and tourism industry, considered to be one of the largest global industries and an
important engine of economic growth. Presently, throughout the world one in every 11
people are employed by the tourism and hospitality sector (Vasquez, 2014). Tourism and
hospitality is a sunrise industry in India and it is the third largest foreign exchange earner
and a significant source of employment generation. In fact, the booming tourism industry Work
has had a cascading effect on the hospitality sector and has resulted in increased room behaviour
occupancy ratios and also room rates. Tourism and hospitality is among the top 10
economic sectors of India and it attracts significant foreign direct investment (FDI). For
among
example, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, reported that between April employees
2000 and September 2017, the Indian hotel and tourism sector attracted around US$10.6bn
of FDI (FDI in India Annual Issue, 2017).
Influenced by the growth of this sector, the Indian Government framed various policies 439
and programmes to develop India as a global tourism hub. The government launched a
programme “Project Mausam” under which a cross cultural linkage was established and to
develop historic maritime cultural and economic ties with 39 countries in the Indian Ocean
region. India has also initiated an e-tourist visa facility for the citizens of 161 countries.
(Source: Ministry of Tourism). The growth and development of the hotel industry is a
consequence of the remarkable growth in tourism and travel and e-visas along with other
innovations will aid hoteliers as they seek to create differentiation for their products and
services (Sanjeev, 2016). Further, a growth in the size of the middle class and their increasing
income has contributed to a 7.5 per cent growth in India’s GDP. Further, KPMG has reported
that India is expected to continue advancing until 2022 with an estimated 16.1 per cent rate
of growth (Sahoo, 2006).

Challenges facing the hospitality industry

The tourism and hospitality service sector is a progressively developing constituent of the
Indian economy and contributes much to economic activity that helps both the local and
host communities of the country. During the year 2013, this sector contributed Rs 2.17tn
(2 per cent of Indian GDP) and this is expected to increase to Rs 4.35tn by the year 2024
(Verma, 2014 and Mishra and Raao, 2013). However, the sector also faces some challenges
and problems, in particular: employee retention, employee and customer satisfaction,
employee shortages, a severe shortage of rooms, intense competition and a negative image
of the country because of terrorism, internal unrest and slow human resource development.
This study aims to understand, describe and predict the changing paradigms of employee
loyalty and counter-productive work behaviour (CWB) in the hospitality sector.

Theme issues
Employee loyalty. Loyalty is the sincerity, devotion, relatedness and faithfulness towards a
belief, place, person or organization. Organizational loyalty is the faithfulness, dedication
and relatedness of its stakeholders such as customers, employees, investors and society
towards it (Rishipal and Manish, 2013). Different stakeholders of the organization, such as
employees, customers, investors and others are different with respect to their loyalty
(Rishipal and Manish, 2014). Employee loyalty refers to an “employee’s devotion or sense of
attachment towards an organization. Loyalty is expressed by both the thoughts and actions
of the employee (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998). Employee loyalty is a process concerned
with contributing maximum time, energy, knowledge, skill and effort to enhancing
organizational effectiveness, efficiency and productivity. Loyal employees can be an
incredible asset to a developing organization and there is a direct relationship between
employee loyalty and a company’s growth and profitability. Employee loyalty is evident to
customers and it’s nearly impossible to generate loyal customers without strong internal
employee loyalty (Aaron Green, 2007). The higher the loyalty expressed by different
organizational stakeholders towards the organization, the higher will be the possibility of
organizational goals achievement. Organizations need loyal employees in order to attract
WHATT loyal clients/customers. Loyal employees work enthusiastically and with dedication to
11,4 produce goods and services of best quality. Best quality products and services attract and
generate loyal customers and this is a significant contributing factor to managerial
effectiveness and effective organizational goal achievement. In this context, there may exist
a relationship between managerial effectiveness and employee loyalty. Whatever the
circumstances, a loyal employee will always stand with the organization. This study has
440 examined the employee loyalty of managers working in the Indian hospitality sector with
reference to the following loyalty factors: better working conditions, compensation and
benefits, emotional attachment, job security and growth, the nature of the job and work/life
balance and satisfaction.

Counter-productive work behaviour

Employee acts affecting the working of organization, negatively and destructively, and
hampering an organization in achieving its goals are known as CWB. CWB may also be
understood as the undesirable intentional/non-intentional behaviour or activities on the part
of employees which decreases the productivity, effectiveness and efficiency of the
organization. CWB may include the acts of theft, pretending to be sick when not sick,
involvement in fraud, violence, sexual harassment, use of drugs and alcohol at the
workplace and inappropriate use of the organizational property.
CWB refers to intentional or unintentional behaviours of employees that have the
potential to harm an organization, its members, or both (Spector, 2006). The most common
type of CWB are those that target either an employee or the organization and prevent them
from achieving their goals (Robinson and Bennett, 1995), Spector et al. (2006) have proposed
five categories of CWB:
(1) abuse against others (e.g. ignoring or arguing with others);
(2) sabotage (e.g. physically damaging organizational property);
(3) theft;
(4) production deviance (e.g. intentionally working slowly, doing work incorrectly,
neglecting to follow procedures); and
(5) withdrawal (e.g. taking longer breaks than allowed, arriving late, and leaving
early).

Neuman and Baron (2005) explain CWB as a general aggression framework and emphasize
that employee acts of CWB are either a reaction to a provocative event (i.e. hostile) or to
obtain some desired end (i.e. instrumental). Hostile motives are consistent with affect-driven
theories; however, few studies have examined the potential instrumental motives of CWB
(notable exceptions include Bies et al, 1997; Folger and Skarlicki, 2005).

Literature review
Employee loyalty
In an empirical study of the service industry, Yee et al. (2010) examined employee loyalty,
service quality and firm performance and developed a model to consider the impact of
employee loyalty on organizational performance. Results revealed that employee loyalty has
a significant impact on company “profitability through service quality, customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty.” Foster et al. (2008) and Reichheld, 2001, argue that
companies with greater loyalty among employees, customers and shareholders generate
greater profits. In a study of employee loyalty, Mischlitsch (2000) concluded that companies
can better implement their strategies if they can develop and retain their high-performing Work
loyal employees. Cascio (2006) conducted a comparative study of Sam’s Club and Costco and behaviour
revealed that Costco’s employee-related costs were higher than Sam’s Club, but that Sam’s
Club annual employee costs were three times higher than Costco’s dues to high turnover
among
because loyalty was higher at Costco due to higher pay and benefits. employees
According to Altman (2008), in the past, the majority of employees worked for one
company only during their entire career. In the past, having a job meant a commitment for
life. People would be hired by one company and retire from the same company. Studies 441
showed that several variables such as rewards and recognition (Sabancı et al., 2016;
Abdullah et al, 2009), job satisfaction (Kiruthiga and Magesh, 2015), good relationships with
colleagues and superiors (Johnson and Indvik, 1999), performance appraisal (Abdullah et al.,
2009) and organizational factors (Ongori, 2007) have a significant impact on employee
loyalty in the hotel industry and that identification and understanding of the factors
affecting loyalty is important in order to develop strategies to enhance individual and
organizational performance.
Kreisman, (2002) and Abdullah et al. (2009) confirmed that opportunity for career
development has increased the tendency of employees to become loyal to the organization.
According to Heskett et al. (1997), there is strongest relationship between profit and
customer loyalty, employee loyalty and customer loyalty and employee satisfaction and
customer satisfaction.
In many studies it was found that customer satisfaction and loyalty is significantly
influenced by employee related dimensions. Happy and satisfied employees are found to be
related to customer satisfaction, loyalty and profitability to the service organization.

Counter-productive work behaviour

Salgado (2002) investigated five traits as predictors of different type of counter-productive
behaviours such as absenteeism, deviant behaviours, accidents, and turnover. The results
showed that conscientiousness extroversion, agreeableness, openness and emotional
stability predicted the turnover and predicted deviant behaviours and turnover. However,
none of the personality traits measures were found to be predictors of absenteeism or
accidents.
Fox et al. (2001) examined the relationship between job stressors, perceived justice, CWB,
negative emotional reactions to work, autonomy and affective traits. The results were
consistent with a theoretical job stress framework in which organizational constraints,
interpersonal conflict, and perceived injustice are job stressors, CWB is a behavioural strain
response, and negative emotion mediates the stressor–strain relationship. Only very weak
support was found for the moderating role of affective disposition (trait anger and trait
anxiety), and no support was found for the expected moderating role of autonomy in the
stressor–CWB relationship.
To clarify the organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)–CWB relationship, a meta-
analysis was conducted by Dalal (2005). Results establish a modest negative relationship.
Moreover, OCB and CWB exhibited somewhat distinct patterns of relationships with
antecedents. Spector and Fox (2002) developed a model that integrates findings from
different studies to explain in parallel the voluntary acts of CWB and OCB. Negative
emotion tends to increase the chances of CWB and positive emotion will increase OCB. CWB
is associated with the personality trait of locus of control and delinquency, anger and anxiety
and OCB is associated with empathy and perceived ability to help.
Penney and Spector (2005) sought to replicate findings from prior research using peer-
reported data and its effects on workplace incivility on employee satisfaction and CWB.
WHATT Results reveal that incivility, interpersonal conflicts and organizational constraints were
11,4 negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to CWB. Negative affectivity was
found as a moderator of the relationship among job stressors and CWB, only one significant
moderator was found using peer reported CWB. The relationships between job stressors
and CWB were stronger for employees having high negative affectivity than those which
were low in negative affectivity.
442 Spector et al. (2010) investigated the common belief that CWB and OCB are negatively
related among people who perform one but tend not to perform the other. It is argued in this
study that under certain circumstances CWB may occur together or sequentially. Using an
emotion oriented framework, the study discussed five situations that lead from one form of
behaviour to the other.
Employee under stimulation at work seem to affect loyalty and CWB and employee
loyalty may result in certain positive and constructive outcomes for the organization,
whereas CWB directly hampers the achievement of organizational goals so there is need to
study these factors in the hospitality sector. The studies cited above observe that both
employee loyalty and counter-productive behaviour have been studied with respect to
various other industrial factors, but there is no study available for the hospitality sector.
In view of the above, this study examined the tendency of CWB and employee loyalty.
The study also compared employee loyalty among selected managers with low and high
tendency of CWB.

Methodology
The research methodology used to conduct this study was both descriptive and exploratory.
The study involved single group non-experimental design and both the qualitative and
quantitative approaches were used.The population for the study included managers,
working at junior and middle level positions in public and private sector hotels located at the
National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi and Haryana state of India. From this population, a
sample of 213 managers was taken by using convenience based purposive sampling
technique. The selected sample of 213 hospitality managers was tested for tendencies of
employee loyalty and CWB and factors responsible for them. Data was collected using a
questionnaire and interview method. The entire sample of 213 managers was tested for their
traits of employee loyalty and CWB by using the employee loyalty and counter-productive
work test developed by Spector et al. (2006).

Findings and discussion

Counter-productive work behaviour among hospitality sector employees
As noted above, both questionnaire and interview methods were used to collect the data.
The selected primary sample of 213 hospitality managers were tested with the questionnaire
method for their tendencies of CWB and employee loyalty. The data was analyzed using
descriptive statistics and values showed that the mean score for CWB was below average so
the tendency of CWB was very low among the managers. The range of scores was very
narrow and the value of the standard deviation was also very small, which verifies the high
consistency of scores and establishes the low tendency of CWB. CWB and OCB, which
consists of behaviours that help organizations but go beyond required tasks, were also
studied and are generally found to be related. According to Sackett (2002), CWB and OCB,
which consists of behaviours that help organizations, but go beyond required tasks, were
studied together and are generally found to be related in those individuals who do one but
are unlikely to do the other.
Employee loyalty among hospitality sector employees Work
The mean score of employee loyalty of manager’s working in the hospitality sector was behaviour
found to be higher than average, which shows the strong tendency of employee loyalty. A
narrow range of scores and smaller value of standard deviation further verifies the
among
consistency of data and a higher degree of tendency for employee loyalty. According to a employees
study by Meyer and Allen (1997), committed employees are those who tend to stay during
both the good and bad times facing an organization. Loyal people do their organizational 443
work diligently, devote time, effort and energy to their job and it is these people who protect
organizational property and help in the attainment of organizational goals.
When two groups of hospitality managers, one having very high and other very low
tendency of CWB were compared with respect to their employee loyalty, the findings
revealed that the tendency of employee loyalty was very high among the group with very
low CWB and very low among the group with a very high trait of CWB.
This study also investigated the factors responsible for higher tendency of employee
loyalty and lower tendency of CWB among managers working in the hospitality sector of
India. Factors responsible for employee loyalty included in the study were; better working
conditions, compensation and benefits, emotional attachment, job security and growth, the
nature of the job and work/life balance and satisfaction.
Abuse against others (e.g. ignoring or arguing with others), sabotage (e.g. physically
damaging organizational property), theft, production deviance (e.g. intentionally working
slowly, doing work incorrectly, neglecting to follow procedures) and withdrawal (e.g. taking
longer breaks than allowed, arriving late, and leaving early) were the factors suggested by
Robinson and Bennett, (1995) and Spector et al. (2006) and taken as the factors for CWB.

Employee loyalty status among employees with high and low counter-productive work
behaviour
An interview method was used to examine the factors responsible for higher tendency of
employee loyalty and lower CWB. All the 213 managers were interviewed using a structured
interview method. Participants were asked to rate the factors of higher employee loyalty and
lower CWB on a scale of one to five. The statements used in the structured interview for
rating the tendency of high employee loyalty were:
(1) better working conditions;
(2) compensation and benefits;
(3) emotional attachment;
(4) job security, growth and satisfaction; and
(5) the nature of the job and work/life balance.

The statements used in the structured interviews for assessing the tendency of low CWB
included the following:
 ignoring or arguing with others;
 physically damaging organizational property;
 stealing organizational or employee property;
 intentionally working slowly, doing work incorrectly; and
 neglecting to follow procedures, taking longer breaks than allowed, coming late and
leaving early.
WHATT Information technology, globalization and modes of transportation have in various ways,
11,4 affected present day business and industry. Further, there is growing pressure on the
modern day business from competitors and customers. Employers understand that
employee loyalty can result in customer loyalty, “committed employees creates the loyal and
committed customers” especially in the service sector (Boyd and Sutherland, 2006). Talent
management is an important emerging area (Sanjeev and Jauhari, 2012) too. This study was
444 conducted to explore the factors responsible for employee loyalty and counter-productive
behaviour in the hospitality sector and revealed that the majority of the hospitality sector
did not have guidelines for employee loyalty and checking CWB. The findings reinforce the
importance of developing policies for motivating employees and foster loyalty towards the
organization and mitigate against CWB. Such policies may help organizations to enhance
employee loyalty and effective attainment of organizational goals and in so doing,
strengthen employee retention in the hospitality sector.

Factors responsible for employee loyalty

The study found that compensation and benefits, job security and growth and satisfaction
were the three most significant factors in relation to high employee loyalty. Growth and
satisfaction involves the employee’s professional growth and development as well as
development in career terms. Personal growth includes the updating of knowledge, skills
and attitudinal factors. Present day business is largely dependent on knowledge and
innovation and this challenge can be faced by creating a learning organization framework.
Studies by Samuel and Chipunza (2009), and Logan (2000), also support the findings that
training and development enhances organizational loyalty. The findings on compensation
and benefits, job satisfaction, teamwork, and work environment differ from the study by
Khuongi and Tien (2013). According to the study by Waqas et al. (2014) there is a strong
association between job satisfaction and job loyalty. This study found that job security
enhances employee loyalty and job security and that compensation and rewards also
improve employee retention. These findings were supported by Osinbajo et al. (2014). The
current study findings differ from the findings that salary and fringe benefits (Nyamkye,
2012), and organizational environment (Khuongi and Tien, 2013) are responsible for high
employee loyalty.

Factors responsible for counter-productive work behaviour

The challenge of CWB hampers the productivity, effectiveness and efficiency of both the
organization and employee. This study investigated the factors responsible for CWB in
workplace. The study concluded that factors like ignoring or arguing with others, physically
damaging organizational property, stealing organizational or employee’s property,
intentionally working slowly, doing work incorrectly, neglecting to follow procedures,
taking longer breaks than allowed, coming late, and leaving early, etc. were responsible for
CWB. All these dimensions as a factor of CWB were evaluated using the structured
interview method. The findings show that ignoring or arguing with others, stealing
organizational or employee’s property, intentionally working slowly, doing work
incorrectly, neglecting to follow procedures, taking longer breaks than allowed, coming late,
and leaving early were the dominant characteristics of CWB and the majority of managers
working in the hospitality sector reported that an effective check, monitoring and
controlling system can reduce the tendency toward CWB. These findings were supported by
Ansari et al. (2013) and Alias et al. (2013).
Managerial implications Work
Employee loyalty and CWB are key aspects of organizational work in the hospitality behaviour
sector. Employee loyalty may result in certain positive and constructive outcomes for
the organization, whereas CWB directly hampers the attainment of organizational
among
goals. This study provides an insight on the impact of employee loyalty and CWB and employees
in so doing, it can assist professionals in their efforts to strengthen employee loyalty
and control CWB. 445
Summary
The findings reveal that there was a very low tendency towards CWB and a high propensity
of employee loyalty. The results further indicate that the tendency towards employee loyalty
was very high among subjects who were low in their predisposition towards CWB and very
low among subjects who were high in CWB. The results also revealed that the major factors
contributing to high employee loyalty were compensation and benefits, job security and
growth and satisfaction. The factors responsible for a tendency towards CWB are: ignoring
or arguing with others, physically damaging organizational property, stealing
organizational or employee’s property, intentionally working slowly, doing work
incorrectly, neglecting to follow procedures, taking longer breaks than allowed, coming late
and leaving early.

References
Aaron Green (2007), “On staffing”, available at: www.boston.com/jobs/onstaffing/022007.shtml
Abdullah, R.B., Karim, N.B.A., Patah, M.O.R.B.A., Zahari, H., Nair, G.K.S. and Jusoff, K. (2009), “The
linkage of employee satisfaction and loyalty in hotel industry in klang valley”, International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 10, pp. 152-160.
Alias, M., Mohd Rasdi, R., Ismail, M. and Abu Samah, B. (2013), “Predictors of workplace deviant
behaviour: HRD agenda for malaysian support personnel”, European Journal of Training and
Development, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 161-182.
Altman, W. (2008), “Whatever happened to employee loyalty?”, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3
No. 6, pp. 76-79.
Ansari, A., Cowgill, G.A., Masina, R., Ramayya, J.P., McQuarters, A.R., Raissyan, A. and Nicholls, L.E.
(2013), US Patent No. 8,543,665, US Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC.
Bies, R.J. Tripp, T.M. and Kramer, R.M. (1997), At the Breaking point: Cognitive and Social Dynamics of
Revenge in Organizations.
Boyd, G. and Sutherland, M. (2006), “Obtaining employee commitment to living the brand of the
organisation”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 9-20.
Cascio, W.F. (2006), “The high cost of low wages”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 23-23.
Dalal, R.S. (2005), “A Meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and
counter-productive work behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1241.
FDI in India Annual Issue (2017), available at: https://dipp.gov.in/sia-newsletter/foreign-direct-
investment-india-annual-issue-2017 (accessed 12 December 2018).
Folger, R. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2005), Beyond Counter-productive Work Behavior: Moral Emotions and
Deontic Retaliation Versus Reconciliation.
Foster, C., Whysall, P. and Harris, L. (2008), “Employee loyalty: an exploration of staff commitment
levels towards retailing, the retailer and the store”, International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 423-435.
WHATT Fox, S., Spector, P.E. and Miles, D. (2001), “Counter-productive work behavior (CWB) in response to job
stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and
11,4 emotions”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 291-309.
Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E., Jr and Schlesinger, L.A. (1997), The Service Profit Chain: How Leading
Companies Link Profit and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction and Value, free press, New York, NY.
Johnson, P.R. and Indvik, J. (1999), “Organizational benefits of having emotionally intelligent managers
and employees”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 84-88.
446
Khuongi, S. and Tien, O. (2013), “Factors motivating employee loyalty and employee retention in
deposit money banks in Nigeria”, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 300-313.
Kiruthiga, V. and Magesh, R. (2015), “Gears of job satisfaction among star hotel employees”,
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 18563-18567.
Kreisman, B.J. (2002), “Insights into employee motivation, commitment and retention”, Business
Training Experts: Leadership Journal, pp. 1-24.
Logan, B. (2000), “October. mel frequency cepstral coefficients for music modeling”, In Ismir, Vol. 270,
pp. 1-11.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application,
Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Mischlitsch, J.F. (2000), “High-performing, loyal employees: the real way to implement strategy”,
Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 28-33.
Mishra, M.R.K. and Raao, P.S. (2013), Tourism And Hospitality Industry In Context Of Economy
Support.
Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (2005), “Aggression in the workplace: a social-psychological perspective”,
Counter-Productive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, Vol. 7, pp. 13-40.
Penney, L.M. and Spector, P.E. (2005), “Job stress, incivility, and counter-productive work behavior
(CWB): the moderating role of negative affectivity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26
No. 7, pp. 777-796.
Reichheld, F.F. (2001), “Lead for loyalty”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 7, pp. 76-84.
Rishipal, R. and Manish, L. (2013), “Performance management and employee loyalty”, Global Journal of
Management and Business Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, p. 23.
Rishipal, R. and Manish, L. (2014), “Public and private sector banks employees loyalty and personality
types”, International Journal of Multidisciplinery and Current Research, Vol. 2.
Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), “A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a
multidimensional scaling study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 555-572.
Sabancı, A., Ahmet S ahin, A., Sönmez, M.A. and Yılmaz, O. (2016), “The correlation between school
managers’ communication skills and school culture”, International Journal of Progressive
Education, Vol. 12 No. 3.
Sackett, P.R. (2002), “The structure of counter-productive work behaviors: Dimensionality and
relationships with facets of job performance”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-11.
Sahoo, P. (2006), Foreign Direct Investment in South Asia, Policy, trends, impact and determinants.
Salgado, J.F. (2002), “The big five personality dimensions and counter-productive behaviors”,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 117-125.
Samuel, M.O. and Chipunza, C. (2009), “Employee retention and turnover: using motivational variables
as a panacea”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 410-415.
Sanjeev, G.M. (2016), “Innovations mount up in the Indian hospitality industry: summing up”,
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 496-503.
Sanjeev, G.M. and Jauhari, V. (2012), “The emerging strategic and financial issues in the Indian Work
hospitality industry: an overview”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 4 No. 5,
pp. 403-409.
behaviour
Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?”,
among
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232. employees
Spector, P.E., Bauer, J.A. and Fox, S. (2010), “Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counter-
productive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: do we know what we think
we know?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 4, p. 781. 447
Spector, P.E. and Fox, S. (2002), “An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some
parallels between counter-productive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 269-292.
Spector, P.E., Fox, S., Penney, L.M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A. and Kessler, S. (2006), “The dimensionality
of counterproductivity: are all counter-productive behaviors created equal?”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 446-460.
Vasquez, D. (2014), “Employee retention for economic stabilization: a qualitative phenomenological
study in the hospitality sector”, International Journal of Management, Economics and Social
Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Verma, A.S. (2014), “Sustainable supply chain management practices: selective case studies from indian
hospitality industry”, International Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 13-23.
Waqas, A., Bashir, U., Sattar, M.F., Abdullah, H.M., Hussain, I., Anjum, W. and Arshad, R. (2014),
“Factors influencing job satisfaction and its impact on job loyalty”, International Journal of
Learning and Development, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 141-161.
Yee, R.W., Yeung, A.C. and Cheng, T.E. (2010), “An empirical study of employee loyalty, service quality
and firm performance in the service industry”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 109-120.

Further reading
Aubrey, C.D. (1999), Bringing out the Best in People, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Mueller, J.S. (2007), “Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate
interpersonal counter-productive work behaviors related to envy?”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, p. 666.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Mueller, J.S. (2007), “Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate
interpersonal counter-productive work behaviors related to envy?”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, p. 666.
Connor, J.M. (2010), “Military loyalty: a functional vice?”, Criminal Justice Ethics, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 278-290.
Dae Jung, K. (1999), “Loyalty, filial piety in changing times”, available at: www.tparents.org/UNews/
unws9906/Kim_conscience.htm (accessed 4 February 2002).
Day, A.L. and Kelloway, E.K. (2004), “Emotional intelligence in the workplace: rhetoric and reality”,
Measuring Emotional Intelligence: Common Ground and Controversy, pp. 219-241.
Donavan, D.T., Brown, T.J. and Mowen, J.C. (2004), “Internal benefits of service-worker customer
orientation: job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 128-146.
Douglas, L.H. and Thomas, R. (1996), “Managerial loyalty: beyond the towering ziggurats of the
old industrial system.(changes in company structure creates new manager type)”, available
at: www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-18124647/managerial-loyality-beyond-towering.
html (accessed 2 March 2013).
Ewin, R.E. (1992), “Loyalty and virtues”, The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 169, pp. 403-419.
WHATT Flaherty, S. and Moss, S.A. (2007), “The impact of personality and team context on the relationship
between workplace injustice and counter-productive work behavior”, Journal of Applied Social
11,4 Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 2549-2575.
Fred Alford, C. (2002), Implications of Whistleblower Ethics for Ethical Theory Broken Lives and
Organizational Power, Cornell University Press, Whistleblowers.
Geary, A R. and Alan, P B. (1995), Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space in the
Organization Chart, 2nd ed.
448
Grill-Spector, K. (2006), “Selectivity of adaptation in single units: implications for FMRI experiments”,
Neuron, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 170-171.
Gupta, S. (1996), “Managerial effectiveness: Conceptual framework and scale development”, Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 392-409.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting the service
profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 164-174.
Kelloway, E.K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J. and Nault, A. (2002), “Self-reported counter-productive
behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors: Separate but related constructs”,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 143-151.
Mawhinney, T.C., William, K.R. and Carl Merle, J. (2001), Handbook of Organizational Performance,
Routledge, Abingdon.
Mount, M., Ilies, R. and Johnson, E. (2006), “Relationship of personality traits and counter-productive
work behaviors: the mediating effects of job satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 3,
pp. 591-622.
Philip, P.W. (1973), Encyclopedia of the History of Ideas, Scribner’s, New York, NY, p. 108.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974), “Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59
No. 5, p. 603.
Richard, P.M. (2007), Josiah Royce’s Philosophy of Loyalty as the Basis for Ethics, Suny Press, New York,
NY.
Rishipal, R. (2012), “Managerial effectiveness and defense mechanism styles: a comparison of different
level of managers”, IOSR Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 47-54.
Sheridan, J.E. and Abelson, M.A. (1983), “Cusp catastrophe model of employee turnover”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 418-436.
Teti, D.M., Nakagawa, M., Das, R. and Wirth, O. (1991), “Security of attachment between preschoolers
and their mothers: relations among social interaction, parenting stress, and mother’s sorts of the
attachment Q-Set”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 3, p. 440.
White, H.B. (1956), “Royce’s philosophy of loyalty”, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 99-103.

Corresponding author
Rishipal can be contacted at: rishipal_anand@rediffmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com