Leader–Member Exchange and Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Mediation-Moderation Model of Employee Envy and Psychological Empowerment Among Hotel Frontline Employees

ABSTRACT

Leader–member exchange (LMX) is critical to service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (SOOCB). This research investigates a mediation–moderation model theorizing the influence of employee envy and psychological empowerment on the LMX and SOOCB relationship. Using survey data acquired from 559 hotel frontline employees and analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM), this study reveals that LMX reduces employee envy and contributes to SOOCB, albeit indirectly, as employee envy was found to have an indirect influence on the relationship between LMX and SOOCB. To address the negative influence of employee envy, the findings suggest that psychological empowerment should be cultivated as it strengthens the effect of LMX in reducing employee envy and thus enabling LMX to exert an indirect influence on SOOCB when employee envy is mitigated.

KEYWORDS:

• Leader–member exchange
• service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior
• employee envy
• psychological empowerment
• frontline employee
• hotel
• hospitality
• tourism

Introduction

The global tourism sector, a vital cog in the world economy, represents more than just leisure and travel (Mooney et al., 2022); it is a window to the histories and cultures of various civilizations (Seyitoğlu et al., 2022; Soroker et al., 2023). In countries around the world, tourism is intertwined with social and economic frameworks, impacting livelihoods and economic growth (Lim & To, 2022). The Indian tourism sector, for instance, has been a focal point for government policies and investor interest due to its substantial contributions, representing more than five percent of the economy, with one in 13 jobs being in this sector (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2023), which has provided close to 40 million jobs and shown a 50% increase in new hiring (The Economic Times, 2024) in 2023. This economic significance underscores the importance of the hospitality industry, particularly the hotel segment, within the broader tourism sector.

Hotels, as a critical component of the hospitality industry, play a significant role in shaping tourists’ experiences and satisfaction levels (Lim, Jasim, et al., 2024; Taylor et al., 2024). Various factors, including the hotel’s ambiance, service quality, and staff performance, are crucial in determining a guest’s overall satisfaction and likelihood of revisiting (Worsfold et al., 2016). Service quality, in particular, is recognized as a key attribute influencing customer experience (Chen, 2013). The quality of service in hotels hinges on the professionalism and sincerity with which employees serve guests, a factor that is directly linked to employee job satisfaction (Worsfold et al., 2016). This is especially true for frontline staff, who interact directly with customers (Aggarwal et al., 2024). Cha and Borchgrevink (2018) noted that employees performing their daily tasks on the front line can empathize with customers more because of direct contact with them and this empathy can create a positive image for their establishment when it leads to happy and satisfied customers. In this regard, the positive emotion of any service employee can create a good impact on customers’ overall satisfaction (Zheng et al., 2022).

Moreover, employees who often have direct contact and interaction with customers should be highly proactive, and if they consistently show positive behavior in the service that they provide, then surely they would become an asset for any organization (Yadav & Dhar, 2024). Noteworthily, employees working in the front line always need to express their emotions in front of customers; these emotions are sometimes surface acting and other times deep acting (Kim, 2008). Basch and Fisher (2000) argued that some emotions that employees display toward their coworkers or supervisors also affect work performance. The quality of relationships between employees and their supervisors, which plays a crucial role in the achievement of any organization’s goal (Estiri et al., 2018), is known as leader–member exchange (LMX).

The role of LMX transcends mere employee-supervisor dynamics, becoming a linchpin in the hospitality industry’s quest for excellence. This industry’s success, including the hotel segment’s, hinges on interactions – not just within teams but, crucially, in customer-facing roles. Evidence suggests that robust LMX correlates with heightened job satisfaction and employee commitment (Chen & Wu, 2017), directly impacting customer experiences and loyalty (Chang et al., 2020). The absence of effective LMX, therefore, does not merely impede performance; it fundamentally threatens brand reputation and customer retention. This further elucidates why personalized, respectful interactions inherent in LMX are indispensable in an environment as interactive as hotels.

The concept of service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (SOOCB) is closely linked to LMX. The phenomenon of an employee working from the core of their heart for some extra hours or doing some jobs beyond their job responsibilities without expecting anything from their employer is known as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Organ, 1988) and for any service-oriented organization, an employee giving their extra services to their organization is considered as service-oriented OCB (SOOCB) (Dimitriades, 2007; Tang & Tang, 2012). In a hotel context, this might manifest in employees going above and beyond to ensure guest comfort. The literature suggests a positive correlation between LMX and SOOCB (Cha & Borchgrevink, 2018; Estiri et al., 2018), indicating that strong leader – member relationships can foster a service-oriented mind-set among employees.

Understanding the LMX–SOOCB dynamic’s complexity is crucial, especially given the inherent disparities in supervisor–subordinate relationships (Lim, Srivastava, et al., 2023). While the general trend suggests a positive correlation, these disparities can breed employee envy (Kim et al., 2010; Shu & Lazatkhan, 2017). Recognizing this issue, this research delves deeper into this relationship by examining psychological empowerment as a moderating factor. More specifically, psychological empowerment, characterized by intrinsic motivation and a sense of control and purpose in work (Aggarwal et al., 2018; Chiang & Hsieh, 2012; Soliman et al., 2021), offers a potential buffer against the negative effects of envy. This approach not only addresses previous studies’ limitations but also enriches our understanding of the LMX, employee envy, and SOOCB interplay. By elucidating this mediation-moderation effect, this research presents a comprehensive and nuanced model, suggesting that employee envy could be pivotal in understanding why positive LMX does not uniformly translate into enhanced SOOCB, and how psychological empowerment can mitigate this from happening. This insight provides vital implications for both theoretical exploration and practical application in organizational settings, offering a clear avenue for mitigating the detrimental impact of envy and preserving the beneficial effects of LMX on SOOCB.

Despite the recognized influence of LMX on OCB, research specifically addressing its impact on SOOCB within the hospitality industry, notably the hotel sector, remains scant. This gap is particularly evident in the context of the mediating role of employee envy and the moderating effect of psychological empowerment on the LMX–SOOCB dynamic. This research aims to fill these gaps by focusing on hotel frontline employees, particularly in higher-end hospitality settings such as four- and five-star hotels. These environments, where superior service quality is not just expected but paramount, provide a fertile ground for examining SOOCB. To empirically investigate these dynamics, this research employs structural equation modeling (SEM) based on data collected from a survey of hotel frontline employees from four- and five-star hotels. The rationale for choosing SEM lies in its ability to effectively analyze complex interrelationships between variables, making it apt for exploring the proposed hypotheses derived from an extensive literature review. The selection of frontline employees from four- and five-star hotels is deliberate; their expected higher level of service delivery makes them ideal candidates to validate the theoretical propositions. This setting, integral to the service-intensive tourism sector and hospitality industry, is particularly suitable for observing SOOCB – a behavior exemplifying employees’ willingness to exceed normative service requirements, an aspect most pronounced in luxury service environments.

In doing so, this research contributes to theory by (1) offering fresh support to reaffirm the theoretical generalizability of the relationship between LMX and SOOCB, and providing novel insights that explain the ways in which the relationship between LMX and SOOCB could be influenced by (2) the mediating role of employee envy and (3) the moderating role of psychological empowerment, and to practice by illuminating the ways in which managers of service organizations, including hoteliers in the hospitality industry in the tourism sector, could (4) safeguard efforts to cultivate LMX in order to achieve and leverage SOOCB by (5) mitigating employee envy through strategies to promote psychological empowerment.

The remaining sections are structured as follows. First, the relevant streams of literature are reviewed to provide a theoretical foundation for the hypothesized relationships of the research. Following that, the methodology of the research is disclosed and explained. Next, the results of the data analysis are reported. Finally, the implications are delineated, the limitations are acknowledged, and the ways forward are presented.

Literature Review

Leader–Member Exchange Theory and Affective Event Theory As Theoretical Lenses

Among the various theories of employee performance, the LMX theory is often used to support the theorization of the antecedents of employee performance. According to the LMX theory, the degree to which a supervisor (leader) handles their subordinates (members) either positively or negatively affects the performance of their subordinates within this unit (Dansereau et al., 1975). Leadership is one of the most important aspects that affect the role of the lower-level employee. LMX can be determined by several experiences through which we can understand the outcomes of various organizations, wherein various antecedents directly lead to various consequences (Liden et al., 1997). In this research, we used LMX as the affectivity variable of a leader’s characteristic that directly affects the behavior variables SOOCB, employee envy (problem), and psychological empowerment (solution) from the model described by Liden et al. (1997).

Another theory also explains the variables of this research, that is, the affective event theory (AET), which states that affective states can change over time; emotions and moods are some of the most important aspects of work experience; and performance is based upon affective states (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In other words, the emotional experience of any workplace can be due to structures, causes, and consequences. Using the variables of AET, Nandedkar (2016) believed that the negative relations of any team member with their leader can cause higher levels of envy, and higher envy can lead to them quitting their job; this also shows the negative side of equity sensitivity, which is one emotional variable that the present research seeks to extend through an alternative emotional variable in the form of psychological empowerment. Noteworthily, equity sensitivity primarily focuses on how individuals perceive fairness and react to perceived inequities in the workplace. Psychological empowerment moves beyond the reactive dimensions of equity sensitivity, offering a proactive framework where employees gain a sense of control and intrinsic motivation in their work. This shift from a reactive to a proactive emotional stance could offer new insights into how employees engage with leadership and their work, potentially mitigating the negative outcomes associated with high levels of envy emerging out of perceived inequities.

Through these theories, we argue that LMX negatively relates to employee envy and that psychological empowerment works as a moderator between these two variables such that LMX reduces employee envy with greater effect when employees perceive high psychological empowerment. Though LMX positively affects SOOCB, envy negatively affects SOOCB and thus needs to be addressed in order to fully realize the positive influence of LMX on SOOCB. These relationships are illustrated in Figure 1 and further rationales to support these hypotheses are discussed in the next sections.

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Leader–Member Exchange and Employee Envy

The LMX theory, as articulated by Dansereau et al. (1975) and expanded upon by researchers such as Chang et al. (2020) and Du et al. (2022), delves into the dynamics of the supervisor–subordinate relationship. Central to LMX is the understanding that leaders form differentiated relationships with their team members, ranging from high-quality to low-quality interactions. These relationships are pivotal in shaping individual and organizational outcomes, influencing attitudes and performance (Bernerth et al., 2016; Eşitti & Kasap, 2020). High-quality LMX relationships are marked by trust, respect, and access to resources (Liden et al., 2000; Teng et al., 2020), whereas those in low-quality LMX relationships experience a lack of such benefits. This differential treatment can create a divide within teams, leading to conflict and negative emotions, particularly envy (Akgunduz et al., 2023; Li & Liao, 2014; Shu & Lazatkhan, 2017).

Employee envy, characterized by feelings of hostility, inferiority, and resentment, emerges as a response to unfavorable comparisons with others who possess desired attributes or achievements (Feng et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2021). This emotion, universal and often considered socially unacceptable, is typically prompted by situations where an individual perceives themselves as less favored compared to others in similar circumstances. Treadway et al. (2019) and Parrott (1991) illustrate that envy, once experienced, is challenging to manage or conceal. For instance, if a team member in a low-quality LMX relationship observes a colleague in a high-quality LMX relationship receiving a promotion or other benefits, this disparity can trigger feelings of envy (Yadav & Dhar, 2024).

The AET, as proposed by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), offers a valuable lens through which to examine the emotional responses within the LMX framework. AET suggests that workplace events can trigger affective reactions (emotions and moods), which, in turn, influence employee attitudes and behaviors. In the context of LMX, the quality of leader–member interactions represents such events. High-quality exchanges can lead to positive emotions, reinforcing engagement and satisfaction. Conversely, low-quality exchanges can incite negative emotions like envy, as they represent a significant affective event for the employee. Nandedkar (2016) extends this understanding by linking negative relationships with leaders to increased levels of envy and subsequent adverse outcomes, such as decreased job satisfaction or intention to quit. Therefore, it is hypothesized:

H1.

LMX has a negative impact on employee envy.

Employee Envy and Service-Oriented Organization Citizenship Behavior

Employee envy, a common but disruptive emotion in the workplace, can be triggered by perceptions of inequality or “failure” in comparison to colleagues (Soliman et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2023). This negative feeling, capable of disrupting relationships and fostering aggression, acts as a barrier to organizational harmony. Envy, when triggered by comparisons within the workplace, can impede the development of positive interpersonal dynamics (Khan & Noor, 2020). Such dynamics are particularly relevant in the context of OCB, as first conceptualized by Organ (1988). OCB refers to the voluntary, extra-role behaviors that contribute significantly to organizational effectiveness, often beyond formal recognition (Kim & Jang, 2023). Bettencourt et al. (2001) extend this concept to SOOCB, emphasizing the importance of employees voluntarily performing beyond their job descriptions, especially in service organizations. SOOCB includes various behaviors directed toward the betterment of the organization and its members (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Research by Bani-Melhem et al. (2023) and S. Kim et al. (2010) indicates that employee envy negatively impacts OCB. Envious employees tend to limit their contributions and withhold positive remarks about their organization, thereby affecting overall service quality. This finding is particularly relevant in service settings, where SOOCB is crucial. As Thompson et al. (2015) found, there is an inverse relationship between employee envy and aspects of SOOCB, such as growth activities and organizational loyalty. Furthermore, Ghadi et al. (2013) and Li et al. (2023) suggest that negative emotions like envy can lead to reduced engagement in OCB due to increased aggression, depression, and stress in interpersonal relationships.

Integrating AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) provides a theoretical framework to understand the relationship between employee envy and SOOCB. AET posits that workplace events elicit affective reactions, influencing attitudes and behaviors. When employees experience envy, a powerful affective response, it can lead to reduced SOOCB as their willingness to engage in extra-role, beneficial behaviors for the organization diminishes. Thus, the negative impact of envy, through the lens of AET, can significantly hinder the expression of SOOCB, a crucial element for service-oriented organizations. In light of these considerations, we propose:

H2.

Employee envy has a negative impact on SOOCB.

Leader–Member Exchange and Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior

In the context of service settings, where frequent interactions between supervisors and subordinates are the norm, the LMX theory gains even more relevance (Mejia et al., 2020). These interactions often lead employees to compare their relationships with their managers to those of their peers (Du et al., 2022). A high-quality LMX relationship fosters mutual obligations and motivates employees to engage in extra-role behaviors that extend beyond their formal duties (Cha & Borchgrevink, 2018; Teng et al., 2020). This dynamic is evident in how executives with strong LMX relationships often receive praise and gratitude from their managers, leading to increased OCB (Wang et al., 2017). Managers, in turn, are more likely to offer constructive appraisal and kindness to executives with whom they share a good relationship, reinforcing the executive’s willingness to exert additional efforts for their managers or the organization. The integration of AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) in this context provides a deeper understanding of how LMX influences SOOCB. According to AET, the quality of leader–member interactions acts as an affective event that triggers emotional responses in members. Positive interactions within high-quality LMX relationships lead to positive emotional states, such as feeling valued and respected. These positive emotions, in turn, inspire member employees to engage more readily in SOOCB. Such employees in high LMX relationships, often receiving praise and recognition from their managers, are likely to reciprocate with actions that benefit the organization (Chang et al., 2020; Teng et al., 2020). Thus, it can be hypothesized:

H3.

LMX has a positive relationship with SOOCB.

Employee Envy As a Mediator

Building upon the previous discussion, we explore the role of employee envy as a mediator in the relationship between LMX and SOOCB. The LMX theory, as explained by Dansereau et al. (1975) and subsequently by Chang et al. (2020) and Du et al. (2022), posits that the quality of leader – member relationships significantly influences employee attitudes and performance. High-quality LMX relationships foster trust and respect, enhancing employee motivation and commitment (Liden et al., 2000; Teng et al., 2020), and encouraging behaviors beneficial to the organization, including SOOCB (Cha & Borchgrevink, 2018). As discussed, differential treatment within LMX relationships can lead to employee envy – a response characterized by feelings of inferiority and resentment (Li & Liao, 2014; Shu & Lazatkhan, 2017; Ye et al., 2021). This emotional reaction, when viewed through the lens of AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), is an affective response to the perceived inequalities in workplace relationships. Such emotional experiences can change over time and significantly impact work performance. Considering the interplay between LMX, employee envy, and SOOCB, we posit that employee envy mediates the impact of LMX on SOOCB. High-quality LMX relationships, which engender positive affective states, may reduce feelings of envy, subsequently enhancing SOOCB (Kim et al., 2010; Menon & Thompson, 2010). Conversely, low-quality LMX relationships may exacerbate envy, thereby negatively affecting SOOCB (Hoogland et al., 2017; Kim, 2011; Lee et al., 2012). Thus, employee envy emerges as a crucial mediator that explains the variance in SOOCB levels in relation to the quality of LMX. Given this conceptualization, we hypothesize:

H4.

Employee envy mediates the relationship between LMX and SOOCB.

Psychological Empowerment As a Moderator

Building on the relationship discussed, this research introduces psychological empowerment as a moderator in the relationship between LMX and employee envy. Noteworthily, previous studies have established a negative relationship between LMX and employee envy (Lee et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Treadway et al., 2019). Psychological empowerment, as defined by Ibrahim (2020), is an intrinsic form of motivation characterized by a sense of self-control and meaningfulness in one’s role (Lin et al., 2017), encompassing four dimensions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995), each contributing to positive organizational behavior (Chiang & Jang, 2008; Ibrahim, 2020; Wen et al., 2023). Recent research signal the potential of a relationship between high psychological empowerment and high LMX (Aggarwal et al., 2020; Garg & Dhar, 2016), potentially leading to lower levels of employee envy. This relationship aligns with AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), which posits that positive workplace events, like high-quality LMX interactions, lead to positive affective reactions. When psychological empowerment is high, the negative relationship between LMX and employee envy is mitigated. Employees with a high degree of psychological empowerment feel more competent, autonomous, and influential in their roles (Aggarwal et al., 2018, 2020, 2022; Wen et al., 2023), which can mitigate the typical negative effects of low-quality LMX on envy. These empowered employees may not perceive the disparities in LMX as intensely as less empowered employees do. Consequently, the negative relationship between LMX and employee envy becomes less pronounced in the presence of high psychological empowerment (Huertas-Valdivia et al., 2019). This nuanced interaction is supported by the tenets of AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), suggesting that empowered employees are better equipped emotionally to handle the challenges posed by varying qualities of LMX. In light of this understanding, we propose the following hypothesis to capture the moderating effect of psychological empowerment:

H5.

Psychological empowerment moderates the relationship between LMX and employee envy.

Methodology

Instrumentation

In this research, we utilized an adapted questionnaire to collect data and test the proposed mediation–moderation model that theorizes the influence of employee envy and psychological empowerment on the LMX and SOOCB relationship. More specifically, the questionnaire contains two main sections. The initial section consists of questions about the sociodemographic background of participants, such as age, gender, and work experience. The subsequent section consists of items measuring the four constructs under research, namely LMX, employee envy, psychological empowerment, and SOOCB. LMX was operationalized with seven items from Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995). Employee envy was operationalized with five items from Vecchio (2000), whereas psychological empowerment was operationalized with 12 items across four sub-constructs (i.e., meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact) that had three items each from Spreitzer (1995). Finally, SOOCB was operationalized with 15 items across three sub-constructs (i.e., loyalty, service delivery, and participation) that had five items each from Bettencourt et al. (2001). Each item measuring the constructs in the questionnaire was accompanied with a five-point Likert scale for respondents indicate their agreement (i.e., “1” indicates “strongly disagree” and “5” reflects “strongly agree”). The questionnaire underwent (1) a pretest with five friendly peer reviewers with human resource management expertise from the authors’ network to assure content validity and (2) a pilot study with 55 respondents to ensure face validity. The feedback from the pretest was used to improve the questionnaire (e.g., feedback received to refine the adaptation of items to suit Likert scale measurement) before the pilot study was conducted, and the feedback from the pilot study was used for the same purpose as the pretest (e.g., feedback on minor modifications to enhance item clarity) before the final refined questionnaire was administered in the main study.

Sampling

In this research, we specifically targeted frontline employees from four- and five-star hotels in Punjab, India. This choice was strategic, as these establishments represent the pinnacle of the hospitality industry in the region, denoted by their star ratings. The higher star rating of these hotels implies a commitment to delivering extensive and superior service, setting them apart from their lower-starred counterparts. By focusing on these high-standard hotels, this research is poised to glean insights from a context where LMX and SOOCB are likely to be critical to success and thus most pronounced.

As per the Punjab Tourism Board (India), 20 hotels are either four- or five-star hotels. Out of these 20 hotels, eight hotels have five stars, and 12 hotels have four stars. This research employed a non-probability sampling technique, given the specific focus on high-rated hotels and the practical constraints of the research setting. The authors, familiar with the Punjab region, extended invitations to all 20 hotels, securing participation from 16. This sampling approach ensured a diverse yet targeted collection of data, aligning with the research objectives. Purposive sampling was deemed appropriate due to the specific nature of the research question and the need to gather insights from a particular segment of the hotel industry known for its high service standards. These 16 hotels were assured about the confidentiality of their identity and data (e.g., only aggregate, de-identified data are reported). Out of the 16 hotels, six have five stars and 10 four stars.

Two coauthors approached the hotel managers, who consented for the survey to be carried out and granted permission to distribute the questionnaires to frontline employees who were working in restaurants, in housekeeping, at the service center, and at the front desk. In total, the authors distributed 864 questionnaires, with an average of 54 questionnaires in each hotel. Out of the 864 questionnaires that were distributed, 631 questionnaires were returned, indicating that the return rate for this research was 73.03%. This response rate means that sample bias is reasonably mitigated as Fowler (2013) suggested that the higher the response rate, the lower the sample bias. Seventy-two questionnaires were discarded because of large portions of missing data or unengaged responses (e.g., straight-lining). Thus, the remaining 559 responses were deemed usable for analysis. Hair et al. (2006) suggested that the size of the sample should be 10 times the amount of variables in the model. Since this research had four variables in its model, a sample size of 559 was deemed to be sufficiently appropriate.

Data Analysis

The data analysis in this research was conducted in four distinct phases, adhering to statistical best practices. Initially, preliminary data screening was undertaken, focusing on preparation and suitability assessment of the data for advanced analysis in alignment with Collier (2020) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2019). This was followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the measurement model, a crucial step in ensuring the accuracy of the model structure in line with Brown (2015). The third phase involved the application of covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) to examine the hypothesized relationships among the key constructs, utilizing the comprehensive approach described by Kline (2023). The final phase entailed a multi-group moderation analysis to assess the moderating effect of psychological empowerment on the relationship between LMX and employee envy, employing techniques outlined by Byrne (2013) for multi-group comparisons in SEM.

Results

Sample Profile

Out of the 559 respondents, 362 were male and 197 were female. Around 68% (381) of the respondents were aged 20 to 35 years. Furthermore, 18.25% (102) of the respondents were aged 36 to 40 years, 8.60% (48) were aged 41 to 49 years, and 5% (28) were aged 50 years and above. Out of the total respondents, 43.11% had up to five years of work experience, 23.07% had six to nine years of work experience, 23.97% had 10 to 19 years of work experience, 5.74% had 20 to 29 years of work experience, and 4.11% had 30 to 39 years of work experience.

Preliminary Analysis

Initially, the data of the final sample consisting of 559 respondents was screened for missing data. The screening indicated that missing data was not an issue because they accounted for less than 5% of the entire data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019), and thus, the research proceeded to replace the missing data using the arithmetic mean as recommended by past scholars (Byrne, 2013).

Following that, the Mahalanobis distance (D2) was analyzed for potential outliers (Byrne, 2013), and no issue of outliers were flagged in the results returned.

Next, the assumption of normality was examined through the lenses of skewness and kurtosis. In particular, the skewness and kurtosis for each item did not exceed ± 2 as recommended by past scholars (Garson, 2012), indicating that the assumption is upheld for the data used in this research.

Finally, the issue of common method bias (CMB) was examined statistically using a single-factor analysis. Using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with constructs restrained to an unrotated single factor, the results showed a variance of 11.768%. As this variance is lower than the maximum 50% threshold, CMB is not a concern for the data used in this research (Hair et al., 2006).

Measurement Model Evaluation

The measurement model was assessed in terms of its reliability and validity through CFA and the results are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Using CFA, Model 1, which is the hypothesized model illustrated in Figure 1, was retained as it denoted the best model fit indices (i.e., χ² = 842.615, df = 629, χ²/df = 1.340 ≤ 3; AGFI = 0.915 ≥ 0.90; GFI = 0.928 ≥ 0.90; CFI = 0.980 ≥ 0.90; RMSEA = 0.025 ≤ 0.08) (Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996; Hair et al., 2006; Steiger, 1990) as compared to Models 2 to 9, which represent competing models (Table 1).

Table 1. Model comparison (n = 559).

Model	Description	χ2	df	χ2/df	RMSEA	CFI	GFI	∆χ2 from Model 1	∆df
Model 1	Hypothesized	842.61	629	1.34	.025	.980	.928	–	–
Model 2	^aEight factor	1852.82	637	2.91	.058	.886	.820	1010.20	8
Model 3	^bSeven factor	3070.68	644	4.77	.082	.773	.714	2228.07	15
Model 4	^cSix factor	4511.43	650	6.94	.103	.639	.626	3668.81	21
Model 5	^dFive factor	5925.34	655	9.05	.120	.507	.549	5082.72	26
Model 6	^eFour factor	6798.01	659	10.32	.129	.426	.526	5955.48	30
Model 7	^fThree factor	8348.44	662	12.61	.144	.281	.484	7505.83	33
Model 8	^gTwo factor	8906.21	664	13.41	.149	.229	.469	8063.60	35
Model 9	^hOne factor	9797.72	665	14.73	.157	.146	.440	8955.11	36

Notes: ^aEight factor = Loyalty and service delivery combined; ^bSeven factor = SOOCB as one factor; ^cSix factor = SOOCB and employee envy combined; ^dFive factor = SOOCB, employee envy, and LMX combined; ^eFour factor = SOOCB, employee envy, LMX, and competence combined; ^fThree factor = SOOCB, employee envy, LMX, competence, and meaning combined; ^gTwo factor = SOOCB, employee envy, LMX, competence, meaning, self-determination combined; ^hOne factor = All constructs combined.

Table 2. Conceptualization and operationalization of constructs in the measurement model (n = 559).

Construct	Conceptualization	Operationalization		$\bar{x}$	S	K	λ	CR	AVE	Source
Leader-member exchange (LMX)	How leaders treat their subordinates in different ways, from high quality to low-quality (Du et al., 2022).	LMX1	I know where I stand with my leader.	4.04	−1.01	−0.09	0.76	0.874	0.536	Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995)
		LMX2	My leader understands my job problems and needs.	3.91	−0.81	−0.42	0.69
		LMX3	My leader recognizes my potential. (*item dropped)	3.59	−0.56	−1.07	0.45
		LMX4	My leader uses his/her power to help me solve problems at work.	4.03	−1.07	−0.08	0.77
		LMX5	My leader bails me out at his/her expense.	3.97	−0.95	−0.31	0.75
		LMX6	I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so.	3.90	−0.87	−0.56	0.72
		LMX7	My working relationship with my leader is great.	3.94	−0.79	−0.54	0.71
Psychological empowerment: Meaning	Meaning is the value of a work goal or purpose, judged in relation to an individual’s own ideals or standards (Thomas &Velthouse, 1990).	MNG1	The work I do is very important to me.	3.82	−0.98	0.16	0.88	0.932	0.819	Spreitzer (1995)
		MNG2	My job activities are personally meaningful to me.	3.94	−1.08	0.51	0.93
		MNG3	The work I do is meaningful to me.	3.92	−1.13	0.39	0.91
Psychological empowerment: Competence	Competence, or self-efficacy, is an individual’s belief in his or her capability to perform activities with skill (Gist, 1987).	COM1	I am confident about my ability to do my job.	3.59	−0.51	−0.77	0.81	0.868	0.688
		COM2	I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities.	3.52	−0.42	−0.85	0.88
		COM3	I have mastered the skills necessary for my job.	3.42	−0.40	−0.84	0.79
Psychological empowerment: Self-determination	Self-determination reflects autonomy in the initiation and continuation of work behaviors and processes; examples include making decisions about work methods, pace, and effort (Bell & Staw, 1989; Spector, 1986).	SLF1	I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job.	3.80	−0.86	−0.31	0.74	0.807	0.583
		SLF2	I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work.	3.62	−0.73	−0.06	0.71
		SLF3	I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job.	3.73	−0.77	−0.02	0.84
Psychological empowerment: Impact	Impact is the degree to which an individual can influence strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes at work (Ashforth, 1989).	IMP1	My impact on what happens in my department is large.	3.12	−0.25	−0.83	0.78	0.879	0.708
		IMP2	I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department.	3.31	−0.34	−0.66	0.89
		IMP3	I have significant influence over what happens in my department.	3.40	−0.42	−0.80	0.85
Employee envy	A pattern of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that results from an employee’s loss of self-esteem in response to a referent other’s obtainment of outcomes that one strongly desires (Vecchio, 2000).	EE1	My supervisor values the efforts of others more than she/he values my efforts.	1.60	1.54	3.04	0.80	0.888	0.614	Vecchio (2000)
		EE2	It is somewhat annoying to see others have all the luck in getting the best customers.	1.61	1.41	2.08	0.81
		EE3	I do not know why, but I usually seem to be the underdog at work.	1.65	1.40	2.59	0.77
		EE4	I do not imagine I will ever have a job as good as some that I have seen.	1.60	1.35	2.50	0.79
		EE5	Most of my coworkers have it better than I do.	1.64	1.35	2.15	0.75
Service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (SOOCB): Loyalty	Reflect allegiance to the organization through the promotion of its interests and image to outsiders (Bettencourt et al., 2001).	LYT1	I tell outsiders this is a good place to work.	3.27	−0.21	−0.88	0.66	0.884	0.606	Bettencourt et al. (2001)
		LYT2	I say good things about the hotel to others.	3.90	−0.97	0.70	0.84
		LYT3	I generate favorable goodwill for the hotel.	3.86	−0.85	0.59	0.87
		LYT4	I encourage friends and family to use the services of the hotel.	3.62	−0.50	−0.08	0.73
		LYT5	I actively promote the hotel’s services.	3.72	−0.63	−0.20	0.78
Service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (SOOCB): Service delivery	Refers to those who behave in conscientious ways in an effort to improve the service delivery (Bettencourt et al., 2001).	SD1	I follow customer service guidelines with extreme care.	3.25	−0.42	−0.64	0.71	0.844	0.521
		SD2	I conscientiously follow guidelines for customer promotions.	3.35	−0.42	−0.70	0.71
		SD3	I follow up in a timely manner to customer requests and problems.	3.24	−0.12	−0.75	0.69
		SD4	I always have a positive attitude at work.	3.37	−0.47	−0.86	0.73
		SD5	I do my best to be exceptionally courteous and respectful to customers regardless of circumstances.	3.38	−0.52	−0.84	0.77
Service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (SOOCB): Participation	Refers to those who take initiatives in an effort to improve the customers’ satisfaction needs (Bettencourt et al., 2001).	PAR1	I encourage coworkers to contribute ideas and suggestions for service improvement.	2.27	0.54	−0.93	0.77	0.875	0.583
		PAR2	I contribute many ideas for customer promotions and communications.	3.03	−0.22	−1.04	0.79
		PAR3	I make constructive suggestions for service improvement.	2.92	−0.06	−1.22	0.77
		PAR4	I frequently present to others creative solutions to customer problems.	3.04	−0.22	−0.89	0.71
		PAR5	I take home menu to read up on products and services.	2.61	0.20	−0.98	0.77

Notes: $\bar{x}$ = Mean; S = Skewness; K = Kurtosis; λ = Standardized factor loading; CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted.

In terms of reliability, the composite reliability (CR) for all constructs were greater than the minimum threshold of 0.70, and thus, indicating that the items measuring the constructs were reliable (Nunnally, 1967).

In terms of convergent validity, CR should exceed 0.70, AVE should be above 0.50, and CR should be greater than AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), which were met by the measurement model and thus establishing convergent validity. In addition, the convergent validity of the measurement model is further strengthened as the comparative fit index (CFI) is 0.98, which is above the minimum threshold of 0.90, and the standardized loadings for retained items were also generally higher than the 0.50 minimum threshold (Byrne, 2013).

In terms of discriminant validity, past scholars recommended the cutoff value of 0.85 for inter-construct correlation (Kline, 2023) and the square root of AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), which were also met by the measurement model and thus indicating discriminant validity (Table 3).

Table 3. Correlation of constructs in the measurement model (n = 559).

Construct	$\bar{x}$	σ	LMX	IMP	COM	SLF	MNG	EE	LYT	SD	PAR
LMX	3.97	0.54	0.73
IMP	3.27	1.06	0.03	0.84
COM	3.51	1.10	0.02	0.25	0.83
SLF	3.72	0.95	0.08	0.20	0.12	0.76
MNG	3.90	1.10	0.04	0.57	0.31	0.18	0.91
EE	1.62	0.63	−0.03	0.07	0.01	0.07	0.05	0.78
LYT	3.67	0.83	0.06	0.07	0.02	0.07	0.01	−0.02	0.78
SD	3.32	0.89	0.01	0.06	0.01	0.02	0.01	−0.04	0.08	0.72
PAR	2.77	1.00	0.08	0.05	0.02	0.09	0.04	0.00	0.21	0.12	0.76

Notes: $\bar{x}$ = Mean; σ = Standard deviation; LMX = Leader – member exchange; EE = Employee envy; IMP = Impact; COM = Competence; SLF = Self-determination; MNG = Meaning; LYT = Loyalty; SD = Service delivery; PAR = Participation; Bold off-diagonal value represents the square root of AVE.

Recent research has challenged the effectiveness of the Fornell-Larcker criterion in assessing discriminant validity, especially when indicators on a construct have similar loadings (e.g., between 0.65 and 0.85). Henseler et al. (2015) highlighted these limitations and introduced the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio as a more reliable metric. The HTMT ratio compares the average correlations across constructs to the geometric mean of correlations within the same construct. Higher HTMT values indicate potential issues with discriminant validity. For closely related constructs, an HTMT threshold of 0.90 is suggested by Henseler et al. (2015). If the HTMT value exceeds 0.90, it signals a lack of discriminant validity in such cases. For more distinct constructs, a lower threshold, like 0.85, is recommended. The use of HTMT for CB-SEM is also in line with Hosen et al. (2021). The results in Table 4 show that the present measurement model has good discriminant validity.

Table 4. Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of the measurement model (n = 559).

Construct	LMX	IMP	COM	SLF	MNG	EE	LYT	SD	PAR
LMX
IMP	0.05
COM	0.03	0.23
SLF	0.11	0.21	0.14
MNG	0.07	0.55	0.33	0.20
EE	−0.02	0.08	0.02	0.06	0.06
LYT	0.08	0.06	0.02	0.08	0.02	0.01
SD	0.02	0.08	0.03	0.03	0.03	−0.05	0.09
PAR	0.07	0.07	0.04	0.11	0.06	0.01	0.22	0.14

Notes: LMX = Leader – member exchange; EE = Employee envy; IMP = Impact; COM = Competence; SLF = Self-determination; MNG = Meaning; LYT = Loyalty; SD = Service delivery; PAR = Participation.

Structural Model Evaluation

The structural model of proposed hypotheses was evaluated using CB-SEM. Before this evaluation can be done, the reversed-order model needs to be assessed to explore for potential endogeneity. The indices of the reverse-order model indicated a poor fit (χ² = 2032.005, df = 42, χ²/df = 48.381; AGFI = 0.561; GFI = 0.780; CFI = 0.385; RMSEA = 0.206) compared to the proposed hypothesized structural model (χ² = 121.262, df = 39, χ²/df = 3.109; AGFI = 0.939; GFI = 0.972; CFI = 0.975; RMSEA = 0.043). Thus, endogeneity is not a concern, and the structural model could be examined as it is for hypothesis testing.

The inter-relationships among the independent and dependent variables without mediation or moderation are shown in Table 5, whereas the inter-relationships among LMX, employee envy, and SOOCB (i.e., with mediation) are shown in Table 6 and the interrelationships among LMX, employee envy, and psychological empowerment (i.e., with moderation) are shown in Table 7. Five noteworthy outcomes are observed.

Table 5. Hypothesis testing of relationships in the structural model (n = 559).

	Relationship
Hypothesis	Antecedent		Consequence	Estimate	R^2	C.R.	p-value	Outcome
H1	Leader – member exchange	→	Employee envy	−0.559	0.312	−15.901	***	Supported
H2	Employee envy	→	Service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior	−0.762	0.528	−21.729	***	Supported
H3	Leader – member exchange	→		−0.068		−1.946	0.052	Not supported

Notes: *** = p < 0.001. R² = Coefficient of determination. C.R. = Critical ratio.

Table 6. Mediation analysis of relationships in the structural model (n = 559).

Hypothesis	Relationship	Direct β (p-value)	Indirect β (p-value)	Total β (p-value)	Mediation type	Outcome
H4	Leader – member exchange → Employee envy → Service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior	−.068 (0.083)	.426 (0.001)	.358 (0.001)	Indirect	Supported

Notes: β =Standardized coefficient.

Table 7. Moderation analysis of relationships in the structural model (n = 559).

		Low psychological empowerment		High psychological empowerment
Hypothesis	Relationship	Estimate	p-value	Estimate	p-value	z-score	Outcome
H5	Leader – member exchange → Employee envy	−0.739	0.000	−0.570	0.000	2.085***	Supported

Notes: *** = p < 0.001.

First, the outcome of the structural model shows that high-quality association among leaders and members (LMX) has a significant and negative impact on employee envy (β = −0.559; C.R. = −15.901; p < 0.001) (Table 5). This means that when there is high-quality interaction among managers and executives in the organization, employee envy will be less prevalent. However, if the quality of the relationship between managers and executives is low, then executives might feel more envy at the workplace. Hence, H1, which posits that LMX has a negative impact on employee envy, was supported.

Second, the direct relationship between employee envy and SOOCB shows that employee envy has a negative and significant effect on the SOOCB of an employee (β = −0.762; C.R. = −21.729; p < 0.001) (Table 5). This means that when an executive perceives a high level of envy at the workplace, their SOOCB will be less apparent at the workplace. Further, the results show that employee envy contributes to explaining 52.8% of the variance of SOOCB. Hence, H2, which posits that employee envy has a negative impact on SOOCB, was supported.

Third, the results also show that LMX has no effect on SOOCB (β = −0.068; C.R. = −1.964; p > 0.05) (Table 5). This means that the quality of the relationship between the manager and the executive has no direct relationship with SOOCB. Hence, H3, which posits that LMX has a positive relationship with SOOCB, was not supported.

Fourth, the bootstrapping technique with resampling at 2,000 samples using a bias-corrected confidence interval at a 95% confidence level was employed to test the mediating function of employee envy on the relationship between LMX and SOOCB. The outcome of the mediation analysis generates interesting results (Table 6). The results showed that although LMX has no direct effect on SOOCB, in the presence of employee envy, LMX has a significant impact on SOOCB. Hence, H4, which posits that employee envy mediates the LMX and SOOCB relationship, was supported.

Fifth, the multi-group moderation shows that psychological empowerment moderates the LMX and employee envy relationship. The results further showed that the strength of the negative LMX and employee envy relationship is high for an employee who recognizes low rather than high levels of psychological empowerment at the workplace. Hence, high levels of psychological empowerment play a vital role in reducing the negative effect of the low-quality relationship between the manager and the executive on employee envy. Therefore, H5, which posits that psychological empowerment moderates the LMX and employee envy relationship, was supported.

Discussion

This research, focusing on frontline employees of four- and five-star hotels, offers novel insights into the interplay of LMX, employee envy, and psychological empowerment in influencing SOOCB. Contrary to previous studies that found a direct positive relationship between LMX and SOOCB (Cha & Borchgrevink, 2018; Estiri et al., 2018), our findings suggest a more nuanced interaction. We discovered that LMX does not directly lead to SOOCB but rather influences it indirectly through the mediation of employee envy and the moderation of psychological empowerment.

The research highlights the critical role of psychological empowerment in the workplace (Lim, Malik, et al., 2024). Our findings resonate with recent studies (Aggarwal et al., 2020; Wen et al., 2023) showing that higher levels of psychological empowerment weaken the negative relationship between LMX and employee envy. This insight is crucial, as it implies that when employees perceive higher levels of empowerment, they are less likely to experience envy even in the face of low-quality LMX relationships. This finding aligns with the observations of Lee et al. (2022) and Li et al. (2023) regarding the impact of LMX on employee attitudes and behaviors.

This research also improves understanding of SOOCB, moving beyond the traditional scope of OCB in service organizations (Bani-Melhem et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2010), underscoring the critical role of effectively managing employee envy, a significant predictor of SOOCB. This insight is particularly crucial in environments that demand high service quality, such as four- and five-star hotels, where delivering exceptional service is most critical. Furthermore, the findings align with Du et al. (2022) and Teng et al. (2020), emphasizing the importance of LMX in creating an environment conducive to employee performance and satisfaction. However, this research goes further to examine the complex dynamics of LMX, illustrating its indirect effect on SOOCB. This effect is mediated through employee envy and moderated by psychological empowerment, offering a new perspective that has not been extensively evidenced in existing literature.

Taken collectively, this research makes a significant contribution to the existing knowledge of SOOCB within the tourism sector, hospitality industry, and hotel segment. By clarifying the mediation-moderation model involving LMX, employee envy, and psychological empowerment, this research provides a holistic view of the interplay between these elements and their collective impact on SOOCB. The insights gained from this research are invaluable, offering both theoretical enhancement and practical applications, which will be discussed in the next sections.

Theoretical Implications

This research advances theoretical understanding of SOOCB by demonstrating the direct, mediating, and moderating effects governing SOOCB through the lenses of LMX, employee envy, and psychological empowerment in a single research, representing the first of its kind in the body of knowledge. In this regard, this research delivers three major theoretical implications.

First, this research reveals that weak relationships between subordinates and their superiors result in higher levels of employee envy, decreasing SOOCB. Despite the moderation of envy by psychological empowerment, LMX is evidently a key element in influencing the level of envy among employees at the organization.

Second, this research reveals the moderating role of psychological empowerment, thereby highlighting its usefulness to mitigate undesired organizational behavior. Noteworthily, the research shows that an employee with low-quality LMX who is less psychologically empowered at their job experiences more envy. However, if the employee is highly psychologically empowered, the inverse relationship between LMX and employee envy (i.e., the ability of LMX to reduce employee envy) would be greater, thereby resulting in more SOOCB.

Third, various scholars have investigated the effect of LMX on OCB, but little scholarly effort has been invested to enrich understanding on the relationship between LMX and SOOCB. The results from this research also confirm the positive impact of LMX on SOOCB, albeit indirectly when employee envy is low. The term “OCB” is used by different organizations, but SOOCB is the extension of OCB in the service field as service organizations desire professionals who perform extra roles beyond job expectations. For a frontline employee, the connection between the client and the employee must be preserved by illustrating an excellent level of service. This is especially true for the hospitality industry in the tourism sector and its service-intensive components such as the hotel segment, especially among those with higher ratings.

Managerial Implications

This research offers three major managerial implications for leaders (e.g., managers, supervisors) in helping them nurture SOOCB among their team members (e.g., executives, frontline employees).

The first managerial implication is based on the relationship between LMX and employee envy. Executives have been observed to evaluate one another based on how their manager gives incentives, desirable job assignments, and other benefits to executives under their care. If the executive feels that the manager is giving more benefits to executives close to the manager, then they feel envy at the workplace, which ultimately leads to an inferiority complex among the out-of-the-group executives (Aggarwal et al., 2020). Prior scholars have highlighted that employee envy can produce severe consequences for organizations, such as low levels of employee engagement, low-quality exchanges among coworkers, coworker ostracism, incivility, and unethical contagion (Jafri, 2020; Mao et al., 2021; Puranik et al., 2019; Thiel et al., 2021). In this regard, a manager will need to take proactive steps to ensure that their executives would not develop high levels of envy as it has various negative effects on organizational goals. Consequently, managers should monitor their executives’ feelings by interacting with them on a regular basis and send out clear messages with their actions that their personal relationships with any executive in the team have no effect on their performance evaluation or the distribution of resources. Managers should also organize counseling sessions for those executives who develop negative feelings toward their organizations. In such counseling sessions, the focus should be on identifying the source of these negative feelings and enabling the executive to vent about them. Subsequently, it is important to develop objective and unbiased structures when assigning duties, responsibilities, and work (Nandedkar, 2016). In this regard, processes must be straightforward and transparent, with specific rationales made available to clarify crucial decisions being made. The executives should be part of the decision making, which will make them feel empowered at the workplace, and this has positive consequences at the organizational level. This research also postulate that when employees feel high levels of psychological empowerment, then the relationship between LMX and employee envy is weaker as compared to when the employee perceives lower levels of psychological empowerment.

The second managerial implication is based on the employee envy and SOOCB relationship. The results show that when an employee perceives envy at the workplace, this has a negative influence on SOOCB. Hence, to increase the employee’s SOOCB, the leader should focus on reducing employee envy. For this purpose, managers could organize training plans for each executive to convey that each executive in their team is exceptional and respected. Prior research has shown that effective training programs enable and support overall organizational effectiveness by improving employee and organizational performance (Guan & Frenkel, 2019; Sung & Choi, 2018). Managers could also gamify training programs to increase overall learning outcomes (Armstrong & Landers, 2018). Such training events would also facilitate in the building of unique skills and competencies in employees, empowering them at the workplace. This would also contribute to lessening the frustration among employees caused by internal competition. Given low levels of employee envy, employees will not only perform their duties but also go beyond their job descriptions (Kim et al., 2010).

The third managerial implication of this research is based on the LMX and SOOCB relationship. Prior scholars have highlighted that the quality of LMX affects how an employee performs extra roles for their organization (Arshad et al., 2021; Cha & Borchgrevink, 2018; Teng et al., 2020). Hence, a manager should strive to have quality relationships with their executives. However, as a manager cannot have high-quality interactions with all of their executives, they should adopt some managerial techniques to reach out to as many executives as possible and give impressions of congenial relationships between them. For this purpose, managers can organize casual meetings and social events where all executives in the team can informally interact with them (Kim et al., 2010). Such informal talks between leaders and their team members would help to enhance the nature of their relationship, ultimately reducing the possibility of envy and increasing SOOCB.

Limitations and Future Directions

This research has deepened the understanding of SOOCB through the mediation–moderation model that theorizes the influence of employee envy and psychological empowerment on the LMX and SOOCB relationship. Notwithstanding the contributions of this research to theory and practice, several limitations are observed that require further attention for future research.

First, this research has only looked at selected variables. For example, employee envy is one variable representing deviance while psychological empowerment is another variable representing human psychology. Hence, future research could explore alternative representations of deviance (e.g., nepotism; Lim, Srivastava, et al., 2023) and human psychology (e.g., psychological attachment; psychological capital; Lim, Cabral, et al., 2023).

Second, this research is limited to frontline employees of four- and five-star hotels in Punjab, India, which may affect the generalizability of this research’s findings for other organizations. Therefore, future research may explore alternative service settings (e.g., homestays, tours) in other developed (e.g., America, Europe) and developing (e.g., Africa, Asia Pacific) regions to improve the generalizability of this research’s insights.

Third, the ratio of male employees is also higher in the sample of the present research, and thus, this research’s insights may not necessarily be extrapolated directly to organizations where the ratio of female employees is higher. Thus, future research might explore alternative service settings with organizations that employ predominantly female employees (e.g., spa and reflexology).

Last, this research is cross-sectional, and thus, prospective authors could pursue longitudinal research to solidify the present insights. Furthermore, this research took place during the COVID-19 pandemic when the tourism sector and the hospitality industry, and the hotel segment in particular, appear to be one of the most affected. In the future, the same research can be performed to compare the gathered information between the different time frames (e.g., before, during, and after COVID-19) (Lim, 2021).

Conclusion

This research, focusing on frontline employees in Punjab’s four- and five-star hotels, reveals a complex dynamic where LMX influences SOOCB indirectly, mediated by employee envy and moderated by psychological empowerment. The findings challenge the traditional view of a direct relationship between LMX and SOOCB, highlighting instead the pivotal role of employee emotions and empowerment. High-quality LMX alone does not guarantee improved SOOCB; it is the reduction in employee envy and enhancement of psychological empowerment that catalyzes positive behavioral outcomes in employees. For the hospitality industry in the tourism sector, where service quality is of utmost importance, these insights are particularly critical. Leaders and managers can use this knowledge to foster a more empowering work environment, strategically addressing factors like employee envy to boost OCB, including SOOCB. This research, therefore, not only advances theoretical understanding in the field but also offers practical guidance for improving employee performance and organizational outcomes in the future of work (Islam, 2023; Lim, 2023; Mumtaz et al., 2024; Oliveira et al., 2023).

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).