How Job Insecurity Affects Innovative Work Behavior in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry? The Roles of Knowledge Hiding Behavior and Team Anti-Citizenship Behavior

Abstract

This study examines how innovative work behavior (IWB) is affected by job insecurity (JI). The study also explores knowledge-hiding behavior (KHB) and team anti-citizenship behavior (TAB) as mediators. Data were collected from employees working in Egypt’s five-star hotels and category (A) travel agencies. There were 457 valid responses and they were analyzed using PLS-SEM. The findings demonstrated that there is a negative relationship between job insecurity and employee innovative work behavior. There were positive relationships between job insecurity with knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior. The findings also revealed a negative relationship between knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior with employee innovative work behavior. In addition, findings revealed that knowledge-hiding behavior mediates the relationship between JI and IWB. Contrary to the hypothesized model of the study, team anti-citizenship behavior did not mediate the relationship between JI and IWB. This research contributes to the studies on JI, KHB, and TAB in terms of IWB, specifically in the hospitality and tourism context. It also includes suggestions for coping with JI, KHB, and TAB in hotel and tourism enterprises, which may promote IWB and the overall workplace environment.

1. Introduction

Different organizations have certain requirements in order to operate effectively and achieve their goals. One of these requirements is the need for innovative work behavior, which plays a crucial role in improving overall organizational effectiveness [1]. Innovative work behavior serves as a foundation for organizational sustainability in a highly competitive professional environment, leading to various advantages such as increased productivity, organizational success, promotion of organizational change, and the development of creative work practices [2]. In the hospitality industry, innovative work behavior became essential for the survival of businesses. This is because employees who exhibit innovative work behaviors are able to effectively meet the changing demands and expectations of customers. These organizations actively encourage their workforce to generate new ideas and concepts aimed at improving performance standards and service quality [3,4]. Organizations that aim to develop the innovative behavior of their employees can employ various strategies with both advantages and disadvantages. Nurturing a culture that promotes experimentation and risk-taking enables organizations to create an atmosphere where employees are empowered to explore fresh ideas and methods. This fosters breakthrough innovations and creative problem solving since employees are more inclined to think creatively and propose innovative solutions when they feel supported in taking calculated risks. However, it is important to acknowledge that not all experiments will be successful, and some ideas may result in failures or incurred costs without desired outcomes. Organizations should be prepared to accept and learn from failures while providing a safe space for employees to experiment [4]. Furthermore, organizations can provide training and development programs focused on creativity and innovation to equip employees with the necessary skills and knowledge to generate and implement innovative ideas. These programs may include workshops, seminars, or online courses that enhance employees’ problem-solving abilities and foster creative thinking. The advantage of such programs is that they offer employees tangible tools and techniques to stimulate innovation. However, implementing these training programs requires an investment of time and resources, and their effectiveness may vary among employees. Not all individuals may fully embrace or apply the acquired skills in their work [3]. Encouraging collaboration across different teams and departments is another effective approach to foster innovation. When employees from diverse backgrounds collaborate, they can generate innovative solutions by leveraging a range of expertise and insights. Cross-functional collaboration enables employees to utilize their unique skills and experiences to tackle complex problems. Nonetheless, implementing cross-functional collaboration can be challenging, particularly in larger organizations with complex structures. It necessitates effective communication, coordination, and the breakdown of silos, which may encounter resistance or logistical difficulties [1]. Devoting specific time and resources for employees to work on innovative projects demonstrates the organization’s commitment to fostering innovation. This can involve setting aside designated “innovation time” or creating dedicated teams focused on innovation. Such focused efforts can lead to the development of new products, services, or process improvements. However, allocating resources exclusively for innovation may divert attention and resources from other critical business functions. Careful prioritization and resource balancing are necessary to ensure overall organizational effectiveness [2]. Additionally, recognizing and rewarding innovative ideas and contributions serves as a powerful motivator for employees to engage in innovative behaviors. This can be achieved through various means, such as implementing an innovation reward program, acknowledging and celebrating innovative achievements, or providing career advancement opportunities for individuals who demonstrate innovative thinking. Recognizing and rewarding innovation reinforces a culture that values and celebrates creativity, leading to a continuous flow of innovative ideas. When employees know that their innovative efforts are recognized and rewarded, they are more likely to invest their time and energy in generating and implementing innovative ideas. This boosts employee morale and satisfaction, creating a positive work environment where creativity thrives. Moreover, recognition and rewards act as a form of positive reinforcement, encouraging employees to consistently seek out innovative solutions and approaches in their work. However, organizations must ensure that their recognition and reward systems are fair, transparent, and aligned with the organization’s goals to prevent biases or favoritism. It is also essential to strike a balance between individual recognition and fostering a collaborative and supportive team environment to encourage collective innovation. As organizations strive to foster innovative work behaviors and address factors that may hinder employees’ motivation to engage in such positive actions, they also face the challenge of creating a secure and motivating work environment. This environment plays a crucial role in enabling employees to enhance their innovative skills and utilize them to successfully complete tasks and achieve set objectives [5].

The work environment underwent significant and rapid changes in recent years due to technological advancements and intense competition. This prompted organizations to restructure and alter the nature of work. In order to adapt to these changes, organizations implemented various strategies to remain competitive and thrive in the work environment. One such strategy is downsizing, which involves reducing the number of employees through measures such as layoffs, dismissals, or extended vacations. However, the implementation of this strategy generated feelings of anxiety and tension among employees regarding their future careers within the organization, leading to a sense of instability and job insecurity. Another strategy employed by organizations to ensure survival and competitiveness is fostering innovation and creativity. These organizations sought to motivate employees to be innovative in their task performance and to take risks. They also encouraged employees to contribute innovative ideas to enhance task performance and develop unique products and services. Consequently, organizations relied on promoting innovative work behaviors as a means to achieve success in the work environment and secure long-term survival and competitiveness [6].

Innovative work behavior can be influenced by various factors, including job insecurity [7,8]. The impact of job insecurity is evident both at the organizational level and among employees [9]. One negative consequence of job insecurity is the tendency for employees to engage in knowledge-hiding behaviors. This occurs when employees withhold knowledge due to a perception that they may be abandoned by the company and not truly belong to the organization [10]. In the context of tourism and hospitality organizations, knowledge hiding has detrimental effects on both the organizations themselves and their teams [11]. When leaders hide their knowledge, it has a negative impact on organizational citizenship behaviors within the tourism sector [12]. When employees realize that they may lose their jobs at any time, they are less likely to exert additional effort at work, resulting in decreased enthusiasm for completing tasks and assisting colleagues. Consequently, this reduction in enthusiasm leads to a decrease in innovative behaviors in the workplace [13].

The threat of job loss and the ambiguity surrounding employees’ roles and future career prospects can contribute to an increase in anti-citizenship behavior within work teams [14]. The effects of job insecurity extend further to influence employees’ inclination to hide their knowledge, as they feel threatened by the potential impact on their future careers, the possibility of job loss, and the resulting anxiety and stress stemming from job instability [15].

Some studies investigated the impact of job insecurity (JI) on innovative work behavior (IWB) (e.g., [8,13,16,17]), knowledge-hiding behavior (KHB) (e.g., [15,18,19]), and team anti-citizenship behavior (TAB) (e.g., [9,20]). Likewise, some studies assessed the effect of knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior on innovative work behavior (e.g., [21,22,23,24,25,26]). However, no previous studies, to the best of the researchers’ knowledge, addressed the mediating role of knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior in the correlation between job insecurity and innovative work behavior in the tourism and hospitality industry. In tourism and hospitality literature; job insecurity is not extensively addressed in contrast to a large number of other fields [27]. Our research gap then articulated on the notion that no study examined the job insecurity effect on innovative work behavior through knowledge-hiding and team anti-citizenship behaviors in one research model. As a result, the study seeks to bridge the gap by fulfilling three key objectives: (1) evaluating the effect of job insecurity on knowledge-hiding behavior, team anti-citizenship behavior, and innovative work behavior, (2) assessing the impact of knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior on innovative work behavior, and (3) examining the mediating role of knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior on innovative work behavior in the relationship between job insecurity and innovative work behavior.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Tourism and hospitality organizations collectively laid off their employees to reduce costs, achieve higher flexibility, and adapt to the conditions of the changing work environment. This led to an increase in workers’ feelings of job insecurity [28]. Job insecurity refers to an individual’s awareness of involuntary job loss [29]. Job insecurity is related to the individual’s feeling of tension and anxiety within the organization as a result of his feeling of the possibility of losing his job or losing some job benefits, or losing his job position [8]. The employees’ feeling of job insecurity may not only be related to the threat of their continuation in their work, but may also include their feeling of lack of organizational support, lack of social support in the job, or poor working conditions [9].

The employees’ lack of job insecurity results in many harmful effects, whether on the organization or the employees, such as decreased productivity, the spread of negative behaviors, increased turnover, anxiety, stress, decreased organizational citizenship behaviors, and unethical behaviors in the workplace as reported by [30,31,32,33]. Job insecurity also leads to low organizational citizenship behaviors and weak self-motivation, which is reflected in the organization’s low ability to bring about successful organizational change [20].

Etehadi and Karatepe [34] indicated an increased level of job insecurity among hospitality workers. They added that this feeling has many negative effects on hospitality organizations, such as poor service innovation behavior. This feeling also leads to decreased work engagement, increased rates of absenteeism and lateness to work, intention to leave work early [35,36], and anxiety and stress among workers in the tourism and hospitality industry. Insecurity leads to lower performance of hotel workers [37,38,39]. Job insecurity also leads to lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment among workers in the tourism industry [28].

2.1. The Relationship between Job Insecurity and Innovative Work Behavior

Innovative work behaviors are a set of activities associated with identifying work problems and developing innovative ideas to solve them. They are also the activities associated with providing new innovative products and services or developing existing products and services [13]. These behaviors are also related to the performance of individuals in their work tasks and the achievement of organizational goals. These behaviors also support the organization’s competitive capabilities by generating and implementing innovative ideas in both the internal and external work environments [26]. Innovative work behaviors are a source of competitive advantage for organizations in an unstable work environment that witnesses several changes and technological developments. These behaviors enhance organizations’ effectiveness and organizational success, and support their survival and continuity in the work environment [40]. Sustainable innovation is significantly impacted by sustainable human resource practices, while small and medium-sized business performance is significantly impacted by sustainable innovation [41]. According to Zhou and George [42], innovative work behavior includes three stages. The first stage begins with presenting innovative new ideas and suggestions. The second stage begins with promoting these ideas within the organization in preparation for their implementation. The last stage is related to the implementation of these ideas in the form of activities and practices that help the organization achieve its goals with high efficiency.

Organizations must be flexible, adaptable, and innovative in today’s competitive marketplace [43]. Organizations in the modern business environment also have a need for enhancing their confidence abilities to compete in the market [44]; to do so, organizations need to improve their employees’ innovativeness capabilities. Even companies that are at the forefront of innovation must find a balance between developing new products and keeping up with market competitiveness in the face of shifting technology and business models [45].

Innovative work behavior also helps to increase the ability of organizations to meet challenges successfully [46]. In addition to the role of these behaviors in the organization’s adaptation to changes in the work environment, the efficient use of available opportunities through innovative employees who possess innovative ideas and can apply them in their work [16,47]. Job security contributes to increased employee satisfaction, decreased job stress, and increased innovative work [2]. While perceived job insecurity harms innovative work behavior and hinders organizational success, as it reduces employee engagement in the long term, as well as having a negative impact on job satisfaction and innovation [5]. Maulidina [8] explained that employees’ feelings of job insecurity lead to them not engaging in innovative behaviors at work because they are worried and afraid of being abandoned by the organization. This feeling also makes them lose the desire to make efforts to accomplish tasks and achieve goals [8]. Job insecurity-related stress may produce innovative ideas in the workplace. In other words, job insecurity results in occupational stress. However, the results of Li et al. [48] demonstrate that individuals perform better on innovative tasks when their job stress is moderate rather than low or severe. Furthermore, when people are thriving, they may retain a high degree of creativity through information acquisition and learning, no matter how stressed they are at work. They added that employees with a sense of vitality and energization have more vital affective resources that motivate them to recover from resource loss and even to consider, develop, and put into practice innovative concepts.

Some studies (e.g., [8,13]) confirmed the negative relationship between job insecurity and innovative work behaviors. Niesen et al. [29] demonstrated that an increase in job insecurity leads to the unwillingness of employees to generate or apply innovative ideas at work. Innovative work behaviors also decrease as a result of employees’ feelings of losing their jobs, as indicated by Niesen et al. [26]. Additionally, Ham and Salendu [16], Kurniawan and Ranihusna [7,49], and Roll et al. [17] confirmed the negative impact of job insecurity on innovative work behaviors. Fauziawati [7] explained the negative impact of job insecurity on innovative work behaviors through low morale, motivation, and effectiveness of employees in their jobs, along with low organizational commitment and lack of job engagement as a result of feelings of job insecurity in the workplace. In the hospitality industry, Etehadi and Karatepe [34] confirmed that job insecurity reduces the creative work behaviors of workers. So, the following hypothesis is suggested:

H1: 

Job insecurity negatively impacts employees’ innovative work behavior.

2.2. The Relationship between Job Insecurity and Knowledge-Hiding Behavior

Connelly et al. [50] defined knowledge-hiding behavior as the intentional behavior of employees to hide their knowledge that is required by the work need or by co-employees. There are some practices of hiding knowledge, such as an individual intentionally providing wrong knowledge to those who ask for it within the organization, or not fulfilling an individual’s promise to provide knowledge at the required time. These practices also include pretending not to be aware of the required knowledge, blaming others for their failure to provide that knowledge, and justifying hiding knowledge in this case [50]. Unethical practices at work lead to an increase in workers’ tendency to hide their knowledge in service organizations [51,52]. Butt [53] also enumerates the reasons that push employees to hide knowledge from their managers or colleagues to include job insecurity, poor professional expectations, weak motivation, weak organizational support, and striving to keep the job for as long as possible.

Hiding knowledge causes many problems within organizations, such as increased stress [22], poor innovation [54], increased turnover [55], and decreased productivity [56]. Employees are keen to share knowledge with their managers and colleagues to achieve organizational goals under ideal working conditions [57]. However, as a result of the negative policies and practices of the organization, employees may tend to hide their knowledge and not share it with their co-employees as a result of their negative perceptions in the workplace. When employees feel job insecurity, they resort to hiding the knowledge that they consider the source of their strength to stay in their jobs, and thus seek to secure this source and not share knowledge with others at work [18]. Employees resort to hiding their knowledge due to the threat to their stability and job security [58]. The results of Ali et al. [18] highlighted that employees’ feelings of job insecurity negatively affect employees’ willingness to share knowledge.

The tendency of employees to hide their knowledge increases as a result of the instability of the work environment, and the tendency of organizations to reduce the size of their employment [15]. According to Xu et al. [15], Shoss et al. [19], and Chhabra and Pandey [59], there is a positive relationship between job insecurity and knowledge-hiding behavior. The study by Jeong et al. [60] confirmed the positive relationship between job insecurity and knowledge-hiding behavior. They justified this result through the negative effects of job insecurity, such as poor job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational trust, increased job pressure, employee turnover, and deviant practices. These negative effects increase the individual’s desire not to share his knowledge within the organization due to the threat to his future career. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: 

Job insecurity positively impacts employees’ knowledge-hiding behavior.

2.3. The Relationship between Job Insecurity and Team Anti-Citizenship Behavior

Team anti-citizenship refers to behaviors that employees engage in to hinder effective team performance. These behaviors take several forms, such as theft, sabotage, revenge, hostility, sarcasm, and other forms that harm the organization and employees [61]. Several factors may lead to team anti-citizenship, such as leadership style and job satisfaction [62], violation of the psychological contract [63], team commitment, team leader commitment, and perceived organizational support [61]. As a result of the threat of employees losing their jobs and the ambiguity of their roles and career future, team anti-citizen behaviors may increase [14]. Additionally, the organizations’ tendency to reduce the number of employees leads to instability in the work environment and increased anxiety and tension among employees because of the possibility of losing their jobs. Employees’ feeling of the possibility of losing their jobs increases organizational conflicts, negative behaviors, and practices that weaken the team’s performance and organizational effectiveness [64].

Soudi and Mahmoudloo [65] reported that the availability of a work environment enhances employees’ sense of stability and job security causes them to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors. On the contrary, employees’ feeling of job insecurity leads to poor performance and to engaging in negative behaviors that harm the organization and impede achieving its goals, according to [66]. In addition, employees’ insecurity in their jobs frustrates them and makes them refuse to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors [9]. The results of Shin et al. [20] added that there is a negative relationship between job insecurity and organizational citizenship behaviors, which means that employees’ feelings of insecurity in their jobs make them less willing to engage in positive behaviors to help their colleagues and organizations achieve success. Hence, the following hypothesis is postulated:

H3: 

Job insecurity positively impacts team anti-citizenship behavior.

2.4. The Relationship between Knowledge-Hiding Behavior and Innovative Work Behavior

Knowledge sharing enhances creativity in organizations. Knowledge sharing also encourages collaborative innovation, the generation and application of innovative ideas, successful organizational development, and performance improvement [53]. Contrary to the positive results of sharing knowledge, hiding that knowledge leads to weakening the employees’ abilities to perform their work efficiently or their innovative capabilities [53]. As highlighted by Guo et al. [67], the negative impact of knowledge hiding on innovative work behaviors is that employees who hide knowledge from their colleagues will be less able to engage in innovative work behavior.

Guo et al. [67] added that employees who fail to obtain knowledge from their colleagues are more willing not to cooperate or resist organizational development and success, and not to present innovative ideas to support organizational performance. Knowledge-hiding behavior limits the ability of employees to generate innovative ideas and apply them in completing work tasks with high efficiency [68]. Additionally, the spread of knowledge-hiding behavior within the organization negatively affects the work environment, which limits the desire of employees to share innovative ideas, and thus decreases innovative work behavior [69]. Hiding knowledge from managers and colleagues also reduces levels of innovation at work ([21,23]). Knowledge-holding behavior is negatively associated with innovative work behavior [70]. As indicated by He et al. [71], hiding knowledge reduces the knowledge exchange effectiveness within the organization, which impedes the creation of innovative ideas and weakens the ability to achieve goals. As the results of Mubarak et al. [72] show, the leader’s involvement in hiding knowledge from subordinates negatively affects innovative work behaviors. Consequently, the following hypothesis is assumed:

H4: 

Knowledge-hiding behavior negatively impacts employees’ innovative work behavior.

2.5. The Relationship between Team Anti-Citizenship Behavior and Innovative Work Behavior

Engaging employees in organizational citizenship behaviors leads to the presence of employees who are more capable of generating ideas and innovation at work [24,25]. Innovative abilities and organizational effectiveness also decline strongly when anti-citizen behavior increases, according to the results of Gholipour et al. [73]. Monfared and Baghi [74] added that the prevalence of anti-citizen behaviors such as vandalism, revenge, theft, ridicule, and insults make employees less willing to think innovatively to develop work or create innovative ideas to solve work problems. The prevalence of team anti-citizenship behavior in the organization leads to the tendency of employees to withdraw from their jobs, the unwillingness to develop their skills and experiences, and thus their innovative behaviors at work decrease [26]. Team anti-citizenship behavior causes stress on employees and makes them less willing to perform their work, lowers their morale, and causes them to refuse to come up with innovative ideas for problem-solving work development [6]. Dehnad [24] also emphasized that team anti-citizenship behavior limits innovative work behaviors. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H5: 

Team anti-citizenship behavior negatively impacts employees’ innovative work behavior.

2.6. The Mediating Role of Knowledge-Hiding Behavior in the Relationship between Job Insecurity and Innovative Work Behavior

When an individual feels insecure in his job, his anxiety and fear about his future career in the organization increases. In this case, the individual resorts to hiding their knowledge to preserve his job, which may lead to a decline in innovation behaviors in the workplace [18]. Increasing work pressures may also lead to employees feeling insecure, which is reflected in an increase in negative behaviors and practices at work, such as workplace bullying, workplace rudeness, and hiding knowledge. These negative behaviors and practices are reflected in a decrease in innovative work behaviors [13]. Additionally, the employees’ awareness of the possibility of being fired from work as a result of the policies applied by the organization leads to the unwillingness of those employees to share their knowledge and ideas, which is reflected in their unwillingness to create and implement innovative ideas, as well as the spread of negative behaviors at work [75]. Jeong et al. [60] indicated that an individual’s feeling of job insecurity links with a large number of behaviors and practices in the workplace, such as low organizational voice behaviors, and knowledge sharing. They highlighted that the individual’s tendency not to share knowledge, which is the basis for developing work, products, and services, negatively affects innovative ideas generation for improving performing tasks and providing distinctive products and services. Shoss et al. [19] added that the employees’ sense of job insecurity leads to weak innovative work behavior as a result of employees’ low well-being, engaging in deviant behaviors, anti-productive work behaviors, and a lack of desire to share knowledge with managers or colleagues. Therefore, the following hypothesis is suggested:

H6: 

Knowledge-hiding behavior has a mediating effect in the link between job insecurity and employees’ innovative work behavior.

2.7. The Mediating Role of Team Anti-Citizenship Behavior in the Relationship between Job Insecurity and Innovative Work Behavior

Niesen et al. [6] indicated that job insecurity is a source of job stress, which impedes achieving goals, organizational resistance to change, and the employees’ unwillingness to take on additional roles at work. These negative effects of job insecurity lead to emerging negative behaviors at work, such as the weak desire of employees to think innovatively to carry out tasks or solve problems. When the employee realizes the possibility of losing his job at any time, he will not make any additional efforts at work, and his enthusiasm to complete his work tasks and help his colleagues decreases, which reduces innovative behaviors at work [13]. Job insecurity is also one of the factors that increases anti-citizen behavior, which is reflected in employees’ exposure to job pressures that limit their ability to generate innovative ideas and apply them at work [24]. Additionally, employees tend not to do more additional efforts at work and tend to withdraw from their jobs, which may weaken innovative capabilities and behaviors in the organization, due to a sense of job insecurity [26]. Perceived job insecurity leads to decreased organizational citizenship behaviors, self-motivation, and the willingness to adopt and implement innovative ideas at work. Employees’ willingness to adopt these ideas decreases due to a sense of the possibility of losing their jobs, feeling unimportant in the organization, being less involved in their jobs, and having weak job motivation [20]. So, the following hypothesis is presented:

H7: 

Team anti-citizenship behavior has a mediating effect in the link between job insecurity and employees’ innovative work behavior.

The hypothesized research framework is shown in Figure 1 below.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Measures and Instrument Development

This study relied on survey methodology. The survey used was divided into two sections. While one included 27 items and dealt with latent variables, the other comprised five questions on the characteristics of the research sample, including gender, age, education level, work experience, and work organization.

Job insecurity was measured by an 8-item scale (Codes: JI.1:JI.8) adapted from Karatepe [76]. For example, “I do not feel secure about the potential scope of my job” and “I do not feel secure about my prospects for advancement in my job”. In addition, the 9-item scale of Janssen [77] was used to evaluate employees’ innovative work behavior (Codes: IWB.1:IWB.9). For instance, “I come up with novel ideas to solve workplace problems” and “I systematically introduce new innovative ideas into the workplace”. Moreover, knowledge-hiding behavior was measured by a 5-item scale (Codes: KHB.1:KHB.5) adapted from Zhang and Min [78] and Oubrich et al. [79]. Sample items include “In my project team, I frequently pretend that I didn’t know the information” and “With my project team, I hide information by claiming that it is confidential”. Furthermore, team anti-citizenship behavior was assessed by a 5-item scale (Codes: TAB.1:TAB.5) adapted from Pearce and Giacalone [61] and Gholipour et al. [73]. Sample items include “Team members fight against the team leader’s influence” and “Team members waste a lot of time arguing about insignificant issues”. The whole scale items were included in Appendix A. The survey originated in English and was then translated into Arabic, and after that, was translated back to English to make sure that matching occurred. The Arabic version was validated and utilized in this study. All investigated variables were measured by a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree.

3.2. Sampling and Data Collection

Egypt’s hotels and travel agencies are dispersed in different far locations all over the country. Therefore, this study adopts the convenience sampling method. This method of sampling is also widely utilized in instances when randomization is difficult due to the large population and the researchers’ limited resources, such as in this study. Data were collected from full-time employees of five-star hotels and category (A) travel agencies operating in Egypt. Two types of such enterprises were chosen since they dominate Egypt’s hospitality and tourism business. Category (A) travel agencies and the five-star hotels have shared characteristics [80]. In Egypt, on the one hand, travel agencies in category (A) are permitted to engage in both domestic and international tourism. On the other hand, five-star hotels are regarded for being innovative luxury hotels that appeal to international visitors, and hence, employees’ innovative work behavior is needed to do so. Among the 2222 category (A) travel agencies and the 158 five-star hotels operating in Egypt, 28 five-star hotels and 35 category-A travel agencies were investigated. These enterprises were first informed that the questionnaire would be completely anonymous and confidential and that the data would be handled in an aggregated manner. Questionnaires were disseminated during June and July 2022. A total of 800 questionnaires were distributed; however, only 457 valid responses were returned, representing a response rate of 57.1%. A total of 284 (62.1%) were gathered from five-star hotels and 173 (37.9%) from travel agencies. Our sample size of 457 employees is believed to be sufficient for the final analysis. According to Hair et al. (2010) [81] guidelines, a minimum sample size of 270 respondents is required since there are 27 items to be considered in this study. As there are no formal statistics indicating the total number of employees working in category (A) travel agencies and hotels in Egypt, the current study also adopts Cochran [82] sampling equation. Cochran [82] created an equation to provide a representative sample for the population that equals 385 responses for huge populations where a list of the population is unattainable, such as in the current study.

3.3. Data Analysis

To assess the measurement and structural model, as well as to verify the research hypotheses, the current study used the PLS-SEM approach with WarpPLS software 7.0 [83]. PLS-SEM is a commonly utilized analytical approach in a variety of situations, including hospitality and tourism research (e.g., [84,85]).

4. Results

4.1. Participant’s Characteristics

According to

Table 1. Participant’s profile (N = 457).

		Frequency	Percent
Gender	Male	394	86.2
	Female	63	13.8
Age	<30 years	207	45.3
	30: <40 years	183	40
	40: <50 years	57	12.5
	>50 years	10	2.2
Education	High schools/institute	61	13.3
	Bachelor	355	77.7
	Master/PhD	41	9
Experience	<2 years	155	33.9
	2 to 5 years	146	31.9
	6 to 10 years	63	13.8
	>10 years	93	20.4
Work organization	Hotels	284	62.1
	Travel agency	173	37.9

, the study sample profile is composed of 457 respondents. In total, 394 (86.2%) of them were men and 63 (13.8%) were women. A total of 207 (45.3%) were under the age of 30, 183 (40%) were between the ages of 30 and less than 40, 57 (12.5%) were between the ages of 40 and less than 50, and 10 (2.2%) were beyond the age of 50. In addition, 61 (13.3%) had a high school or high institute diploma, 355 (77.7%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 41 (9%) had a master’s or doctoral degree. Moreover, 155 (33.9%) had less than two years of work experience, 146 (31.9%) had two to five years of experience, 63 (14.8%) had six to ten years of experience, and 93 (20.4%) had more than ten years of work experience. Furthermore, 284 (62.1%) of investigated respondents were employed by five-star hotels, while 173 (37.9%) were employed by travel agencies.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics and Factor Loadings

Item loading that is greater than 0.5 is regarded as acceptable according to Hair et al. [81]. All item loadings for the current study were calculated and confirmed to be acceptable, ranging between 0.602 and 0.887. Furthermore, p values for all item loadings are ideal for reflective indicators since p values are <0.05 (see

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and factor loadings.

	Mean *	Standard Deviation	Item Loading	p Value **
Innovative work behavior (IWB)	2.24	0.85	-	-
IWB.1	2.76	1.22	0.678	<0.001
IWB.2	2.01	1.03	0.735	<0.001
IWB.3	2.48	1.21	0.816	<0.001
IWB.4	2.07	1.14	0.748	<0.001
IWB.5	2.21	1.20	0.809	<0.001
IWB.6	2.68	1.26	0.602	<0.001
IWB.7	1.77	0.99	0.796	<0.001
IWB.8	2.18	1.15	0.779	<0.001
IWB.9	2.00	1.17	0.716	<0.001
Job insecurity (JI)	3.51	0.77	-	-
JI.1	3.54	0.91	0.759	<0.001
JI.2	3.07	1.19	0.766	<0.001
JI.3	3.26	1.05	0.806	<0.001
JI.4	3.41	1.04	0.834	<0.001
JI.5	3.96	0.86	0.659	<0.001
JI.6	3.51	1.03	0.853	<0.001
JI.7	3.75	0.94	0.751	<0.001
JI.8	3.58	0.93	0.757	<0.001
Team anti-citizenship behavior (TAB)	4.22	0.63	-	-
TAB.1	4.25	0.69	0.821	<0.001
TAB.2	4.30	0.70	0.887	<0.001
TAB.3	4.30	0.73	0.872	<0.001
TAB.4	4.07	0.86	0.773	<0.001
TAB.5	4.20	0.80	0.800	<0.001
Knowledge-hiding behavior (KHB)	4.16	0.64	-	-
KHB.1	4.32	0.70	0.822	<0.001
KHB.2	4.07	0.96	0.781	<0.001
KHB.3	4.07	0.79	0.840	<0.001
KHB.4	4.16	0.75	0.783	<0.001
KHB.5	4.18	0.75	0.851	<0.001

* Mean scores: “Lowfrom 1.00 to 2.33, Moderate from 2.34 to 3.66, and High from 3.67 to 5.00”, ** p values for loadings.

). Table 2 also demonstrated that employees of hotels and travel agencies reported mean scores of (3.51 ± 0.77), (2.24 ± 0.85), (4.16 ± 0.64), and (4.22 ± 0.63) for job insecurity, innovative work behavior, knowledge-hiding behavior, and team anti-citizenship behavior, respectively.

4.3. t-test

According to

Table 3. t-test.

Variables	Workplace	Mean	Std. Deviation	t	Sig.
Innovative work behavior (IWB)	Hotels	2.28	0.89	1.245	0.117
	Travel agencies	2.18	0.80
Job insecurity (JI)	Hotels	3.53	0.80	0.663	0.051
	Travel agencies	3.48	0.72
Team anti-citizenship behavior (TAB)	Hotels	4.26	0.61	1.868	0.298
	Travel agencies	4.15	0.64
Knowledge-hiding behavior (KHB)	Hotels	4.20	0.62	1.901	0.375
	Travel agencies	4.09	0.68

, there are no significant differences between the workplaces (five-star hotels and travel firms) in the sample responses to the study constructs. This might be owing to the similarities in their work environments and cultures, as previously mentioned.

4.4. Reliability and validity

Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, average variance extracted (AVE), and full multicollinearity variance inflation factor (VIF) were measured to assess the quality of the study measures [86]. All variables are satisfactorily reliable since Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values for all variables are more than 0.7 (see

Table 4. Reliability and convergent validity.

Construct	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	Full Collin. VIF
Job insecurity (JI)	0.904	0.923	0.601	1.354
Innovative work behavior (IWB)	0.898	0.918	0.555	1.085
Knowledge-hiding behavior (KHB)	0.874	0.909	0.666	2.747
Team anti-citizenship behavior (TAB)	0.888	0.918	0.692	2.972

). Table 4 also shows, based on Hair et al. [87] and Kock [83] criteria, that there is a satisfactory validity since the AVE values are larger than 0.5 and the full collin. VIF is <= 3.3.

The correlation between two latent variables must be significantly less than unity in order to prove discriminant validity [88]. The results in

Table 5. Discriminant validity results.

	IWB	JI	TAB	KHB
Innovative work behavior (IWB)	0.745	−0.265	−0.085	−0.119
Job insecurity (JI)	−0.265	0.775	0.458	0.382
Team anti−citizenship behavior (TAB)	−0.085	0.458	0.832	0.796
Knowledge−hiding behavior (KHB)	−0.119	0.382	0.796	0.816

reveal that the AVE value for each variable is greater than the maximum common value, indicating that the study model has discriminant validity.

4.5. Model Fit and Quality Indices for the Research Model

Model fit was examined prior to the testing of the hypotheses. According to Kock [83], model fit and quality index findings match the parameters (see

Table 6. Model fit and quality indices.

	Assessment	Criterion	Supported/Rejected
Average path coefficient (APC)	0.306, p < 0.001	p < 0.05	Supported
Average R−squared (ARS)	0.197, p < 0.001	p < 0.05	Supported
Average adjusted R−squared (AARS)	0.194, p < 0.001	p < 0.05	Supported
Average block VIF (AVIF)	1.959	acceptable if <= 5, ideally <= 3.3	Supported
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF)	2.040	acceptable if <= 5, ideally <= 3.3	Supported
TenenhausGoF (GoF)	0.352	small >= 0.1, medium >= 0.25, large >= 0.36	Supported
Sympson’s paradox ratio (SPR)	1.000	acceptable if >= 0.7, ideally = 1	Supported
R−squared contribution ratio (RSCR)	1.000	acceptable if >= 0.9, ideally = 1	Supported
Statistical suppression ratio (SSR)	1.000	acceptable if >= 0.7	Supported
Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR)	1.000	acceptable if >= 0.7	Supported

).

4.6. The Structural Models for Hypotheses Testing

To investigate the proposed structural model of the current study, path coefficient (β), p−value, and R−square (R2) were evaluated. The hypotheses testing results (see Figure 2,

Table 7. Direct effects.

	β	Sig.	Decision
H1: JI > IWB	−0.28	p < 0.01	Supported
H2: JI > KHB	0.43	p < 0.01	Supported
H3: JI > TAB	0.50	p < 0.01	Supported
H4: KHB > IWB	−0.21	p < 0.01	Supported
H5: TAB > IWB	−0.11	p < 0.01	Supported

and

Table 8. Mediation analysis (bootstrapped confidence interval).

						Bootstrapped Confidence Interval
Hypotheses	Path a	Path b	Indirect Effect	SE	t-Value	95% LL	95% UL	Decision
H6: KHB mediates JI−IWB relationship	0.430	−0.210	−0.090	0.033	−2.736	−0.155	−0.026	Mediation
H7: TAB mediates JI−IWB relationship	0.50	−0.11	−0.055	0.033	−1.667	−0.120	0.010	No Mediation

) revealed that there is a negative relationship between JI and IWB (β = −0.28, p < 0.01), which means that job insecurity reduces employee innovative work behavior. Thus, H1 is supported. In addition, positive relationships existed between job insecurity with knowledge-hiding behavior (β = 0.43, p < 0.01) and team anti-citizenship behavior (β = 0.50, p < 0.01). This means that when job insecurity is higher, KHB and TAB tend to be high. Thus, H2 and H3 are supported. Moreover, knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior had negative relationships with innovative work behavior (β = −0.21, p < 0.01) and (β = −0.11, p < 0.01), respectively. This means that when knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior are higher, employee innovative work behavior tends to be low. Thus, H4 and H5 are supported.

Additionally, Figure 2 shows that job insecurity interpreted 18% and 25% of the variance in KHB and TAB (R2 = 0.18, R2 = 0.25), respectively. Moreover, job insecurity, KHB, and TAB interpreted 16% of the variance in employee innovative work behavior (R2 = 0.16).

Finally, the mediating effects proposed in this study were evaluated using the two stages described by Preacher and Hayes [89]: bootstrapping the indirect impact (total effect) and then bootstrapping the confidence interval. Results show that the job insecurity effect on innovative work behavior was significant via knowledge-hiding behavior (β = −0.058, p = 0.038, SE= 0.033, and F2 = 0.019), however, it was insignificant via team anti-citizenship behavior (p = 0.243).

Table 8 shows the bootstrapping analysis and illustrates that the indirect impact’s Std. β = −0.090 (0.430*−0.210) was significant with a t-value of −2.736. Moreover, the indirect impact of −0.090, 95% bootstrapped confidence interval: (LL= −0.155, UL= −0.026), does not straddle a 0 in the middle, confirming mediation. As a result, the mediation effect of KHB in the relationship between JI and IWB is considered statistically significant. As a result, H6 is supported. However, for the mediating role of TAB, zero crosses in between a 95% bootstrapped confidence interval: (LL= −0.120, UL= 0.010). Thus, the mediation effect of TAB in the relationship between JI and IWB is statistically insignificant. Therefore, H7 is rejected.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine how innovative work behavior (IWB) is affected by job insecurity (JI), taking into consideration the roles of knowledge-hiding behavior (KHB) and team anti-citizenship behavior (TAB) as mediators. The findings support our first hypothesis that there is a negative relationship between JI and IWB. This means that job insecurity reduces employee innovative work behavior. This finding is consistent with those of earlier research that found JI negatively impacts IWB (e.g., [7,8,16,17,49]). As part of our study, we claim that career path in the hotel and tourism industry is insecure, and therefore, employees’ innovative work behavior is on the edge. The innovative work behaviors of generating and implementing innovative ideas are linked to providing employees with a stable and non-threatening work environment [90]. Job insecurity negatively affects innovative behavior because of the employees’ feeling of pressure as a result of the threat to their survival and continuity in their jobs, and their thinking about the risks of losing their jobs [40]. In addition, job insecurity also negatively affects service innovation behavior and self-efficacy, because the threat of employees losing their jobs prevents them from presenting innovative ideas to improve service delivery processes [34].

Our findings, on the other hand, show that job insecurity is positively related to knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior. This result implies that job insecurity increases KHB and TAB. The second and third hypotheses are consequently supported. This finding is in the line with earlier research that found a positive link between JI with KHB (e.g., [15,19,59,60]) and TAB (e.g., [20,66]). As a result of our research, we claim that the insecure career path in the hotel and tourism industry stimulates negative behaviors in the workplace in terms of KHB and TAB. Employment in the hotel and tourism sector is distinguished by its sensitive nature; recently, the Covid−19 pandemic, for example, caused injuries that are still achy. Layoffs and downsizing policies that hotel and tourism enterprises adopted are and will remain in all industry employees’ mind and made them feel insecure most of the time. The unstable work environment and firms’ propensity to cut back on employment led to an increase in employees’ desires to hide their knowledge and engage in team anti-citizenship behavior. On one hand, as mentioned by Arain et al. [12], an individual may hide knowledge due to fear of evaluation, isolation, loss of power, or loss of value at work. The presence of volatile working conditions that enhance employees’ feelings of instability and job insecurity leads to employees stopping sharing knowledge [91]. On the other hand, employees’ fear of losing their employment raises organizational conflicts, destructive behavior, and practices that weaken team performance as a result of engaging in team-detrimental activities [64].

As stated in the proposed model of the study, KHB and TAB negatively relate to innovative work behavior, and this is proved in the findings. Results indicate that employee innovative work behavior is more likely to be poor when knowledge-hiding and team anti-citizenship behaviors are more prevalent. Therefore, hypotheses four and five are accepted. These outcomes are consistent with the findings of past research, which found a negative link between KHB (e.g., [67,68]) and TAB (e.g., [6,74]) with innovative work behavior. The flow of knowledge is a source of increasing the innovative behaviors of employees and supporting the innovative capabilities of the organization. However, when this flow is obstructed, innovative behaviors are negatively affected ([69,92]). Employees who do not obtain knowledge from their colleagues are more likely to refuse to collaborate or reject organizational development and success, as well as to provide creative ideas to enhance organizational performance [67]. Employees’ capacities to produce novel ideas and use them to complete job duties efficiently are hampered by knowledge-hiding behavior [68]. In addition, employees are less inclined to think innovatively to produce work or create innovative approaches to resolving work problems when anti-citizen behaviors are prevalent. Team anti-citizenship behavior causes workers to withdraw from their jobs, as well as a reluctance to grow their skills and experiences [26]. It also generates stress on employees, lowers morale, and consequently reduces innovative behaviors at work [6].

Our findings additionally suggest that JI impacts IWB through KHB, which confirms the sixth hypothesis where the mediating role of KHB in the JI−IWB relationship was proposed. This study, therefore, supports the findings of [18,75], which asserted the role of KHB in interpreting the effect of JI on IWB, in contrast to the hypothesized model of the study and earlier studies’ outcomes, which largely indicated that TAB plays a significant role in the relationship between JI and IWB (e.g., [24]). Yet, based on the findings, it may be concluded that TAB did not mediate the JI−IWB relationship; therefore, the seventh hypothesis was rejected. When a person feels insecure in his or her employment, his or her worry and fear about his or her future career in the firm grows. In this situation, the individual resorts to hiding their knowledge so that they can maintain their employment, which may lead to a decrease in workplace innovation. Furthermore, employees’ awareness of the risk of being fired from work as a result of the hospitality and tourism industry’s instability and the resulting organization’s rules leads to a hesitation to share their knowledge and ideas, which is shown in their inability to produce and implement new ideas and the proliferation of undesirable behaviors at work. It is also possible to claim that the link between job insecurity and innovative work behavior is not linear [26]. Innovative work behavior may be viewed as a more distant result of job insecurity, implying that the relationship between job uneasiness and innovative work behavior takes time to develop or is dependent on other processes [93], such as KHB. However, employees are not required to display IWB because it is not part of their official work requirements, thus the business must rely on employees’ desire to exhibit this extra-role behavior [94]. More precisely, an organization’s potential to innovate is heavily influenced by the level of innovative work behavior (IWB) demonstrated by individual workers [95]. As a result, innovative work behavior is mostly dependent on individual capacity differences among individuals, rather than overall team capacity.

6. Theoretical Implication

To begin, this study presents empirical evidence to support social exchange theory in explaining the negative association between job insecurity and innovative work behavior. Indeed, the sense of job insecurity stems from the work relationship, or what employees believe they obtained from their organization. Employees return what they receive when they believe the organization does not provide them with appropriate support, such as a lack of career possibilities and wage advancement, and this creates an unsatisfied exchange with the organization that stops them from innovating with it. The current literature on job insecurity, knowledge-hiding, team anti-citizenship, and employee’s innovative work behavior in hospitality and tourism enterprises is enriched by the findings of this study. This study is one of the first studies that investigates the mediating roles of knowledge-hiding and team anti-citizenship behaviors in the relationship between job insecurity and innovative work behavior. This study adds to the limited literature on knowledge-hiding and team anti-citizenship behaviors by identifying its role as mediators in the relationship between job insecurity and innovative work behavior. As far as we know, no study examined the job insecurity effect on innovative work behavior through knowledge-hiding and team anti-citizenship behaviors in one research model. Prior studies looked at the direct impact of knowledge hiding on job performance [96,97]. Interestingly, less effort was expended in determining the impact of knowledge-hiding and team anti-citizenship behaviors on employees’ innovative work behavior. Furthermore, how job insecurity affects employees’ innovative work behavior through knowledge-hiding and team anti-citizenship behaviors appears to be absent in the current literature in the hospitality and tourism context. Therefore, this study contributes to our understanding of the underlying reasons linking job insecurity with employee’s innovative work behavior through knowledge-hiding and team anti-citizenship behaviors in the hospitality and tourism industry.

7. Practical Implications

Due to the claim that hospitality and tourism employees have a high perception of job insecurity in the MENA region [98], job insecurity is a major concern in today’s hospitality and tourism businesses. Our findings demonstrate that job insecurity encourages employees to participate in undesirable workplace behaviors such as knowledge hiding and team anti-citizenship, both of which harm the innovative work climate. If hospitality and tourism enterprises want to cope with job insecurity, they must exert more effort to do so. First, effectively conveying the organization’s difficulties to its employees, as well as encouraging more employee involvement in decision-making processes, will allow them to minimize the impact of job insecurity in times of uncertainty. Second, to motivate staff to share resources in a sensitive workplace, managers should think about re-designing jobs, providing work enrichment and empowerment, and creating proper remuneration plans [99]. Third, hospitality and tourism managers must encourage, support, and motivate employees to share knowledge. Managers also must help workers comprehend the connection between information sharing and team citizenship behavior with success in their goals and careers. Employees must be aware of the idea that knowledge-hiding and anti-citizenship team behavior will have a detrimental impact on the innovative work climate and the organization’s development. Lastly, it is recommended to adopt proactive steps to foster social support within the enterprise, such as asking for emotional support from co-workers and supervisors; this may be especially useful to reduce the short-term painful symptoms of feeling unsecured [100].

8. Limitations and Future Research

Despite the useful contributions of this study to policymakers, it does have certain limitations. First, this study investigated the effect of job insecurity on innovative work behavior. Future research should look at how job insecurity impacts other organizational and personnel outcomes, including sustainable performance, entrepreneurial intention, and physical and mental health. Second, this study looked at the impact of knowledge-hiding behavior and team anti-citizenship behavior in mediating the relationship between job insecurity and innovative work behavior. Future studies could look into other moderating factors that would be able to mitigate the effect of job insecurity on knowledge-hiding behavior, team anti-citizenship behavior, and innovative work behavior such as organizational support, leadership styles, and impression management. Future research also could focus more on the reasons of job insecurity perception, for instance, the nature of the hospitality and tourism industry, organizational culture, macroeconomic issues of the country, and management styles applied in hospitality and tourism enterprises. Finally, this research was conducted on five-star hotels and travel agencies in category A in the Egyptian cultural context. Future studies might include comparison studies between a different hotel and travel agencies categories, different hospitality and tourism sectors “i.e., restaurants and airlines”, and between different countries to obtain in-depth comparative conclusions.