Next Article in Journal
Study on the Correlation Mechanism between the Living Vegetation Volume of Urban Road Plantings and PM2.5 Concentrations
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Innovation and Firm Performance Driven by FinTech Policies: Moderating Effect of Capital Adequacy Ratio
Previous Article in Journal
Stakeholders’ Collaboration in the Development of an Authentic Gastronomic Offering in Rural Areas: Example of the Ravni Kotari Region in Croatia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Career Development for College Students: An Inquiry into SCCT-Based Career Decision-Making
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/su15054651
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Effect of Hotel Employees’ Organizational Politics Perception on Organizational Silence, Organizational Cynicism, and Innovation Resistance

by
Ki-Seoung Lee
1,
Yoon-Seo Kim
2 and
Hyoung-Chul Shin
2,*
1
Department of Hotel Culinary, Gangneung Yeongdong University, Gangeung 25521, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Foodservice and Culinary Management, Kyonggi University, Seoul 033746, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(5), 4651; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054651
Submission received: 16 February 2023 / Revised: 4 March 2023 / Accepted: 5 March 2023 / Published: 6 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Organizational Behavior and Psychological Research for Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigates the relationship between hotel employees’ perceptions of organizational politics, organizational silence, organizational cynicism, and innovation resistance. For this purpose, subjects (n = 351, 235 men and 116 women) from four-star hotels in Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi-do, and Jeju-do in South Korea were surveyed. The following four hypotheses were presented to achieve this study’s goal. First, the perception of organizational politics has a positive effect on organizational silence. Second, organizational silence positively affects organizational cynicism. Third, organizational silence has a positive effect on innovation resistance. Fourth, organizational cynicism positively affects innovation resistance. The results of hypothesis testing reveal that all hypotheses except for the fourth one are accepted. This study’s findings suggest that hotels should provide a work environment that is free from unfair organizational political activities.

1. Introduction

Organizational members decide their positions by taking into account the roles of organizational managers and their jobs in order to obtain what they want in the organization’s situation, rather than focusing solely on a given task [1]. In particular, politics in the workplace is a reality of organizational life. The main goal for those who want to influence decisions is to protect and improve individual self-interest [2]. The perception that members of the organization have a political presence significantly impacts how they perform their work and how the company, the boss, subordinates, and colleagues perceive them [3]. Employees tend to confront each other in a hostile or conflict-prone working environment caused by organizational politics, resulting in a highly inefficient organizational environment. This environment can lead to unwanted conflicts and friction among employees, resulting in irrational situations [4], poor performance, and job dissatisfaction [5], as well as anxiety and high stress levels [6]. Negative perceptions of organizational phenomena tend to increase members’ negative attitudes toward organizational cynicism, increasing the negative consequences for employees in terms of organizational silence [7]. Individual innovative behavior is critical to the organization’s sustainable development [8]. The relationship between organizational silence and innovation resistance in service companies harms corporate performance and fails to meet changing market environments and customer demands [9]. Therefore, accessible communication within the organization is critical for generating organizational innovation. However, if employees have a negative attitude toward organizational innovation, they can express their silence by engaging in self-defensive behavior to resist organizational innovation [10]. Repeated reform efforts jeopardize the success of new changes by undermining future innovative actions and willingness to begin planning [11].
However, because of the nature of the hotel work environment, it is never easy to present ideas or opinions of employees in the culture of the upper and lower orders, particularly on problems within the hotel organization [12]. However, limited career opportunities and promotions in hotel organizations, insufficient education and training, compensation, long hours of work, and a heavy workload are all common occurrences in the hotel industry [13]. In this reality, providing high-quality services to customers and the organizational management goals of employees, the hotel’s core human resources, are critical to improving the management performance of luxury hotels. Therefore, creating a working environment within the organization and the perception of political trends should be altered so that workers employed in luxury hotels can freely express their opinions and communicate with members of the organization. In the meantime, various studies have been conducted on organizational politics perception. Furthermore, it was chosen as a research variable based on the argument that organizational silence, cynicism, and innovation resistance, which can be barriers to management performance, should be minimized. However, studies that establish a causal relationship between organizational politics, organizational silence, organizational cynicism, and innovation resistance in luxury hotel employees are insufficient [14,15]. Since no study directly investigated the relationship between hotel employees’ organizational politics perception, organizational silence, organizational cynicism, and innovation resistance, this study is of academic value. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the impact of organizational politics on organizational silence, organizational cynicism, and innovation resistance. It is hoped that achieving this goal will theoretically establish hotel workers’ behavioral bases and attitudes toward the perception of organizational politics in the hotel. Furthermore, we would like to present optimized evidence related to employee management via hotel human resources management. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides the theoretical background; Section 3 discusses the materials and methods used; and Section 4 and Section 5 presents the results and discussion, respectively.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Organizational Politics

In the presence of uncertainty or inconsistency in choice, organizational politics is the activity within an organization that seeks to develop, acquire, and use power and resources to achieve the results desired by individuals [16,17]. Depending on the organizational political climate, it also stimulates status, power, success, achievement, and career development, making them feel recognized by the organization [18]. However, organizational politics perception is a negative perception of an individual, and organizational members perceive their work environment as unfair because they think politically and unfairly from a personal perspective [19]. In other words, organizational politics perception is a selfish individual’s behavior that occurs regardless of the organization or other members [20], and it can be defined as an awareness of political trends in the organization’s surrounding environment. Organizational politics is a subjective perception [21], and the perception of organizational politics confirms the personal experience of one’s state of mind [22]. As people act on their subjective perceptions of reality rather than objective reality, it is critical to examine the perception of organizational politics rather than organizational politics in the organization [23]. Members may feel unfair treatment if the political atmosphere within the organization is firmly established [24], and the frequency of using illegal means such as false reporting, concealment, and the spread of false rumors to achieve their goals may increase [25]. Organizational politics perception may eventually appear frequently in the organization, and because this attitude is an action intended to pursue individual interests, it will eventually cause discord and conflict within the organization. As a result, this study focuses on the relationship between organizational and political perceptions that appear in luxury hotel organization employees and the resulting organizational silence.

2.2. Organizational Silence

Organizational silence refers to the phenomenon in which members of an organization avoid discussing ideas, information, and opinions that could improve the organization or job [26]. Silent behavior by organization members, defined as failing to express their opinions and concerns about organizational issues, can distort what organizational managers should base their decisions on. Furthermore, silence on critical discussion points can reduce the organization’s ability to identify what is wrong [27]. Silence is typically self-centered, whereas speech is typically distinct and pro-social [28]. Furthermore, such silent behavior is not simply the result of a passive attitude, but also of individual intentions and purposes [29], and can be classified as resigned or defensive silence based on the degree of activeness [12]. Defensive silence is self-protective silence that seeks to avoid negative experiences that may result from expressing opinions. Meanwhile, acquiescent silence refers to a refusal to give up and engage in the current situation based on submission and resignation [30]. One cause of silent behavior is the effect of fear of accepting responsibility for one’s expression of opinion [26]. Environmental or organizational-level variables play a more decisive role than individual-level variables because speaking out within an organization is influenced by environmental conditions [31]. Therefore, this study focuses on silent behavior caused by negative situations such as organizational unfairness, and it focuses on acquiescent silence and defensive silence as organizational silence sub-factors.

2.3. Organizational Cynicism

Organizational cynicism refers to members’ distrust, disdain, frustration, and emotional anger toward various institutions, practices, and organizational changes [32]. Furthermore, cynicism is associated with the belief that an organization is dishonest and negative feelings toward the organization and malicious behavior toward the organization [33]. Individuals are cynical when they believe the organization’s actions are unfair and dishonest. Therefore, the organization to which the member belongs can be considered unclean, and a negative attitude toward the organization can be defined [34]. Furthermore, it can be said to be a reaction to deviations from the organization’s social exchange [35]. Employees’ perceptions of an organization’s honesty, fairness, and justice being sacrificed for the leader’s benefit, eventually leading to deception-based actions, can be central to organizational cynicism [36]. Therefore, cynicism is a negative attitude that focuses on a broad or specific object. This study delves deeper into the process of negative attitudes among employees in luxury hotel organizations.

2.4. Innovation Resistance

The perception and behavior of organizational members who refuse to change the internal and external environment of the organization and feel threatened by change is known as innovation resistance [37], and resistance to change can be defined as an attitude or behavior that impedes the goal of organizational change [38]. In other words, it was regarded as a defiant attitude or action directed against an object or a change. Organizational members have different internal tendencies to resist or accept change. People’s attitudes toward specific imposed changes and those who are highly resistant to change are less likely to voluntarily reflect the change in their lives and are more likely to experience anxiety and adverse emotional reactions when changes are imposed [39]. Furthermore, resistance is frequently characterized by ambivalence, in which members’ feelings, actions, and thoughts about change do not always coincide and may manifest as a multidimensional attitude toward change [40]. Oreg classified members’ innovative resistance to organizational change into emotional, behavioral, and cognitive resistance [41]. Emotional resistance is an expression of negative emotions felt by members of an organization about a specific change, including an attitude of worrying about change or being angry. Behavioral resistance is a concept that includes the execution of actions that resist changes in members or the intention to act, as well as the expression of dissatisfaction or sharing negative opinions. Finally, cognitive resistance entails assessing the potential interests and values of members of an organization’s change and recognizing how those changes will affect my work. Therefore, this study concentrates on emotional and cognitive resistance as sub-factors of innovation resistance, rejecting organizational change and focusing on innovation resistance caused by negative attitudes toward change.

2.5. Correlation among the Variables

People in conflict situations cannot afford to ignore powerful people to protect their interests, which leads to resigned silent motives influenced by political expression. Individuals may become victims of self-doubt in an uncertain and politically charged environment if they are not sufficiently decisive about what to share and who to communicate with [42]. From an individual’s point of view, awareness of organizational politics causes employee anxiety and retirement behavior in the workplace. Furthermore, it raises employee awareness of self-protection, eventually leading to defensive silence [43]. Eventually, perceptions of organizational politics influence organizational mood and personal attitudes toward work, which has a direct impact on organizational silence [30,42,44,45,46,47]. Therefore, in this study, the following hypothesis was established by reasoning that organizational political perception would affect organizational silence.
H1. 
Perception of organizational politics has a significant effect on organizational silence.
When members of an organization fail to express their opinions or thoughts consistently, they develop cynical attitudes toward the organization and its superiors, such as disappointment, frustration, and skepticism [26]. Employees who believe that the organization’s procedures and rewards are unfair and that the organization mistreats them reduce organizational commitment. It creates organizational silence and cynicism [36]. As a result of members’ low self-esteem and cynical attitude, organizational silence can lead to psychological withdrawal and departure from the organization [48]. Previous research suggests that organizational silence directly impacts cynicism, affecting job performance [27,49,50,51,52]. Therefore, the following hypothesis was established in this study by reasoning that organizational silence would affect organizational cynicism.
H2. 
Organizational silence has a significant effect on organizational cynicism.
Organizational silence has a significant impact on organizational change and innovation [26]. Furthermore, if members perceive that the organization is not treating them fairly, they will avoid or reject innovation rather than accept it [53]. This refers to an individual expressing internal conflict externally through actions such as rejecting organizational authority, being late, absent, or refusing to leave work [54]. The silent behavior of the organization’s individual members limits free discussion at the organizational level, negatively affecting organizational innovation and improvement and resulting in destructive behavior within the organization [26,55,56]. Therefore, synthesizing the preceding discussion, we inferred that organizational silence would affect innovation resistance in this study.
H3. 
Organizational silence has a significant effect on resistance to innovation.
Resistance to innovation is used as feedback to organizational members by listening to opinions, complaints, and criticisms to gain clues on how to control the pace or scope of innovation [57]. However, many management organizations drive innovation, but few companies are actually successful, and when they fail at innovation, organizational members become cynical about innovation [58]. When there is distrust and frustration, achieving goals requires hypocritical behavior and invisible resistance. In the short term, it is an impediment to achieving the organization’s goals. In the long run, the organization’s effectiveness suffers, resulting in a vicious circle [59]. As a result, members of the organization spread organizational cynicism throughout the organization, demonstrating indifference or negative feelings toward policies, institutions, changes, and innovation activities, providing a pessimistic outlook on organizational change and innovation [60]. Previous research describes how cynicism influences employees’ intent to resist change [32,41], and establishes a link between organizational change and cynicism and resistance [61,62]. Therefore, in this study, the following hypothesis was established by reasoning that organizational cynicism would affect innovation resistance.
H4. 
Organizational cynicism has a significant effect on resistance to innovation.
As shown in Figure 1, this study investigated the relationship between organizational politics and organizational silence, organizational cynicism, and innovation resistance.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection and Method

The survey was conducted for employees working in the food and beverage department of hotels with a level of four-stars or higher in Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi, and Jeju in South Korea from 1 December 2020, to 25 January 2021. The survey did not require ethical approval because it was conducted online using a snowball sampling method. For the snowball sampling method, an online questionnaire link was sent to the managers of each hotel, and the managers distributed the online questionnaire to hotel employees using SNS. Among the collected questionnaires, 351 copies were used for empirical analysis, except for 32 questionnaires deemed impossible to use as data. The data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 27.0 and AMOS 27.0. Frequency analysis was performed to determine the demographic characteristics of the respondents (sex, age, education, job position, and working period). Data analysis was carried out in two steps. First, the proposed model used in the study was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis. Then, the hypothesis was validated by analyzing the structural equation model.

3.2. Measurement

The questionnaire was based on previous studies on organizational politics, organizational silence, organizational cynicism, and resistance to innovation. All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
Five question items from previous studies were translated and measured to assess organizational political perception: “There is a powerful group in our organization that exerts decisive influence”; “In our organization, sympathizing with influential people is a good way of life”; “In our organization, it is better to say something nice than the truth”; “In my experience, there have been cases in which promotion, compensation, and position were politically determined in our organization”; and “The actual personnel management in our organization is irrelevant to the official personnel policy” [63,64].
Two dimensions (acquiescent silence and defensive silence) were measured in six items (three items each) to assess organizational silence [26,30]. Acquiescent silence was measured with the following items: “I don’t want to be involved in the company, so I don’t offer ideas that can change the company”; “I don’t want to be involved in the company, so I don’t suggest ways to improve my work”; and “I don’t tell others solutions to problems related to me.” Defensive silence was measured using the following: “There are times when I am afraid of the consequences of disclosing information, so I am the only one who knows it”; “Sometimes I deliberately leave out information and don’t talk because I’m worried my position will be embarrassing”; and “I’m afraid negative feedback will come back, so I don’t offer a solution to the problem.”
Moreover, three question items presented in previous studies [65] were translated and measured to organizational cynicism: “Those responsible for solving our problems don’t work hard”; “Those who are currently working on the company’s improvements don’t seem to know exactly what they need to do”; and “My company’s improvement plans don’t matter to me.”
Two dimensions (emotional resistance and cognitive resistance) were measured in six items (three items each) to assess innovation resistance [41]. Emotional resistance was measured by “I‘m afraid of innovation in our organization“; “I‘ll be pressured by innovation in our organization“; and “I have bad feelings about innovation in our organization.” Cognitive resistance was measured as ”I think innovation in our organization will harm the way the organization works,” and ”I think innovation in our organization will have a negative impact“; and ”I think innovation in our organization will make the task more difficult.”

4. Results

4.1. Demographics of the Participants

The characteristics of the study’s sample are shown in Table 1. It was divided as 67.0% for men and 33.0% for women. In the age group, 35.9% were in their 30s, and 55.3% had graduated from junior colleges. In terms of experience, 46.7% had less than 5 years, and job positions were 55.1% back of the house and 44.9% front of the house.

4.2. Analysis of the Reliability and Validity

4.2.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Table 2 shows the results of confirmatory factor analysis to verify the structural validity of this study. This study measured organizational silence and innovation resistance as primary factors by averaging the measurement concept’s sub-variables. As a result of the suitability statistics, the results presented in Table 2 indicate organizational politics, organizational silence, organizational cynicism, and innovative resistance in the data. The model was deemed suitable: χ2 = 85.919 (df = 48, p = 0.001), CMIN/DF = 1.790, RMR = 0.017, GFI = 0.961, AGFI = 0.936, NFI = 0.970, CFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.048. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha shows good levels at 0.805~0.870 [66], with a standardized factors load of 0.5 or higher, and conceptual reliability is 0.7 or higher, and the factors have an appropriate level of internal consistency [67].

4.2.2. Discriminant Validity

Table 3 displays the discriminant validity results. The discriminant validity of the relationship between “organizational silence” and “organizational cynicism,” which have the highest correlation coefficient among the variables, is 0.760, which means (0.760)2 = 0.577. Organizational silence and organizational cynicism have average variance extracted (AVEs) of 0.789 and 0.719, respectively. Therefore, the AVE values of the two variables are not only greater than the square of the variables, but also greater than 0.577. As a result, discrimination exists [68].

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

This study verified the hypothesis by analyzing the structural equation model using AMOS 27.0. Given the results of χ2 = 91.600 (df = 50, p = 0.000), CMIN/DF = 1.832, RMR = 0.018, GFI = 0.959, AGFI = 0.935, NFI = 0.968, CFI = 0.985, and RMSEA = 0.049, Therefore, the model’s numerical values are appropriate [67]. Table 4 and Figure 2 show the results of the hypothesis test.
H1, which states that “perception of organizational politics has a significant effect on organizational silence,” is adopted (β = 0.826, p < 0.001). Similarly, H2, that is, “organizational silence has a significant effect on organizational cynicism,” is adopted (β = 0.900, p < 0.001). Moreover, H3, which states that “organizational silence has a significant effect on innovation resistance,” is adopted (β = 0.835, p < 0.001). However, H4, which states that “organizational cynicism will have a significant effect on innovation resistance,” is rejected (β = 0.081, p > 0.05).

5. Discussion

Recently, social and political uncertainties have increased due to changes in the business environment, and economic difficulties persist. This study recognized the need to strengthen organizational power so that the external environment does not quickly shake hotel management. Therefore, this study sought to understand the relationship between organizational politics perception that affects employee jobs and critical variables that represent negative effects, as well as to provide data on human resource management in hotels. It was intended to lay the groundwork for effective personnel-related data on this basis. This study’s analysis results are as follows.
As H1 stated, the organizational politics perception has a significant effect on organizational silence, supporting previous research [30,42,44,45,46,47,69]. Therefore, it is determined that hotel employees’ silent behavior is a situation in which distorted information is delivered or remarks are withheld due to fear of being negatively affected by the power or influence of others. In H2, the organizational silence has a significant effect on organizational cynicism, which supports previous studies [27,49,50,51,52]. Even when hotel employees are aware of specific issues or problems within the organization, silence appears to be helpless over time. Accordingly, it fosters negative attitudes such as distrust, contempt, and disappointment in the organization’s situation, reducing the responsiveness of members who have failed multiple times and leading to organizational cynicism. H3 posits that the organizational silence has a significant effect on innovation resistance, which supports previous research [26,55,56]. Furthermore, the inability to present opinions on organizational problems indicates a lack of willingness to solve the problem. Finally, this is deemed to be an example of innovation resistance that appears to be an impediment to organizational change. Meanwhile, according to H4, organizational cynicism has no effect on innovation resistance. However, this study differs from previous studies [32,41,61,62]. These results support the argument that cynics do not respond to or resist innovation, and that whether organizational support is high or low, cynics perform poorly [70]. These results show that organizational cynicism has no significant effect on innovation resistance in this study. Still, as shown in the correlation analysis, the relationship between organizational cynicism and innovation resistance has a significant correlation. Therefore, in this study, it is considered that the relationship between organizational cynicism and innovation was not shown due to the relationship between other variables.
The following are the implications of this study. The results reveal that the reason why members of the organization choose silence, cynicism, and resistance to innovation is representative at the organizational level. Therefore, through active participation, organizational managers must reduce members’ negative behavior and establish a fair organizational culture. Previous research on perceived organizational politics concentrated on turnover intention, job attitude, and stress. However, new variables of organizational silence, cynicism, and innovation resistance were derived from the results of this study, and the research was conducted based on previous studies on organizational politics at various levels to ensure the study’s expansion and depth. Accordingly, it is of practical significance to confirm that it is worthwhile to expand on research related to organizational politics based on this study. Reducing organizational silence must be preceded to reduce the organizational cynicism and innovation resistance of hotel employees. Employees must participate highly in the hotel’s decision-making process to lower the organizational silence arising from organizational politics awareness. Since Korea’s hotel culture is hierarchical, it is likely to be influenced by organizational politics, leading to organizational silence that means employees do not participate in the decision-making process within the organization. Therefore, if free decision-making is possible, organizational silence, as well as organizational politics perception, can be reduced. Therefore, hotels should have a system allowing them to participate in organizational members’ decision-making processes efficiently. Furthermore, as organizational politics perception increases, increasing employees’ participation in decision-making through this decision-making participation system will improve hotel performance by reducing organizational politics, organizational silence, organizational cynicism, and innovation resistance.

6. Conclusions

Organizational politics is regarded as a significant factor that hurts the organization, but it is also a common phenomenon within Korean companies. Employees with a strong organizational and political perception are thought to be in a better position than those without. To maintain this, members favor one another, resulting in unfair distribution (evaluation, promotion, compensation, etc.). This can make forming trust among individual employees difficult and increase resistance to organizational change. Therefore, hotel management should provide employees with the fairest working environment, free of excessive organizational political activities. To that end, the fundamental causes of political activity throughout organizational life, including employee performance evaluations, must be identified. Moreover, an effective means of dealing with these causes must be provided. Furthermore, political skills should be developed and improved through appropriate means such as education and training. Employees with low political skills will be able to learn how to cope with the negative effects of various human interactions, such as organizational political activities, through programs such as counseling from highly skilled employees during this process.
However, despite these research results, the following are the study’s limitations and recommendations. First, various perspectives on organizational politics within the organization are as interesting as they are shared. The results of previous studies reveal that opinions on organizational politics are diverse and variable. Organizational and political perceptions are expected to differ not only depending on the environment of each hotel, but also significantly depending on the brand and location. Therefore, it is determined that a comparative study taking these characteristics into account will yield exciting results. Second, the variables in this study were designed based on negative perceptions of organizational politics. However, positive aspects can be derived based on previous studies [71,72]; that is, political activities within the organization play an important role in areas of organizational design characteristics such as centralization and procedural fairness. Therefore, future research is expected to proceed from the perspective of promoting a positive impact.

Author Contributions

H.-C.S. designed the study and wrote paper. K.-S.L. drafted the paper, and Y.-S.K. wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Khatri, P.; Gupta, P. A study of relationship of perceived organizational politics and spirituality at workplace in IT and ITES organizations. Glob. J. Enterpr. Inf. Syst. 2016, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bodla, M.A.; Danish, R.Q. Politics and workplace: An empirical examination of the relationship, South Asian. J. Manag. 2009, 16, 44–62. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lau, C.M.; Scully, G.; Lee, A. The effects of organizational politics on employee motivations to participate in target setting and employee budgetary participation. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 90, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wijewantha, P.; Jusoh, M.; Azam, S.F.; Sudasinghe, S.R.S.N. A literature review on perceptions of organizational politics (POPs). Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2020, 29, 1795–1810. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sureda, E.; Mancho, J.; Sesé, A. Psychosocial risk factors, organizational conflict and job satisfaction in health professionals: A SEM Model. An. Psicol. 2019, 35, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chang, C.H.; Rosen, C.C.; Siemieniec, G.M.; Johnson, R.E. Perceptions of organizational politics and employee citizenship behaviors: Conscientiousness and self-monitoring as moderators. J. Bus. Psychol. 2012, 27, 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. AL-Abrrow, H.A. The effect of perceived organisational politics on organisational silence through organisational cynicism: Moderator role of perceived support. J. Manag. Organ. 2022, 28, 754–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tian, J.; Peng, Y.; Zhou, X. The effects of abusive supervision and motivational preference on employees’ innovative behavior. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yu, Y.; Xu, S.; Li, G.; Kong, H. A systematic review of research on abusive supervision in hospitality and tourism. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 2473–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Huang, D.; Jin, X.; Coghlan, A. Advances in consumer innovation resistance research: A review and research agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 166, 120594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rho, E.; Jung, J.; Nam, T. A closer look at what goes wrong: Public employee cynicism and resistance to administrative reform. Int. J. Public Admin. 2021, 44, 636–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Milliken, F.J.; Morrison, E.W. Shades of silence: Emerging themes and future directions for research on silence in organizations. J. Manag. Stud. 2003, 40, 1563–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kusluvan, S.; Kusluvan, Z.; Ilhan, I.; Buyruk, L. The human dimension: A review of human resources management issues in the tourism and hospitality Industry. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2010, 51, 171–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ampofo, E.T.; Owusu-Ansah, W.; Owusu, J. Organizational embeddedness and life satisfaction among star-rated hotel employees in Accra: The role of perceptions of organizational politics and job satisfaction. Anatolia 2022, 33, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Karatepe, O.M.; Babakus, E.; Yavas, U. Affectivity and organizational politics as antecedents of burnout among frontline hotel employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hochwarter, W.A.; Rosen, C.C.; Jordan, S.L.; Ferris, G.R.; Ejaz, A.; Maher, L.P. Perceptions of organizational politics research: Past, present, and future. J. Manag. 2020, 46, 879–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Valle, M.; Perrewe, P.L. Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Tests of an implicit assumption and expanded Model. Hum. Relat. 2016, 53, 359–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hsiung, H.H.; Lin, C.W.; Lin, C.S. Nourishing or suppressing? The contradictory influences of perception of organizational politics on organizational citizenship behaviour. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2012, 85, 258–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vigoda-Gadot, E.; Talmud, I. Organizational Politics and Job Outcomes: The moderating effect of trust and social support. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 40, 2829–2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Harris, R.B.; Harris, K.J.; Harvey, P. A test of competing models of the relationships among perceptions of organizational politics, perceived organizational support, and individual outcomes. J. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 147, 631–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Ferris, G.R.; Treadway, D.C.; Perrewé, P.L.; Brouer, R.L.; Douglas, C.; Lux, S. Political skill in organizations. J. Manag. 2007, 33, 290–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Eldor, L. Looking on the bright side: The positive role of organisational politics in the relationship between employee engagement and performance at work. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 66, 233–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Beugré, C.D.; Liverpool, P.R. Politics as determinant of fairness perceptions in organizations. In Handbook of Organizational Politics; Vigoda-Gadot, E., Drory, A., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2006; pp. 122–135. [Google Scholar]
  24. Vigoda, E. Organizational Politics, Job attitudes, and work outcomes: Exploration and implications for the public sector. J. Vocat. Behav. 2000, 57, 326–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Andrews, M.C.; Kacmar, K.M. Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and support. J. Organ. Behav. 2001, 22, 347–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Morrison, E.W.; Milliken, F.J. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 706–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Milliken, F.J.; Morrison, E.W.; Hewlin, P.F. An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. J. Manag. Stud. 2003, 40, 1453–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ashford, S.J.; Sutcliffe, K.M.; Christianson, M.K. Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. Voice Silence Organ. 2009, 175, 202. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pinder, C.C.; Harlos, K.P. Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2001, 20, 331–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dyne, L.V.; Ang, S.; Botero, I.C. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. J. Manag. Stud. 2003, 40, 1359–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liang, J.; Farh, C.I.C.; Farh, J. Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Stanley, D.J.; Meyer, J.P.; Topolnytsky, L. Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. J. Bus. Psychol. 2005, 19, 429–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cartwright, S.; Holmes, N. The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2006, 16, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abraham, R. Organizational cynicism: Bases and consequences. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 2000, 126, 269–292. [Google Scholar]
  35. Johnson, J.L.; O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 627–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tabatabaei, S.A.N.; Bigdelli, E. The mediating role of employee cynicism in the relationship between perceived organizational justice and employee silence. J. UMP Soc. Sci. Technol. Manag. 2015, 3, 121–127. [Google Scholar]
  37. Do Cho, S.D.; Chang, D.R. Salesperson’s innovation resistance and job satisfaction in intra-organizational diffusion of sales force automation technologies: The case of South Korea. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2008, 37, 841–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chawla, A.; Kelloway, E.K. Predicting openness and commitment to change. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2004, 25, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oreg, S. Resistance to Change: Developing an individual differences measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 680–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Piderit, S.K. Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 783–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Oreg, S. Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2006, 15, 73–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khalid, J.; Ahmed, J. Perceived organizational politics and employee silence: Supervisor trust as a moderator. J. Asia Pac. Econ. 2016, 21, 174–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liang, T.; Wang, Y. Organizational silence in state-owned enterprises: Intermediary role of the perceptions of organizational politics. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2016, 06, 640–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Bowen, F.; Blackmon, K. Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. J. Manag. Stud. 2003, 40, 1393–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ma-Chao, L.W. Construct dimension of the enterprise staff’s perceptions of organizational politics. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2006, 38, 107–115. [Google Scholar]
  46. Detert, J.R.; Edmondson, A.C. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 461–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Brinsfield, C.T. Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 671–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mojtaba, N.A.; Reihaneh, A.; Hasan, Z.M. Do the organizational rumors emphasize the influence of organizational silence over organizational commitment. J. Soc. Issues Humanit. 2014, 2, 88–93. [Google Scholar]
  49. Davis, W.D.; Gardner, W.L. Perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism: An attributional and leader–member exchange perspective. Leadersh. Q. 2004, 15, 439–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chehelsotooni, M.; Reshadatjoo, H. The impact of organizational cynicism on the formation of organizational silence among managers and employees of University of Kashan, Dalhousie. J. Interdiscip. Manag. 2016, 12, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  51. Çaylak, E.; Altuntaş, S. Organizational silence among nurses: The impact on organizational cynicism and intention to leave work. J. Nurs. Res. 2017, 25, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Akar, H. A meta-analytic review on the causes and consequences of organizational cynicism. Int. Online J. Educ. Sci. 2019, 11, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Aquino, K.; Lewis, M.U.; Bradfield, M. Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. J. Organ. Behav. 1999, 20, 1073–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Janssen, O. Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2003, 76, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nikmaram, S.; Yamchi, H.G.; Shojaii, S.; Zahrani, M.A.; Alvani, S.M. Study on relationship between organizational silence and commitment in Iran. World Appl. Sci. J. 2012, 17, 1271–1277. [Google Scholar]
  56. Saqib, A.; Arif, M. Employee silence as a mediator in the relationship between toxic leadership behavior and organizational performance. J. Manag. Sci. 2017, 11, 83–104. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ford, J.D.; Ford, L.W.; D’Amelio, A. Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 362–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Wanous, J.P.; Reichers, A.E.; Austin, J.T. Cynicism about organizational change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group Organ. Manag. 2000, 25, 132–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Bommer, W.H.; Rich, G.A.; Rubin, R.S. Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. J. Organ. Behav. 2005, 26, 733–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Aryee, S.; Chen, Z.X.; Budhwar, P.S. Exchange fairness and employee performance: An examination of the relationship between organizational politics and procedural justice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2004, 94, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Selander, L.; Henfridsson, O. Cynicism as user resistance in IT implementation. Inf. Syst. J. 2012, 22, 289–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bergström, O.; Styhre, A.; Thilander, P. Paradoxifying organizational change: Cynicism and resistance in the Swedish armed forces. J. Change Manag. 2014, 14, 384–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kacmar, K.M.; Carlson, D.S. Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. J. Manag. 1997, 23, 627–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kacmar, K.M.; Baron, R.A. Organizational politics. Res. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1999, 1, 1–39. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dean, J.W., Jr.; Brandes, P.; Dharwadkar, R. Organizational cynicism. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  67. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  68. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sun, Y.; Xia, H. Research on perceptions of organizational politics and its influence on employee silence. Open J. Bus. Manag. 2018, 06, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Byrne, Z.S.; Hochwarter, W.A. Perceived organizational support and performance: Relationships across levels of organizational cynicism. J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 54–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Atinc, G.; Darrat, M.; Fuller, B.; Parker, B.W. Perceptions of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of theoretical antecedents. J. Manag. 2010, 27, 494–513. [Google Scholar]
  72. DeGhetto, K.; Russell, Z.A.; Ferris, G.R. Organizational change, uncertainty, and employee stress: Sensemaking interpretations of work environments and the experience of politics and stress. In Power, Politics, and Political Skill in Job Stress; Rosen, C.C., Perrewé, P.L., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2017; pp. 105–135. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 04651 g001 550
Figure 1. Study model.
Figure 1. Study model.
Sustainability 15 04651 g001
Sustainability 15 04651 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural equation model analysis results. *** p < 0.001. Dotted lines mark routes that are not statistically significant.
Figure 2. Structural equation model analysis results. *** p < 0.001. Dotted lines mark routes that are not statistically significant.
Sustainability 15 04651 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic factors of the participants.
Table 1. Demographic factors of the participants.
Demographic FactorsCategoryNumber of ParticipantsPercentage (%)
GenderMale23567.0
Female11633.0
Age20s12535.6
30s12635.9
40s and older10028.5
EducationHigh school diploma or less4011.4
Associate degree19455.3
Bachelor’s degree (four-year university)10730.5
Graduate degree or higher102.8
Working periodLess than 5 years16446.7
Between 6 and 10 years7120.2
Between 11 and 16 years4813.7
Between 15 and 20 years3710.5
20 years or more318.8
Job positionBOH (back of house)19355.1
FOH (front of house)15844.9
Total351100
Table
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Factor and VariableStandardized LoadingS.EC.RAVEComposite Construct Reliability
(CCR)		Cronbach’s α
Organizational politicsOP10.7120.06113.835 ***0.6550.9050.858
OP20.7570.06414.905 ***
OP30.7910.06015.721 ***
OP40.7050.06413.674 ***
OP50.794--
Organizational
silence		Acquiescent
silence		0.7620.06018.134 ***0.7890.8810.805
Defensive
silence		0.914--
Organizational
cynicism 		OC10.8490.05817.303 ***0.7190.8850.870
OC20.8530.05917.395 ***
OC30.788--
Innovation
resistance		Emotional
resistance		0.882--0.8660.9280.868
Cognitive
resistance		0.8710.04620.990 ***
χ2 = 85.919 (df = 48, p = 0.001), CMIN/DF = 1.790, RMR = 0.017, GFI = 0.961, AGFI = 0.936, NFI = 0.970, CFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.048. *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity of the variables.
Table 3. Discriminant validity of the variables.
FactorOrganizational
Politics		Organizational
Silence		Organizational CynicismInnovation Resistance
Organizational
politics		0.655 (1)0.474 (3)0.3780.463
Organizational
silence		0.689 ** (2)0.7890.5770.561
Organizational cynicism0.615 **00.760 **0.7190.518
Innovation resistance0.681 **0.749 **0.720 **0.866
Mean3.823.743.673.78
S.D.0.6060.7000.8270.673
** p < 0.01; Diagonal (1): average variance extracted (AVE); area below diagonal (2): the correlation coefficient for the constructs (r); area above diagonal (3): the square of the correlation coefficient (r2).
Table
Table 4. Results of structural equation model analysis.
Table 4. Results of structural equation model analysis.
Process (Hypothesis)Betat-Valuep-ValueDecision
H1Perception of organizational politics -> organizational silence0.82614.985 0.000Accepted
H2Organizational silence -> organizational cynicism0.90016.2970.000Accepted
H3Organizational silence -> innovation resistance0.8356.194 0.000Accepted
H4Organizational cynicism -> innovation resistance0.0810.6210.535Rejected
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, K.-S.; Kim, Y.-S.; Shin, H.-C. Effect of Hotel Employees’ Organizational Politics Perception on Organizational Silence, Organizational Cynicism, and Innovation Resistance. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4651. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054651

AMA Style

Lee K-S, Kim Y-S, Shin H-C. Effect of Hotel Employees’ Organizational Politics Perception on Organizational Silence, Organizational Cynicism, and Innovation Resistance. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):4651. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054651

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Ki-Seoung, Yoon-Seo Kim, and Hyoung-Chul Shin. 2023. "Effect of Hotel Employees’ Organizational Politics Perception on Organizational Silence, Organizational Cynicism, and Innovation Resistance" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 4651. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054651

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop