Next Article in Journal
Effects of Compost Application of Green Waste on Soil Properties: A Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Identifying the Key Drivers in Energy Technology Fields: The Role of Spillovers and Public Policies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 20
10.3390/su16208876
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Is Business Sustainability Possible? The Moderating Role of Place of Work in the Relationship between Hotel Safety Culture, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Customer-Oriented Behavior: A Cross-Regional Study

by
Erkan Dağlı
1,
Recep Murat Gecikli
2,*,
Orhan Turan
3,
Emrah Orgun
4,
Aydin Unal
5,
Fuat Bayram
6,
Alper Isin
7 and
Ozgur Yayla
8
1
Ataturk’s Principles and History of Turkish Revolution Research Directorate, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Türkiye
2
Department of History, Arts of Faculty, Atatürk University, Erzurum 25000, Türkiye
3
Department of History, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Batman University, Batman 72000, Türkiye
4
Department of Gastronomy and Culinary Arts, Faculty of Tourism, Sinop University, Sinop 57000, Türkiye
5
Department of Recreation Management, Faculty of Tourism, Sinop University, Sinop 57000, Türkiye
6
Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Services, Mengen Vocational School, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu 14000, Türkiye
7
Department of Gastronomy and Culinary Arts, Faculty of Tourism, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir 35620, Türkiye
8
Department of Recreation Management, Manavgat Tourism Faculty, Akdeniz University, Antalya 07600, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(20), 8876; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208876
Submission received: 29 August 2024 / Revised: 25 September 2024 / Accepted: 10 October 2024 / Published: 14 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Safety culture is a key feature between employees’ job performance and organizational commitment. Hotel businesses are an important component of the service sector, and a customer-oriented approach in these businesses increases organizational performance. Therefore, the increased organizational commitment of employees plays an important role in the implementation of a customer-oriented approach. In this study, hotel safety culture, which is one of the important factors for business performance sustainability, is examined. In addition, the effect of hotel safety culture on job satisfaction, organizational commitment and customer-oriented behavior is examined. In this context, the research data were collected from the employees of 5-star hotels operating in Antalya and Doha through a questionnaire. The data were analyzed using PLS-SEM 4.0. As a result of the research, some significant effects were found between the variables in the hypothetical research model. Based on the results obtained, theoretically, in support of the studies in the literature, a positive relationship was found between perceived safety culture and employees’ job performance. Accordingly, as practical suggestions, it is recommended that hotel managers take measures to increase the safety culture (staff training, increasing physical measures, making warning signs visible, etc.).

1. Introduction

Business sustainability depends on its ability to achieve economic, environmental and human resources simultaneously [1]. The human resource dimension of sustainability can be characterized by employees’ job satisfaction or their ability to commit to the workplace [2], so employee commitment to the workplace is an important component of business sustainability [3]. In the service industry, employees are the key element through which the organization differentiates itself from its competitors and attracts and retains consumers, thus contributing to creating and maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage [4]. Especially in hotel businesses, the shift working terms are considered to be the most important factor that is straining the health of employees [5]. To provide continuity in the industry, the physical and mental health of employees bears great importance in labor-intensive and service-provided industries such as tourism [6].
The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that 2.3 million women and men worldwide succumb to work-related accidents or illnesses each year. This figure corresponds to about 6000 people daily. In this framework, the importance of occupational health and safety was approved in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is a universal call to act against poverty, protect the planet and promote sustainable development everywhere [7].
The concepts of occupational health and safety have become much more important with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has reminded people of the importance of occupational safety and health, emergency medical conditions and why all these issues must be universally guaranteed. In the meantime, during the quarantines, the need for essential services provided by workers exposed to the increased risk of coronavirus infection, such as healthcare workers, cleaners, food supply workers and postal and delivery workers, has highlighted deficiencies in occupational and workplace safety [7].
When the first year of the pandemic (2019) was evaluated, almost a worldwide movement restriction was applied, and people were prevented from moving from one place to another within certain periods. The tourism sector has become completely inoperable considering this context. In the past, tourists used to pay attention to elements such as natural beauty, physical characteristics, etc., while preferring to travel to a destination, but during and following the COVID-19 pandemic period there have been a number of changes in these preferences. In the research conducted by Mejía et al. [8], they defined the primary expectations of tourists from a destination during the post-COVID-19 period as smartcare, pricing strategy, safety, comfort and social distancing.
The increase in awareness regarding the importance of safety culture in businesses has led managers employed in different sectors to include the concept of safety culture in their corporate repertoire [9]. Especially in the period following the pandemic, this need has been felt more because occupational safety is considered to be a basic assurance for the employees. As a matter of fact, previous studies have indicated that factors such as employee morale, job satisfaction and commitment are significantly affected by work-related accidents or hazards [10,11]. As the positive attitudes of employees towards the customers are closely related to their job satisfaction and organizational commitment [12], it is of great importance to determine the antecedents that provide employee satisfaction and loyalty. In this sense, occupational safety affects the customer-oriented approaches of the employees as well.
Hotels in the tourism sector are businesses that provide services and, by their nature, are organizations in direct contact with people and work with crowded groups. From this point of view, it is very important for the hotel business to have a safety culture and for hotel employees to internalize and practice this culture. On the other hand, despite the increasing need for safety in hotel businesses following the pandemic, there have been limited studies on safety culture in the literature [13]. In addition, implications concerning the effects of perceived hotel safety culture on employees remain unclear. Within this context, in the current study, the effects of safety culture perceived by hotel employees on job satisfaction, organizational commitment and customer-oriented behaviors have been examined. In addition to all these objectives, in terms of both cultural and tourism commitment, the effective differences of the hotel employees in two different destinations were determined regarding the relationships between the relevant variables.

2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development

Safety culture is an organizational culture that attaches a high level of importance to the safety beliefs, values and attitudes shared by most people in a company or workplace. It can be defined as “the way we conduct the business here” [14]. From another perspective, organizational safety culture is the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies and behavioral patterns that determine an organization’s commitment, style and competence in health and safety management [15].
Safety is a part of corporate social responsibility and moral obligation. Therefore, it is a positive value for companies. It is also widely accepted that improved safety management can provide financial gains by reducing the costs associated with occupational accidents and increasing productivity [16,17,18]. A positive safety culture can result in improved workplace health and safety and organizational performance [19].
Safety culture is generally considered a sub-dimension of organizational culture as it reflects the common structure, values and behaviors of enterprises [20,21] and expresses the individual or group attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviors of business employees towards occupational health and safety [20,22,23,24]. There have been many studies in the literature on the identification of safety culture dimensions [25,26,27,28] and there are many different opinions about these dimensions. Sometimes dimensions have been categorized in a more general way. For example, employees’ views on managers’ commitment to safety, risks at work and the organization’s safety management system [29]. Sometimes, more specific categorizations have been suggested. For example, in the study of Guldermund [20], individual and group behaviors were evaluated separately. In addition, there are different studies on the sub-dimensions of safety culture in the literature. These are the safety commitment [30,31,32], safety supervision [33,34], safety environment [22,35], safety training [36,37] and safety behavior [32,38].
In addition to studies on safety culture and its sub-dimensions, many studies have been carried out to measure safety culture in organizations. For example, the “Safety Attitudes Questionnaire” scale was developed by Sexton et al. [39] to measure the attitudes of healthcare professionals towards safety culture. The “Safety Culture Hazard and Operability” scale was developed by Kennedy and Kirwan [40] to determine the open house deficiencies of the safety management practices of enterprises. The “General Safety Performance” scale was developed by Burke et al. [41] by measuring it in 4 different organizations and 23 different occupational groups. These scales have been frequently used in various sectors and occupational groups in the literature. However, it has been decided to use the “safety culture in the hotel industry” scale developed by Kuo, Cheng, Chang and Ying [13] specifically for the safety culture in hotel businesses, since it is the only scale found in the literature and will be carried out on the safety culture perceptions of hotel employees in the study.
On the other hand, other issues taken into consideration in deciding to choose the scale, which was developed for hotel employees and has five sub-dimensions, are characteristics such as the labor-intensive nature of the hospitality industry, the employees’ working in shifts and their education levels. Furthermore, these sub-dimensions are thought to be the antecedents of employee job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction is employee satisfaction with factors related to their job and is considered “subjective happiness at work” [42]. Job satisfaction consists of emotional, cognitive and behavioral components [43], which are largely shaped by internal and external factors such as recognition, responsibility and economic and working conditions, among others [44]. Job satisfaction, especially in the tourism and accommodation sectors, where employees are in close contact with customers, determines customer satisfaction and ultimately affects company success [45].
The overall satisfaction of the employees with the safety culture of the organization is probably related to the level of the safety culture. As advanced safety culture practices are associated with safety performance [46], employee overall satisfaction can also be considered to be related to the organization’s safety performance [47,48]. From this point of view, the following hypotheses have been developed in order to measure the effect of hotel safety culture on employee job satisfaction within the scope of the research:
H1: 
Hotel safety culture has a significant and positive effect on job satisfaction.
H1a: 
Training has a significant and positive effect on job satisfaction.
H1b: 
Perceived safety psychology has a significant and positive effect on job satisfaction.
H1c: 
Organizational safety culture has a significant and positive effect on job satisfaction.
H1d: 
The environment has a significant and positive effect on job satisfaction.
H1e: 
Behavior has a significant and positive effect on job satisfaction.
Meyer and Allen [49] mentioned that the concept of organizational commitment has three components: affective, normative and continuance commitment. Organizational commitment shows the commitment to and interest of employees in an organization [50,51]. Employees committed to their company tend to identify with the goals and objectives of the company and want to stay in their organization [52]. The organizational commitment of employees is affected by job satisfaction [53], and as a result, it positively affects customer satisfaction [54]. In this context, the following hypothesis has been developed to measure the effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment:
H2: 
Job satisfaction has a significant and positive effect on organizational commitment.
Consumer-oriented behavior is defined as the ultimate goal of service excellence in employee behavior towards consumers, and its general nature is characterized as more personalized, flexible and open to individual consumer demands [55]. In their study, Donavan et al. [56] determined that the customer-oriented behaviors of employees in the service sector have an effect on their performance. The level of customer focus of service sector employees, which occurs by spending more time with customers, positively affects job satisfaction. Employees with high job satisfaction reflect this in their performance [57], and as a result, they are expected to behave more positively and efficiently towards customers.
Many studies in the literature have emphasized the relationship between job satisfaction and customer-oriented behavior [58,59,60,61,62]. In order to measure the effect of customer satisfaction on customer-oriented behavior, the following hypothesis has been developed.
H3: 
Job satisfaction has a significant and positive effect on customer-oriented behavior.
Employees’ commitment to the organization increases in direct proportion to their belief in the firm’s marketing concept and practices [63]. Donavan et al. [56] claimed that a similar effect can be seen at the individual level, and therefore, as the level of customer orientation of service sector employees deepens, their organizational commitment will be greater. The higher the level of organizational commitment for service workers who are in direct contact with the customer, the higher their customer-oriented behavior [64]. Hsu, Chang, Huang and Chiang [65] determined in their study that nurses’ organizational commitment positively affects their consumer-oriented behavior. Kim, Bonn, Lee and Kim [66] found a positive effect between organizational commitment and consumer-oriented behavior in their research on casino employees. In this direction, the following hypothesis has been developed in order to measure the effect of hotel employees’ organizational commitment on their customer-oriented behaviors.
H4: 
Organizational commitment has a significant and positive effect on customer-oriented behavior.
When the literature was reviewed, studies in which variables such as person and organization harmony [67,68], age [69], work-life balance [70] and organizational culture [71] were used as moderator variables in the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, no study was found that measures the moderator effect of the destination. The developments in the tourism industry of Türkiye and Qatar, the two destinations where research data were collected, differ. Türkiye’s income from tourism is higher than Qatar’s, and the number of tourism facilities and tourists is much higher. For Qatar, oil and natural gas are known as more priority sectors for the country’s economy. It is thought that this situation may create a difference between the job satisfaction and organizational commitment levels of the hotel employees in the two destinations. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been developed.
H5: 
The place of work has a moderator effect on the effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment.
Donavan et al. [56] evaluated the moderator effect of contact time on the effect of job satisfaction on customer-oriented behavior. Nebo and Okechukwu [72], on the other hand, determined the moderator effect of personality traits on job satisfaction and customer-oriented behavior in their study on hotel employees in Nigeria. However, no study was found in the literature examining the moderator effect of the destination on the job satisfaction and customer-oriented behaviors of the employees. For this reason, the following hypothesis has been developed to contribute to this gap in the literature.
H6: 
The place of work has a moderator effect on the effect of job satisfaction on customer-oriented behavior.
There are many studies examining the relationship between organizational commitment and customer-oriented behavior variables [65,66]. However, the existence of any moderator variable that moderates the relationship between the variables in question remains unclear. In this context, it is thought that the employees of hotels in two destinations can create a moderator effect on the related variables in terms of the course of tourism development. From this point of view, the following hypothesis has been developed.
H7: 
The place of work has a moderator effect on the effect of organizational commitment on customer-oriented behavior.
The research model developed in light of the explanations is presented in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Instrument

The scales for all the variables in the research model were chosen as a result of a detailed literature review. To increase the response rate and response quality, a 5-point Likert-type scale is frequently preferred by researchers and is considered ideal [73]. For this reason, a 5-point Likert-type scale was preferred in this study. In order to measure hotel safety culture, the scale consisting of 39 five-dimensional expressions developed by Kuo et al. [13] was preferred. Four statements for measuring job satisfaction were obtained from the study of Cheng and Yi [74]. Four expressions of organizational commitment were chosen with the help of scales used in previous studies [66,75]. Finally, four statements were used to measure customer-oriented behavior adapted from the study of Tajeddin and Trueman [76]. The questionnaire statements are included in Appendix A.

3.2. Sampling and Data Collection

The research was carried out on hotel employees in Antalya in Türkiye and Doha in Qatar. There were three main reasons for choosing the countries of Türkiye and Qatar. First of all, there has not been any study found in the tourism literature comparing the perceptions of tourism professionals in Türkiye and Qatar. In addition, studies on identifying the antecedents of customer-oriented behavior and organizational commitment in non-western countries have not been sufficient [77]. Second, there are significant differences in tourism development trends in Türkiye and Qatar. Türkiye is considered among the developed countries in the field of tourism. When the data are examined, nearly 56.7 million tourists traveled to Türkiye in 2023 [78]. The city of Antalya, located in Türkiye, is largely dependent on tourism. More than 15 million tourists visited Antalya in 2023 [79]. When compared to the total number of tourists who visited Türkiye in 2023, it can be said that one out of every four tourists visited Antalya. In addition, in Antalya, where there are 673 accommodation establishments [78], over 90,000 personnel are employed in the hotel sector [80]. In addition, Qatar, which offers many types of tourism, is on its way to becoming an important tourism destination. Qatar, the economy of which is mostly dependent on oil and gas, attaches importance to the development of tourism to diversify its economy [81]. Despite this, the number of tourists traveling to Qatar, which has developed in the tourism sector, was limited to around 3 million. In addition, Qatar plans to invest around US $45 billion in the tourism sector with the aim of increasing tourist arrivals to 7 million annually by 2030 [82]. Doha is one of the most important centers of tourism in the country. Finally, Türkiye and Qatar are developing countries, but both have different sociocultural characteristics. For these reasons, the research was carried out on hotel employees in the tourism centers of the two countries.
The sample of the study consisted of eight 5-star hotel employees from Antalya and six 5-star hotel employees from Doha, who agreed to participate in the study. A pilot study was conducted on a total of 48 people, 22 in a hotel in Antalya and 26 in a hotel in Doha. As a result of the pilot study, the Cronbach alpha values of each structure in the questionnaire were determined to be a minimum of 0.76, and it was decided that the scales were reliable [83]. The data obtained at this stage were not included in the main study. After this process, the research data were collected. The data obtained from the hotel staff were selected according to the convenience sampling method, which is the easiest, quick and economical collection method from the main mass [84] and the most frequently used sampling method in social sciences [85]. Studies in the literature have indicated that the risk of common method bias is high in research in social science [86]. At this point, two different procedures have been applied to reduce the risk in data collection. Firstly, as suggested in the literature, data were collected from the employees in three phases, one week apart, in both destinations [87]. In the first week, participants’ perceptions of hotel safety culture were measured. In the third week, their job satisfaction and organizational commitment were measured, and in the fifth week, their customer-oriented behavior was determined. Secondly, response-enhancing techniques were applied for the study [87,88]. For example, each survey tool had a cover page with information such as “Participation is optional”, “Any information collected during our research will be kept confidential” and “There are no right or wrong answers in this survey”. As a result, 432 questionnaires were obtained, and 415 questionnaires were analyzed after the erroneous and incomplete questionnaires were eliminated.

3.3. Data Analysis

The data obtained within the scope of the research were transferred to the SPSS 25 program, and descriptive analysis was carried out. Before deciding to test the structural model, some values suggested by the studies in the literature were tested. At this stage, in order to calculate the extreme values, Mahalanobis distance, whether there was a multicollinearity problem and the normality values of the data were examined. First, the data screening process was applied to the data, and it was examined with Mahalanobis distance in order to determine the extreme values. As a result of the analysis, 23 questionnaires were excluded from the analysis on the grounds that they had extreme values (Mahalanobis’ D (51) > 0.001). Secondly, it was evaluated whether there was a multicollinearity problem. In this context, it was determined that the highest VIF values were 2.980 and the tolerance values were minimum 0.336. In the light of these results, it was decided that the study did not have multiple correlation problems [89]. Finally, the normality distributions of the data were examined. As a result of the examination, it was seen that the kurtosis and skewness values of all the data were between −1.5 and +1.5, and it was decided that the data were normally distributed [90]. As a result, the remaining 392 questionnaires were analyzed.
The research, which examines the relationships between hotel safety culture, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and customer-oriented behavior, had an exploratory purpose. SEM can be applied in two ways: variance-based and covariance-based. Hair et al. [91] stated, “If the research is exploratory or an extension of an existing structural theory, choose PLS-SEM [partial least squares structural equation modeling].” Because PLS is a more suitable analytical technique for testing models with relatively small sample sizes [91], PLS is also an iterative method that does not impose distributional assumptions on the data in estimating the structural equation model [92]. In this context, PLS-SEM is a suggested analysis technique for exploratory research models [91]. In addition, PLS-SEM is also suitable for analyzing data collected through ordinal scales, such as Likert [93]. Based on all these explanations, PLS-SEM was used in the research. For moderator effects, Process macro ([94]; model 1), which is considered a more convenient and useful method for determining specific moderator effects [95], was preferred.

4. Findings

4.1. Demographic Profile

In total, 392 employees participated in the research, and 72.2% of them were male (n = 283) and 28.8% were female (n = 109). As for the age ranges of the participants, 25.3% (n = 99) were between the ages 18–25, 58.2% (n = 228) were between 26–35, 14.8% (n = 58) were between 36–45 and 1.8% (n = 7) were at the age of 46 and older. Furthermore, 64.5% of the employees were single (n = 253) and 35.5% were married (n = 139). The data regarding the education levels of the participants revealed that 5.6% of them (n = 22) had a primary school degree, 29.3% (n = 115) had a secondary school degree, 61.3% of them (n = 240) were associates/undergraduates and 3.8% (n = 15) were postgraduates. When the working experience of the participants in tourism was evaluated, 1.5% of the employees (n = 6) had less than one year, 54.9% (n = 215) had 1–5 years, 21.9% (n = 86) had 6–10 years and 21.7% (n = 85) had 10 years’ experience. As the last demographic finding, 51.5% of the employees (n = 202) worked in Qatar and 48.5% of them (n = 190) worked in Türkiye. The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.

4.2. The Result of the Outer Model

In the process of applying the structural equation model, the two-stage approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing [96] was adopted. In this direction, the “measurement model” and the “structural model” were tested. The factor loadings of each statement in the measurement model were determined and tested for significance, as recommended by the researchers (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). By testing the measurement model, the structural reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of all the factors (hotel security culture, job satisfaction, customer-oriented behavior) included in the measurement model were examined. The outer model was examined prior to testing the model developed within the context of the research, and the results are presented in Table 2. Within the scope of the convergent validity of the factor loadings, the composite reliability (CR), Cronbach Alpha, rho_A values and AVE values for each observed variable and construct were examined. As a consequence of the first analysis, it was determined that one of the expressions from the safety psychology dimension (the employees are more cautious when performing unfamiliar tasks) and one expression from the job satisfaction dimension (If I had to do it all over again, I would choose another job) had low factor loading (<0.50), and thus they were excluded from the analysis [97]. The scores regarding Cronbach alpha, Rho_a and composite reliability (CR) for each construct were higher than the value (>0.70) recommended in the literature [96]. It was determined that the Ave values ranged between intervals of 0.52 and 0.75. In light of these results, the external model provided convergent validity [98].
In the study, in addition to convergent validity, the discriminant validity of each construct was evaluated. The Heterotrait–Monotraitratio (HTMT) scores, as presented in Table 3, were defined as 0.90 and below. Therefore, all the results obtained indicated that the construct provides discriminant validity [99].

4.3. The Result of the Inner Model

The inner model was tested after examining the results obtained from the outer model. In the inner model, linearity, path coefficients, R2 values and effect size (f2) were examined, and blindfolding analysis was performed to calculate the predictive power (Q2). What is more, to evaluate the significance of the PLS path coefficients, 5000 sub-samples were taken from the sample, and t-values were calculated using the bootstrapping method. The results of the inner model have been presented in Table 4.
When the values in the table are examined, safety psychology (β = 0.310; p = 0.000) and behavior (β = 0.215; p = 0.024), which are sub-dimensions of hotel safety culture, affect job satisfaction positively and significantly. On the other hand, training, organizational safety culture and environment do not have a significant effect on job satisfaction (p > 0.05). Furthermore, job satisfaction positively affects organizational commitment (β = 0.728; p = 0.000) and customer-oriented behavior (β = 0.431; p = 0.001). Consequently, it can be determined that organizational commitment has a positive effect on customer-oriented behavior (β = 0.364; p = 0.000). In light of these results, H1b, H1e, H2, H3 and H4 hypotheses can be accepted, while H1a, H1c and H1d are rejected.

4.4. The Results of the Moderator Effect

The results of the regression analysis carried out to determine the moderator role of the country of employment in the effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment are provided in Table 5. The results reveal that the country of employment has a moderator role in the relationships between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (H5: β = 0.14, 95% CI [0.012, 0.280], p < 0.05) and job satisfaction and customer-oriented behavior (H6: β = 0.27, 95%) CI [0.135, 0.409], p < 0.001). In addition to these, the moderator role of the country in the relationship between organizational commitment and customer-oriented behavior can also be determined (H7: β = 0.27, 95% CI [0.129, 0.418], p < 0.001). In other words, the relationships between job satisfaction, organizational commitment and customer-oriented behavior differ according to the country of employment. Furthermore, when the details of the moderator effect have been examined, it is observed that the transformation of the increase in job satisfaction of hotel employees in Türkiye into customer-oriented behavior and loyalty is higher than that of staff working in Qatar. A similar effect is also present in the effect of organizational commitment on customer-oriented behavior. Therefore, H5, H6 and H7 can be accepted.

5. Conclusions

Antalya and Doha, two tourist destinations that have been on the rise in recent years, are places with a high number of tourist establishments. In this context, within the scope of the research conducted in these regions where there are a large number of tourism employees, it was determined that the perceived safety culture has a high level of impact on employees’ job performance.
Workers who are satisfied with their working conditions increase their level of loyalty to their organizations. Therefore, employees who are loyal to their organizations contribute to the sustainability of enterprises in terms of human resources. In addition, employees with high levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment give their organizations more and provide better service to their customers.
Although job satisfaction, organizational commitment and customer-oriented behavior are among the frequently studied subjects in the literature [100,101,102], studies on the antecedents of these variables are needed. At this point, in this study, it was investigated whether safety culture has a leading role in job satisfaction or not. In particular, it is known that job satisfaction is significantly adversely affected by the occurrence of work-related accidents or hazards [10]. The results of the study show that, in parallel with this information, the safety psychology dimension positively affects job satisfaction. Since the safety psychology dimension includes perceptions and attitudes towards safety rules [13], employees with a positive perception of safety have higher job satisfaction. Similarly, a significant effect of hotel safety culture on job satisfaction can be seen in the behavioral dimension. It can be stated that since employees are encouraged to comply with safety standards and to report health and safety problems in a timely manner in the behavioral dimension, their risk perceptions decrease [103]. For this reason, their job satisfaction increases accordingly.
What is more, the establishment of a safety culture is an effective tool for risk management [104]. Previous studies state that the employees will exhibit more customer-oriented behaviors in relation to the successful implementation of risk management [105]. In the research, significant relationships were found regarding the relationships between the job satisfaction, organizational commitment and customer-oriented behaviors of the employees. These findings support the other findings present in the literature [106,107]. Moreover, different from the studies in the literature, in this study, the relations between the aforementioned variables were examined in two destinations that have differences in terms of cultural values and tourism development processes. The research results indicated that the employees in Antalya, where tourism development is more intense, have a higher rate of job satisfaction transformation into loyalty and customer-oriented behavior compared to the employees in Doha. Furthermore, the transformation rate of organizational commitment of employees in Antalya into customer-oriented behavior was higher than that of the employees in Doha. In the context of cultural qualities, enduring national values that shape organizational behavior may differ from country to country [108]. The fact that each country has its own attitudes and norms also determines the priorities in the workplace [109]. Based on this information, the different effect levels found in the relationships between satisfaction, loyalty and customer-oriented behavior can be explained by the cultural characteristics of the countries. What is more, the fact that the effect of the transformation of satisfaction into loyalty and customer-oriented behavior is higher among employees in the countries where tourism is more developed and is considered to be the first priority may be due to the fact that the employees do not have a strong alternative in another sector.

6. Discussion

This study aimed to measure the effect of hotel safety culture on job satisfaction, organizational commitment and customer-oriented behavior. In addition to these objectives, various differences were determined in the perceptions of hotel staff working in two different tourism destinations (Antalya and Doha), which were considered to be different from each other in terms of both cultural aspects and tourism development. In this context, primarily, a detailed literature review was carried out to create an effective model and research framework. The results of the research will help to determine the beliefs, knowledge and attitudes of the hotel staff about the perceived safety culture and to define the measures to be taken in this respect. The theoretical and practical contributions of the study are as follows.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

The COVID-19 pandemic, which was experienced around the world, has reminded both people and businesses of the importance of health and safety issues in order to ensure the concepts of success, profitability and sustainability. In this study, the concept of safety culture, which has been frequently included in the literature and researched in various sectors, was studied in terms of hotel businesses. In addition to this, the relationship between the safety culture perceptions of hotel employees and variables such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment and customer-oriented behavior was also analyzed. Accordingly, it was thought that filling the gap in the literature regarding the safety culture in hotel businesses would make a theoretical contribution to academia. In addition, it was thought that a number of theoretical contributions were made to the literature in light of the results of the research. Moreover, considering the destinations in which the research was carried out, the data collected from two different regions provided a theoretical contribution by enabling the diversity of the research and different comparisons by means of the moderator analyses performed. In the research, the moderating effect of the place of work on the relationships between job satisfaction, organizational commitment and customer-oriented behavior variables was examined. The results obtained from the relationship between research variables indicated that the destination of employment has a moderator effect. The fact that there has been no study using the place of work as a moderator variable among the aforementioned variables contributed to filling the gap in the literature and creating a theoretical resource for the academics.

6.2. Practical Implications

The determination of perceptions concerning the safety culture applied in hotel businesses provides valuable anecdotes to businesses in this regard and in which factors they can improve their institutional perspectives. Particularly, in a sector that has frequent and close contact with people, such as the hotel business, the awareness and knowledge of employees regarding organizational safety culture, their participation in practices and training and their ability to implement procedures will both reduce the risk of possible occupational accidents and reduce the economic and reputational loss of the business that may be encountered due to the possible occupational accidents.
In addition, an increase in the satisfaction level of the employees of hotel businesses with high levels of perceived safety culture was shown in the research results. Thus, the organizational commitment and customer-oriented behaviors of the employees that have high job satisfaction were also positively affected. As a consequence, the safety culture that the hotel businesses will create in their corporate portfolios will definitely contribute to the productivity, high performance and happiness of their employees. In the research, it was determined that the place of work has a moderator effect on job satisfaction, organizational commitment and customer-oriented behavior variables.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

There are a number of limitations of this study, as in many former studies. First of all, in the study, the research data could only be collected in two destinations. Secondly, only the employees of 5-star hotels were included in the study. In future research, studies carried out in more destinations and on different hotel types may yield different results. Furthermore, examining the relationship between perceived hotel safety culture and various variables, such as job stress and financial performance, may reveal important results that will contribute to the literature.

Author Contributions

This research paper has been agreed upon by all of the authors and carried out collaboratively, but each of the authors has made individual contributions to the paper. O.T. and A.I. provided project management and language supervision. O.Y. and R.M.G. performed the analyses and focused on the process of testing the hypotheses and the scales of the article. E.O. and A.U. conducted an extensive literature review, contributed to the original draft, and formulated the research hypotheses. E.D. and F.B. contributed to the completion of the discussion, implications, limitations, and conclusion chapters. In addition, the authors used an internal audit system during the preparation phase and monitored each other for any potential setbacks. 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

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the research.

Data Availability Statement

The data analyzed during this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Scale Items

  • Hotel safety culture
  • Factor TT: Training
  • The hotel’s incident report and investigation system have been completed.
  • The hotel cares about and is concerned about the need and impact of employee training.
  • The hotel establishes hazard prevention, control and management procedures for significant hazards.
  • The hotel conducts a risk assessment of the working environment of each department.
  • The hotel provides sufficient resources (such as manpower and budget) to implement employee training.
  • Thanks to safety training, employees understand the danger factors in the workplace.
  • Thanks to security training, employees and managers communicate and interact with each other.
  • The hotel security management system includes operating procedures, equipment management and employee safety.
  • Factor PP: Perceived Safety Psychology
  • Employees understand and are familiar with emergency procedures.
  • Employees understand the definition of the term “safety culture.”
  • Employees take pride in adhering to health and safety regulations.
  • Employees comply with standard operating procedures and safety practice rules.
  • Employees work in accordance with safety procedures when managers are off site.
  • Employees remain alert during working hours.
  • Employees are aware of the security procedures within their scope of operation.
  • The status of the industrial safety department in the organization is valued.
  • Employees know how to protect their own safety in the workplace.
  • Employees comply with unsafe behaviors that are corrected by managers.
  • Factor OO: Organization Safety Culture
  • Hotel managers frequently promote safety rules and supervise and care for employees in the workplace.
  • Hotel managers attach great importance to the job/occupational safety of new employees.
  • The hotel establishes clear security reward and penalty procedures.
  • The hotel periodically inspects its firefighting equipment, machinery and tools.
  • The hotel emphasizes that the most important thing is to carry out our duties safely.
  • When operational performance conflicts with safety, hotel managers prioritize safety.
  • Hotel safety awards help encourage safety performance.
  • Hotel managers periodically evaluate employees’ safety attitudes for improvement.
  • Factor EE: Environment
  • The hotel provides protective equipment such as gloves, safety shoes and earplugs.
  • The hotel periodically organizes first aid personnel training courses.
  • Hotel equipment has a maintenance schedule.
  • The hotel requests that all employees rehearse their emergency response.
  • The hotel provides a clean/tidy work environment.
  • The hotel upholds relevant labor laws, regulations and specifications.
  • Factor BB: Behavior
  • Employees will report unsafe behavior by co-workers to managers.
  • Employees prioritize safety when their work conflicts with safety.
  • Employees are rewarded if managers adopt their suggestions.
  • Employees proactively discuss operational safety issues with their colleagues and managers.
  • Employees correct each other when they violate safety rules.
  • Employees are careful about their own actions or those of their colleagues if they have the potential to be dangerous.
  • Job Satisfaction (JS)
  • In my work, I feel like I am doing something valuable.
  • I feel like my job is interesting.
  • I feel that my job is satisfying.
  • Organizational Commitment (OC)
  • My organization (hotel) is very important to me.
  • My institution means a lot to me.
  • My organization says a lot about who I am.
  • My organization says something about me.
  • Customer-Oriented Behavior (COB)
  • Naturally, I know what consumers need in a hotel.
  • I respond to consumer requests immediately.
  • Consumers’ interests always come first for me.
  • It makes me happy to provide the services that consumers want.

References

  1. Spreitzer, G.; Porath, C.L.; Gibson, C.B. Toward Human Sustainability. Organ. Dyn. 2012, 41, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Florea, L.; Cheung, Y.H.; Herndon, N.C. For All Good Reasons: Role of Values in Organizational Sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Violeta, R.; Laurentiu, A.; Iuliana, C.; Anca Francisca, C.; Lucian Florin, O. Job Satisfaction and Services Business Sustainability—Empirical Study Using Role Theory. Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 2020, 54, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Macey, W.H.; Schneider, B.; Barbera, K.M.; Young, S.A. Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zhang, T.C.; Torres, E.; Jahromi, M.F. Well on the Way: An Exploratory Study on Occupational Health in Hospitality. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cleveland, J.N.; O’Neill, J.W.; Himelright, J.L.; Harrison, M.M.; Crouter, A.C.; Drago, R. Work and Family Issues in the Hospitality Industry: Perspectives of Entrants, Managers, and Spouses. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2007, 31, 275–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. WHO/ILO: Almost 2 Million People Die from Work-Related Causes Each Year. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/17-09-2021-who-ilo-almost-2-million-people-die-from-work-related-causes-each-year (accessed on 27 September 2022).
  8. Orden-Mejía, M.; Carvache-Franco, M.; Huertas, A.; Carvache-Franco, W.; Landeta-Bejarano, N.; Carvache-Franco, O. Post-COVID-19 Tourists’ Preferences, Attitudes and Travel Expectations: A Study in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bernard, B. Safety Culture Oversight: An Intangible Concept for Tangible Issues within Nuclear Installations. Safety 2018, 4, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Huang, Y.-H.; Lee, J.; McFadden, A.C.; Murphy, L.A.; Robertson, M.M.; Cheung, J.H.; Zohar, D. Beyond Safety Outcomes: An Investigation of the Impact of Safety Climate on Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and Turnover Using Social Exchange Theory as the Theoretical Framework. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 55, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kaynak, R.; Toklu, A.T.; Elci, M.; Toklu, I.T. Effects of Occupational Health and Safety Practices on Organizational Commitment, Work Alienation, and Job Performance: Using the PLS-SEM Approach. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2016, 11, 146–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wayoi, D.S.; Margana, M.; Prasojo, L.D.; Habibi, A. Dataset on Islamic School Teachers’ Organizational Commitment as Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction and Job Performance. Data Brief. 2021, 37, 107181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kuo, N.-T.; Cheng, Y.-S.; Chang, K.-C.; Ying, W.-H. Establishing a Measurement Scale for Safety Culture in the Hotel Industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 42, 12–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Foster, S. Understanding Safety Culture. Br. J. Nurs. 2021, 30, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Great Britain; Great Britain Health and Safety Commission. ACSNI Human Factors Study Group: Organising for Safety. Third Report; H.M. Stationery Office: Richmond, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  16. Corcoran, D.; Shackman, J. A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of the Strategic Value of beyond Compliance Occupational Health and Safety Programs. J. Bus. Strateg. 2007, 24, 49–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fernández-Muñiz, B.; Montes-Peón, J.M.; Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. Relation between Occupational Safety Management and Firm Performance. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 980–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tappura, S.; Nenonen, N.; Kivistö-Rahnasto, J. Managers’ Viewpoint on Factors Influencing Their Commitment to Safety: An Empirical Investigation in Five Finnish Industrial Organisations. Saf. Sci. 2017, 96, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mearns, K.J.; Flin, R. Assessing the State of Organizational Safety—Culture or Climate? Curr. Psychol. 1999, 18, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guldenmund, F.W. The Nature of Safety Culture: A Review of Theory and Research. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 215–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Reiman, T.; Rollenhagen, C. Does the Concept of Safety Culture Help or Hinder Systems Thinking in Safety? Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 68, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cox, S.; Cox, T. The Structure of Employee Attitudes to Safety: A European Example. Work Stress 1991, 5, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hale, A.R. Culture’s Confusions. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Helmreich, R.L.; Merritt, A.C. Culture at Work: National, Organizational, and Professional Influences; Ashagete: Aldershot, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fernández-Muñiz, B.; Montes-Peón, J.M.; Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. Safety Culture: Analysis of the Causal Relationships between Its Key Dimensions. J. Saf. Res. 2007, 38, 627–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Halligan, M.; Zecevic, A. Safety Culture in Healthcare: A Review of Concepts, Dimensions, Measures and Progress. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2011, 20, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Varmazyar, S.; Mortazavi, S.B.; Arghami, S.; Hajizadeh, E. Relationship between Organisational Safety Culture Dimensions and Crashes. Int. J. Inj. Contr. Saf. Promot. 2016, 23, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Machfudiyanto, R.A.; Latief, Y.; Arifuddin, R.; Yogiswara, Y. Identification of Safety Culture Dimensions Based on the Implementation of OSH Management System in Construction Company. Procedia Eng. 2017, 171, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Clarke, S. Safety Culture: Under-specified and Overrated? Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2000, 2, 65–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fruhen, L.S.; Andrei, D.M.; Griffin, M.A. Leaders as Motivators and Meaning Makers: How Perceived Leader Behaviors and Leader Safety Commitment Attributions Shape Employees’ Safety Behaviors. Saf. Sci. 2022, 152, 105775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Han, S.; Chen, H.; Long, R.; Jiskani, I.M. Can Miners’ Social Networks Affect Their Safety Commitment? A Case Study of Chinese Coal Mining Enterprises. Resour. Policy 2022, 75, 102535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vierendeels, G.; Reniers, G.; van Nunen, K.; Ponnet, K. An Integrative Conceptual Framework for Safety Culture: The Egg Aggregated Model (TEAM) of Safety Culture. Saf. Sci. 2018, 103, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, Y.; Zeng, Q.; Zheng, X.; Shao, B.; Jin, L. Safety Supervision of Tower Crane Operation on Construction Sites: An Evolutionary Game Analysis. Saf. Sci. 2022, 152, 105578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Warszawska, K.; Kraslawski, A. Method for Quantitative Assessment of Safety Culture. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2016, 42, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, L.; Sun, R. A New Safety Culture Measurement Tool and Its Application. Int. J. Saf. Secur. Eng. 2014, 4, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rakowska, A.; Szubielska, J. Safety Culture Model and Its Dimensions on the of Example of the Coal Mines in Poland. In Proceedings of the Managment Knowledge and Learning, Zadar, Croatia, 19–21 June 2013; pp. 19–21. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hutchinson, D.; Luria, G.; Pindek, S.; Spector, P. The Effects of Industry Risk Level on Safety Training Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Studies. Saf. Sci. 2022, 152, 105594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wong, A.H.; Pittig, A. Threat Belief Determines the Degree of Costly Safety Behavior: Assessing Rule-Based Generalization of Safety Behavior with a Dimensional Measure of Avoidance. Behav. Res. Ther. 2022, 156, 104158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Sexton, J.B.; Helmreich, R.L.; Neilands, T.B.; Rowan, K.; Vella, K.; Boyden, J.; Roberts, P.R.; Thomas, E.J. The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: Psychometric Properties, Benchmarking Data, and Emerging Research. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2006, 6, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kennedy, R.; Kirwan, B. Development of a Hazard and Operability-Based Method for Identifying Safety Management Vulnerabilities in High Risk Systems. Saf. Sci. 1998, 30, 249–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Burke, M.J.; Sarpy, S.A.; Tesluk, P.E.; Smith-Crowe, K. General Safety Performance: A Test of a Grounded Theoretical Model. Pers. Psychol. 2002, 55, 429–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Choudhary, V.; Saini, G. Effect of Job Satisfaction on Moonlighting Intentions: Mediating Effect of Organizational Commitment. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2021, 27, 100137. [Google Scholar]
  43. Moorman, R.H. The Influence of Cognitive and Affective Based Job Satisfaction Measures on the Relationship Between Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Hum. Relat. 1993, 46, 759–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Martin, U.; Schinke, S.P. Organizational and Individual Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction and Burnout of Mental Health Workers. Soc. Work. Health Care 1998, 28, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Son, J.H.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, G.J. Does Employee Satisfaction Influence Customer Satisfaction? Assessing Coffee Shops through the Service Profit Chain Model. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stemn, E.; Bofinger, C.; Cliff, D.; Hassall, M.E. Examining the Relationship between Safety Culture Maturity and Safety Performance of the Mining Industry. Saf. Sci. 2019, 113, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Burke, M.J.; Salvador, R.O.; Smith-Crowe, K.; Chan-Serafin, S.; Smith, A.; Sonesh, S. The Dread Factor: How Hazards and Safety Training Influence Learning and Performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Tappura, S.; Jääskeläinen, A.; Pirhonen, J. Performance Implications of Safety Training. In Advances in Safety Management and Human Performance; Arezes, P.M., Boring, R.L., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 262, pp. 295–301. [Google Scholar]
  49. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J. A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Angle, H.L.; Perry, J.L. An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 1981, 26, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hunt, S.D.; Wood, V.R.; Chonko, L.B. Corporate Ethical Values and Organizational Commitment in Marketing. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Aguiar-Quintana, T.; Araujo-Cabrera, Y.; Park, S. The Sequential Relationships of Hotel Employees’ Perceived Justice, Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in a High Unemployment Context. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kim, H.J.; Shin, K.H.; Umbreit, W.T. Hotel Job Burnout: The Role of Personality Characteristics. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2007, 26, 421–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zopiatis, A.; Constanti, P.; Theocharous, A.L. Job Involvement, Commitment, Satisfaction and Turnover: Evidence from Hotel Employees in Cyprus. Tour. Manag. 2014, 41, 129–140. [Google Scholar]
  55. Peccei, R.; Rosenthal, P. Delivering Customer-Oriented Behaviour through Empowerment: An Empirical Test of HRM Assumptions. J. Manag. Stud. 2001, 38, 831–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Donavan, D.T.; Brown, T.J.; Mowen, J.C. Internal Benefits of Service-Worker Customer Orientation: Job Satisfaction, Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 128–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Korschun, D.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Swain, S.D. Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Orientation, and the Job Performance of Frontline Employees. J. Mark. 2014, 78, 20–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pettijohn, C.E.; Pettijohn, L.S.; Taylor, A.J. The Influence of Salesperson Skill, Motivation, and Training on the Practice of Customer-oriented Selling. Psychol. Mark. 2002, 19, 743–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gil Saura, I.; Berenguer Contrí, G.; Cervera Taulet, A.; Moliner Velázquez, B. Relationships among Customer Orientation, Service Orientation and Job Satisfaction in Financial Services. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 2005, 16, 497–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kim, W. Customers’ Responses to Customer Orientation of Service Employees in Full-Service Restaurants: A Relational Benefits Perspective. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2009, 10, 153–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lee, C.-K.; Song, H.-J.; Lee, H.-M.; Lee, S.; Bernhard, B.J. The Impact of CSR on Casino Employees’ Organizational Trust, Job Satisfaction, and Customer Orientation: An Empirical Examination of Responsible Gambling Strategies. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 33, 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Park, J.-K.; Ahn, J.; Han, S.-L.; Back, K.-J.; An, M. Exploring Internal Benefits of Medical Tourism Facilitators’ Satisfaction: Customer Orientation, Job Satisfaction, and Work Performance. J. Healthc. Manag. 2020, 65, 90–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jaworski, B.J.; Kohli, A.K. Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ifie, K. Customer Orientation of Frontline Employees and Organizational Commitment. Serv. Ind. J. 2014, 34, 699–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hsu, C.; Chang, C.; Huang, H.; Chiang, C. The Relationships among Social Capital, Organisational Commitment and Customer-oriented Prosocial Behaviour of Hospital Nurses. J. Clin. Nurs. 2011, 20, 1383–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kim, M.J.; Bonn, M.; Lee, C.-K.; Kim, J.S. Effects of Employees’ Personality and Attachment on Job Flow Experience Relevant to Organizational Commitment and Consumer-Oriented Behavior. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2019, 41, 156–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alniacik, E.; Alniaçik, Ü.; Erat, S.; Akçin, K. Does Person-Organization Fit Moderate the Effects of Affective Commitment and Job Satisfaction on Turnover Intentions? Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 99, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pratama, E.N.; Suwarni, E.; Handayani, M.A. The Effect of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment on Turnover Intention with Person Organization Fit as Moderator Variable. Aptisi Trans. Manag. 2022, 6, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yucel, I.; Bektas, C. Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Demographic Characteristics among Teachers in Turkey: Younger Is Better? Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 46, 1598–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Azeem, S.M.; Akhtar, N. The Influence of Work Life Balance and Job Satisfaction on Organizational Commitment of Healthcare Employees. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Stud. 2014, 4, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Huey Yiing, L.; Zaman Bin Ahmad, K. The Moderating Effects of Organizational Culture on the Relationships between Leadership Behaviour and Organizational Commitment and between Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction and Performance. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2009, 30, 53–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nebo, G.N.; Okechukwu, E.U. Effects of Internal Marketing on Customer Orientation Behaviour of Selected Hotels’ Employees in Nigeria. Eur. Sci. J. 2017, 13, 212–232. [Google Scholar]
  73. Babakus, E.; Mangold, W.G. Adapting the SERVQUAL Scale to Hospital Services: An Empirical Investigation. Health Serv. Res. 1992, 26, 767–786. [Google Scholar]
  74. Cheng, J.-C.; Yi, O. Hotel Employee Job Crafting, Burnout, and Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Support. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 72, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gonzalez, J.A.; DeNisi, A.S. Cross-level Effects of Demography and Diversity Climate on Organizational Attachment and Firm Effectiveness. J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tajeddini, K.; Trueman, M. Managing Swiss Hospitality: How Cultural Antecedents of Innovation and Customer-Oriented Value Systems Can Influence Performance in the Hotel Industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 1119–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hoang, H.T.; Ho, N.T.T.; Nguyen, N. The Influence of Leadership Commitment to Service Quality on Hotel Employees’ Brand Citizenship Behavior: A Mediation and Moderation Analysis. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2022, 31, 369–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Available online: https://yigm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-9860/turizm-belgeli-tesisler.html (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  79. Turkish Statistical Institute. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Paid-Employee-Statistics-September-2022-45826&dil=2# (accessed on 23 September 2022).
  80. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Labour and Social Security. Available online: https://www.csgb.gov.tr/digm-en/contents/working-life-and-social-security-in-turkiye/working-life-in-turkiye/iskur/ (accessed on 12 June 2022).
  81. Prasad, S.; Nair, K.; Purohit, H. Tourist Satisfaction: An Analysis of Push and Pull Factors-a Case of Qatar Tourism. J. Manag. JOM 2019, 6, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. The Gulf Business Industry Awards 2014|Gulf Business. Available online: https://gulfbusiness.com/awards/the-gulf-business-industry-awards-2014/ (accessed on 14 October 2023).
  83. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kahle, L.R.; Malhotra, N.K. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. J. Mark. Res. 1994, 31, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zikmund, W.G. Business Research Methods, 6th ed.; Dryden Press: Fort Worth, TX, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  86. Min, H.; Park, J.; Kim, H.J. Common Method Bias in Hospitality Research: A Critical Review of Literature and an Empirical Study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 56, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Etehadi, B.; Karatepe, O.M. The Impact of Job Insecurity on Critical Hotel Employee Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2019, 28, 665–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hair, J.F.; Bush, R.P.; Ortinau, D.J. Marketing Research: Within a Changing Environment, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA; Irwin: Huntersville, NC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  90. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  91. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Fornell, C.; Johnson, M.D.; Anderson, E.W.; Cha, J.; Bryant, B.E. The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated Guidelines on Which Method to Use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  95. Leth-Steensen, C.; Gallitto, E. Testing Mediation in Structural Equation Modeling: The Effectiveness of the Test of Joint Significance. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2016, 76, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NY, USA, 2006; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
  98. 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]
  99. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Farmaki, A.; Pappas, N.; Kvasova, O.; Stergiou, D.P. Hotel CSR and Job Satisfaction: A Chaordic Perspective. Tour. Manag. 2022, 91, 104526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hayat, A.; Afshari, L. CSR and Employee Well-Being in Hospitality Industry: A Mediation Model of Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 51, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Teng, H.-Y. Job Crafting and Customer Service Behaviors in the Hospitality Industry: Mediating Effect of Job Passion. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 81, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Mearns, K.; Kirwan, B.; Reader, T.W.; Jackson, J.; Kennedy, R.; Gordon, R. Development of a Methodology for Understanding and Enhancing Safety Culture in Air Traffic Management. Saf. Sci. 2013, 53, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Lee, T. Perceptions, Attitudes and Behaviour: The Vital Elements of a Safety Culture. Health Saf. 1996, 10, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  105. Morrison, E.W. Doing the Job Well: An Investigation of Pro-Social Rule Breaking. J. Manag. 2006, 32, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kim, H.J.; Tavitiyaman, P.; Kim, W.G. The Effect of Management Commitment To Service On Employee Service Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2009, 33, 369–390. [Google Scholar]
  107. Liao, S.-H.; Hu, D.-C.; Chung, H.-Y. The Relationship between Leader-Member Relations, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in International Tourist Hotels in Taiwan. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2009, 20, 1810–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Aust. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 105. [Google Scholar]
  109. Fila, M.J.; Purl, J.; Griffeth, R.W. Job Demands, Control and Support: Meta-Analyzing Moderator Effects of Gender, Nationality, and Occupation. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2017, 27, 39–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 08876 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 16 08876 g001
Table 1. Description of the Participants (n = 392).
Table 1. Description of the Participants (n = 392).
Variables FrequencyPercentage (%)
Gender
Male28372.2
Female10928.8
Age
18–259925.3
26–3522858.2
36–455814.8
46 or more71.8
Marial Status
Married13935.5
Single25364.5
Education levels
Primary school225.6
Secondary school11529.3
Undergraduates24061.3
Postgraduates153.8
Working experience
Less than one year61.5
1–5 years21554.9
6–10 years8621.9
11 years and more8521.7
Place of work
Qatar20251.5
Türkiye19048.5
Table 2. The Results of the Outer Model.
Table 2. The Results of the Outer Model.
Factors/ItemsStandard Loadingst-Value[R2]CRRho_aAVECA
Hotel safety culture
Factor TT: Training 0.920.910.600.90
TT10.7934.72 *
TT20.7827.58 *
TT30.8242.41 *
TT40.7941.91 *
TT50.7627.20 *
TT60.7527.80 *
TT70.7831.94 *
TT80.7225.55 *
Factor PP: Perceived Safety Psychology 0.910.900.520.90
PP10.7430.07 *
PP20.7633.46 *
PP30.7024.16 *
PP40.6719.30 *
PP50.6819.09 *
PP60.7126.11 *
PP70.7225.97 *
PP80.7226.91 *
PP90.7227.46 *
PP100.7629.38 *
Factor OO: Organizational Safety Culture 0.900.890.550.88
OO10.7629.25 *
OO20.7733.78 *
OO30.7528.48 *
OO40.7731.32 *
OO50.7526.76 *
OO60.7327.01 *
OO70.7328.07 *
OO80.7122.65 *
Factor EE: Environment 0.880.850.560.84
EE10.7527.20 *
EE20.7936.17 *
EE30.7425.72 *
EE40.7120.15 *
EE50.7626.72 *
EE60.7426.17 *
Factor BB: Behavior 0.870.830.530.82
BB10.7426.61 *
BB20.7429.40 *
BB30.7321.94 *
BB40.6816.76 *
BB50.7324.99 *
BB60.7628.43 *
Job Satisfaction (JS) 0.230.900.840.750.84
JS10.8641.76 *
JS20.8964.87 *
JS30.8551.33 *
Organizational Commitment (OC) 0.530.910.870.710.87
OC10.8450.24 *
OC20.8656.52 *
OC30.8651.15 *
OC40.8137.65 *
Customer-Oriented Behavior (COB) 0.540.920.890.750.89
COB10.8443.13 *
COB20.8966.93 *
COB30.8747.80 *
COB40.8755.26 *
* p < 0.001.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity Results.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity Results.
Factor12345678
1.BB
2.COB0.39
3.EE0.840.32
4.JS0.510.810.44
5.OO0.810.290.830.40
6.OC0.460.770.440.850.38
7.PP0.760.390.760.530.790.47
8.TT0.720.330.770.420.790.370.81
BB: Behavior; COB: Customer-Oriented Behavior; EE: Environment; JS: Job Satisfaction; OO: Organizational Safety Culture; OC: Organizational Commitment; PP: Perceived Safety Psychology; TT: Training.
Table 4. Results of the Inner Model [Insert Here].
Table 4. Results of the Inner Model [Insert Here].
RelationsPath Coef.t-Valuepf2Q2VIFSupported
TT → JS0.0370.570.5720.0010.222.72No
PP → JS0.3104.480.0000.0472.72Yes
OO → JS−0.0771.050.2940.0032.91No
EE → JS0.0530.710.4790.0012.68No
BB → JS0.2152.950.0030.0242.51Yes
JS → OC0.72825.050.0001.1270.181.00Yes
JS → COB0.4317.970.0000.1930.132.13Yes
OC → COB0.3646.840.0000.1372.13Yes
TT: Training; PP: Perceived Safety Psychology; OO: Organizational Safety Culture; EE: Environment; BB: Behavior; JS: Job Satisfaction; OC: Organizational Commitment; COB: Customer-Oriented Behavior.
Table 5. Moderator Effect Results.
Table 5. Moderator Effect Results.
Moderating Effect: Organizational Commitment
βConfidence Interval
Hypothesis 5 Min.Max.
Job Satisfaction (X) 0.49 *0.2830.708
Country (W) −0.65 **−1.230−0.081
X.W (Interaction) 0.14 **0.0120.280
R2 0.53
CountryβS.E.tLLCIULCI
Qatar0.64 *0.0413.220.5460.737
Türkiye0.79 *0.0416.450.6940.882
Consumer-Oriented Behavior
βConfidence Interval
Hypothesis 6 Min.Max.
Job Satisfaction (X) 0.27 **0.0620.496
Country (W) −1.30 *−1.894−0.721
X.W (Interaction) 0.27 *0.1350.409
R2 0.51
CountryβS.E.tLLCIULCI
Qatar0.55 *0.0511.150.4540.649
Türkiye0.82 *0.0516.870.7280.920
Consumer-Oriented Behavior
βConfidence Interval
Hypothesis 7 Min.Max.
Organizational Commitment (X) 0.25 **0.0200.488
Country (W) −1.25 *−1.868−0.648
X.W (Interaction) 0.27 *0.1290.418
R2 0.48
CountryβS.E.tLLCIULCI
Qatar0.52 *0.059.750.4220.635
Türkiye0.80 *0.0416.250.7050.899
* p < 0.001, ** p < 0.05.
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

Dağlı, E.; Gecikli, R.M.; Turan, O.; Orgun, E.; Unal, A.; Bayram, F.; Isin, A.; Yayla, O. Is Business Sustainability Possible? The Moderating Role of Place of Work in the Relationship between Hotel Safety Culture, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Customer-Oriented Behavior: A Cross-Regional Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208876

AMA Style

Dağlı E, Gecikli RM, Turan O, Orgun E, Unal A, Bayram F, Isin A, Yayla O. Is Business Sustainability Possible? The Moderating Role of Place of Work in the Relationship between Hotel Safety Culture, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Customer-Oriented Behavior: A Cross-Regional Study. Sustainability. 2024; 16(20):8876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208876

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dağlı, Erkan, Recep Murat Gecikli, Orhan Turan, Emrah Orgun, Aydin Unal, Fuat Bayram, Alper Isin, and Ozgur Yayla. 2024. "Is Business Sustainability Possible? The Moderating Role of Place of Work in the Relationship between Hotel Safety Culture, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Customer-Oriented Behavior: A Cross-Regional Study" Sustainability 16, no. 20: 8876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208876

APA Style

Dağlı, E., Gecikli, R. M., Turan, O., Orgun, E., Unal, A., Bayram, F., Isin, A., & Yayla, O. (2024). Is Business Sustainability Possible? The Moderating Role of Place of Work in the Relationship between Hotel Safety Culture, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Customer-Oriented Behavior: A Cross-Regional Study. Sustainability, 16(20), 8876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208876

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