Based on the study objectives and hypotheses, the results of the empirical study are presented below. We begin by systematizing the results related to the sociodemographic and professional characterizations of the sample and the dimensions of organizational citizenship, and subsequently present and discuss the results related to the relationships between both (sociodemographic variables, professional variables, and organizational citizenship behaviors of employees in the hotel sector).
4.1. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
We carried out the factorial analysis and the study of internal consistency to analyze the internal validity of the questionnaire survey scales. Thus, in the first stage, to analyze the data concerning the components of organizational citizenship, a factorial analysis of the main components in their five dimensions was carried out (
Marôco 2018). Due to low factor loading (below 0.40) compared with other items, item 15.VC (“Stays informed about what is happening in the organization”) was deleted from the scale of civic virtue of organizational citizenship. In total, two items were used. After the above item was removed, the commonality values of all remaining items were greater than 0.40 (the values were between 0.866 to 0.990), indicating that the information on the items could be extracted effectively.
In the current study, the reliability of the subscales of conflict management was supported by high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, respectively, altruism (a = 0.984), sportsmanship (a = 0.988), courtesy (a = 0.860), conscientiousness (a = 0.949), and civic virtue (a = 0.965) (
Table 2).
Based on composite reliability, the internal consistency of indicators for each dimension of organizational citizenship was tested. The results obtained corroborate the presence of five main factors with very significant values, and the respective indicators are clearly grouped in their respective dimensions (
Table 2). The indicators have scattered factor weights between a = 0.866 (9.C “Respects the rights and benefits of other persons” included in the courtesy dimension) and a = 0.990 (7.D “Is always finding defects in what the organization does” included in the sportsmanship dimension).
Concerning the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test for sample suitability and Bartlett’s test for sphericity on the organizational citizenship scale, the results show fitting values and reveal good variances explained: for conflict management, KMO (0.920) and Bartlett’s sphericity (χ2(130) = 24,510.310; p < 0.01) with a total explained variance of 67.23%.
After checking the validity of the scales, a descriptive analysis of the data was made (
Table 3). Regarding the analysis of the normality of the variables included in the model, the data obtained were in accordance with that established by
Finney and DiStefano (
2013), who set 2 (asymmetry) and 7 (kurtosis) as the maximum values allowed, respectively. The results indicate that the employees of these organizations advocate for different organizational citizenship behaviors.
Concerning organizational citizenship behaviors (
Table 3), overall, this is a process that is present in the hotel industry. Considering that the items are assessed on a Likert scale of 5 points, the cut-off point is 2.5. The overall average value for global organizational citizenship (3.36) is higher than the average value of the scale.
In specific terms, all dimensions of organizational citizenship have means above the midpoint of the scale (2.5): civic virtue (4.54) stands out as the most recommended dimension in average terms; sportsmanship (2.37) stands out as the least recommended dimension in average terms.
4.2. Relationship between Sociodemographic Variables, Professional Variables, and Organizational Citizenship
To analyze the relationship between sociodemographic variables, professional variables, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Pearson’s correlation coefficient r was used to perform convergent validity analyses of instrument items, assessing the magnitude and direction of associations between the variables. This correlation coefficient is revealed to be the most appropriate method to analyze the relationship between two variables measured by the interval scale (
Hill and Hill 2005).
Table 4 shows that only some of the variables are associated with each other and are statistically significant (
Table 4). The values of the associations range from very weak (r between 0.000 and 0.200), to weak (r between 0.200 and 0.399), moderate (r between 0.400 and 0.699), and strong (r between 0.700 and 1), according to
Pestana and Gageiro (
2014), and some have statistical significance.
The associations with the highest statistical significance are found between the variable’s global organizational citizenship behavior and conscientious citizenship (r = 0.947, p < 0.001), altruism (r = 0.927, p < 0.001), and courtesy (r = 0.922, p < 0.001), as well as among conscientiousness citizenship and altruism (r = 0.913, p < 0.001) and courtesy (0.889, p < 0.001). The global organizational citizenship behaviors (7), their various types (7), except for civic virtue (5), and age (7), are the dimensions that have the largest numbers of statistically significant associations. It should be noted that some of the dimensions do not show any statistically significant associations (gender and qualifications).
The three dimensions of the organizational citizenship behavior construct are related to each other. The results point to a statistically significant association, positive and/or negative, between the different types of organizational citizenship behaviors. The civic virtue dimension has a negative and statistically significant correlation with all other citizenship behavior types. The altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness dimensions show positive correlations with all other behaviors (except for civic virtue, whose relationship is negative), which are moderate and strong correlations.
We systematize the results of the relationships between the variables, as formulated in the study hypotheses. Due to the complexity of the study model, we divide the analysis into two figures (
Figure 2—global citizenship behaviors;
Figure 3—types of citizenship behaviors). In
Figure 3, we specifically highlight the statistically significant relationships between the five specific types of organizational citizenship behaviors studied.
The results show that there is no statistically significant correlation between the gender variable and the overall organizational citizenship behavior (r = −0.004, p > 0.005). Moreover, the results reveal a non-existent statistically significant correlation relationship between the gender variable and organizational citizenship in all five dimensions: altruism (r = −0.007, p > 0.005), sportsmanship (r = −0.016, p > 0.005), courtesy (r = −0.012, p > 0.005), conscientiousness (r = −0.001, p > 0.005), and civic virtue (r = 0.014, p > 0.005). These results were confirmed by the Student’s t-test, with the results showing the absence of a relationship with global organizational citizenship (t = 0.43, p = 0.54), and in all dimensions of citizenship behaviors: altruism (t = 1.88, p = 0.72), courtesy (t = 0.33, p = 0.86), conscientiousness (t = 0.02, p = 0.93), civic virtue (t =−1.004, p = 0.71), and sportsmanship (t = 0.45, p = 0.81).
Regarding age, there was a positive correlation between the ages of hotel employees and organizational citizenship behavior, indicating that this type of behavior differs from the age of hotel employees in the institution—older employees tend to show more organizational citizenship behaviors. There is a weak but statistically significant linear association with citizenship behavior, globally considered (r = 0.158,
p < 0.01). At the level of its sub-dimensions, age has a weak, linear, positive association that is statistically significant with altruism citizenship, courtesy citizenship, conscientiousness citizenship, and civic virtue citizenship, as well as a weak negative positive association that is statistically significant with sportsmanship (
Table 4).
This was also confirmed in the global organizational citizenship behavior through the one-way ANOVA test analysis (F = 3.97,
p < 0.001) (
Table 5). The organizational citizenship behavior differs according to the age of employees in all dimensions, except for civic virtue citizenship (F = 1.17,
p = 0.32). The older employees (more than 40 years old) developed more organizational citizenship behaviors than younger ones in all remaining dimensions. The older employees developed organizational citizenship behaviors consisting of greater altruism (F = 4.80,
p < 0.001), sportsmanship (F = 3.28,
p < 0.005), courtesy (F = 3.07,
p < 0.005), and conscientiousness (F = 2.94,
p < 0.005). The post hoc Scheffe test showed that differences manifested themselves mainly at the global citizenship level, between professionals from 40 to 44 years of age and professionals from 25 to 29 years (DMSScheffe = 0.40,
p < 0.005), as well as in altruism citizenship between professionals from 40 to 44 years of age, 45 to 40 years, and 25 to 29 years (DMSScheffe = 0.71,
p < 0.005 and DMSScheffe = 0.71,
p < 0.005, respectively).
Regarding academic qualifications, there is no significant correlation between the qualifications of hotel unit employees and organizational citizenship behavior, indicating that organizational citizenship does not differ according to academic qualifications. There is a low negative linear association that is not statistically reduced with global organizational citizenship (r = −0.002,
p > 0.005); low positive associations that are not statistically stated with altruism and sportsmanship (r = 0.003 and r = 0.014 with
p > 0.005, respectively); and low negative linear associations that are not statistically meaningful with courtesy, conscientiousness, and civic virtue (r = −0.012, r = −0.008, and r = −0.029 with
p > 0.005, respectively) (
Table 4).
These results were confirmed by the one-way ANOVA test, with the results showing the absence of a relationship: global citizenship (F = 2.79, p = 0.72), altruism (F = 2.79, p = 0.72), courtesy (F = 2.79, p = 0.72) conscientiousness (F = 2.79, p = 0.72), civic virtue (F = 2.79, p = 0.72), and sportsmanship (F = 2.79, p = 0.72). The post hoc Scheffe test revealed no significant differences between the qualifications of hotel employees and organizational citizenship behaviors.
In the variable professional category, positive and negative relationships with organizational citizenship were found, but without statistical significance, indicating that organizational citizenship does not differ according to the professional category. There is a low negative linear association with general organizational citizenship that is not statistically significant (r = −0.004,
p > 0.005); low negative associations that are not statistically stated with altruism, sportsmanship, courtesy, and conscientiousness (r = −0.048, r = −0.052, r = −0.048, and r = −0.036 with
p > 0.005, respectively); and low positive linear associations with civic virtue that are not statistically meaningful (r = 0.0582
p > 0.005) (
Table 4).
These results were confirmed by the one-way ANOVA test, with the results showing the absence of a relationship: global citizenship (F = 2.25, p = 0.08), altruism (F = 2.66, p = 0.05), courtesy (F = 2.98, p = 0.03), conscientiousness (F = 1.31, p = 0.27), civic virtue (F = 2.41, p = 0.67), and sportsmanship (F = 3.01, p = 0.03). The post hoc Scheffe test revealed no significant differences between the professional category of hotel employees and organizational citizenship behaviors.
The results show a positive association that is very weak and statistically significant between the seniority variable and general organizational citizenship (r = −0.10,
p < 0.001), suggesting that, in general terms, hotel employees advocate behaviors of organizational citizenship differently due to their length of service in the organization (
Table 4). In analytical terms, only the altruism dimension (r = −0.08,
p < 0.005) has a negative and statistically significant association with organizational citizenship behaviors. Most dimensions of organizational citizenship have low positive correlations with organizational citizenship, demonstrating predictive importance in their explanation since these relationships are statistically significant (except civic virtue: r = −0.02,
p > 0.005).
This was also confirmed in global organizational citizenship behaviors through the one-way ANOVA test analysis (F = 4.17,
p < 0.001), altruism (F = 4.19,
p < 0.001), sportsmanship (F = 2.52,
p < 0.005), courtesy (F = 3.19,
p < 0.005), and conscientiousness (F = 4.01,
p < 0.001) (
Table 6). Organizational citizenship behaviors differ according to the seniority of employees in all dimensions, except for civic virtue citizenship (F = 0.51,
p = 0.73). The employees with the longest seniority develop more organizational citizenship behaviors than those with less seniority in the organization.
The post hoc Scheffe test showed that differences manifested themselves mainly at the level of global citizenship, between professionals with <3 years and 3–5 years with >16 years (DMSScheffe = −0.52, p < 0.005 and DMSScheffe = −0.42, p < 0.005, respectively); altruism citizenship between professionals with <3 years seniority, 3–5 years, and 11–15 years seniority with >16 years seniority (DMSScheffe = −0.84, p < 0.005; DMSScheffe = −0.68, p < 0.005; DMSScheffe = −0.99, p < 0.001 respectively); courtesy citizenship between professionals with <3 years seniority with >16 years seniority (DMSScheffe = −0.48, p < 0.005); and conscientiousness citizenship between professionals with <3 years seniority, 3–5 years, and 11–15 years seniority with >16 years seniority (DMSScheffe = −0.60, p < 0.005; DMSScheffe = −0.45, p < 0.005; DMSScheffe = −0.60, p < 0.001 respectively).
In summary, regarding the analysis of the relationship between dimensions of organizational citizenship behaviors and the respondents’ sociodemographic and professional variables, the hypotheses that guide the specifications between the components of organizational citizenship and variables of gender (hypothesis 1), academic qualifications (hypothesis 3), and professional category (hypothesis 4) were not confirmed. In other words, gender, qualifications, and professional position do not influence the attitude of professionals toward organizational citizenship at work. The hypothesis that systematizes the specifications between organizational citizenship and age (hypothesis 2) and seniority (hypothesis 5) was confirmed, which indicates that these variables are determinants of the ways that employees behave in terms of organizational citizenship.