Next Article in Journal
Theoretical Framework and Preliminary Evaluation of a Model for Analysing the Qualified Personnel Needing’s in the Hotel Accommodation Sector
Next Article in Special Issue
Dental Service in European Airports: An Analysis on Dental Care Provided by Airports Accommodating More than 20 Million Passengers
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Eco-Degradation on Residential Tourism: The Case of the Mar Menor, Spain
Previous Article in Special Issue
Demographic Challenges for the Tourism Industry: The Future of Seniors’ Activities—A Case Study of Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Tourism and Hospitality
Volume 6
Issue 1
10.3390/tourhosp6010020
tourismhosp-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

Supportive Work Environments, Innovative Work Behavior, and Job Performance in the Hospitality Industry: Empirical Evidence from Thailand

by
Chayan Chaiyapruksayanonde
and
Khwanruedee Ponchaitiwat
*
Faculty of Business Administration and Accountancy, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6(1), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010020
Submission received: 11 January 2025 / Revised: 29 January 2025 / Accepted: 2 February 2025 / Published: 4 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovations as a Factor of Competitiveness in Tourism 2.0)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present study aims to examine the effects of physically and psychologically supportive work environments on innovative work behavior and the effects of innovative work behavior on job performance. This study surveyed 275 hotel employees in Thailand, and a rigorous methodology involving path analysis was employed to scrutinize the proposed hypotheses. The study’s findings illuminate the substantial revelation that supportive work environments and innovative work behavior positively and directly impact the cultivation of job performance. Moreover, physically and psychologically supportive work environments positively and indirectly impact the cultivation of job performance. Additionally, this study thoroughly analyzes the implications for management practices, emphasizing the crucial significance of innovative work behavior in shaping job performance outcomes. Furthermore, it provides actionable recommendations for improving physically supportive work environments, empowering psychologically supportive work environments, and creating healthy, innovative work behavior to support cultivating job performance in Thailand’s hospitality industry.

1. Introduction

The evolving work environment has led to deteriorating conditions, heightened psychological stress, and job insecurity for employees (Ali et al., 2022). Effective decision-making in strategic initiatives requires understanding how individual and team attributes interact with technology, skills, social sensitivity, and collaborative dynamics, including leadership effectiveness. Additionally, the continuous development of human and social capital is essential in response to shifts in structural capital (Kudyba et al., 2020).
According to social exchange theory (SET), employees assess workplace relationships based on costs and benefits, with those perceiving substantial benefits demonstrating greater commitment, engagement in innovation, and higher-quality work. Bhatti et al. (2022) found a significant positive relationship between supervisor support and employee performance, reinforcing the importance of a supportive work environment (Tran et al., 2021). Perceived organizational support enhances employees’ sense of being valued and cared for, fostering dedication and motivation (Yang et al., 2020). Consequently, when employees receive adequate support—encompassing personal factors, compensation, organizational policies, and opportunities for skill development, they are more likely to fully commit, actively participate in innovation, and produce high-quality work (Bendassolli & Tateo, 2018; Deadrick & Gardner, 2008), aligning with SET principles.
Extensive research in human resource management highlights the critical role of employees in the service industry and emphasizes the importance of fostering innovative work behavior to enhance organizational sustainability and competitive advantage (Janssen, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1994). This shift is driven by employees’ ability to overcome work-related challenges creatively (Eldor, 2017). Organizations must prioritize cultivating innovation among employees, as it is essential for generating novel ideas, processes, and procedures that drive long-term competitive advantage.
Recent research indicates that employees’ innovative work behavior is shaped by multiple factors, including organizational climate (Kang et al., 2016), psychological empowerment (Singh & Sarkar, 2012), and supportive technology and infrastructure (W. T. Lee et al., 2011). A physically supportive work environment has been shown to significantly enhance innovation (Dul et al., 2011).
Growing evidence highlights the substantial impact of the physical work environment on job performance, satisfaction, and employee health (Vischer, 2007). Given the increasing role of environmental design in employee well-being, human resource practices must prioritize workspaces that foster creativity (Dul et al., 2011). Additionally, HR professionals play a crucial role in cultivating supportive work environments and innovative cultures to enhance employee performance.
At the individual level, employees’ preferences and abilities must be considered. Those inclined toward tackling challenges should be encouraged to explore and refine their ideas, with continuous feedback mechanisms in place to assess and improve innovative outcomes (Vuong et al., 2022).
Caniëls and Veld (2019) highlighted the importance of adhering to procedures and pursuing goal achievement to enhance innovative work behavior. This approach motivates employees to refine processes and optimize performance, yet the moderating role of innovative work behavior in the relationship between physically and psychologically supportive work environments and job performance remains underexplored.
The hotel industry, a vital sector of Thailand’s economy and employment, has faced significant pressures in recent years. Research indicates that service innovation—both tangible and intangible—enhances service quality, leading to customer satisfaction and repeat patronage (Ottenbacher & Gnoth, 2005; Gajić et al., 2023). Given these dynamics, understanding innovative work behavior within this industry is crucial for improving performance and ensuring business adaptability and sustainability.
This study aims to examine the impact of physically and psychologically supportive work environments on innovative work behavior and its subsequent effects on job performance. By focusing on hotel employees, this research seeks to provide empirical insights into these complex relationships, contributing to both academic understanding and the broader economic landscape.

1.1. Literature Review

In this study, the researchers conducted a literature review and developed hypotheses as follows.

1.1.1. Social Exchange Theory: SET

Social exchange theory (SET) posits that employment involves an exchange in which employees contribute effort in return for tangible benefits and social rewards from the organization (Gervasi et al., 2022). This theory suggests that individuals assess the benefits they expect to gain against potential losses in their interactions. Blau (1964) characterized social exchange as a voluntary action motivated by anticipated returns, where individuals seek equitable benefits relative to their contributions.
In organizational settings, social exchange occurs when employees perceive the value of their work in relation to expected outcomes, particularly when they receive organizational support, such as compensation, living assistance, and necessary resources. This support fosters a sense of value and recognition, motivating employees to invest in their work and enhance performance (Ridwan et al., 2020; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

1.1.2. Supportive Work Environments and Innovative Work Behavior

The work environment consists of various support factors, such as coworkers, supervisors, and the organization, both physical and mental. These factors enhance the work performance of employees (Bhatti et al., 2022). This study explores the impact of a supportive work environment—encompassing both physical and psychological support—from coworkers, supervisors, and the organization on innovative work behavior and job performance. A conducive organizational climate is essential for fostering innovation, which, in turn, enhances employee performance (Shanker et al., 2017). Supervisors who provide timely assistance and offer promotional opportunities contribute to employees’ psychological support, fostering autonomy and increasing their willingness to reciprocate with greater work effort (Tran et al., 2021). Innovative work behavior, defined as employees’ intentional efforts to create beneficial novel outcomes, is significantly influenced by a supportive work environment (Ma Prieto & Pilar Perez-Santana, 2014). The findings align with social exchange theory (SET), suggesting that when employees perceive high levels of support, they reciprocate through innovative behavior, ultimately improving job performance. This reciprocal relationship highlights the importance of a supportive work environment in fostering workplace innovation, particularly in the hospitality industry.
Physically supportive work environments and innovative work behavior: Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found that when employees received positive treatment from their organization, it led to positive outcomes. This was influenced by processes outlined in organizational support theory and ultimately resulted in positive outcomes for employees and reduced withdrawal behavior. A physically supportive work environment refers to employees’ perception of tangible support provided by the organization, including work conditions, systems, and resources. As defined by Eisenberger et al. (2002), this concept encompasses both concrete resources, such as buildings and tools, and intangible elements, like location, convenience, and organizational policies (Schultz & Schultz, 2015). A physically supportive work environment includes a wide range of attributes, from the design of interior spaces to the layout of buildings (Dul et al., 2011). This holistic view of the work environment highlights the importance of both tangible and intangible factors in creating a supportive and conducive workplace for employees.
Innovative work behavior refers to employees’ proactive efforts to generate, promote, and apply new ideas, processes, or techniques to improve workplace outcomes, driving organizational benefits (Janssen, 2000; Garg & Dhar, 2017; Akram et al., 2020). This behavior encompasses the introduction and implementation of novel concepts, products, or workflows, whether individually or collaboratively within an organizational role (De Spiegelaere et al., 2014). It involves a multi-step process in which employees identify challenges, develop innovative ideas, and implement solutions that enhance productivity and the overall work environment (Carmeli et al., 2006). By leveraging their skills, expertise, and knowledge, employees contribute to effective problem-solving and achieving organizational goals.
Innovative work behavior is characterized by six dimensions: opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea investigation, idea promotion, championing, and idea realization. These dimensions are crucial for sustaining organizational competitiveness (Parnitvitidkun et al., 2024). While employees benefit from gathering knowledge from colleagues, it is essential to procure diverse knowledge from various sources and demonstrate independent thinking. Social activity, such as knowledge exchange, supports individual creativity and idea generation (Kmieciak, 2021). Furthermore, personal characteristics, compensation, corporate policies, the work environment, and organizational climate influence innovative work behavior, in line with the concept of SET. This framework underscores how supportive environments and exchanges between employees and the organization can foster innovative work behavior, leading to enhanced performance. Consequently, the following hypothesis can be formulated:
H1: 
A physically supportive work environment positively affects innovative work behavior.
Psychologically supportive work environment and innovative work behavior: A psychologically supportive work environment plays a pivotal role in encouraging innovative work behavior. Odoardi et al. (2015) highlighted that employees empowered by an innovation-supportive, vision-oriented team exhibited a higher degree of personal initiative in generating and applying novel, change-oriented ideas. A psychologically supportive work environment instills in employees the belief that they can shape their roles and work contexts, fueling their innovative activities.
As demonstrated by Mishra et al. (2019), psychological support—such as work–family enrichment, psychological capital, and supervisor support—creates a positive and supportive workplace atmosphere. This environment is closely linked to encouraging and fostering innovative work behavior. Clark (2000) argued that a lack of conflict between work and personal life enhances productivity and satisfaction with family roles. Employees who maintain a good work–life balance often experience greater relaxation, which, in turn, fosters creativity and goal achievement at work.
This research defines a psychologically supportive work environment as employees’ perception of support from the organization in terms of understanding, commitment, acceptance, and appreciation from co-workers and supervisors. This definition is rooted in concepts of organizational support, supervisor support, leadership behaviors, co-worker support, and the overall work atmosphere.
Social exchange theory (SET) provides valuable insights into the relationship between the work environment and innovative work behavior. Blau (1964) proposed that individuals assess professional relationships based on perceived costs and rewards. SET suggests that employees are motivated by fair rewards and value positive social interactions, including support from employers and colleagues. In the workplace, rewards may include salary, benefits, recognition, and opportunities for personal and professional growth. However, when employees experience stress, lack resources, or feel unsupported, their innovative behavior is likely to decrease. Conversely, when employees receive adequate support—such as necessary resources, training opportunities, and fair compensation—they perceive their relationship with the employer as fulfilling, which boosts motivation and enhances job performance, ultimately fostering innovation in the workplace. Therefore, the following hypothesis can be formulated:
H2: 
A psychologically supportive work environment positively affects innovative work behavior.

1.1.3. Innovative Work Behavior and Job Performance

In today’s competitive business environment, innovation is a key driver for organizational success. Innovation enables businesses to respond quickly to customer needs and gain a competitive edge. Additionally, it allows organizations to efficiently introduce new, high-quality assets. Wang and Wang (2012) emphasize that innovation is crucial for long-term survival, success, and global competitiveness. Therefore, organizations should foster and support employees’ innovative potential.
Organizational support for knowledge exchange is positively linked to employees’ perceptions of a knowledge exchange culture and their intention to engage in knowledge exchange. Perceived support from supervisors and coworkers further encourages employees to share knowledge, enhancing their innovative work behavior. Social Exchange Theory and Agency Theory are commonly used to explain the relationship between organizational support and knowledge exchange (Wang & Noe, 2010). Employees can enhance their learning and innovation capabilities by sharing skills and expertise, which contributes to business growth by generating new ideas and creating opportunities (Bong et al., 2016).
Moreover, organizations should value employees’ abilities and invest in developing specific skill sets. Studies have shown that engaging in innovative behavior positively impacts job performance. Min-Seong and Dong-Woo (2017) found a significant positive relationship between innovation and job performance. This is in line with the findings of Hogan and Coote (2014), who stressed that employees’ innovative behaviors play a crucial role in developing new solutions.
Employee performance, defined as the application of knowledge and abilities to achieve goals within a specified timeframe, is influenced by both task and contextual factors. This performance significantly impacts knowledge management, which aligns with organizational goals. The exchange of tacit knowledge is essential for improving efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness. Work efficiency and effectiveness indicate increased performance with fewer resources, while employees’ ability to meet deadlines is critical for achieving organizational objectives (Sujatha & Krishnaveni, 2018). Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: 
Innovative work behavior positively affects job performance.
Organizations that provide various forms of support to employees enhance their sense of value within the organization. This awareness positively influences their behavior, leading to improved workplace conduct, greater creativity, and enhanced job performance, in line with SET (Jolly et al., 2021; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Consequently, a physically or psychologically supportive environment is likely to encourage innovative work behavior and increase job performance. This study also aims to explore the indirect effects of these supportive environments on job performance.
The framework depicted in Figure 1 of this study is based on the conceptual structure and foundational principles derived from an exhaustive examination of the pertinent literature. This comprehensive review served as the basis for establishing the framework, informing the research methodology and analysis in this study.

2. Materials and Method

2.1. Population and Sample

This research aimed to understand the experiences and perspectives of employees in the dynamic hospitality industry, specifically those working in 3–5-star hotels across Thailand. The regions covered included Bangkok, as well as the central, northern, northeastern, and southern areas, each providing unique insights into the hospitality sector. To ensure research reliability, an initial sample size of 324,000 individuals was considered (National Statistical Office, 2020). Using the finite population formula, the final sample size was set at 399 hotel employees, with a 95% confidence level and a 0.05% margin of error. A multi-stage sampling technique was applied, dividing the sample by region and focusing on 3–5-star hotels as categorized by the Thai Hotel Association. Employees from various hotel departments were contacted to ensure comprehensive survey distribution.

2.2. Research Instrument

The research questionnaire was carefully designed after a thorough review of the relevant literature to ensure that the definitions and items were consistent with established concepts. The researcher defined the components, operational definitions, and structures of the variables used in the study based on this review. The questionnaire was then translated into Thai, with adjustments made to the language and context to better suit the hotel industry. To ensure content validity, the item–objective congruence (IOC) method was employed, and the expertise of three professionals was consulted. Following the IOC validation, all items were retained for the next phase of the research.
A refined version of the questionnaire was then pilot tested with 30 participants to identify and resolve any potential issues. To evaluate the questionnaire’s reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used, with a threshold of 0.70 considered acceptable (Peterson, 1994). The reliability coefficients for all variables exceeded this threshold, with values ranging from 0.79, confirming the robustness and reliability of the data collection process for the study.
The variables in the study were measured in the following manner, as outlined in Appendix A: The measurement of supportive work environments comprised eight items for physically supportive work environments (PHYs) and nine items for psychologically supportive work environments (PSYs), adapted from Winefield et al. (1992), Rhoades et al. (2001), and Colquitt (2001). The measurement of innovative work behavior (IWB) involved utilizing eight items, adapted from Tierney and Farmer (2002), Parnitvitidkun et al. (2024), and Kmieciak (2021). These items were carefully selected to evaluate behaviors such as searching for new ideas, generating new ideas, and the ability to influence colleagues to support innovative ideas. The measurement of job performance (JPR) involved ten items adapted from Borman and Motowidlo (1997) and Y. K. Lee et al. (2011). This investigation comprehensively examined all facets of employees’ performance, encompassing content and context. All respondents were asked to use a 5-point rating scale to express their agreement with each statement. The scale ranged from 1 (reflecting the lowest level of agreement) to 5 (signifying the highest level of agreement). We employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the structural integrity of the latent variables, examine the relationships between the items used to measure these variables, and refine the questionnaire to ensure its appropriateness for the research context.

2.3. Collection of Data

This study employed a multistage sampling technique, with the sample thoughtfully distributed across regions prior to distributing the questionnaires. The final sample included 275 employees, representing 68.92% of the initially calculated sample size, a significant figure for this study (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). Data were collected via a mail survey, and participants received an information sheet detailing the research objectives. The responses were kept strictly confidential.

2.4. Data Analysis

Single-level confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine measurement items in each latent variable, and structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis using Mplus version 7.11 was used to test the hypotheses. This analysis helps clarify the relationships among the variables in the research model.

3. Results

From the data collected from 275 participants, it was found that 65.45% of the participants were female and 34.55% were male. The age distribution showed that the majority (53.09%) fell within the 21–30 age group, followed by 21.09% in the 31–40 age group. Regarding educational attainment, 54.18% of the participants held a bachelor’s degree, 40.36% had education levels below a bachelor’s degree, and 5.45% had a master’s degree. Regarding marital status, 64.73% of the participants were single, while 26.91% were married. Additionally, most participants had 1–5 years of work experience (61.45%), with 25.45% reporting 6–10 years of experience.
The four latent variables were analyzed using single-level confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Of the latent variables, the single-level CFA results for psychologically supportive work environments (PSYs) showed that it comprised nine observed variables. The factor loadings were between 0.598 and 0.797. The model fit the empirical data and was consistent, with Chi-square = 23.795, degrees of freedom (df) = 22, p = 0.358, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.017, CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.997, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.021, and Chi-square/df = 1.082, as shown in Figure 2.
The single-level CFA results for physically supportive work environments (PHYs) showed that it comprised eight observed variables. The factor loadings were between 0.648 and 0.861. The model fit the empirical data and was consistent, with Chi-square = 22.106, df = 15, p = 0.358, RMSEA = 0.042, CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.990, SRMR = 0.021, and Chi-square/df = 1.474, as shown in Figure 3.
The results of the single-level CFA for innovative work behavior (IWB) showed that it comprised eight observed variables. The factor loadings were between 0.603 and 0.785. The model fit the empirical data and was consistent, with Chi-square = 20.829, df = 17, p = 0.234, RMSEA = 0.029, CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.992, SRMR = 0.025, and Chi-square/df = 1.225, as shown in Figure 4.
The single-level CFA for job performance (JPR) results showed that it comprised ten observed variables. The factor loadings were between 0.491 and 0.767. The model fit the empirical data and was consistent, with Chi-square = 31.002, df = 25, p = 0.189, RMSEA = 0.030, CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.990, SRMR = 0.029, and Chi-square/df = 1.240, as shown in Figure 5.
In Table 1, the convergent validity necessitates standardized factor loadings between 0.503 and 0.863. According to Hair et al. (2019), the recommended composite reliability (CR) falls within the range of 0.85 to 0.92, meeting the acceptable level of 0.60 and indicating substantial internal consistency. Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed that the average variance extracted (AVE) should range from 0.42 to 0.58, representing an acceptable threshold for convergent validity.
For discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE for each factor was compared with the factor’s inter-construct correlations, as shown in Table 2.
Table 3 and Figure 6 shows that physically supportive work environments positively affect innovative work behavior, with a path coefficient of 0.429 at a statistically significant level of 0.01, thus confirming Hypothesis 1. Psychologically supportive work environments positively affect innovative work behavior, with a path coefficient of 0.304 at a statistically significant level of 0.01, thus confirming Hypothesis 2. Innovative work behavior positively affects job performance, with a path coefficient of 0.611 at a statistically significant level of 0.01, thus confirming Hypothesis 3. Table 4 shows that physically and psychologically supportive work environments indirectly affect job performance. The beta coefficients for participation are 0.186 and 0.262, with p-values of 0.00, which is less than the significance level of 0.05 (α = 5%). This model can explain 37.4% of job performance. Moreover, the structural model provides an acceptable fit, with chi-square/degrees of freedom = 1.508 at a statistically significant level of 0.00. The CFI is 0.952, the TLI is 0.939, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.043, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) is 0.049.

4. Discussion

This research aimed to analyze the effects of physical and psychological support on innovative work behavior. The findings show that as employees receive more psychological support, they are more likely to exhibit innovative work behavior. Considering that psychological support is related to psychological capital—a positive state of psychological development—individuals who receive high psychological support are more likely to be willing to work. Individuals with high psychological capital can better resist work stress and are less prone to emotional exhaustion (Lan, 2019). When individuals receive psychological reinforcement, they tend to perform their roles with a sense of value, autonomy, and control. This promotes employees’ feelings of self-determination and personal initiative at work, leading to innovative work behavior (Helmy et al., 2019). Furthermore, this aligns with the concept proposed by Odoardi et al. (2015), who stated that psychological support plays a crucial role in stimulating innovative work activities by fostering a belief among employees that they can shape their work roles and contexts. Our findings align with Akhtar et al. (2018), who found that psychological capital positively influences employees’ innovative behavior. Employees with higher levels of psychological capital are more proactive in generating and implementing new ideas.
Regarding the role of physical support, the findings suggest that employees with access to adequate physical resources are more likely to engage in innovative work behavior. This is consistent with the framework proposed by Eisenberger et al. (2002), which conceptualizes physical support as encompassing both tangible (e.g., infrastructure, equipment) and intangible (e.g., workplace policies, convenience) resources that facilitate job performance (Schultz & Schultz, 2015). A well-structured work environment with adequate resources enables employees to collaborate and apply creative approaches to their tasks. Therefore, organizations must invest in improving the work environment to foster an atmosphere conducive to innovation. Physical support not only enhances employees’ work capabilities but also promotes motivation and job satisfaction, thereby encouraging a willingness to innovate (Alessa & Durugbo, 2022; Abun et al., 2023).
From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the understanding of innovative work behavior by integrating both psychological and physical support within the framework of Social Exchange Theory (SET). SET posits that when employees perceive organizational support, it enhances their sense of value to the organization, which, in turn, motivates them to reciprocate through increased commitment, engagement, and participation in innovation. Our findings affirm that psychological support enhances employees’ emotions and confidence, while physical support fosters readiness for creativity and productivity. Both factors are critical drivers of innovation (Briner, 2000; Ma Prieto & Pilar Perez-Santana, 2014). Furthermore, this study reinforces the idea that workplace innovation is not solely an individual endeavor but is shaped by environmental factors that influence employees’ perceptions of support and autonomy.
From a practical perspective, managers should prioritize the development of a supportive work environment by adopting leadership practices that foster trust, employee well-being, and access to necessary resources. Organizations can promote innovation by designing job roles that encourage autonomy, implementing mentorship programs, and ensuring fair compensation and career advancement opportunities. Additionally, a workplace culture that supports knowledge-sharing, collaboration, and risk-taking will further stimulate innovative work behavior and contribute to business opportunities and operational efficiency (Alshahrani et al., 2024; Tran et al., 2021; Utomo et al., 2023; Min-Seong & Dong-Woo, 2017; Bong et al., 2016). In the context of the hotel industry, these findings highlight the importance of leadership strategies focused on mental empowerment, employee support, and redesigned work processes to foster innovation, ultimately enhancing overall work performance.

5. Conclusions

The findings highlight the critical role of both psychological and physical support in fostering innovative work behavior. A well-supported workforce is more likely to engage in creative problem-solving, exhibit proactive behaviors, and contribute to organizational innovation. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating supportive work environments into corporate strategies to enhance employee engagement and long-term organizational success.
Grounded in social exchange theory (SET), this study demonstrates that employees who perceive strong organizational support reciprocate through heightened commitment, improved performance, and increased innovation. Organizations should, therefore, focus on cultivating an environment that prioritizes leadership trust, employee development, and access to essential resources. Key managerial implications include promoting self-development initiatives, refining workplace systems, ensuring equitable compensation, and fostering an inclusive and collaborative culture.
Additionally, this study reveals the broader impact of social support on work–life balance and overall job satisfaction. Employees who receive substantial support from their families are more likely to experience enhanced psychological well-being, further reinforcing their capacity for innovation. Future research could explore the interplay between organizational support, family support, and industry-specific factors in shaping innovative work behaviors across different sectors.
By fostering a culture of support, organizations can empower employees to take initiative, experiment with new ideas, and contribute meaningfully to organizational growth and competitiveness.

Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

This study, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, encountered challenges in reaching a large sample, particularly those with limited technology access. Future research should replicate this model in a post-COVID context, enabling a larger sample size and regional analysis. Additionally, exploring the relationships among work environments, innovative behavior, and performance across other service industries would enhance the generalizability of the findings and provide deeper insights into workplace changes.
The results underscore the importance of organizations prioritizing a physically supportive work environment while promoting innovative work behavior strategies. These actions optimize employee performance and foster a psychologically supportive environment, driving creativity. By integrating both elements, organizations can enhance employees’ innovation capacity, leading to sustained organizational growth and success.
This study also highlights that increased support from family members and spouses improves family life satisfaction. Achieving a better work–life balance enhances overall satisfaction, which nurtures innovative work behavior.
This research establishes a comprehensive theoretical framework for fostering innovative behavior through physical and psychological support, offering new insights into the literature, particularly in the Thai context.
Practically, this study provides guidance for organizations and hotel industry practitioners. Management should ensure the environment fosters innovation and performance through fair compensation, welfare benefits, and systems for job training.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, original draft preparation, review and editing, and visualization, C.C.; supervision, K.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Decla-ration of Helsinki, and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of KhonKaen University (protocol code: HE653212 and date of approval: 2 September 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This article is part of the dissertation entitled The Influence of Supportive Work Environment and Innovative Work Behavior to Job Performance, Faculty of Business Administration and Accountancy, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Scale Items
Physically Supportive
Work Environment		PHY01: Appropriate salary.
PHY02: Welfare benefits.
PHY03: Appropriate salary method.
PHY04: Appropriate salary period.
PHY05: Appropriate salary rate.
PHY06: Fair salary process.
PHY07: Salary and welfare benefits process.
PHY08: Work structure improvement.
Psychologically Supportive
Work Environment		PSY01: Provide personal advice.
PSY02: Offer solutions.
PSY03: Suggest new ideas.
PSY04: Offer career progress.
PSY05: Support procedures.
PSY06: Clear visions.
PSY07: Achieve goals.
PSY08: Training.
PSY09: Employee benefits.
Innovative Work BehaviorIWB01: Find new ideas.
IWB02: Create new ideas.
IWB03: Generate new ideas.
IWB04: Develop new ideas.
IWB05: Implement new ideas.
IWB06: Apply new ideas
IWB07: Champion new ideas.
IWB08: Promote new ideas.
Job PerformanceJPR01: Complete work.
JPR02: Achieve goals.
JPR03: On time.
JPR04: Perform special tasks.
JPR05: Align with organization’s goals.
JPR06: Perform without errors.
JPR07: Successfully perform tasks.
JPR08: Fulfill responsibilities well.
JPR09: Exceed work goals.
JPR10: High-quality work standard.

References

  1. Abun, D., Macaspact, L. G. R., Valdez, E. B., & Julian, F. (2023). The effect of innovative work environment on the innovative work behaviour. International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science, 12(3), 140–158. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akhtar, F., Khan, H., & Suleman, A. (2018). The impact of psychological capital, supervisor support and risk tolerance in managers on innovative work behaviour. European Online Journal of natural and Social Sciences, 7(3), 632–641. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akram, T., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Hussain, S. T. (2020). The impact of organizational justice on employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 117–129. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alessa, H. S., & Durugbo, C. M. (2022). Systematic review of innovative work behaviour concepts and contributions. Management Review Quarterly, 72, 1171–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ali, H., Li, M., & Qiu, X. (2022). Employee engagement and innovative work behavior among Chinese millennials: Mediating and moderating role of work-life balance and psychological empowerment. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 942580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Alshahrani, I., Al-Jayyousi, O., Aldhmour, F., & Alderaan, T. (2024). Towards understanding the influence of innovative work behaviour on healthcare organizations’ performance: The mediating role of transformation leaders. Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research, 42(1), 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bendassolli, P. F., & Tateo, L. (2018). The meaning of work and cultural psychology: Ideas for new directions. Culture & Psychology, 24(2), 135–159. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bhatti, M. K., Soomro, B. A., & Shah, N. (2022). Work environment and performance among nurses: A significant way to overcome violation of human rights in the health sector. International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, 15(5), 443–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bong, C. S., Kihwan, K., Ebrahim, U. S. M., & Seung-Wan, K. (2016). How transformational leadership facilitates innovative behavior of Korean workers: Examining mediating and moderating processes. Personnel Review, 45(3), 459–479. [Google Scholar]
  12. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Briner, R. B. (2000). Relationships between work environments, psychological environments and psychological well-being. Occupational Medicine, 50(5), 299–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Caniëls, M. C., & Veld, M. (2019). Employee ambidexterity, high performance work systems and innovative work behaviour: How much balance do we need? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(4), 565–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., De Witte, H., Niesen, W., & Van Hootegem, G. (2014). On the relation of job insecurity, job autonomy, innovative work behaviour and the mediating effect of work engagement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(3), 318–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Deadrick, D. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2008). Maximal and typical measures of job performance: An analysis of performance variability over time. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers’ creativity and the role of the physically work environment. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 715–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Eldor, L. (2017). Looking on the bright side: The positive role of organizational politics in the relationship between employee engagement and performance at work. Applied Psychology, 66(2), 233–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gajić, T., Vukolić, D., Zrnić, M., & Dénes, D. L. (2023). The quality of hotel service as a factor of achieving loyalty among visitors. Hotel and Tourism Management, 11(1), 67–77. [Google Scholar]
  25. Garg, S., & Dhar, R. (2017). Employee service innovative behavior: The roles of leader-member exchange (LMX), work engagement, and job autonomy. International Journal of Manpower, 38(2), 242–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gervasi, D., Faldetta, G., Pellegrini, M. M., & Maley, J. (2022). Reciprocity in organizational behavior studies: A systematic literature review of contents, types, and directions. European Management Journal, 40(3), 441–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning, EMEA. [Google Scholar]
  28. Helmy, I., Adawiyah, W. R., & Banani, A. (2019). Linking psychological empowerment, knowledge sharing, and employees’ innovative behavior in Indonesian SMEs. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 14(2), 66–79. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jolly, P. M., Kong, D. T., & Kim, K. Y. (2021). Social support at work: An integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(2), 229–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kang, J. H., Matusik, J. G., Kim, T. Y., & Phillips, J. M. (2016). Interactive effects of multiple organizational climates on employee innovative behavior in entrepreneurial firms: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6), 628–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kmieciak, R. (2021). Trust, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior: Empirical evidence from Poland. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(5), 1832–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kudyba, S., Fjermestad, J., & Davenport, T. (2020). A research model for identifying factors that drive effective decision-making and the future of work. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 835–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lan, X. (2019). How psychological capital promotes innovative behaviour: A multilevel modelling. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 9, 2202–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, W. T., Hung, S. Y., & Chau, P. Y. (2011). Influence of knowledge management infrastructure on innovative business processes and market-interrelationship performance: An empirical study of hospitals in Taiwan. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 19(2), 67–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lee, Y. K., Son, M. H., & Lee, D. J. (2011). Do emotions play a mediating role in the relationship between owner leadership styles and manager customer orientation, and performance in service environment? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 942–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ma Prieto, I., & Pilar Perez-Santana, M. (2014). Managing innovative work behavior: The role of human resource practices. Personnel Review, 43(2), 184–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Min-Seong, K., & Dong-Woo, K. (2017). Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance in hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(12), 3044–3062. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mishra, P., Bhatnagar, J., Gupta, R., & Wadsworth, S. M. (2019). How work–family enrichment influence innovative work behavior: Role of psychological capital and supervisory support. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(1), 58–80. [Google Scholar]
  41. National Statistical Office. (2020). The 2020 Accommodation Survey. National Statistical Office of Thailand. Available online: http://www.nso.go.th (accessed on 28 March 2022).
  42. Odoardi, C., Montani, F., Boudrias, J. S., & Battistelli, A. (2015). Linking managerial practices and leadership style to innovative work behavior: The role of group and psychological processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 545–569. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ottenbacher, M., & Gnoth, J. (2005). How to develop successful hospitality innovation. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Parnitvitidkun, P., Ponchaitiwat, K., Chancharat, N., & Thoumrungroje, A. (2024). Understanding IT professional innovative work behavior in the workplace: A sequential mixed-methods design. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 10(1), 100231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Ridwan, M., Mulyani, S. R., & Ali, H. (2020). Improving employee performance through perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(12), 839–849. [Google Scholar]
  49. Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. E. (2015). Psychological and Work Today. Pearson New International Edition CourseSmart eTextbook, Pearson. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  50. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Farrell, M. (2017). Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of innovative work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Singh, M., & Sarkar, A. (2012). The relationship between psychological empowerment and innovative behavior. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(3), 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sujatha, R., & Krishnaveni, R. (2018). Knowledge creating ba as a determinant of job performance of employees: An empirical analysis among pump manufacturing firms in South India. Asia Pacific Management Review, 23(1), 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tran, L. T. T., Thi Vinh Hien, H., & Baker, J. (2021). When supportive workplaces positively help work performance. Baltic Journal of Management, 16(2), 208–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Utomo, H. J. N., Irwantoro, I., Wasesa, S., Purwati, T., Sembiring, R., & Purwanto, A. (2023). Investigating the role of innovative work behavior, organizational trust, perceived organizational support: An empirical study on SMEs performance. Journal of Law, and Sustainable Development, 11(2), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vischer, J. C. (2007). The effects of the physically environment on job performance: Towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress and health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 23(3), 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vuong, B. N., Tushar, H., & Hossain, S. F. A. (2022). The effect of social support on job performance through organizational commitment and innovative work behavior: Does innovative climate matter? Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 15(5), 832–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8899–8908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Winefield, H. R., Winefield, A. H., & Tiggemann, M. (1992). Social support and psychological well-being in young adults: The Multi-Dimensional Support Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(1), 198–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Yang, H., van Rijn, M. B., & Sanders, K. (2020). Perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing: Employees’ self-construal matters. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(17), 2217–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g001
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g002
Figure 2. Measurement model of psychologically supportive work environment (PSY).
Figure 2. Measurement model of psychologically supportive work environment (PSY).
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g002
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g003
Figure 3. Measurement model of physically supportive work environment (PHY).
Figure 3. Measurement model of physically supportive work environment (PHY).
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g003
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g004
Figure 4. Measurement model of innovative work behavior (IWB).
Figure 4. Measurement model of innovative work behavior (IWB).
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g004
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g005
Figure 5. Measurement model of job performance (JPR).
Figure 5. Measurement model of job performance (JPR).
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g005
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g006
Figure 6. SEM analysis.
Figure 6. SEM analysis.
Tourismhosp 06 00020 g006
Table 1. Measurement model analysis.
Table 1. Measurement model analysis.
Construct and IndicatorsFactor LoadingtR2ResidualCRAVE
Psychologically Supportive Work Environment
PSY010.70514.8230.4970.5030.870.49
PSY020.75117.1910.5640.436
PSY030.68717.2030.4720.528
PSY040.60213.0300.3620.638
PSY050.74220.3520.5510.449
PSY060.69716.8480.4860.514
PSY070.60912.3200.3710.629
PSY080.79015.1560.6250.375
PSY090.69615.0430.4840.516
Physically Supportive Work Environment
PHY010.85733.8530.7340.2660.920.58
PHY020.71419.9130.5090.491
PHY030.82231.7530.6760.324
PHY040.59613.5830.3560.644
PHY050.86335.5980.7440.256
PHY060.73422.9230.5380.462
PHY070.67817.9930.4600.54
PHY130.79820.7390.6370.363
Innovative Work Behavior
IWB010.73818.2210.5440.4560.850.42
IWB020.5149.3680.2640.736
IWB030.61412.4590.3770.623
IWB040.61413.2100.3770.623
IWB050.58612.5060.3430.657
IWB060.65214.1090.4260.574
IWB070.71616.2260.5130.487
IWB080.73817.9130.5450.455
Job Performance
JPR010.5039.7150.2530.7470.880.42
JPR020.60613.2920.3670.633
JPR030.60613.6320.3680.632
JPR040.60712.7510.3690.631
JPR050.80216.1390.6430.357
JPR060.68417.2380.4670.533
JPR070.69118.2290.4780.522
JPR080.67416.1760.4550.545
JPR090.61512.7180.3780.622
JPR100.65915.6140.4340.566
Table 2. Discriminant validity and AVE square root matrix.
Table 2. Discriminant validity and AVE square root matrix.
VariablesPSYPHYIWBJPR
PSY0.700
PHY0.5900.763
IWB0.5570.6080.651
JPR0.3400.3720.6110.649
Note: The square roots of the AVE are shown as bold numbers along the diagonal.
Table 3. Results of this study’s hypotheses.
Table 3. Results of this study’s hypotheses.
HypothesisBeta Valuep-ValuePath Description
H1: Physically supportive work environments positively affect innovative work behavior.0.4290.000Accepted
H2: Psychologically supportive work environments positively affect innovative work behavior.0.3040.000Accepted
H3: Innovative work behavior positively affects job performance.0.6110.000Accepted
Table 4. Summary of path analysis results of the overall effects.
Table 4. Summary of path analysis results of the overall effects.
VariableDirect EffectIndirect EffectTotal Effect
Psychologically supportive work environment-0.186 **0.186 **
Physically supportive work environment-0.262 **0.262 **
X 2 = 708.615, df = 470, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.952, TLI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.043, SRMR = 0.049
R2 of job performance = 0.374
** p < 0.01.
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

Chaiyapruksayanonde, C.; Ponchaitiwat, K. Supportive Work Environments, Innovative Work Behavior, and Job Performance in the Hospitality Industry: Empirical Evidence from Thailand. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010020

AMA Style

Chaiyapruksayanonde C, Ponchaitiwat K. Supportive Work Environments, Innovative Work Behavior, and Job Performance in the Hospitality Industry: Empirical Evidence from Thailand. Tourism and Hospitality. 2025; 6(1):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chaiyapruksayanonde, Chayan, and Khwanruedee Ponchaitiwat. 2025. "Supportive Work Environments, Innovative Work Behavior, and Job Performance in the Hospitality Industry: Empirical Evidence from Thailand" Tourism and Hospitality 6, no. 1: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010020

APA Style

Chaiyapruksayanonde, C., & Ponchaitiwat, K. (2025). Supportive Work Environments, Innovative Work Behavior, and Job Performance in the Hospitality Industry: Empirical Evidence from Thailand. Tourism and Hospitality, 6(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010020

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop