Compassionate in Nature? Exploring Hotel Staff Third-Party Interventions in Instances of (In)Justice

Abstract

Prior research suggests that employees aware of their peers’ mistreatment by management and who themselves are target to such mistreatment help their peers more than employees who have been exposed only to peers’ mistreatment. However, no studies have tried to explain the way this process occurs. Suggesting that this help is performed compassionately, this study models personal and peers’ unjust treatment, empathic concern, and kindness following Kanov et al. compassion process: noticing, feeling, and responding. It hypothesizes that under interactions between personal and peers’ mistreatment staff are more empathically concerned about peers and, hence, amplify kindness out of compassion. Results supported empathic concern as a mediator and, hence, kindness as compassionate behavior. Unexpectedly, however, staff reduced (rather than increased) empathic concern and kindness. Tragedy-of-the-commons is invoked to explain these unexpected results. Simultaneous mistreatment could lead staff to perceive justice as a scarce common resource that is ultimately a source of dispute and uncooperativeness.

Keywords

compassion organizational justice interpersonal justice kindness empathic concern third-party intervention tragedy-of-the-commons

Introduction

Recent advances in the justice literature not only recognize the implications for hotel staff of the (in)justice they experience personally (Collie et al., 2000) but also of the (in)justice that others experience (Dhanani & LaPalme, 2019; Hershcovis & Bhatnagar, 2017; Melián-González & Bulchand-Gidumal, 2017; Porath et al., 2010, 2011; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara et al., 2013; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Ting-Ding, 2017).

Previous justice research on third-party interventions suggests that hotel staff can make fairness judgments and demonstrate helping behavior when peers are mistreated by management (Hershcovis & Bhatnagar, 2017; O’Reilly & Aquino, 2011; Priesemuth, 2013; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara et al., 2013). Research also suggests that staff demonstration of helping behaviors when witnessing situations of peers’ mistreatment is amplified when they perceive themselves as also affected by such mistreatment (e.g., Colquitt, 2004; Harris et al., 2013; Hitlan et al., 2006; Low et al., 2007; Walsh & Hitlan, 2007; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Suárez-Acosta, 2014). The effects of being exposed to both personal and peers’ mistreatment are found to increase hotel staff engagement in peer-directed (Lind et al., 1998; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Suárez-Acosta, 2014) and guest-directed helping behavior (Hershcovis & Bhatnagar, 2017; Priesemuth, 2013; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Guerra-Báez, 2016) such as interpersonal citizenship behavior (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Suárez-Acosta, 2014); which, in the case of hotels, has been found beneficial for performance (Walz & Niehoff, 2000). However, the reasons for the increased willingness of staff to help peers affected by mistreatment are unclear. Previous management research has tended to look for reasons in self-centered mechanisms, while other-centered mechanisms have received less systematic attention (Dhanani & LaPalme, 2019; Skarlicki et al., 2015). For instance, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), essentially self-centered (Miller, 1999), states that third parties intervene in peers’ injustices by following a quid pro quo logic, that is, “it is her today; it might be me tomorrow.” Because third-party interventions aim to “do the right thing” (Kahneman et al., 1986; Turillo et al., 2002), moral imperative motives may also be considered self-centered and, hence, have a place here (Folger et al., 2005; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Viera-Armas, 2019).

Compassion (Latin, com-: together, -passio: to suffer) is one prototypical other-centered approach (Dutton et al., 2014) that is described as “the feeling that arises in witnessing another’s suffering and that motivates a subsequent desire to help” (Goetz et al., 2010, p. 351). Clearly, the issue involving third-party justice interventions for compassion is of special interest to the hospitality industry given the collective nature of much of hotel work (Bavik, 2016; Kim et al., 2013). This context intensifies situations in which others ask for help and care (Persson & Kajonius, 2016) to such an extent that staff witnessing relevant (in)justice events by peers is even more frequent than experiencing them personally (Blader et al., 2013). Moreover, Lilius et al. (2008) described how staff receiving compassionate support increases organizational commitment, and hence satisfaction and well-being; or that compassion is also beneficial financially by reducing—for instance—the costs derived from employee burnout and job stress (Butts, 1997). Therefore, if, how, and when hotel staff deliver compassion can be critical to successful hotel functioning (Tsui, 2013).

This article aims to test whether staff affected both personally and through evidencing peers’ unfair treatment, amplify compassion. Applying Kanov et al. (2004) compassion process (noticing, feeling, and responding), it is first proposed that extending acts of kindness, or being kind to others when they are suffering (Neff, 2003; Wispé, 1991), may amplify compassionate responses of the staff affected by personal and peers’ mistreatment. It is then suggested that simultaneous unfair treatment also amplifies empathic concern, that is, “other-oriented emotional response elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of someone else” (Batson & Ahmad, 2009, pp. 145-146), which, in turn, mediates the relationship between simultaneous unfair treatment and kindness, characterizing kindness as being performed out of compassion. This mediating role of empathic concern is indeed critical in supporting the compassionate nature of expressions of kindness or trying to be loving with those who are suffering emotional pain (Neff, 2003), otherwise these expressions may not ultimately be performed out of compassion. However, third-party and self-experiences of justice may not uniformly affect kindness and empathic concern. Because it is usual for hotel employees to work side by side with subcontracted external employees or temporary workers, perhaps fostering between-group and in-group rivalry, a mixed workforce in hotels could weaken workers’ perception of solidarity. As such, while congruent emotions toward a peer-victim of mistreatment (feelings of trust, sympathy, or living vicariously, and so on) can lead third parties to an increase in perceived peers’ unfair treatment (Blader et al., 2013), incongruent emotions derived from rivalry, on the other hand, may also decrease helping reactions.

In sum, the objectives of this study are first to examine (a) whether the interaction between personal and peers’ unfair treatment positively affect empathic concern. We then question (b) whether this increase in employees’ empathic concern acts as a mediator in the interactive effects of personal and peers’ unfair treatment on kindness. Finally, (c) we will examine whether there may be a difference in employees’ reactions to peers’ receipt of unfair treatment based on whether they are permanent or temporary employees (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Theoretical Model of Empathic Concern as a Mediator in the Interaction Effects of Justice for Self and Peers on Kindness

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Interpersonal Justice, Suffering, and the Vital Role of Empathic Concern

The close proximity and high intensity work interactions in hotels result in numerous opportunities for staff to witnessing and experiencing their peers under duress. We employ the term “suffering,” a broad term that encompasses “enduring, inevitable or unavoidable loss, distress, pain or injury” (Pollock & Sands, 1997, p. 173) or simply the accumulation of minor setbacks on a recurring basis (Chamberlain & Zika, 1990). In this regard, perceptions of interpersonal (in)justice—a dimension of organizational (in)justice involving (mis)treatment of employees by management (Bies & Moag, 1986)—have been found to be critically salient in the hospitality industry (Chebat & Slusarczyk, 2005; Karatepe, 2006) and, hence, it can be an important source of mishaps and setbacks in a hotel environment. Thus, we focus on interpersonal (in)justice in this study.

The compassionate nature of third-party hotel staff interventions in instances of (in)justice is explored by using the three-step compassion process (noticing, feeling, and responding) described by Kanov et al. (2004). We first model the effects on employee kindness of being exposed to both personal and peers’ (un)fair treatment. It is argued that this interplay reflects the staff’s noticing and feeling of peers’ mistreatment by management, which moved to alleviate peers’ harm, should thus easier help peers with kindness. Given that not all expressions of kindness are necessarily compassionate behavior unless they are performed empathically, out of concern for others’ suffering (Davis, 1980; Kanov et al., 2004), feelings of empathic concern or suffering with (Batson & Ahmad, 2009) are posited at the heart of this process; thus, being vital in establishing whether kindness is compassionate behavior. In effect, so that both personal and peers’ unfair treatment jointly amplify kindness out of compassion, this interplay has to (a) mediate the noticing-responding link (b) previously amplifying feelings of empathic concern (Dutton et al., 2014). Otherwise, kindness may not be considered compassionate because employees may increase kindness due, for instance, to instrumental concerns like wishing to keep their jobs.

The Joint Effect of Personal and Peers’ Unfair Treatment on Kindness

Theorists recognize that self-relevant social events lead to subjective evaluations of the social environment that can intensity emotional response (Scherer, 2001). Thus, empirical findings suggest that evidencing peers’ mistreatment can amplify one’s perception of being personally targeted, leading to potential mistreatment (Harris et al., 2013; Hitlan et al., 2006; Low et al., 2007; Walsh & Hitlan, 2007). In this regard, Blader et al. (2013) found that the congruence of a social emotion (i.e., the extent to which a third party’s emotion reflected a subjective alignment with the target of the emotion) can influence third-party evaluations of recipients’ decision outcomes. This suggests that staff construal of potential personal mistreatment may be amplified by the emotions elicited through witnessing peers’ mistreatment and, hence, may lead to empathic concern being stronger. This interplay between justice for self and justice for peers may be captured in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous dictum, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (letter from Birmingham jail, 1963).

Using the above arguments as a guide, we hypothesize that the more employees believe that they are or have been or could be targets for unfair treatment by management, the stronger will be their empathic concern about injustice toward peers.

Hypothesis 1o: Levels of empathic concern toward peers do not differ when staff members’ perceived lack of justice concerns peers as well as themselves compared with when staff’s perceived lack of justice concerns peers only.

Hypothesis 1a: Levels of empathic concern toward peers are stronger when staff members’ perceived lack of justice concerns peers as well as themselves compared with when staff’s perceived lack of justice concerns peers only.

The Mediating Role of Empathic Concern

Affect events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) suggests that events at work trigger emotional states that can have indirect outcomes at work. It suggests that feeling, Kanov et al. (2004) intermediate framework’s step, mediates the causal sequence of noticing to responding. As such, since affect events theory implies that witnessing peers’ injustice as well as perceiving personal mistreatment can comprise affective events that unleash emotional states at work, it may thereby indirectly affect expressions of kindness through empathic concern (a discrete affective response; Weiss et al., 1999; Figure 1). In support of this argument, research has suggested that employees in positive affect (emotions and moods) are more likely to help others than those in negative affect (Stellar et al., 2017; Thompson et al., 2019). In addition, empathic concern has been associated with emotional elevation (see Diessner et al., 2013) and, hence, evidencing both personal and peers’ unjust treatment may affect kindness expressions indirectly as hotel staff have already been “emotionally elevated” by empathic concern (see Figure 1).

We hypothesize, therefore, that acts of kindness not only occur out of empathic concern (Hypothesis 1) but they also will play a mediating role in this link.

Hypothesis 2o: The impact on kindness resulting from the interaction between employees’ perceptions of lack of justice for themselves and for their peers is not mediated by the impact on empathic concern resulting from the same interaction.

Hypothesis 2a: The impact on kindness resulting from the interaction between employees’ perceptions of lack of justice for themselves and for their peers is mediated by the impact on empathic concern resulting from the same interaction.

The Moderating Role of Permanent/Temporary Condition

Third-party and self-experiences of justice may not uniformly affect empathic concern and kindness. Because it is usual for hotel employees to work side by side with subcontracted external employees as well as with temporary workers, the permanent/temporary condition can lead them to having dissimilar ways of viewing hotel decisions and behaving differently (Svensson et al., 2015). We argue that our model can perform differently based on the permanent/temporary condition. Similarity between peers and third-party staff has been indicated to influence staff reactions to peers’ mistreatment (Dhanani & LaPalme, 2019). Different to permanent staff, being temporarily employed signals a perceived degree of precariousness, which may render one an easier target for unjust treatment by management (Amiti & Wei, 2005; Goldschmidt & Schmieder, 2014). In a similar vein, Blader et al. (2013) found that staff are more affected by peers’ mistreatment in cooperative than competitive conditions. Thus, temporary workers may be led to feel a shared fate compared with permanent staff and, therefore, maintain greater cohesion and closeness as a means of (self) protection as a collective. However, opposite influences can coexist, and precariousness may also lead them to compete with each other, in detriment of mutual protection.

Consequently, the hypothesized relationships in our model will be different (stronger or weaker) depending on whether the staff have permanent or temporary status.

Hypothesis 3o: The impact on acts of kindness and empathic concern resulting from the interaction between hotel employees’ perceptions of lack of justice for themselves and for their peers will not be different when employees are permanent or temporary.

Hypothesis 3a: The impact acts of kindness and empathic concern resulting from the interaction between hotel employees’ perceptions of lack of justice for themselves and for their peers will be different when employees are either permanent or temporary.

Method

Survey Respondents and Research Setting

The population in this study consists of hotel workers employed in Gran Canaria, the Canary Islands (Spain), a tourist resort with 75 hotels. Data were obtained from staff in 10 hotels, 3 of which were international chains. Based on the average workforce of 118 employees per hotel in Gran Canaria, a total population of 8,850 is estimated.

Procedure and Sample Characteristics

A pen-and-paper questionnaire constructed in English was translated and administered in Spanish, after Brislin’s (1980) back-translation procedure revealed no significant differences between the two corresponding translations from and to English. Convenience sampling with inclusion criteria was used because hotels in Gran Canaria are very reticent to participate in random sampling. After obtaining official permission from the management in each hotel, eight research assistants were instructed to choose respondents with at least 6 months’ tenure and working in different venues within a given hotel, thereby reducing self-selection bias. No incentives were offered for participating in the study. In total, 304 employees—a sampling error estimated to be (±) 5.64%, volunteered to fill out the questionnaire during a break in their shift, which took on average 35 minutes, yielding 280 valid responses (24 were rejected for various reasons).

The sample (N = 280) comprises 46.8% male and 53.2% female staff members, of whom 11.8% were 55 or older, and 32.6% were 35 years old or younger. Furthermore, 64.5% held a permanent contract, and the rest had temporary contracts; 37% were working part-time, and the rest full-time. In addition, 84% of the respondents were Spanish, 62% of them permanent residents in the Canary Islands. Positions held included reception (17%), restaurant (28%), housekeeping (29%), public relations (1%), maintenance (9%), kitchen (10%), and miscellaneous (spa, etc., 9%); 29.1% of the sample had completed elementary school, whereas 18% were university graduates. Respondents per hotel category included two 2-star hotels (13%), two 3-star hotels (15%), four 4-star hotels (49%), and two 5-star hotels (23%), ranging from 27 participants (18%) to 211 participants (56%) per hotel.

Instruments

Four Likert-type scales were employed with seven options, from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), alphas are included in Table 1.

Table 1

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

	Factor loadings	SMC	Composite Reliability	AVE
Justice perceptions for self (Cronbach α = .929)		—	.931	.692
My supervisor . . .
treats me with kindness and consideration	.877
provides me with timely feedback about decisions and their implications	.876
considers my viewpoint	.837
takes steps to deal with me in a truthful manner	.814
shows concern for my rights as an employee	.802
is able to suppress personal bias	.781
Justice perceptions for peers (Cronbach α = .909)		—	.913	.682
I have witnessed that my hotel . . .
takes steps to deal with my peers in a truthful manner	.939
treats my peers fairly	.886
considers my peers’ viewpoint	.865
treats my peers with kindness and consideration	.788
shows concern for my peers’ rights as employees	.611
Empathic concern (Cronbach α = .886)		.050	.888	.572
Other peers’ misfortunes usually don’t disturb me a great deal (R)	.837
I often have tender, concerned feelings for peers less fortunate than me	.831
Sometimes I don’t feel sorry for peers when they are having problems (R)	.760
I am often quite touched by things that I see happen	.736
I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person	.732
When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don’t feel very much pity for them (R)	.620
When I see peers being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them(*)	—
Expressed Kindness (Cronbach α = .854)		.132	.863	.561
I’m kind to peers when they are suffering	.876
I try to be loving toward those coworkers who are feeling emotional pain	.813
When peers are going through a very hard time, I give the caring and tenderness they need enderness I need	.769
I try to be understanding and patient toward aspects of peers’ personalities that I don’t likepersonality I don’t like	.630
I’m tolerant of the flaws and inadequacies of my peers	.623

Note: Asterisk deleted because its loading is less than .5. Cmin = 494.225; df = 203; p < .001; Cmin/df = 2.435; comparative fit index = .930; Tucker–Lewis index = .913; root mean square error of approximation = .072. Cmin = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; SMC = squared multiple correlation; AVE = average variance extracted.

Justice perceptions for peers. Interpersonal injustice for peers was assessed with a four-item scale (α = .909) that we constructed, drawing on the work of Severt (2002). An example of an item: “I have witnessed how my hotel treats peers with kindness and consideration.”

Justice perceptions for self. We assessed favorable interpersonal justice by using six items (α = .929) employed by Moorman (1991) about employees’ perceptions of their line manager’s fair treatment. An example of an item: “My supervisor shows concern for my rights as an employee.”

Empathic concern. This construct (α = .886) was assessed by Davis’s (1980) seven-item interpersonal reactivity index scale (1 = does not describe me well; 7 = describes me very well). We first reworded all the items to focus on empathic concern toward peers or coworkers (see Table 1). For instance, the item “Other people’s misfortunes usually don’t disturb me a great deal” was reworded as “Peers’ misfortunes usually don’t disturb me a great deal” in order to assess empathic concern directed at coworkers. We also reversed the scoring of three items (“When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don’t feel very much pity for them,” “Sometimes I don’t feel sorry for peers when they are having problems,” “Peers’ misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal”), which were assessing empathic concern in the opposite direction.

Kindness. The five-item subscale of the self-compassion scale (Neff, 2003) was adapted (1 = never; 7 = constantly). We reworded the items from self-compassion to compassion for peers (α = .854), for example, instead of “I’m kind to myself when I’m suffering,” the item states “I’m kind to peers when they are suffering.”

Control variables. Gender and age could covary with the variables used in this study. They were incorporated as stand-alone variables, that is, without cause and effect indicators in the model (Hancock & Mueller, 2006).

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), and SEM (structural equation modeling), given that the sample of 280 exceeds the minimum size for the use of SEM testing (23 indicators * 10 = 230; Nunnally, 1978). Specifically, AMOS 22 software was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to assess the measures’ validity. We also used Hayes’ approach (2013; Model 4) with 5,000 bootstrap samples to examine the nature of the different interactions between the two justice perceptions on kindness and empathic concern.

Table 1 displays the composite reliability, which ranged from .929 to .854, well in excess of the standard of .60 (Hair et al., 2006). Ranging from .749 to .831, Cronbach alphas were used to assess the scales’ reliability, and they were all higher than the advised alpha of .70 (Nunnally, 1978). To check whether our scales demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity, we calculated the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) values and checked whether all the corresponding correlations were consistently lower (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As Table 2 displays in parentheses, this criterion was met, and the results supported discriminant validity. The AVE for all constructs ranged from .561 to .692, all above .50, thus supporting convergent validity as well (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Finally, once the items were inspected, we calculated the variables’ means and standard deviations.

Table 2

Correlations, Descriptive, and AVEs

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Gender	1.53	0.49	—
2. Age	3.07	1.07	.047	—
3. Justice perceptions for themselves	5.63	1.37	−.011	.081	(.831)
4. Justice perceptions for peers	5.25	1.49	.020	.045	.420^**	(.825)
5. Empathic concern	5.65	1.16	.172*	.088	.174*	.201**	(.756)
6. Expressed kindness	6.04	0.92	.025	−.015	.322**	.289**	.548**	(.749)

Note: In parentheses are the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE). Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) and age (1 = up to 25 years; 2 = more than 25 and up to 40 years; 3 = more than 40 and up to 55 years; 4 = more than 55 and up to 70 years; 5 = 70 years and older). N = 280.

p < .01. **p < .001.

Results

Details of descriptive statistics and correlations are displayed in Table 2. Control variables were shown to be of little relevance when correlating with the study variables (see Table 2). Correlations show that our variables are significantly but moderately associated in the expected directions, supporting our hypotheses.

In Table 1, we can see how the CFA results generally supported the expected four-factor structure of the data. However, as Table 1 also shows, the item “When I see peers being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them,” which assesses empathic concern, was rejected because its factor loading was below .5. The rest of the items loaded as expected, confirming the four measures used in this article. The CFA output shows acceptable fit (χ² = 494.225; degrees of freedom [df] = 203; p < .001; χ²/df = 2.435, comparative-fit index [CFI] = .930; Tucker–Lewis [TLI] = .913; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .072), with indices above or close to .90, but RMSEA above .05. CFA indices of the construct validity included CFI, TLI, and RMSEA. However, as Byrne (1998) suggests, RMSEAs between .05 and .08 do not necessarily indicate insufficient fit. Because RMSEA is one significant criterion in covariance structure modeling, we accepted RMSEA = .072 (below .08) as supporting the distinctiveness of the four constructs in this study (Table 1).

We used SEM to test the predicted moderations and mediation in this study, considering models with employees’ perceptions of (in)justice for them and their peers as the independent variables (see Figures 2 and 3). We first averaged the items in Table 1 that make up the variables in the observed model, and also incorporated the control variables. The moderating effects of justice for peers and self on empathic concern were determined first (Figure 2), and then its mediating effects (Figure 3). Therefore, two models were generated (Figures 2 and 3). To reduce multicollinearity, we worked with all the variables as mean-centered (Aiken & West, 1991). The results in the first model, in Figure 2, make it possible to assess the null Hypothesis 1 by finding out whether the two-way interaction between perceptions of lack of justice for peers and self is negatively related to their voiced empathic concern, as well as confirming that this interaction has negative effects on kindness. The second model (Figure 3) was generated by adding a path from empathic concern and kindness, making it possible to assess the null Hypothesis 2 by finding out whether the interaction between a lack of justice perceptions for self and peers on kindness is significantly mediated by the effects of this interaction on empathic concern. The fit indices of the mediation model, displayed in Figure 3, where a path from empathic concern and kindness was added (χ² = 19.700; df = 12; p = .073; CFI = .974; TLI = .934; RMSEA = .043), are significantly better, Δχ²_d(1) = 27.682, p < .001, than the model in Figure 2, where this path was not added (χ² = 105.825; df = 13; p < .001; CFI = .913; TLI = .884; RMSEA = .118). Furthermore, the model in Figure 3 was nonsignificant (p = .073), thus suggesting a very strong fit.

Figure 2

SEM Model of the Interactive Effects Between Justice for the Self and for Peers on Empathic Concern and Kindness

Figure 3

SEM Model of How the Increase in Empathic Concern Due to the Interaction Between Employees’ Justice Perceptions Toward Self and Peers Mediates the Effects of this Interaction on Kindness

As Figure 2 shows, results suggest that the interaction between injustice perceptions for self and peers had positive (rather than negative) effects on kindness (Β = .159; p < .01). However, the interactive effects on kindness are not of primary interest in this study. More important, as Figure 2 shows, the interaction between lack of justice perceptions for self and peers on empathic concern was significant, but also positive (Β = .151; p < .05). Hence, despite supporting the existence of significant effects of simultaneous unfair treatment on empathic concern, these patterns failed to reject null Hypothesis 1.

To test the predicted mediation (Hypothesis 2) we compared the two-way direct path of the interaction between lack of justice for self and peers on kindness (Β = .159; p < .01) in Figure 2 to the same direct path on kindness (Β = .087; p = ns.) in Figure 3, where empathic concern was added as a mediator. Because this path in Figure 2 (Β = .159; p < .01) is in Figure 3 no longer significant (Β = .087; p = ns.), which decreased in Figure 3 to nonsignificance (full mediation; Β = .087; p = ns.), the unexpected increase in empathic concern (Hypothesis 1) seems to carry all the weight of the increase in kindness resulting from the interaction between injustice for self and peers (Aiken & West, 1991). Furthermore, the nonsignificance (p = .073) of the model in Figure 3 (χ² = 19.700; df = 12; p > .073; CFI = .974; TLI = .934; RMSEA = .043) suggests a strong fit of the variables as modeled, also supporting mediation. These patterns reject null Hypothesis 2 and, hence, alternative Hypothesis 2 is accepted.

Finally, the interactive effects of (un)just treatment for self and peers on kindness and empathic concern were represented graphically in Figure 4 by using Hayes’ approach (2013; Model 4) with 5,000 bootstrap samples. We selected 1 SD above and below the mean. In Figure 4, we can see that the higher the level of justice for self (the slopes are steeper) the more perceived justice for self interacts with perceived justice for peers on kindness and empathic concern. It also reveals that low levels of perceived justice for self are nonsignificant, whether in the case of kindness (p = .619) or empathic concern (p = .410). The interactive effects based on permanent/temporary status were also examined by using between-group SEM analysis (Qureshi & Compeau, 2009). First, the SEM models (N = 280) in Figures 2 and 3 were rerun using this variable (n = 181 permanent, n = 99 temporary). The path coefficients were hence recalculated for the two groups. Results in Figure 2 indicate that the recalculated path from the interaction between lack of perceived justice for self and peers on empathic concern (N = 280; Β = .151; p < .05) decreases to nonsignificance for permanent staff (n = 181; Β = .130; p = ns), but increases in significance for temporary staff (n = 99; Β = .261; p < .01). These results support the notion that—unlike temporary staff—permanent staff did not perform kindness out of compassion. A comparison between Figures 2 and 3 provides further support for this finding. Thus, while for permanent staff, the significance in Figure 2 of the path (n = 181; Β = .166; p < .05) from a lack of perceived justice for self and peers to kindness maintained significance in Figure 3 (n = 181; Β = .148; p < .05), for the temporary staff, however, this same path (n = 99; Β = .244; p < .01) decreased until it was no longer significant (n = 99; Β = .093; p = ns), thus supporting stronger mediation of empathic concern. Because the path is positive, however, unlike permanent staff, these results only support temporary staff as performing out of uncompassionate feeling. Hence, we rejected null Hypothesis 3 and alternative Hypothesis 3 is thus accepted.

Figure 4

Interactions of Justice for Peers and Self on Kindness and Empathic Concern for Three Different Levels of Justice for Self

Discussion

This study aimed to test the premise that when hotel employees experience management’s unjust treatment of peers, they voice significantly more intended kindness for peers out of compassion when they themselves are at the receiving end of similar mistreatment. The results failed to support our premise because the interaction between a lack of justice for peers and self increased rather than decreased empathic concern and kindness. However, due to the fact that interactions between perceived injustice for self and peers on kindness decreased (rather than increased) expressions of kindness because they are explained by empathic concern, this decreased level of kindness should be deemed to be uncompassionate. Finally, null Hypothesis 3 was also rejected, suggesting that the aforementioned findings are particularly plausible in the case of temporary staff.

A close look at Figure 4 indeed shows that the higher one’s perception of being mistreated, the less empathic concern (and kindness) for peers is being expressed. However, it also displays that both slopes of low-level justice for self (kindness- and empathic concern x-axis) indicate nonsignificance (see Figure 4; p = .619; p = .410). This suggests that if a lack of management’s fair treatment of self is an uncommon experience, one’s belief that peers are treated fairly or unfairly by management does not engender empathic concern toward them. Undoubtedly, although it is congruent with Miller’s (1999) argument that individuals are primarily self-interested, this does not justify the unexpected results. We believe that we should also consider the possibility that the hospitality context is the root cause here. Diffusion of responsibility, time pressure, and confronting prejudices (and even competition among peers) may lead staff to a fatalistic worldview (Kraak et al., 2018) where inaction is not necessarily due to lack of concern or empathy, but rather the perceived inutility or irrelevance of action (“such is working life in a hotel”). This explanation seems to be especially applicable to temporary staff, for whom, compared with permanent staff, our unexpected findings are much more pronounced. Compared with permanent staff, temporary staff reinforced uncompassionate feelings toward peers, thus seeming to compete more than cooperate (maybe with permanent staff as well) or simply fear of the consequences of becoming more empathically compassionate (Gilbert, 2019). In addition, employees’ attitudes toward psychological contract breach can differ between permanent and temporary staff. Kraak and Altman (2016) found that employees whose focus is outside work or who see themselves working in hospitality for only a limited time can assign less importance to instances of mistreatment (of self and others). This could be the case because although the perception of the breach is the same, the valence attributed to it varies.

Garrett Hardin’s (1968) tragedy-of-the-commons can also shed light on our unexpected results. Also known as commons dilemma, it refers to a “phenomenon in which the members of a social group face choices in which selfish, individualistic, or uncooperative decisions, produce undesirable long-term consequences for the group as a whole” (Shultz & Holbrook, 1999, p. 228). Previous research on scarcity and competition (Fülöp, 2004; Griskevicius et al., 2009; Grossman & Mendoza, 2003) suggests that resource scarcity fuels a competitive orientation that guides individuals decision making toward advancing their own welfare (Van Lange & Kuhlman 1994; Van Lange et al., 1997; Van Lange et al., 2007). Importantly, the desire to advance one’s own welfare can lead to behaviors that appear generous to others but can also increase selfishness when they indirectly allow personal gain (e.g., holding back helping behaviors as opposed to expressing them to others; Roux et al., 2015). The commons dilemma is not limited to economic resources (e.g., Schindler, 2012) and since, with perceived lack of fairness at work, subtractability (the belief one can only enjoy justice if others cannot) could be the common denominator, justice may be construed as a finite psychosocial resource. Thus, because simultaneous interpersonal injustices can become a scarce resource on the commons, staff may see fellow peers as fighting for shared fairness and, hence, as competitors to whom, their self-interest dictates, support should be denied (Skitka & Tetlock, 1992). Therefore, prior research indicates that persistent resource scarcity on the commons is especially affecting competitive pressure and leading individuals to engage in antisocial behaviors toward their fellow commons users (Roux et al., 2015). This argument is consistent with conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), which suggests that employees who perceive that their resources are outstretched or exhausted can enter a defensive mode to preserve their dwindling resources, often exhibiting aggressive behaviors. In further support, previous research found that customer-oriented behaviors are performed out of compassion by hotel staff who observe guests being mistreated by hotel management (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Guerra-Báez, 2016). Unlike here, the interaction in their study took the predicted course, possibly because the interaction occurred between perceived injustice for self and injustice for hotel guests (i.e., not peer-to-peer), thereby likely avoiding the commons dilemma.

Third, regarding practical implications, the literature on care and compassion has habitually viewed social justice as rigid, static, and linear, supporting organizational justice as a factor that is difficult to connect to compassion at work (see, e.g., Shahzad et al., 2014). In the context of the extant literature on justice, our findings propose that third-party interventions by staff in instances of (in)justice in hotels can be performed out of compassion, and that organizational justice may be an on the commons type of social resource. Furthermore, the results support the notion of distributed organizational (in)justice experiences (e.g., temporary vs. permanent employees), as if justice were tied to people, property, situations, or stigmas. Therefore, because from this new approach organizational justice seems to follow some different patterns, it is necessary to discuss new guidance to manage it properly, at least in the hotel context. Hardin (1968) indicates some factors that can fuel or buffer the commons dilemma influence, such as cooperation, freedom, competition, lack of rules, control, and the like. Based on our findings, some pillars may be identified for developing interventions to manage hotel fair treatment so as to counter the influences of the tragedy of the commons: (a) personalization, (b) complementarity, (c) exhaustibility, (d) misappropriation, and (e) non transferability. As such, (a) personalization suggests that managers should favor that justice is perceived to be delivered individually, not collectively, so that members of staff decrease their construal of justice as impersonal, hence an on the commons resource; (b) by complementarity we advocate that justice is not perceived to be mutually exclusive, hence employees’ fair treatment being incompatible with treating other staff fairly; (c) exhaustibility, in the sense that justice cannot be seen as a exhaustible resource in a hotel. Therefore, managers should cultivate the idea that employees’ unjust treatment is never due to management’s inability to treat everybody justly; (d) misappropriation, that is, managers should favor the perception that justice is not subject to ownership, is not confined, and is not conditional; it flows throughout the hotel in a free way and is all-encompassing; and (e) nontransferability, that is, hotel managers should fight against the perception that just or unjust treatment is attached to a job, task, appointment, or department; and hence that regardless of their position, everybody deserves fair treatment.

Limitations and Future Research

We recognize several weaknesses. Due to its cross-sectional design, this study may suffer from mono-method/source bias. In addition, it used a convenience sample and its findings are limited to a particular geographical area (the Canary Islands). Furthermore, it is possible that our study is overrepresentative of hotel service areas where staff interaction is high and frequent. Caution is thus called for in interpreting the results. Future research may validate these research findings, for example by gaining qualitative insights or exploring other geographical areas. Of course, a question may be raised as to whether our findings are limited to the hotel industry; therefore, testing our hypotheses on other economic sectors may indicate their generalizability. Finally, given that employees could not regard hotel guests as fellow common users of organizational justice on the commons, future research may consider modeling justice perceptions, kindness, and empathic concern from peer-to-peer and guest-to-peer perspectives.

Concluding Summary

The findings of this study contribute to the discourse on employees’ third-party interventions in instances of (in)justice, and bear potentially important implications for the hotel and hospitality industries. They indicate a lesser inclination to voice compassion in reaction to peers’ unfair treatment by management when staff themselves are subjected to such mistreatment; this lessened proclivity—even lower or nonexistent in the case of permanent staff—is performed out of uncompassionate feeling. The meaning of the interaction results between personal and third-party experiences is crucially stressed in this article in the light of Hardin’s (1968) commons dilemma. From such a perspective, this interplay seems to mean that staff are in the know that a lack of justice is affecting both their peers and themselves, but since justice is construed as a common resource, this interplay leads them to (in)justice subtractability (i.e., “we can only enjoy justice if others cannot”). This may be further exacerbated by a mixed workforce, which is often the case in the hotel industry (permanent/temporary, internal/subcontractors), fostering rivalry and weakening between-group and in-group compassion solidarities. Accordingly, this study concludes that justice theories are in need of further development in light of the tragedy-of-the-commons. This implies examining the intricacies of the shared perceptions of justice and its ramifications in, for instance, expressions of compassion, adding a new facet to the investigation of justice in the hospitality industry and, perhaps, in organizations in general.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Pablo Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

Pablo Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, PhD (email: pablo.zoghbi@ulpgc.es), is an associate professor in HR Management and Organizational Behavior of Department of Economics and Management at Las Palmas de Gran Canaria University, Spain. Yochanan Altman (email: prof.altman@hotmail.com) is a professor of international human resource management, Middlesex University, London. Rita M. Guerra-Báez (e-mail: rita.guerra@ulpgc.es) is an associate professor in ethics and corporate social responsibility of Department of Economics and Management. Hervé Colas (email: h.colas@groupechd.fr) is an associate professor of entrepreneurship at Reims Management School, France.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Amiti

Wei

S. J.

(2005). Fear of service outsourcing: Is it justified? Economic Policy, 20(42), 308-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2005.00140.x

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

Batson

C. D.

Ahmad

N. Y.

(2009). Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3(1), 141-177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2009.01013.x

Bavik

(2016). Developing a new hospitality industry organizational culture scale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 58(September), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.07.005

Bies

R. J.

Moag

J. S.

(1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1(1), 43-55.

Blader

S. L.

Wiesenfeld

B. M.

Fortin

Wheeler-Smith

S. L.

(2013). Fairness lies in the heart of the beholder: How the social emotions of third parties influence reactions to injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 62-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.12.004

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley.

Brislin

R. W.

(1980). Cross-cultural research methods. In Altman

Rapoport

Wohlwill

J. F.

(Eds.), Environment and culture (pp. 47-82). Springer.

10.

Butts

(1997). Joblessness, pain, power, pathology and promise. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10(2), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819710160781

11.

Byrne

B. M.

(1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Chamberlain

Zika

(1990). The minor events approach to stress: Support for the use of daily hassles. British Journal of Psychology, 81(4), 469-481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02373.x

13.

Chebat

J. C.

Slusarczyk

(2005). How emotions mediate the effects of perceived justice on loyalty in service recovery situations: An empirical study. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 664-673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.09.005

14.

Collie

T. A.

Sparks

Bradley

(2000). Investing in interactional justice: A study of the fair process effect within a hospitality failure context. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(4), 448-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634800002400403

15.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2004). Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 633-646. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.633

16.

Davis

M. H.

(1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10(85), 1-19. https://www.uv.es/~friasnav/Davis_1980.pdf

17.

Dhanani

L. Y.

LaPalme

M. L.

(2019). It’s not personal: A review and theoretical integration of research on vicarious workplace mistreatment. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2322-2351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318816162

18.

Diessner

Iyer

Smith

M. M.

Haidt

(2013). Who engages with moral beauty? Journal of Moral Education, 42(2), 139-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2013.785941

19.

Dutton

J. E.

Workman

K. M.

Hardin

A. E.

(2014). Compassion at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 277-304. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091221

20.

Folger

Cropanzano

Goldman

(2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality? In Greenberg

Colquitt

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 215-245). Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

22.

Fülöp

(2004). Competition as a culturally constructed concept. In Baillie

Dunn

Zheng

(Eds.), Travelling facts: The social construction, distribution, and accumulation of knowledge (pp. 124-148). Campus.

23.

Gilbert

(2019). Explorations into the nature and function of compassion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28(August), 108-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.002

24.

Goetz

J. L.

Keltner

Simon-Thomas

(2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 351-374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018807

25.

Goldschmidt

Schmieder

J. F.

(2014). You’re in then you’re out: The incidence and effects of being outsourced. Mimeo, Boston University.

26.

Griskevicius

Tybur

J. M.

Gangestad

S. W.

Perea

E. F.

Shapiro

J. R.

Kenrick

D. T.

(2009). Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 980-994. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013907

27.

Grossman

H. I.

Mendoza

(2003). Scarcity and appropriative competition. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(4), 747-758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680(03)00033-8

28.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.

29.

Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. D.

(2006). Structural equation modeling: A second course. IAP.

30.

Hardin

G. J.

(1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243

31.

Harris

K. J.

Harvey

Harris

R. B.

Cast

2013. An investigation of abusive supervision, vicarious abusive supervision, and their joint impacts. Journal of Social Psychology, 153(1), 38-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.703709

32.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

33.

Hershcovis

M. S.

Bhatnagar

(2017). When fellow customers behave badly: Witness reactions to employee mistreatment by customers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(11), 1528-1544. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000249

34.

Hitlan

R. T.

Schneider

K. T.

Walsh

B. M.

(2006). Upsetting behavior: Reactions to personal and bystander sexual harassment experiences. Sex Roles, 55(3-4), 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9072-5

35.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

36.

Kahneman

Knetsch

J. L.

Thaler

R. H.

(1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59(4), S285-S300. https://doi.org/10.1086/296367

37.

Kanov

J. M.

Maitlis

Worline

M. C.

Dutton

J. E.

Frost

P. J.

Lilius

J. M.

(2004). Compassion in organizational life. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 808-827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203260211

38.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2006). Customer complaints and organizational responses: The effects of complainants’ perceptions of justice on satisfaction and loyalty. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(1), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.12.008

39.

Kim

Lee

Paek

Lee

(2013). Social capital, knowledge sharing and organizational performance: What structural relationship do they have in hotels? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(5), 683-704. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-Jan-2012-0010

40.

Kraak

Altman

(2016). The psychological contracts of self-initiated expatriates. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), Article 11642. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2016.11642abstract

41.

Kraak

Altman

Laguecir

(2018). Grids, groups and contracts: Integrating psychological contract with cultural theory. International Studies in Management & Organization, 48(4), 386-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2018.1504478

42.

Lilius

J. M.

Worline

M. C.

Maitlis

Kanov

J. M.

Dutton

J. E.

Frost

(2008). The contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 193-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.508

43.

Lind

E. A.

Kray

L. J.

Thompson

(1998). The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2785

44.

Low

K. S. D.

Radhakrishnan

Schneider

K. T.

Rounds

(2007). The experiences of bystanders of workplace ethnic harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2261-2297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00258.x

45.

Melián-González

Bulchand-Gidumal

(2017). Extending the scope of hotel client reactions to employee injustice: Hotel employer reviews on the Internet. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 63(May), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.03.003

46.

Miller

D. T.

(1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053-1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.12.1053

47.

Moorman

R. H.

(1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845

48.

Neff

K. D.

(2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027

49.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

50.

O’Reilly

Aquino

(2011). A model of third parties’ morally motivated responses to mistreatment in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 526-543. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.61031810

51.

Persson

B. N.

Kajonius

P. J.

(2016). Empathy and universal values explicated by the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology, 156(6), 610-619. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1152212

52.

Pollock

S. E.

Sands

(1997). Adaptation to suffering: Meaning and implications for nursing. Clinical Nursing Research, 6(2), 171-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/105477389700600206

53.

Porath

MacInnis

Folkes

(2010). Witnessing incivility among employees: Effects on consumer anger and negative inferences about companies. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 292-303. https://doi.org/10.1086/651565

54.

Porath

MacInnis

Folkes

V. S.

(2011). It’s unfair: Why customers who merely observe an uncivil employee abandon the company. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 302-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511404393

55.

Priesemuth

(2013). Stand up and speak up: Employees’ prosocial reactions to observed abusive supervision. Business & Society, 52(4), 649-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650313490559

56.

Qureshi

Compeau

(2009). Assessing between-group differences in information systems research: A comparison of covariance-and component-based SEM. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 197-214. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650285

57.

Roux

Goldsmith

Bonezzi

(2015). On the psychology of scarcity: When reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 615-631. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv048

58.

Scherer

K. R.

(2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In Scherer

K. R.

Schorr

Johnstone

T. E.

(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92-120). Oxford University Press.

59.

Schindler

(2012). Rethinking the tragedy of the commons: The integration of socio-psychological dispositions. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 15(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.1822

60.

Severt

D. E.

(2002). The customer’s path to loyalty: A partial test of the relationships of prior experience, justice, and customer satisfaction [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

61.

Shahzad

Murad

H. S.

Kitchlew

Zia

S. A.

(2014). Integrating principles of care, compassion and justice in organizations: Exploring dynamic nature of organizational justice. Journal of Human Values, 20(2), 167-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971685814539411

62.

Shultz

C. J.

Holbrook

M. B.

(1999). Marketing and the tragedy of the commons: A synthesis, commentary, and analysis for action. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(2), 218-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569901800208

63.

Skarlicki

D. P.

O’Reilly

Kulik

C. T.

(2015). The third-party perspective of (in)justice. In Cropanzano

Ambrose

M. A.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of justice in work organizations (pp. 235-255). Oxford University Press.

64.

Skitka

L. J.

Tetlock

P. E.

(1992). Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(6), 491-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90043-J

65.

Stellar

J. E.

Gordon

A. M.

Piff

P. K.

Cordaro

Anderson

C. L.

Bai

Maruskin

L. A.

Keltner

(2017). Self-transcendent emotions and their social functions: Compassion, gratitude, and awe bind us to others through prosociality. Emotion Review, 9(3), 200-207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916684557

66.

Svensson

Vinberg

Larsson

(2015). External workers’ perception of leadership behaviour: A study of Swedish temporary agency workers and contractors. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(2), 250-266. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12053

67.

Thompson

N. M.

Uusberg

Gross

J. J.

Chakrabarti

(2019). Empathy and emotion regulation: An integrative account. Progress in Brain Research, 247, 273-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2019.03.024

68.

Tsui

A. S.

(2013). 2012 Presidential address—On compassion in scholarship: Why should we care? Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0408

69.

Turillo

C. J.

Folger

Lavelle

J. J.

Umphress

E. E.

Gee

J. O.

(2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 839-865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00032-8

70.

Van Lange

P. A.

Bekkers

Schuyt

T. N.

Vugt

M. V

. (2007). From games to giving: Social value orientation predicts donations to noble causes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 375-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701665223

71.

Van Lange

P. A.

De Bruin

Otten

Joireman

J. A

. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733-746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733

72.

Van Lange

P. A.

Kuhlman

D. M

. (1994). Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 126-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.126

73.

Walsh

B. M.

Hitlan

R. T.

(2007). Organizational stress: Investigating the impact of dual harassment experiences on appraisal and outcomes. North American Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 331-346.

74.

Walz

S. M.

Niehoff

B. P.

(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(3), 301-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634800002400301

75.

Weiss

H. M.

Cropanzano

(1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 1-74). JAI Press.

76.

Weiss

H. M.

Suckow

Cropanzano

(1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 786-794. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.786

77.

Wispé

(1991). The psychology of sympathy. Plenum Press.

78.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

Aguiar-Quintana

Suárez-Acosta

(2013). A justice framework for understanding how guests react to hotel employee (mis)treatment. Tourism Management, 36(June), 143-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.010

79.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

Guerra-Báez

R. M.

(2016). The way justice unleashes staff’s compassion toward hotel guests. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(3), 471-486. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-04-2015-0862

80.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

Suárez-Acosta

M. A.

(2014). Employees’ reactions to peers’ unfair treatment by supervisors: The role of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 537-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1778-z

81.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

Ting-Ding

J. M.

(2017). Employees’ justice perceptions as a factor influencing successful outsourcing in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(6), 1619-1637. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2015-0477

82.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

Viera-Armas

(2019). Does ethical leadership motivate followers to participate in delivering compassion? Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3454-1