| Literature DB >> 35795425 |
Yunxia Xiao1, Rabia Younus2, Wizra Saeed3, Junaid Ul Haq4, Xiuwen Li5.
Abstract
Green Human Resource Management (HRM) supports promoting and incorporating sustainable development with regard to their resources. Managers and customers actively utilize the limited resources efficiently and effectively to accomplish environment-friendly goals and objectives. The study focuses on investigating the moderating role of diffidence between Green HRM, among eco-friendly behavior and Employee Performance of frontline employees of the hospitality sector. Two hundred ten individuals particapted in the research from hospitality sector with regard to examine green HRM policies of employees along with their influence on consumer buying behvaiour. Frontline employees incorporated the data on HRM performance, eco-friendly behavior, and diffidence. Besides, consumers gave their opinion on consumer buying behavior. The study's findings revealed that Green HRM, aka Green HRM, directly impacts consumer behavior. In addition to this diffidence moderates the relationship between Green HRM and employee performance and employee eco-friendly behavior. Besides, future studies can explore the clothing and banking sector as the current study was conducted in fast food sector.Entities:
Keywords: consumer behavior; diffidence; employee eco-friendly behavior; employee performance; green HRM
Year: 2022 PMID: 35795425 PMCID: PMC9252609 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.800936
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Demographics of front line managers (employees).
| Demographics variables | Categories | Frequency ( | Percentage |
| Age | 31–35 | 21 | 10.0 |
| 36–40 | 114 | 54.3 | |
| 41-above | 75 | 35.7 | |
| Gender | Male | 130 | 61.9 |
| Female | 80 | 38.1 | |
| Education | Intermediate | 4 | 1.9 |
| Bachelors | 153 | 72.9 | |
| MPhil | 53 | 25.2 | |
| Restaurants you are working in | Fast food | 113 | 53.8 |
| Cultural food | 97 | 46.2 |
Demographics of visitors (consumers).
| Demographics variables | Categories | Frequency ( | Percentage |
| Age | 16–20 | 73 | 34.8 |
| 21–25 | 82 | 39.0 | |
| 26–30 | 54 | 25.7 | |
| 31-above | 1 | 0.5 | |
| Gender | Male | 111 | 52.9 |
| Female | 99 | 47.1 | |
| Education | Inter | 104 | 49.5 |
| Bachelors | 103 | 49.0 | |
| MS/M.Phil | 3 | 1.4 | |
| Restaurant you often visit | Fast food | 113 | 53.8 |
| Cultural | 97 | 46.2 |
Respondents were comprised of two sets. First set was the visitors and the second set was front line managers. Researcher targeted the first set and found the people of having age 16–31. Both genders participated in this research. Researcher focused on the educated respondents to collect a fine set of data. Similarly, in second set of data researcher targeted the managers of restaurants, the ages of respondent were lied in the age spam of 31–40. While the education of the researchers were intermediate to MPhil level.
Reliability and validity.
| Variables | Items No. | FL | CR | Cronbach alpha | AVE |
| Green HRM | GHRM 1 | Deleted | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.55 |
| GHRM 2 | Deleted | ||||
| GHRM 3 | 0.70 | ||||
| GHRM 4 | 0.74 | ||||
| GHRM 5 | 0.81 | ||||
| GHRM 6 | 0.72 | ||||
| Employee eco-friendly behavior | EEB 1 | 0.71 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.51 |
| EEB 2 | 0.72 | ||||
| EEB 3 | 0.66 | ||||
| EEB 4 | 0.73 | ||||
| EEB 5 | 0.60 | ||||
| EEB 6 | 0.78 | ||||
| EEB 7 | 0.75 | ||||
| Diffidence | D 1 | 0.47 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.52 |
| D 2 | 0.81 | ||||
| D 3 | Deleted | ||||
| D 4 | 0.51 | ||||
| D 5 | 0.75 | ||||
| D 6 | Deleted | ||||
| D 7 | 0.78 | ||||
| D 8 | 0.74 | ||||
| D 9 | Deleted | ||||
| D 10 | 0.72 | ||||
| D 11 | 0.77 | ||||
| D 12 | Deleted | ||||
| D 13 | 0.85 | ||||
| Employee performance | EP 1 | 0.74 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.59 |
| EP 2 | Deleted | ||||
| EP 3 | Deleted | ||||
| EP 4 | 0.80 | ||||
| EP 5 | 0.72 | ||||
| EP 6 | 0.81 | ||||
| Consumer buying behavior | CBB 1 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.63 |
| CBB 2 | 0.79 |
FL, factor Loading; AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; GHRM, Green HRM; EEB, employee eco-friendly behaviour; D, diffidence; EP, employee performance; CBB, consumer buying behavior.
Discriminant validity.
| CR | AVE | EP | GHRM | CBB | EEB | D | |
| EP | 0.854 | 0.594 |
| ||||
| GHRM | 0.830 | 0.551 | 0.364 |
| |||
| CBB | 0.772 | 0.628 | 0.455 | 0.560 |
| ||
| EEB | 0.877 | 0.506 | 0.445 | 0.598 | 0.598 |
| |
| D | 0.904 | 0.518 | 0.106 | 0.119 | 0.041 | 0.179 |
|
GHRM, Green HRM; EEB, employee eco-friendly behavior; D, diffidence; EP, employee performance; CCB, consumer buying behavior. All diagonal bold values are the square root of AVE.
FIGURE 1Conceptual framework.
Hypotheses testing.
| Hypotheses | Description | Standardized | Supported/not supported |
| H1 | GHRM → CBB | 0.24 | Supported |
| H2 | GHRM → EEB | 0.52 | Supported |
| H3 | GHRM → EP | 0.31 | Supported |
| H4 | EEB → CBB | 0.30 | Supported |
| H5 | EP → CBB | 0.19 | Supported |
| H6 | GHRM → EEB → CBB | 0.15 | Partial Mediation |
| H7 | GHRM → EP → CBB | 0.06 | Partial Mediation |
*Significance level < 0.001, **Significance level < 0.01. GHRM, Green HRM; EEB, employee eco-friendly behavior; D, diffidence; EP, employee performance; CCB, consumer buying behavior.
FIGURE 2H8(a).
FIGURE 3H8(b).