How Do Green HRM Practices Affect Employees' Green Behaviors? The Role of Employee Engagement and Personality Attributes

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20
How do green HRM practices affect employees’

green behaviors? The role of employee
engagement and personality attributes
Omar Mohammed Ali Ababneh
To cite this article: Omar Mohammed Ali Ababneh (2021) How do green HRM practices
affect employees’ green behaviors? The role of employee engagement and personality
attributes, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64:7, 1204-1226, DOI:
10.1080/09640568.2020.1814708
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1814708
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 13 Jan 2021.

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 14160
View related articles View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 10 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjep20
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2021
Vol. 64, No. 7, 1204–1226, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1814708
How do green HRM practices affect employees’ green behaviors?

The role of employee engagement and personality attributes
Omar Mohammed Ali Ababneh
Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business and Economics, Qatar

University, Doha, Qatar
(Received 14 April 2020; final version received 10 August 2020)
This study suggests a novel progress in the change journey toward sustainability by
empirically investigating the mediation role of employee engagement with
environmental initiatives between green HRM practices and individual green
behavior. Further, this study invoked the classical theory of person-organization-fit
to examine the role of certain personality traits in moderating the associations
between HRM practices and employee engagement with environmental initiatives.
A quantitative research method with a purposeful-sampling technique was used to
reach 376 employees who work at four and five-star hotels operating in Jordan.
The study provides original findings indicating that employee engagement partially
mediates the association between green HRM practices and individual green
behavior. Additionally, this study emphasizes the importance of organization-person
interaction in fostering employee engagement with environmental initiatives.
Keywords: environmental sustainability; green HRM; employee engagement with
environmental initiatives; personality attributes; individual green behavior
1. Introduction
Today, ecological, ethical, legal, and social pressures have forced organizations to rap-
idly jump on the “environmental-sustainability bandwagon.” Global concern about cli-
mate change, natural resources, and environmental protection has put corporates under
pressure to speed up their transition toward an adequate adaptation of environmental
management systems and practices (Ashton, Russell, and Futch 2017; Ganda 2017;
Longoni, Luzzini, and Guerci 2018; Wu, Cheng, and Ai 2018). Furthermore, the cur-
rent business environment is witnessing new forces (e.g. customer boycotts, preferen-
ces, and ethical values) that positively/negatively influence the organization’s
endeavors toward gaining competitive advantage. Consumer purchase behaviors are
subject to their perception of the firm’s brand image and sustainable operations
(Ashton, Russell, and Futch 2017; Chung 2020; Han et al. 2019; Longoni, Luzzini,
and Guerci 2018; Wu, Cheng, and Ai 2018).
Notwithstanding, organizations have already started incorporating environmental
goals into their strategies and policies (Chung 2020), hence devoting attention to their
Corresponding author. Email: oababneh@qu.edu.qa
ß 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in
any way.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1205
operational systems where service operations have been, to a certain extent, adjusted
in alignment with the international environmental standards and legislation (Han et al.
2019; Yu, Li, and Jai 2017). In spite of these attempts, environmental behavior is con-
voluted in nature and requires joint interaction between various interdisciplinary
approaches (Jackson et al. 2011). It might be difficult, then, to assume that a simple
inclusion of environmental objectives within the firm’s strategies and policies will lead
to the desired green behaviors and outcomes. That is to say, integrating sustainability
objectives in the firm’s general strategy and following a compliance-approach in its
operations may not guarantee full and efficient achievement of those favorable goals.
Environmental behavior is pro-innovative, which includes connotations of proactivity,
voluntary behavior, enthusiasm, and dedication (Ganda 2017; Paille, Boiral, and Chen
2013). These qualities refer to the human factor (including individuals’ attitudes, per-
ceptions, cognitive judgements, and social values) thought to amplify the implementa-
tion of the ecological initiatives (Jabbour et al. 2019). Therefore, there have been calls
for the involvement of human resources management in the environmental discourse
by capitulating to the organization’s sustainability mantra when developing and imple-
menting HRM practices and activities (Kim et al. 2019; Pham, Tuckova, and Jabbour
2019). In response to these calls, the concept of “green human resources management”
(the inclusion of environmental objectives within HRM practices and activities,
Kramar 2014) has emerged promising a prosperous advancement in individuals’ and
organizations’ environmentally related outcomes.
In the general management literature, the bulk of HRM professionals and scholars
have devoted noticeable attention toward the role of green HRM practices in promot-
ing green activities and behaviors in the workplace (Longoni, Luzzini, and Guerci
2018; Renwick, Redman, and Maguire 2013; Roscoe et al. 2019). Specifically, the dir-
ect relationship between green human resources practices (green recruitment and selec-
tion, green performance management, green training and development, green rewards
and incentives, and green employee involvement) and the organization’s environmental
performance has been noticeably investigated (Pham, Tuckova, and Jabbour 2019). In
spite of the prolific research conducted in this arena, most of the attempts have solely
focused on the content aspect of the topic, whilst the process dimension has received
scant attention. The paucity of studies examining the psychological and social under-
pinnings that unearth when and how green HRM practices affect individuals’ green
behaviors calls for further research in this area.
Among those relatively few studies, the intermediary roles of “psychological green
climate” (employees’ perceptions of the organizations’ green climate, Dumont, Shen,
and Deng 2017) and “affective commitment” (the extent to which employees are
attached to the management systems of environmental change, Pinzone et al. 2016)
between green HRM and organizational green behaviors have been explored. Despite
the relevance of those studies, they do not, however, rule out the possibility of examin-
ing individuals’ green behavior from other psychological mechanisms. Here, the cur-
rent study illuminates employee engagement with environmental initiatives as a novel
underlying mechanism that explains how and why employees display green behaviors
in the workplace. The engagement literature suggests that employee engagement is
wider in scope than other attitudinal constructs of job involvement, organizational
commitment, and psychological climate; hence it may explain a wider range of indi-
viduals’ cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes (Ababneh and Macky 2015;
Macey and Schneider 2008). In this essence, engaged employees display high levels of
1206 O.M.A. Ababneh
energy, exuberance, initiative, enthusiasm, proactivity, adaptability to change, and role

expansion (Chacko and Conway 2019; Kwon and Kim 2020).
Another key issue that needs to be acknowledged here is the complexity of individ-
uals’ green behavior. Although institutional factors such as green HRM can be associ-
ated with employee engagement, the nuanced associations are of a complex
interdisciplinary nature that may involve other social and psychological factors (Paille,
Boiral, and Chen 2013). Employee engagement has been theorized as a two-way rela-
tionship (Robinson, Perryman, and Hayday 2004) manifested by the interaction between
the individuals’ personality traits and the surrounding organizational conditions and
structures (including HRM practices and activities) (Ababneh and Macky 2015). In the
engagement literature, several studies have provided empirical evidence showing how
certain personality attributes can serve as key antecedents of the engagement construct.
More specifically, positive associations have been reported between employee engage-
ment and conscientiousness, positive affect (e.g. Wefald, Reichard, and Serrano 2011),
and proactive personality attributes (Bakker, Tims, and Derks 2012). Guided by the per-
son-organization (P-O) fit theory, this study proposes that the correspondence between
the person and the organizational factors (manifested by HRM green practices) may
have an impact on individual perceptions and attitudes (Renwick et al. 2016).
Taking all the above together, the key objective of this study is to explore the
mediation role of employee engagement with environmental initiatives between green
HRM practices and individual green behavior, accounting for the moderation role of
certain personality attributes (Positive affect, proactive, and conscientiousness personal-
ity attributes). Accordingly, the contribution of this study to the knowledge base of
green behavior literature is threefold: firstly, the study extends the emerging, but scant,
research line that examines individuals’ green behaviors from a psychological and
social perspective. Specifically, this study proposes and empirically tests employee
engagement as a psychological state thought to facilitate and propagate the association
between green HRM and individual green behavior. Secondly, this study invoked the
classical theory of person-organization (P-O) fit to examine the role of personality
traits in moderating the associations between HRM practices and employee engage-
ment with environmental initiatives. In doing so, this study casts light on various psy-
chological and social interactions that individuals experience while performing
environmentally related activities. This inclusion of individual and institutional factors
is thought to enhance organizations’ understanding of the determinants of employees’
individual green behaviors cohesively, hence fostering an engaging culture with envir-
onmental initiatives in the workplace. Thirdly, to the best of the researcher’s know-
ledge, this study is the first to investigate green HRM practices and individuals’ green
behaviors in a Middle-Eastern context; hence, it is thought to expand regional firms’
horizons and awareness of global concern on environmental sustainability. The concep-
tual model for this study is illustrated in Figure 1.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development

2.1. The direct relationship between green HRM practices and green behavior
In spite of the considerable attention paid to the contribution of HRM in enhancing the
organization’s achievement of favorable outcomes, organizational-level outcomes have
been argued to be too distal to evaluate the actual and contextual-level influence of
HRM practices (Paauwe 2009). Therefore, it is rational to follow a more proximal
Figure 1. The theoretical framework.
approach by examining the influence of HRM inventions on individual-level perform-

ance, as the latter acts as a medium between HRM and organizational performance
(Guest 1997). Accordingly, this study considers green behavior at the individual level
in association with HRM interventions.
Along similar lines, it has been suggested that individual green behavior is an
aggregation of a wide range of individuals’ behaviors reflecting their performance of
in-role (adhering to the organization’s environmental policies and HRM green initia-
tives) and extra role (evincing discretionary effort and reaching the extra mile) activ-
ities (Dumont, Shen, and Deng 2017). That is to say, there could be certain conditions
where organizations follow a compliance approach, expecting employees to perform
routine tasks designed according to the organization’s quality systems and policies for
hazard control, power consumption, printing and recycling, and safely disposing of
materials. However, there could be other unpredicted incidents that require innovative
approaches to environmental stewardship. In other words, employees might be
expected to proactively detect hazards, engage in designing up-to-date green initiatives,
and accommodate contemporary environmental issues in their job performance.
Examples of these extra-role behaviors might range from a wise consumption of office
lighting and using unbleached paper to conducting self-guided energy audits and iden-
tifying additional cost and resource-saving opportunities (Steg and Vlek 2009).
Correspondingly, several researchers (e.g. Jabbour et al. 2015; Pham, Tuckova, and
Jabbour 2019; Renwick et al. 2016) have proposed and empirically tested theoretical
models that suggest a direct linkage between a wide range of HRM core functions and
employee green behavior in the workplace. On this basis, bundles of HRM practices
(recruitment and selection, performance management, training and development, remu-
neration, and employee participation) have been examined in association with organ-
izational outcomes. As recommended by Renwick, Redman, and Maguire (2013), the
relationship between green HRM and individual green behavior can be viewed through
the lens of the classical Ability-Motivation-Opportunity (AMO) theory (Appelbaum
et al. 2000). The key argument of the AMO theory suggests that individual green
1208 O.M.A. Ababneh
behavior is enhanced by the contribution of HRM practices to fostering employee abil-

ity (possessing relevant skills competencies), motivation (attitudinal positivity and will-
ingness to engage in environment-related tasks), and opportunity (the possibility for
employees to take part in developing and deciding on green initiatives). Accordingly,
green HRM practices can be recognized by: a) enhancing employee ability via green-
ing the recruitment and selection, and training and development HRM practices; (b)
enhancing employee motivation by adopting remuneration and performance manage-
ment systems that acknowledge employee green behavior; and (c) establishing opportu-
nities for employees to participate in various aspects of environmental initiatives.
More specifically, incorporating environmental sustainability values and skills in
the recruitment and selection processes and practices, will most likely lead to strong
convergence between the organization’s values and those of the employees (Jackson
et al. 2011; Yen, Chen, and Teng 2013). In other words, featuring green criteria in
recruitment and selection will attract and hire candidates who possess green qualities
that serve the organization’s mission, vision, and strategic objectives. This, in turn, is
expected to create a shared-interest at the workplace and advance employee sustainable
performance. Further enhancing employees’ ability, conducting customized training
and development programs and establishing a learning system that acknowledges eco-
logical issues, will also enhance environmentally related knowledge and competencies
(Dumont, Shen, and Deng 2017). Employees’ cognitive consciousness, recognition,
appraisal and management of environmental issues will be also reinforced.
Additionally, the firm’s performance management and remuneration systems influence
employees’ attitudes and motivation (Jabbour et al. 2015; Pinzone et al. 2016).
Customizing performance appraisal to acknowledge employees’ green behaviors, will
positively enhance their perception of task meaningfulness, and encourage them to
elicit extra discretionary effort and display responsible attitudes and commitment while
handling environmentally related issues (Grobelna 2019). Along similar lines, boosting
employee motivation can be attained via adapting reward and incentive systems that
recognize employees’ green behaviors and reinforce accomplishment of sustainability-
related goals (Jackson et al. 2011). That is to say, individuals’ perception of equality
and satisfaction is influenced by their evaluation of the interchange between employee
green performance and the firm’s intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Pinzone et al. 2016).
Finally, employee involvement in green activities and initiatives is also expected to
enhance individual and organizational performance (Jabbour et al. 2015).
Although numerous studies have mainly investigated the linkage between individ-
ual green behavior and each single HRM practice, a holistic approach that examines
the joint effect of these practices together might be more effective in explaining the
contextual factors behind employees’ green attitudes and behaviors. The essence of
this argument is that individual HRM practices might conflict, complement, and/or
substitute each other (Snape and Redman 2010). This notion of HRM bundles is rooted
in the configurational perspective of HRM, which suggests a more internally symmet-
rical approach by bundling pertinent aspects of HRM practices together (Paauwe
2009). For instance, individual ability is determined by the synergic effect of both
training and development, and recruitment and selection practices, whilst the firm’s
performance management and remuneration systems shape employee motivation. As
such, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Green HRM is positively associated with employee green behavior

2.2. The mediating role of employee engagement with environmental initiatives

As discussed earlier, individuals’ in-role and extra-role behaviors are with paramount
significance to enhance the chances of effective and efficient implementation of the
organization’s sustainability initiatives, hence achieving its green favorable objectives.
However, this does not rule out the possibility of having various and different antece-
dents responsible for promoting these two interrelated sets of behaviors. Again, we
here emphasize the notion that individual behavior in the workplace can be influenced
by several contextual and individual-related factors and mechanisms (Paauwe 2009).
For instance, Guest (1997) suggested that the linkage between general HRM practices
and employee behavioral outcomes are mediated by attitudinal variables, which con-
sider the cognitive, affective, and activation dimensions of an individual’s self. On a
similar basis, the green HRM literature has called for developing and testing novel
frameworks that depict the implicit psychological and social mechanisms linking green
HRM practices to employees’ green behaviors (Dumont, Shen, and Deng 2017;
Renwick, Redman, and Maguire 2013). In answering these calls, this study suggests
that employee engagement with environmental initiatives, as an attitudinal construct
encompassing emotional, cognitive and behavioral components (Ababneh and Macky
2015; Macey and Schneider 2008), represents a more holistic view of how employees
psychologically and socially perceive and react to green HRM practices and job sus-
tainability-related tasks and objectives.
Since Kahn’s (1990) seminal conceptualization of the engagement construct, pos-
terior engagement literature (e.g. Saks 2006; Shuck and Wollard 2010) has, implicitly
and/or explicitly, emphasized the inclusion of the affective, cognitive and behavioral
dimensions in their definitions. However, Ababneh and Macky (2015) and Ababneh,
LeFevre, and Bentley (2019) have built on Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) three-factor defin-
ition (vigour, dedication, and absorption) to propose additional components (task per-
formance, and goal orientation) in their five-factor operational definition of employee
engagement. Specifically, Ababneh and Macky (2015) defined employee engagement
as a psychological construct comprised of emotions and activation (energy, enthusiasm,
passion, pride, and emotional positivity), absorption (psychological presence, attention
and alertness), discretionary effort (achievement striving and extra effort), task per-
formance (task fulfillment and meeting role expectations), and goal identification (goal
orientation and business awareness). Accordingly, drawing on the Ability-Motivation-
Opportunity (AMO) theory, this study proposes that green HRM can be ostensibly
associated with employee engagement; the latter comprises factors (positive emotions,
absorption, persistence and dedication, task performance, and goal orientation,
Ababneh, LeFevre, and Bentley 2019) that can be influenced by the “ability” (mani-
fested by recruitment and selection practices), “motivation” (enhanced by compensa-
tion and performance management practices), and “opportunity” (shaped by
involvement in green initiatives) dimensions of AMO. Therefore, well developed and
implemented green HRM practices are expected to enhance employee engagement
with the organizations’ environmental initiatives among employees, who are then
expected to conform to the organization’s policies and job requirements (Chen 2019)
and act proactively with strong concern for the contemporaneous environmental issues
(Altinay et al. 2019).
The “ability” dimension of AMO can be fostered by green training and develop-
ment, and recruitment and selection practices. Incorporating the firm’s green values
and goals when hiring employees will influence an individual’s cognitive evaluation of
1210 O.M.A. Ababneh
personal capabilities and awareness of his/her job-related green behavior (Huertas-

Valdivia, Llorens-Montes, and Ruiz-Moreno 2018). This cognitive process will then
lead to the development of positive emotions and exuberance reflected in employees’
execution of their environmentally related role tasks. In the same vein, adapting a
learning system that includes training and development programs designed to enhance
employees’ environmentally related knowledge and competencies is also expected to
raise their awareness of how their role performance contributes to the achievement of
the organization’s environmental objectives (Daft 2015). Taking all the above together,
it can be argued that enhancing employees’ ability aligns employee engagement with
environmental initiatives. Environmentally aware and capable employees are expected
to elicit high levels of enthusiasm, energy, and positive affectivity toward environmen-
tal values and practices. Hence, they become psychologically present to detect hazards
and strive to fulfill task requirements in a way that features sustainability standards
and promotes goal achievement.
On a similar basis, the “motivation” aspect of AMO can be linked to employee
engagement with environmental initiatives. Customizing appraisal tools and remuner-
ation systems that acknowledge employees’ environmental knowledge and green
behaviors will extrinsically motivate them to undertake their tasks according to the job
environmental criteria. Further, clarifying the firm’s ecological values and goals and
providing constructive feedback on employee sustainable performance help to enhance
how employees’ perceive the meaningfulness of their roles (Grobelna 2019). This will
further enhance their willingness to exert extra effort and dedication and direct their
in-role and extra-role performance toward achieving the firm’s environmental goals
(Pinzone et al. 2016).
Coherently with the “opportunity” view of AMO, employees’ involvement in the
development of green initiatives and decision-making on ecological objectives will fos-
ter their engagement with environmental initiatives. Establishing bi-directional commu-
nication that highlights the need for advancing the organization’s ecological
performance will enhance employees’ cognitive awareness of how their contributions
are with paramount significance (Jabbour et al. 2015; Renwick, Redman, and Maguire
2013). Further, creating opportunities for employees to participate and collaborate in
setting environmental activities and goals will advance their psychological and emo-
tional attachment to, and identification with, those goals (Pinzone et al. 2016; Roscoe
et al. 2019). Hence, high levels of passion, enthusiasm, and energy are most
likely manifested at the workplace. This, in turn, will lead to enhanced employee goal-
identification, where employees tend to advance their green competencies, exchange
knowledge with peers, take eco-initiatives, and adopt innovative methods and interven-
tions when addressing various environmental issues. Drawing on these arguments, this
study proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Employee engagement partially mediates the relationship between green

HRM and individual green behavior.
2.3. The moderation role of personality attributes

A noticeable stream of HRM behavioral research suggests that personality attributes
may act as a catalyst that amplifies and/or weakens the associations between HRM
practices and individual and organizational behaviors and outcomes. From a
psychological point of view, individuals have different patterns of behavior (voluntary

and involuntary) underpinned by the quality of the convergence between their percep-
tions, needs, values, and goals, and the organization’s norms, practices, and objectives
(Paille, Boiral, and Chen 2013). Therefore, in the environmental context, the concourse
of individual and organization’s ecological variables (represented by green HRM prac-
tices) will most likely motivate employees to engage in in-role and extra role sustain-
ability-related tasks and activities (Dumont, Shen, and Deng 2017). Despite the
relevance of this discourse, the empirical studies that lend support to the moderating
influence of personality traits on the green HRM/individual attitudes are still limited.
For instance, in Dumont, Shen, and Deng’s (2017) study, individual green values have
been reported to moderate the relationships between green HRM practices, psycho-
logical green climate (employees’ perceptions of the firm’s green policies and practi-
ces), and individual green behaviors. However, individuals’ personality traits are
prominent and comprise more stable patterns of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors
(McCrae and Costa 2003) than individual’s values, as the latter fluctuates according to
changes in the environment. Further, the individual’s values reflect his/her motivational
status against certain stimuli, but is not necessarily displayed in behavior (Roccas
et al. 2002). In the same vein, in Yu and Yu (2017) study, a positive moderating effect
of personality attributes on the association between certain antecedent variables (sus-
tainability value, social norms, ecological concern, and perceived risk) and individual
pro-environmental attitude was reported. Inherent to this notion, this study draws on
the person-organization (P-O) fit theory to propose that certain individual predisposi-
tions (namely, positive affect trait, conscientiousness, and proactive personality) are
expected to spark and strengthen the association between green HRM practices and
employee engagement with environmental initiatives.
The parson-organization fit theory postulates that the compatibility between the
individual’s and organization’s values has a positive impact on the psychological cli-
mate and attitudinal motivation in the workplace (Chatman 1989), which are expected
to enhance employee performance and improve organizational outcomes (Kristof-
Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson 2005). The theory posits two perspectives of fit,
namely supplementary fit and complementary fit. Supplementary fit occurs when the
convergence between the personal characteristics (personality, values, attitudes, and
goals) and the organizational ones (values, norms and goals) occurs in the workplace.
From the complementary perspective, the needs-supplies fit is achieved when employ-
ees’ demands of psychological, physical, and financial resources, as well as growth
opportunities, are met. On a similar basis, demands-abilities fit is attained when the
individual supplies the organization’s demands for effort, time, knowledge, abilities,
and commitment (Robbins and Judge 2009). Therefore, it is rational to posit that
employee attitude toward the organization’s environmental values, goals, policies, and
practices (represented by green HRM practices) and green behaviors is influenced by
the congruence between personal and organizational variables (Dumont, Shen, and
Deng 2017; Huertas-Valdivia, Llorens-Montes, and Ruiz-Moreno 2018).
Individuals with trait-positive affect display vivacity and relish for life in the work-
place (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1988). They are characterized by possessing cop-
ing styles, open-minded attitudes, and positive self-qualities (Ashby, Isen, and Turken
1999). Such qualities, then, will enhance employees’ perceptions and judgment about
self-need fulfillment and the meaningfulness of the firm’s environmental goals and ini-
tiatives (Grobelna 2019). That is, the extent to which an individual positively perceives
1212 O.M.A. Ababneh
and judges how green HRM practices provide opportunities to participate in green ini-
tiatives, recognize individual green behavior, acknowledge environmental issues in job
designs and tasks, will enhance their tendencies to positively cope and actively interact
with the firm’s environmental demands (Huertas-Valdivia, Llorens-Montes, and Ruiz-
Moreno 2018). More specifically, the match between individuals’ positive qualities and
HRM green values and initiatives will most likely promote energy, vigilance, enthusi-
asm, and dedication in the workplace; hence, it will foster employee engagement with
environmental initiatives. Similarly, a proactive personality describes the individual who
has initiative, is adaptive, an opportunist, an action-taker, a preserver, and is uncom-
pelled by situational challenges (Bateman and Crant 1993). Along similar lines, green
behavior requires pro-environmental behavior, where employees are expected to reach
the extra mile in performance, exceed formal job requirements, and display innovative
behaviors (Yu and Yu 2017). Accordingly, the match between HRM green values and
activities, and individuals’ proactive qualities can affect employee engagement with
environmental initiatives. More precisely, performance management, remuneration, and
involvement systems that encourage and acknowledge initiative and proactive behavior,
individual participation, and discretionary effort will lead to higher levels of engagement.
The trait conscientiousness can also strengthen the association between green HRM and
employee engagement with environmental initiatives. Individuals with a conscientious-
ness personality are dependable, preservative, self-disciplined, and goal-oriented. These
characteristics are expected, then, to complement the values and activities of green
HRM. For instance, dependable and self-directed employees will most likely adhere to
sustainability performance standards, procedures, and task requirements (Hirschfeld and
Thomas 2008). Further, their self-striving and goal-orientation qualities foster their will-
ingness to participate in developing green initiatives and strive for mastery and excel-
lence while performing their in-role and extra-role environmental tasks (Hough and
Schneider 1996). Taking all the above together, the interaction between the individual
characteristics and the organization’s values, policies, practices, and goals is expected to
promote high levels of employee engagement with environmental initiatives. Thus, draw-
ing on these psychological perspectives, the following hypotheses were developed:
Hypothesis 3a: Individuals’ positive affect personality moderates the relationship

between green HRM and engagement with environmental initiatives.
Hypothesis 3b: Individuals’ proactive personality moderates the relationship between

green HRM and engagement with environmental initiatives.
Hypothesis 3c. Individuals’ conscientiousness personality moderates the relationship

between green HRM and engagement with environmental initiatives.
3. Methodology
The attainment of ultimate sustainability objectives requires authentic contributions
from all business fields and sectors (Han et al. 2019). Thus, examining the environ-
mental issues in the hospitality industry seems rational and relevant. Hospitality opera-
tions and activities have a strong environmental impact that may negatively contribute
to environmental retrogression and greenhouse gas emissions (Yu, Li, and Jai 2017).
Hotels can therefore be a key player in safeguarding natural resources (e.g. energy and
water consumption) and minimizing the negative impact of business operations and
practices on the environment (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions and global warming,
Merli et al. 2019). Further, customers, who are touted to be the focal stakeholder in
the hospitality industry, have become more green-conscious (Chung 2020); hence they
expect hotels to adopt high eco-friendly operations and practices (Han et al. 2019).
For instance, Bookings.com (2017) has released the Global Sustainable Travel Report
illustrating that 65% of travelers preferred to select environmentally friendly hotels.
This again entails that environmental sustainability is of paramount significance for
organizations operating in the hospitality industry (Chung 2020; Pham, Tuckova, and
Jabbour 2019). However, the stream of research conducted in the hospitality context
has mostly focused on examining the environmental issues through the lens of custom-
ers’ attitudes and perception of hotels’ environmental initiatives, whilst the role of
individual employees has received scant attention (Kim et al. 2019). The hospitality
industry is a labor intensive one and has been called “the people’s industry” (Ma and
Qu 2011), where employees’ sustainable behaviors are influenced by their perceptions
and interactions with the hotel’s environmental policies, strategies, and initiatives.
Therefore, the stream of research that investigates the environmental issues pertaining
to employees’ perceptions and attitudes has received scant attention in the hotel indus-
try (Kim et al. 2019).
The purpose of this study is to examine the proposed conceptual model on employ-
ees who have the knowledge, experience and familiarity with environmental manage-
ment concepts and practices. Thus, a quantitative research method with purposeful
sampling was used to deliberately reach participants working at four and five-star
hotels operating in Jordan. Thus, the use of purposeful sampling avails the primary
objective of targeting participants who meet the criterion of environmental qualities
(Creswell and Plano Clark 2011), whilst the choice of 4-5 star hotels was due to their
commitment to environmental protection, as announced on their websites (Hang and
Ferguson 2016). Further, the design choice to focus on a single sector (hotel) operating
in a single country (Jordan) helps to reduce the perplexing influence of uncontrollable
variables (e.g. cultural, legislative, and economic contexts).
3.1. Participants and procedures

According to the Jordanian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (2019), there are 71
four-five star hotels operating in Jordan. Initially, the websites of all 71 hotels were
manually visited and only 21 who communicate their environmental commitment on
their websites were shortlisted. The HR manager of each hotel was contacted and sent
an invitation letter clarifying the research objective, emphasizing the prominence of
their participation and facilitation in data gathering, and confirming information confi-
dentiality. Eight managers demonstrated their willingness to invite their employees (via
the hotel’s intranet) to take part in this study. The email includes an invitation letter
that states the research objective and guarantees participants’ anonymity and voluntary
participation. Initially, 403 full time employees (out of 1,560) completed and returned
the questionnaires, yielding a 25.8% response rate. Based on the criterion to recruit
employees who have knowledge of, and acquaintance with, environmental management
practices, techniques, and concepts, 27 responses were eliminated due to indication of
participants’ tenure below one year and/or inclusion of missing cases above the 15%
threshold (Leong and Austin 2006). The final number of usable questionnaires was
1214 O.M.A. Ababneh
Table 1. Demographic characteristics: Department and gender.
Sample (N) Sample (%)
Department Housekeeping 115 30.6

Food and beverage 33 8.8
Sales and marketing 18 4.8
Front desk 120 31.9
Human resources 31 8.2
Maintenance 13 3.5
Others 16 4.2
Missing 30 8
Gender Male 158 42
Female 202 53.7
Missing 16 4.3
Age 18-27 Years 50 13.3
28-37 Years 82 21.8
38-45 Years 123 32.7
>45 Years 103 27.4
Missing 18 4.8
Tenure <3 years 60 16
4-10 years 119 31.6
11-20 years 109 29
>20 years 88 23.4
Missing 0 0
376, representing a response rate of 24.1%. Following the 50-response threshold for
each latent variable rule of thumb (Pedhazur and Schmelkin 1991), the sample size of
376 is adequate for data analysis. The demographic characteristics of the study sample
are displayed in Table 1.
3.2. Measures
In this study, all latent variables were assessed using previously developed scales. The
criterion was to use well-developed scales where their reliability and validity have been
strongly reported. The coefficient alphas for all scales reported in the original studies
ranged from 0.70 to 0.97. In this survey, the Never-Always five-point scale (ranging from
1¼ Never to 5¼ Always) was used. The original scales are described in Table 2, while
their internal consistency and descriptive statistics in the current study are displayed in
Tables 3 and 4. For the demographic variables, gender, age, and tenure of participants
were controlled when conducting the analyses, as the participants’ perceptions of HRM
practices might be affected by their individual characteristics (Kinnie et al. 2005).
4. Results
4.1. Measurement and model tests
Initially, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR, and average variance extracted
(AVE) were evaluated to test the reliability and validity of the study measures. As dis-
played in Table 3, the alpha values ranged from 0.77 to 0.90, whilst their values of
composite reliability ranged from 0.78 to 0.91. These values indicate satisfactory reli-
ability of the measures used. Further, the values for AVE ranged between 0.58 to 0.69,
Table 2. Description of the original scales.
No. of
Scale Author(s) items Example items
Employee Ababneh, LeFevre, 20 The original items were modified to

Engagement with and Bentley (2019) reflect the environmental
Environmental concentration of the study. For
Initiatives instance, the item “ At work, I feel
passionate to do my job” was
modified to “At work, I am passionate
to do my job in a very
sustainable manner”
Green HRM Tang et al. (2018) 18 Green performance management: “Our
hotel uses green performance
indicators in our performance
management system and appraisals.”
Green compensation: “Our hotel has
recognition-based rewards in
environment management for staff.”
Green recruitment and selection: “Our
hotel recruits employees who have
green awareness.” Green training and
development: “Our hotel develops
training programs in environment
management to increase
environmental awareness, skills and
expertise of employees.” Green
involvement: “In our hotel, employees
are involved in quality improvement
and problem-solving on green issues.”
Conscientiousness Costa and 12 “When I make a commitment, I can be
Personality McCrae 1992 always counted on to follow through.”
Proactive Personality Bateman and 6 “Wherever I have been, I have been a
Crant (1993) powerful force for
constructive change.”
Positive Affect Watson, Clark, and 6 “To what extent do you generally
Personality Tellegen (1988) feel attentive?”
Individual Bissing-Olson 6 In-role green behavior: “Today, I
Green Behavior et al. (2013) adequately completed assigned duties
in environmentally-friendly ways.”
Extra-role green behavior: “Today, I took
initiative to act in environmentally-
friendly ways at work.”
indicating the convergent validity of the study instruments (exceeding the 0.50 thresh-
old, Fornell and Larcker 1981). To test whether the study variables were distinct,
Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) suggestion was followed. As illustrated in Table 4, the
squared root of AVE for each variable was higher than the values of all its correlations
with other constructs. This, therefore, suggests that the study measures are distinct and
appropriate to test the intended model.
It is also recommended to control for the effect of common method variance
(CMV) on self-reported measures, as the social desirability of participants might influ-
ence their responses; the associations between these measures might be inflated or
deflated due to the confounding effect of CMV (Williams and Brown 1994).
1216 O.M.A. Ababneh
Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted.
Variables No. of items Alpha CR AVE
Employee engagement with 20 0.90 0.91 0.69

environmental initiatives
Green HRM 18 0.77 0.78 0.58
Conscientiousness personality 12 0.84 0.84 0.62
Positive affect personality 6 0.87 0.87 0.64
Proactive personality 6 0.78 0.79 0.59
Individual green behavior 6 0.82 0.82 0.68
Note: CR ¼ Composite Reliability; AVE ¼ Average Variance Extracted.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics, correlations matrix, and squared root of AVE.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Employee engagement with 3.62 0.78 0.83

environmental initiatives
2. Green HRM 3.69 0.82 0.31 0.76
3. Conscientiousness personality 4.01 0.51 0.32 0.22 0.78
4. Positive affect personality 3.77 0.57 0.22 0.26 0.41 0.80
5. Proactive personality 3.45 0.56 0.16 0.17 0.48 0.47 0.76
6. Individual green behavior 3.81 0.62 0.34 0.27 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.82
Note. N ¼ 376; Diagonal values depict the square root of the Average Variance Extracted.
¼ p ˂ 0.01; ¼ p< 0.05.
Therefore, AMOS 24 was used to conduct a series of confirmatory factor analyses

(CFAs) with maximum likelihood estimation on the study measures. Accordingly, five
clusters of fit indices were examined to decide on the goodness-of-fit for the current
dataset. A value less than 5 for the relative chi-square (Χ2/df) indicates a good model fit
(Schumacker and Lomax 2004). For the “incremental fit index” (IFI) and “comparative
fit index” (CFI), values greater than 0.90 reflect a good fit (Bentler 1990). The “root
mean square error of approximation” (RMSEA) with a value less than 0.08 represents a
considerable model fit (Marsh, Hau, and Wen 2004). Finally, the “Tucker–Lewis index”
(TLI) with a value close to 1 reflects a good fit (Bentler 1990).
Toward this end, the marker-variable tests approach (comparing the proposed
model to other two competing models; Boso, Story, and Cadogan 2013) was followed
to evaluate the influence of CMV on the current dataset. In model one (method-only
model), all items were forced to load on one factor. The test revealed poor fit, as
RMSEA¼0.13, CFI¼ 0.61, TLI¼0.60, IFI¼ 0.61, and Χ 2/df¼ 5.59. In model two
(trait-only model), all items were allowed to load on their corresponding variables
according to the proposed model in the current study. The test reported a good model
fit, as RMSEA¼0.07, CFI¼ 0.91, TLI¼0.90, IFI¼ 0.91, and Χ 2/df¼ 3.79. The third
model includes assessing the method and trait models together (adding a common
latent variable to the proposed model and linking that variable to all items). The test
revealed that model three reported the best model fit with RMSEA¼0.067, CFI¼ 0.93,
TLI¼0.92, IFI¼ 0.93, and Χ 2/df¼ 3.45. These results indicate that model two exhib-
ited a better fit than model one, and closer to model three. The slight difference in fit
indices between model two and model three indicates that common method bias is not a
Table 5. Hypothesis testing using path analysis (mediation effect).
b R2 Significance Mediation
Hypothesis values values level effect
Demographics:
Age 0.09 0.08
Gender 0.05 0.13
Tenure 0.08 0.09
H2:Green HRM Engagement 0.31 0.27 0.002 Partial

Engagement Green Behavior 0.34 0.31 0.002
Green HRM Green Behavior 0.27 0.25 0.002
Green HRM Engagement Green Behavior 0.11 0.34 0.04
Note: b ¼ Path Coefficient; R2 ¼ R Squared; ¼ not significant (p > 0.05); ¼ p < 0.05; ¼ p < 0.01.
concern for this dataset and it is unlikely to tarnish the intercorrelations among the
study variables.
4.2. Hypotheses testing

4.2.1. The direct and mediation effects
H1 and H2 indicate direct and indirect associations between green HRM and employee
green behavior through the mediation of employee engagement with environmental ini-
tiatives. In testing this partial mediation model, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method for
testing mediation was followed, which states three conditions for testing mediation
models (all direct associations between the model variables should be significant). In
the proposed model in the current study, the direct effects green HRM on employee
green behavior (b ¼ 0.27, p < 0.01), green HRM on employee engagement with
environmental initiatives (b ¼ 0.31, p < 0.01), and employee engagement with envir-
onmental initiatives on employee green behavior (b ¼ 0.34, p < 0.01) were signifi-
cant. After including the mediator (employee engagement with environmental
initiatives) in the intended partial mediation model, the direct path linking green HRM
with employee green behavior (b ¼ 0.11, p < 0.05) remains significant. Further, when
“bootstrapping” with 2,000 sampling (resampling with replacement and empirically
generating sample distribution, Hayes 2013) was carried out, the indirect path remains
significant (p < 0.01). Drawing on the decrease of the path coefficients between green
HRM and employee green behavior from 0.27 to 0.11 and the significance level of
both direct and indirect paths (See Tables 5 and 6), the mediation of employee engage-
ment between these two variables is considered partial, lending support to H2.
Furthermore, Table 5 illustrates that the examination of the explanatory power of the
control variables (age, gender, and tenure) on the current model reported no signifi-
cant effect.
4.2.2. The moderation effect of personality attributes

The next group of hypotheses (H3 a, b, and c) proposed that the association
between green HRM and employee engagement with environmental initiatives would
be moderated by conscientiousness, positive affect, and proactive personality attributes.
1218 O.M.A. Ababneh
Table 6. Hypotheses testing using path analysis (moderation effect).
b values Significance level R2
H3a: 0.36
Green HRM Engagement 0.32 0.003
Positive affect Engagement 0.20 0.04
Green HRM x Positive affect 0.12 0.03
H3b:
Proactive personality Engagement 0.02 0.15
H3c: Green HRM x Proactive personality 0.05 0.13
H3c:
Conscientiousness Engagement 0.35 0.002
Green HRM x Conscientiousness 0.19 0.04
Note. b ¼ Path Coefficient; R2 ¼ R Squared; ¼ not significant (p>0.05); ¼ p< 0.05; ¼ p ˂ 0.01.
Figure 2. Moderating effect of conscientiousness and positive affect.
Toward that end, we initially created three product terms namely, “green
HRMconscientiousness,” “green HRMpositive affect,” and “green HRMproactive
personality.” Consequently, these three new terms were added to the intended model
including each variable for personality attributes. The results revealed that the prod-
uct terms of “green HRMconscientiousness” (b ¼ 0.19, p < 0.05) and “green
HRMpositive affect” (b ¼ 0.12, p < 0.05) were significant. Conversely, the new
term “green HRMproactive personality” (b ¼ 0.05, p >0.05) was insignificant.
Drawing on these results, H3 a and c received support, while H3 b was
not supported.
Further, whether the magnitude of the interactive effects of conscientiousness, posi-
tive effect, and green HRM on employee engagement with environmental initiatives
differ at low vs high levels was also tested. Accordingly, low and high levels of each
moderator were operationalized as a 1 SD below and above the mean, guided by the
recommendation of Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) for testing statistical signifi-
cance. Figure 2 illustrates that the effect of green HRM on employee engagement was
stronger when the level of conscientiousness was high, whilst it became weaker when
the level of conscientiousness was low. Along similar lines, the effect of green HRM
on employee engagement with environmental initiatives was stronger when the level of
positive affect was high, and it became weaker when positive affect was at
lower levels.
5. Discussion
This study responds to the upsurge of interest in HRM behavioral literature by
addressing the knowledge lacuna revolving around the implicit psychological mecha-
nisms that explain how organizational systems and practices can foster employee green
behavior (Dumont, Shen, and Deng 2017; Renwick, Redman, and Maguire 2013). The
current study proposed that employee engagement with environmental initiatives medi-
ates the association between green HRM practices and employee green behavior.
Further, it was also proposed that the strength of this association is moderated by cer-
tain individual personality attributes.
In the mediation process investigation, the results confirm that individual green
behavior is associated with green HRM practices through the mediation of employee
engagement with environmental initiatives (b ¼ 0.11, p < 0.05). The interpretation of
this finding can be grounded on the AMO theory. For instance, employees engage
with environmental initiatives when they receive well-designed training programs that
promote the organization’s sustainability culture and objectives, and that enhance
employees’ ability to handle environment-related issues (Daft 2015; Jackson et al.
2011; Roscoe et al. 2019). Further, employees strive to achieve environmental goals
when they positively judge and perceive the meaningfulness between their role per-
formance and those well-defined goals (Grobelna 2019; Yen, Chen, and Teng 2013).
Along similar lines, employee involvement enhances employee engagement with envir-
onmental initiatives; employees’ active participation in decision-making on environ-
mental issues will enhance their cognitive and emotional attachment to the
organizational values and principles. Employees, in turn, will exert high levels of pas-
sion, enthusiasm and energy while handling and solving sustainability-related matters
(Pinzone et al. 2016). Finally, hiring employees who possess the knowledge, experi-
ence, and environmental values and attitudes that align with the organization’s environ-
mental policies, systems, values, and objectives, will most likely engage with the
firm’s environmental initiatives; hence they display in-role and extra-role green behav-
iors (Dumont, Shen, and Deng 2017; Jackson et al. 2011; Yen, Chen, and Teng 2013).
In the moderation mechanism investigation, the results confirmed that the associ-
ation between green HRM practices and employee engagement with environmental ini-
tiatives is strengthened by the moderation effect of conscientiousness (b ¼ 0.19, p <
0.05) and positive affect (b ¼ 0.12, p < 0.05) personality attributes. This suggests that
the extent to which employees display high levels of engagement with the organiza-
tion’s environmental initiatives is contingent to the interactive effect of institutional
variables (green HRM in this context) and individuals’ personality propositions (con-
scientiousness and positive affect). That is to say, individuals’ various aspects of
behavior (voluntary and involuntary) are influenced by the congruence between the
perceptions, values, and norms of individual employees and the practices, goals, and
norms of the organization (Paille, Boiral, and Chen 2013). Therefore, in the environ-
mental context, the concourse of individual and organization’s ecological variables
(represented by green HRM practices) will most likely motivate employees to engage
with the firm’s environmental initiatives (Dumont, Shen, and Deng 2017). Contrary to
the theoretical argument developed earlier in this study, proactive personality reported
an insignificant moderation effect on the association between green HRM practices
and employee engagement with environmental initiatives (b ¼ 0.05, p > 0.05). This
can be attributed to the confounding effect the participants’ cultural norms, beliefs,
and values may have on how they interpret role requirements and procedures, adapt to
1220 O.M.A. Ababneh
changing business requirements, and perceive HRM practices and organizational poli-
cies (Hofstede 1980). In other words, individuals’ perceptions and interpretations of
the organization’s actions and initiatives against the environment may vary according
to differences in their cultural norms, standards, traditions, and principles. Taken
together, the results of this study lend support to the developed hypotheses and, in
turn, contribute to theory and practice of green HRM behavioral literature.
5.1. Theoretical implications

As mentioned earlier, the existing discourse on green behavior revolves around investi-
gating the simple and direct associations between green HRM and individuals’ green
behaviors (e.g. Harvey, Williams, and Probert 2013; Jabbour et al. 2015; Pham,
Tuckova, and Jabbour 2019; Renwick et al. 2016), leaving uncertainties and know-
ledge gaps on the implicit psychological mechanisms. This study, therefore, extends
the emerging research on green HRM by illuminating employee engagement with
environmental initiatives as a psychological mechanism accounted for by explaining
the association between green HRM practices and employee green behavior. Among
those few studies that examine the intermediary effect of psychological processes are
the ones conducted by Dumont, Shen, and Deng (2017) and Pinzone et al. (2016). The
studies provided empirical evidence about the significance effect “psychological green
climate” and “affective commitment” have on the associations between green HRM
practices and employees’ green performance. Therefore, one key insight from this
study is that employee engagement with environmental initiatives could be better posi-
tioned to mediate the association between green HRM practices and employee green
behavior than those attitudinal constructs. Employee engagement with environmental
initiatives is wider in scope than affective commitment and OCB, in the essence that
the former includes cognitive, emotional, and behavioral connotations. Therefore,
engaged employees might have a higher propensity to display a wider range of cogni-
tive, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes (Ababneh and Macky 2015; Chacko and
Conway 2019; Kwon and Kim 2020; Macey and Schneider 2008; Mackay, Allen, and
Landis 2017).
Another key insight from this study is that employee engagement with environmen-
tal initiatives is multidimensional and manifested by various mechanisms. Specifically,
this research sheds light on the interactive effect of green HRM practices and personal-
ity attributes on employee engagement with environmental initiatives. This inclusion
of institutional variables (represented by green HRM practices) and individual ones
extends the engagement, AMO, and P-O-fit theories. Specifically, the joint interaction
between green HRM practices (green training and development, green compensation,
green recruitment and selection, green performance management, and green involve-
ment) and certain individual attributes (conscientiousness and positive affect) boost
employee engagement with environmental initiatives. That is to say, enforcing green
HRM practices at the workplace alone might not be enough to foster employee
engagement with environmental initiatives; it is the combination of contextual and
individual factors that drives employees’ willingness and intention to engage in the
organization’s environmental initiatives.
Overall, this model provides a novel view of the complex nature of individual
green behavior, and therefore provides an interesting line for future research.
5.2. Practical implications

In the General Assembly of the United Nations (2018), the general theme of the debate
was “Global Leadership and Shared Responsibilities: for Peaceful, Equitable and
Sustainable Societies,” emphasizing the accomplishment of the pre-developed sustain-
ability development objectives. These objectives were founded on five pillars, namely,
“Planet, people, peace, prosperity, and partnership.” From a business perspective, the
prime goal is to safeguard natural resources and promote eco-friendly work environ-
ments. This, in turn, will constrain future social, environmental, and economic costs
(Jabbour et al. 2019; Jackson et al. 2011; Pham, Tuckova, and Jabbour 2019). In
response to that, the findings of the current study provide several practical implications
that can be suggested for HRM managers.
Initially, this study provides HRM managers with empirical evidence on the rela-
tive significance of green HRM practices in enhancing the firm’s successful and effi-
cient implementation of environmentally related policies and strategies. Specifically,
organizations need to redesign work tasks and activities in a way that addresses their
environmental goals (Chen 2019). Here, job crafting (the extent to which employees
are responsible for certain aspects of their jobs and how they interact with each other,
Wrzesniewski and Dutton 2001) is an effective method that fosters employees’ adapta-
tion of their performance according to the changing environmental requirements and
stimuli. However, these responsibilities and autonomy can have a confounding impact,
as individual employees may suffer from obstructing emotional and cognitive job
demands due to lack of knowledge and awareness. Therefore, conducting well-
designed training programs that address a wide range of environmental issues (e.g.
emissions reduction, energy and water safe consumption, waste management, design
and building considerations, and green purchasing procedures and options) will
enhance employees’ ability and, in turn, decree the preventive cognitive and emotional
demands for serving the organization’s green values (Huertas-Valdivia, Llorens-
Montes, and Ruiz-Moreno 2018).
Along similar lines, branding environmental sustainability in the recruitment mes-
sage and including environment-related skills and competencies in the selection pro-
cess will help to attract and select candidates with positive attitudes toward the
organization’s environmental initiatives (Renwick, Redman, and Maguire 2013).
Employees’ motivation and attitudes can also be influenced by the organization’s per-
formance and compensation management systems. Developing and integrating key per-
formance indicators (KPIs) that detect diverse aspects of employees’ green behaviors
in the firm’s appraisal tool will enhance their perceptions of role meaningfulness.
Consequently, integrating employees’ green behaviors in the firm’s reward and incen-
tive systems (e.g. green gain sharing, green employee of the month/year, and lump
sum based on green performance) will enhance their perceptions of the equity and fair-
ness of those systems. Hence, they build positive attitudes and display high levels of
engagement when performing in-role and extra role environment-related tasks.
Finally, establishing formal and informal communication channels that clarify the
organization’s green values and intentions, and encourage employee involvement in
deciding on environmental issues will elicit employees’ active participation in envir-
onmental initiatives and encourage them to exchange knowledge with peers, take
eco-initiatives, and adopt innovative methods and interventions when addressing vari-
ous environmental issues.
1222 O.M.A. Ababneh
Furthermore, the findings of the current study indicate that organizations need to
consider the environmental agenda from a wider perspective. That is to say, in addition
to the green HRM bundle, individual predispositions are crucial to fostering employee
engagement with the organization’s environmental initiatives. More specifically, this
research provides evidence suggesting that hiring a cadre high in conscientiousness
and positive affect traits strengthens the direct influence green HRM interventions may
have on employee engagement with environmental initiatives.
5.3. Limitation and directions to future research

Although this study takes one step forward in the green behavioral literature by examin-
ing a new research agenda on how employee engagement with environmental initiatives
mediates the associations between individual green behavior and the interactive effect of
green HRM and personality attributes, the results should be interpreted in the light of the
limitations inherent in this study. Firstly, this study followed a cross-sectional design,
which limits making definitive conclusions on the causal order of the tested associations.
Therefore, one important line of research is to conduct longitudinal studies that substanti-
ate the causality of the associations examined in the current study. Secondly, the current
study was conducted on a single country (Jordan) and a single sector (hotels).
Differences in the physical, regulatory, and cultural environments may constrain or
enhance the organization’s endeavors to develop environmental policies and achieve sus-
tainability-related goals. Further, these cultural environments may influence how employ-
ees perceive and interpret the organization’s policies and HRM practices (e.g. the
insignificant moderation role of proactive personality found in the current study). Thus,
the generalizability of the current findings could be further enhanced by testing the cur-
rent model in cross-cultural and cross-industry settings. Finally, given the complexity of
employee environmental behavior, diverse models that include other underlying mecha-
nisms would provide a holistic view and expand the current state of knowledge on how
green behaviors are determined. More specifically, one possible mechanism is the moder-
ating effect of leadership behavior on the association between green HRM practices and
employee engagement with environmental initiatives. The leadership literature suggests
that individuals’ perceptions of the firm’s policies, values, and objectives are intertwined
with their leaders’ practices and behaviors (Altinay et al. 2019). Therefore, employees
tend to adhere to the organization’s policies and their role expectations based on their

judgment on the quality of exchange with the leader (Cerne, Batistic, and Kenda 2018).
Thus, the inclusion of the moderating role of leadership styles to the green framework of
the current study can be another important line of inquiry for future research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Omar Mohammed Ali Ababneh http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0355-0908
References
Ababneh, O.M.A., and K. Macky. 2015. “The Meaning and Measurement of Employee
Engagement: A Review of the Literature.” New Zealand Journal of Human Resources 15: 1–35.
Ababneh, O.M.A., M. LeFevre, and T. Bentley. 2019. “Employee Engagement: Development of

a New Measure.” International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management
19 (2): 105–134. doi:10.1504/IJHRDM.2019.098623.
Altinay, L., Y.-D. Dai, J. Chang, C.-H. Lee, W.-L. Zhuang, and Y.-C. Liu. 2019. “How to
Facilitate Hotel Employees’ Work Engagement.” International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 31 (3): 1525–1542. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-10-2017-0613.
Appelbaum, E., T. Bailey, P. Berg, and A. L. Kalleberg. 2000. Manufacturing Advantage: Why
High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Ashby, F.G., A.M. Isen, and A.U. Turken. 1999. “A Neuropsychological Theory of Positive
Affect and Its Influence on Cognition.” Psychological Review 106 (3): 529–550. doi:10.
1037/0033-295x.106.3.529.
Ashton, W., S. Russell, and E. Futch. 2017. “The Adoption of Green Business Practices Among
Small US Midwestern Manufacturing Enterprises.” Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 60 (12): 2133–2149. doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1281107.
Bakker, A.B., M. Tims, and D. Derks. 2012. “Proactive Personality and Job Performance: The
Role of Job Crafting and Work Engagement.” Human Relations 65 (10): 1359–1378. doi:10.
1177/0018726712453471.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–1182.
Bateman, T.S., and J.M. Crant. 1993. “The Proactive Component of Organizational Behaviour:
A Measure and Correlates.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 14 (2): 103–118. doi:10.
1002/job.4030140202.
Bentler, P. M. 1990. “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models.” Psychological Bulletin
107 (2): 238–246.
Bissing-Olson, M.J., A. Iyer, K.S. Fielding, and H. Zacher. 2013. “Relationships Between Daily
Affect and Pro-Environmental Behavior at Work: The Moderating Role of Pro-Environmental
Attitude.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 34 (2): 156–175. doi:10.1002/job.1788.
Boso, N., V.M. Story, and J.W. Cadogan. 2013. “Entrepreneurial Orientation, Market Orientation,
Network Ties, and Performance: Study of Entrepreneurial Firms in a Developing Economy.”
Journal of Business Venturing 28 (6): 708–727. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.04.001.

Cerne, M., S. Batistic, and R. Kenda. 2018. “HR Systems, Attachment Styles with Leaders, and
the Creativity–Innovation Nexus.” Human Resource Management Review 28 (3): 271–288.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.004.
Chacko, S., and N. Conway. 2019. “Employee Experiences of HRM Through Daily Affective
Events and Their Effects on Perceived Event-Signalled HRM System Strength, Expectancy
Perceptions, and Daily Work Engagement.” Human Resource Management Journal 29 (3):
433–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12236. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12236.
Chatman, J.A. 1989. “Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-
Organization Fit.” Academy of Management Review 14 (3): 333–349. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.
4279063.
Chen, C.Y. 2019. “Does Work Engagement Mediate the Influence of Job Resourcefulness on Job
Crafting?: An Examination of Frontline Hotel Employees.” International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 31 (4): 1684–1701. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018-0365.
Chung, K.C. 2020. “Green Marketing Orientation: Achieving Sustainable Development in Green
Hotel Management.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 29 (6): 717–722. doi:
10.1080/19368623.2020.1693471.
Creswell, J.W., and V.L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Costa, P.T., and R.R. McCrae. 1992. NEO-PI-R Professional Manual. Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Daft, R.L. 2015. The Leadership Experience. 6th ed. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Dumont, J., J. Shen, and X. Deng. 2017. “Effects of Green HRM Practices on Employee
Workplace Green Behaviour: The Role of Psychological Green Climate and Employee
Green Values.” Human Resource Management 56 (4): 613–627. doi:10.1002/hrm.21792.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.
1224 O.M.A. Ababneh
Ganda, F. 2017. “Green Research and Development (R&D) Investment and Its Impact on the
Market Value of Firms: Evidence from South African Mining Firms.” Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 61 (3): 515–534.
Grobelna, A. 2019. “Effects of Individual and Job Characteristics on Hotel Contact Employees’
Work Engagement and Their Performance Outcomes: A Case Study from Poland.”
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31 (1): 349–369. doi:10.
1108/IJCHM-08-2017-0501.
Guest, D.E. 1997. “Human Resource Management and Performance: A Review and Research
Agenda.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 8 (3): 263–276. doi:
10.1080/095851997341630.
Han, H., J. Yu, J.-S. Lee, and W. Kim. 2019. “Impact of Hotels’ Sustainability Practices on
Guest Attitudinal Loyalty: Application of Loyalty Chain Stages Theory.” Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management 28 (8): 905–921. doi:10.1080/19368623.2019.
1570896.
Hang, L.M.D., and D.L. Ferguson. 2016. “Customer Relationship Enhancements from Corporate
Social Responsibility Activities Within the Hospitality Sector: Empirical Research from
Vietnam.” Corporate Reputation Review 19 (3): 244–262. doi:10.1057/s41299-016-0001-4.
Harvey, G., K. Williams, and J. Probert. 2013. “Greening the Airline Pilot: HRM and the Green
Performance of Airlines in the UK.” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 24 (1): 152–166. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.669783.
Hayes, A.F. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hirschfeld, R.R., and C.H. Thomas. 2008. “Representation of Trait Engagement: Integration,
Additions, and Mechanisms.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1 (1): 63–66. doi:
10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00011.x.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hough, L.M., and R.J. Schneider. 1996. “Personality Traits, Taxonomies, and Applications in
Organizations.” In Individual Differences and Behaviour in Organizations, edited by K. R.
Murphy, 31–88. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Huertas-Valdivia, I., F.J. Llorens-Montes, and A. Ruiz-Moreno. 2018. “Achieving Engagement
Among Hospitality Employees: A Serial Mediation Model.” International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 30 (1): 217–241. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0538.
Jabbour, C. J. C., D. Jugend, A. B. L. de Sousa Jabbour, A. Gunasekaran, and H. Latan. 2015.
“Green Product Development and Performance of Brazilian Firms: Measuring the Role of
Human and Technical Aspects.” Journal of Cleaner Production 87: 442–451. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.09.036.
Jabbour, C.J.C., J. Sarkis, A.B. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, D.W. Scott Renwick, S.K. Singh, O.
Grebinevych, I. Kruglianskas, et al. 2019. “Who is in Charge? A Review and a Research
Agenda on the ‘Human Side’ of the Circular Economy.” Journal of Cleaner Production
222: 793–801. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.038.
Jackson, S.E., D.W.S. Renwick, C.J.C. Jabbour, and M. Muller-Camen. 2011. “State-of-the-Art
and Future Directions for Green Human Resource Management: Introduction to the Special
Issue.” German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift für
Personalforschung 25 (2): 99–116. doi:10.1177/239700221102500203.
Kahn, W.A. 1990. “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at
Work.” Academy of Management Journal 33 (4): 692–724. doi:10.5465/256287.
Kim, Y.J., W.G. Kim, H.-M. Choi, and K. Phetvaroon. 2019. “The Effect of Green Human
Resource Management on Hotel Employees’ Eco-Friendly Behavior and Environmental
Performance.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 76: 83–93. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2018.04.007.
Kinnie, N., S. Hutchinson, J. Purcell, B. Rayton, and J. Swart. 2005. “Satisfaction with HR
Practices and Commitment to the Organisation: Why One Size Does Not Fit All.” Human
Resource Management Journal 15 (4): 9–29. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00293.x.
Kramar, R. 2014. “Beyond Strategic Human Resource Management: Is Sustainable Human
Resource Management the Next Approach?” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 25 (8): 1069–1089. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.816863.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., R.D. Zimmerman, and E.C. Johnson. 2005. “Consequences of Individual’s
Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group, and
Person-Supervisor Fit.” Personnel Psychology 58 (2): 281–342. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.
2005.00672.x.
Kwon, K., and T. Kim. 2020. “An Integrative Literature Review of Employee Engagement and
Innovative Behavior: Revisiting the JD-R Model.” Human Resource Management Review 30
(2): 100704. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.
Leong, F.T.L., and J.T. Austin. 2006. The Psychology Research Handbook: A Guide for Graduate
Students and Research Assistants. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Longoni, A., D. Luzzini, and M. Guerci. 2018. “Deploying Environmental Management across
Functions: The Relationship Between Green Human Resource Management and Green
Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Business Ethics 151 (4): 1081–1095. doi:10.1007/
s10551-016-3228-1.
Ma, E., and H. Qu. 2011. “Social Exchanges as Motivators of Hotel Employees' Organizational
Citizenship Behavior: The Proposition and Application of a New Three-Dimensional
Framework.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (3): 680–688.
Macey, W.H., and B. Schneider. 2008. “The Meaning of Employee Engagement.” Industrial and
Organizational Psychology 1 (1): 3–30. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x.
Mackay, M. M., J. A. Allen, and R. S. Landis. 2017. “Investigating the Incremental Validity of
Employee Engagement in the Prediction of Employee Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Path
Analysis.” Human Resource Management Review 27 (1): 108–120. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.
03.002.
Marsh, H. W., K.-T., Hau, and Z. Wen. 2004. “In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on
Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in
Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) Findings.” Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 11 (3): 320–341.
McCrae, R.R., and P.T. Costa, Jr. 2003. Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory
Perspective. New York: Guilford Press
Merli, R., M. Preziosi, A. Acampora, and F. Ali. 2019. “Why Should Hotels Go Green? Insights
from Guests' Experience in Green Hotels.” International Journal of Hospitality Management
81: 169–179. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.04.022.
Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities/Jordan. 2019. “Tourism Statistical Newsletter.” Accessed
September 22 2018. https://www.mota.gov.jo/Contents/statistics_2018.aspx
Paauwe, J. 2009. “HRM and Performance: Achievements, Methodological Issues and Prospects.”
Journal of Management Studies 46 (1): 129–142. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00809.x.
Paille, P., O. Boiral, and Y. Chen. 2013. “Linking Environmental Management Practices and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment: A Social Exchange Perspective.”
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (18): 3552–3575. doi:10.
1080/09585192.2013.777934.
Pedhazur, E.J., and L.P. Schmelkin. 1991. Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated
Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Pham, N.T., Z. Tuckova, and C.C.J. Jabbour. 2019. “Greening the Hospitality Industry: How Do
Green Human Resource Management Practices Influence Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in Hotels? A Mixed-Methods Study.” Tourism Management 72: 386–399. doi:10.
1016/j.tourman.2018.12.008.
Pinzone, M., M. Guerci, E. Lettieri, and T. Redman. 2016. “Progressing in the Change Journey
Towards Sustainability in Healthcare: The Role of ‘Green HRM'.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 122: 201–211. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.031.
Preacher, K.J., D.D. Rucker, and A.F. Hayes. 2007. “Addressing Moderated Mediation
Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 42 (1):
185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316.
Renwick, D.W.S., C.J.C. Jabbour, M. Muller-Camen, T. Redman, and A. Wilkinson. 2016.
“Contemporary Developments in Green (Environmental) HRM Scholarship.” The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 27 (2): 114–128. doi:10.1080/
09585192.2015.1105844.
Renwick, D.W.S., T. Redman, and S. Maguire. 2013. “Green Human Resource Management: A
Review and Research Agenda.” International Journal of Management Reviews 15 (1): 1–14.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00328.x.
1226 O.M.A. Ababneh
Robbins, S., and T. Judge. 2009. Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Robinson, D., S. Perryman, and S. Hayday. 2004. “The Drivers of Employee Engagement.”
www.employment-studies.co.uk
Roccas, S., L. Sagiv, S.H. Schwartz, and A. Knafo. 2002. “The Big Five Personality Factors
and Personal Values.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (6): 789–801. doi:10.
1177/0146167202289008.
Roscoe, S., N. Subramanian, C.J.C. Jabbour, and T. Chong. 2019. “Green Human Resource
Management and the Enablers of Green Organisational Culture: Enhancing a Firm's
Environmental Performance for Sustainable Development.” Business Strategy and the
Environment 28 (5): 713–737. doi:10.1002/bse.2277.
Saks, A.M. 2006. “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement.” Journal of
Managerial Psychology 21 (7): 600–619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169.
Schaufeli, W.B., M. Salanova, V. Gonz'alez-Rom'a, and A. B. Bakker. 2002. “The Measurement
of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.”
Journal of Happiness Studies 33 (1): 71–92.
Schumacker, R. E., and R. G. Lomax. 2004. A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation
Modeling. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Shuck, B., and K. Wollard. 2010. “Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the
Foundations.” Human Resource Development Review 9 (1): 89–110.
Snape, E., and T. Redman. 2010. “HRM Practices, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, and
Performance: A Multi-Level Analysis.” Journal of Management Studies 47 (7): 1219–1247.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00911.x.
Steg, L., and C. Vlek. 2009. “Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative
Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (3): 309–317. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004.
Tang, G., Y. Chen, Y. Jiang, P. Paille, and J. Jia. 2018. “Green Human Resource Management
Practices: Scale Development and Validity.” Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 56
(1): 31–55. doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12147.
United Nations. 2018. “UN General Assembly 2018: Everything You Need to Know about the
73rd Session of the UNGA.” Accessed November 22 2019. http://sdg.iisd.org/events/73rd-
session-of-the-un-general-assembly/
Watson, D., L.A. Clark, and A. Tellegen. 1988. “Development and Validation of Brief Measures
of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 54 (6): 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
Wefald, A.J., R.J. Reichard, and S.A. Serrano. 2011. “Fitting Engagement into a Nomological
Network: The Relationship of Engagement to Leadership and Personality.” Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies 18 (4): 522–537. doi:10.1177/1548051811404890.
Williams, L. J., and B. K. Brown. 1994. “Method Variance in Organizational Behavior and
Human Resources Research: Effects on Correlations, Path Coefficients, and Hypothesis
Testing.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72 (2): 185–209.
Wrzesniewski, A., and J.E. Dutton. 2001. “Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active
Crafters of Their Work.” Academy of Management Review 26 (2): 179–201. doi:10.5465/
amr.2001.4378011.
Wu, H.-C., C.-C. Cheng, and C.-H. Ai. 2018. “An Empirical Analysis of Green Switching
Intentions in the Airline Industry.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61
(8): 1438–1468. doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1352495.
Yen, C.-H., C.-Y. Chen, and H.-Y. Teng. 2013. “ Perceptions of Environmental Management
and Employee Job Attitudes in Hotel Firms.” Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &
Tourism 12 (2): 155–174. doi:10.1080/15332845.2013.752709.
Yu, T.-Y., and T.-K. Yu. 2017. “The Moderating Effects of Students’ Personality Traits on Pro-
Environmental Behavioral Intentions in Response to Climate Change.” International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health 14 (12): 1472. doi:10.3390/ijerph14121472.
Yu, Y., X. Li, and T.-M. (C.) Jai. 2017. “The Impact of Green Experience on Customer
Satisfaction: Evidence from TripAdvisor.” International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 29 (5): 1340–1361. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-07-2015-0371.

How Do Green HRM Practices Affect Employees' Green Behaviors? The Role of Employee Engagement and Personality Attributes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Do Green HRM Practices Affect Employees' Green Behaviors? The Role of Employee Engagement and Personality Attributes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Do Green HRM Practices Affect Employees' Green Behaviors? The Role of Employee Engagement and Personality Attributes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

How do green HRM practices affect employees’

Omar Mohammed Ali Ababneh

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1814708

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 13 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 14160

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

How do green HRM practices affect employees’ green behaviors?

Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business and Economics, Qatar

(Received 14 April 2020; final version received 10 August 2020)

Corresponding author. Email: oababneh@qu.edu.qa

energy, exuberance, initiative, enthusiasm, proactivity, adaptability to change, and role

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development

Figure 1. The theoretical framework.

approach by examining the influence of HRM inventions on individual-level perform-

behavior is enhanced by the contribution of HRM practices to fostering employee abil-

Hypothesis 1: Green HRM is positively associated with employee green behavior

2.2. The mediating role of employee engagement with environmental initiatives

personal capabilities and awareness of his/her job-related green behavior (Huertas-

Hypothesis 2. Employee engagement partially mediates the relationship between green

2.3. The moderation role of personality attributes

psychological point of view, individuals have different patterns of behavior (voluntary

Hypothesis 3a: Individuals’ positive affect personality moderates the relationship

Hypothesis 3b: Individuals’ proactive personality moderates the relationship between

Hypothesis 3c. Individuals’ conscientiousness personality moderates the relationship

3.1. Participants and procedures

Table 1. Demographic characteristics: Department and gender.

Sample (N) Sample (%)

Department Housekeeping 115 30.6

Table 2. Description of the original scales.

Employee Ababneh, LeFevre, 20 The original items were modified to

Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted.

Variables No. of items Alpha CR AVE

Employee engagement with 20 0.90 0.91 0.69

Note: CR ¼ Composite Reliability; AVE ¼ Average Variance Extracted.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics, correlations matrix, and squared root of AVE.

1. Employee engagement with 3.62 0.78 0.83

Therefore, AMOS 24 was used to conduct a series of confirmatory factor analyses

Table 5. Hypothesis testing using path analysis (mediation effect).

H2:Green HRM Engagement 0.31 0.27 0.002 Partial

4.2. Hypotheses testing

4.2.2. The moderation effect of personality attributes

Table 6. Hypotheses testing using path analysis (moderation effect).

b values Significance level R2

Figure 2. Moderating effect of conscientiousness and positive affect.

5.1. Theoretical implications

5.2. Practical implications

5.3. Limitation and directions to future research

Ababneh, O.M.A., M. LeFevre, and T. Bentley. 2019. “Employee Engagement: Development of

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.