Tag Archives: Employee motivation

This is an excerpt from my latest open-access research that was accepted for publication in Sustainability (IF: 2.576)

Citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2021). The Employees’ State of Mind during COVID-19: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Sustainability, 13, 3634. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073634

Academic Implications

This empirical research has presented a critical review of the self-determination theory and its key constructs, as well as on other theoretical underpinnings that were drawn from business ethics and tourism literature. It shed light on the employees’ job security as well as on their extrinsic and intrinsic motivations in their workplace environment. Moreover, it explored their perceptions on their employers’ CSR practices during COVID-19. The study hypothesized that the employees’ identified motivations, introjected motivations, external motivations, job security and their firms’ socially responsible behaviors would have a positive and significant effect on their intrinsic motivations and organizational performance. The findings confirmed that the employees’ intrinsic motivations were predicting their productivity. This relationship was highly significant. Evidently, the employees were satisfied in their job, as they fulfilled their self-determination and intrinsic needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness [15,48,56]. Their high morale in their workplace environment has led to positive behavioral outcomes, including increased organizational performance.

The results reported that there were highly significant effects between the employees’ identified motivations and intrinsic motivations, and between their perceptions on their firms’ socially responsible practices and their intrinsic motivations. The mediation analysis indicated that these two constructs were indirectly affecting the employees’ job performance. These results suggest that although previous studies reported that extrinsic factors could undermine the intrinsic motivations of individuals [35–37], this study found that the research participants have internalized and identified themselves with their employers’ extrinsically motivated regulations, as they enabled them to achieve their self-defining goals. In this case, the respondents indicated that they were willing to perform certain tasks, as they perceived that their utilitarian values were also sustaining their psychological well-being and self-evaluations. The employees also identified motivations that led as an incentive to increase their organizational performance. The empirical results have proved that the employees were motivated to work for firms that reflected their own values [60,77]. This research is consistent with other contributions on CSR behaviors [32,78,88,90,91]. The respondents suggested that their employers had high CSR credentials. The findings revealed that the businesses’ CSR practices enhanced their employees’ intrinsic motivations and satisfied their psychological needs of belongingness and relatedness. Evidently, the firms’ socially responsible behaviors were enhancing their employees’ productivity and performance in their workplace environment.

The participants’ beliefs about their job security were also found to be a significant antecedent of their intrinsic motivations. Their perceptions on their job security were affecting their morale at work, in a positive manner [22,61]. During COVID-19, many employees could have experienced reduced business activities. As a result, many businesses could have pressurized their employees in their organizational restructuring and/or by implementing revised conditions of employment, including reduced working times, changes in sick leave policies, et cetera, particularly during the first wave of the pandemic. However, despite these contingent issues, the research participants indicated that they perceived that there will be job continuity for them in the foreseeable future. This study indicated that many employees were optimistic about their job prospects during the second wave.

The findings suggest that employees are attracted by and motivated to work for trustworthy, socially responsible employers [43,62,66,75]. On the other hand, they reported that the participants’ introjected and external motivations were not having a significant effect on their intrinsic motivations and did not entice them to engage in productive behaviors during the COVID-19 crisis. A plausible justification for this result is that the participants were well aware that their employers did not have adequate and sufficient resources during COVID-19. Their employers were not in a position to reward or incentivize their employees due to financial constraints that resulted from their reduced business activities or were never prepared to deal with such an unprecedented contingent situation. Hence, external motivations were not considered as stable forms of regulation [36]. Many researchers noted that extrinsic motivations will not necessarily influence the individuals’ behaviors, as their perceived locus of control is external to them. Therefore, their actions will not be autonomous and self-determined [35,52].

Managerial Implications
Businesses are continuously affected by ongoing challenges arising from their macro environment. The pandemic has exacerbated their transformation on behavioral, cultural and organizational levels. The first wave of COVID-19 was devastating for many businesses, in different contexts. The social-distancing procedures have led to changes in their working conditions and diminished communications. Many of the non-essential businesses were expected to follow their government’s preventative measures to slow the spread of the pandemic and to close the doors to their customers. Moreover, several employees have experienced their employers’ cost cutting exercises, as they reduced salaries and wages. These uncertainties have affected their employees’ psychological capital and caused them anxiety and frustration [99]. Notwithstanding, many employees were concerned about their job security and long-term prospects. During the work-from-home scenario, employers had to finds new ways to manage their employees’ performance. The change in their working environment allowed them to do their work, whilst also attending to personal needs. Very often, employees found themselves taking other responsibilities including parenting/schooling their children.

Remote working has served as a reminder to managers that there are a number of non-work-related factors that can affect their employees’ mindsets and engagement levels. Hence, many employers set virtual meetings with their human resources to inject a sense of purpose in them. During the first wave of the pandemic, the employees’ intrinsic motivations have declined with the decreasing visibility of their management or colleagues. The lack of motivation could have led to a decrease in their productivity levels [3]. Therefore, employers were expected to look after their employees and to foster a culture of trust and recognition to improve their motivations and performance at work [64]. This study was carried out during the second wave, when many governments had eased their preventative restrictions to restart their economy. As a result, many employees were returning to work. They were encouraged to work in a new normal, where they were instructed to follow their employers’ health and safety policies as well as hygienic and sanitizing practices in their premises. They introduced hygienic practices, temperature checks and expected visitors to wear masks to reduce the spread of the virus.

Many businesses, including SMEs and startups, were benefiting of their governments’ financial assistance. Resources were allocated to support them in their cashflow requirements, to minimize layoffs and to secure the employment of many employees. These measures instilled confidence in employers, as they provided their employees with a sense of relatedness, competence and autonomy in their workplace environments. Evidently, employers were successful in fostering a cohesive culture where they identified their employees’ values and their self-determined goals [45]. In sum, this contribution revealed that employees felt a sense of belonging in their workplace environment. The results confirmed that their intrinsic motivations were enhancing their productivity levels and organizational performance.

References (This section presents all the references that were featured in the full paper)

1. Han, E.; Tan, M.M.J.; Turk, E.; Sridhar, D.; Leung, G.M.; Shibuya, K.; Asgari, N.; Oh, J.; García-Basteiro, A.L.; Hanefeld, J.; et al. Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: An analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe. Lancet 2020, 396, 1525–1534. [CrossRef]
2. He, H.; Harris, L. The Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing Philosophy. J. Bus. Res. [CrossRef]
3. McGregor, L.; Doshi, N. How to keep your team motivated, remotely. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2020. Available online: https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-keep-your-teammotivated-remotely (accessed on 24 March 2021).
4. Sull, D.; Sull, C. How Companies Are Winning on Culture during COVID-19. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2020. Available online: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-companies-are-winning-on-culture-during-covid-19/ (accessed on 24 March 2021).
5. Camilleri, M.A. Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education institutions: A systematic review and a post COVID-19 outlook. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2021. [CrossRef]
6. Kohll, A. How One Company Is Taking Care of Employees during COVID-19? Forbes 2020. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alankohll/2020/04/06/how-one-company-is-taking-care-of-employees-during-covid-19/?sh=733f0c5b488d (accessed on 24 March 2021).
7. Moè, A.; Katz, I. Emotion regulation and need satisfaction shape a motivating teaching style. Teach. Teach. 2020, 1–18. [CrossRef]
8. OECD Coronavirus (COVID-19): SME Policy Responses, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/coronavirus-covid-19-sme-policy-responses-04440101/ (accessed on 24 March 2021).
9. An, M.A.; Han, S.L. Effects of experiential motivation and customer engagement on customer value creation: Analysis of
   psychological process in the experience-based retail environment. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 120, 389–397. [CrossRef]
10. Van den Broeck, A.; Ferris, D.L.; Chang, C.H.; Rosen, C.C. A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 1195–1229. [CrossRef]
11. Vansteenkiste, M.; Simons, J.; Lens, W.; Sheldon, K.M.; Deci, E.L. Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The
    synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 87, 246–260. [CrossRef]
12. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [CrossRef]
13. Mitchell, R.; Schuster, L.; Jin, H.S. Gamification and the impact of extrinsic motivation on needs satisfaction: Making work fun? J.Bus. Res. 2020, 106, 323–330. [CrossRef]
14. Vansteenkiste, M.; Neyrinck, B.; Niemiec, C.P.; Soenens, B.; De Witte, H.; Van den Broeck, A. On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. J. Occup. Org. Psychol. 2007, 80, 251–277. [CrossRef]
15. Gagné, M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Org. Behav. 2005, 26, 331–362. [CrossRef]
16. Leroy, H.; Anseel, F.; Gardner, W.L.; Sels, L. Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. J. Manag. 2015, 41, 1677–1697. [CrossRef]
17. Vansteenkiste, M.; Ryan, R.M. On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. J. Psychother. Integr. 2013, 23, 263. [CrossRef]
18. Berezan, O.; Krishen, A.S.; Agarwal, S.; Kachroo, P. Exploring loneliness and social networking: Recipes for hedonic well-being on Facebook. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 115, 258–265. [CrossRef]
19. Raub, S.; Robert, C. Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and extra-role employee behaviors: Exploring the role of psychological empowerment and power values. Hum. Relat. 2010, 63, 1743–1770. [CrossRef]
20. Guo, Y.; Liao, J.; Liao, S.; Zhang, Y. The mediating role of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between developmental feedback and employee job performance. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 2014, 42, 731–741. [CrossRef]
21. Quinn, R.W.; Spreitzer, G.M.; Lam, C.F. Building a sustainable model of human energy in organizations: Exploring the critical role of resources. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2012, 6, 337–396. [CrossRef]
22. Mahmoud, A.B.; Reisel, W.D.; Fuxman, L.; Mohr, I. A motivational standpoint of job insecurity effects on organizational citizenship behaviors: A generational study. Scand. J. Psychol. 2020. [CrossRef]
23. Baard, P.P.; Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. J. App. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 34, 2045–2068. [CrossRef]
24. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Org. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
25. Moon, T.W.; Hur, W.M.; Hyun, S.S. How service employees’ work motivations lead to job performance: The role of service employees’ job creativity and customer orientation. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 38, 517–532. [CrossRef]
26. Deci, E.L.; Olafsen, A.H.; Ryan, R.M. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Ann. Rev. Org. Psychol. Org. Behav. 2017, 4, 19–43. [CrossRef]
27. Chang, J.H.; Teng, C.C. Intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for hospitality employees’ creativity: The moderating role of organizationlevel regulatory focus. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 60, 133–141. [CrossRef]
28. Wang, W.T.; Hou, Y.P. Motivations of employees’ knowledge sharing behaviors: A self-determination perspective. Inf. Org. 2015, 25, 1–26. [CrossRef]
29. Hau, Y.S.; Kim, B.; Lee, H.; Kim, Y.G. The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 356–366. [CrossRef]
30. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Amer. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–79. [CrossRef]
31. Amabile, T.M. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 1993, 3, 185–201. [CrossRef]
32. Asante Boadi, E.; He, Z.; Bosompem, J.; Opata, C.N.; Boadi, E.K. Employees’ perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its effects on internal outcomes. Serv. Ind. J. 2020, 40, 611–632. [CrossRef]
33. Diamantidis, A.D.; Chatzoglou, P. Factors affecting employee performance: An empirical approach. Int. J. Prod. Perf. Manag. 2019, 68, 171–193. [CrossRef]
34. Millette, V.; Gagné, M. Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motiv. Emot. 2008, 32, 11–22. [CrossRef]
35. Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Song, Y.; Gong, Z. The different relations of extrinsic, introjected, identified regulation and intrinsic
    motivation on employees’ performance: Empirical studies following self-determination theory. Manag. Dec. 2016, 54, 2393–2412. [CrossRef]
36. Li, Y.; Sheldon, K.M.; Liu, R. Dialectical thinking moderates the effect of extrinsic motivation on intrinsic motivation. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2015, 39, 89–95. [CrossRef]
37. Nijhof, A.H.J.; Jeurissen, R.J.M. The glass ceiling of corporate social responsibility: Consequences of a business case approach towards CSR. Int. J. Soc. Soc. Policy 2010, 30, 618–631. [CrossRef]
38. Kuvaas, B.; Dysvik, A. Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and work performance. Hum. Res. Manag. J. 2009, 19, 217–236. [CrossRef]
39. Yakhlef, A.; Nordin, F. Effects of firm presence in customer-owned touch points: A self-determination perspective. J. Bus. Res. [CrossRef]
40. Ryan, R.M. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1982, 43, 450–461. [CrossRef]
41. Allison, T.H.; Davis, B.C.; Short, J.C.; Webb, J.W. Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrep. Theory Pr. 2015, 39, 53–73. [CrossRef]
42. Malik, M.A.R.; Butt, A.N.; Choi, J.N. Rewards and employee creative performance: Moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control. J. Organ. Behav. 2015, 36, 59–74. [CrossRef]
43. Buil, I.; Catalán, S.; Martínez, E. Understanding applicants’ reactions to gamified recruitment. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 110, 41–50. [CrossRef]
44. Gomez-Baya, D.; Lucia-Casademunt, A.M. A self-determination theory approach to health and well-being in the workplace: Results from the sixth European working conditions survey in Spain. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 48, 269–283. [CrossRef]
45. Wallace, J.C.; Butts, M.M.; Johnson, P.D.; Stevens, F.G.; Smith, M.B. A multilevel model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 982–1004. [CrossRef]
46. Camilleri, M.A. The SMEs’ Technology Acceptance of Digital Media for Stakeholder Engagement. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2018, 26, 504–521. [CrossRef]
47. Dicke, T.; Marsh, H.W.; Parker, P.D.; Guo, J.; Riley, P.; Waldeyer, J. Job satisfaction of teachers and their principals in relation to climate and student achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 112, 1061–1073. [CrossRef]
48. Harris, K.; Hinds, L.; Manansingh, S.; Rubino, M.; Morote, E.S. What Type of Leadership in Higher Education Promotes Job Satisfaction and Increases Retention? J. Leadership Instr. 2016, 15, 27–32.
49. Camilleri, M.A.; Falzon, L. Understanding motivations to use online streaming services: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and the uses and gratifications theory (UGT). Span. J. Mark. ESIC 2021. [CrossRef]
50. Kovjanic, S.; Schuh, S.C.; Jonas, K.; Quaquebeke, N.V.; Van Dick, R. How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination-based analysis of employees’ needs as mediating links. J. Org. Behav. 2012, 33, 1031–1052. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 3634 16 of 17
51. Lemos, M.S.; Veríssimo, L. The relationships between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and achievement, along
    elementary school. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 112, 930–938. [CrossRef]
52. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. J. Res. Pers. 1985, 19, 109–134. [CrossRef]
53. Lee, S.; Pounders, K.R. Intrinsic versus extrinsic goals: The role of self-construal in understanding consumer response to goal framing in social marketing. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 94, 99–112. [CrossRef]
54. Burton, K.D.; Lydon, J.E.; D’Alessandro, D.U.; Koestner, R. The differential effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on
    well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 91, 750–762. [CrossRef]
55. Wolf, T.; Weiger, W.H.; Hammerschmidt, M. Experiences that matter? The motivational experiences and business outcomes of gamified services. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 106, 353–364. [CrossRef]
56. Gagné, M.; Forest, J.; Gilbert, M.H.; Aubé, C.; Morin, E.; Malorni, A. The motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2010, 70, 628–646. [CrossRef]
57. Greguras, G.J.; Diefendorff, J.M. Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 465–477. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Giri, V.N.; Kumar, B.P. Assessing the impact of organizational communication on job satisfaction and job performance. Psychol. Stud. 2010, 55, 137–143. [CrossRef]
59. Grant, A.M. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 48–58. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Meyer, J.P.; Stanley, L.J.; Parfyonova, N.M. Employee commitment in context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. J. Vocat. Behav. 2012, 80, 1–16. [CrossRef]
61. Kraimer, M.L.; Wayne, S.J.; Liden, R.C.; Sparrowe, R.T. The role of job security in understanding the relationship between
    employees’ perceptions of temporary workers and employees’ performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 389–398. [CrossRef]
62. Loi, R.; Ngo, H.Y.; Zhang, L.; Lau, V.P. The interaction between leader–member exchange and perceived job security in predicting employee altruism and work performance. J. Occup. Org. Psychol. 2011, 84, 669–685. [CrossRef]
63. Cheng, G.H.L.; Chan, D.K.S. Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 272–303. [CrossRef]
64. Yidong, T.; Xinxin, L. How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic
    motivation. J. Bus. Eth. 2013, 116, 441–455. [CrossRef]
65. Sverke, M.; Hellgren, J.; Näswall, K. No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2002, 7, 242–264. [CrossRef]
66. Shin, Y.; Hur, W.M.; Moon, T.W.; Lee, S. A motivational perspective on job insecurity: Relationships between job insecurity, intrinsic motivation, and performance and behavioral outcomes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2019, 16, 1812. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Brammer, S.; Millington, A.; Rayton, B. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. Int. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 2007, 18, 1701–1719. [CrossRef]
68. Friedman, M. A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. N. Y. Times Mag. 1970. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html (accessed on 24 March 2021).
69. Drucker, P.F. Converting social problems into business opportunities: The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1984, 26, 53–63. [CrossRef]
70. Carroll, A.B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 497–505. [CrossRef]
71. Windsor, D. Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. J. Manag. Stud. 2006, 43, 93–114. [CrossRef]
72. Carroll, A.B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 1991, 34, 39–48. [CrossRef]
73. Camilleri, M.A. Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management: An Introduction to Theory and Practice with Case Studies; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; ISBN 978-3-319-46849-5.
74. Camilleri, M.A. Theoretical Insights on Integrated Reporting: The Inclusion of Non-Financial Capitals in Corporate Disclosures. Corp. Comm. Int. J. 2018, 23, 567–581. [CrossRef]
75. Hao, Y.; Farooq, Q.; Zhang, Y. Unattended social wants and corporate social responsibility of leading firms: Relationship of intrinsic motivation of volunteering in proposed welfare programs and employee attributes. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 1029–1038. [CrossRef]
76. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20–39. [CrossRef]
77. Tajfel, H. Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Soc. Sci. Inf. 1974, 13, 65–93. [CrossRef]
78. Hur, W.M.; Moon, T.W.; Ko, S.H. How employees’ perceptions of CSR increase employee creativity: Mediating mechanisms of compassion at work and intrinsic motivation. J. Bus. Eth. 2018, 153, 629–644. [CrossRef]
79. Skudiene, V.; Auruskeviciene, V. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to internal employee motivation. Balt. J. Manag. 2012, 7, 49–67. [CrossRef]
80. Vlachos, P.A.; Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A.A. Feeling good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. J. Bus. Eth. 2013, 118, 577–588. [CrossRef]
81. Valentine, S.; Fleischman, G. Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. J. Bus. Eth. 2008, 77, 159–172. [CrossRef]
82. Archimi, C.S.; Reynaud, E.; Yasin, H.M.; Bhatti, Z.A. How perceived corporate social responsibility affects employee cynicism: The mediating role of organizational trust. J. Bus. Eth. 2018, 151, 907–921. [CrossRef]
83. Hansen, S.D.; Dunford, B.B.; Boss, A.D.; Boss, R.W.; Angermeier, I. Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. J. Bus. Eth. 2011, 102, 29–45. [CrossRef]
84. Kim, J.S.; Milliman, J.; Lucas, A. Effects of CSR on employee retention via identification and quality-of-work-life. Int. J. Cont. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 1163–1179. [CrossRef]
85. Lee, L.; Chen, L.F. Boosting employee retention through CSR: A configurational analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 948–960. [CrossRef]
86. Zhu, Q.; Yin, H.; Liu, J.; Lai, K.H. How is employee perception of organizational efforts in corporate social responsibility related to their satisfaction and loyalty towards developing harmonious society in Chinese enterprises? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 28–40. [CrossRef]
87. Lee, E.M.; Park, S.Y.; Lee, H.J. Employee perception of CSR activities: Its antecedents and consequences. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1716–1724. [CrossRef]
88. Petrenko, O.V.; Aime, F.; Ridge, J.; Hill, A. Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strat. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 262–279. [CrossRef]
89. Camilleri, M.A. Measuring the corporate managers’ attitudes toward ISO’s social responsibility standard. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 2019, 30, 1549–1561. [CrossRef]
90. Nazir, O.; Islam, J.U. Influence of CSR-specific activities on work engagement and employees’ innovative work behaviour: An empirical investigation. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 3054–3072. [CrossRef]
91. Gond, J.P.; El Akremi, A.; Swaen, V.; Babu, N. The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A personcentric systematic review. J. Org. Behav. 2017, 38, 225–246. [CrossRef]
92. MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M. Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. J. Retail. 2012, 88, 542–555. [CrossRef]
93. Deal, J.J.; Stawiski, S.; Graves, L.; Gentry, W.A.; Weber, T.J.; Ruderman, M. Motivation at work: Which matters more, generation or managerial level? Consult. Psychol. J. Pr. Res. 2013, 65, 1–16. [CrossRef]
94. Camilleri, M.A. The promotion of responsible tourism management through digital media. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2018, 15, 653–671. [CrossRef]
95. Singh, J.; Del Bosque, I.R. Understanding corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer markets: A cross-cultural evaluation. J. Bus. Eth. 2008, 80, 597–611. [CrossRef]
96. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 3. Hamburg: SmartPLS. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2014, 9, 419–445.
97. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 414–433. [CrossRef]
98. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
99. Mao, Y.; He, J.; Morrison, A.M.; Andres Coca-Stefaniak, J. Effects of tourism CSR on employee psychological capital in the COVID-19 crisis: From the perspective of conservation of resources theory. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 1–19. [CrossRef]