Job insecurity and employee anxiety as predictors of compulsory citizenship behaviour: Psychological resilience as a mediator
Uju Violet Alola
Profilo Orcid, Chukwuemeka Echebiri
Profilo Orcid e Serdar Egeli
Profilo Orcid 
Pubblicato online: 14 ago 2025
Pagine: 105 - 119
Ricevuto: 20 lug 2024
Accettato: 04 set 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ejthr-2025-0008
Parole chiave
© 2025 Uju Violet Alola et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The global organisational landscape is continuously being altered, and scholars classify these changes as: technological, business-model, regulatory, and social movements (Godart & Pistilli, 2024). Disruption is defined as “any event, situation, or factor that changes market conditions and pressures stakeholders to adapt to the altered environment” (Godart & Pistilli, 2024, p.1). Sometimes, these disruptions are unpredictable, thus creating uncertainty for the employees. Uncertainty though it is one of the most fundamental aspects of life remains one of the most stressful aspects of the workplace. Generally, employees have an innate tendency to seek stability, especially in organisational settings. Hence, employees are inclined to favour known options over unknown ones (Acosta, 2022; Epstein, 1999).
A noticeable increase in uncertainty in organisational settings has emerged over the past decades (Lee et al., 2008). The literature indicates that changes in an organisation's external environment will likely challenge its internal workings (Godart & Pistilli, 2024). Consequently, organisations are sometimes prompted to simplify operations to minimize costs, or adopt a more flexible approach to their work processes, because of intensifying global rivalry (Sverke et al., 2002). Examples include the transition from physical shopping to online shopping, as well as the rise of automation and robot deployment (Shoss et al., 2018).
Within the last decade alone, the COVID-19 pandemic and the dawn of artificial intelligence (AI) have significantly altered the working environment (Gifford, 2022; Thomas, 2022), triggering significant disruptions and challenging established theories and work practices. For example, the lockdown that followed the COVID-19 outbreak changed our perception and understanding of what work and working means, and brought to the fore the idea that employees do not necessarily have to perform their jobs in a specific location; instead, working can be well executed outside the working premises of the organisation in frameworks such as work from home and other forms of remote work, and hybrid work (Echebiri et al., 2024; Gifford, 2022; Ipsen et al., 2021). This has given rise to what is now known as virtual management, which brings new perspectives on leadership (Bergum et al., 2023). Again, Thomas (2022) predicts that, following the landmark progress made with AI, it may displace several junior and mid-level software developers ultimately, however, it will change how organisations make decisions. The era of generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT has also challenged educational institutions to reconsider how students are assessed (Abbas et al., 2024; Reuters, 2023)
While these disruptions have had some positive outcomes for the employers and employees, studies show that organisations sometimes capitalize on them to create uncertainty to motivate and demand employees to do more (Shoss et al., 2022) — what is regarded as compulsory citizenship behaviour (CCB). As businesses grapple with the aftermath of widespread disruptions, the ramifications extend beyond economic uncertainties to the psychological well-being of employees. In light of this, this research aims to develop and test a model that empirically investigates the role of job insecurity and employee anxiety as predictors of compulsory citizenship behaviours, with psychological resilience as a mediator, in the context of the hospitality sector.
Job insecurity is regarded as a psychological consequence of unemployment, which refers to employees who fear they might lose their jobs (Hassard & Morris, 2018; Shoss et al., 2022; Witte, 1999). Empirical evidence suggests that job insecurity is a stressor (De witte et al., 2016) and, to some extent, associated with employee anxiety, eye service, rule-breaking behaviours and other adverse outcomes (Shoss et al., 2022). Therefore, amidst disruption, employees will likely develop resilience and engage in compulsory citizenship behaviour (CCB).
Unlike Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB), which includes discretionary tasks performed by employees that are intrinsically induced, CCB describes darker and more destructive forms of OCB that are extrinsically motivated (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). Unlike OCB, the literature suggests that CCB is linked to several negative outcomes, including diminished output, burnout, turnover intention, and job stress (Chen et al., 2023; Yildiz et al., 2023). Psychological resilience, conversely, is a personal trait that enables one to positively adapt or remain in a healthy mental state amid adversity (Herrman et al., 2011). This paper investigates this complex interaction in the context of hospitality sector because of the peculiarity of this sector. Previous studies have shown that employees within the hospitality industry are more likely to have casual and short-term employment contracts (Bullock et al., 2024), and have a leading turnover rate within the private sector; this comes with a significant cost to the organisation due to expenses associated with lost productivity, new hiring and training (Dogru et al., 2023; Prentice et al., 2024).
Therefore, this paper's contributions are as follows: First, we empirically demonstrate that job insecurity, employee anxiety, and psychological resilience are antecedents of CCB in the context of the hospitality industry. Second, we empirically show that psychological resilience is a mediator between job insecurity and CCB, and between employee anxiety and CCB. The complex relationships demonstrated in this paper have never been tested before, and these findings offer organisations insight into the dynamics of this relationship and the need for awareness of its consequences. The findings demonstrate how organisations can trigger CCB by stoking issues like job insecurity or employee anxiety in the workplace. In the next sections, we first present the study's theory and hypotheses. Subsequently, we discuss the methodology, findings, and conclusions.
The study adopts the Job Demand-Resource (JD-R) theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; 2017), which explains the relationship between job demands and job resources (psychological resilience). Job demands — which include several stressors witnessed in the work environment, like role ambiguity, excessive time pressure, and tight targets — require sustained effort and are associated with psychological costs (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
From an organisational standpoint, this theory identifies possible sources of strain. By leveraging the insights provided by JD-R theory, organisations can proactively address the balance between job demands and resources, creating work environments that prevent stress and foster organisational citizenship. One notable strength of JD-R theory is that it demonstrates how job demands and resources have differential effects on employee well-being and performance. High job demands are associated with increased stress, leading to adverse outcomes like anxiety (Santa Maria et al., 2018). Meanwhile, psychological resilience is a resource that is associated with positive outcomes. Sufficient job resources act as protective factors, thus mitigating the negative impacts of job demands and fostering positive outcomes (Southwick et al., 2014).
Job resources are crucial in enhancing employees' capacity to cope with job demands effectively, thereby mitigating their negative impact. According to JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), the workplace is where job demands and resources coexist, impacting human experiences and organisational outcomes (Roskams & Haynes, 2021). JD-R theory provides a theoretical framework for comprehending the two-way influences of job demands and resources on employee well-being and organisational outcomes. This all-inclusive perspective, coupled with the theory's practical applicability, makes it a vital tool for researchers and practitioners in navigating the complexities of the contemporary workplace. This study thus applies JD-R theory to analyse the relationship between the variables.
Job security is a well-researched concept that continues to attract scholars' attention (e.g. Jarosch, 2023). It implies that if an employee's job is stable and somewhat assured, it is linked to positive organisational outcomes (Anand et al., 2023). Empirical evidence suggests that job insecurity could have detrimental consequences for both employee and employer (Anand et al., 2023; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990; Sverke et al., 2002). For example, it can lower employee motivation, leading to lower psychological resilience (Aguiar-Quintana et al., 2021; Sverke et al., 2002). Yasami et al. (2024) argue that perceived job insecurity reduces employee engagement and leads to psychological withdrawal. As such, long-term exposure to job uncertainty can lower psychological resilience, increasing a person's susceptibility to mental health issues (Shoss et al., 2018). We argue that job insecurity will affect employees' intrinsic behaviour, causing them to exhibit extrinsic CCB behaviours.
Additionally, studies suggest that job insecurity can significantly influence one's ability to cope with adversity (Van Zyl et al., 2013). The affective perception of job insecurity is linked to emotional reactions to potential changes in employment, while the cognitive perception — that is, the perceived negative change to employment — contributes to heightened stress and anxiety, resulting in lower levels of psychological resilience (Heinsch et al., 2022; Shoss et al., 2022). Prolonged exposure to uncertainty in employment prospects can lead to a decline in psychological resilience, making individuals more vulnerable to mental health issues (Sverke et al., 2002).
Psychological resilience is a personal trait and mechanism for responding to adversity (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Herrman et al., 2011). Adversity is defined here as a situation in which those affected are widely interpreted to be straining or exceeding their resources; this in turn has the potential to interfere with their functioning (Troy et al., 2023). The reaction can also be positive, in which such situations are converted into an opportunity for development or perceived as challenges (Sisto et al., 2019). Experiences of job insecurity can shape the development of psychological resilience; employees adapt their coping mechanisms and cognitive strategies to navigate uncertain employment conditions (Hobfoll, 1989). According to Probst et al. (2017), employees' perceptions of job insecurity impact how they perceive and respond to workplace problems, and this serves as the foundation for resilience-building processes. However, if the degree of insecurity is high, the psychological resilience demonstrated by employees will decrease. Individuals who struggle to retain control and stability in their work environment tend to be less resilient when their employment is more insecure. People who face job insecurity put self-preservation ahead of voluntary civic engagement (Obrenovic et al., 2021). Tasks that directly impact their capacity to maintain their job such as completing assigned work, meeting deadlines, and proving job performance might take precedence over other activities (Shoss et al., 2022).
As previously stated, CCB broadly refers to employee actions motivated by perceived obligation rather than intrinsic motivation or discretion (Bolino & Turnley, 2005), meaning that they are undertaken under pressure from the employer, supervisors or managers (Liang et al., 2022), and are thus extrinsically induced. As previously stated, Vigoda-Gadot (2006) argues that CCB is the dark side of OCB and could be destructive for an organisation (unlike OCB, which improves organisational effectiveness and efficiency). Therefore, we believe that pressure in the form of job insecurity will affect psychological resilience and CCB. Hence, the following hypotheses:
H1: Job insecurity has a negative relationship with psychological resilience. H2: Job insecurity has a negative relationship with CCB.
Employee anxiety is defined as apprehension, concern, and tension in response to work-related responsibilities, and could arise from a perceived threat to one's job (Shoss et al., 2022). Previous studies have indicated that employee anxiety negatively impacts job performance and well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Song et al. (2020) argue that psychological resilience is negatively related to anxiety and that when resilience is low, anxiety will be high, and vice-versa. However, recent research has increasingly highlighted the importance of psychological resilience in minimizing the negative impact of employee anxiety. Individuals with higher degrees of psychological resilience have more emotional stability, as well as better coping abilities and adaptive techniques, allowing them to manage demanding work contexts and temper the effects of anxiety at work (Song et al., 2020). While some studies have found a negative relationship between employee anxiety and psychological resilience, implying that increased anxiety may undermine resilience, others have proposed a reciprocal relationship in which psychological resilience acts as a buffer against the development or exacerbation of employee anxiety (Sinclair & Wallston, 2004).
As previously stated, CCB describes employee behaviour that emanates from organisational pressure (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). While research has revealed the causes and effects of CCB, its association with employee anxiety requires additional exploration. Employees who experience high levels of anxiety may comply with organisational rules and norms more frequently as a coping strategy to reduce their stress and uncertainty (Yazdanmehr et al., 2023). On the other hand, by creating feelings of limitation, diminished autonomy, and psychological discomfort, CCB may increase employee anxiety.
This reciprocal connection demonstrates the intricate interaction between employee anxiety and CCB in corporate contexts. To unpack this interaction, the relationship will help to explore how anxiety impacts and influences negative and positive behaviour in the workplace, depending on the context. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H3: Employee anxiety has a negative relationship with psychological resilience. H4: Employee anxiety has a negative relationship with CCB.
Psychological resilience among employees may indicate a more vital willingness and capacity to participate in required organisational activities (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). As argued in the preceding hypothesis, resilient people are more likely to view obstacles as chances for personal development than as dangers (Sisto et al., 2019), which might encourage them to regularly carry out their organisational responsibilities (Chhatwani et al., 2022; King et al., 2016).
Therefore, persons with higher psychological resilience may participate in more CCB to cope with workplace obstacles (Hart et al., 2016). Psychological resilience makes it easier for people to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty, which improves their preparedness to participate in required citizenship behaviour, even under trying situations (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Resilient employees may be more flexible and adaptive, enabling them to modify their behaviour in response to shifting organisational expectations while maintaining a commitment to fulfilling their required duties.
Participating in CCB, by the same token, may improve psychological resilience by giving opportunities for social support, meaningful connections, and a sense of belonging within the organisation (Masten & Cicchetti, 2016). Moreover, psychological resilience can be a buffer against the damaging effects of stress and burnout, which would otherwise prevent workers from participating in required citizenship activities. Resilient employees can better handle the psychological effects of stressful work conditions. This leads us to the following hypothesis:
H5: Psychological Resilience has a positive relationship with CCB.
The JD-R theory provides essential insights into the mediating link between job insecurity, employee anxiety, psychological resilience, and CCB. Job insecurity can be classified as crucial job demand because it creates uncertainty and poses a danger to an individual's employment status (Sverke et al., 2002). It drains workers' psychological reserves, thus making it detrimental to health and productivity. On the other hand, psychological resilience is a crucial job resource that buffers the adverse effects of job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Studies indicate that psychological resilience is a key mediator between job insecurity and employee CCB. According to Masten et al. (1990), psychological resilience also promotes a sense of personal control and self-efficacy, which can mitigate the negative impacts of job insecurity on workers' motivation and engagement. Therefore, even in the face of insecurity at the job, resilient people are more likely to exhibit proactive behaviours.
Employee anxiety, on the other hand, represents a significant job demand, exerting psychological strain and depleting resources. These include job overload, workload demands, and low social support; tight deadlines are also known causes of anxiety (Ahmad & Saud, 2016). As previously suggested, psychological resilience is critical to reducing the detrimental effects of anxiety on job outcomes (Luthans et al., 2007).
Previous studies (e.g., Akçin, 2023; Connor & Davidson, 2003) indicate that those with greater resilience are more capable of managing stress and displaying adaptive actions when faced with difficult circumstances. When employees feel insecure and stressed, their usual is to withdraw from extra-role activities and reduce Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. Based on the above argument, this study proposes that psychological resilience serves as a potential mediating variable between job insecurity and CCB and employee anxiety and CCB. Hence, the following hypothesise:
H6: Psychological resilience will mediate the relationship between job insecurity and CCB. H7: Psychological resilience will mediate the relationship between employee anxiety and CCB.
Figure 1 summarises the link between the hypotheses above.
Research Model
The paper empirically investigates the role of job insecurity and employee anxiety as predictors of compulsory citizenship behaviours, with psychological resilience as the primary mediation mechanism. The study adopted a convenience sampling approach to gather data from front-line customer employees in four- and five-star hotels located in Turkey in 2023. The convenience sampling method was chosen based on access to the organisations, as well as their willingness to participate in the study. The study adopted measurement instruments from well-validated ones originally developed in English, but translated them into Turkish to improve the response rate. Because the majority of the respondents were native Turkish speakers, there was a back-and-forth translation to ensure the accuracy of the translations.
Before distributing the survey, a letter was written to the hotel management to seek their permission to collect the questionnaire and to assure them of confidentiality. A pilot study that involved 10 participants was then carried out to ensure the questionnaire was comprehensible. After the pilot test, there was no need for questionnaire modification. Since there was no personal information collection, the study was not subject to ethical approval. However, all respondents were required to consent to use their responses for this study. 500 questionnaires were physically distributed to front-line employees in sealed envelopes. Previous studies have also adopted the physical distribution of surveys (e.g. Alola et al., 2023) in instances where it was impossible to implement online surveys. Out of the 500 questionnaires distributed, 380 were completed and used for the study, which represents a response rate of 76%. 120 responses were excluded from the analysis because they were either not returned or incomplete, accounting for 24% of the total distributed.
The demographic sample of the respondents is shown in Table 1. The age group of the respondents was between 18 and 50+. Most respondents were aged 34–41 (151), while the least were between 50 and above (7). There were 208 responses coming from male participants (54.7%), and 172 (45.3%) coming from the females. The number of high-school degree holders was 152 (40.0%) and the number of associate's-degree holders was 138 (36.3%). The rest of the respondents' educational levels were elementary (8.9%), bachelor's (14.5%), and postgraduate (0.3%). The scale items ranged from 1, “strongly agree,” to 5, “strongly disagree.”
Respondent's profile (n = 380)
| 18–25 | 15 | 3.9 |
| 26–33 | 110 | 28.9 |
| 34–41 | 151 | 39.7 |
| 42–49 | 97 | 25.5 |
| 50–50+ | 7 | 1.8 |
| Male | 208 | 54.7 |
| Female | 172 | 45.3 |
| Elementary Education | 34 | 8.9 |
| High school | 152 | 40.0 |
| Associate degree | 138 | 36.3 |
| Bachelor's degree | 55 | 14.5 |
| Postgraduate | 1 | 0.3 |
| Married | 96 | 25.3 |
| Single | 284 | 74.7 |
| I year | 67 | 17.6 |
| 1–3 years | 172 | 45.3 |
| 4–6 years | 115 | 30.3 |
| 7–7+ | 26 | 6.8 |
Job Insecurity (JI): Nine items, adapted from Lee et al. (2008), were used to measure job insecurity. The items were scored using a seven-point Likert scale. Sample items include: “Can you be pressured to accept an arrangement and cancel your working relationship with your hotel?” and “Can you be temporarily laid off or fired from your hotel?” The Cronbach's alpha was validated (α = 0.976).
Three items from Warr (1990) were used to assess employee anxiety (EA). One example question is “To what extent has your work made you feel restless?” All the items were measured using a five-point Likert scale. (1= Never, 2 = Almost Never, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Fairly Often, and 5 = Very Often). The Cronbach's alpha was validated (α = 0.971).
Psychological resilience (PR) was measured with items adopted by Paek et al. (2015), with five items on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). The respondents evaluated various statements that assessed their psychological strength, such as “I can get through difficult times at work because I have experienced difficulties before” and “I feel I can handle different things at a time.” The Cronbach's alpha was validated (α = 0.912).
Compulsory Citizenship Behaviour (CCB) was accessed using a five-point item adapted from the study of Vigoda-Gadot (2007), using a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always), since CCB is a spontaneous behaviour that reflects distinctive effort invested at work. A sample item includes, “The management in this organisation puts pressure on employees to engage in extra-role work activities beyond their formal job tasks.” The Cronbach alpha was validated (α = 0.974). All the items used for each construct are listed in Appendix 1.
Since the study involves latent variables, which cannot be measured, we utilized structural equation modelling (SEM). This was performed using SPSS AMOS. SEM is well-documented in the literature and is increasingly becoming popular for analysing relationships between latent variables, as the methodological literature recommends (e.g., Acock, 2013). SEM is more suitable for this type of study than traditional regression because it allows for simultaneous testing of relationships and modelling measurement errors, to name two reasons (Mehmetoglu & Venturini, 2021).
Methodologists recommend implementing SEM in two steps. In the first step, we evaluated the validity of our measurement model. Upon confirmation of its validity, we then assessed the hypothesized research, as previously summarised in Figure 1.
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the study variables, providing valuable insights into the bivariate associations between the study variables.
Descriptive statistics and scale intercorrelations
| 1. Gender | 1 | ||||||
| 2. MaritalSta | 0.298*** | 1 | |||||
| 3. Education | −0.187*** | −0.356*** | 1 | ||||
| 4. JI | 0.062 | −.066 | −0.151*** | 1 | |||
| 5. EA | 0.174*** | 0.291*** | 0.548*** | −0.133*** | 1 | ||
| 6. PR | −0.180*** | −0.116* | 0.130*** | 0.361*** | 0.072 | 1 | |
| 7. CCB | 0.252*** | 0.404** | −0.487*** | −0.117* | 0.667*** | −0.124* | 1 |
Note:
=
=
As previously stated, assessing the validity and reliability of the measure is the first critical step in CB-SEM, even when all the scales are well-validated. We assessed the standardized factor loadings from a CFA analysis alongside the composite reliabilities for all the measures in the measurement model. The convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated based on average variance extracted (AVE) and a comparison of squared correlations with AVE. Finally, we assessed the overall model fit, as methodologists have recommended (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Mehmetoglu & Jakobsen, 2017).
Table 3 shows the range of the loadings (i.e., 0.811 – 0.941). Again, we considered composite reliabilities to assess the internal consistency of the measures. The range of reliabilities (i.e., 0.89 – 0.98) met the recommendations of prior research (Mehmetoglu & Jakobsen, 2017). We evaluated convergent validity by calculating the AVE of each construct, while we assessed discriminant validity by comparing the squared correlations with AVE, as recommended in the methodological literature (Mehmetoglu & Jakobsen, 2017). The AVEs were well above the recommended value of 0.50, ranging from 0.74 to 0.82. Overall, our CFA model shows adequate fit with the following fit indices: CMIN 938.945, CMIN/DF=3.491, DF = 269, GFI = 0.831, AGFI = 0.796, IFI = 0.946, TLI = 0.940, CFI = 0.946, RMSEA = 0.081, and RMR = 0.042 (Acock, 2013).
Factor loading, AVE & CR of Constructs
| JI1 | 0.941 | |||
| JI2 | 0.929 | |||
| JI3 | 0.924 | |||
| JI4 | 0.917 | |||
| JI5 | 0.903 | |||
| JI6 | 0.890 | |||
| JI7 | 0.886 | |||
| JI8 | 0.884 | |||
| JI9 | 0.859 | |||
| EA10 | 0.903 | |||
| EA11 | 0.894 | |||
| EA12 | 0.891 | |||
| PR13 | 0.892 | |||
| PR14 | 0.878 | |||
| PR15 | 0.878 | |||
| PR16 | 0.877 | |||
| PR17 | 0.832 | |||
| CCB18 | 0.870 | |||
| CCB19 | 0.849 | |||
| CCB20 | 0.840 | |||
| CCB21 | 0.830 | |||
| CCB22 | 0.811 |
=
=
Finally, we assessed the hypothesized relationships. The structural model results are summarized in Table 4. Job insecurity has a significant negative relationship with psychological resilience, which supports H1. H2, which predicted a negative relationship between job insecurity and CCB, is also supported. Employee anxiety has a significant negative relationship with psychological resilience, which supports H3. Employee anxiety has a significant negative relationship with CCB, which supports H4. Also, as predicted, psychological resilience has a significant positive relationship with CCB, which supports H5. H6 and H7 focus on the mediation role of psychological resilience, and we found support for both. This means that psychological resilience mediates the relationship between job insecurity and CCB, as well as the relationship between employee anxiety and CCB. Table 5 shows the Bias-Corrected Bootstrapped Result.
Results of the hypothesized relationship
| H1 | JI → PR | −.244 | 6.432 | Accepted |
| H2 | JI → CB | −.345 | 3.965 | Accepted |
| H3 | EA → PR | −.495 | 10.518 | Accepted |
| H4 | EA → CCB | −.440 | 5.792 | Accepted |
| H5 | PR → CCB | .325 | 3.403 | Accepted |
Note:
p<0.01,
p<0.001
Bias-Corrected Bootstrapped Result
| H1 | JI → PR → CCB | −0.48 | 0.02 | −0.46 | −0.28 |
| H2 | EA → PR → CCB | −0.46 | 0.09 | −0.78 | −0.35 |
Note: Bias-corrected bootstrapping analysis was conducted with 5000 resampled sizes at 95% confidence interval. The indirect effect was calculated using the unstandardised coefficient. ULCI = Upper-level confidence interval; LLCI = Lower-level confidence interval; SE = Standard error
This study investigates the intricate relationships between job insecurity, employee anxiety, CCB, and the mediating role of psychological resilience. By revealing these dynamics, the study aspires to contribute theoretically to a better understanding of how these factors impact CCB, while providing practical insights for organisations seeking to enhance supportive work environments and minimize the consequences of uncertainty in the workplace. Overall, the findings support and extend the the-oretical understanding that suggests that organisations cannot stimulate extra-role behaviour amongst employees through compulsive approaches (Echebiri & Amundsen, 2021; Lee et al., 2018).
We hypothesised five direct relationships and two indirect or mediation relationships. Our hypothesis for the relationship between job insecurity and psychological resilience indicates that workers with higher job insecurity levels have lower psychological resilience. This result is consistent with previous research (Akçin, 2023). Also, workers who feel that their jobs are not secure will be less likely to participate in OCB; instead, they will resort to CCB, which results from extrinsic motivation.
The study also observed a significant negative relationship between employee anxiety and psychological resilience, indicating that employees with higher anxiety levels have lower psychological resilience. This finding provides further empirical support to Song et al. (2020)'s finding that psychological resilience protects against anxiety. Similarly, employee anxiety was negatively associated with CCB. We also found a positive correlation between psychological resilience and CCB. This suggests that employees with higher resilience levels are more likely to engage in CCB. For the mediating relationship, psychological resilience mediates the relationship between job insecurity and CCB, and for employee anxiety and CCB, this can be seen from the result. This implies that though job insecurity and employee anxiety have a direct association with CCB, the effect of this relationship passes through psychological resilience. Our findings agree with previous studies that conceptualise psychological resilience as a personal trait to cope with adverse conditions (Herrman et al., 2011).
Therefore, job insecurity and anxiety are essential factors that can significantly influence employee behaviour and organisational performance. According to Akçin (2023), uncertainty about one's employment status or prospects can lower organisational commitment and increase turnover intention. For example, workplace stresses, such as workload demands, interpersonal disputes, and role ambiguity, can give rise to employee anxiety, which impacts decision-making, engagement, job performance, and resilience (Çop et al., 2021). When employees voluntarily participate in OCB, this can strengthen their psychological resilience and help them cope with anxiety and job insecurity. Organisations must seek avenues to enhance resilience through interventions – including mentorship programs, social support programs, and stress management training – that can lessen the detrimental effects of anxiety and job instability on employee behaviour and organisational performance.
The findings in this paper have practical implications for managers and employees in hotels and other parts of the hospitality sector. For a sector that experiences a very high rate of turnover, it is important to understand measures to minimise this and reduce the costs that come with it. OCB represents discretionary roles by employees and is thus desirable, while CCB is not. The findings in this study indicate that when confronted with uncertainties in the workplace, such as job insecurity or employee anxiety, employees will likely engage in CCB. Generally, OCBs belong to a broader category of what scholars call extra-role behaviours, since they are not part of the employee's contractual obligations (Echebiri, 2023). Echebiri (2021) argues that compelling employees to engage in extra-role behaviours might be counterproductive for the organisation. While CCBs could benefit an organisation in the short term, they could have negative consequences for both the employees and the organisation in the long run, so the organisation should guard them (Yildiz et al., 2023).
In the context of the hospitality sector specifically, employees are more often hired on a temporary or casual basis. The nature of their employment contracts are a source of job insecurity and anxiety, as they can be laid off at any time. Managers stoking insecurity and uncertainty is unlikely to be in the best interests of the organisation. Instead, organisations and their managers should adopt measures such as encouraging empowering leadership behaviour — which supports creativity — over directive leadership behaviour.
The findings in this study highlight the necessity of dealing with these uncertainties in the workplace by identifying their causes and minimizing their impact. To help employees in times of uncertainty and disruption, management can implement policies to cushion the effect of these on their employees. A psychologically healthy work environment may also be created by cultivating a supportive company culture that promotes open communication, peer support networks, and stress-reduction techniques (Marenus et al., 2022). Job insecurity and employee anxiety are intertwined, and management should prioritize initiatives that help with employees' feelings of job insecurity. Opening lines of communication, creating chances for professional growth, and guaranteeing job security are ways to reduce anxiety and promote stability in the workplace.
This study's findings also indicate that any initiative to augment employee resilience may increase OCB and reduce CCB practices. To provide workers with the tools and resources they need to deal with issues at work, organisations can fund resilience-building programmes, including mentorship, leadership-development interventions, and resilience training. By doing all these, organisations will develop a workforce that is more resilient, engaged, and dedicated to company goals by addressing the issues that lead to job insecurity, anxiety, and poor resilience while fostering a supportive and empowering work environment. This benefits the organisation by increasing engagement and productivity and reducing employee turnover, dissatisfaction, and CCB.
These practical implications highlight the need for proactive steps to lower job insecurity, boost mental health, and promote psychological resilience in the workplace. Organisations should train their managers and direct supervisors to be aware of these issues and adopt approaches that foster extra-role behaviour, rather than compulsive approaches.
The present study tested a model that examined the relationship between job insecurity, employee anxiety, psychological resilience, and CCB. The findings confirm all the hypothesised relationships. Despite the results of this study, it has some limitations. The study was based on our quantitative analysis of the survey data; as such, it did not offer insight into the consequences of CCB. We recommend that further studies could adopt a mixed-method approach. This would help researchers further explore the perception of CCB in the workplace from the perspectives of employees and managers. The data used in this study was also cross-sectional and might not be completely free from the shortcomings of this method.
Future studies could be longitudinal and could consider separating the dependent and independent variables in time, as recommended by methodologists. This would further minimise the possibility of shortcomings associated with cross-sectional studies (Conway & Lance, 2010).
The data in this study were also specifically from the hotel sector, whose employees are subject to temporary short-term contracts, making them more susceptible to job insecurity and anxiety. We recommend that future studies draw data from settings where employment is more stable. It would also be interesting to compare temporary and permanent employees within the hospitality industry. The study was also conducted in a setting where we were unsure how the findings could be generalized to other sectors. Future studies might consider other settings to compare with the present results.