Next Article in Journal
The Transition of Land Use and Road Safety Studies: A Systematic Literature Review (2000–2021)
Next Article in Special Issue
How Do Self-Service Kiosks Improve COVID-19 Pandemic Resilience in the Restaurant Industry?
Previous Article in Journal
Start-Up Accelerators and Their Impact on Entrepreneurship and Social Responsibility of the Manager
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Cultural Intelligence Facilitates Employee Voice in the Hospitality Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/su15118895
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Determinants of Attitude and the Intention to Stay of Employees in Low-Cost Carriers: Using Justice Theory

by
Ryeojin Jang
1,
Won Seok Lee
1 and
Joonho Moon
2,*
1
Department of Tourism and Recreation, Kyonggi University, Suwon 443760, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Tourism Administration, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 8895; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118895
Submission received: 4 May 2023 / Revised: 24 May 2023 / Accepted: 30 May 2023 / Published: 31 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Service Marketing and Management for Sustainable Hospitality and Tourism in a New Era)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this research is to examine the influential attributes of employees’ attitudes and intentions to stay in the domain of human resources management in a low-cost carrier business. Using justice theory as a theoretical underpinning, financial compensation, nonfinancial compensation, coworker relationships, and procedural fairness were derived. The explained attributes of this research were attitude and intention to stay. This study used a survey and collected data on 233 employees in low-cost carriers as survey participants. To test the hypotheses, this study employed structural equation modeling. The results showed that attitude was positively impacted by financial compensation, nonfinancial compensation, coworker relationships, and procedural fairness. The results also revealed the positive effect of coworker relationships and attitudes on the intention to stay. This study sheds light on the literature by ensuring the explanatory power of justice theory in the area of low-cost carrier business.

1. Introduction

The low-cost carrier business market has grown continuously. According to Globe Newswire [1], the market size of low-cost carriers was 172.54 billion US dollars in 2022, and the report anticipated its size to grow to 302.85 billion US dollars in 2027. Plus, global economic recovery after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic also might project the sales recovery of low-cost carrier businesses due to the increased demand for travel. It implies that low-cost carrier business is attractive because market growth and recovering demand to travel are likely to become the opportunity from the viewpoint of business. Additionally, previous studies documented that the low-cost carrier business is a labor-intensive area [2,3,4,5]. Under this condition, it is imperative for low-cost carrier businesses to acquire and retain talented employees to become more competitive in the market. In addition, although numerous studies have inspected the characteristics of airline employees, low-cost carrier-focused studies have been rarely executed [2,6,7]. This fact leads this work to explore the characteristics of employees in the domain of low-cost carriers. Hence, this study investigates the characteristics of employees of low-cost carrier businesses.
This research adopts attitude [7,8,9,10] and intention to stay [11,12,13] as the central elements because studies in human resource management have adopted both variables to determine labor characteristics. As a theoretical underpinning to derive explanatory attributes for attitude and intention to stay, this research chooses justice theory. Justice theory has been selected by many scholars to examine employees’ characteristics using three elements: distributive, interactional, and procedural [14,15,16,17,18]. However, few studies have been executed in the domain of the low-cost carrier business to test the accountability of justice theory for employee behaviors. Namely, insufficient studies have been conducted for low-cost carrier employees, although low-cost carrier businesses’ human resource management might be varied with full-service carriers and other service business sectors in terms of compensation, interaction, and procedure. To fill this research gap, this research attests to the accountability of justice theory in the case of low-cost carriers. Furthermore, this study derives four attributes from justice theory: financial compensation, nonfinancial compensation, coworker relationships, and procedural fairness. Both financial and nonfinancial compensation represent distributive justice, coworker relationships are part of interactional justice, and procedural fairness is a sub-dimension of procedural justice.
In sum, the purpose of this work is to attest to the relationship between financial compensation, nonfinancial compensation, coworker relationships, procedural fairness, attitude, and intention to stay in the domain of the low-cost carrier business. The current study sheds light on the literature by ensuring the explanatory power of justice theory in the context of low-cost carrier business employee management. Such an effort might contribute to the literature by understanding the characteristics of employees in the domain of low-cost carrier business using justice theory as a theoretical foundation. Plus, this research is worthwhile because this study attempts to document more concrete attributes of justice theory’s sub-dimensions. Moreover, this research can provide managers of low-cost carriers with information for more adequate employee management.

2. Review of the Literature and Theoretical Underpinning

2.1. Intention to Stay

Intention to stay is defined as employees’ intention to continue to work in their current organization [11,12,13,19]. Because prior studies argue that employee turnover causes recruiting, training, and screening costs [20,21,22], understanding the reasons for employees’ intention to stay is worthwhile to lower the cost of business. Numerous studies have explored influential variables of the intention to stay. For instance, Zaghloul et al. [23] and Karlsson et al. [24] used intention to stay as an explained attribute by employing nurses as study subjects. Aboobaker et al. [25] researched the antecedents of teachers’ intention to stay. Chiang et al. [26] and Sobaih et al. [27] inspected the antecedents of hotel employees’ intention to stay. Therefore, the intention to stay has been explored by scholars as a popular behavior.

2.2. Attitude

Attitude refers to a predisposition toward certain objects [28,29,30,31]. Prior studies have shown that attitude is either positive or negative [7,8,9,32]. The extant literature has employed attitude in the employee management domain and defined attitude as an assessment of the organization to which an employee belongs [33,34,35]. Attitude has been employed as the main piece of numerous empirical studies. For example, Bajrami et al. [35] used attitude to determine the characteristics of hospitality employees. Kröll and Nüesch [36] examined employee attitude as an explained attribute by investigating German laborers. Similarly, Lyu and Zhu [37] adopted attitude as the main variable to investigate the characteristics of Chinese employees. The literature review suggests that attitude has been actively examined by scholars in the human resource management domain.

2.3. Justice Theory

Justice is defined as the right and sound condition to maintain society [14,16,38]. Justice theory suggests that justice consists of three dimensions: distributive, interactional, and procedural [39,40]. For distributive justice, scholars contend that individuals assess justice based on their own share, which could be linked with compensation [15,16,17,18]. Interactional justice refers to how an individual perceives fairness in building relationships with his or her colleagues [17,41,42]. Finally, procedural justice involves whether the process of certain work is transparent and rational from the perspective of the members of certain organizations [42,43,44]. Additionally, many studies have demonstrated the explanatory power of justice theory using three dimensions. Moon [16] and Khalid et al. [17] adopted the justice theory to research employee behaviors. Liljegren and Ekberg [41] employed justice theory to inspect the determinants of burnout and the self-rated health of employees. Usmani and Jamal [43] used justice theory to investigate the behavioral pattern of employees in the banking service sector. Zainalipour et al. [42] also adopted justice theory’s three dimensions for an investigation of teacher behavior in the workplace. Bakotić and Bulog [45] demonstrated the explanatory power of justice theory in the Croatian service business sector. In a similar vein, Ghaderi et al. [44] attested to the accountability of justice theory in the domain of hospitality business employee management. Previous research has alleged that distributive justice is a reward for labor in the human resource management domain [46,47,48]. Additionally, scholars contend that adequate rewards encourage employees to improve their working quality [49,50]. The extant literature has also argued that employee compensation consists of both financial and nonfinancial rewards [50,51,52]. Financial compensation is monetary compensation, while nonfinancial compensation is other welfare, such as work-life balance or investment in employees’ education and career development [47,48]. The coworker relationship is an area of interaction justice [53,54]. Scholars have noted that airline service is labor intensive, and such conditions lead employees to value their relationships with their coworkers more because they need to cooperate with their colleagues to accomplish an adequate level of performance [3,55,56,57]. The domain of procedural justice is the transparent process of human resource management, which can involve information disclosure to employees [58,59], which enables employees to perceive their organization more fairly [60,61].

2.4. Hypothesis Development and Research Model

Previous studies have claimed that employee compensation builds a positive attitude [62,63,64]. Konovsky et al. [65] contended that procedural and distributive justice are positively associated with employee attitude. Choi [66] and Marzucco et al. [67] also demonstrated a significant impact of organizational justice on employee attitudes. Gopinath and Becker [68] revealed the positive effect of procedural justice on employee attitudes. Hopkins and Weathington [69] showed that organizational justice exerted a positive effect on attitude. Additionally, prior studies have reported the positive effect of organizational justice on the intention to stay. For instance, Griffin [70] and Shahid et al. [71] revealed a positive impact of organizational justice on the intention to stay. Gupta and Singh [63] also found a positive effect of organizational justice on the intention to stay by researching employees in the information technology business domain. In a similar vein, Mehmood et al. [72] employed police officers as survey participants and found that organizational justice is a critical attribute that accounts for the intention to stay. To be specific, Hassan [73] exposed the positive impact of both financial and non-financial compensation on employee retention intention. Park et al. [74] also reported that competitive compensation is an essential element to build the intention to stay of Korean employees. Next, Paul and Kee [75] revealed that problems with colleagues in organizations led employees to quit their organizations. Miao et al. [76] similarly found that the interactional justice climate of an organization played a significant role in employee attitude. In addition, Narayanan et al. (2019) claimed that procedural justice is a critical attribute that positively affects employees’ intention to stay. Taha and Esenyel [77] disclosed that procedural justice is a critical determinant of employee turnover. Plus, Gharbi et al. [78] showed that employee turnover intention is negatively influenced by procedural justice. Based on the review of the literature, it is identified that organizational justice is influential on the psychological status of employees. Thus, this research proposes the following research hypotheses:
H1a. 
Financial compensation exerts a positive effect on attitude.
H1b. 
Financial compensation exerts a positive effect on the intention to stay.
H2a. 
Nonfinancial compensation exerts a positive effect on attitude.
H2b. 
Nonfinancial compensation exerts a positive effect on the intention to stay.
H3a. 
The coworker relationship exerts a positive effect on attitude.
H3b. 
The coworker relationship exerts a positive effect on the intention to stay.
H4a. 
Procedural fairness exerts a positive effect on attitude.
H4b. 
Procedural fairness exerts a positive effect on the intention to stay.
Previous research has argued that attitude exerts a positive effect on the intention to stay [79,80]. Fletcher et al. [81] showed that the intention to stay is positively influenced by employee attitude. Dechawatanapaisal [82] also revealed that employees’ intention to stay is positively affected by their attitude toward the organization. In a similar vein, Fletcher et al. [81] exposed the positive impact of employee attitude on intention to stay by exploring employees in seven organizations. With regard to the literature review, this research proposes the following research hypothesis:
H5. 
Attitude exerts a positive effect on the intention to stay.
Figure 1 shows the research model which reflects the proposed research hypotheses. Attitude and intention to stay are positively affected by financial compensation, nonfinancial compensation, coworker relationships, and procedural fairness. Moreover, attitude is positively associated with the intention to stay.

3. Method

3.1. Data Collection

This study collected data using an online survey. The survey participants were employees of Korean low-cost carriers. A survey link was sent to survey participants using a Google survey system because it is not only more convenient to manage the responses as compared to paper-based surveys but is also less constrained by time and place for data collection. Ali et al. [83] documented that employees are the most responsive group, which suggests that the quality of data is more likely to be assured as compared to other groups such as consumers and administrators. Data collection was implemented between March 10 and 12 April 2023. The number of valid observations for data analysis was 233. Table 1 shows the results of the frequency analysis for the survey participants. Male and female participants numbered 48 and 185, respectively. For marital status, 160 were single and 73 were married. Table 2 also shows the ages of the participants (20–29 years old: 77, 30–39 years old: 97, 40–49 years old: 42, older than 50 years old: 17). Regarding tenure, the numbers of respondents with less than 3 years, 3–6 years, 6–9 years, 9–12 years, and more than 12 years were 42, 85, 59, 32, and 15, respectively. Table 2 presents information on household income.

3.2. Measurement Items

This research used a survey to collect the data. Most measurement items employed a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). However, attitude measurement adopted a semantic differential 5-point scale (e.g., (1 = negative, 5 = positive)). Table 1 illustrates the measurement items. This study referenced prior studies for measurement items, and the items were adjusted to be suitable for the current research aim. All constructs were composed of four items. With regard to the definition of the variable, financial compensation is employees’ appraisal of their salary level. Nonfinancial compensation is employees’ perception of the benefit of working for low-cost carriers. The coworker relationship is defined as how employees of low-cost carriers assess their relationships with their colleagues. Procedural fairness is the degree of information disclosure for human resource procedures. Attitude is how favorably employees view their organization. Finally, the intention to stay in current work is the extent to which employees desire to continue working in their current job.

3.3. Data Analysis

This research conducted frequency analysis to examine the profile information of the survey participants. Confirmatory factor analysis was implemented to ensure convergent validity using the following criteria: factor loading: 0.5, construct reliability using cutoff value: 0.7, and average variance extracted: 0.5 [84,85,86]. A correlation matrix was employed to inspect the relationship between the variables and to attest to the discriminant validity by applying the instruction that the square root of the average variance extracted should be greater than the correlation coefficient [84,85,86]. A structural equation model was used to test the hypotheses. To appraise the goodness of fit for both the confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation model, this research used multiple indices, RMR (root mean-square residual) < 0.05, NFI (normed fit index) > 0.8, IFI (incremental fit index) > 0.8, TLI (Tucker–Lewis index) > 0.8, and CFI (comparative fit index) > 0.8 by following the guidelines of the extant literature [83,84,85].

4. Results

4.1. Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity

Table 3 shows the outcome of the confirmatory factor analysis. Regarding statistics for goodness of fit indices (RMR = 0.045, NFI = 0.822, IFI = 0.857, TLI = 0.832, and CFI = 0.856), the results of the confirmatory factor analysis were acceptable. All average variances extracted were greater than 0.5, and all CR values were greater than the threshold of 0.7. Moreover, all factor loadings were greater than 0.5. In sum, the convergent validity of the measurement items appeared adequate. Table 3 also shows the mean and standard deviation (SD) for financial compensation (Mean = 2.57, SD = 0.89), nonfinancial compensation (Mean = 2.70, SD = 0.87), coworker relationships (Mean = 3.88, SD = 0.82), procedural fairness (Mean = 2.67, SD = 0.82), attitude (Mean = 3.16, SD = 0.77), and intention to stay (Mean = 3.26, SD = 0.81).
Table 4 depicts the correlation matrix. The diagonal values are greater than the off-diagonal values. This suggests that the discriminant validity of the constructs is ensured according to extant literature [84,85]. Moreover, the results show that attitude positively correlates with intention to stay (r = 0.601, p < 0.05), financial compensation (r = 0.521, p < 0.05), nonfinancial compensation (r = 0.563, p < 0.05), coworker relationships (r = 0.303, p < 0.05), and procedural fairness (r = 0.482, p < 0.05). Additionally, intention to stay positively correlates with financial compensation (r = 0.405, p < 0.05), nonfinancial compensation (r = 0.481, p < 0.05), coworker relationships (r = 0.409, p < 0.05), and procedural fairness (r = 0.407, p < 0.05).

4.2. Results of Hypotheses Testing

Table 5 presents the results of hypothesis testing using the structural equation model. The goodness of fit indices (RMR = 0.045, NFI = 0.822, IFI = 0.857, TLI = 0.832, and CFI = 0.856) indicate the statistical significance of the structural equation modeling results. Attitude is positively influenced by financial compensation (β = 0.228, p < 0.05), nonfinancial compensation (β = 0.304, p < 0.05), coworker relationships (β = 0.291, p < 0.05), and procedural fairness (β = 0.185, p < 0.05). Additionally, the results reveal that intention to stay is positively impacted by relationships with coworkers (β = 0.294, p < 0.05) and attitude (β = 0.387, p < 0.05). The results show that H1a, H2a, H3a, H3b, H4a, and H5 are supported. Figure 2 is the graphical presentation of the results.

5. Discussion

This research investigated the determinants of attitude and the intention to stay by studying employees in the low-cost carrier domain. The theoretical foundation of this research was justice theory, and financial compensation, nonfinancial compensation, coworker relationships, and procedural fairness were derived as the main explanatory variables. Regarding the descriptive statistics of the variables, low-cost carrier employees appeared to have slightly negative results for their financial (Mean = 2.57, SD = 0.89) and nonfinancial compensation (Mean = 2.70, SD = 0.87). This implies that the financial reward and welfare of employees in the low-cost carrier business are not sufficient from the perspective of employees. The coworker relationship was perceived as somewhat positive (mean = 3.88, SD = 0.82), whereas employees in low-cost carriers regarded procedural transparency as slightly negative (mean = 2.67, SD = 0.82). Considering the results of the hypothesis testing, attitude was positively affected by all elements: financial compensation, nonfinancial compensation, coworker relationships, and procedural fairness. Nonfinancial compensation exerted the strongest effect compared to the other three attributes. It can be inferred that employees develop a positive attitude through perceived justice in their organization, and nonfinancial compensation is the most essential aspect of a positive attitude toward the organization. However, the results revealed that only coworker relationships had a significant impact on intention to stay. This might be due to the more positive appraisal of survey participants compared to the other three pieces: financial compensation, nonfinancial compensation, and procedural fairness. Namely, the mean values of the other three attributes tilted to the negative side, while only employees of low-cost carriers appraised the coworker relationship as quite positive. Finally, the results revealed that attitude played a significant role in building the intention to stay in the domain of the low-cost carrier business.

6. Conclusions

This research makes a theoretical contribution. Even though many studies have examined employee characteristics in the domain of airline business, sparse research has been implemented focusing on employees of low-cost carriers [6,7,87,88]. In order to streamline such a research gap, this research demonstrated the accountability of justice theory in the case of low-cost carrier employees. This study also derived four attributes from justice theory, and these four attributes exerted a significant impact on both attitude and intention to stay. Plus, the significance of justice-related attributes is likely to become the unique point of this research, which might reflect the characteristics of human resource management in the case of low-cost carriers. Moreover, this study sheds light on the literature by scrutinizing the sub-elements of justice theory in the context of low-cost carriers. The results are somewhat unique and may help scholars and businesses to further understand employees’ perceptions of low-cost carriers. Finally, this research showed external validity by demonstrating the significant association between attitude and intention to stay [81,82].
This study also has practical implications. Above all, managers in low-cost carrier businesses should consider compensation adjustments to obtain more capable human resources. Although both financial and nonfinancial compensation is crucial for building a positive attitude toward the organization, employees perceive their reward somewhat negatively. Hence, low-cost carrier managers might contemplate how to enhance the compensation system for their employees, which in turn could become an avenue to secure their current and future human resources. Moreover, human resource managers of low-cost carriers might consider how they can make the organizational culture conducive to cooperation between employees, which establishes a better coworker relationship. Such an effort is likely to build employees’ positive attitudes and intention to stay. Therefore, social activity programs in organizations might be able to be considered to make closer relationships between employees. Additionally, low-cost carrier business administrators can consider exposing their human resource procedures to their labor force. This effort could improve employees’ attitudes toward the organization. Low-cost carrier managers could also consider more socially responsible business implementation, such as environmental, social, and governance (ESG) operations, which may play an essential role in developing better attitudes and improving employees’ intention to stay. In addition, low-cost carrier business managers might be able to implement ESG activities concentrating on employee welfare. By doing so, low-cost carriers can obtain financial benefits from employee management and more capable labor, which ultimately results in the accomplishment of business sustainability.
This work is not free from limitations. First, the sample of this research was limited to the case of Korean low-cost carrier businesses. Because the working conditions and culture may vary in other geographical cases, it is worthwhile for future research to examine the effect of attributes of justice theory using samples from other countries. Moreover, the number of observations in this study was limited because it was constrained to the case of only low-cost carriers. Future research can use more observations for statistical inference to obtain stronger statistical inference.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, R.J.; Writing—original draft, J.M.; Writing—review and editing, W.S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

Not applicable.

References

  1. Globe Newswire. Global Low Cost Airlines Market Report (2022 to 2027)-Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecasts. 2022. Available online: https://www.globenewswire.com/en/newsrelease/2022/08/22/2502166/28124/en/Global-Low-Cost-Airlines-Market-Report-2022-to-2027-Industry-Trends-Share-Size-Growth-Opportunity-and-Forecasts.html (accessed on 16 April 2023).
  2. Chen, X.; Duan, Y.; Ali, L.; Duan, Y.; Ryu, K. Understanding Consumer Travel Behavior during COVID-19. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Min, K.S.; Jung, J.M.; Ryu, K. Listen to their heart: Why does active listening enhance customer satisfaction after a service failure? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 96, 102956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nisar, Q.A.; Haider, S.; Ali, F.; Naz, S.; Ryu, K. Depletion of psychological, financial, and social resources in the hospitality sector during the pandemic. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 93, 102794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ryu, K.; Jarumaneerat, T.; Promsivapallop, P.; Kim, M. What influences restaurant dining out and diners’ self-protective intention during the COVID-19 pandemic: Applying the Protection Motivation Theory. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 109, 103400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Alola, U.V.; Alafeshat, R. The impact of human resource practices on employee engagement in the airline industry. J. Public Aff. 2020, 21, e2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Han, H.; Koo, B.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Lee, Y.; Kim, H.-R. Are airline workers planning career turnover in a post-COVID-19 world? Assessing the impact of risk perception about virus infection and job instability. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 48, 460–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gundersen, V.; Mehmetoglu, M.; Vistad, O.I.; Andersen, O. Linking visitor motivation with attitude towards management restrictions on use in a national park. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2015, 9, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tian, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, J. The relationship between pro-environmental attitude and employee green behavior: The role of motivational states and green work climate perceptions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 7341–7352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ryu, K.; Promsivapallop, P.; Kannaovakun, P.; Kim, M.; Insuwanno, P. Residents’ risk perceptions, willingness to accept international tourists, and self-protective behaviour during the destination re-opening amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr. Issues Tour. 2023, 26, 1367–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hansen, H.; Sandvik, K.; Selnes, F. Direct and Indirect Effects of Commitment to a Service Employee on the Intention to Stay. J. Serv. Res. 2003, 5, 356–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ghosh, P.; Satyawadi, R.; Joshi, J.P.; Shadman, M. Who stays with you? Factors predicting employees’ intention to stay. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2013, 21, 288–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Presbitero, A.; Teng-Calleja, M. Employee Intention to Stay in an Organization: Examining the Role of Calling and Perceived Supervisor Support through the Theoretical Lens of Work as Calling. J. Career Assess. 2019, 28, 320–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Martinez-Tur, V.; Peiró, J.M.; Ramos, J.; Moliner, C. Justice Perceptions as Predictors of Customer Satisfaction: The Impact of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 36, 100–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hart, A.L.; Thomson, N.F.; Huning, T.M. The mediating role of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on the re-lationship between downsizing and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Educ. Leadersh. J. 2016, 20, 132. [Google Scholar]
  16. Moon, K.-K. Fairness at the Organizational Level: Examining the Effect of Organizational Justice Climate on Collective Turnover Rates and Organizational Performance. Public Pers. Manag. 2017, 46, 118–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Khalid, S.; Rehman, C.A.; Muqadas, F. Exploring the mediating role of affective commitment on organizational justice and turnover intention. Pak. Bus. Rev. 2018, 19, 1012–1028. [Google Scholar]
  18. Yang, D. EFL/ESL Students’ perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice: The impact of positive teacher-student relation. Front. Psycol. 2021, 12, 755234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ryu, K.; Kim, H.J.; Lee, H.; Kwon, B. Relative effects of physical environment and employee performance on customers’ emotions, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in upscale restaurants. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lin, C.Y.; Huang, C.K. Employee turnover intentions and job performance from a planned change: The effects of an organizational learning culture and job satisfaction. Int. J. Manpow. 2021, 42, 409–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Namin, B.H.; Øgaard, T.; Røislien, J. Workplace Incivility and Turnover Intention in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 19, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nisar, Q.A.; Haider, S.; Ali, F.; Jamshed, S.; Ryu, K.; Gill, S.S. Green human resource management practices and environmental performance in Malaysian green hotels: The role of green intellectual capital and pro-environmental behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 311, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zaghloul, A.A.; Al-Hussaini, M.F.; Al-Bassam, N.K. Intention to stay and nurses’ satisfaction dimensions. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2008, 1, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Karlsson, A.C.; Gunningberg, L.; Bäckström, J.; Pöder, U. Registered nurses’ perspectives of work satisfaction, patient safety and intention to stay–A double-edged sword. J. Nurs. Manag. 2019, 27, 1359–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Aboobaker, N.; Edward, M.; Ka, Z. Workplace spirituality, employee wellbeing and intention to stay: A multi-group analysis of teachers’ career choice. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2019, 33, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chiang, C.-F.; Back, K.-J.; Canter, D.D. The Impact of Employee Training on Job Satisfaction and Intention to Stay in the Hotel Industry. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 2005, 4, 99–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sobaih, A.E.; Hasanein, A.M.; Aliedan, M.M.; Abdallah, H.S. The impact of transactional and transformational leadership on employee intention to stay in deluxe hotels: Mediating role of organisational commitment. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2020, 22, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cacioppo, J.T.; Berntson, G.G. Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychol. Bul. 1994, 115, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Godovykh, M.; Ridderstaat, J.; Baker, C.; Fyall, A. COVID-19 and Tourism: Analyzing the Effects of COVID-19 Statistics and Media Coverage on Attitudes toward Tourism. Forecasting 2021, 3, 870–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, H.M.; Ryu, K. Examining Image Congruence and Its Consequences in the Context of Robotic Coffee Shops. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zorn, T.J.; Mata, A.; Alves, H. Attitude similarity and interpersonal liking: A dominance of positive over negative attitudes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 100, 104281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wu, S.; Lo, C. The influence of core-brand attitude and consumer perception on purchase intention towards extended product. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2009, 21, 174–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jones, E.; Chonko, L.; Rangarajan, D.; Roberts, J. The role of overload on job attitudes, turnover intentions, and salesperson performance. J. Bus. Res. 2007, 60, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ali, F.; Dogan, S.; Amin, M.; Hussain, K.; Ryu, K. Brand anthropomorphism, love and defense: Does attitude towards social distancing matter? Serv. Ind. J. 2021, 41, 58–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bajrami, D.; Terzić, A.; Petrović, M.; Radovanović, M.; Tretiakova, T.; Hadoud, A. Will we have the same employees in hospitality after all? The impact of COVID-19 on employees’ work attitudes and turnover intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kröll, C.; Nüesch, S. The effects of flexible work practices on employee attitudes: Evidence from a large-scale panel study in Germany. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 30, 1505–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lyu, Y.; Zhu, H. The Predictive Effects of Workplace Ostracism on Employee Attitudes: A Job Embeddedness Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 158, 1083–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Skarlicki, D.P.; Folger, R. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. J. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 82, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Blodgett, J.G.; Hill, D.J.; Tax, S.S. The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior. J. Retail. 1997, 73, 185–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bahri-Ammari, N.; Bilgihan, A. The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on customer retention: An empirical investigation in the mobile telecom industry in Tunisia. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 37, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liljegren, M.; Ekberg, K. The associations between perceived distributive, procedural, and interactional organizational justice, self-rated health and burnout. Work 2009, 33, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zainalipour, H.; Fini, A.A.S.; Mirkamali, S.M. A study of relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction among teachers in Bandar Abbas middle school. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 5, 1986–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Usmani, S.; Jamal, S. Impact of distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, temporal justice, spatial justice on job satisfaction of banking employees. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. 2013, 2, 351–383. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ghaderi, Z.; Tabatabaei, F.; Khoshkam, M.; Abadi, R.S.S. Exploring the Role of Perceived Organizational Justice and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Job Satisfaction among Employees in the Hospitality Industry. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2021, 24, 415–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bakotić, D.; Bulog, I. Organizational Justice and Leadership Behavior Orientation as Predictors of Employees Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Croatia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Agbenyegah, G.K. Effect of Financial and Non- Financial Rewards on Employee Motivation in Financial Institution in Ghana. Int. J. Innov. Res. Dev. 2019, 8, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jaleta, K.M.; Kero, C.A.; Kumera, L. Effect of non-financial compensation on the employees’ job performance: A case of jimma geneti woreda health centers in horro guduru, Ethiopia. Int. J. Commer. Finance 2019, 5, 31–44. [Google Scholar]
  48. Yousaf, S.; Latif, M.; Aslam, S.; Saddiqui, A. Impact of financial and non-financial rewards on employee motivation. Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 2014, 21, 1776–1786. [Google Scholar]
  49. Erbasi, A.; Arat, T. The effect of financial and non-financial incentives on job satisfaction: An examination of food chain premises in Turkey. Int. Bus. Res. 2012, 5, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Spisakova, E.D. Position of employee benefits in remuneration structure. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2019, 18, 47. [Google Scholar]
  51. Jessri, M.; Kosmidou, V.; Ahuja, M.K. Employees’ decision to participate in corporate venturing: A conjoint experiment of financial and non-financial motivations. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 2020, 13, e00161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Alnsour, A.S.; Kanaan, O.A. The effects of financial and non-financial incentives on job tenure. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2021, 11, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Forret, M.; Love, M.S. Employee justice perceptions and coworker relationships. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2008, 29, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lee, S.; Byun, G.; Kim, S. Effects of Coworkers’ Helping Behavior on Employees’ Knowledge Sharing and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Interactional Justice. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Sherony, K.M.; Green, S.G. Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 542–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Simon, L.S.; Judge, T.A.; Halvorsen-Ganepola, M.D. In good company? A multi-study, multi-level investigation of the effects of coworker relationships on employee well-being. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010, 76, 534–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bazargan, M. Airline maintenance strategies–in-house vs. outsourced–an optimization approach. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 2016, 22, 114–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Van den Bos, K.; Wilke, H.; Lind, E. When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Brockner, J. Making sense of procedural fairness: How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 58–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. De Cremer, D.; Tyler, T.R. The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Doherty, D.; Wolak, J. When Do the Ends Justify the Means? Evaluating Procedural Fairness. Political Behav. 2011, 34, 301–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Schiemann, W.A. The impact of corporate compensation and benefit policy on employee attitudes and behavior and corporate profitability. J. Bus. Psychol. 1987, 2, 8–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gupta, A.; Singh, V. Influence of organisational justice on intention to stay of IT professionals. Int. J. Indian Cult. Bus. Manag. 2018, 17, 428–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gupta, M. Employees’ satisfaction towards monetary compensation practices. Glob. J. Finance Manag. 2014, 6, 757–764. [Google Scholar]
  65. Konovsky, M.A.; Folger, R.; Cropanzano, R. Relative effects of procedural and distributive justice on employee attitudes. Represent. Res. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 17, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  66. Choi, S. Organizational Justice and Employee Work Attitudes: The Federal Case. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2010, 41, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Marzucco, L.; Marique, G.; Stinglhamber, F.; De Roeck, K.; Hansez, I. Justice and employee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role of overall justice. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2014, 64, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gopinath, C.; Becker, T.E. Communication, Procedural Justice, and Employee Attitudes: Relationships Under Conditions of Divestiture. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 63–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hopkins, S.M.; Weathington, B.L. The Relationships Between Justice Perceptions, Trust, and Employee Attitudes in a Downsized Organization. J. Psychol. 2006, 140, 477–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Griffin, B. Multilevel relationships between organizational-level incivility, justice and intention to stay. Work. Stress 2010, 24, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shahid, S.; Harun, S.; Othman, A.; Jani, S.; Rahman, M.; Mohamed, R. Organisational justice and its implications on non-academic staff intention to stay: Evidence from private higher learning institutions in Malaysia. Malays. J. Consum. Fam. Econ. 2020, 24, 153–168. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mehmood, S.A.; Nadarajah, D.; Akhtar, M.S.; Brohi, N.A.; Khuhro, M.A. A Conceptual Framework Explaining the Impact of Perceived Career Growth and Organisational Justice on Intention to Stay Among City Traffic Police Lahore. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 7, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hassan, Z. Employee retention through effective human resource management practices in Maldives: Mediation effects of compensation and rewards system. J. Entrep. Manag. Innov. 2022, 18, 137–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Park, C.-J.; Kim, S.-Y.; Nguyen, M.V. Fuzzy TOPSIS Application to Rank Determinants of Employee Retention in Construction Companies: South Korean Case. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Paul, G.D.; Kee, D.M.H. HR, workplace bullying, and turnover intention: The role of work engagement. J. Environ. Treat. Tech. 2020, 8, 23–27. [Google Scholar]
  76. Miao, R.; Bozionelos, N.; Zhou, W.; Newman, A. High-performance work systems and key employee attitudes: The roles of psychological capital and an interactional justice climate. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 32, 443–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Taha, O.; Esenyel, İ. The effect of internal complaints systems on employee retention and turnover intention: The mediating role of organizational justice. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2019, 8, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  78. Gharbi, H.; Aliane, N.; Al Falah, K.A.; Sobaih, A.E.E. You Really Affect Me: The Role of Social Influence in the Relationship between Procedural Justice and Turnover Intention. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kim, J.S.; Milliman, J.; Lucas, A. Effects of CSR on employee retention via identification and quality-of-work-life. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 1163–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Narayanan, A.; Rajithakumar, S.; Menon, M. Talent Management and Employee Retention: An Integrative Research Framework. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2018, 18, 228–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fletcher, L.; Alfes, K.; Robinson, D. The relationship between perceived training and development and employee retention: The mediating role of work attitudes. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 29, 2701–2728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dechawatanapaisal, D. Employee retention: The effects of internal branding and brand attitudes in sales organizations. Pers. Rev. 2018, 47, 675–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ali, F.; Ciftci, O.; Nanu, L.; Cobanoglu, C.; Ryu, K. Response Rates in Hospitality Research: An Overview of Current Practice and Suggestions for Future Research. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 2020, 62, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Babin, B.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  85. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hoyle, R. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  87. Chen, Q.; Huang, R.; Pak, K.Y.; Hou, B. Internal marketing, employee satisfaction and cultural congruence of Gulf airlines. Tour. Rev. 2020, 76, 1214–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Huang, Y.T.; Rundle-Thiele, S.; Chen, Y.H. Extending understanding of the internal marketing practice and employee satis-faction relationship: A budget Chinese airline empirical examination. J. Vacat. Mark. 2019, 25, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 08895 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 08895 g001
Sustainability 15 08895 g002 550
Figure 2. Results of hypotheses testing. * p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Results of hypotheses testing. * p < 0.05.
Sustainability 15 08895 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic information (N = 233).
Table 1. Demographic information (N = 233).
Item.Frequency Percentage
Male48 20.6
Female185 79.4
 
20–29 years old7733.0
30–39 years old9741.6
40–49 years old4218.0
Older than 50 years old177.3
 
Tenure
Less than 3 years4218.0
3–6 years8536.5
6–9 years5925.3
9–12 years 3213.7
More than 12 years 156.4
 
Monthly household income
Less than 3 M KRW2711.6
Between 3–6 M KRW16470.4
Between 6–9 M KRW3414.6
More than 9 M KRW83.4
 
Single16068.7
Married7331.3
Note: KRW is Korean won, M stands for million.
Table
Table 2. Description of measurement.
Table 2. Description of measurement.
ConstructCodeItem
Financial compensationFC1
FC2
FC3
FC4		The salary level of my working place is adequate.
The salary level of my working place is fair.
My working place do financial compensation rationally.
My working place do financial compensation adequately.
Non-financial compensationNC1
NC2
NC3
NC4		Employee welfare of my working place is reasonable.
Employee welfare of my working place is fair.
My organization offers appropriate welfare.
Employee welfare of my organization is acceptable.
Co-worker relationshipCR1
CR2
CR3
CR4		My co-workers are kind.
My co-workers are cooperative.
My co-workers help me well.
My co-workers are helpful.
Procedural fairnessPF1
PF2
PF3
PF4		The human resource process of my organization is transparent.
The human resource process of my organization is fair.
The human resource process of my organization is rational.
The human resource process of my organization is acceptable.
AttitudeAT1
AT2
AT3
AT4		My airline is (negative-positive)
My airline is (bad-good)
My airline is (unattractive-attractive)
My airline is (unfavorable-favorable)
Intention to stayIS1
IS2
IS3
IS4		I intend to stay in my organization.
I wish to continue my work.
I wish to stay in my organization.
I want to stay in my airline steadily.
Table
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis.
ConstructCodeLoadingMean (SD)CRAVE
Financial compensationFC1
FC2
FC3
FC4		0.844
0.916
0.882
0.889		2.57
(0.89)		0.9340.780
Non-financial compensationNC1
NC2
NC3
NC4		0.900
0.858
0.870
0.877		2.70
(0.87)		0.9300.768
Co-worker relationshipCR1
CR2
CR3
CR4		0.836
0.903
0.831
0.898		3.88
(0.82)		0.9240.753
Procedural fairnessPF1
PF2
PF3
PF4		0.693
0.935
0.816
0.935		2.67
(0.82)		0.9120.724
AttitudeAT1
AT2
AT3
AT4		0.846
0.885
0.860
0.823		3.16
(0.77)		0.9150.729
Intention to stayIS1
IS2
IS3
IS4		0.788
0.875
0.854
0.885		3.26
(0.81)		0.9130.725
Note: Goodness of fit indices: χ2 = 1039.679, df = 237, RMR = 0.045, NFI = 0.822, IFI = 0.857, TLI = 0.832, CFI = 0.856; CR stands for construct reliability, AVE is average variance extracted, SD denotes standard deviation.
Table
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
123456
1. Financial compensation0.883
2. Non-financial compensation0.734 *0.876
3. Co-worker relationship−0.0480.0760.867
4. Procedural fairness0.555 *0.568 *0.0710.850
5. Attitude0.521 *0.563 *0.303 *0.482 *0.858
6. Intention to stay0.405 *0.481 *0.409 *0.407 *0.601 *0.851
Note: * p < 0.05, Diagonal is square root of average variance extracted, SD stands for standard deviation.
Table
Table 5. Results of structural equation model.
Table 5. Results of structural equation model.
HPathβt-ValueResults
H1aFinancial compensation → Attitude0.2282.26 *Supported
H1bFinancial compensation → Intention to stay0.0460.45Not supported
H2aNon-financial compensation → Attitude0.3043.02 *Supported
H2bNon-financial compensation → Intention to stay0.1591.56Not supported
H3aCo-worker relationship → Attitude0.2915.05 *Supported
H3bCo-worker relationship → Intention to stay0.2944.72 *Supported
H4aProcedural fairness → Attitude0.1852.58 *Supported
H4bProcedural fairness → Intention to stay0.0991.39Not supported
H5Attitude → Intention to stay0.3874.68 *Supported
Note: * p < 0.05 Goodness of fit indices: χ2 = 1039.679, df = 237, RMR = 0.045, NFI = 0.822, IFI = 0.857, TLI = 0.832, and CFI = 0.856.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jang, R.; Lee, W.S.; Moon, J. Determinants of Attitude and the Intention to Stay of Employees in Low-Cost Carriers: Using Justice Theory. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118895

AMA Style

Jang R, Lee WS, Moon J. Determinants of Attitude and the Intention to Stay of Employees in Low-Cost Carriers: Using Justice Theory. Sustainability. 2023; 15(11):8895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118895

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jang, Ryeojin, Won Seok Lee, and Joonho Moon. 2023. "Determinants of Attitude and the Intention to Stay of Employees in Low-Cost Carriers: Using Justice Theory" Sustainability 15, no. 11: 8895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118895

APA Style

Jang, R., Lee, W. S., & Moon, J. (2023). Determinants of Attitude and the Intention to Stay of Employees in Low-Cost Carriers: Using Justice Theory. Sustainability, 15(11), 8895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118895

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop