Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in the Portuguese Hospitality Industry: A Study on Sociodemographic and Professional Variables

Abstract

The aim of this research is to reflexively analyze and discuss organizational citizenship behaviors. By conducting an empirical test based on the assertions within the fields of the positive organizational behavior and the social identity theory, the specific objective is to analyze the relationship between organizational citizenship and sociodemographic and professional variables. A study was carried out by surveying employees of Portuguese hotel units. The sample consisted of 798 employees, mostly males, between 30 and 34 years old, with secondary school education, serving as operatives or undifferentiated employees, and having middle levels of seniority in the organization. The main results show that hotel employees develop organizational citizenship behaviors, albeit of different types and levels, which are supported by some sociodemographic and professional variables. The findings show that age and seniority are the most important and strongest variables significantly related to organizational citizenship behaviors. This study has several implications, highlighting the role and support that managers and decision-makers must have in reinforcing positive voluntary personal and social behaviors among hotel employees. This research aims to contribute to the formulation and implementation of management strategies anchored in organizational citizenship behaviors, supporting the formulation of management systems centered on behavioral attitudes at work in the context of the hotel sector.

1. Introduction

Currently, the surge in global tourism, alongside its economic and environmental impacts, has increased the industry’s awareness of environmental concerns (Freire and Gonçalves 2021). The hospitality sector is placing more emphasis on sustainability practices, which are not only beneficial for customer satisfaction but are also influential in improving star ratings, enhancing profits, and increasing market share (Kim et al. 2020).

The hotel industry plays a leading role in the globalization of Portuguese tourism companies. Currently, it is one of the most vibrant and rapidly expanding sectors worldwide, making significant contributions to the national economy, trade balance, and job creation in Portugal (Breda et al. 2020).

One condition that seems to be necessary for an organization to be successful in the present and the future is the ability to create, develop, and consolidate management policies and practices, which contribute to the pursuit of an organization’s strategy in a coherent and integrated manner. This involves stimulating innovation, quality, and sustainability to achieve its objectives (Madera et al. 2017). To this end, it is necessary to promote management practices that focus on social responsibility and foster employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (Zhao and Zhou 2020; Newman et al. 2016); that is, focusing on and for people by creating an environment favorable to the development of constructive behaviors characterized by commitment, dedication, mutual help, and organizational solidarity.

Having a group of dedicated and supportive workers is fundamental to the development of organizations and represents an important source of competitive advantage. Therefore, it is important that organizations understand the roots, structures, and causes of citizenship behaviors within their specific contexts, to create conditions that develop, strengthen, and consolidate them in organizations. Organizational citizenship behavior is highly valued in organizations, especially in hotels (Nazarian et al. 2020) because it is strongly linked to customer satisfaction, job performance, innovative work, organizational culture, and leadership (Khan et al. 2020).

Organizational citizenship behaviors go beyond simple functional exercises, representing extra-paper behaviors that are not directly recognized by a formal system. Today, these behaviors are seen as fundamental for organizations to achieve their objectives since any organization “that depends only on prescribed behaviors is a very fragile social system” (Cunha et al. 2014, p. 304). In an increasingly dynamic environment, characterized by increased competitiveness, innovation, and quality, where unpredictability is constant, there is an urgent need to develop other types of behavior and innovations that respond to contingencies that arise (Farida and Setiawan 2022).

The literature has identified sociodemographic and professional variables as antecedents to citizenship behaviors. Researchers (e.g., Bello et al. 2018; Shankar and Prabhakara 2018) have suggested that these characteristics can explain these types of behaviors. Building on this prior knowledge, the purpose of this study is to identify the types and respective levels of organizational citizenship of employees in Portuguese hotel units. An attempt will be made to identify the extent to which the behaviors of these employees are related to sociodemographic and professional variables and, in this sense, verify whether these variables explain organizational citizenship behaviors.

To fulfill the purpose of the study, we will analyze and reflect on the concept of organizational citizenship behaviors, framework models, and their relationships with sociodemographic and professional variables. Regarding sociodemographic and professional variables, we will consider gender, age, academic qualifications, professional category, and seniority.

Methodologically, this research adopts a quantitative and correlational perspective (Field 2009), focusing on the Portuguese hotel industry. To test the model, and the inherent hypotheses, we used multivariate statistics using the SPSS/AMOS25 program.

This study has theoretical and practical implications. In theoretical terms, it contributes to the understanding of the dynamics established between organizational citizenship behaviors and sociodemographic and professional variables. At a practical level, it contributes to the conception and valorization of policies and management practices in the context of education, based on processes that arise from the behaviors taken in and toward work.

This article is structured into four main parts: the first section reviews the literature on the key concepts framing the theme; the second section describes the methodological strategy adopted; the third section presents the results; and the fourth section explores the discussion of the results and their conclusive aspects.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

To cope with change, organizations must have a proactive attitude (i.e., to act rather than react to change). Only dynamic, innovative organizations with proactive attitudes in the face of adversity have the tools necessary to face change (Ferreira et al. 2021; Williams et al. 2017). In this context, organizations tend to adopt more flexible and horizontal structures, with minimal hierarchy, making plans based on competence profiles, and encouraging multifunctional careers (where the concept of belonging to a function disappears). Teamwork, as well as cooperation and solidarity among employees, are also emphasized. For this, organizations should have their professional staff positively engaged (Koon and Chong 2018). At the same time, they also need to have versatile and flexible employees who can develop innovative, spontaneous, and cooperative actions that go beyond the mere formal requirements required by the defined functional content (Aldaiem and Abu-Helaleh 2022; Sabuhari et al. 2020; Kumari and Pradhan 2014).

Various perspectives have been developed concerning organizational citizenship behaviors, leading to many suggested designations. While some refer to them as extra-paper behaviors (Katz and Kahn 1978; Velickovska 2017), others encompass these designations into organizational spontaneity (George and Brief 1992) or contextual performance (Borman and Motowidlo 1993).

Analyzing organizational citizenship behaviors primarily falls within the theory of organizational behavior and, more specifically, within the fields of organizational psychology, positive organizational behavior theory (Luthans et al. 2015; Cameron et al. 2012), and social identity theory (Ashforth and Mael 1989). Regarding organizational citizenship behaviors, analyzing positive organizational behaviors involves understanding the factors that motivate these behaviors and their impacts on organizations (Zhao and Zhou 2020; Hussain et al. 2019; Yen et al. 2004). Moreover, the social identity organizational behavior framework explores how individuals derive their identity from the groups to which they belong. It emphasizes the importance of social groups in shaping self-conception, behavior, and intergroup relations (Ashforth and Mael 1989). Within an organizational context, and beyond the contributions to the analysis of organizational citizenship, it can help explain various workplace phenomena, such as group dynamics, team cohesion, leadership, and organizational commitment (Subba 2019).

Organizational citizenship behaviors have incorporated a great deal of informality, manifesting in various ways and demonstrating different ramifications. These behaviors are important not only for the individuals who advocate them but also for the organizations where they are advocated (Pickford and Joy 2016). They are, therefore, behaviors that resemble feelings of citizenship toward the organization, allowing professionals to carry out certain activities on behalf of the organization for which they work, without being formally obliged to do so. This reinforces the collaboration/support among various employees (colleagues, managers, subordinates, customers, etc.) and fosters organizational identification (Buil et al. 2019; Subba 2019).

Regardless of the designation used to identify these behaviors, the general idea, which cuts across the different approaches, is that they describe the behaviors of individuals in organizations that go beyond formally prescribed functions and roles. They stem from a superior willingness to cooperate in the performance of tasks, activities, and functions. There is a certain voluntarism in the performance of these functions, reflecting professional solidarity. In other words, this voluntarism seems to be integrated “into a concept of organization marked by the aggregation of cooperative efforts, as a determinant in the production of constructive gestures towards organization” (Neves and Paixão 2014, p. 35).

According to Neves and Paixão (2014), the expression ‘organizational citizenship behaviors’ was initially used by Bateman and Organ (1983) and Smith et al. (1983) in research that sought to analyze the nature, causes, and effects of this type of performance in two banking institutions. In that study, the authors found two main factors that fit this type of behavior: altruism, which includes those behaviors that have direct, immediate, and intentional effects on helping someone in a face-to-face situation (e.g., helping overburdened colleagues, helping colleagues who are absent for justified reasons, helping a supervisor with their work, making innovative suggestions for improvement, etc.); and conscientiousness, which includes behaviors that do not have immediate and direct effects on helping someone but contribute to better organizational functioning (e.g., arriving on time, giving advanced notice about planned and scheduled absences, taking short breaks, etc.) (Neves and Paixão 2014).

The most significant development of this construct, and perhaps one that is consensual, is attributed to Organ (1988). The behaviors of organizational citizenship represent voluntary actions that are not part of formal job requirements but contribute to effective organizational functioning. In Organ’s words, the construct refers to discretionary individual behaviors “not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal system of rewards, but which together promote the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ 1988, p. 4). From this perspective, organizational citizenship behaviors include three key characteristics: “(i) the voluntariness of the behavior, i.e., the failure to describe it in the analysis of functions or jobs, so that failure to do so is not punishable; (ii) their non-recognition or integration into the formal system of rewards; (iii) the idea that, on the whole, these behaviors promote the effective functioning of the organization” (Neves and Paixão 2014, p. 36).

Organizational citizenship behaviors are not formally required by functions, but they are becoming increasingly important in the strategies of so-called modern organizations to remain competitive and innovative in their operational activities (Tamunomiebi and Owere 2019). They also contribute to better organizational functioning by reinforcing effectiveness and productivity (Organ 1997), maximizing efficiency through increased employee commitment and performance (Muthuraman and Al-Haziaz 2017), promoting a collaborative organizational culture (Dawson et al. 2023), and enhancing professional satisfaction, commitment, and loyalty to work (Bhatla 2013). These behaviors also contribute to the perception of organizational justice (Rauf 2014) and the commitment to work through organizational recognition and support for career management (Latha 2017). For Bogler and Somech (2005), these behaviors are voluntary and multidimensional, and should generate benefits for the organization.

The construct of organizational citizenship behavior has been considered by some researchers (e.g., Ribeiro 2009; Tsai and Wu 2010; Pourgaz et al. 2015) from a multidimensional perspective, consisting of five factors: altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue.

Altruism is a voluntary, often unilateral, behavior in which the professional helps specific people with difficulties or organizationally relevant tasks, as well as newcomers or low-skilled people, without expectation of being rewarded for it (Pourgaz et al. 2015).

Conscientiousness describes the behavior of professionals who perform their functions, exceeding the minimum requirements or, at least, the expected requirements of the same exercise. This behavior indicates that an employee is organized, responsible, and works well. It is a behavior practiced, above all, by individuals who demonstrate high dedication to their work (Ribeiro 2009), optimizing, on an optional basis, the performance of organizational responsibilities beyond the determined work requirements.

Courtesy describes the behavior of professionals who are concerned with preventing possible future risks. These professionals act to avoid, or at least minimize, the occurrence of problems with/for others (Pourgaz et al. 2015), reducing the group conflicts and the time spent trying to solve these conflicts (Podsakoff et al. 2000; Ribeiro 2009).

Sportsmanship involves tolerating irritation within the organizational environment. An individual may avoid complaining about problems, tolerate uncomfortable situations, and adapt to difficulties/difficult working environments (Ribeiro 2009). This behavior shows tolerance and forgiveness without visible protest or discomfort, overvaluing the positive aspects of the organization (Pourgaz et al. 2015).

Civic virtue is related to the responsibilities and active functions that professionals assume as organizational citizens (Pourgaz et al. 2015). These professionals tend to show high levels of commitment and involvement, mainly due to their responsible participation in the organization’s political life (Ribeiro 2009). In this sense, a good organizational citizen should be aware of day-to-day issues, analyze them, comment on them, and actively participate in their resolution (Tsai and Wu 2010).

These behaviors are differently advocated and valued by professionals, die to several factors, including their sociodemographic characteristics.

2.2. Relationship between Sociodemographic Variables, Professional Variables, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Although there is no consensus on the various facets of organizational citizenship, studies on this concept reveal similarities; globally, they consider that it is a process that, through its relationship with other factors, contributes to the development of organizations (Freire and Gonçalves 2021; Dwivedi et al. 2015; Saleem et al. 2017). Indeed, the research results on organizational citizenship behaviors are abundant, but there is still a lack of theory-driven research on the relationships between sociodemographic variables, professional variables, and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel industry. There is no evidence from studies analyzing the importance of sociodemographic and professional variables in the national and international hotel sectors. The studies presented below aim to support the hypotheses and are the most cited studies in the literature, which include diverse sectors such as the public sector, educational sector, and financial sector, among others.

The background of organizational citizenship behaviors has been analyzed in several international investigations on organizational behavior (e.g., Worku and Debela 2024; Ndoja and Malekar 2020). We will focus on the systematization of investigations centered on causal models, focusing on the analysis of the relationship between individual variables and organizational citizenship behaviors. There are different perspectives on this relationship, and some even contradict them (Berbaoui et al. 2015; Toga et al. 2014). However, the dominant perspective supports the existence of a relationship between the two dimensions, where professionals tend to make a discretionary effort in their work, creating value for the organization according to its personal and individual characteristics (Akbar et al. 2019; Bello et al. 2018; Shankar and Prabhakara 2018; Badawy et al. 2017; Bhatla 2017; Saleem et al. 2017; Dirican and Erdil 2016; Dwivedi et al. 2015; Pavalache-Iliea 2014; Mahnaz et al. 2013).

Although some studies indicate no correlation between organizational citizenship behaviors and some individual and personal characteristics (Thevi and Prya 2022; Badawy et al. 2017; Dirican and Erdil 2016; Berbaoui et al. 2015), other studies indicate a significant relationship, considering the global citizenship behaviors and specific types of citizenship behaviors. In fact, some studies even conclude that there are statistically significant relationships between organizational citizenship behaviors and all individual variables (Saleem et al. 2017; Dwivedi et al. 2015).

Saleem et al. (2017) showed that sociodemographic and professional variables are important in promoting organizational citizenship behaviors, in their various dimensions, among university professors in Punjab (Pakistan), e.g., sociodemographic and professional characteristics (gender, age, professional category, job designation, job experience) are significantly associated with organizational citizenship behaviors. Dwivedi et al. (2015) assessed the organizational citizenship behaviors of employees with respect to their demographic levels in the Indian business process outsourcing sector. Through stratified random sampling, 524 employees from the top, middle, and lower levels were selected from 15 business process outsourcing units in and around Chandigarh. Their results revealed that the organizational citizenship behaviors of employees, in their various dimensions, differed across various age groups, educational levels, seniority levels, marital status groups, and management levels.

In addition to these studies, which reveal relationships between the various types of organizational citizenship behaviors and all individual variables, others exist that only identify relationships with some specific sociodemographic characteristics, which deserve to be analyzed individually.

The impact of demographic variables (gender and age) on organizational citizenship behavior was studied by Thevi and Prya (2022) and Bhatla (2017). Thevi and Prya (2022) identified relationships among organizational citizenship behaviors (employees above 50 years of age exhibited better organizational citizenship behaviors, and there were gender differences between employees in the banking sector in Mandurai, India). Bhatla (2017) found that male employees in the banking sector in Lucknow, India, showed more organizational citizenship behaviors than female employees—males were more conscientious than females in the banking sector. Employees between the ages of 36 and 45 showed more organizational citizenship behaviors in the financial sector.

Concomitantly, Bello et al. (2018) examined the effect of demographic variables on organizational citizenship behaviors in the wire and cable industry in Southwestern Nigeria. The results showed that age and gender had an overall significant effect on the organizational citizenship behaviors of employees. For instance, gender had a significant effect on organizational citizenship behaviors (males exhibit better organizational citizenship behaviors than females) and there is a significant relationship between gender and organizational citizenship behaviors (employees above 50 years of age exhibit better organizational citizenship behaviors than those below that age). It is an expected assumption that, with age, which brings more professional and life experience, people experience less intense anger because they learn to cope with it more effectively (Thomas 2002).

At the higher education level, Saleem et al. (2017) conducted a survey among professors from 18 public and private sector universities in Punjab (Pakistan). Their findings showed that sociodemographic and professional variables are important in promoting organizational citizenship behaviors, in their various dimensions, among university professors: sociodemographic characteristics like gender and age are significantly associated with organizational citizenship behaviors, which follow the same line as presented by some studies previously mentioned.

Dirican and Erdil (2016) also studied the relationship between age, gender, and both organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors of academicians at public universities in Turkey. The results indicated that older academic staff members display more organizational citizenship behaviors and less counterproductive work behaviors than younger staff members. Even though these authors did not statistically find significant relationships between the gender variable and organizational citizenship behaviors, women became less engaged in counterproductive work behaviors in their organizations.

Finally, regarding higher education institutes in Pakistan, Akbar et al. (2019) evaluated the impact of biographical variables (age and gender) on organizational citizenship behaviors from employees. The findings of their study revealed a significant positive effect of age and gender on the employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors and in academic settings at these institutions, suggesting that their managers and leaders should take these variables into account while making and implementing policies and strategies in higher education settings.

With this information considered, we hypothesize the following:

H1. 

Gender is statistically significantly correlated with global organizational citizenship behaviors and different types of citizenship behaviors.

H2. 

Age is statistically significantly correlated with global organizational citizenship behaviors and different types of citizenship behaviors.

Regarding “academic qualifications” and “professional category” variables, Dirican and Erdil (2016) concluded that research assistants display less predisposed and engaging behaviors when helping their colleagues compared to associate professors at public universities in Turkey. This staff group has a higher academic rank, holds greater administrative positions, and earns higher salaries. Therefore, they would likely feel more integrated into the organization and display more organizational citizenship behaviors.

Shankar and Prabhakara (2018) found a strong correlation between the position category and organizational citizenship behaviors among white-collar employees working in public sector companies in India. The findings of this study showed that employees at middle and senior levels exhibited more organizational citizenship behaviors than their counterparts.

Pavalache-Iliea (2014) conducted a study in Romania on contract-based employees from the army and employees from public and private organizations and concluded that the education level of individuals is also a main variable with explanatory and predictive value in organizational citizenship, meaning that people with higher education levels become more involved in volunteer behaviors.

In a comparative study, Badawy et al. (2017) extracted two samples of MBA candidates who worked in private service and manufacturing organizations (in Egypt and Mexico), having observed differences in the managerial levels regarding citizenship behaviors. The results were significant, with statistical differences.

Based on these assumptions, the following hypotheses are established:

H3. 

Academic qualifications are statistically significantly correlated with global organizational citizenship behaviors and different types of citizenship behaviors.

H4. 

The professional category is statistically significantly correlated with global organizational citizenship behavior and different types of citizenship behaviors.

Regarding the “seniority” variable, Bello et al. (2018) concluded that there was an overall significant effect on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors. The number of years spent in an organization would increase one’s commitment to the organization and, thus, lead to higher citizenship behavior performance, that is, employees who have spent more than 15 years in service exhibited better citizenship behaviors.

In the same line of argument, Bhatla (2017), Saleem et al. (2017), and Mahnaz et al. (2013) showed that seniority is important in promoting organizational citizenship behaviors. Firstly, employees with more professional seniority and, therefore, more experience in the financial sector (from 11 to 35 years of experience) revealed higher levels of organizational citizenship behaviors. Secondly, job tenure for several years was found to be a significant predictor of citizenship behaviors and employee empowerment (the longer an employee worked for the organization, the more empowerment they had and the higher the level of organizational citizenship they had). Thirdly, employees with more than 31 years of working experience showed the highest levels of organizational citizenship behaviors. Therefore, the number of years with an organization can increase one’s commitment to an organization and, thus, enhance organizational citizenship behavior performance.

Dirican and Erdil (2016) also studied the relationship between tenure and organizational citizenship behaviors. Their results reveal that academic staff with higher tenure become less engaged in counterproductive work behavior in an organization. Another finding of this study is that research assistants are less predisposed to assist and less engaged in helping their colleagues compared to associate professors. This group has a higher academic rank, holds greater administrative positions, is more likely to be tenured, and earns higher salaries. Therefore, they would likely feel more integrated into the organization and, thus, display more organizational citizenship behaviors.

These arguments allow us to construct the following hypothesis:

H5. 

Seniority is statistically significantly correlated with global organizational citizenship behavior and different types of citizenship behaviors.

Although there is no consensus in the conceptual matrix and the relational dynamics between organizational citizenship behavior and sociodemographic and professional variables, it appears that these types of behaviors, specifically associated with ways of being and existing in context, contribute to qualitatively leveraging the functioning of organizations. This is particularly so because they embody the relationships between employees and their contexts. The dynamic relationships they maintain with sociodemographic and professional variables and the effects they produce on individuals and organizations, make those responsible for organizations consider them when structuring of organizational management processes (Buil-Fabregà et al. 2017).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Conceptual Framework

The proposed research model explores the nature of organizational citizenship behaviors, seeking to identify and analyze the relationship between sociodemographic and professional variables and the organizational citizenship behaviors of employees in the Portuguese hotel industry.

To achieve this objective, at the methodological level, this research involves quantitative and correlational perspectives (Field 2009): quantitative, because it is based on the application of a questionnaire survey; correlational, because it analyzes the relationship between sociodemographic and professional variables and the organizational citizenship behaviors of hotel employees.

To carry out the study, the model adopted analytically interpretative logic and incorporated contributions from different authors, such as Akbar et al. (2019), Shankar and Prabhakara (2018), Saleem et al. (2017), and Mahnaz et al. (2013), regarding the relationship between antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors, verifying if sociodemographic and professional variables are, or are not, explanatory of different types of organizational citizenship behaviors (Figure 1).

An ex post facto design was adopted in this study because the variables were not manipulated by the researcher. Based on the literature review, a cross-sectional research design was adopted (Ahiauzu and Asawo 2016) and a multivariate statistic was used to test the hypotheses.

3.2. Data Collection Techniques

The present study adopted quantitative research methods. This is a descriptive and comprehensive study that describes the characteristics of a given phenomenon or population and the relationships between variables. The facts were analyzed and interpreted by the researcher without being influenced by them.

Through the questionnaire survey, an attempt was made to access, essentially, information related to the respondents’ opinion regarding organizational citizenship behaviors, in their different dimensions, as well as sociodemographic and professional characteristics. The questions were formulated to infer the causal direction between the dimensions of analysis.

As we are not aware of any research carried out in Portugal that confirms the psychometric properties of the organizational citizenship behavior instrument created by Konovsky and Organ (1996), we used the version applied to the national context by Ribeiro (2009). The final model used by Ribeiro (2009) considered 17 items related to the five dimensions of the construct as statistically adequate (adjustment indices were considered satisfactory, the Lambdas were all greater than 0.60, except one, which was very close, −0.59; Cronbach’s Alphas were also adequate—all greater than 0.70). The 17 items were evaluated on a Likert scale with 5 points (ranging from 1 “totally disagree” to 5 “totally agree”): 4 items from the altruism dimension; 3 items from the courtesy dimension; 3 items from the conscientiousness dimension; 4 items from the sportsmanship dimension; and 3 items of the civic virtue dimension. Regarding sociodemographic and professional characteristics, the following variables were used: gender, age, academic qualification, professional position, and seniority.

3.3. Population, Participants, and Procedure

This research was carried out in Portugal among employees from various types of hotels and hotel categories. The study’s objective focuses on employees from hotel establishments from all over the country. To obtain information on trends, convenience sampling was chosen through privileged contacts between the author and professionals in the hotel sector in Portugal. This option was mainly due to the ease of access and the difficulty in compiling all the units (Hair et al. 2010). Through these contacts, hotels were selected that met the following requirements: hotel companies in activity, belonging to the different categories (5-star hotels, 4-star hotels, 3-star hotels, 2-star hotels, and 1-star hotels). After identifying a set of 22 hotel establishments, a meeting was held with the person in charge of the hotel, or someone nominated by them, to explain the objectives of the study.

Subsequently, the following inclusion criteria for participants in this study were defined: (i) employees with a contract with the hotel unit; (ii) in service at the time of data collection; (iii) with an active email account; (iv) belonging to one of the following categories: directors/managers, supervisors, technicians, or operatives/undifferentiated employees.

The questionnaires were conducted via a web-based platform. The employees received information about the collection process and were told that the survey would be answered at two different times to eliminate potential concerns about a common method bias in the performed analysis. Employees also received an invitation with a participation code to access the questionnaire survey, a description of the goal of the project, and a general description of the data collection procedure. The voluntary nature of participation was highlighted upon making initial contact with the participants. To ensure that the study participants’ motivation was solely to contribute their opinions, participants did not receive any reward for their collaboration.

The responses to the questionnaires could be recorded by the participants, allowing them to be completed at different times. Respondents were not grouped to preserve the assumption of independent observations. Questions were written in a way to infer the causal direction between the dimensions of analysis. Data can, therefore, be considered cross-sectional throughout the cut, making it possible to determine the direction of causality. To further reduce the risk of common method bias, different formats and/or ranges were used for organizational citizenship behavior measures (Podsakoff et al. 2000).

Two waves of questionnaires were distributed to collect data in April 2021 (Survey Time 1—ST1) and in October 2021 (Survey Time 2), which are periods that precede the high seasons and may lead to a higher response rate. The respondents were the same in ST1 and ST2. The consistency of participants in ST1 and ST2 was ensured by identifying them through a code.

Regarding ST1, 1651 questionnaires were distributed, 1235 of which were recovered, with a recovery rate of 74.8%. Of the recovered questionnaires, 89 were invalid, and 1146 were valid. Valid questionnaires accounted for 69.4% of all the applied questionnaires. Regarding ST2, 1146 questionnaires were distributed, consisting of the employees who participated in ST1. After a one-to-one match for the data collected in ST1 and ST2, 798 valid questionnaires were obtained, with a valid questionnaire recovery rate of 69.6%.

The results analysis was based on the weighted average of the respondents’ answers to the two questionnaires (e.g., item 3 from compromising style: ST1, answered 5 from the scale, and ST2 answered 3 from the scale—the final score was 4).

The ethical and deontological precepts of the Declaration of Helsinki for research were adhered to throughout the research. Participation was possible by those responsible for the hotel units or those responsible for the area of people management. As ethical procedures, voluntary participation, anonymity, and confidentiality of the participants were also guaranteed. Free and informed consent was obtained from the participants, with a description of the study’s objective and a general description of the data collection procedure. Consent was available on the web-based platform, where the questionnaire was applied, and the access link was sent to the participants.

3.4. Data Analysis

Once the process of applying the questionnaire was completed, the data were exported and analyzed through the SPSS29 program (Marôco 2018). The quantitative analysis involved gathering univariate and multivariate analysis techniques that aimed to assess the magnitude and direction of associations or correlations between the study variables.

A descriptive analysis of the data was carried out through the analysis of frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviation, asymmetry, and kurtosis.

To analyze the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used with a confidence interval greater than 0.70 (Streiner 2003). Pearson’s r coefficient was used to verify the associations between the model variables, considering that <0.200 is very low; 0.200 to 0.399 is low; 0.400 to 0.699 is moderate; 0.700 to 0.899 is high; and 0.900 to 1 is very high (Marôco 2018).

To test the validity of the questionnaire, factor analysis was performed, with factor loading values (λ) greater than 0.40 considered acceptable (Brown 2015). The normality analysis of the variables included in the model was performed. The parametric tests (ANOVA or t-student) were quite robust when the distribution under study was not normal and when the distribution under study had considerable asymmetry (As < 2) and kurtosis (Ct < 7) (Finney and DiStefano 2013). When these assumptions of normality were verified, the t-student and one-way ANOVA tests were used for independent samples, to verify if there were statistical differences between the variables under study. Pearson’s r correlation coefficient was used to perform the convergent validity analysis of the instrument items, assessing the magnitude and direction of the associations between the variables (Marôco 2018).

3.5. Sample

The final sample consisted of 798 employees belonging to the following categories of hotels: 5-star hotels (335 employees), 4-star hotels (179 employees), 3-star hotels (95 employees), 2-star hotels (117 employees), and 1-star hotels (72 employees).

The sample characterization was mainly composed of employees, as follows: males (57.4%), participants between 30–39 (20.2%) and 25–29 years of age (19.2%); participants with secondary school education (43.5%), operatives/undifferentiated employees (37.8%), participants with middle levels of seniority (36.0% and 33.1% had been with the institution for 3–5 years or 6–10 years, respectively) (

Table 1. Sample characterization.

Percentage	Frequency	Variables
57.40%	458	Male	Gender
42.60%	340	Female
10.00%	80	Up to 24 years
19.20%	153	25–29 years
20.20%	161	30–34 years
10.50%	84	35–39 years	Age
17.30%	138	40–44 years
16.70%	133	45–50 years
6.10%	49	More than 50 years
13.70%	109	Up to 3 years
36.00%	287	3–5 years
33.10%	264	6–10 years	Seniority
9.30%	74	11–15 years
8.00%	64	More than 15 years
13.20%	128	Up to 9th year or equivalent	Qualifications
43.50%	347	12th year or equivalent
32.60%	260	Degree
7.90%	63	Master’s degree or more
8.30%	68	Directors/managers (upper and middle)	Professional Category
2.70%	165	Supervisors
33.20%	265	Technicians
37.80%	302	Operatives/undifferentiated employees (receptionists, doormen, cooks, bartenders, waiters, helpers, interns, and others)

N = 798. Source: own elaboration.

).

4. Results

Based on the study objectives and hypotheses, the results of the empirical study are presented below. We begin by systematizing the results related to the sociodemographic and professional characterizations of the sample and the dimensions of organizational citizenship, and subsequently present and discuss the results related to the relationships between both (sociodemographic variables, professional variables, and organizational citizenship behaviors of employees in the hotel sector).

4.1. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

We carried out the factorial analysis and the study of internal consistency to analyze the internal validity of the questionnaire survey scales. Thus, in the first stage, to analyze the data concerning the components of organizational citizenship, a factorial analysis of the main components in their five dimensions was carried out (Marôco 2018). Due to low factor loading (below 0.40) compared with other items, item 15.VC (“Stays informed about what is happening in the organization”) was deleted from the scale of civic virtue of organizational citizenship. In total, two items were used. After the above item was removed, the commonality values of all remaining items were greater than 0.40 (the values were between 0.866 to 0.990), indicating that the information on the items could be extracted effectively.

In the current study, the reliability of the subscales of conflict management was supported by high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, respectively, altruism (a = 0.984), sportsmanship (a = 0.988), courtesy (a = 0.860), conscientiousness (a = 0.949), and civic virtue (a = 0.965) (

Table 2. Confirmatory factorial analysis on organizational citizenship.

Alpha Coefficients	Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
	Altruism
0.984	1. (A) Helps others to become more productive
0.988	2. (A) Helps people when they are overworked
0.982	3. (A) Helps people who have been absent
0.97	4. (A) Shares his work with others to help them in their work
0.984	Alfa total
	Sportsmanship
0.979	5. (D) Is always complaining about trivial matters.
0.986	6. (D) Shows unwillingness to face any change introduced by the organization’s management.
0.99	7. (D) Is always finding defects in what the organization does.
0.98	8. (D) Only thinks about his own work problems.
0.988	Alfa total
	Courtesy
0.866	9. (C) Respect the rights and benefits of other persons.
0.929	10. (C) Avoids creating problems for others.
0.909	11. (C) No abuse of rights and benefits.
0.860	Alfa total
	Conscientiousness
0.981	12. (CO) Is always on time.
0.941	13. (CO) Attendance is above average.
0.961	14. (CO) Notices in advance when he cannot be at work.
0.949	Alfa total
	Civic Virtue
0.983	16. (VC) Makes suggestions on how to improve the functioning of the organization.
0.983	17. (VC) Is concerned about preserving the image of the organization.
0.965	Alfa total

Extraction method: analysis of the main components. Varimax method: Varimax with Kaiser standardization. Source: own elaboration.

).

Based on composite reliability, the internal consistency of indicators for each dimension of organizational citizenship was tested. The results obtained corroborate the presence of five main factors with very significant values, and the respective indicators are clearly grouped in their respective dimensions (Table 2). The indicators have scattered factor weights between a = 0.866 (9.C “Respects the rights and benefits of other persons” included in the courtesy dimension) and a = 0.990 (7.D “Is always finding defects in what the organization does” included in the sportsmanship dimension).

Concerning the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test for sample suitability and Bartlett’s test for sphericity on the organizational citizenship scale, the results show fitting values and reveal good variances explained: for conflict management, KMO (0.920) and Bartlett’s sphericity (χ2(130) = 24,510.310; p < 0.01) with a total explained variance of 67.23%.

After checking the validity of the scales, a descriptive analysis of the data was made (

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of organizational citizenship.

Kurtosis	Asymmetry	Standard Deviation	Average	Max Value	Min Value	Variables
−1.765	0.106	1.563	2.9	5	1	Altruism
−1.379	0.614	1.609	2.37	5	1	Sportsmanship
−1.41	0.71	0.944	3.64	5	1	Courtesy
−1.405	0.212	1.061	3.37	5	1	Citizenship
6.367	−2.024	0.68	4.54	5	1	Civic Virtue
−1.129	0.467	0.917	3.36	5	1	Global OCB

N = 798. Source: own elaboration.

). Regarding the analysis of the normality of the variables included in the model, the data obtained were in accordance with that established by Finney and DiStefano (2013), who set 2 (asymmetry) and 7 (kurtosis) as the maximum values allowed, respectively. The results indicate that the employees of these organizations advocate for different organizational citizenship behaviors.

Concerning organizational citizenship behaviors (Table 3), overall, this is a process that is present in the hotel industry. Considering that the items are assessed on a Likert scale of 5 points, the cut-off point is 2.5. The overall average value for global organizational citizenship (3.36) is higher than the average value of the scale.

In specific terms, all dimensions of organizational citizenship have means above the midpoint of the scale (2.5): civic virtue (4.54) stands out as the most recommended dimension in average terms; sportsmanship (2.37) stands out as the least recommended dimension in average terms.

4.2. Relationship between Sociodemographic Variables, Professional Variables, and Organizational Citizenship

To analyze the relationship between sociodemographic variables, professional variables, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Pearson’s correlation coefficient r was used to perform convergent validity analyses of instrument items, assessing the magnitude and direction of associations between the variables. This correlation coefficient is revealed to be the most appropriate method to analyze the relationship between two variables measured by the interval scale (Hill and Hill 2005).

Table 4. Correlations among the study variables.

C.C.V.	C.Co.	C.C.	C.S.	C.A.	P.C.	Q.	S.	A.	G.	Variables
									-	G.
								-	0.007	A.
							-	−0.027	−0.01	S.
						-	−0.02	−0.065	0.019	Q.
					-	−0.019	−0.069	−0.107 **	−0.016	P.C.
				-	−0.048	0.003	−0.081 *	0.173 **	−0.007	C.A.
			-	0.676 **	−0.052	0.014	0.084 *	−0.146 **	−0.016	C.S.
		-	0.662 **	0.866 **	−0.048	−0.012	0.101 **	0.141 **	−0.012	C.C.
	-	0.889 **	0.665 **	0.913 **	−0.036	−0.008	0.093 **	0.131 **	−0.001	C.Co.
-	−0.078 **	−0.115 **	−0.311 **	−0.272 **	0.058	−0.029	0.017	0.077 *	0.042	C.C.V.
−0.095 **	0.947 **	0.922 **	0.825 **	0.927 **	−0.004	−0.002	0.102 **	0.158 **	−0.004	G.O.C.B.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.005 level (2-tailed). Legend: G.—gender; A.—age; S.—seniority; Q. qualifications; P.C.—professional category; C.A.—citizenship altruism; C.S.—citizenship sportsmanship; C.C.—citizenship courtesy; C.Co.—citizenship conscientiousness; C.C.V.—citizenship civic virtue; G.O.C.B.—global organizational citizenship behavior.

shows that only some of the variables are associated with each other and are statistically significant (Table 4). The values of the associations range from very weak (r between 0.000 and 0.200), to weak (r between 0.200 and 0.399), moderate (r between 0.400 and 0.699), and strong (r between 0.700 and 1), according to Pestana and Gageiro (2014), and some have statistical significance.

The associations with the highest statistical significance are found between the variable’s global organizational citizenship behavior and conscientious citizenship (r = 0.947, p < 0.001), altruism (r = 0.927, p < 0.001), and courtesy (r = 0.922, p < 0.001), as well as among conscientiousness citizenship and altruism (r = 0.913, p < 0.001) and courtesy (0.889, p < 0.001). The global organizational citizenship behaviors (7), their various types (7), except for civic virtue (5), and age (7), are the dimensions that have the largest numbers of statistically significant associations. It should be noted that some of the dimensions do not show any statistically significant associations (gender and qualifications).

The three dimensions of the organizational citizenship behavior construct are related to each other. The results point to a statistically significant association, positive and/or negative, between the different types of organizational citizenship behaviors. The civic virtue dimension has a negative and statistically significant correlation with all other citizenship behavior types. The altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness dimensions show positive correlations with all other behaviors (except for civic virtue, whose relationship is negative), which are moderate and strong correlations.

We systematize the results of the relationships between the variables, as formulated in the study hypotheses. Due to the complexity of the study model, we divide the analysis into two figures (Figure 2—global citizenship behaviors; Figure 3—types of citizenship behaviors). In Figure 3, we specifically highlight the statistically significant relationships between the five specific types of organizational citizenship behaviors studied.

The results show that there is no statistically significant correlation between the gender variable and the overall organizational citizenship behavior (r = −0.004, p > 0.005). Moreover, the results reveal a non-existent statistically significant correlation relationship between the gender variable and organizational citizenship in all five dimensions: altruism (r = −0.007, p > 0.005), sportsmanship (r = −0.016, p > 0.005), courtesy (r = −0.012, p > 0.005), conscientiousness (r = −0.001, p > 0.005), and civic virtue (r = 0.014, p > 0.005). These results were confirmed by the Student’s t-test, with the results showing the absence of a relationship with global organizational citizenship (t = 0.43, p = 0.54), and in all dimensions of citizenship behaviors: altruism (t = 1.88, p = 0.72), courtesy (t = 0.33, p = 0.86), conscientiousness (t = 0.02, p = 0.93), civic virtue (t =−1.004, p = 0.71), and sportsmanship (t = 0.45, p = 0.81).

Regarding age, there was a positive correlation between the ages of hotel employees and organizational citizenship behavior, indicating that this type of behavior differs from the age of hotel employees in the institution—older employees tend to show more organizational citizenship behaviors. There is a weak but statistically significant linear association with citizenship behavior, globally considered (r = 0.158, p < 0.01). At the level of its sub-dimensions, age has a weak, linear, positive association that is statistically significant with altruism citizenship, courtesy citizenship, conscientiousness citizenship, and civic virtue citizenship, as well as a weak negative positive association that is statistically significant with sportsmanship (Table 4).

This was also confirmed in the global organizational citizenship behavior through the one-way ANOVA test analysis (F = 3.97, p < 0.001) (

Table 5. Organizational citizenship by age.

Dimensions	Age	Average	SD	F	Sig.
Altruism	Up to 24 years	2.88	1.63	4.80	0.00
	25–29 years	2.55	1.48
	30–34 years	2.75	1.52
	35–39 years	2.55	1.53
	40–44 years	3.26	1.57
	45–50 years	3.26	1.56
	More than 50 years	3.05	1.58
Sportsmanship	Up to 24 years	2.24	1.59	3.28	0.03
	25–29 years	2.10	1.49
	30–34 years	2.28	1.59
	35–39 years	2.02	1.49
	40–44 years	2.72	1.70
	45–50 years	2.62	1.65
	More than 50 years	2.56	1.67
Courtesy	Up to 24 years	3.65	0.96	3.07	0.01
	25–29 years	3.46	0.89
	30–34 years	3.56	0.88
	35–39 years	3.51	0.94
	40–44 years	3.83	0.96
	45–50 years	3.78	1.01
	More than 50 years	3.79	0.98
Conscientiousness	Up to 24 years	3.40	1.59	2.94	0.01
	25–29 years	3.17	1.50
	30–34 years	3.32	1.60
	35–39 years	3.17	1.49
	40–44 years	3.54	1.70
	45–50 years	3.56	1.65
	More than 50 years	3.50	1.67
Civic Virtue	Up to 24 years	4.63	0.55	1.17	0.32
	25–29 years	4.57	0.69
	30–34 years	4.54	0.65
	35–39 years	4.64	0.66
	40–44 years	4.48	0.66
	45–50 years	4.44	0.83
	More than 50 years	4.54	0.55
Global OCB	Up to 24 years	3.36	0.94	3.97	0.00
	25–29 years	3.17	0.83
	30–34 years	3.29	0.87
	35–39 years	3.18	0.89
	40–44 years	3.57	0.97
	45–50 years	3.53	0.95
	More than 50 years	3.49	0.94

N = 798.

). The organizational citizenship behavior differs according to the age of employees in all dimensions, except for civic virtue citizenship (F = 1.17, p = 0.32). The older employees (more than 40 years old) developed more organizational citizenship behaviors than younger ones in all remaining dimensions. The older employees developed organizational citizenship behaviors consisting of greater altruism (F = 4.80, p < 0.001), sportsmanship (F = 3.28, p < 0.005), courtesy (F = 3.07, p < 0.005), and conscientiousness (F = 2.94, p < 0.005). The post hoc Scheffe test showed that differences manifested themselves mainly at the global citizenship level, between professionals from 40 to 44 years of age and professionals from 25 to 29 years (DMSScheffe = 0.40, p < 0.005), as well as in altruism citizenship between professionals from 40 to 44 years of age, 45 to 40 years, and 25 to 29 years (DMSScheffe = 0.71, p < 0.005 and DMSScheffe = 0.71, p < 0.005, respectively).

Regarding academic qualifications, there is no significant correlation between the qualifications of hotel unit employees and organizational citizenship behavior, indicating that organizational citizenship does not differ according to academic qualifications. There is a low negative linear association that is not statistically reduced with global organizational citizenship (r = −0.002, p > 0.005); low positive associations that are not statistically stated with altruism and sportsmanship (r = 0.003 and r = 0.014 with p > 0.005, respectively); and low negative linear associations that are not statistically meaningful with courtesy, conscientiousness, and civic virtue (r = −0.012, r = −0.008, and r = −0.029 with p > 0.005, respectively) (Table 4).

These results were confirmed by the one-way ANOVA test, with the results showing the absence of a relationship: global citizenship (F = 2.79, p = 0.72), altruism (F = 2.79, p = 0.72), courtesy (F = 2.79, p = 0.72) conscientiousness (F = 2.79, p = 0.72), civic virtue (F = 2.79, p = 0.72), and sportsmanship (F = 2.79, p = 0.72). The post hoc Scheffe test revealed no significant differences between the qualifications of hotel employees and organizational citizenship behaviors.

In the variable professional category, positive and negative relationships with organizational citizenship were found, but without statistical significance, indicating that organizational citizenship does not differ according to the professional category. There is a low negative linear association with general organizational citizenship that is not statistically significant (r = −0.004, p > 0.005); low negative associations that are not statistically stated with altruism, sportsmanship, courtesy, and conscientiousness (r = −0.048, r = −0.052, r = −0.048, and r = −0.036 with p > 0.005, respectively); and low positive linear associations with civic virtue that are not statistically meaningful (r = 0.0582 p > 0.005) (Table 4).

These results were confirmed by the one-way ANOVA test, with the results showing the absence of a relationship: global citizenship (F = 2.25, p = 0.08), altruism (F = 2.66, p = 0.05), courtesy (F = 2.98, p = 0.03), conscientiousness (F = 1.31, p = 0.27), civic virtue (F = 2.41, p = 0.67), and sportsmanship (F = 3.01, p = 0.03). The post hoc Scheffe test revealed no significant differences between the professional category of hotel employees and organizational citizenship behaviors.

The results show a positive association that is very weak and statistically significant between the seniority variable and general organizational citizenship (r = −0.10, p < 0.001), suggesting that, in general terms, hotel employees advocate behaviors of organizational citizenship differently due to their length of service in the organization (Table 4). In analytical terms, only the altruism dimension (r = −0.08, p < 0.005) has a negative and statistically significant association with organizational citizenship behaviors. Most dimensions of organizational citizenship have low positive correlations with organizational citizenship, demonstrating predictive importance in their explanation since these relationships are statistically significant (except civic virtue: r = −0.02, p > 0.005).

This was also confirmed in global organizational citizenship behaviors through the one-way ANOVA test analysis (F = 4.17, p < 0.001), altruism (F = 4.19, p < 0.001), sportsmanship (F = 2.52, p < 0.005), courtesy (F = 3.19, p < 0.005), and conscientiousness (F = 4.01, p < 0.001) (

Table 6. Organizational citizenship by seniority.

Dimensions.	Seniority	Average	SD	F	Sig.
Altruism	Up to 3 years	2.70	1.55	4.19	0.00
	3–5 years	2.86	1.56
	6–10 years	2.94	1.56
	11–15 years	2.55	1.52
	More than 16 years	3.54	1.52
Sportsmanship	Up to 3 years	2.14	1.52	2.52	0.04
	3–5 years	2.31	1.56
	6–10 years	2.45	1.65
	11–15 years	2.20	1.60
	More than 16 years	2.85	1.75
Courtesy	Up to 3 years	3.51	0.95	3.19	0.01
	3–5 years	3.60	0.91
	6–10 years	3.69	0.98
	11–15 years	3.57	0.96
	More than 16 years	3.98	0.85
Conscientiousness	Up to 3 years	3.20	1.03	4.01	0.00
	3–5 years	3.35	1.05
	6–10 years	3.41	1.08
	11–15 years	3.19	1.01
	More than 16 years	3.80	1.05
Civic Virtue	Up to 3 years	4.57	0.72	0.51	0.73
	3–5 years	4.51	0.89
	6–10 years	4.53	0.71
	11–15 years	4.62	0.55
	More than 16 years	4.55	0.56
Global OCB	Up to 3 years	3.22	0.88	4.17	0.00
	3–5 years	3.32	0.89
	6–10 years	3.41	0.94
	11–15 years	3.23	0.90
	More than 16 years	3.74	0.94

N = 798.

). Organizational citizenship behaviors differ according to the seniority of employees in all dimensions, except for civic virtue citizenship (F = 0.51, p = 0.73). The employees with the longest seniority develop more organizational citizenship behaviors than those with less seniority in the organization.

The post hoc Scheffe test showed that differences manifested themselves mainly at the level of global citizenship, between professionals with <3 years and 3–5 years with >16 years (DMSScheffe = −0.52, p < 0.005 and DMSScheffe = −0.42, p < 0.005, respectively); altruism citizenship between professionals with <3 years seniority, 3–5 years, and 11–15 years seniority with >16 years seniority (DMSScheffe = −0.84, p < 0.005; DMSScheffe = −0.68, p < 0.005; DMSScheffe = −0.99, p < 0.001 respectively); courtesy citizenship between professionals with <3 years seniority with >16 years seniority (DMSScheffe = −0.48, p < 0.005); and conscientiousness citizenship between professionals with <3 years seniority, 3–5 years, and 11–15 years seniority with >16 years seniority (DMSScheffe = −0.60, p < 0.005; DMSScheffe = −0.45, p < 0.005; DMSScheffe = −0.60, p < 0.001 respectively).

In summary, regarding the analysis of the relationship between dimensions of organizational citizenship behaviors and the respondents’ sociodemographic and professional variables, the hypotheses that guide the specifications between the components of organizational citizenship and variables of gender (hypothesis 1), academic qualifications (hypothesis 3), and professional category (hypothesis 4) were not confirmed. In other words, gender, qualifications, and professional position do not influence the attitude of professionals toward organizational citizenship at work. The hypothesis that systematizes the specifications between organizational citizenship and age (hypothesis 2) and seniority (hypothesis 5) was confirmed, which indicates that these variables are determinants of the ways that employees behave in terms of organizational citizenship.

5. Discussion

The results show that hotel employees have different types of intensity levels regarding organizational citizenship behaviors. The average values of all dimensions are above the cut-off point (2.5). Employees in the hotel sector primarily exhibit civic virtue behaviors, that is to say, behaviors that tend to prevent, or at least minimize, the occurrence of problems with others (Pourgaz et al. 2015), assuming responsible participation in the political life of the organization as good organizational citizens (Tsai and Wu 2010), and showing high delivery and dedication to work (Ribeiro 2009) by performing organizational responsibilities beyond the determined work requirements. On the other hand, they tend to exhibit fewer sportsmanship behaviors and, therefore, are less tolerant of external manifestations of discomfort and irritation from the organizational environment (Pourgaz et al. 2015).

The presence of this function in this industry can be positive for the organization, leading employees to be more committed to the organization, and showing more positive attitudes toward work. Employees are more available to organizations, resulting in better interpersonal relationships and organizational climates and, therefore, better individual, and organizational performances.

Concerning the relationships between sociodemographic characteristics, professional characteristics, and organizational citizenship behaviors, the results are very pertinent for understanding the relationships but also require a critical and reflective look at their conclusions. On the one hand, correlations with statistical significance are demonstrated between organizational citizenship and the age and seniority variables, aligning with the studies that consider that organizational citizenship behaviors vary according to the sociodemographic and professional characteristics of employees. On the other hand, they show very weak correlations—without statistical significance—between organizational citizenship and gender, academic qualifications, and professional positions, aligning with studies that consider organizational citizenship behaviors to be invariant, i.e., not influenced by sociodemographic and professional characteristics of employees.

The first hypothesis states that hotel workers will significantly engage in organizational citizenship behaviors based on their gender. The relationships are not statistically significant, and hypothesis 1 is not confirmed, which means that being male or female has no influence on the greater or lesser realization of organizational citizenship behaviors, corroborating the investigations of Thevi and Prya (2022), Dirican and Erdil (2016), Berbaoui et al. (2015), and Toga et al. (2014), who found no statistically significant relationship between gender and global or different types of organizational citizenship.

While the findings of this study are consistent with the study’s results of those authors, they are inconsistent with other findings (Thevi and Prya 2022; Bello et al. 2018; Bhatla 2017; Dwivedi et al. 2015). In the hotel industry, commitment, dedication, and voluntarism in carrying out work are not determined by gender, but by management and leadership styles (Nazarian et al. 2020), as well as by the use of social practices (Madera et al. 2017; Newman et al. 2016).

The second hypothesis states that the ages of hotel workers determine the extent to which they advocate organizational citizenship behaviors. The analysis allows us to conclude that hypothesis 2 is confirmed. In this sense, there is a positive association between citizenship (global and all subdimensions, except civic virtue) and age, which allows us to infer that older employees exhibit more organizational citizenship behaviors. These results are in line with the results by Akbar et al. (2019), Bello et al. (2018), Saleem et al. (2017), Bhatla (2017), and Dwivedi et al. (2015), who identified differences in organizational citizenship according to age, pointing out that the levels are higher among older employees. It is understandable that as people grow older and gain experience, their anger becomes less intense because they learn to handle it more effectively, positively, and constructively (Thomas 2002), indicating that older employees tend to be more honest than younger employees (Dirican and Erdil 2016). Therefore, older workers might demonstrate more concern about the development of the organization and try to defend it from potential problems (and, thereby, display less organizational citizenship behaviors).

The third hypothesis states that hotel workers will significantly engage in organizational citizenship behaviors based on their academic qualifications. The findings show that involvement in voluntary behaviors is independent of workers’ education levels. In view of this, hypothesis 3 is not confirmed. The results contradict the conclusions by Pavalache-Iliea (2014) and Mahnaz et al. (2013), corroborating the positions of those who did not find significant positive relationships between academic qualifications and organizational citizenship behaviors (Thevi and Prya 2022; Badawy et al. 2017; Berbaoui et al. 2015). Indeed, hotel workers who have higher academic classifications occupy more strategic positions and earn higher salaries (Dirican and Erdil 2016). Therefore, it is expected that they would likely feel more integrated into the organization and show more organizational citizenship behaviors. This reveals an inconsistency in the influence of qualifications in determining these types of behaviors. Although it is not possible to determine why there is a difference in results, it can be assumed that differences may be situational or as a result of additional training related to professional skills that respondents had to undertake (Uzonwanne 2014).

The fourth hypothesis states that hotel workers will significantly engage in organizational citizenship behaviors based on their professional category. The results are not statistically significant, confirming those obtained by Badawy et al. (2017). Thus, hypothesis 4 is not confirmed—the greater or lesser hierarchical positions of employees in Portuguese hotel units do not influence the development of organizational citizenship behaviors. Indeed, hotel workers who have higher academic classifications occupy more strategic positions and earn higher salaries (Dirican and Erdil 2016). Therefore, it is expected that they would feel more integrated into the organization and show more organizational citizenship behaviors.

Similar to the statement regarding the academic qualification’s variable, the professional category more clearly determines the occupations of more strategic positions; this category is the target of human resources management practices that tend to be more qualifying. This means that they have greater access to information, more decision-making capacity, and higher salaries (Dirican and Erdil 2016). Therefore, it would be expected, for the most part, that these professionals would feel more integrated into the organization, evidencing higher organizational citizenship behaviors. This apparent contradiction is, however, supported by the fact that professionals from lower categories also aspire to occupy higher positions, seeing the development of these organizational citizenship behaviors as an opportunity to demonstrate proactivity, commitment, teamwork, the ability to support staff, and innovation—skills that are increasingly valued for potential future professional advancement in the hospitality sector (Sousa et al. 2018).

The fifth and final hypothesis states that hotel workers will significantly engage in organizational citizenship behaviors based on their seniority. The findings of this study reveal that workers who have been with the organization the longest tend to demonstrate more organizational citizenship behaviors—this supports hypothesis 5. These results are in line with the results obtained in various studies (Bello et al. 2018; Bhatla 2017; Saleem et al. 2017; Dwivedi et al. 2015; and Mahnaz et al. 2013). The authors believe that attitudes become consistent with people over time and that employees who have spent more years in the work field are more likely to show behaviors and attitudes of greater spontaneity, not formally prescribed, in and toward work. This is because there is more stability, commitment, and dedication in workers at higher levels of seniority (Bhatla 2017).

In this sense, it can be inferred that, in this sample, apart from the civic virtue dimension, seniority affects the way employees are in context regarding their posture, in terms of carrying out organizational citizenship behaviors. On the one hand, cultural traits related to higher seniority levels may influence management and problem-solving behaviors since organizational citizenship behaviors tend to promote a collaborative approach between workers and teams (Bello et al. 2018; Bhatla 2017). On the other hand, the dimension of civic virtue includes behaviors that reflect responsible participation in, involvement with, and concern about the life of the organization. Civic virtue considers attitudes where individuals should not only be aware of day-to-day issues but should analyze them, comment on them, and actively participate in their resolution (Tsai and Wu 2010), which is, in the hotel industry, more consistent with prescriptions indifferently associated with seniority.

The study’s findings offer some theoretical and practical insights that are beneficial for researchers, managers, and policymakers in Portugal’s hotel industry, highlighting the effects of demographic factors on citizenship behaviors and strategies for managing them.

As for theoretical implications, this research contributes to ways to systematize and operationalize an analytical model that allows us to understand, in an inter-relational and reflexive way, the dynamics established between the sociodemographic and professional variables and the organizational citizenship behaviors of employees of Portuguese hotel units in the hospitality context. Although other studies (in a national context) have already analyzed organizational citizenship behaviors in the hospitality industry (e.g., Freire and Gonçalves 2021), this is the first study that explores, in the hypothetical model, the different roles of each dimension of organizational citizenship behaviors in the relationship between the sociodemographic and professional characteristics of hotel employees. Thus, this study provides a measurement tool and bibliographic references for future research on organizational citizenship behaviors of Portuguese hotel staff—it addresses a research gap concerning how sociodemographic factors affect the organizational citizenship processes of hotel employees.

In terms of practical contributions, the results of this study are expected to support an organization’s goals by exploring various opinions and aligning them with corporate objectives. Managers, leaders, and policymakers should incentivize workers to adopt different organizational citizenship attitudes, tailoring their approaches based on sociodemographic variables to maximize positive outcomes. Enhanced decisions by managers, leaders, and policymakers, informed by employee insights, should aim to build effective relationships with workers, increasing their engagement (Zhao and Zhou 2020; Subba 2019; Koon and Chong 2018). This would help professionals demonstrate greater engagement, dedication, and positive attitudes toward work, as they feel valued and recognized as key contributors to the organization’s growth. In particular, in countries with strong individualistic cultures, hotel managers can take advantage of the importance and positive impacts of these types of citizenship behaviors to strengthen their organizational culture (Dawson et al. 2023; Sabuhari et al. 2020) and performance (Zhao and Zhou 2020).

Positive and integrative citizenship management practices can create win–win outcomes for all parties ((Thomas 2002). This study reveals that experienced and older employees can improve their effective organizational implications through these types of behaviors (Dirican and Erdil 2016). Additionally, cultural traits that emerge from longer organizational seniority may influence management and citizenship behaviors, promoting a collaborative attitude among its members (Bello et al. 2018; Bhatla 2017).

The findings of this study are also valuable for hotel management to understand individual differences and their impacts on organizational citizenship behaviors. These insights are crucial and could potentially change human resources strategies, making human resources management more flexible by strengthening the dimension of socially responsible human resources (Aldaiem and Abu-Helaleh 2022; Sabuhari et al. 2020; Newman et al. 2016). This study highlights the unavoidable differences in citizenship management strategies due to demographic characteristics and offers human resources managers guidance on conducting various functions (recruitment, training, development, assessment) through the development of positive practices (Cameron et al. 2012), i.e., positive organizational citizenship management (Latha 2017; Madera et al. 2017; Kumari and Pradhan 2014; Mahnaz et al. 2013).

By understanding which variables affect organizational citizenship behaviors and to what extent—training, behavioral assessments, performance evaluations, and supportive policies and practices should be designed to ensure harmonious and enthusiastic work environments. This approach can help cultivate a positive and harmonious work culture (Dawson et al. 2023), ultimately contributing to strong employer branding.

In summary, organizational citizenship influences the development and consolidation of organizations in different industries; this can be determined in some circumstances through sociodemographic and professional variables. The hospitality industry can obtain more advantages and better results, becoming more competitive and innovative when managers define and operationalize policies and practices focused on organizational behaviors (in this case, referring to the analysis of organizational citizenship behaviors), and taking into account people’s characteristics.

6. Conclusions

The main objective of this study was to analyze and reflect on the relationship between sociodemographic and professional variables and the organizational citizenship behaviors of employees of the Portuguese hotel sector. Although they exhibit different types and levels of organizational citizenship behaviors, the employees present mainly civic virtue behaviors. At the same time, the tendency for the development of citizenship attitudes proved to be closely related to some of the sociodemographic dimensions considered (age and seniority). The tendency for the development of some types of organizational citizenship behaviors finds evidence for this relationship.

If it is considered, as is commonly accepted, that organizational citizenship behaviors influence the development and consolidation of organizations—increasing worker commitment and satisfaction—and that this can be determined in certain circumstances by sociodemographic and professional variables, then hotel units obtaining competitive advantages when managers define policies and operationalize practices that improve these kinds of behaviors should also be considered.

At this level, the results should be able to support the organization’s goals in the hospitality industry, through efforts that explore the opinions of different characteristics, so that they can be aligned with corporate objectives. Managers and policymakers should use different organizational citizenship strategies and customize their management strategies according to sociodemographic and professional variables, which would allow them to maximize their positive effects, establish effective relationships with their workers, and involve them in the organization. This would allow employees to show more positive attitudes toward work.

The main limitations of this study are that it specifically targets the use of a single technique to collect information, conditioning the extrapolation of the results. Furthermore, the surveys applied were self-reported by the employees, whereby respondents’ subjective feelings may affect some results. This last limitation is partially resolved through the application of the questionnaire on two different occasions.

Given the relevance and complex nature of this area of study, for a more robust and refined perception of the relationship between sociodemographic variables and organizational citizenship behaviors, it is suggested that further research be carried out in other hospitality contexts (e.g., tourist resorts or inns), with different methodologies (different methods and data collection techniques). To consolidate the knowledge regarding this issue in the hotel sector, it will also be important to verify to what extent the analysis of the relationship between these two constructs varies with the incorporation of other variables, such as moderators or mediators, as well as organizational commitment or leadership.