lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21 (2014) 100e107Contents lists avaiJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Managementjournal homepage: http: / /www.journals .elsevier .com/journal -of -hospita l i ty-

and-tourism-managementCoworker support and organisational commitment: A comparativestudy of Thai employees working in Thai and American airlines

Thanawut Limpanitgul a, *, Pattana Boonchoo b, Supawadee Photiyarach c

a Faculty of Management Sciences, Kasetsart University, 199 M.6 Sukhumvit Road, Si Racha, Chonburi 20230, Thailandb Thammasat Business School, Thammasat University, 2 Prachan Road, Pranakorn, Bangkok 10200, Thailandc Faculty of Economics at Si Racha, Kasetsart University, 199 M.6 Sukhumvit Road, Si Racha, Chonburi 20230, Thailanda r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 3 February 2014Received in revised form16 June 2014Accepted 26 August 2014Available online

Keywords:Coworker supportOrganisational commitmentOrganisational cultureAirlineThai employees* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: fmstnl@src.ku.ac.th, topthana@

pattana@tbs.tu.ac.th (P. Boonchoo), photiyarach@gma

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.08.0021447-6770/ 2014 The Authors.a b s t r a c t

The importance of organisational commitment is simultaneously witnessed and empirically supported,with social support revealed as a significant determinant. A number of studies have examined the effectof culture on the development of employees' level of commitment to an organisation. These studiestypically focus on culture at either the individual or the national level. However, in an organisationalculture context, the literature regarding its influence on commitment remains limited. Therefore, theprimary objective of this study is to explore whether the influence of coworker support on the threedimensions of organisational commitment differs amongst Thai flight attendants working in organisa-tions with different cultural orientations. Using a self-administered questionnaire survey, data wascollected from a sample of 439 Thai cabin service attendants from two major flag-carrier airlines (onebased in Thailand and the other based in the USA). In general, results of structural equation modellinganalysis reveal significant differences with regard to influences of coworker support on organisationalcommitment amongst the two sample groups. Significant relationships between coworker support andaffective and normative components of organisational commitment were found in the Thai samplewhereas such relationships were not statistically significant in the US sample. However, negative in-fluence of coworker support on continuance commitment was found amongst Thai employees workingin the American airline. These results are discussed in light of their theoretical contribution andmanagerial implications.

2014 The Authors.1. Introduction

Organisational commitment is a job attitude that has attractedconsiderable research attention amongst management theoristsbecause it affects important work-related behaviours (Meyer &Allen, 1997). On the one hand, empirical studies, along with meta-analyses, show that organisational commitment is positively asso-ciated with organisationally desirable outcomes such as job per-formance, market orientation, organisational citizenship behaviour(OCB) and participation in organisational change activities. On theother hand, empirical evidence indicates negative associations be-tween organisational commitment and counterproductive workattitudes and behaviours, such as turnover intention and absen-teeism (see Cohen & Caspary, 2011; Limpanitgul, Jirotmontree,gmail.com (T. Limpanitgul),il.com (S. Photiyarach).Robson, & Boonchoo, 2013; Limpanitgul, Robson, Gould-Williams,& Lertthaitrakul, 2013; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky,2002; Oyeniyi, 2013; Riketta, 2002; Yucel, 2012). Indeed, many or-ganisations search for ways to develop their employees' level oforganisational commitment. However, the effort to promoteorganisational commitment amongst employees will be effectiveonly if it is based on a sound understanding of the relevant variables,including both determinants and contingent factors (Aube,Rousseau, & Morin, 2007; Rousseau & Aube, 2010). While thebody of research on organisational commitment has developed andmatured, it seems that scholars now widely accept the notion thatthe organisational commitment construct is multi-faceted in nature(Meyer et al., 2002). On the basis of the existing literature, Allen andMeyer have proposed and refined the three-component model ofcommitment, which consists of affective, continuance and norma-tive commitments (Allen&Meyer, 1996; Meyer& Allen,1991, 1997).Given the conceptual differences in the three components, eachmaydevelop from a significantly different stream of antecedents (Meyer& Allen, 1991). Notwithstanding the multidimensionality of

mailto:fmstnl@src.ku.ac.thmailto:topthana@gmail.commailto:pattana@tbs.tu.ac.thmailto:photiyarach@gmail.comhttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.08.002&domain=pdfwww.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14476770http:///http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-hospitality-and-tourism-managementhttp:///http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-hospitality-and-tourism-managementhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.08.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.08.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.08.002

T. Limpanitgul et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21 (2014) 100e107 101organisational commitment, only a few studies have simultaneouslyinvestigated all three components of organisational commitment(Chen & Francesco, 2003; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). In addition,in comparison to research on organisational commitment in West-ern context, such research outside of a Western business context isrelatively limited (Francesco & Chen, 2004; Meyer et al., 2002);therefore, further investigation is warranted to enhance our un-derstanding of the relationship between the different componentsof organisational commitment and their antecedents in non-Western settings.

Social support in the workplace has been identified ascomprising a prevalent stream of factors influencing employees'level of commitment to an organisation. The shift of job contentfrom steady and routine individual tasks to more complex andcollective tasks (Harrison, Johns, & Martocchio, 2000) hasenhanced coworkers' salience and their essential influence(Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Coworkers are not only an importantpart of the social environment; they can also literally define it(Schneider, 1987). Scholars observe that service employees whoexperience conflict between their true feelings and their expressedfeelingsdemotional labour (see, e.g., Hochschild, 1983), often forma community with fellow coworkers in which they can expresstheir true feelings in order to cope and thus reduce stress at work(Hochschild, 1983; Korczynski, 2003). Furthermore, coworkersthemselves influence their working environment, and dependingon whether the influence is perceived as positive or negative, thiswill further affect employee attitudes at work. Recent attention hasfocused on the supportive relationships that may develop amongstcoworkers, and researchers have produced evidence that coworkersupport can be beneficial for worker well-being (Sloan, 2012). Ac-cording to Thoits (1983), the provision of support from people whoare similar to the support recipients and who share similar workexperiences is likely to be more effective than the support receivedfrom persons in out-groups. Past research focused primarily on themain effects of coworker support on organisational commitment(see, e.g., Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). Therefore, it remains to be seenwhether employees from the same nation will share similar atti-tudinal and behavioural development in different organisations.

Consequently, the primary goal of the present study is toexamine how coworker support influences the development oforganisational commitment amongst Thai employees working inThai and American airlines. As the sample of study are Thai peoplewho are characterised by a collectivist national culture (i.e. theextent to which people emphasise their group interests over thoseof their own), the organisational settings considered appropriatefor investigation of the organisational culture effect are organisa-tions with a working culture that is in accord with the employees'cultural orientation, and those with the opposite cultural orienta-tion. Therefore, a Thai airline and a US airline are selected torepresent a collectivist-oriented organisation and an individualist-oriented organisation, respectively. On the one hand, individualismreflects the extent to which people emphasise their own goals overthose of their group. Members who strive to achieve their ownpersonal goals characterise individualistic cultures. Members whofocus on the needs of the group over their own interests, bycontrast, characterise collectivist cultures. This investigationwill fillthe current void in the literature and organisations in pursuit ofemployee commitmentwill thus be better informed and better ableto derive stronger commitment amongst employees in a morepositive manner. Specifically, this study provides empirical evi-dence about the development of organisational commitmentamongst Thai employees working in a collectivist organisation vis-a-vis those working in an individualist organisation.

Following the literature review and the hypothesis develop-ment, we introduce our theoretical model. The paper thendescribes the measurement process, including the sample charac-teristics obtained from two major flag-carrier airlines; these char-acteristics were designed to test our proposed model andhypotheses. Finally, we present the results, conclude the paper witha discussion of the implications and limitations of the findings andsuggest avenues for future research.

2. Literature review and hypothesis development

2.1. Organisational commitment

As with other topics in the study of organisational behaviour, awide variety of definitions and measures of organisationalcommitment exist (see, e.g., Becker, Randall, & Riegel, 1995). It isnoted that researchers from various disciplines ascribed their ownmeaning to the topic (that is, commitment), thereby increasing thedifficulty involved in understanding the construct (Mowday,Porter, & Steers, 1982, p. 20). However, as the body of research onorganisational commitment has developed and matured, a three-component model of organisational commitment was also intro-duced and started to gain wider acceptance in the literature (Allen& Meyer, 1996, 1991, 1997). Indeed, there is considerable researchsupport for this three-component conceptualisation of organisa-tional commitment (Cichy, Cha, & Kim, 2009) and its general-isability across cultures (e.g. Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997; Lee, Allen,Meyer, & Rhee, 2001). This model consists of affective, continu-ance, and normative components of commitment, which can bedefined as follows:

Affective commitment refers to the employee's emotional attach-ment to, identification with, and involvement in the organisation.Employees with strong affective commitment continue employ-ment with the organisation because they want to do so. Continu-ance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associatedwith leaving the organisation. Employees whose primary link to theorganisation is based on continuance commitment remain becausethey need to do so. Finally, normative commitment reflects a feelingof obligation to continue employment. Employees with a high levelof normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with theorganisation. (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67)

Specifically, the basis for affective commitment is an individual'sown personal desire to be part of the organisation, which is basedlargely on an emotional attachment to the organisation. In contrast,continuance commitment is based primarily on an exchange be-tween the individual and the organisation, which results from anindividual choosing to continue to work for the organisationbecause the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs, or because thecosts of leaving the organisation are greater than its benefits(Kwantes, 2003). The foundation of normative commitment is thebelief that employees have a responsibility to the organisation; thatis, employees ought to be committed to the organisation. It is areflection of the employee's perception of the norm (Kwantes,2003). With reference to the three components, it has beenargued that an employee's relationship with an organisation maysimultaneously reflect varying degrees of affective, continuanceand normative commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Therefore, theinfluence of a given factor on different facets of organisationalcommitment is likely to vary.

2.2. Coworker support and organisational commitment

In service organisations, coworker support is considered to bean important source of employee support (Susskind, Kacmar, &Borchgrevink, 2007). Coworker support is defined as employees'

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

T. Limpanitgul et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21 (2014) 100e107102global beliefs concerning their coworkers' attitudes toward them(Ladd & Henry, 2000, p. 2034). On this basis, perceived coworkersupport is the team-level equivalent of perceived organisationalsupport. The difference is that coworker support is likely to bemorediscretionary than vertical (i.e. organisational/supervisor support),which is governed by authority ranking (Chiaburu & Harrison,2008). Since coworkers either perform the same kind of work orcomplementary tasks, coworker support is likely to be focused,situation-related support (Rousseau & Aube, 2010). According toAllen and Meyer (1996), affective commitment is expected to becorrelated with those work experiences in, and characteristics of,the organisation that make the employee feel psychologicallycomfortable and that enhance his or her sense of competence (p.263). Given that reality, employees and their coworkers tend toengage in social interactions at the workplace and this is likely toshape their work experiences (Rousseau & Aube, 2010). Indeed,coworkers can provide desirable support that creates positive workexperiences and that may lead fellow employees to a feeling ofbelonging and loyalty, which characterises affective commitment.Empirical studies have also found that coworker support influencesaffective organisational commitment (e.g. Iverson& Bittigieg, 1999;Mueller, Finley, Iverson, & Price, 1999; Rousseau & Aube, 2010).

In addition to affective commitment, a number of studies havecorroborated the relationship between social support and normativecommitment. However, these studies focused primarily on supportfrom either the organisation or the leader (see the meta-analysis ofMeyer et al., 2002). According to the definition of normativecommitment,which is based on a feeling of obligation, it is likely thatthe relationship between coworker support and organisationalcommitment can be explained by the norm of reciprocity. As putforward by Gouldner (1960), the norm of reciprocity is the centralmechanism of social exchange theory, which emphasises the returnof a favour to the donor. Specifically, it suggests that we owe thecounterpart certain things because of what they have done for us inour previous interactionswith them. The idea of reciprocation drawson the work of Blau (1964), who argues that the exchange party willstrive for balance in the relationship and, if imbalance occurs, effortswill be made to restore the balance. Accordingly, employees whoperceive a high level of support from coworkers would be obligatedto stay in the organisation so that they can return the favour to them.Another possible explanation is that employees may perceive thattheir leaving would increase the burden on their coworkers. There-fore, doing sowould be against the norm of reciprocity and they feelobligated to stay with the organisation.

Continuance commitment is different from the other two facetsof commitment in that it characterises employees staying in theorganisation because of no better alternative. Although it has beendemonstrated that continuance commitment is not correlated withthe various antecedents in the sameway as affective and normativecommitment (Aube et al., 2007), in accordance with the definitionof continuance commitment, any factor that accrues positive eco-nomic side benefits should increase this dimension of organisa-tional commitment (Joiner & Bakalis, 2006). In serviceorganisations, a plausible explanation for a positive associationbetween coworker support and continuance commitment comesfrom its importance to the well-being of employees in the organi-sation. Leaving the organisation is likely to be perceived as costlybecause of the uncertainty regarding the behaviours of future co-workers, which, in turn, will shape the employee's experience inthe new workplace. Specifically, employees planning to leave anorganisation where their coworkers are supportive would perceivea higher personal cost than those who experience low coworkersupport. Consequently, employees may be committed to the orga-nisation because they are aware of the costs and uncertaintiesconcerning the differences between present and future coworkers.2.3. Moderating role of organisational culture

Culture is a set of values, beliefs, common understanding,thinking and norms for behaviour that are shared by all members ofa society, thus providing guidance to behaviours in the society(Hofstede, 2001). Because of its relationship to various outcomes,organisational culture has long been considered important inmanagement studies. Nonetheless, studies specifically examiningorganisational culture are limited (Robert & Wasti, 2002). Thepresent study proposes that the nuances of organisational culturecondition the relationship between coworker support and organ-isational commitment. The main arguments derive from thedevelopment of organisational commitment and the person-eorganisation fit theory. Organisational commitment is thought todevelop only after individuals gain a good understanding of the job,organisational goals and values, performance expectations andtheir consequences and the implications of maintaining member-ship (Mowday et al., 1982). Personeorganisation fit is defined as thecompatibility between people and organisations that occurs whenat least one entity provides what the other needs or they sharesimilar fundamental characteristics or both (Kristof-Brown,Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). When the person and organisa-tion fulfil each other's needs, there is congruence between personand organisation (Sutargo, 2011). Thus, because organisationalcommitment reflects the levels of an individual's blending in withthe organisational culture, it is unlikely that organisationalcommitment could easily be the result of employees who havecultural values opposed to those of the organisation. Indeed, if theorganisation and individual fit well in terms of cultural values,organisational commitment is the anticipated result.

This presumes that individuals high in collectivismwill be moreconcerned about other people than about themselves, whereasindividuals high in individualism are likely to be more self-concerned and economic-oriented. Presumably, individuals work-ing in a collectivist environment would engage in behaviours thatare more supportive of others thanwould thosewho areworking ina more individualistic setting. Given that affective and normativecommitment are closely related to collectivism and that coworkersupport is characterised by collectivism, it can be expected that therelationships between coworker support and the two componentsof organisational commitment would be higher in employeesworking in organisations with collectivist values than in thoseworking in organisations with individualist values. Becausecontinuance commitment is an attitudinal reflection of the cost-benefits perception of leaving the organisation, this economicallyguided school of thought is a distinct characteristic of people withindividualist values and the opposite premise is proposedregarding the continuance component of commitment. In the light

Table 1Summary of respondent profile.

Variable Thai airline American airline

Frequency(n 335)

Percentage(n 335)

Frequency(n 104)

Percentage(n 104)

Gender Male 152 45.4% 16 15.4%Female 183 54.6% 88 84.6%

Age 25 and below 75 22.4% e e26e35 193 57.6% 32 30.8%36e45 53 15.8% 72 69.2%46e55 13 3.9% e e56 and over 1 .3% e e

Highesteducationobtained

Secondary schoolor below

e e e e

High school(A level)

1 .3% e e

HND/HNC 1 .3% e eProfessionalqualification

1 .3% e e

Bachelor's degree 280 83.6% 100 96.2%Postgraduatequalification

52 15.5% 4 3.8%

Others e e e eTenure 1 year and under 91 27.2% e e

1.1e5 years 146 43.6% e e5.1e10 years 22 6.6% 24 23.1%10.1 years andover

76 22.7% 80 76.9%

Formalposition

Air/stewardtrainee

14 4.2% e e

Air/steward 297 88.7% 92 88.5%Purser/in-flightmanager

24 7.1% 12 11.5%

T. Limpanitgul et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21 (2014) 100e107 103of above discussion, the present study hypothesises the following(Fig. 1):

H1: The relationship between coworker support and affectivecommitment are moderated by organisational culture, such thatthe relationships are stronger in the Thai airline sample than in theUS airline sample.H2: The relationship between coworker support and normativecommitment are moderated by organisational culture, such thatthe relationships are stronger in the Thai airline sample than in theUS airline sample.H3: The relationship between coworker support and continuancecommitment are moderated by organisational culture, such thatthe relationships are stronger in the US airline sample than in theThai airline sample.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data collection and sample characteristics

The present study used questionnaires to collect the requisitedata. We followed the lead of Churchill and Iacobucci (2002) inconstructing the questionnaire. After the questionnaire was com-plete, following suggestions made by Douglas and Craig (2006,2007) in conducting cross-cultural research, the source versionwas translated into Thai. This collaborative translation approachensured the conceptual equivalence between the source and targetquestionnaires. The target questionnaire was pre-tested twice withpotential informants. Amendments were made accordingly beforeimplementing the main data collection process. A thousand copiesof the Thai version of the questionnaire were distributed amongstThai airline cabin crew members of two major flag carriers, onefrom Thailand and the other from the United States.

The sampling and data collection methods were influencedsignificantly by management policy. Notwithstanding this, it isarguable that the sampling method for the present study is simplerandom sampling. First, five assigned cabin attendants from eachairline were randomly selected to hand out questionnaires. Second,their assigned flights and, of course, the coworkers of the five crewswere totally random. Thus, every flight attendant working for thecompanies had an equal chance of being selected. The survey formswere distributed and collected in sealed envelopes tominimise biasand, to encourage respondent participation, the study guaranteedrespondent anonymity and confidentiality.

At the end of the data collection period, the researcher obtained439 complete, useable questionnaires, reflecting a 43.9% effectiveresponse rate. Of the total questionnaires returned, 335 were fromthe Thai airline and 104 from the American airline. Most of theparticipants were female, accounting for 61.7% of the respondents.Most of them were single, aged below 35 years and held at least abachelor's degree. All of the respondentswere Thai nationals and themajority had an average monthly income of 64,000 THB (equivalentto 2000 USD,1 USD 32 THB), which is significantly higher than thecountry's per capita GDP. To confirm the generalisability of the data,the study tested for non-response bias. A series of t-tests (two-tailed)were conducted on the main variables and the demographic vari-ables for both early and late respondents. The results showed nosignificant differences in the responses between the two groups.Hence, non-response bias is assumed not to be an issue in this study.See Table 1 for a summary of the respondent profile.

3.2. Measures

All constructs were operationalised using Likert-type ratingscales anchored by 1 strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree.Measures of the three components of organisational commitmentutilised 18 items from Meyer and Allen (1991). Each componentwas measured with six items. Used frequently in prior marketingresearch, this scale is found to have generalisability across cultures(e.g. Lee et al., 2001). Coworker support was measured with fouritems from Ladd and Henry (2000). Please see Appendix 1.

4. Analysis and results

To analyse the data, the present study utilised AMOS 18 toexamine the measurement model and test the proposed hypoth-esised relationships between the constructs. Prior to the analyses,multivariate assumptions (i.e. normality, multicollinearity andoutliers) were diagnosed. The results revealed that the data met allrequirements so that the multivariate requirement was not aserious concern in this study.

4.1. Measurement validation

The first step in the analysis was to examine the measurementrelationships and evaluate the reliability and validity of the con-structs. To accomplish this, five constructs with the original num-ber of items were entered into an exploratory factor analysis with avarimax rotation. The results indicate that some items have a cross-loading greater than .30 (Rentz, Shepherd, Tashchian, Dabholkar, &Ladd, 2002). These items were therefore removed and the test wasrepeated. As expected, the final results extracted five constructs.The items retained from this stage were subject to confirmatoryfactor analysis.

Table 2 illustrates that the factors show satisfactory goodness offit indications in the proposed model (c2(df) 212.954(71), p .000,CFI .949, TLI .934, RMSEA .068). Cronbach's alpha and vari-ance extracted scores confirm internal consistency (Cronbach'salpha > .70) and convergent validity (AVE > .50). Discriminate

Table 2Means, SD, inter-correlations, and reliability estimates.

Construct Means S.D. 1 2 3 4

1. Coworker support 5.14 .91 .78 (.86)2. Affective commitment 5.25 1.35 .09* .85 (.89)3. Continuance commitment 4.52 1.30 .01* .05* .69 (.77)4 Normative commitment 4.63 1.47 .08* .67 .22 .77 (.81)

Sub-diagonal entries are the latent construct inter-correlations. The first entry onthe diagonal is the square root of the AVE (in bold), whilst the second entry is thecomposite reliability score (in parentheses). * Non-significance (p > .05).

T. Limpanitgul et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21 (2014) 100e107104validity is assured because all square roots of variance extractedestimates are larger than the corresponding inter-construct corre-lation estimates. Preliminarily, the non-significance amongstseveral factor inter-correlations strengthens the study's premisethat organisational differences are conditioned by the relationshipsbetween these variables.

4.2. Structural model assessment

After validating the measures, we proceeded to examine thestructural relationship amongst the constructs. To examine thehypotheses concerned, the two groups of respondents were savedas two separate files. A simultaneous analysis of these two groupswas performed because it has been suggested that this methodprovides a test for the significance of any differences found be-tween groups that is more accurate than would be obtained fromtwo separate single-group analyses (Arbuckle, 2005).

Table 3 provides the results of the hypothesis testing. The overallobservation is that coworker support has a differential influencewith affective commitment, normative commitment and continu-ance commitment in both the Thai airline sample and the US airlinesample. To be specific, the results show that, in the Thai airlinesample, coworker support has a positive relationship with affectivecommitment (b .40, p < .001) and normative commitment(b .29, p < .001). However, the influences of coworker support onboth affective commitment and normative commitment are notstatistically significant (p > .05) in the US airline sample. Regardingthe continuance commitment, the results reveal no significantrelationship between coworker support and continuance commit-ment in the Thai airline sample (b .01, p > .05). Unexpectedly, itwas found that coworker support has a negative influence oncontinuance commitment in the US airline sample (b .23,p < .001).

After the direct effects of coworker support on the three di-mensions of organisational commitment were examined, we pro-ceeded to assess whether the differences were statisticallysignificant. For this, the hypothesised model was used as a baselinemodel (Byrne, 2001). The AMOS multi-group option was used todetect any significant difference in structural parameters betweenthe sample group from the US airline and the sample group fromthe Thai airline. Testing the moderating effects involves compari-sons of the chi-square value and the degree of freedom between theTable 3Results of the present study.

Hypothesised relationship Thai airline

Std. estimate t-Value

H1 CW / AC .40 6.37***H2 CW / NC .29 4.16***H3 CW / CC .01 .114c2(df) 372.859(148), CFI .894, TLI .910, RMSEA .08

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.model with and without equality constraints on a particular path ofinterest. For this, the chi-square value and the degree of freedom ofthe model without equality constraints serve as the baseline for thechi-square difference tests. Equality constraints were posted, one ata time, on the paths from coworker support to organisationalcommitment (i.e. CW/AC, CW/ NC, and CW/ CC). The modelswere then capable of being estimated. In comparison to othermethods (e.g. an interaction-effect test), this method is morestraightforward and does not require the addition of new variables.

The chi-square difference test results indicate that all of therelationships between coworker support and organisationalcommitment amongst the Thai flight attendants are conditioned bynuances of the organisational culture. With such statistical evi-dence, H1 and H2, which argue that the relationships betweencoworker support and affective and normative components oforganisational commitment are moderated by organisational cul-ture and that the relationships are stronger in the Thai airlinesample than in the US airline sample, is supported. Regarding themoderating effect of organisational culture on the relationshipbetween coworker support and continuance commitment (H3),there is no empirical support. Although the influence of coworkersupport on continuance commitment is found to be moderated byorganisational culture, the relationship is not revealed to be posi-tive as hypothesised. See Fig. 2.5. Discussion

The statistical tests conducted in this study shed light on theimportant relationship between coworker support and employees'commitment to their organisation. Regardless of the direction ofthe relationshipdwhether they are affective, continuance ornormative commitmentsdit is clear that coworker support has animpact on all types of organisational commitment. Nonetheless,these relationships are found to be moderated by cultural factors,which indicate that the relationships are context-specific. Withoutconsidering whether the relationships under investigation in thisstudy are statistically significant, all of the relationships in the Thaicontext reveal positive relationships whereas those in the Amer-ican context show negative associations.

The context-specific relationships are depicted in Table 2 in theprevious section. Of added note is the fact that two types oforganisational commitmentdaffective commitment and norma-tive commitmentdare significantly influenced by coworker sup-port in the Thai context, while only one type ofcommitmentdcontinuance commitmentdis significantly affectedby coworker support in the American context. One plausibleexplanation could be that organisational culture is, to a certaindegree, influenced by a higher-level dominating national culture(Adler & Jelinek, 1986; Newman & Nollen, 1996; Schneider, 1988).Consequently, employees working for the Thai airline are bound bya more collectivist culture than are their colleagues working for theAmerican airline. Since the organisational culture is influenced by amore collectivist national culture in Thailand, employees workingAmerican airline Dl2/df Hypotheses

Std. estimate t-Value

.10 .906 10.3*** Supported.22 1.95 14.9*** Supported.23 2.26*** 4.1* Not supported

Fig. 2. Results of effects of coworker support on organisational commitment.

T. Limpanitgul et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21 (2014) 100e107 105in the Thai airline may seek compliance and approval from theirpeers and expect the workplace to require consensus in decision-making. Employees working in the Thai context may also have agreater tendency to expect their coworkers to work together in aharmonious fashion. Consequently, coworker support is deemedmore valuable to employees working in the Thai context. Becauseemployees in the Thai airline typically place more value oncoworker support than do their counterparts in the US airline, theymay choose to work in the company because they are loyal andprefer to be part of the organisation (affective commitment), or elsethey are simply bound to the societal norms to stay committed tothe organisation because they perceive coworker support to besomething of value that provides them with more benefits thanthey might obtain from leaving the company (normativecommitment).

Nonetheless, it remains unclear why the relationship betweencoworker support and continuance commitment is negativelyrelated. One could argue that employees whowork in the Americancontext may feel irritated when they receive too much supportfrom their coworkers because they place a higher value on theindividualist aspects of the culture. Therefore, they may not see thecurrent support from coworkers as an important enough benefit tokeep them in their current workplace. Because they place a highervalue on individualism, they may also believe that being satisfiedwith the job itself, as well as other associated aspects of the job, isself-rewarding. The job satisfaction gained solely from the contentof the job may indeed outweigh the perceived benefit they receivefrom coworker support. Specifically, we might be able to say thatthe benefits derived from coworker support is not considered acritical cost for the employees working in an organisation that maybe affected by an individualist national culture, such as the culturein the American airline in this study. Employees may feel annoyedas the level of perceived support from the coworker increases. Theymay think that other costs outweigh the benefits obtained from thecurrent level of coworker support, and this belief may increase thelikelihood that they choose not to commit to the organisation inwhich they are employed. Whether this type of relationship holdstrue in other contexts should be subject to future investigation.

In this study, the test of moderation was conducted specificallyto test the moderating role of culture on the relationship betweencoworker commitment and all three types of organisationalcommitment. The findings reveal that culture significantly mod-erates the relationships between coworker support and all types oforganisational commitment. This highlights the fact that the rela-tionship between coworker support and organisational support isnot a simple phenomenon but is instead a relatively complexphenomenon that is contingent upon other environmental vari-ables, such as culture. Nonetheless, it should be noted that theimpact of coworker support on continuance commitment is notfound to be positive. This indicates that gaining support from co-workers may not translate into a higher level of continuancecommitment. Weighing the costs and benefits of receivingcoworker support is by no means a simple matter because the as-sociation of this pair of relationships may not be linear. Nonethe-less, it may be worthwhile to examine this relationship in differentcontexts to see whether such relationships yield any curvilinearrelationship. Such findings will narrow down the differences in thefindings in this area of study.

On a theoretical level, this study contributes primarily to theliterature on human resource management. It fills the gap in theextant literature by substantiating empirically the relationshipbetween coworker support and organisational commitment at thefirm level. In addition, it simultaneously investigates all threecomponents of organisational commitment in one study (Chen &Francesco, 2003). The study also helps to advance the literature ofhuman resource management by probing into the relationships oforganisational commitment and their antecedents in non-Westernorganisational settings, which have not yet received sufficientattention in the literature. In addition, by examining the moder-ating role of culture on the relationship between coworker supportand organisational commitment, this study addresses the lack ofstudies that include moderating variables when investigating thistype of relationship.

This study also contributes to the literature in the field of ser-vices marketing. An understanding of organisational commitmentis particularly critical, especially for service organisations, becauseit affects the quality of service (Bai, Brewer, Sammons, & Swedlow,2006; Boshoff & Mels, 1995; Little & Dean, 2006; Worsfold, 1999),the likelihood of failure in the service delivery process (Bejou &Palmer, 1998; Hoffman, Kelly, & Rotalsky, 1995) and employeeand customer satisfaction (Kim, Leong, & Lee, 2005; Schwepker,2001; Vanderberg & Lance, 1992). Understanding the factors thatcan influence employee loyalty to the organisation and the impactof culture on employee commitment will enhance our under-standing of the type of environments that are conducive toorganisational commitment, which, in turn, will affect the overallquality of service rendered to valuable customers.

At a managerial level, this research shed light on how managerscan improve the level of commitment amongst employees bycreating a supportive coworker environment in the workplace.Managers should provide workplace environments that encouragefriendly interactions amongst coworkers. For instance, organisa-tions should provide a relaxing coffee corner where employees cancongregate to communicate with one another, social activities thatbring employees together with an opportunity to get to know eachother, etc. Managers should also be aware that perceived supportfrom coworkers has a different kind of impact on different types oforganisational culture.

6. Conclusion

Throughout this paper, our study has focused on investigatingthe relationships amongst three important constructs in organ-isational theory: coworker support, organisational commitmentand organisational culture. Different types of commitment arefound to be influenced by coworker support, and such relationshipsare moderated by organisational culture. To date, the investigationof these key variables at the organisational level, particularly in thisarea of study, is still largely ignored in the literature. Therefore,future research should explore the interactions of these variables inother industry contexts, such as in manufacturing, high-tech or

T. Limpanitgul et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21 (2014) 100e107106even other service industries. Comparative studies, with the in-clusion of organisations from different regions of the world, areworth future investigation because the type of commitmentmay beaffected in different ways in relation to national and organisationalcultures.

The study of organisational commitment is still in need of moreresearch, both theoretical and empirical, beforewe can gain sufficientunderstandingof its keyantecedents andconsequences.Wehope thisstudy provides a better understanding of the influence of coworkersupport and themoderating role of organisational culturedat least inthe airline industry context. We also hope that this study providesinterested researchers with empirical evidence that will encouragethem to look into this area of research in greater depth.

Appendix 1. Items used in the present study

Coworker support

1. My coworkers are supportive of my goals and values2. Help is available from my coworkers when I have a problem3. My coworkers really care about my well-being4. My coworkers are willing to offer assistance to help me to

perform my job to the best of my ability5. Even if I did the best job possible, my coworkers would fail to

notice*6. My coworkers care about my general satisfaction at work7. My coworkers show very little concern for me*8. My coworkers care about my opinions9. My coworkers are complimentary of my accomplishment at

work

Affective commitment

1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with thisorganisation

2. I really feel as if this organisation's problems are my own3. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization*4. I do not feel emotionally attached to this organisation*5. I do not feel like part of the family at my organisation*6. This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me

Continuance commitment

1. Now, staying with my organisation is a matter of necessity asmuch as desire

2. It would be very hard for me to leavemy organisation right now,even if I wanted to

3. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted toleave my organisation now

4. I feel that I have few options to consider leaving thisorganisation

5. If I have not already put of myself into this organisation, I mightconsider working elsewhere

6. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organi-sation would be the scarcity of available alternatives

Normative commitment

1. I do not feel any obligation to remainwithmy current employer*2. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to

leave my organisation now3. I would feel guilty if I left this organisation now4. This organisation deserves my loyalty5. I would not leave my organisation right now because I have a

sense of obligation to the people in it6. I owe a great deal to my organisation

*Reverse coding.References

Adler, N. J., & Jelinek, M. (1986). Is organizational culture culture bound? HumanResource Management, 25(1), 73e90.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitmentto the organisation: an examination of construct validity. Journal of VocationalBehaviour, 49, 252e276.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user's guide. Chicago: SPSS.Aube, C., Rousseau, V., & Morin, E. M. (2007). Perceived organisational support and

organisational commitment: the moderating effect of lucus of control and workautonomy. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(5), 479e495.

Bai, B., Brewer, K. P., Sammons, G., & Swedlow, S. (2006). Job satisfaction, organi-zational commitment, and internal service quality: a case study of Las VegasHotel/Casino Industry. Journal of Human Resource in Hospitality and Tourism,5(2), 37e54.

Becker, T. E., Randall, D. M., & Riegel, C. D. (1995). The multidimensionality view ofcommitment and theory of reasoned action: a comparative evaluation. Journalof Management, 21, 617e638.

Bejou, D., & Palmer, A. (1998). Service failure and loyalty: an exploratory empiricalstudy of airline customers. Journal of Services Marketing, 12(1), 7e22.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Boshoff, C., & Mels, G. (1995). A causal model to evaluate the relationship among

supervision, role stress, organizational commitment and internal servicequality. European Journal of Marketing, 29(2), 23e42.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, ap-plications, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chen, Z. X., & Francesco, A. M. (2003). The relationship between the three com-ponents of commitment and employee performance in China. Journal of Voca-tional Behaviour, 62, 490e510.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptualsynthesis and meta-analysis of co-worker effects on perception, attitudes, OCBs,and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082e1103.

Churchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (2002). Marketing research: Methodological founda-tions (8th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt College Publishers.

Cichy, R. F., Cha, J., & Kim, S. (2009). The relationship between organisationalcommitment and contextual performance among private club leaders. Inter-national Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 53e62.

Cohen, A., & Caspary, L. (2011). Individual values, organisational commitment, andparticipation in a change: Israeli teachers' approach to an optional educationalreform. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 385e396.

Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2006). On improving the conceptual foundations ofinternational marketing research. Journal of International Marketing, 14, 1e22.

Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: analternative approach to back translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15,30e43.

Francesco, A. M., & Chen, Z. X. (2004). Collectivism in action: its moderating effectson relationship between organisational commitment and employee perfor-mance in China. Group and Organisation Management, 29, 425e441.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. AmericanSociological Review, 25, 161e178.

Harrison, D. A., Johns, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2000). Changes in technology, team-work, and diversity: new directions for a new century of absenteeism research.In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp.43e91). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hoffman, K. D., Kelly, S. W., & Rotalsky, H. M. (1995). Tracking service failures andemployee recovery efforts. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(2), 49e61.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, in-stitutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Iverson, R. D., & Bittigieg, D. M. (1999). Affective, normative, and continuancecommitment: can the right kind of commitment be managed. Journal ofManagement Studies, 36, 307e333.

Joiner, T. A., & Bakalis, S. (2006). The antecedents of organisational commitment:the case of Australian casual academics. International Journal of EducationalManagement, 20(6), 439e452.

Kim, W. G., Leong, J. K., & Lee, Y. (2005). Effect of service orientation on job satis-faction, organizational commitment, and intention of leaving in a causal dinerchain restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24(2),171e193.

Ko, J., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen's threecomponent model of organisational commitment in South Korea. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82, 961e973.

Korczynski, M. (2003). Communities of coping: collective emotional labour in ser-vice work. Organisation, 10, 55e79.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences ofindividuals' fit at work: a meta-analysis of personejob, personeorganisation,personegroup, and personesupervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281e342.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref17http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref30

T. Limpanitgul et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21 (2014) 100e107 107Kwantes, C. T. (2003). Organisational citizenship and withdrawal behaviours in theUSA and India. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3, 5e26.

Ladd, D., & Henry, R. A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the organisation: therole of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2028e2049.

Lee, K., Allen, N. J., Meyer, J. P., & Rhee, K. Y. (2001). The three-component model oforganisational commitment: an application to South Korea. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 50, 596e614.

Limpanitgul, T., Jirotmontree, A., Robson, M. J., & Boonchoo, P. (2013). Job attitudesand prosocial service behaviors: a test of the moderating role of organizationalculture. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 20, 5e12.

Limpanitgul, T., Robson, M. J., Gould-Williams, J., & Lertthaitrakul, W. (2013). Effectsof co-worker support and customer cooperation on service employee attitudesand behavior: empirical evidence from the airline industry. Journal of Hospi-tality and Tourism Management, 20, 23e33.

Little, M. M., & Dean, A. M. (2006). Links between service climate, employeecommitment and employees' service quality capability. Managing ServiceQuality, 16(5), 460e476.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualisation of organ-isational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61e89.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research andapplication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations andoccupations: extension and test of a three-component conception. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78, 538e551.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,continuance, and normative commitment to the organisation: a meta-analysisof antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 61,20e52.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organisational linkage: Thepsychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego: AcademicPress.

Mueller, C. W., Finley, A., Iverson, R. D., & Price, J. L. (1999). The effects of groupracial composition on job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and careercommitment. Work and Occupations, 26, 187e219.

Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: the fit betweenmanagement practices and national culture. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 27(4), 753e779.

Oyeniyi, O. (2013). Organizational commitment and market orientation of Nigeriannon-oil exporting companies. African Journal of Economic and ManagementStudies, 4, 95e108.Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimension of transformational leadership:conceptual and empirical extension. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329e354.

Rentz, J. O., Shepherd, C. D., Tashchian, A., Dabholkar, P. A., & Ladd, R. T. (2002).A measure of selling skill: scale development and validation. The Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management, 22, 13e21.

Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organisational commitment and performance: ameta-analysis. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 23, 257e266.

Robert, C., & Wasti, S. A. (2002). Organisational individualism and collectivism:theoretical development and an empirical test of a measure. Journal of Man-agement, 28(4), 544e566.

Rousseau, V., & Aube, C. (2010). Social support at work and affective commitment tothe organisation. The moderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambientcondition. Journal of Social Psychology, 150(4), 321e340.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437e453.Schneider, S. C. (1988). National vs. corporate culture: implications for human

resource management. Human Resource Management, 27(2), 231e246.Schwepker, C. H., Jr. (2001). Ethical climate's relationship to job satisfaction, orga-

nizational commitment, and turnover intention in the sales force. Journal ofBusiness Research, 54(1), 39e52.

Sloan, M. M. (2012). Unfair treatment in the workplace and worker well-being: therole of coworker support in a service work environment. Work and Occupations,39(1), 3e34.

Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2007). How organisationalstandards and coworker support improve restaurant service. Cornell Hotel andRestaurant Administration Quarterly, 48, 370e379.

Sutargo. (2011). Ten ways of managing personeorganisation fit (PeO fit) effectively:a literature study. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2,226e233.

Thoits, P. A. (1983). Dimensions of life events that influence psychological distress:an evaluation and synthesis of the literature. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychologicalstress: Trends in theory and research (pp. 33e103). New York: Academic Press.

Vanderberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (1992). Examining the causal order of job satisfactionand organizational commitment. Journal of Management, 18(1), 153e167.

Worsfold, P. (1999). HRM, performance, commitment and service quality in thehotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,11(7), 340e348.

Yucel, I. (2012). Examining the relationships among job satisfaction, organisationalcommitment, and turnover intention: an empirical study. International Journalof Business and Management, 7, 44e58.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref56http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref57http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref58http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref59http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref59http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref59http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref59http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref60http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref60http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref60http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1447-6770(14)00011-4/sref60

Coworker support and organisational commitment: A comparative study of Thai employees working in Thai and American airlines1 Introduction2 Literature review and hypothesis development2.1 Organisational commitment2.2 Coworker support and organisational commitment2.3 Moderating role of organisational culture

3 Methodology3.1 Data collection and sample characteristics3.2 Measures

4 Analysis and results4.1 Measurement validation4.2 Structural model assessment

5 Discussion6 ConclusionAppendix 1 Items used in the present studyReferences