How to facilitate employee green behavior: The joint role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management practice

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01105

Abstract

Abstract:

Faced with the problem of critical environmental pollution, organizations are expected to plan and implement environmental management practices. Employees, as the implementers of environmental management practices, have been considered to play a crucial role in organizational green management. Hence, how to facilitate employee green behavior is of particular importance for contemporary organizations. Employee green behavior is defined as a series of workplace behaviors that contribute to environmental sustainability. Given that employee green behavior is relevant to the sustainable development of the organization, this topic increasingly attracts attention and interest from scholars and practitioners alike. In particular, they have focused on how to facilitate employee green behavior.
Previous research revealed that green (environmentally specific) transformational leadership and green human resource management practice (HRM) played a crucial role in shaping employee green behavior. However, previous studies took an “either…or…” approach to investigate the effects of green transformational leadership and green HRM (separately), ignoring their joint effects. Recent studies indicated a trend to examine the joint role of leadership and HRM. Accordingly, this study explored the joint role of green transformational leadership and green HRM on employee green behavior in the Chinese context. In particular, we proposed two alternative hypotheses. Drawing on the cue consistency theory, we claimed that green transformational leadership and green HRM positively interacted to shape employee green behavior. Based on the leadership substitute theory, we proposed that green transformational leadership and green HRM negatively interacted to shape employee green behavior. Moreover, we proposed that pro-environmental goal clarity mediated the interactive effect of green transformational leadership and green HRM on employee green behavior.
We conducted two experiments and one survey study to test our hypotheses. In experiment 1a and 1b (a 2 × 2 between-subject design), the ANOVA results showed that green transformational leadership and green HRM positively interacted to shape individual green behavior, which supported the hypotheses based on cue consistence theory. Specifically, under the condition of high green transformational leadership and high green HRM, individuals were more likely to engage in green behavior. Study 2, a field study based on the survey data from 173 leader-employee dyads, not only replicated the findings of study 1a and 1b but also revealed that the interaction of green HRM and green transformational leadership was positively related to employee green behavior through the mediating role of pro-environmental goal clarity.
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, by revealing the positive interactive effect of green transformational leadership and green HRM on employee green behavior, our findings guide us toward a better understanding of how to facilitate employee green behavior from a comprehensive and balanced perspective. Second, by revealing the mediating role of pro-environmental goal clarity, this study contributes to a detailed understanding of how green HRM and green transformational leadership jointly influence employee green behavior. Finally, for practitioners, our results provide some implications on ways to promote employee green behavior, such as adopting green HRM and simultaneously developing the leaders’ green transformational leadership.

Key words: green transformational leadership, green HRM practice, pro-environmental goal clarity, green behavior, cue consistency theory

PENG Jian, YIN Kui, HOU Nan, ZOU Yanchun, NIE Qi. (2020). How to facilitate employee green behavior: The joint role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management practice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(9), 1105-1120.

Figures/Tables 9

References 39

[1]	Anderson N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
[2]	Bowen D. E., & Ostroff C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the ‘strength’ of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221.
[3]	Cai J. Z., & Hu J. J. (2019). How to motivate environmental behaviors of employee? Based on meta-analysis and survey. Human Resources Development of China, 36(2), 6-21.
[4]	Chen Y.-S., & Chang C.-H. (2013). The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 107-119.
[5]	Chen Y.-S., Chang C.-H., & Lin Y. (2014). Green transformational leadership and green performance: The mediation effects of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Sustainability, 6(10), 6604-6621.
[6]	Chen Y.-S., Chang C.-H., Yeh S.-L., & Cheng H.-I. (2015). Green shared vision and green creativity: The mediation roles of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Quality & Quantity, 49(3), 1169-1184.
[7]	Chou C. J. (2014). Hotels’ environmental policies and employee personal environmental beliefs: Interactions and outcomes. Tourism Management, 40, 436-446. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.08.001 URL
[8]	Chuang C.-H., Jackson S. E., & Jiang Y. (2013). Can knowledge- intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge. Journal of Management, 42(2), 524-554.
[9]	Cornelissen G., Pandelaere M., Warlop L., & Dewitte S. (2008). Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(1), 46-55.
[10]	Dumont J., Shen J., & Deng X. (2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 613-627.
[11]	Graves L. M., Sarkis J., & Zhu Q. (2013). How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 81-91.
[12]	Guest D. E. (2011). Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 3-13.
[13]	Hu J., & Liden R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851-862. URL pmid: 21319877
[14]	Kerr S., & Jermier J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403.
[15]	Kim A., Kim Y., Han K., Jackson S. E., & Ployhart R. E. (2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335-1358.
[16]	Kura K. M. (2016). Linking environmentally specific transformational leadership and environmental concern to green behaviour at work. Global Business Review, 17(3S), 1S-14S. doi: 10.1177/0972150916631069 URL
[17]	Leroy H., Segers J., van Dierendonck D., & den Hartog D. (2018). Managing people in organizations: Integrating the study of HRM and leadership. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3), 249-257. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.002 URL
[18]	Locke E. A., & Latham G. P. (1984). Goal-setting: A motivational technique that works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[19]	Locke E. A., & Latham G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenttice-Hall.
[20]	Mazar N., & Zhong C. B. (2010). Do green products make us better people?. Psychological Science, 21(4), 494-498. URL pmid: 20424089
[21]	Miyazaki A. D., Grewal D., & Goodstein R. C. (2005). The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: A matter of consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 146-153. doi: 10.1086/jcr.2005.32.issue-1 URL
[22]	Norton T. A., Parker S. L., Zacher H., & Ashkanasy N. M. (2015). Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 103-125.
[23]	Ones D. S., & Dilchert S. (2012). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 444-466.
[24]	Peng J., Hou N., & Pang Y. (2019). Employees’ green behavior: Summarizing the concept and the theoretical explanation. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(7), 1297-1306.
[25]	Peng J., Zhao L. J., Xu Y., Hou N. (2019). The consequences of green transformational leadership and its theoretical explanation. Journal of Psychological Science, 42(4), 928-934.
[26]	Priesemuth M., Schminke M., Ambrose M. L., & Folger R. (2014). Abusive supervision climate: A multiple-mediation model of its impact on group outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1513-1534. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0237 URL
[27]	Renwick D. W. S., Redman T., & Maguire S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.2013.15.issue-1 URL
[28]	Robertson J. L. (2018). The nature, measurement and nomological network of environmentally specific transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 961-975. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3569-4 URL
[29]	Robertson J. L., & Barling J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders' influence on employees' pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 176-194. doi: 10.1002/job.1820 URL
[30]	Robertson J. F., & Barling J. (2017). Contrasting the nature and effects of environmentally specific and general transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(1), 22-41.
[31]	Roeck K. D., & Farooq O. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: Investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 923-939. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3656-6 URL
[32]	Sawyer J. E. (1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 130-142. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.130 URL
[33]	Slovic P. (1966). Cue-consistency and cue-utilization in judgment. American Journal of Psychology, 79(3), 427-434. URL pmid: 5968479
[34]	Vasilaki A., Tarba S., Ahammad M. F., & Glaister A. J. (2016). The moderating role of transformational leadership on HR practices in M&A integration. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(20), 2488-2504. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1204556 URL
[35]	Yin K., Chen L., Wang Z., Peng J., & Xu H. (2018). Relationship between leadership behaviors and HRM practices: Causal, joint, substitute or strengthen effect?. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(1), 144-155. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00144 URL
[36]	Yong J. K., Kim W. G., Choi H. M., & Phetvaroon K. (2019). The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 83-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.007 URL
[37]	Zhang J. L., Yuan Y. W., & Liu J. (2018). The effect of ethical leadership on employees' organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Human Resources Development of China, 35(2), 19-29.
[38]	Zhou J. F., & Zhang G. L. (2018). Green human resource management on employees' green behavior: A model from a self-determination theory perspective. Human Resources Development of China, 35(7), 20-30.
[39]	Zibarras L. D., & Coan P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: A UK survey. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(16), 2121-2142.

Model	χ²	df	Δχ²(Δdf)	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI
A; B; C; D	411.36	164	-	0.08	0.05	0.92	0.90
A+B; C; D	845.71	167	434.35 (3)***	0.15	0.10	0.77	0.74
A+C; B; D	728.83	167	317.47 (3)***	0.14	0.09	0.81	0.78
A+D; B; C	944.06	167	532.70 (3)***	0.16	0.12	0.73	0.70
A; B+C; D	792.29	167	380.93 (3)***	0.15	0.12	0.79	0.76
A; B+D; C	1010.48	167	599.12 (3)***	0.17	0.15	0.71	0.67
A; B; C+D	799.32	167	387.96 (3)***	0.15	0.12	0.78	0.75
A; B; C; E	375.45	164	-	0.08	0.05	0.93	0.91
A+B; C; E	808.46	167	433.01 (3)***	0.15	0.15	0.78		0.74
A+C; B; E	693.30	167	317.85 (3)***	0.13	0.08	0.82		0.79
A+E; B; C	900.16	167	524.71 (3)***	0.16	0.13	0.74		0.71
A; B+C; E	756.31	167	380.86 (3)***	0.14	0.12	0.79		0.76
A; B+E; C	942.50	167	567.05 (3)***	0.16	0.15	0.73		0.69
A; B; C+E	761.69	167	386.24 (3)***	0.14	0.12	0.79		0.76

Model	χ²	df	Δχ²(Δdf)	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI
A; B; C; D	411.36	164	-	0.08	0.05	0.92	0.90
A+B; C; D	845.71	167	434.35 (3)***	0.15	0.10	0.77	0.74
A+C; B; D	728.83	167	317.47 (3)***	0.14	0.09	0.81	0.78
A+D; B; C	944.06	167	532.70 (3)***	0.16	0.12	0.73	0.70
A; B+C; D	792.29	167	380.93 (3)***	0.15	0.12	0.79	0.76
A; B+D; C	1010.48	167	599.12 (3)***	0.17	0.15	0.71	0.67
A; B; C+D	799.32	167	387.96 (3)***	0.15	0.12	0.78	0.75
A; B; C; E	375.45	164	-	0.08	0.05	0.93	0.91
A+B; C; E	808.46	167	433.01 (3)***	0.15	0.15	0.78		0.74
A+C; B; E	693.30	167	317.85 (3)***	0.13	0.08	0.82		0.79
A+E; B; C	900.16	167	524.71 (3)***	0.16	0.13	0.74		0.71
A; B+C; E	756.31	167	380.86 (3)***	0.14	0.12	0.79		0.76
A; B+E; C	942.50	167	567.05 (3)***	0.16	0.15	0.73		0.69
A; B; C+E	761.69	167	386.24 (3)***	0.14	0.12	0.79		0.76

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Gender
2. Education	0.05
3. Age	-0.01	-0.08
4. Dyadic tenure	0.02	-0.02	0.39***
5. T1 green human resource management practice	-0.01	-0.07	0.17*	0.12	(0.93)
6. T1 green transformational leadership	-0.08	-0.19*	0.14	0.08	0.58***	(0.95)
7.T2 pro-environmental goal clarity	0.00	-0.07	0.01	-0.02	0.52***	0.46***	(0.83)
8. T3 self-rated green behavior	0.06	-0.17*	0.09	0.02	0.41***	0.36***	0.43***	(0.92)
9. T3 leader-rated green behavior	0.00	0.01	0.10	0.04	0.39***	0.36***	0.42***	0.35***	(0.92)
Mean	0.60	1.77	25.47	11.58	3.03	3.44	3.34	3.71	3.49
SD	0.49	0.47	5.29	13.69	0.90	0.72	0.80	0.72	0.81

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Gender
2. Education	0.05
3. Age	-0.01	-0.08
4. Dyadic tenure	0.02	-0.02	0.39***
5. T1 green human resource management practice	-0.01	-0.07	0.17*	0.12	(0.93)
6. T1 green transformational leadership	-0.08	-0.19*	0.14	0.08	0.58***	(0.95)
7.T2 pro-environmental goal clarity	0.00	-0.07	0.01	-0.02	0.52***	0.46***	(0.83)
8. T3 self-rated green behavior	0.06	-0.17*	0.09	0.02	0.41***	0.36***	0.43***	(0.92)
9. T3 leader-rated green behavior	0.00	0.01	0.10	0.04	0.39***	0.36***	0.42***	0.35***	(0.92)
Mean	0.60	1.77	25.47	11.58	3.03	3.44	3.34	3.71	3.49
SD	0.49	0.47	5.29	13.69	0.90	0.72	0.80	0.72	0.81

Variables	T3 Self-rated green behavior			T3 Leader-rated green behavior			T2 Pro-environmental goal clarity
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7
Intercept	3.80***	3.77***	3.07***	3.07***	3.03***	2.38***	3.54***
Control Variable
Employee gender	0.12	0.09	0.09	0.03	-0.01	-0.01	-0.00
Employees age	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	-0.01
Employee Education	-0.18	-0.17	-0.17	0.13	0.15	0.15	0.03
Dyadic tenure	-0.00	-0.00	-0.00	-0.00	-0.00	-0.00	-0.00
Independent variable
T1 GTL	0.12*	0.16*	0.10	0.18*	0.23***	0.18*	0.26***
T1 GHRM	0.22***	0.18**	0.13*	0.22**	0.15*	0.11	0.24***
T1 GTL× T1 GHRM		0.12**	0.08		0.20***	0.16**	0.22***
Mediator
T2 pro-environmental goal clarity			0.20*			0.18*
R²	0.22	0.25	0.28	0.19	0.26	0.28	0.42
ΔR²	-	0.03**	0.03*	-	0.07***	0.02*	-
F	7.70***	7.87***	7.92***	6.56***	8.34***	8.00***	16.78***