Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 Available online 5 January 2022 0969-6989/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Value co-creation and employee service behaviours: The moderating role of trust in employee - hotel relationship Evans Asante Boadi a,b, Zheng He a,b,*, Collins Opoku Antwi c, Hossin Md Altab a,b, Josephine Bosompem a,b, Robert Ebo Hinson d,e,f, Victoria Atuobuah Boadi g a School of Management and Economics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China b Centre for West African Studies, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China c Department of Psychology, Zhejiang Normal University, China No. 688 Yingbin Avenue, Jinhua, Zhejiang Province, 321004 China d School of Business, Management and Economics, University of Kigali, Rwanda e Department of Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Ghana Business School, Ghana f Business School, University of the Free State, South Africa g Finance Directorate, Koforidua Technical University, Koforidua, Ghana A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords: Fear-based silence Workaholism Trust Job demands-resources theory Customer participation in value co - creation A B S T R A C T Value co-creation (VC) is generally considered as having mutually beneficial implications for all actors involved. Nonetheless, emerging evidence on value co-destruction and its consequences on the wellbeing of co-creating actors implies that narrowing down on specific fallouts of this process is needed for managerial interventions. This paper contributes to the value-co-creation literature by exploring the relationship between customer participation in VC on some difficult to detect employee service behaviors: workaholism and fear-based silence. The extent to which employee trust (TRS) in employee – hotel relationship moderates these relations is assessed. While the findings from 422 frontline employee-customer data within luxury hotels in Ghana support a negative effect of VC on fear-based silence and workaholism, TRS buffered these effects. We recommend that VC in service failure and recovery be approached with tact, compassion, and forgiveness. 1. Introduction Encouraging customer participation in value co-creation (VC) has always been the strategic appeal of service-oriented firms in their customer-first initiatives (Antwi et al., 2020; Opata et al., 2019). This is useful but not all customers have the requisite knowledge to improve the traditional value embedded in products and services offered by the service provider (Boadi et al., 2020). In other words, some customers can destroy value, influence service failure, and attention to such cus- tomers can affect the viability of firms. Nonetheless, the service provider represented by employees mostly assumes responsibility for any service failures (Pacheco et al., 2018). Employees are expected to engage and empower customers to co-create value always especially in service-dominant industries (Ng and Vargo, 2018). In this sense, firms’ expectation of employees in prosecuting the customer-first agenda may potentially influence employees to adopt infamous service behaviors in VC during service failures and recoveries (SFR). Service failure refers to the inability to provide service that a firm has promised either by doing something or not doing anything while service recovery refers to resolving the damage caused by a service failure (Khamitov et al., 2020). Most studies take the perspective of victimized customers in SFR but less attention has been paid to employees and other observers (Grégoire & Mattila, 2020; Khantimirov et al., 2020; Sharifi et al., 2017). Because of the ubiquity of cameras and the popularity of social media, any service failure can easily become part of a firms’ brand in the public domain in a matter of minutes (Zhang et al., 2018; Herhausen et al., 2019; Israeli et al., 2017). Customers who compliment service providers on social media before an encounter with service failure expect a high level of service recovery to be satisfied and remain loyal to service providers (Bozkurt and Gligor, 2021). This can avert the damage the virality of negative social media posts by dissatisfied customers can do to brand nowadays (Carlson et al., 2018). Thus, retaliatory justice is * Corresponding author. School of Management and Economics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China E-mail addresses: e.asanteboadi@uestc.edu.cn, e.asanteboadi@yahoo.com (E.A. Boadi), hezh@uestc.edu.cn (Z. He), cantwi28@zjnu.edu.cn, cantwi28@yahoo. com (C.O. Antwi), altabbd@uestc.edu.cn (H. Md Altab), ohemaabajb@gmail.com (J. Bosompem), hinsonrobert@gmail.com (R.E. Hinson), victoria.boadi@ktu. edu.gh (V. Atuobuah Boadi). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102898 Received 21 September 2021; Received in revised form 18 November 2021; Accepted 23 December 2021 mailto:e.asanteboadi@uestc.edu.cn mailto:e.asanteboadi@yahoo.com mailto:hezh@uestc.edu.cn mailto:cantwi28@zjnu.edu.cn mailto:cantwi28@yahoo.com mailto:cantwi28@yahoo.com mailto:altabbd@uestc.edu.cn mailto:ohemaabajb@gmail.com mailto:hinsonrobert@gmail.com mailto:victoria.boadi@ktu.edu.gh mailto:victoria.boadi@ktu.edu.gh www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09696989 https://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102898 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102898 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102898 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102898&domain=pdf Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 2 more hurtful to firms’ bottom line. An employee’s keen awareness of this may intentionally and unintentionally influence negative well-being such as job anxiety especially when a service failure occurs due to the (in)actions of the employee (Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser, 2020; VanVaerenbergh et al., 2019). Accordingly, full-service recovery is not always possible on the part of the employee. For instance, service fail- ures may cause an employee to suffer moral injustice (e.g., racism) or long-term consequences (e.g., loss of job) and experience job anxiety (Khantimirov and Karande, 2018; Yan and Jing, 2021). Service-oriented firms require employees to use available high-performance work sys- tems to avoid service failures and their consequences (Behravesh et al., 2019; Mowbray et al., 2021). For instance, employees are expected to be attractive to customers to identify and satisfy customer expectations in the exchange of services (Lanlan et al., 2021; Villi and Koc, 2018). This implies that employees can be blamed for service failures by customers and employers (Lanlan et al., 2021). This can lead to employee worka- holism to accomplish work, and fear-based silence to avoid perceived failure from employers. Workaholism represents employees’ persistent thoughts about work during and when not working as well as working beyond what is rationally expected of the work despite the possible negative consequences (Clark et al., 2014). On the other hand, fear-based silence refers to the withholding of genuine information for self-protection from people capable of addressing a problem because of fear (Dyne et al., 2003). The interest of this academic work in these employee service behaviors (i.e workaholism and fear-based silence) is that they are counter-productive, and difficult to identify and deal with. Unlike behaviors, including emotional discharge, lateness, customer-induced incivility, that are easily identified and resolved (Lee et al., 2020; Kim and Qu, 2018; Lee et al., 2011), those treated in this study can go unnoticed for a long time serving as a drain on the firm. This can make employees vulnerable and negatively influence their engagement with customers in VC to sabotage the firm’s performance. Regardless of the above concerns, emphasis on customer participa- tion in VC is not misguided, more so during service failure and recovery. Customer participation in service delivery enables employees to identify the mismatch between customer expectation and experience to expedite service recovery for customers (Mostafa, 2020; Woratschek et al., 2019). Unfortunately, a dearth of studies exists on how customers may reduce employee workload and fear-based silence at work in service failures and recovery with voluntary participation in the VC process. Studies of this nature are pressing and relevant given employers increasing de- mands and expectations on employees to delight customers and changing patterns in work related to customers that can influence employee workload and fear of failure at work as bemoaned by Balducci et al. (2016). Additionally, the role of organizational resources in the form of employee trust in their relationship with the company as pri- mary support especially in the hospitality industry to resolve work-related issues bordering on employee and customer exchanges has rarely been examined (Shore and Coyle-Shapiro, 2007; Su and Swanson, 2019). This study aimed to advance the literature by exploring the in- fluence of customer participation in VC during service failure and re- covery on some employee service behaviors (i.e. workaholism and fear-based silence). In addition, it probes the moderating role of employee trust in an employee-hotel relationship. These objectives are examined with the theoretical foundations of the Service-Dominant Logic (SD-L) and the Job Demands-Resources Theory (JD-R) (Bakker et al., 2014; Vargo and Lusch, 2016). While the SD-L outlines the ben- efits of service exchange between customers and employees, the JD-R illustrates the need for companies to balance assigned employee tasks and expectations from customers with requisite resources from the or- ganization to enable employees to accomplish these tasks and meet customers’ expectations harmoniously. Using the synergistic comple- mentarity of these theories for organizational success, we developed and tested hypotheses with matched data from front desk employees and customers from luxury hotels in the hospitality context of Ghana. This industry is taking gradual momentum in Ghana. However, the current and post COVID-19 pandemic impact on the hospitality industry in- dicates that employee relationships with customers underpinned by employee trust in their hotels can be the key to reviving the industry. Customers, in most cases, are part of the service delivery process and mostly participate in VC in hospitality services (Dayour et al., 2020). The contribution of this study is four-fold. First, the study draws attention to hard-to-detect behavioral effects (workaholism and fear- based silence) of customer participation in the VC process for manage- rial interventions to alleviate employees’ suffering and customers’ dissatisfaction. Second, this study presents trust as a psycho-social resource that motivates employee creativity and innovation to co- create innovative solutions with customers in both online and offline SFR. Third, this study complements the widely used ethical and justice perception theories concerning customers in service failure and recovery (Nadeem et al., 2021; Nikbin et al., 2015) by highlighting the integrative role of JD-R theory and SD-L. Finally, the multi-sourced data from customers and frontline employees for this study provide more robust results as it eliminates common-rater biases that mostly characterize extant studies on the topic. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews relevant literature and develops the hypotheses tested; section 3 reports the specific methods employed to test our hypotheses; section 4 presents the results, and section 5 discusses the results and concludes the paper. 2. Literature review 2.1. Theoretical foundation 2.1.1. Job demands - resources theory The JD-R theory is based on how job demands and job resources have unique and multiplicative effects on job drain and motivation (Bakker et al., 2014). In simple terms, demand is something that tasks an em- ployee’s resources. In the context of this study, job demand refers to the physical, psychological, social, and organizational aspects of work, which require sustained physical and/or psychological efforts (i.e., cognitive or emotional efforts) to be related to some physical and/or psychological costs (Antwi et al., 2019; Belle et al., 2021). Agreeably, job demands are not necessarily negative. However, when meeting such demands requires extra efforts that overextend the employee, these demands become stressors related to high costs that elicit unpalatable responses including workaholism and fear-based silence among em- ployees. For example; when there is a mismatch between a customer expectation on received service/product from a hotel, and he/she par- ticipates in the service recovery with the hotel. Luxury hotels in particular have established channels and services/products for their employees to recover services for customers (Lee et al., 2011). Potential employee workaholism arises when there is a lack of collaboration be- tween customers and employees, co-workers, and also, system failures that exert pressure on employees to rely on their meager resources to resolve service failures as expected by employers/supervisors and cus- tomers (Villi and Koc, 2018; Mowbray et al., 2021). Similarly, fear-based silence can be adopted by employees when they perceive that providing genuine information to colleagues on the occurrence of a service failure can result in the loss of face or potential job loss when this information is passed on to a supervisor to expose their inability to meet customer and company expectations (Yu et al., 2021). The above shows diverse un- derlying mechanisms where customers may influence employees’ negative behaviors due to an imbalance between expected tasks to be accomplished and resources available to be used. One way of gauging if such demanding exchanges are likely to result in employees’ unhealthy behaviors is by assessing customers’ evaluation after the encounter (Mattila and Heejung, 2008). A customer’s positive view indicates a cooperative synergy with an employee, diminishing an employee’s need to adopt negative service behaviors. Further, the comfort and quiet confidence employees have to acti- vate their discretion in reasonableness in the execution of service E.A. Boadi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 3 recovery may make all the difference in the success of such an under- taking. The trust an employee has in the relationship s/he has with a hotel offers an invaluable job resource, particularly in an event of service failure where service recovery is imminent (Brown et al., 2015). Service usually fails because the established protocols of service delivery, in particular machines, have broken down or failed to deliver (Chen et al., 2020). In such a case, an employee has to rely on their ingenuity and innovative job crafting abilities. However, if an employee has to ask over and again: “what if my manager does not approve of my behavior?” an opportunity for service recovery would be missed. Accordingly, this study defined employee trust in the employee - hotel relationship as the degree to which an employee is comfortable activating his/her discre- tion in an event of service failure and recovery (see Özen et al., 2014; Su and Swanson, 2019). We contend that the relationships between customer participation in VC and employees’ negative behaviors (fear-based silence and workaholism) that are difficult to observe will be strengthened if an employee’s trust in employee - hotel relationship is strong. 2.1.2. Customer participation in VC in service failure and recovery Traditionally, firms create value and then propose this value to customers. Based on the SD-L, value is always co-created through the interaction among multiple stakeholders, comprising customers, em- ployees, suppliers, and investors (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Customers through employees influence the service process to enjoy the exchange of service and develop an interpersonal relationship with firms (Cheung and To, 2021; Chan et al., 2010). An employee influences customers’ experience of value comprising physical consumption, thinking about service, dreaming about firms’ offering, and feeling good about some- thing to remain loyal to firms (Amin et al., 2021). This indicates intentional and unintentional customer experience of value. Of rele- vance to this study is when customers intentionally seek value in products and services during service failure and recovery. This makes customer participation in VC a job demand because it indicates customer evaluation of what they have received from firms and requires improvement. Akin to the meta-analytical results that the concept of VC comprises co-production and value in use dimensions (Ranjan and Read, 2016). Employees exchange competencies with customers to improve value on products and services to impact customers’ experience value. This process enables customers to influence the quality of service received and achieve relational value as well as economic value from products/services (Boadi et al., 2020; Chan et al., 2010). In line with the above, we defined customer participation in value co-creation as the extent to which customers actively collaborate with firms to improve existing solutions or search for new solutions for value in products and services in service failure and recovery (Mostafa, 2020). This definition is suitable in addressing the study objectives because it highlights customer evaluation of value offered by employees and customer will- ingness to make a demand in the service recovery process to satisfy their expectations. The theory of service failure identifies two types of failures namely outcome and process failures (Shih-Chieh et al., 2011). While the outcome failure represents what customers receive from the service (e. g., swapping hotel room keys/card), the process failure depicts how services are delivered to customers. The latter encapsulates unavailable service, unreasonably slow service, and other core service failures (e.g., lengthy queues in a theme park, canceled flights, the restaurant meal being cold, or the baggage arriving damaged (Lee et al., 2011). Although service-oriented firms especially those in the hospitality, travel, and tourism industries have established channels for service recovery (Antwi et al., 2020), before resolving service failures, employees’ fake emotions such as displaying smiling faces along with direct eye contact to encourage a positive customer experience of value (Lee et al., 2020). These actions are strains influenced by work on customer-related out- comes (Xu et al., 2020). There are also situations where the customer cannot attribute the dissatisfaction to any factor or specific behavior of an employee. However, customers evaluate the service experience in a holistic way, such as everything going below their expectations (Mattila and Heejung, 2008). Although, customers may be more displeased with service failure and recovery by self-serving machines such as a change of hotel room or request for a special meal (Chen et al., 2020). This does not entirely exonerate employees from customer attribution of service failure. Some of these situations may be failures due to employees’ lack of attention to the performance of machines (Castillo et al., 2020). Repetition of these failures potentially leads to customer defection and for this reason, managers do not take a small failure for granted (Sands et al., 2020). This is ingrained in the emotional labor of employees and how they find ways (i.e workaholism, fear-based silence, and trust in the company) to approach job demands and resources potentially induced by customers and expectations of firms. Therefore, assessing employee negative outcomes from their perspective in service failure and recovery context should be of interest to firms and researchers. 2.2. Setting of hypotheses 2.2.1. Customer participation in VC and employee service behaviours Workaholism as defined in the introduction of this study depicts the internal desire of employees to work not necessarily because of work demands (Clark et al., 2014). However, it seems difficult to explain workaholism without considering the constant changes in modern work life with workers being increasingly exposed to customer demands for flexibility in service delivery and firms’ interest in employee initiative-taking, and continuous learning to improve planning and de- cision making (Låstad et al., 2021). In short, conditions that could lead to a lot of investment in work are becoming more common, not just in managerial jobs. In this regard, the influence of situational factors such as the high work demand, job insecurity on the tendency to become a workaholic has not been adequately examined in the literature because of the changing work characteristics (Balducci et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2021). Among four employees, if one is a workaholic, that one is most likely to be in a high service-oriented industry such as hospitality (Sussman, 2012). These industries expect employees to empower cus- tomers to co-create value to shape customer perception about firms’ offerings. It follows that when customers co-create value it can poten- tially increase an employees’ obsession with job-related accomplish- ment to reduce guilt state of mind for not satisfying customer expectation and to care for the welfare of the public (Brieger et al., 2019). Consequently, an employee may have persistent thoughts about work and free up more time for work than the official schedule (Olug- bade and Karatepe, 2019). Thus, workaholics show a drive to work regardless of potential negative effects on themselves and their organi- zations (Avanzi et al., 2020). This can enable workaholics to attract recognition and rewards for their work. Based on the above discussion, it can be deduced that customer participation in VC creates job demand as customers seek improvement in the firm’s value proposition from employees to have the best solution to service failures. Demanding and uncooperative customers are more likely to evaluate customer participation in VC as negative, meaning their satisfaction demands may set an employee off to do the most for him or the next customer, leading to thoughts about how to satisfy customers on and off work. However, customer positive evaluation of value proposed by employees suggests the willingness on the part of the customer to engage in reasonable negotiation of value, relieving em- ployees from being sent into an overdrive (workaholism) because of customers being overly demanding. Therefore, whether or not em- ployees prosecuting the customer first agenda can influence workaholic tendencies is tested with the hypothesis below: H1a. Customer participation in value co-creation will be negatively related to employee workaholism. On the other hand, this paper is also interested in employees’ fear- based silence at work. For example; employees might fear to express E.A. Boadi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 4 their disapproval of the procedure used by top management to resolve customer demand for change of hotel room during service recovery. On the flip side, fear of external pressures can motivate employees to improve performance especially when there is perceived supervisor openness (Jain, 2015; Lebel, 2016). Although fear can be a motivation, it is not a typical positive trait in the workplace. Fear usually has far-reaching effects that make workers anxious and uncertain about their present and future jobs (Ryan, 2017; Srivastava et al., 2019). Business thrives on customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is a by-product of customers’ appraisal of their experiences, informed by comparing what they have received and what they expected from firms. Customer disconfirmation is high if their appraisal does not balance with expectations (Roggeveen et al., 2012). An employee’s mistake in service delivery can result in customer disconfirmation. Managers’ attention to small failures especially in service-oriented firms indicates the use of existing policies or the enacting of new rules to cover every situation (Sands et al., 2020). These control mechanisms for every activity may keep employees focused on assigned customer goals. They have to be because if they miss a goal, they are likely not to get collaboration or innovation from any team member who might be experiencing fear (Ryan, 2017). Once the employee makes a mistake, it could be solved by the employee. If the employee cannot solve it, the employee will not be happy and fear-based silence can occur. However, evaluation of cus- tomers’ participation in VC serves as a critical pointer as to how service recovery proceeded. A positive evaluation indicates cooperative ex- changes between customers and employees and, when customer evalu- ation of their participation in VC is negative, the converse could be true. Thus, customers can provide ideas through their participation in VC to help solve employee mistakes in service delivery (Lusch and Vargo, 2014). This can avert employee fear-based silence since they have suc- cessfully recovered value for the customer. This ensures that customers continue to be loyal to a brand regardless of perceived brand trans- gressions (Kennedy and Guzmán, 2019; Khenfer and Cuny, 2020). Therefore, customers become partners in service recovery to minimize employee feelings of fear-based silence in service failure and this is tested with the hypothesis that: H1b. Customer participation in value co-creation will be negatively related to employee fear-based silence. 2.2.2. Trust in an employee - hotel relationship as moderator In organizations, trust entails the expectations of individuals in the network of their relationships and behaviors (Su and Swanson, 2019). Thus, trust in organizational settings is the confidence in the ability of each party and the belief that future actions are constructive and mutually beneficial (Agyare et al., 2019). Trust in an employee-company relationship can influence cooperate work climate to enable both parties to innovate, embrace customer participation in VC as a social process devoid of pessimism, take risks, experiment, and invest in others (Tingko et al., 2021). Customer engagement influences trust, co-creation, and participation attitudes in the exchange of services with the service provider through employees (Casper Ferm and Thai- chon, 2021). Employees satisfy their psychological needs and well-being when they trust firms fairly compensate efforts (Brown et al., 2015). Trust promotes transparency and openness including communicating mistakes and admitting the consequent learning to motivate employees to engage in co-creation with customers (Xiao et al., 2020; Waseem et al., 2021). When employees’ trust in managers decreases it increases their fear-based silence (Özen et al., 2014). Low trust increases stress and emotional exhaustion leading to lower employee well-being (Tetteh et al., 2020). The lower well-being of employees is a potential outcome of workaholism (Andreassen et al., 2012; Balducci et al., 2016). Hence, it can be argued that strong employee trust in hotels is more likely to reduce fear-based silence and minimize the urge to continue to work (workaholism) to avoid negative consequences on their wellbeing. H2a. Trust moderates the negative relationship between customer participation in value co-creation and workaholism, such that high levels of trust will strengthen the relationship. H2b. Trust moderates the negative relationship between customer participation in value co - creation and fear-based silence such that high levels of trust will strengthen the relationship. 2.3. Theoretical model Fig. 1 presents our proposed conceptual model and hypothesized relationships for this study. This figure outlines the influence of customer participation in VC in service failure and recovery on two employee service behaviors namely workaholism and fear-based silence. Specifically, customer participation in VC will relate negatively to employee workaholism and this relation is strengthened by a high/ favorable perception of employee trust in employee-hotel relationships. Similarly, customer participation in VC will relate negatively to employee fear-based silence and this relation will be strengthened by a high/favorable perception of employee trust in the employee-hotel relationship. 3. Methods 3.1. Research design and data collection This study takes a cross-sectional design approach. The study focused on hotels with at least three (3) stars. A total of 41 hotels were identified in the Ghana Tourism Authority and Ministry of Tourism ad Creative Arts database on hotels in Ghana and were contacted (TouringGhana, 2021). However, 26 hotels (representing 63.4%) out of the 41 hotels showed interest in the objectives of the study and cooperated with us for data collection. Consequently, this study sampled frontline employees and customers from these 26 hotels. These hotels operate in four regions in Ghana (i.e Greater Accra, Greater Kumasi, Central and Eastern Re- gions) that are known for high patronage by tourists and visitors. This sheds light on the different backgrounds of people employees serve in these hotels. These regions are known as the high-demand tourism enclave of Ghana witnessing heavy traffic all year round. Such heavy demands create the potential for SFR and therefore offer a good popu- lation to test our theoretical model. Before data collection, the questionnaire was reviewed by three ex- perts from a University in Ghana to assess the items of the constructs. They recommended rewording of questions to be concise and shorter without losing their meaning on respective constructs. Based on this, the Customer Participation in Value Co-creation (VC) VC x TRS Workaholism (-) H2b Fear-Based Silence (-) H1a (-) H1b (-) H2a Employee Service Behaviors Fig. 1. Proposed Theoretical Model. Note: (− ) = Negative Relationship; VC = Customer Participation in Value Co-creation; TRS = Trust in Employee - Hotel Relationship; VC x TRS = Interaction Term of Customer Participation in Value Co - creation and Trust in Employee - Hotel Relationship. E.A. Boadi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 5 items were edited and one of the experts re-examined the modified items against the recommendations and accepted the changes as accurate and reflective of the experts’ opinion. Data collection proceeded using a two- wave method with a one-month interval. Specifically, five teams of trained field assistants who were undergraduate students visited each of the 26 hotels twice with one-month intervals to collect data from cus- tomers and frontline employees. These field assistants were assisted by an employee from each hotel who volunteered to help in data collection. The two-wave/time-lagged method of data collection is recommended to minimize common method bias, by ensuring anonymity and avoiding social desirability (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In the first wave of data collection, employees and customers were approached separately after executing and receiving service respectively. The field assistants inter- acted with customers and employees about customer participation in VC during service failure and recovery to enlighten them on the objectives of the survey. They were assured of anonymity and their voluntary participation in the survey was requested by field assistants. While customers provided answers to their experience on participation in VC based on knowledge of service recovery as a result of service failure and their profiles, employees answered questions on trust in the employ- ee–hotel relationship and their profiles. A total of 552 questionnaires were distributed but 511 were returned representing a 92.5% response rate. An identification code was assigned to each questionnaire to help match customers to employees/departments that served them. In the second wave (after one month), field assistants revisited the hotels for employees to answer questions on workaholism and fear- based silence based on their experience with service failure and recov- ery for the customer. In sum, 511 questionnaires were administered but 482 questionnaires were returned representing a 94.3% response rate. The returned questionnaires were reviewed for omissions and incom- plete answers to questionnaires resulting in the removal of 60 cases. The final useable sample was 422 matched data comprising 344 customers and 78 frontline employees. These 422 matched data of customers and frontline employees out of 552 questionnaires distributed in the first wave of data collection represents a 76.4% response rate which is above the recommended threshold of ≥70% to minimize non-response bias (Martin, 2012). Data collection was between May 2021 and September 2021. Sample distribution of final data in the four regions where the 26 hotels operate shows that Greater Accra had the highest = 39.4%, fol- lowed by Greater Kumasi = 27.6%, Central region = 20% and the least was the Eastern Region = 13%. The profile of survey participants is reported in Table 1. 3.2. Measures Survey participants completed modified questions for customer participation in VC (VC: Chan et al., 2010; Boadi et al., 2020); Employee fear-based silence (FBS: Srivastava et al., 2019; Boadi et al., 2020); Workaholism (WKH: Andreassen et al., 2012; Brieger et al., 2019); and Trust (TRS: Su and Swanson, 2019). The measurement scales were on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree” for customer participation in VC and employee fear-based silence while workaholism was on 1 = Never to 5 = Always. While the adapted items for customer participation in VC and fear-based silence have been modified and validated by Boadi et al. (2020) in the context of this study, Trust items have been used in the hospitality context with similar characteristics to the current study context (Su and Swanson, 2019). Also, the modified scale of Bergen Work Addiction (BWAS) to measure workaholism has been validated as most reliable in the literature (Andreassen et al., 2012; Brieger et al., 2019). Therefore, the adapted scales were suitable for attaining the objectives of this study. The final measurement items are described below; Customer participation in VC was measured with five items that encompass the evaluation of customers’ participation in VC in service delivery (example item; Customer participation in VC makes the ex- change of service with employees enjoyable”. Cronbach Alpha value = .90. Employee Fear-Based Silence (FBS) was measured with four items. Example items include; “I fear being perceived as a bad employee by customers and my boss because of service failure” and “I fear getting mistreated in the future by supervisors due to how I resolved a service failure for a customer”. The Cronbach Alpha value = .85 for this scale. Workaholism (WKH) was measured with seven items from the Ber- gen Work Addiction Scale (BWAS). Example items include; “I work to reduce feelings of guilt and anxiety in service failure and recovery.” and ’’ I think of how I could get more time to catch up with work to avoid service failures leading to dissatisfied customers”. The Cronbach Alpha value = .87 for this scale. Trust in Employee – Hotel Relationship (TRS) was measured with four items. Example items are; “This hotel treats me fairly and properly”, and “This hotel considers my advice valuable”. The Cronbach Alpha value = .86 for this scale. 3.3. Data analysis A two-step approach was used for data analysis. First, the measure- ments’ psychometric features were examined with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using IBM SPSS AMOS, version 25, and to attain reli- ability values (Hair et al., 2014; Arbuckle, 2017). Then possible bias in the data set was statistically assessed with Common Latent Factor (CLF). Second, hypotheses were tested via structural equation modeling and the moderating effects were examined with the mean-centered approach. The confounding effects of socio-demographic of employees (gender, education, work experience, income) were controlled. Prior study of Redondo-Flórez et al. (2020) revealed that these variables can influence stress and assertive levels in terms of how employees perceived customer value participation in VC in service failure and re- covery and respond to it with workaholism and fear-based silence Em- ployee’s level of assertiveness shows their ability to make legitimate claims for and against customers and supervisors (Ames and Flynn, 2007). 4. Empirical results 4.1. Normality tests Normality tests for each construct indicated that both absolute values of univariate for skewness and kurtosis were below 2.0 and 3.0 respectively (VC = - 0.832/1.09; FBS = - 0.37/- 0.32; WKH = − 1.41/ 2.21; TRS = − 2.44/1.08) (Dragan et al., 2009). This shows an accept- able normal distribution of data and satisfies structural equation modeling assumptions (Kline, 1998). Also, construct measurement items Table 1 Survey participants profile (N = 422). Description % Customers % Employees Gender Female 66% 51% Male 34% 49% Age 18–25 years 27% 31% 26–33 years 45% 49% 34–41 years 14% 16% 42–49 years 11% 4% 50 and older 3% – Education Primary school 13% 7% High school 26% 19% Diploma 51% 72% Bachelor’s degree 8.2% 2% Postgraduate degree 1.8% – Work experience 1–5years – 81% 6–10 years – 17.5% Above 10 years – 1.5% Number of visits 1-3times 63% – 4-7times 33.4% – Above 8 times 3.6% – E.A. Boadi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 6 descriptive statistics achieved the recommended threshold (≤±2.00) (Field, 2005), and items normality tests were acceptable as reported in Table 2. 4.2. Measurement model Standardized factor loadings of measurement items were assessed with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). All items recorded acceptable values ≥ .07. The acceptable measurement fit indices were: CFI = 0.984, AGFI = 0.911, NFI = 0.953, TLI = 0.981 Chi-square/df (cmin/df) = 1.360, SRMR = 0.05 and RMSEA = 0.039 (Straub et al., 2004). Re- liabilities of constructs’ items were acceptable with composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach Alpha’s (α) above recommended threshold of 0.70 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Additionally, we confirmed no bias in dataset statistically with the Common Latent Factor (CLF). The reliability, val- idity, factor loadings and CLF output are reported in Table 3. 4.3. Constructs’ correlation and discriminant validity This study is not affected by multicollinearity since no correlation coefficient above 0.80 was recorded between variables (Lin, 2007), as reported in Table 4. Constructs’ discriminant validity was attained with Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) of all variables being lower than Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and the square root of AVE for each construct was above correlation coefficients among the constructs (Hair et al., 2014). All AVE values of constructs were above the minimum threshold (0.50), supporting convergent validity. Additionally, the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation reported in Table 5 was below the suggested threshold of 0.90 to confirm discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). 4.4. Hypotheses tests The mean-centered values of trust and customer participation in VC were calculated to attain their interaction variable and coded as VC x TRS. With bootstrapping at 95% confidence interval (CI), and account- ing for the confounding effects of survey participant’s profiles, the direct and moderation paths were examined via maximum likelihood. The model fit indices were acceptable; CFI = 0.954, AGFI = 0.917, NFI = 0.952, TLI = 0.981 Chi-square/df (cmin/df) = 1.356, SRMR = 0.04 and RMSEA = 0.037. There were no observed significant effects of control variables on dependent variables. We observed a significant negative effect of customer participation in VC on workaholism (β = − 0.201; p < .001) and a significant negative influence on fear-based silence (β = − 0.171; p < .001). Hence, H1a and H1b are supported. The results are shown in Table 6. As displayed in Table 4, the moderating effect of trust (VC x TRS) buffered the negative relation between customer participation in VC and employee workaholism as well as fear-based silence (β = − 0.255; p < .001; β = − 0.301; p < .001). Therefore, H2a and H2b are supported. These results are graphically presented by setting below and above the standard deviation as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. Overall, the model estimation findings are shown in Fig. 4. Table 2 Items’ descriptive statistics and normality results (N = 422). Construct and items’ coding Mean ± SD Skewness/ Kurtosis Customer participation in value co-creation.... – – VC1: Makes the exchange of service with employees enjoyable. 3.53 ± 0.86 - 0.73/0.45 VC2: Makes me have a high level of participation in the service process. 3.74 ± 0.79 - 0.92/1.04 VC3: Enhances my relationship with the service provider through an employee. 3.72 ± 0.71 - 1.02/1.80 VC4: Makes me involved in deciding how the services should be provided by service providers 3.66 ± 0.75 - 0.58/1.03 VC5: Helps me to receive interpersonal approval from the service provider. 3.71 ± 0.88 - 0.91/1.17 Fear-based silence (FBS) – – FBS1: I fear being perceived as a bad employee by customers and my boss because of service failure 3.37 ± 1.42 - 0.39/- 0.20 FBS2: I fear getting mistreated in the future by supervisors due to how I resolved a service failure for a customer 3.11 ± 1.69 - 0.22/- 0.81 FBS3: I fear rejection. 3.62 ± 1.50 - 0.58/− 0.16 FBS4: I fear managers’ authority relating to customer service recovery 3.29 ± 1.48 - 0.32/- 0.11 Workaholism (WKH) – – WKH1: I forgo my time for hobbies and leisure for work relating to customers. 2.99 ± 0.63 - 0.62/0.47 WKH2: I think of how I could get more time to catch up with work to avoid service failures leading to dissatisfied customers. 2.10 ± 0.38 - 0.51/0.14 WKH3: I spend more time working than my normal work schedule to find service recovery for potential service failures 2.91 ± 0.45 1.01/0.89 WKH4: I work to reduce feelings of guilt and anxiety in service failure and recovery. 2.76 ± 0.51 - 0.35/− 0.23 WKH5: I do not listen to people who tells me to cut down on work. 2.42 ± 0.74 - 0.61/1.28 WKH6: I enjoy working and become stressed when I’m prevented from working. 2.55 ± 0.43 - 0.38/0.19 WKH7: I work so much that it has affected my health 2.38 ± 0.59 - 0.41/0.52 TRUST (TRS) – – TRS1: This hotel treats me fairly and properly. 3.19 ± 1.29 - 0.85/- 0.18 TRS2: This hotel considers my advice valuable. 3.17 ± 1.20 - 0.88/1.15 TRS3: This hotel communicates openly and honestly. 3.01 ± 0.87 - 0.56/0.12 TRS4: This hotel tells all that I want to know. 3.02 ± 0.77 - 0.61/-0.03 Note: Customer participation in value cocreation = VC; Fear-based silence = FBS; Workaholism = WKH; Trust in employee - hotel relationship (TRS). Table 3 Items reliability, validity, and factor loadings. Construct and items’ code Factor Loading CLF α CR VC – – – – VC1 .74 .022 .90 .88 VC2 .82 .019 VC3 .75 .013 VC4 .78 .025 VC5 .80 .011 FBS – – – – FBS1 .81 .006 .85 .84 FBS2 .73 .017 FBS3 .70 .012 FBS4 .75 .089 WKH – . – – WKH1 .79 .018 .87 .89 WKH2 .73 .001 WKH3 .76 .050 WKH4 .71 .026 WKH5 .77 .022 WKH6 .72 .015 WKH7 .70 .062 TRS – – – – TRS1 .71 .016 .86 .88 TRS2 .89 .042 TRS3 .86 .031 TRS4 .74 .028 Note: α = Cronbach Alpha; CFA loadings = p < .001. Composite Reliability = (CR); CLF = Common Latent Factor (the common method variance effects are below the maximum threshold of 2.00). E.A. Boadi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 7 5. Discussion and conclusions 5.1. Summary of results In this study, the results supported a direct significant negative effect of customer participation in VC on employee fear-based silence and workaholism. Also, moderating effects of employee trust in employee – hotel relationship buffered the supported significant negative effects. These results have notable implications for theory and practice as pre- sented below: 5.2. Theoretical implications The supported negative result between customer participation in VC and fear-based silence can be interpreted as customers demanding so- lutions on a mismatch between value offered by employees and value received while collaborating with employees in service recovery. Cus- tomers’ negative evaluation of value offered by customers and demand for recovery is consistent with the SD-L that value is always co-created through the interaction between the firm and the customer (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Although customers’ negative evaluation of what they receive from employees creates a demand for improvement, customers become satisfied when their expectations are met by employees with the recovery process. This changes a customers’ negative evaluation to positive to signify a balance between job demands and job resources to ensure harmony in service delivery as espoused by the JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2014). Thus, customer positive evaluation signals not only positive outcomes for the customer but also suggests employees capacity in meeting customers’ demand in the service encounter, thereby reducing employee fear-based silence in service failure and Table 4 Construct descriptive statistics, validity, and inter-construct correlation. Discriminant validity Inter-construct correlation Constructs Mean SD AVE MSV ASV 1 2 3 4 1. VC 3.37 0.78 .61 .026 .019 2. TRS 3.82 0.94 .65 .116 .061 .112** 3. FBS 3.65 0.96 .56 .055 .125 -.163** -.235** 4. WKH 3.17 0.76 .55 .116 .179 -.138** -.341** .212** Note: SD = standard deviation; **p < .001, *p < .05. Table 5 Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT). Constructs 1 2 3 4 1.VC 2. TRS .746 3.FBS .797 0.726 4.WKH .782 0.712 0.745 Table 6 Hypotheses tests estimates. Direct and moderation effects BC bootstrapped estimate, 95% Standardized estimate (β) Standardized error (SE) t -value Remarks H1a VC → WKH (.144, .310) -.201*** .039 − 5.15 Supported H1b VC → FBS (.106, .129) -.171*** .024 − 7.12 Supported – TRS → WKH (.155, .181) -.213*** .031 − 6.87 – – TRS → FBS (.103, 0.119) -.183*** .022 − 8.31 – H2a VC × TRS → WKH (.153, .324) -.255*** .054 − 4.72 Supported H2b VC × TRS → FBS (.227, .411) -.301*** .041 − 7.34 Supported Fig. 2. Trust strengthens the negative link between customer participation in value co – creation and employee workaholism. E.A. Boadi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 8 recovery (Bagherzadeh et al., 2020; Casper Ferm and Thaichon, 2021). This result contests and supplies an alternative perspective to the perceived detrimental influence of customer role in employees’ deviant behaviors toward both customers and co-workers (Kim and Qu, 2018; Violet et al., 2019). Also, this finding can be discussed in line with the findings of Burris et al. (2012) in the restaurant setting that, supervisor-subordinate disagreement on voice can attain negative out- comes when employee over-estimate their voice relative to managers’ perspective and a positive outcome can arise when employees under-estimate their upward voice. The supported negative link between customer participation in VC and employee workaholism upholds the impact of customer participa- tion in VC in expediting services and fine-tuning the value embedded in products as offered by hotels with valuable insights (Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser, 2020; Woratschek et al., 2019). Thus, a positive customer evaluation in VC helps employees to evade working excessively beyond normal work schedules and enjoy a work-life balance (Chan et al., 2010; Bakker et al., 2014). The supported moderating effects of trust in an employee-hotel relationship in the negative relationship between customer participa- tion in VC and employee service behaviors (workaholism and fear-based silence) shows that business in hotels and beyond thrives on healthy Fig. 3. Trust strengthens the negative link between customer participation in value co - creation and employee fear-based silence. Customer Participation in Value Co-creation (VC) VC x TRS Workaholism -.301*** V C5 V C4 V C3 V C2 V C1 trs1 trs2 trs3 trs4 wkh1 wkh2 wkh3 wkh4 wkh5 fbs1 fbs2 fbs3 fbs4 .74 .78 .75 .71 .74 .75 .79 .70 .73 .81 .77 .71 .73 .76 Fear-Based Silence -.201*** wkh6 -.171*** -.255*** .80 .82 .86.89 wkh7 .72 .70 Fig. 4. Estimation Model (− ) = Negative Relationship; VC = Customer Participation in Value Co - creation; TRS = Trust in Employee - Hotel Relationship; VC x TRS = Interaction term of Customer Participation in Value Co - creation and Trust in Employee - Hotel Relationship. ***p < .001. E.A. Boadi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 9 relationships among all levels of employees in a company as well as towards customers in VC. This reduces any form of stress, provides required job resources from the perspectives of JD-R theory, and sup- ports reciprocal relationships in organizational behavior (Waseem et al., 2021). It can be said that employees’ positive evaluation of trust in their firms provides them the confidence to rely on their resources to recover service for customers when existing protocols fail. In that, trust will embolden employees to voice the problem without craving for co-- worker’s protection and/or waiting for managers to detect the offender with available integrated systems in hotels. This saves time and averts delays in customer service recovery. The above indicates the need for equity in the allocation of job resources to internal stakeholders (i.e employees) and external stakeholders (i.e customers). An imbalance in favor of external stakeholders is only a public relations gimmick (Opo- ku-Dakwa et al., 2018). 5.3. Practical implications Our findings present some practical implications for handling customer participation in VC to reduce employee fear-based silence and workaholism that can sabotage firms’ strategy on VC. First, managers should recognize technological advancement in service delivery as an enabler of customer participation in VC but not a panacea for service failures and recoveries. This is embedded in our results in that customers may attribute some service failures to employee mistakes but in reality, it is a system failure. Hotel managers should balance the human factor (i.e professional capacity building) with a technology-centered approach in service delivery and recovery. This can impact a positive evaluation of customers on service delivery as it in- fluences appropriate service recovery for dissatisfied customers. In this vein, employees would not have to adapt to a fear-based silence and workaholism that affects their wellbeing and sabotages firms’ customer- first agenda. The supported negative results between customer partici- pation in VC and fear-based silence and workaholism show that cus- tomers collaborating either through machines or face-to-face interactions with employees provides no incentive for employees to worry about having an unpleasant experience, speaking up without being heard, loss of face among co-workers, forgoing hobbies and lei- sure, and punching the reputation of firms. These outcomes are expected since firms have created opportunities for customers and provided re- sources for employees in service recovery especially, in situations where the customer is willing to become part of solving a service failure. Second, firms should be measured in their marketing information in adverts about the value they propose on products/services to attract customers. Customers make demands in VC based on promises made and disconfirmation happens when the actual product consumed compares unfavorably to the value expected. This exerts pressure on employees serving customers to adopt unhealthy behaviors such as fear-based silence and workaholism to avoid confrontation between firms and customers. Third, the results imply that hotels and other service firms should focus on trust-building which is a strong organizational resource that ensures honesty and openness in communication between subordinate employees and supervisors. In particular, trust facilitates employee perceived fairness in the type of employment such as the transition from contract staff to full time/permanent staff, transparency in communi- cating work-life and promotion conditions, employee empowerment to be creative, guidelines for resolving grievances, involvement of employee associations/labor unions and many more to prevent em- ployees adverse behaviors (fear-based silence & workaholism). Accordingly, supervisors can regularly utilize covert and overt means, including an anonymous survey on employee views on their trust in the company. This will provide human resource managers and marketing managers the insights they need to take the most pressing actions to make employee resources available and eliminate constraints. Although the above-outlined measures seem directed towards employees, it encourages healthy employees’ engagements with colleagues and su- pervisors which is transferred to customers (Boadi et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2018). Finally, service-oriented employees should master self-recovery and self-forgiveness in service failures without expecting external support. This can be achieved when employees endeavor to improve their psy- chological capital (see Yan et al., 2021). This study slightly highlights the need for employee psychological capital to execute work in situa- tions where even co-workers may not be willing to collaborate to resolve service failures. Hotel staff with high psychological capital can deal with any form of negative customer evaluation in service delivery that can be induced by customer participation in VC during service failure and recovery. 6. Limitations and way forward Despite the scholarly contribution of this academic work, there are some limitations as with all research. Future studies can examine the inverse relations of constructs in our model. In that, workaholism and fear-based silence could influence customer participation in VC. Second, variables such as psychological capital, organizational support, and high-performing work systems can be introduced into our model with trust to provide varied underlying mechanisms between customer participation in VC and employee service behaviors. Third, the two- wave one-month interval method for data collection minimized poten- tial bias associated with the dataset and strengthens the reliability of this study’s results. However, a longer time lag is suggested for future studies for data collection related to the constructs in our model. Ethical statement The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Decla- ration of Helsinki. Informed consent statement Informed consent was obtained from all the survey participants involved in the study. Declaration of competing interest Authors declare no conflict of interest. Additionally, the funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or inter- pretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Acknowledgment We appreciate the cooperation from the upscale hotels for data collection. We are grateful for the editor and anonymous reviewers’ comments that enriched the revision of this manuscript. This study was supported by the Social Science Planning Fund of the Ministry of Edu- cation,China (No. 18YJA630035). References Agyare, R., Ge, Y., Abrokwah, E., Agyei, J., 2019. Organisational culture moderation of interpersonal trust and affective commitment in health care non-governmental organisations in Ghana. J. Psychol. Afr. 29 (3), 217–222. Ames, D.R., Flynn, F., 2007. What breaks a leader: the curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 (2), 307–324. Amin, M., Shamim, A., Z, G., Khan, I., 2021. Employee motivation to Co-create value (EMCCV): construction and validation of scale. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 58, 102334. Andreassen, C.S., Griffiths, M.D., S, Hetland, J.P., 2012. In: Personality and Social Psychology Development of a Work Addiction Scale, 1, pp. 265–272, 1980. Antwi, C.O., Fan, C.J., Aboagy, M.O., Brobbey, P., Jababu, Y., Affum-Osei, E., Avornyo, P., 2019. Job demand stressors and employees’ creativity: a within-person E.A. Boadi et al. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref1 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref1 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref1 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref2 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref2 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref3 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref3 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref3 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref4 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref4 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref5 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref5 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 10 approach to dealing with hindrance and challenge stressors at the airport environment. Serv. Ind. J. 39 (3–4), 250–278. Antwi, C.O., Fan, C.-J., Ihnatushchenko, N., Aboagye, M.O., Xu, H., 2020. Does the nature of airport terminal service activities matter? Processing and non-processing service quality, passenger affective image and satisfaction. J. Air Transport. Manag. 89, 101869. Antwi, C.O., Fan, C-J., Ihnatushchenko, N., Aboagye, M.O., Xu, H., Azamela, J.C., 2020. Do airport staff helfulness and communication general behavioral loyalty in transfer passengers? A conditional mediation analysis. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 54, 102002. Arbuckle, J.L., 2017. Amos 25 User’ S Guide. IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA. Avanzi, L., Savadori, L., Fraccaroli, F., Ciampa, V., Rolf, Dick van, 2020. Too-Much-of-a- good-thing? The curvilinear relation between identification, overcommitment, and employee well-being. Curr. Psychol. 12144. Bagherzadeh, R., Rawal, M., Wei, S., Saavedra Torres, J.L., 2020. The journey from customer participation in service failure to Co-creation in service recovery. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 54, 102058. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 16 (1), 74–94. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Sanz-Vergel, A.I., 2014. Burnout and work engagement: the JD–R approach. Annu. Rev. Org. Psychol. Org. Behav. 1 (1), 389–411. Balducci, C., Avanzi, L., Fraccaroli, F., 2016. The individual ‘costs’ of workaholism: an analysis based on multisource and prospective data. J. Manag., 0149206316658348 Behravesh, E., Tanova, C., Abubakar, A.M., 2019. Do high-performance work systems always help to retain employees or is there a dark side? Serv. Ind. J. 11–12. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1572748. Boadi, E.A., He, Z., Boadi, E.K., Bosompem, J., Avornyo, P., 2019. Consequences of corporate social responsibility on employees: the moderating role of work motivation patterns. Person. Rev. 49 (1), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08- 2018-0288. Boadi, E.A., He, Z., Bosompem, J., Opata, C.N., Boadi, E.K., 2020. Employees’ perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its effects on internal outcomes. Serv. Ind. J. 40 (9–10), 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1606906. Belle, M.A., Antwi, C.O., Affum-Osei, E., Ren, J., 2021. Am I gonna get a job? Graduating students’ psychological capital, coping styles, and employment anxiety. J. Career Dev. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211020124. Boadi, E.A., He, Z., Boadi, E., Antwi, S., Say, J., 2020. Customer value Co-creation and employee silence : emotional intelligence as explanatory mechanism. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 91, 102646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102646. Bozkurt, S., Gligor, D., 2021. Distinguishing between the impact of social media public and private compliments on customers’ future service recovery expectations. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 60, 102448. Brieger, S.A., Anderer, S., F, A., Bäro, A., Meynhardt, T., 2019. Too much of a good thing ? on the relationship between CSR and employee work addiction. J. Bus. Ethics 10551. Brown, S., Gray, D., McHardy, J., Taylor, K., 2015. Employee trust and workplace performance. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 116, 361–378. Burris, E.R., Detert, J.R., Romney, A.C., 2012. Speaking up vs. Being Heard: the Disagreement Around and Outcomes of Employee Voice, vol. 24. Organization Science, pp. 22–38, 1. Carlson, J., Wyllie, J., Rahman, M.M., Voola, R., 2018. Enhancing brand relationship performance through customer participation and value creation in social media brand communities. J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 0969698918 Casper Ferm, L.E., Thaichon, P., 2021. Value Co-creation and social media: investigating antecedents and influencing factors in the U.S. Retail banking industry. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 61, 102548. Castillo, D., Canhoto, A.I., Said, E., 2020. The dark side of AI-powered service interactions: exploring the process of Co-destruction from the customer perspective. Serv. Ind. J. 41 (3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1787993. Chan, K.W., Yim, C.K., Lam, S.K., 2010. Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures. J. Market. 74, 48–74. Chen, N., Mohanty, S., Jiao, J., Fan, X., 2020. To err is human: tolerate humans instead of machines in service failure. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 102363. Cheung, M.F.Y., To, W.M., 2021. Effect of customer involvement on Co-creation of services: a moderated mediation model. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 63, 102660. Clark, M.A., Michel, J.S., Zhdanova, L., Pui, S.Y., Baltes, B.B., 2014. All work and No play? A meta-analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism. J. Manag., 0149206314522301 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314522301. Dayour, F., Adongo, C.A., Amuquandoh, F.E., Adam, I., 2020. Managing the COVID-19 crisis: coping and post-recovery strategies for hospitality and tourism businesses in Ghana. J. Hospital. Tour. Insights. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-08-2020-0150. Dragan, Đ., Emilija, N, D., Vesna, J., Jovan, M., 2009. On measuring skewness and kurtosis. Qual. Quantity 43 (3), 481–493. Dyne, L. Van, Ang, S., Botero, I.C., 2003. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. J. Manag. Stud. 40 (6), 1359–1392. Field, A., 2005. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, second ed. SAGE, Publications, Inc., London,UK. Finsterwalder, J., Kuppelwieser, V.G., 2020. Intentionality and transformative services: wellbeing Co-creation and spill-over effects. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 52, 101922. Grégoire, Y., Mattila, A.S., 2020. Service failure and recovery at the crossroads: recommendations to revitalize the field and its influence. J. Serv. Res., 1094670520 Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis, seventh ed. Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh, UK. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8, 2015. Herhausen, D., Ludwig, S., Grewal, D., Wulf, J., Schoegel, M., 2019. Detecting, preventing, and mitigating online firestorms in brand communities. J. Market. 83 (3), 1–21. Israeli, A.A., Lee, S.A., Karpinski, A.C., 2017. Investigating the dynamics and the content of customers’ social media reporting after a restaurant service failure. J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 26 (6), 606–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19368623.2017.1281193. Jain, A.K., 2015. An interpersonal perspective to study silence in Indian organisations. Person. Rev. 44 (6), 1010–1036. Kennedy, E., Guzmán, F., 2019. No matter what you do, I still love you: an examination of consumer reaction to brand transgressions. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 7, 2450. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2019-2450. Khamitov, M., Yany, G., Anshu, S., 2020. A systematic review of brand transgression, service failure recovery and product-harm crisis: integration and guiding insights. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 48 (3), 519–542. Khantimirov, D., Karande, K., 2018. Complaint as a persuasion attempt: front line employees’ perceptions of complaint legitimacy. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 43, 68–76. Khantimirov, D., Karande, K., Ford, J., 2020. Dissatisfaction after service failures as a realized transaction risk: customer opportunism as a function of external and internal rewards. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 52, 101896. Khenfer, J., Cuny, C., 2020. Brand preference in the face of control loss and service failure: the role of the sound of brands. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 55, 102132. Kim, Haemi, Qu, Hailin, 2018. The effects of experienced customer incivility on employees’ coworkers, behavior toward customers and coworkers. J. Hospit. Tourism Res., 109634801876458 https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348018764583. Kline, R.B., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guiford, New York. Låstad, L., Tanimoto, A.S., Lindfors, P., 2021. How do job insecurity profiles correspond to employee experiences of work-home interference, self-rated health, and psychological well-being? J. Occup. Health 63 (1), e12253. Lanlan, Z., MinGao, Y., Jianchun, Y., 2021. Service with improper requests: how fellow customers interpret employee’s judgment call. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 62, 102647. Lebel, R.D., 2016. Overcoming the fear factor: how perceptions of supervisor openness lead employees to speak up when fearing external threat. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 135, 10–21. Lee, L., Guchait, P., Madera, J.M., 2020. Negative affect, deep acting, and customer compensation as responses to customer mistreatment: the effect of customer-based perspective-taking. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 89, 102532. Lee, M.J., Singh, N., Chan, E.S.W., 2011. Service failures and recovery actions in the hotel industry: a text-mining approach. J. Vacat. Mark. 17 (3), 197–207. Lin, L., 2007. Using SPSS for Multiple Regression Step 1 — Define Research Question. University of Washington, Washington. Lusch, R.F., Vargo, L.S., 2014. Service Dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities. ” Cambridge University Press, United Kindom. Martin, P., 2012. Non response bias. Epidemiology in core psychiatry, third edition. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions /nonresponse-bias. November 05, 2021. Mattila, A.S., Heejung, R., 2008. Customer Satisfaction, Service Failure, and Service Recovery. Handbook of Hospitality Marketing Management, first ed. Routledge. Mostafa, R.B., 2020. Mobile banking service quality: a new avenue for customer value Co-creation. Int. J. Bank Market. 38 (5), 1107–1132. Mowbray, P.K., Wilkinson, A., A, Tse, H.H.M., 2021. High-performance work systems and employee voice behaviour: an integrated model and research agenda. Person. Rev. 50 (6), 1530–1543. Nadeem, W., Juntunen, M., M, Hajli, N., 2021. The role of ethical perceptions in consumers’ participation and value Co-creation on sharing economy platforms. J. Bus. Ethics 169, 421–441. Ng, I.C.L., Vargo, S.L., 2018. Service-dominant (S-D) logic, service ecosystems and institutions: bridging theory and practice. J. Serv. Manag. 24 (4), 518–520. Nikbin, D., Marimuthu, M., Hyun, S.S., Ismail, I., 2015. Relationships of perceived justice to service recovery, service failure attributions, recovery satisfaction, and loyalty in the context of airline travelers. Asia Pac. J. Tourism Res. 20 (3), 239–262. Olugbade, O.A., Karatepe, O.M., 2019. Stressors, work engagement and their effects on hotel employee. Serv. Ind. J. 39 (3–4), 279–298. Opata, C.N., Xiao, W., Nusenu, A.A., Tetteh, S., Boadi, E.A., 2019. The impact of value Co-creation on satisfaction and loyalty : the moderating effect of price fairness (empirical study of automobile customers in Ghana). Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 1 (15), 14783363. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2019.1684189. Opoku-Dakwa, A., Chen, C.C., Rupp, D.E., 2018. CSR initiative characteristics and employee engagement: an impact-based perspective. J. Organ. Behav. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.2281. Özen, K.R., Ardıç, K., Uslu, O., Karakiraz, A., 2014. Emotional intelligence , fear based silence and trust to manager : a case study. Pol. J. Manag. 10 (2), 133–142. Pacheco, N.A., Geuens, M., Pizzutti, C., 2018. Whom do customers blame for a service failure? Effects of thought speed on causal locus attribution. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 40, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.006. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903. E.A. Boadi et al. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref5 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref5 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/optr5xcQmNFJI http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/optr5xcQmNFJI http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/optr5xcQmNFJI http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/optr5xcQmNFJI http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/optJKL3ecgbbN http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/optJKL3ecgbbN http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/optJKL3ecgbbN http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/optJKL3ecgbbN http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref6 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref7 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref7 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref7 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref8 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref8 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref8 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref9 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref9 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref10 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref10 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref11 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref11 https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1572748 https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1572748 https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2018-0288 https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2018-0288 https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1606906 https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211020124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102646 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref16 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref16 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref16 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref17 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref17 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref17 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref18 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref18 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref19 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref19 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref19 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref20 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref20 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref20 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref21 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref21 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref21 https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1787993 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref23 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref23 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref23 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref24 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref24 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref25 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref25 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314522301 https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-08-2020-0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref28 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref28 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref29 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref29 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref30 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref30 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref31 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref31 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref32 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref32 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref33 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref33 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref35 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref35 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref35 https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1281193 https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1281193 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref37 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref37 https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2019-2450 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref39 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref39 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref39 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref40 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref40 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref40 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref41 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref41 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref41 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref42 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref42 https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348018764583 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref44 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref44 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref45 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref45 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref45 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref46 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref46 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref46 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref47 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref47 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref47 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref48 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref48 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref48 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref49 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref49 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref50 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref50 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref51 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref51 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/nonresponse-bias https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/nonresponse-bias http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref53 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref53 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref54 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref54 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref55 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref55 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref55 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref56 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref56 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref56 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref57 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref57 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref58 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref58 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref58 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref59 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref59 https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2019.1684189 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2281 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2281 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref62 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref62 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.006 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref64 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref64 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref64 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102898 11 Redondo-Flórez, L., Tornero-Aguilera, J.F., Ramos-Campo, D.J., Clemente-Suárez, V., 2020. Gender differences in stress- and burnout-related factors of university professors. BioMed Res. Int., 6687358 https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6687358. Ranjan, K.R., Read, S., 2016. Value co-creation: concept and measurement. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 44, 290–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-397-2. Roggeveen, A.L., Tsiros, M., Grewal, D., 2012. Understanding the Co-creation effect : when does collaborating with customers provide a lift to service recovery. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 40, 771–790. Ryan, L., 2017. Ten unmistakable signs of a fear-based workplace. Available at: https://Www.Forbes.Com/Sites/Lizryan/2017/03/07/Ten-Unmistakable-Signs-o f-a-Fear-Based-Workplace/?Sh=153019f21e26, 20/6/2021. Sands, S., Campbell, C., Shedd, L., Ferraro, C., Mavrommatis, A., 2020. How small service failures drive customer defection: introducing the concept of micro failures. Bus. Horiz. 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.03.014. Sharifi, S.S., Palmeira, M., Ma, J., Spassova, G., 2017. The impact of service failure and recovery on target and observing customers: a comparative study. J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 26 (8), 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1337538. Shih-Chieh, C., Yin-Hui, C., Chai-Jung, C., Shun-Wen, Y., 2011. The effect of service failure types and service recovery on customer satisfaction: a mental accounting perspective. SSRN Electron. J., 1869434 Shore, J.A.M., Coyle-Shapiro, L.M., 2007. The employee–organization relationship: where do we go from here? Human Resour. Rev. 17 (2), 166–179. Srivastava, S., Jain, A.K., Sullivan, S., 2019. Employee silence and burnout in India: the mediating role of emotional intelligence. Person. Rev. 48 (4), 1045–1060. https:// doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2018-0104. Straub, D., Marie-Claude, B., Gefen, D., 2004. Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 13, 24. Su, L., Swanson, S.R., 2019. Perceived corporate social responsibility’s impact on the well- being and supportive green behaviors of hotel employees: the mediating role of the employee-corporate relationship. Tourism Manag. 72, 4437–4450. Sussman, S., 2012. Workaholism: a review. J. Addiction Res. Ther. 6, 4120. Tetteh, S., Wu, C., Opata, C.N., Asirifua Agyapong, G.N.Y., Amoako, R., Osei-Kusi, F., 2020. Perceived organisational support, job stress, and turnover intention: the moderation of affective commitments. J. Psychol. Afr. 30 (1), 9–16. Tingko, L., Chih-Hsing, S.L., Pei-Hsun, L., 2021. The influences of cooperative climate, competitive climate and customer empowerment on service creativity. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 63, 102726. TouringGhana, 2021. List of hotels in Ghana, Ghana tourism authority and Ministry of tourism. Available at: http://touringghana.com/hoteld-in-ghana/. April 25, 2021. VanVaerenbergh, Y., Varga, D.A. De K., Chiara, O., 2019. The service recovery journey: conceptualization, integration, and directions for future research. J. Serv. Res. 22 (2), 103–119. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2016. Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 44, 5–23. Villi, B., Koc, E., 2018. Employee attractiveness and customers’ service failure perceptions. J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 27 (1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19368623.2017.1329046. Violet, U., Olusegun, A.O., Turgay, A., Öztüren, A., 2019. Customer incivility and employees ’ outcomes in the hotel : testing the mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Tourism Manag. Perspect. 29, 9–17. Waseem, D., Biggemann, S., Garry, T., 2021. An exploration of the drivers of employee motivation to facilitate value Co-creation. J. Serv. Market. 35 (4), 442–452. Wood, G., Bosch, M.J., Mughal, F., Rofcanin, Y., Mireia, L.H., 2018. A Closer Look at the Positive Crossover between Supervisors and Subordinates: the Role of Home and Work Engagement. Human Relations, 001872671881259. Woratschek, H., Horbel, C., Popp, B., 2019. Determining customer satisfaction and loyalty from a value Co-creation perspective. Serv. Ind. J. 40 (11–12), 777–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1606213. Xiao, W., Opata, C.N., Tetteh, S., Tettey-Wayo, N.J., Hinson, R.E., 2020. Value Co- creation effects on transaction cost, relational capital, and loyalty of hair salon customers: results and implications of a Ghanaian study. J. Psychol. Afr. 30 (3), 217–224. Xu, S., Cao, Z., Huo, Y., 2020. Antecedents and outcomes of emotional labour in hospitality and tourism: a meta-analysis. Tourism Manag. 79, 104099. Yan, Y., Jing, H., 2021. Self-diminishing effects of awe on consumer forgiveness in service encounters. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 60, 102491. Yan, Z., Mansor, Z.D., Choo, W.C., Abdullah, A.R., 2021. Mitigating effect of psychological capital on employees’ withdrawal behavior in the presence of job attitudes: evidence from five-star hotels in Malaysia. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.617023. Yu, S., Wu, N., Liu, S., Gong, X., 2021. Job insecurity and employees’ extra-role behavior: moderated mediation model of negative emotion and workplace friendship. Front. Psychol. 6 (12), 631062. Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torres, E., Chen, P.J., 2018. Engaging customers in value Co-creation or Co-destruction online. J. Serv. Market. 32 (1), 57–69. E.A. Boadi et al. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6687358 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-397-2 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref67 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref67 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref67 https://Www.Forbes.Com/Sites/Lizryan/2017/03/07/Ten-Unmistakable-Signs-of-a-Fear-Based-Workplace/?Sh=153019f21e26 https://Www.Forbes.Com/Sites/Lizryan/2017/03/07/Ten-Unmistakable-Signs-of-a-Fear-Based-Workplace/?Sh=153019f21e26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.03.014 https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1337538 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref71 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref71 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref71 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref72 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref72 https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2018-0104 https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2018-0104 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref74 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref74 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref75 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref75 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref75 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref76 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref77 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref77 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref77 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref78 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref78 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref78 http://touringghana.com/hoteld-in-ghana/ http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref80 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref80 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref80 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref81 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref81 https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1329046 https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1329046 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref83 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref83 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref83 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref84 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref84 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref85 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref85 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref85 https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1606213 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref87 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref87 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref87 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref87 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref88 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref88 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref89 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref89 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.617023 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.617023 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref91 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref91 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref91 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref92 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0969-6989(21)00464-1/sref92 Value co-creation and employee service behaviours: The moderating role of trust in employee - hotel relationship 1 Introduction 2 Literature review 2.1 Theoretical foundation 2.1.1 Job demands - resources theory 2.1.2 Customer participation in VC in service failure and recovery 2.2 Setting of hypotheses 2.2.1 Customer participation in VC and employee service behaviours 2.2.2 Trust in an employee - hotel relationship as moderator 2.3 Theoretical model 3 Methods 3.1 Research design and data collection 3.2 Measures 3.3 Data analysis 4 Empirical results 4.1 Normality tests 4.2 Measurement model 4.3 Constructs’ correlation and discriminant validity 4.4 Hypotheses tests 5 Discussion and conclusions 5.1 Summary of results 5.2 Theoretical implications 5.3 Practical implications 6 Limitations and way forward Ethical statement Informed consent statement Declaration of competing interest Acknowledgment References