Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management Hope, Work ...

This article was downloaded by: [Dogu Akdeniz University] On: 30 June 2014, At: 00:26 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20

Hope, Work Engagement, and Organizationally Valued Performance Outcomes: An Empirical Study in the Hotel Industry Osman M. Karatepe

a

a

Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, Turkey Accepted author version posted online: 27 Jan 2014.Published online: 30 May 2014.

To cite this article: Osman M. Karatepe (2014) Hope, Work Engagement, and Organizationally Valued Performance Outcomes: An Empirical Study in the Hotel Industry, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23:6, 678-698, DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2014.855994 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.855994

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23:678–698, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1936-8623 print/1936-8631 online DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2014.855994

Hope, Work Engagement, and Organizationally Valued Performance Outcomes: An Empirical Study in the Hotel Industry OSMAN M. KARATEPE Downloaded by [Dogu Akdeniz University] at 00:26 30 June 2014

Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, Turkey

This article proposes and tests a research model that investigates whether work engagement mediates the effect of hope on job performance, service recovery performance, and extra-role customer service. These relationships were tested using data gathered from full-time frontline hotel employees and their managers in Romania. The results from structural equation modeling suggest that the impact of hope on job performance, service recovery performance, and extra-role customer service is fully mediated by work engagement. Based on the results reported in this study, several useful implications concerning acquisition and retention of frontline employees who can display quality performance in the workplace are provided. KEYWORDS hope, hotel employees, performance outcomes, Romania, work engagement

INTRODUCTION At a time of increasing competition from other hospitality firms, intensifying customer demands, and rapid rates of technological change, hospitality managers need to acquire and retain quality frontline employees. This is important, because such employees deliver superior services to customers, return disgruntled customers to a state of satisfaction after a service failure, play a critical role in the implementation of a successful service guarantee program, and go beyond their formal role requirements (cf. Deery, 2008; Address correspondence to Osman M. Karatepe, Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, TRNC, Via Mersin 10, Turkey. E-mail: osman. [email protected] 678

Downloaded by [Dogu Akdeniz University] at 00:26 30 June 2014

Hope, Work Engagement, and Performance Outcomes

679

Hocutt & Bowers, 2005; Kim, 2011; Solnet, Kandampully, & Kralj, 2010). With this realization, managers need to consider the personality traits of employees in frontline service jobs during the selection process to hire individuals who can demonstrate effective performance in service encounters (Herington & Weaven, 2009; Kusluvan, Kusluvan, Ilhan, & Buyruk, 2010). Hope is an emerging construct in positive organizational behavior that refers to “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement” (Luthans, 2002, p. 59). As a personality trait, hope refers to the successful goal oriented determination (agency) and planning to meet these goals (pathways; Snyder et al., 1991). These goals can be characterized as “anything that individuals desire to get, do, be, experience, or create” (Peterson & Byron, 2008, p. 787). Hope includes both willpower and waypower thinking (Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009). With this stated, employees will have the will and a viable means to achieve a specific goal (Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008). That is, employees will have the motivation to use any of the multiple alternative strategies that may lead to accomplishment of a specific goal. As an important motivational construct, work engagement (WE) refers to “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzáles-Romá, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). Hope is expected to initiate employees in being engaged in their work and enable them to devote their energy to dedicatedly pursuing their goals (Ouweneel, Le Blanc, Schaufeli, & van Wijhe, 2012). WE is a proximal construct to employee performance (Menguc, Auh, Fisher, & Haddad, 2013) and can link hope to three organizationally valued performance outcomes such job performance (JP), service recovery performance (SRP), and extrarole customer service (ERCS). Since frontline employees have to perform effectively in service delivery and complaint-handling processes, the aforementioned outcomes are used in this study (e.g., Babakus, Yavas, Karatepe, & Avci, 2003; De Jong & De Ruyter, 2004; Karatepe, 2011, 2012). JP refers to “the level of productivity of an individual employee, relative to his or her peers, on several job-related behaviors and outcomes” (Babin & Boles, 1998, p. 82), while SRP refers to frontline employees’ abilities and actions to resolve a service failure to the satisfaction of the customer (Babakus et al., 2003). In addition, ERCS is defined as “discretionary behaviors of contact employees in serving customers that extend beyond formal role requirements” (Bettencourt & Brown, 1997, p. 41). Employees high in hope are more engaged in their work since they have more goal oriented strategies and are motivated for goal achievement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). These employees in turn perform successfully in service delivery and complaint-handling processes. Simply put, WE serves as a mediating mechanism through which hope influences JP, SRP, and ERCS.


680

O. M. Karatepe

Despite its relevance and significance in frontline service jobs, hope and its effect on performance outcomes are neglected in service research (Yavas, Babakus, & Karatepe, 2013). An examination of the current literature reveals that very little is known about the effect of hope on WE (Ouweneel et al., 2012). There is also a dearth of empirical research about hope and its consequences in frontline service jobs in the hospitality management literature (Yavas, Karatepe, & Babakus, 2013). This is surprising, because frontline employees have intense face-to-face or voice-to-voice interactions with customers, provide feedback about customer requests and problems to managers, and have to display good performance in the workplace. The aforementioned research voids can be observed in a recent metaanalysis. That is, calls are made to investigate the consequences of hope (Alarcon, Bowling, & Khazon, 2013). More importantly, empirical research regarding WE as a mechanism that links personality traits to performance outcomes in the current literature is scarce (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010). Such void in the literature is also underscored in a recent study conducted in Romania (Sulea et al., 2012). Besides adding to the existing knowledge base, the results of this study will provide useful implications to managers. Specifically, engaged employees display better performance than nonengaged employees. Bakker (2011) argued that engaged employees often have positive emotions and regularly work on their personal resources. Bakker (2011) also discussed that engaged employees devote their resources (e.g., energy) to their work and generate a demonstration effect among current employees in their immediate work environment. It is also important to note that, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study in the hospitality management literature that links hope to JP, SRP, and ERCS through WE using data gathered from frontline hotel employees and their managers in Romania. The hospitality industry in Romania seems to be an appropriate setting to examine the previously mentioned relationships. As one of the recent European Union countries, Romania and its hospitality industry are underrepresented in the hospitality management literature. A careful analysis of the relevant studies demonstrates that hospitality managers have to cope with a number of problems emerging from the quality of manpower. Specifically, Marin-Pantelescu and Lupu (2009) discussed that there are employees in the hospitality industry in Romania who are untrained and underpaid due to the seasonality problem. This is also highlighted in another study that the Romanian hospitality industry is beset with problems associated with inadequate talented employees, heightened employee turnover, and shortage of human resource expertise (Ineson & Berechet, 2011). Shortage of talented employees appears to be related to lack of various high-performance work practices such as selective staffing, training, participation in decision-making, pay, and job security (Ciulu & Dr˘agan,



681

2011; Ineson & Berechet, 2011; Ispas & B˘ab˘ai¸ta˘ , 2012). Under these circumstances, it is difficult to acquire and retain a pool of talented employees in the organization (Ineson & Berechet, 2011). Therefore, the results of this study will provide useful strategies for acquisition and retention of employees high in hope and the ones who are engaged in their work and display effective performance in service delivery and complaint-handling processes. Grounded in this backdrop, the purpose of this article is to propose and test a research model that examines whether WE mediates the effect of hope on JP, SRP, and ERCS. Data collected from frontline hotel employee-manager dyads in Romania are used to assess these relationships. In what follows, the relevant literature on which the hypothesized relationships in the research model are built is presented. Discussion of the method and results of the empirical study pertain to the other sections of the article. The article culminates with implications of the findings and suggestions for future research.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES The need to hire and retain a pool of quality frontline employees is of great importance to the hospitality industry (Dawson & Abbott, 2011). This is significant, because loyal employees fit the requirements of frontline service jobs and succeed in the job (Ineson, Benke, & László, 2013). Past and recent studies also reveal that career development, hiring and promotions, compensation policy, and corporate culture and communication appear to influence nonsupervisory employee retention (Moncarz, Zhao, & Kay, 2009; Yang, Wan, & Fu, 2012). With this realization, it seems that managers have to pay attention to the personality traits of employees during the selection process and create a work environment where such employees are motivated for goal achievement and display elevated levels of overall performance. A synthesis of the current literature indicates that in addition to job resources (e.g., supervisor support, performance feedback), personal resources enhance WE. For instance, in a study of employees in the manufacturing industry in the Netherlands, Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli (2007) showed that personal resources (as manifested by organizational-based self-esteem, optimism, and self-efficacy) enhanced WE. Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Heuven, Demerouti, and Schaufeli (2008) found a positive relationship between self-efficacy and WE among Dutch flight attendants. Avey, Wernsing, and Luthans (2008) reported that the impact of psychological capital, as manifested by hope, efficacy, optimism, and resilience, on WE was fully mediated by positive emotions for a sample of working adults. Kim, Shin, and Swanger’s (2009) study demonstrated that conscientiousness increased WE among supervisory and nonsupervisory employees in the restaurant industry.


682

O. M. Karatepe

In their longitudinal study, Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli (2009) reported that personal resources at Time I facilitated WE at Time II. They further noted that Time I WE was positively linked to personal resources at Time II. In a study of firefighters and their supervisors, core self-evaluations and value congruence fostered WE (Rich et al., 2010). Recently, Salanova, Lorente, Chambel, and Martínez (2011) found a similar finding for a sample of Portuguese nurses. More recently, Karatepe and Aga (2012) demonstrated that job resourcefulness and customer orientation enhanced WE among frontline bank employees in Northern Cyprus. As an important personality trait, hope can be linked to WE. Agency thoughts (e.g., positive past experiences) motivate employees to pursue or take advantage of strategies that will result in achievement of goals (e.g., being promoted). Not surprisingly, employees high in hope have the uncanny ability to find alternative ways to achieve their goals (Avey et al., 2008). According to Snyder (2002, p. 251), agency thinking “takes on special significance when people encounter impediments. During such blockages, agency helps people to channel the requisite motivation to the best alternative pathway.” Employees high in hope are capable of finding alternative ways to overcome impediments and have the motivation to exercise the most suitable strategy. However, when employees find that the strategy they prefer to pursue seems to prove difficult, they focus on other alternative strategies to overcome problems or difficulties to reach their goals. Such employees drive their physical, cognitive, and emotional energy into their work roles while pursuing strategies that may lead to goal attainment. This is also consistent with the perspective of Kahn (1990) that employees high in hope direct their physical, cognitive, and emotional energy in pursuing strategies through WE. Employees with personal resources are highly engaged in their work and can control their immediate work environment successfully. However, it seems that there is only one empirical study testing the impact of hope on WE in the current literature (Ouweneel et al., 2012). Due to the paucity of empirical evidence, the results of a recent meta-analysis study do not demonstrate work engagement as one of the consequences of hope (Alarcon et al., 2013). In light of the information given above, hope stimulates employees to feel energetic and dedicated and be immersed in their work. Therefore, the following hypothesis is offered: H1: Hope is positively related to WE.

JP, SRP, and ERCS are the three organizationally valued performance outcomes examined in this study. Although not abundant in the current literature, there is empirical evidence that employees with higher WE perform successfully in service delivery and complaint-handling processes and


683

display ERCS behaviors for meeting or even exceeding customer expectations (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Karatepe, 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2008). Such employees are also motivated to perform better when they receive positive energy from customers (Aslan & Kozak, 2012). A recent study also reveals that there is a need to ascertain whether WE simultaneously leads to in-role and extra-role performance (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). Against this background, the following hypotheses are proposed:


H2: WE is positively related to (a) JP, (b) SRP, and (c) ERCS.

The aforementioned relationships implicitly suggest that the effect of hope on JP, SRP, and ERCS is fully mediated by WE. The job demandsresources (JD-R) model provides directions for developing hypotheses regarding the mediating role of WE. The JD-R model which is a heuristic model assumes two processes: the health impairment process and the motivational process. The health impairment process posits that job demands are related to burnout, because badly designed jobs may exhaust employees’ physical and mental resources and result in energy depletion and health problems (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). The motivational process of the JD-R model proposes that job resources and personal resources influence WE independently or jointly (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Employees who score high on personal resources such as self-efficacy have high levels of energy, feel dedicated, and are happily engrossed in their work (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Such employees in turn demonstrate high quality performance in the workplace. There are a number of empirical studies that report the relevance and viability of the motivational process of the JD-R model by examining the effects of job resources or personal resources on job outcomes via WE. For example, it was reported that WE had a full mediating role in the relationship between job resources (e.g., work social support) and turnover intentions (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Richardsen, Burke, and Martinussen (2007) found that WE partially mediated the effects of job resources (e.g., job autonomy) on organizational commitment. Xanthopoulou et al. (2008) found that WE fully mediated the impact of self-efficacy on in-role and extra-role performances. Recently, Karatepe and Aga (2012) indicated that WE acted as a full mediator of the effects of job resourcefulness and customer orientation on job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. This study contends that WE functions as a full mediator of the impact of hope on JP, SRP, and ERCS. That is, employees high in hope are goal and task oriented. Employees with agency and pathways thinking are highly engaged in their work, and therefore, display high levels of performance in service encounters. In short, as a personal resource, hope enhances WE, which is a motivational construct. Engaged employees in turn deliver quality services to customers, deal with customer requests and problems successfully, and

684

O. M. Karatepe

go beyond their formal role requirements. Based on the precepts of the motivational process of the JD-R model and limited empirical evidence, the following hypotheses are proposed: H3: WE fully mediates the effect of hope on (a) JP, (b) SRP, and (c) ERCS.


Research Model The research model in Figure 1 demonstrates the study relationships. Specifically, the model proposes that employees high in hope have elevated levels of WE. Such employees in turn display higher JP, SRP, and ERCS. In short, WE has a full mediating role in the relationship between hope and performance outcomes. As discussed by Rich et al. (2010), it is critical to examine WE that can serve as a mechanism through which personal resources or personality traits influence performance outcomes.

METHOD Sample and Procedure Line and Runyan’s (2012) recent study on hospitality marketing research demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of the empirical studies have used self-report data that are prone to common method bias. Common method bias is a potential threat to the magnitudes of relationships among variables. Consistent with the suggestions made by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Employee assessment

Manager assessment

Job performance H2(a)

H1 Hope

H2(b)

Work engagement H3(a)-(c)

Service recovery performance

H2(c) Extra-role customer service

FIGURE 1 Research model.



685

Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), this study collects data from managers to measure frontline employees’ JP, SRP, and ERCS. That is, frontline employees’ JP, SRP, and ERCS are assessed by their managers. This study used a sample of full-time frontline hotel employees (e.g., front desk agents, wait staff, bell attendants, guest relations representatives, bartenders, door attendants) and their managers during peak season in the Poiana Brasov region which is one of the most important winter tourist destinations in Romania. There are two main reasons for choosing frontline employees in the present study. First, frontline employees have frequent face-to-face or voice-to-voice interactions with customers, represent the hotel to customers and other related parties, and have to be high performers in service encounters. Second, frontline employees provide useful information about customer expectations and complaints to management of the hotel. At the time of this study there were seven 4-star hotels and only one 5star hotel in the Poiana Brasov region. Management of these hotels agreed to participate in the current study. However, they did not allow the researcher to directly contact their employees. Therefore, self-administered questionnaires that consisted of information about the assurance of anonymity and confidentiality were distributed to frontline employees through their managers. Each frontline employee sealed the questionnaire in an envelope and placed it in a special box. The researcher received the questionnaires from this box. The employee questionnaire included the hope and WE measures and items pertaining to age, gender, education, and organizational tenure. The manager questionnaire consisted of the JP, SRP, and ERCS measures. The researcher prepared a master list that comprised the names of frontline hotel employees. Each employee in this list was assigned an identification number. An identification number appeared on each employee’s questionnaire. An identification number was also written on each manager questionnaire. This procedure was deemed necessary for matching the employee questionnaires with the manager questionnaires (Karatepe, 2012). Managers assessed each frontline employee’s JP, SRP, and ERCS under their supervision. One manager from each hotel participated in the study to assess frontline employees’ performance outcomes under his or her supervision. That is, eight managers participated in the study. Management of several hotels requested to have different numbers of self-administered questionnaires. This resulted in a total of number of 123 questionnaires. Therefore, 123 questionnaires were distributed to frontline employees. One hundred and fourteen questionnaires were returned by the cut-off date for data collection. However, 110 questionnaires had complete information. That is, 110 questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 89.4%. Such a response rate is comparable to other studies (e.g., Boles, Wood, & Johnson, 2003). These employee questionnaires were also matched with the manager questionnaires using the identification number.

686

O. M. Karatepe

Forty-one respondents (37%) ranged in age from 18 to 27 years, while 43 respondents (39%) ranged in age from 28 to 37 years. The rest were older than 37. The sample consisted of 64 (58%) males and 46 (42%) females. In terms of educational attainment, 7 respondents (6%) had primary school education, while 55 respondents (50%) had secondary and high school education. Forty-two respondents (38%) had two- and four-year college degrees. The rest had graduate degrees. The sample included 73 respondents (66%) with tenures of five years or less. Twenty-six respondents (24%) had tenures between 6 and 10 years. The rest had been with their hotel for 11 or more years.


Measurement All variables that are measured through multiple items in the current literature are discussed below. Hope. Twelve items from Snyder et al. (1991) were used to measure hope. This scale was reported to have evidence of validity and reliability (e.g., Babyak, Snyder, & Yoshinobu, 1993) and was used in previous empirical studies (e.g., Alarcon et al., 2013; Peterson & Byron, 2008; Peterson, Gerhardt, & Rode, 2006). Sample items are, “I can think of many ways to get out of a jam” and “I energetically pursue my goals.” Response options for items in hope ranged from 4 (definitely true) to 1 (definitely false). After the negatively worded items had been reverse scored, higher scores indicated higher hope. WE. The shortened version of the Utrecht WE scale was used to operationalize WE. The scale that taps vigor, dedication, and absorption has sound psychometric properties and can be used in empirical studies (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). An examination of the current literature also provides support for the use of the nine-item Utrecht WE scale (e.g., Karatepe, 2011; Richardsen et al., 2007; Sulea et al., 2012). Sample items are, “At my work, I feel bursting with energy,” “I am enthusiastic about my job,” and “I feel happy when I am working intensely.” Responses to items in WE were rated on a 7-point frequency rating scale ranging from 6 (always) to 0 (never). Higher scores demonstrated higher WE. JP. Using five items adapted from the work of Babin and Boles (1998) to measure JP appears to be common among empirical studies in the hospitality management literature (Karatepe, 2011, 2012). Sample items include, “This employee is a top performer” and “This employee knows more about services delivered to customers than others.” Similar items were also used in past empirical studies in the current literature (e.g., Babakus, Yavas, & Ashill, 2009). Responses to items in JP were rated on a five-point sale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Higher scores indicated higher JP. SRP. Five items came from Boshoff and Allen (2000) for operationalizing SRP. Operationalizing SRP via items taken from Boshoff and Allen (2000)



687

is prevalent in the current literature (e.g., Ashill, Rod, & Carruthers, 2008; Babakus et al., 2003; Karatepe, 2012). Sample items are, “Considering all the things this employee does, he/she handles dissatisfied customers quite well” and “No customer this employee deals with leaves with problems unresolved.” Responses to items in SRP were recorded on a 5-point scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Higher scores showed higher SRP. ERCS. Consistent with past studies in the hospitality management literature (Karatepe, 2011; Kim, Tavitiyaman, & Kim, 2009; Tsaur & Lin, 2004), ERCS was measured through items taken from Bettencourt and Brown (1997). That is, ERCS was measured via five items. Sample items include, “This employee voluntarily assists customers even if it means going beyond job requirements” and “This employee willingly goes out of his/her way to make a customer satisfied.” Responses to items in ERCS were elicited on a 5-point scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Higher scores indicated higher ERCS. The back-translation method was used to prepare the employee and manager questionnaires. According to the back translation method, the researcher prepared the employee and manager questionnaires in English. Then, two bilingual individuals (fluent in both Romanian and English) participated independently in the translation process. Finally, the researcher further checked the two versions of the employee and manager questionnaires in English for any inconsistencies. The employee questionnaire was tested with a pilot sample of 10 frontline employees. The manager questionnaire was tested with a pilot sample of five managers. There was no need to make changes in the questionnaires as a result of each pilot study.

Data Analysis This study utilized a two-step approach that included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM; Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). CFA was used to give a confirmatory test of measurement theory (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Hair et al. (2010) stated, “measurement theory specifies a series of relationships that suggest how measured variables represent a latent construct that is not measured directly. The measurement theory may then be combined with a structural theory to fully specify a SEM model” (p. 693). Consistent with other empirical studies (e.g., Kim, 2011; Ryu, Han, & Jang, 2010), the measurement model was assessed using CFA, while the structural model is tested through SEM. The first step consisted of the assessment of the measurement model in terms of convergent and discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The second step included a model comparison through the χ 2 difference test. The relationships shown in the research model were tested using SEM. The overall χ 2 measure, CFI (comparative


688

O. M. Karatepe

fit index), IFI (incremental fit index), RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation), and SRMR (standardized root mean square residual) were used to evaluate model fit. The following conditions were considered for the mediation analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986): (a) there is a significant association between the predictor variable (hope) and the mediator (WE), (b) there is a significant association between the predictor variable (hope) and the criterion variables (JP, SRP, and ERCS), (c) there is a significant association between the mediator (WE) and the criterion variables (JP, SRP, and ERCS), and (d) full mediation will hold if the predictor variable (hope) has no significant relationship with the criterion variables (JP, SRP, and ERCS) when the mediator (WE) is controlled. The last condition was assessed by comparing the fully mediated model and partially mediated model based on the χ 2 difference test (p < .05; cf. Chen, Aryee, & Lee, 2005). The sample size of this study seems to be congruent with the suggestions (e.g., five constructs with more than three items) that pertain to the minimum sample size of 100 for SEM (Hair et al., 2010). Reliability of each variable was measured based on composite reliability (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). All of these analyses were employed through LISREL 8.30 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996).

RESULTS Measurement Results Several items were dropped during CFA due to low loadings (< .50) and correlation measurement errors. That is, four items from the hope measure and two items each from the WE, JP, and SRP measures were dropped during CFA. The results demonstrated that there was an acceptable fit of the five-factor model on the basis of a number of fit statistics (χ 2 = 421.37, df = 289; χ 2 /df = 1.46; CFI = .91; IFI = .92; RMSEA = .065; SRMR = .062). Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggested that all observable indicators should load significantly on their respective latent variables for convergent validity. In addition, Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested that the average variance extracted by each latent variable should not be below .50 to provide support for convergent validity. All loadings were greater than .50 and were significant. The magnitudes of the loadings ranged from .60 to .91. The average variance extracted by each variable was also greater than .50. That is, the average variance extracted by hope, WE, JP, SRP, and ERCS was .52, .66, .65, .71, and .67, respectively. Fornell and Larcker (1981) also posited that the shared variances (2 ) between pairs of constructs should be less than the average variance extracted by each variable for providing evidence of discriminant validity. The average variance extracted by each variable was also larger than the

689

Hope, Work Engagement, and Performance Outcomes TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations of Study Variables, and Reliability. Variables 1. Gender 2. Hope 3. Work engagement 4. Job performance 5. Service recovery performance 6. Extra-role customer service Mean Standard deviation Composite reliability

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.000 .116 .113 .209 .132 .143 .42 .50 —

1.000 .628 .344 .290 .432 2.82 .60 .90

1.000 .380 .346 .532 3.26 1.06 .93

1.000 .721 .694 3.38 .88 .85

1.000 .680 3.33 .93 .88

1.000 3.27 .89 .91


Note. Composite scores for each construct were calculated by averaging respective item scores. Correlations ≥ .209 are significant at the .05 level.

respective shared variance. Overall, there was evidence of convergent and discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, correlations of study variables, and composite reliability. The results show that female employees perform better than male employees. It seems that female employees are more relationship oriented, and therefore, seem to display more caring behaviors to customers or complainants in service encounters. As reported in Table 1, composite reliability for each construct was also larger than the .60 threshold. In short, the results revealed that the measures were reliable (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).

Structural Model Results The results in Table 1 reveal that all correlations among study variables are significant. These results meet the first three conditions for a mediation analysis. For the last condition of mediation analysis, the fully mediated model (χ 2 = 445.36, df = 313) is compared with the partially mediated model (χ 2 = 441.09, df = 310) via the χ 2 difference test. The partially mediated model includes the direct effect of hope on performance outcomes as well as its indirect impact on performance outcomes through WE. However, the direct effect of hope on JP, SRP, and ERCS becomes insignificant. The result regarding the model comparison based on the χ 2 difference test shows that the fully mediated model seems to have a better fit than the partially mediated model (χ 2 = 4.27, df = 3, not significant). Therefore, the results for the fully mediated model are used to assess the study relationships. The results reveal that the fully mediated model fits the data acceptably 2 (χ = 445.36, df = 313; χ 2 /df = 1.42; CFI = .92; IFI = .92; RMSEA = .062; SRMR = .066). The results in Figure 2 show that hope has a significant positive impact on WE (β 21 = .68, t = 6.26). Such a finding provides empirical support for Hypothesis 1. This result shows that employees high in hope feel

690

O. M. Karatepe Manager assessment

Employee assessment

Job performance β32 = .39, t = 3.84

β42 = .37, t = 3.54

β21 = .68, t = 6.26 Work engagement


Hope

Service recovery performance

β52 = .57, t = 5.84 Indirect effects: Hope → WE → JP Hope → WE → SRP Hope → WE → ERCS

.27, t = 3.44 .25, t = 3.21 .39, t = 4.65

Extra-role customer service

R2 for : Hope = .01, WE = .46, JP = .20, SRP = .15, ERCS = .34 Model fit statistics χ2 = 445.36, df = 313, χ2 / df = 1.42; CFI = .92; IFI = .92; RMSEA = .062; SRMR = .066

FIGURE 2 Structural model results. Note. All estimates are significant (p < .05). All indirect effects are significant based on Sobel test. The nonsignificant effect of gender on study variables is not shown for the sake of clarity. WE = work engagement; JP = job performance; SRP = service recovery performance; ERCS = extra-role customer service; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

energetic and enthusiastic and are immersed in their work. The results also demonstrate that WE significantly and positively influences JP (β 32 = .39, t = 3.84), SRP (β 42 = .37, t = 3.54), and ERCS (β 52 = .57, t = 5.84). Therefore, Hypotheses 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c) are supported. According to these results, WE enables employees to demonstrate better JP, SRP, and ERCS behaviors in the workplace. The results in Figure 2 reveal that all indirect effects are significant. Specifically, the indirect effect of hope on JP (.27, t = 3.44), SRP (.25, t = 3.21), and ERCS (.39, t = 4.65) through WE is significant based on Sobel test. Hence, there is empirical support for Hypotheses 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c). These results reveal that hope makes employees devote their efforts to dedicatedly and energetically working toward goal and task accomplishment. Such employees in turn report heightened JP, SRP, and ERCS behaviors.


691

Gender does not significantly affect hope (γ 11 = .11, t = 1.05), WE (γ 21 = .03, t = .36), JP (γ 31 = .18, t = 1.89), SRP (γ 41 = .10, t = 1.02), and ERCS (γ 51 = .09, t = 1.10). As a control variable, gender does not confound the relationships among study variables. In addition, the results account for 1% of the variance in hope, 46% in WE, 20% in JP, 15% in SRP, and 34% in ERCS.

DISCUSSION


Evaluation of Findings This study proposes and tests a research model that investigates WE as a mediator of the effect of hope on JP, SRP, and ERCS. Data obtained from full-time frontline hotel employees and their managers in Romania are used to assess these relationships. The results suggest that all hypotheses are supported. There are a number of useful findings arising from this study. First, the result concerning the relationship between hope and WE suggests that hopeful frontline employees pursue strategies to reach their goals by feeling energetic and enthusiastic and being happily immersed in their work. When such employees encounter difficulties that impede them to reach their goals, they take advantage of alternative paths to achieve their goals. These employees are highly engaged in their work, because frontline employees high in hope tend to have frequent positive moods and positive goal directed outlooks (Yavas et al., 2013). In addition, employees high in hope dedicatedly and energetically work toward their goal and task achievement. The finding regarding the relationship between hope and WE lends credence to limited empirical evidence in the current literature (Ouweneel et al., 2012). Second, the results suggest that highly engaged employees display better JP, SRP, and ERCS. Engaged employees devote their resources (e.g., time, energy) to their work and have better performance than nonengaged employees. As a proximal construct to overall performance (Menguc et al., 2013), WE triggers employees’ JP, SRP, and ERCS. An examination of the SEM results suggests that WE appears to have a stronger impact on ERCS than on JP and SRP. Such findings reveal that WE simultaneously leads to in-role and extra-role performances. This is an important addition to the current knowledge base that WE simultaneously results in three organizationally valued performance outcomes. The results further demonstrate that frontline employees with higher WE attach a priority to exceeding customer expectations via their ERCS behaviors. The previously mentioned findings are consistent with the works of Christian et al. (2011), Karatepe (2011), and Xanthopoulou et al. (2008). Third, the results reported in this study suggest that WE is a critical motivational construct that links hope to JP, SRP, and ERCS. Past research


692

O. M. Karatepe

reveals that hope is directly related to JP. This study goes one step further and suggests that due to its proximity to employee performance, WE fully mediates the impact of hope on JP, SRP, and ERCS. As the JD-R model contends, employees with agency and pathways thinking are engaged in their work, because they score high on hope. Such employees in turn perform effectively in service delivery process, respond to customer requests and complaints successfully, and perform activities that do not appear in their formal role requirements. These results are not only consonant with the precepts of the JD-R model, but also lend empirical support to studies which report that personal resources influence job outcomes indirectly only via WE (e.g., Xanthopoulou et al., 2008). Overall, the results suggest that as personality trait or a personal resource, hope enhances JP, SRP, and ERCS indirectly only through WE.

Management Implications The first implication of this study is related to the hiring mechanism in the organization. Engaged employees regularly work on their personal resources (i.e., hope), transfer their engagement to other individuals in their immediate work environment, and display high levels of performance in the workplace (Bakker, 2011). With this realization, managers should pay attention to the hiring mechanism in the organization. For example, using short case studies to understand candidates’ willpower and waypower will be helpful for selecting individuals high in hope. Managers can utilize the shortened version of the validated Utrecht WE scale during the selection process. More importantly, managers can use work sampling to ascertain whether such individuals are customer-oriented, are enthusiastic, and are immersed in their work (cf. Ineson & Berechet, 2011). When employees find that managers invest in selective staffing due to management’s intentions to delivery of service quality, they are likely to display effective performance in the workplace. Then, it may be possible for managers to retain a pool of talented employees in their organization in Romania. Second, continuous training programs to enhance employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities are not prevalent in the Romanian hospitality industry (e.g., Ciulu & Dr˘agan, 2011). However, training seems to be a critical tool for enabling employees to set challenging goals, consider contingency planning for coping with potential problems, and avoid false hope (cf. Peterson & Byron, 2008; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Employees’ elevated levels of WE, when coupled with these training programs, will give rise to better JP, SRP, and ERCS. Therefore, investment in training programs will motivate employees to perform successfully in service delivery and complaint-handling processes. Third, conducting surveys with frontline employees on a regular basis enables managers to determine how employees will make meaningful changes in their jobs leading to elevated levels of



693

WE and performance outcomes. For instance, employees who are engaged in their work may want to find ways to decrease hindrance demands (e.g., emotional job demands) but increase challenge demands (e.g., job responsibility). Fourth, the Romanian hospitality employees prefer to work in foreign countries due to the lack of high-performance work practices such as rewards and career and advancement opportunities in the organization (Ciulu & Dr˘agan, 2011; Marin-Pantelescu & Lupu, 2009). Therefore, continuous and fair reward and recognition mechanism, coupled with career and advancement opportunities, is likely to increase employees’ hope and WE. This is important, because past studies demonstrate that job resources foster employees’ personal resources and lead to elevated levels of WE (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Such practices may stimulate employees’ hopeful thinking to be more engaged in the work. Employees with hopeful thinking may also cope with adverse conditions in the work environment (Yavas et al., 2013). In short, providing the abovementioned high-performance work practices will help managers to retain talented employees in their organization. Lastly, management of the hotels should make sure that they have fair criteria to measure employees’ performance on an annual basis. Specifically, employees’ annual performance should be measured based on behaviors that are related to delivery of service quality, customer satisfaction, and accomplishment of organizational mission (cf. Hinkin & Tracey, 2010). This will also enable managers to retain talented employees who are expected to display high levels of JP, SRP, and ERCS.

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research This study is not without its limitations. Specifically, cross-sectional data were used to assess hypotheses. With this realization, in future studies collecting longitudinal data would be useful for making causal inferences. The present study tested JP, SRP, and ERCS as performance outcomes. Including other performance outcomes such as creative performance, team performance, and coworker performance in future studies would provide a detailed analysis of the mediating role of WE. Hope is one of the dimensions of psychological capital. In future studies examining WE as a mediator of the effect of psychological capital on the abovementioned outcomes will be beneficial. In addition, all relationships were tested using the individual frontline employees as the unit of analysis. In future studies assessing the study relationships at the organizational level may enhance the understanding concerning WE as a mediator. The current study obtained data from frontline employees in the fourand five-star hotels. The number of frontline employees in the four- and fivestar hotels led to the selection of these hotel categories. However, in future

694

O. M. Karatepe

studies collecting data from frontline employees in the three-star hotels as well as in other small sized hotels in Romania may be helpful for making generalizations. Finally, replication studies with large sample sizes in different tourism and hospitality settings in Romania and other underresearched European countries (e.g., Bulgaria, Croatia) are needed for broadening the database in this research stream.


CONCLUSION In today’s competitive work environment, acquiring and retaining quality frontline employees has become a critical issue. Therefore, drawing on the JD-R model, this study proposes and tests a research model that examines WE as a mediator of the impact of hope on JP, SRP, and ERCS. The results suggest that frontline employees high in hope feel strong and vigorous, are enthusiastic about their job, and are happily engrossed in their work. Such employees in turn display quality performance in service delivery and complaint-handling processes and go beyond their formal role requirements to make customers satisfied. In closing, this study contributes to the existing knowledge base by investigating the full mediating role of WE in the relationship between hope and organizationally valued performance outcomes.

REFERENCES Alarcon, G. M., Bowling, N. A., & Khazon, S. (2013). Great expectations: A meta-analytic examination of optimism and hope. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(7), 821–827. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Ashill, N. J., Rod, M., & Carruthers, J. (2008). The effect of management commitment to service quality on frontline employees’ job attitudes, turnover intentions and service recovery performance in a new public management context. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 16(5), 437–462. Aslan, A., & Kozak, M. (2012). Customer deviance in resort hotels: The case of Turkey. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 21(6), 679–701. Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48(5), 677–693. Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48–70.



695

Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Ashill, N. J. (2009). The role of customer orientation as a moderator of the job demand-burnout-performance relationship: A surface-level trait perspective. Journal of Retailing, 85(4), 480–492. Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O. M., & Avci, T. (2003). The effect of management commitment to service quality on employees’ affective and performance outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 272–286. Babin, B., & Boles, J. S. (1998). Employee behavior in a service environment: A model and test of potential differences between men and women. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 77–91. Babyak, M. A., Snyder, C. R., & Yoshinobu, L. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Hope Scale: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 27(2), 154–169. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Contact employees: Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 39–61. Boles J. D., Wood, J. A., & Johnson, J. (2003). Interrelationships of role conflict, role ambiguity, and work-family conflict with different facets of job satisfaction and the moderating effects of gender. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 28(2), 99–113. Boshoff, C., & Allen, J. (2000). The influence of selected antecedents on frontline staff’s perceptions of service recovery performance. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(1), 63–90. Chen, Z. X., Aryee, S., & Lee, C. (2005). Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 457–470. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. Ciulu, R., & Dr˘agan, L. (2011). Hospitality industry’s competition in terms of attracting and retaining valuable HR in Eastern Europe: The case of Romania. Journal of Tourism, 11, 55–63. Dawson, M., & Abbott, J. (2011). Hospitality culture and climate: A proposed model for retaining employees and creating competitive advantage. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 12(4), 289–304. Deery, M. (2008). Talent management, work−life balance and retention strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 792–806. De Jong, A., & De Ruyter, K. (2004). Adaptive versus proactive behavior in service recovery: The role of self-managing teams. Decision Sciences, 35(3), 457–491.


696

O. M. Karatepe

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Herington, C., & Weaven, S. (2009). Implementing the marketing concept in travel organizations: The important moderating influence of perceived organizational support. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 18(7), 692–717. Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (2010). What makes it so great? An analysis of human resources practices among Fortune’s best companies to work for. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(2), 158–170. Hocutt, M. A., & Bowers, M. R. (2005). The impact of service guarantees on consumer responses in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 13(1), 5–23. Ineson, E. M., Benke, E., & László, J. (2013). Employee loyalty in Hungarian hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32(1), 31–39. Ineson, E. M., & Berechet, G. (2011). Employee loyalty in hotels: Romanian experiences. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 10(2), 129–149. Ispas, A., & B˘ab˘ai¸ta˘ , C. (2012, November). The effects of leadership style on the employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment from the hotel industry. In Proceedings of the 6th International Management Conference: Approaches in Organizational Management (pp. 254–262), Bucharest, Romania. Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. Karatepe, O. M. (2011). Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes: Evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20(8), 855–878. Karatepe, O. M. (2012). Perceived organizational support, career satisfaction, and performance outcomes: A study of hotel employees in Cameroon. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(5), 735–752. Karatepe, O. M., & Aga, M. (2012). Work engagement as a mediator of the effects of personality traits on job outcomes: A study of frontline employees. Services Marketing Quarterly, 33(4), 343–362. Kim, H. J. (2011). Service orientation, service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty: Testing a structural model. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20(6), 619–637. Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 96–104. Kim, H. J., Tavitiyaman, P., & Kim, W. G. (2009). The effect of management commitment to service on employee service behaviors: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 33(3), 369–390.



697

Kusluvan, S., Kusluvan, Z., Ilhan, Z., & Buyruk, L. (2010). The human dimension: A review of human resources management issues in the tourism and hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(2), 171–214. Line, N. D., & Runyan, R. C. (2012). Hospitality marketing research: Recent trends and future directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 477–488. Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57–72. Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate-employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 219–238. Marin-Pantelescu, A., & Lupu, N. (2009). Skills for tourist services. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 4(2), 254–260. Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, M., & Haddad, A. (2013). To be engaged or not to be engaged: The antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 2163–2170. Moncarz, E., Zhao, J., & Kay, C. (2009). An exploratory study of US lodging properties’ organizational practices on employee turnover and retention. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(4), 437–458. Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & van Wijhe, C. I. (2012). Good morning, good day: A diary study on positive emotions, hope, and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(9), 1129–1154. Peterson, S. J., & Byron, K. (2008). Exploring the role of hope in job performance: Results from four studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(6), 785–803. Peterson, S. J., Gerhardt, M. W., & Rode, J. C. (2006). Hope, learning goals, and task performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1099–1109. 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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. Richardsen, A. M., Burke, R. J., & Martinussen, M. (2007). Work and health outcomes among police officers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(4), 555–574. Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416–432. Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M. J., & Martínez, I. M. (2011). Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: The mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(10), 2256–2266. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.


698

O. M. Karatepe

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzáles-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–275. Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570–585. Solnet, D., Kandampully, J., & Kralj, A. (2010). Legends of service excellence: The habits of seven highly effective hospitality companies. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 19(8), 889–908. Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W., Dumitru, C. Z., & Savai F. A. (2012). Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra-role behaviors. Career Development International, 17(3), 188–207. Tsaur, S.-H., & Lin, Y.-C. (2004). Promoting service quality in tourist hotels: The role of HRM practices and service behavior. Tourism Management, 25(4), 471–481. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121–141. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235–244. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Working in the sky: A diary study on work engagement among flight attendants. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 345–356. Yang, J.-T., Wan, C.-S., & Fu, Y.-J. (2012). Qualitative examination of employee turnover and retention strategies in international tourist hotels in Taiwan. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 837–848. Yavas, U., Babakus, E., & Karatepe, O. M. (2013). Does hope moderate the impact of job burnout on frontline bank employees’ in-role and extra-role performances? International Journal of Bank Marketing, 31(1), 56–70. Yavas, U., Karatepe, O. M., & Babakus, E. (2013). Does hope buffer the impacts of stress and exhaustion on frontline hotel employees’ turnover intentions? Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 61(1), 29–39. Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800.