LIT REVIEW

D f

J R a

b

a

K T O E E p

1

c ( s c 2 g e r v 1 t t

( g

0 h

International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 282–293

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j h o s m a n

oes transformational leadership style influence employees’ attitudes toward ood safety practices?

i-Eun Lee a,∗, Barbara A. Almanza b,1, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang b,2, Douglas C. Nelson b,3, ichard F. Ghiselli b,4

Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, 9907 Universal Blvd., Orlando, FL 32819, USA Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, 700 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47906-2059, USA

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords: ransformational leadership style rganizational climate mployees’ attitudes mployees’ intentions to follow food safety ractices

a b s t r a c t

The objectives of this study were to examine whether transformational leadership style (TL) and organiza- tional climate (OC) impact employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow safe food handling practices. We also set out to investigate the moderating effect of food safety certification on the relationships among TL, OC, and employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety practices in restaurants. Ques- tionnaires were distributed to restaurants in one state. Structural equation modeling techniques and multiple group analysis were used. The results of this study indicate that TL did not impact employees’ attitudes and intentions. However, TL significantly impacted OC, and OC significantly impacted employ-

ees’ attitudes and intentions to follow safe food handling practices; additionally, employees’ attitudes significantly impacted intentions to perform safe food handling practices. Furthermore, the moderating effect of food safety certification on the relationships among TL, OC, and employees’ attitudes and inten- tions was also significant. The results of this study not only provide a theoretical framework but also present more detailed diagnostic information regarding the impact of TL and OC on employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow safe food handling practices.

. Introduction

Serving safe food in foodservice establishments is espe- ially important in the prevention of possible foodborne illness FBI) outbreaks. Poor practices related to safe food handling, uch as improper temperatures, improper hygiene, and cross- ontamination, are significantly related to FBI outbreaks (CDC, 011; FDA, 2010; Pilling et al., 2008). Pilling et al. (2008) have sug- ested that poor practices related to food handling are the result of mployee noncompliance. A total of 816 FBI outbreaks with 80,682 eported cases were associated with food workers (including indi- iduals who harvest, process, prepare, and serve food) between

927 and the first quarter of 2006 (Greig et al., 2007). Even though he exact numbers and causes of foodborne disease outbreaks in he restaurant industry are not known, the number of FBI outbreaks

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 407 903 8154; fax: +1 407 903 8105. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.-E. Lee), [email protected]

B.A. Almanza), [email protected] (S. Jang), [email protected] (D.C. Nelson), [email protected] (R.F. Ghiselli). 1 Tel.: +1 765 494 9847; fax: +1 765 494 0327. 2 Tel.: +1 765 496 3610; fax: +1 765 494 0327. 3 Tel.: +1 765 496 2498; fax: +1 765 494 0327. 4 Tel.: +1 765 496 2636; fax: +1 765 494 0327.

278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.09.004

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

associated with food workers appears to be increasing (Greig et al., 2007).

While the health inspectors and inspection processes are a vital part of ensuring food safety in restaurants, restaurant man- agers may play an even more important role in the food safety of the restaurant industry because managers spend much more time involved in the operation. Managers and supervisors could serve as role models to their employees by strictly adhering to food safety rules and by keeping their work sites clean (Arendt et al., 2011; Nieto-Montenegro et al., 2006) because if the managers think their workplaces and eating places must be clean and sanitary, they are more likely to make efforts to enforce the Food Code and provide their employees with food safety training programs and practices. In addition, some researchers (Arendt and Sneed, 2008; Griffith et al., 2010a,b; Powell et al., 2011) have found that the supervision in restaurants is a key factor in employees’ motivations to adhere to safe food handling practices. The authors further suggested that the context of the organization should be considered, such as lead- ership programs, food safety management systems, food safety environments and organizational structures. In addition, the study

conducted by Arendt et al. (2011) identified four factors that serve to motivate retail foodservice employees to follow food safety practices: (1) communication between employees and supervi- sors, (2) rewards and punishments, (3) resources, and (4) intrinsic

Hospit

m A m a o r (

r r f a r s ( I t o i t a (

e t p p a p e w t n s n e e s t w e t t o i

i a w m e t b m i t a s a T s g i t p a

J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of

otivators, such as feeling, responsibility, satisfaction, etc. lthough many factors are considered to influence employees’ otivations for following food safety practices, past studies in the

rea of food safety have not examined the influence of TL and OC n employees’ internal motivations to adhere to such practices, ather they have focused on monetary and other tangible rewards external motivators).

Among different styles of leadership, the impact of servant and elational leadership styles also have not been examined with espect to food safety. While the servant leadership style primarily ocuses on employees increasing their autonomy, personal growth, nd well-being (Dierendonck, 2011; Stone et al., 2004) and the elational leadership style focuses on the nature of the relation- hip between managers and employees (not based on hierarchy) Uhi-Bien, 2006), TL focuses on organizational objectives (tasks). n other words, transformational managers empower and support heir employees, thereby enhancing their commitment toward the rganizational objectives. Therefore, this study explored managers’ ndividual considerations towards motivating their employees and he ways in which managers inspire and stimulate their employees’ ttitudes and behavioral intentions to follow food safety practices organizational objectives).

Previous studies (Frash et al., 2005; Mitchell et al., 2007; Pilling t al., 2008; Powell et al., 2011) have identified barriers/failures hat affect employees’ food safety practices. Such examples include ressure with respect to time, inadequate facilities and sup- lies, lack of accountability, lack of involvement of managers nd coworkers, and organizational failure to support food safety ractices. These barriers/failures are related to the workplace nvironment, its conditions and climate including the degree to hich managers are involved. To mitigate barriers and encourage

he adherence to workplace food safety practices, certain orga- izational behaviors have been suggested, including providing upervisory and peer support, adequate resources, training, orga- izational support, and an appropriate management culture (Frash t al., 2005; Griffith et al., 2010a,b; Medeiros et al., 2012; Murphy t al., 2011; Powell et al., 2011). In addition, Mitchell et al. (2007) aid, “researchers in the food safety arena need to pay more atten- ion to understanding the ‘insider’ perspectives of the individuals hose behavior they are intending to change.” However, there is no

mpirical study or theoretical model to support that these sugges- ions are effective in restaurants that use relevant organizational heories. Accordingly, additional research about the contextual and rganizational influences on employee food safety handling behav- or is needed (Mitchell et al., 2007).

Organizational food safety performance (i.e., foodservice san- tation inspection scores/grades given by health departments) is n indicator of a restaurant’s sanitary conditions (Lee et al., 2012), hich are mostly maintained by the frontline employees. Thus, anagers must identify possible factors that will influence employ-

es’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety practices within heir workplaces. As a result, this study examined the impact of arriers and suggestions related to the insider perspectives of the anagers and organizational influences on food safety practices

n restaurants. Specifically, the purpose of this current study was o examine the effect of the previously unexplored theory of TL nd OC on employees’ attitudes and intentions to adhere to food afety practices. Furthermore, this study investigated the moder- ting effect of food safety certification on the relationships among L, OC, and employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food afety practices in restaurants. This study will provide practical uidelines for changing food safety behaviors in restaurants, and

t should be useful in creating tailored training programs designed o improve employees’ food safety practices (i.e., food code com- liance). Furthermore, this study identified how employees think bout their work environment and TL. Thus, the results of this

ality Management 33 (2013) 282–293 283

study will be useful in developing an appropriate food safety cli- mate in workplaces and in improving the relationship between managers/supervisors and frontline employees. In addition, this study will help managers/supervisors better understand employ- ees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety practices and, in turn, maximize employees’ food safety performance. Therefore, the results of this study will provide practical recommendations and possible solutions for improving restaurants’ sanitary conditions, thereby reducing FBI outbreaks in the restaurant industry.

2. Literature review

2.1. Transformational leadership style (TL)

Burns (1978) defined the transforming leader as one who “is able to lift followers up from their petty preoccupations and rally around a common purpose to achieve things never thought pos- sible”. Transformational leaders have four attributes: idealized influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stim- ulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). Idealized influence, or charisma, describes leaders who have great power and influence to be strong role models for followers. Transforma- tional leaders have high standards for moral and ethical conduct and provide a vision and a sense of mission for the followers. Thus, followers have deep respect for these leaders, and they trust and admire them (Northouse, 2004). Inspirational motivation involves the arousal and raising of motivation beyond original expectations. Intellectual stimulation includes leadership that stimulates follow- ers to think about old problems in new ways. Transformational leaders encourage followers to rethink ideas that they had never questioned before and to take risks. Individualized consideration involves supporting and listening to the individual needs of fol- lowers. Transformational leaders assist in the career development of individual followers (Northouse, 2004).

Over the past 50 years, leadership has been considered as an OC antecedent (Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008) because the top leader creates and develops the climate and culture of an orga- nization. Transformational leaders have closer relationships with their followers, however, because they establish mutual trust, share visions, and have clear perceptions regarding the organization’s policies, procedures, and practices (Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008). For instance, general managers’ transformational leadership prac- tices in the work environment include sharing organizational vision and inspiring, intellectually stimulating and instilling higher order ideals and values among subordinates (Patiar and Mia, 2009). Additionally, the transformational leader shows consistent behav- iors across situations so that variations in followers’ perceptions regarding an organization’s policy and procedures will be reduced (Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008) and a stronger OC will be created. The transformational leader also provides a supportive climate and encourages followers to come up with new ideas to solve prob- lems, which in turn, empower subordinates and increases their workplace enthusiasm.

In the hospitality industry, TL is considered an efficient way for management to utilize human resources and the ideal way to lead frontline hotel employees (Clark et al., 2009; Tracey and Hinkin, 1994). More specifically, TL has strong positive correlations with four outcome measures with respect to the employees: mission clarity, role clarity, openness of communication, and satisfaction with leaders (Tracey and Hinkin, 1994). A study conducted by Clark et al. (2009) found that transformational (empowering) leadership

was positively associated with shared values between the hotel and its frontline employees, and the study further indicated that the shared values had a positive effect on employees’ role clarity, job satisfaction, and commitment to service quality. However, a study

2 Hospit

c d e e t i e n f

H i

f p e t a q d p m fi r i T e w I i t s p fi a a o m e g o e ( o T m s e i s t e a d

H t

H t

2

o o e

84 J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of

onducted by Gill and Mathur (2007) suggested that employee edication and pro-social behaviors (defined as frontline employ- es’ behavior to delight guests by providing extra and spontaneous xceptional service) were positively related to the improvement in he level of employees’ perceptions of transformational leadership mplementation in the hotel/motel industry. Other researchers (Gill t al., 2006) found that hospitality employees’ perceptions of TL had egative relationships with job stress and burnout. Therefore, the

ollowing hypothesis was developed:

ypothesis 1. TL will positively influence the OC in the restaurant ndustry.

Transformational leaders will engage in behaviors that cause ollowers to trust and admire them, inspire motivation, and rovide stimulation to solve problems with individualized consid- ration. These attributes are more likely to encourage followers o become involved with their organizations, increase self-efficacy nd job satisfaction, decrease turnover rates, and promote better- uality service. More specifically, TL significantly impacts staff evelopment and morale and indirectly explains the financial erformance (achieving occupancy rates and average daily rates, eeting operating budgets, and reducing costs) through non-

nancial performance measures such as customer satisfaction, epeat business, staff development, and staff morale in the hospital- ty industry (Patiar and Mia, 2009). Based on the characteristics of L, transformational leaders empower employees; and empowered mployees demonstrate greater intention to perform their jobs ell and with greater job commitment (Patiar and Mia, 2009).

n addition, TL increases followers’ self-efficacy (defined as an ndividual’s belief in his or her ability to successfully perform asks) because a transformational leader gives employees respon- ibilities, encourages employees to solve problems, and sets high erformance expectations. Thus, employees feel empowered, con- dent, and competent (Liao and Chuang, 2007). These attributes re more likely to promote positive beliefs among employees bout performing a specific behavior and about the consequences f performing that behavior. Employees’ perceptions of manage- ent’s commitment to health and safety is strongly related to

mployees’ willingness to participate in health and safety pro- rams (Kelloway et al., 2006). In addition, employees’ perceptions f their supervisors’ safety-specific TL are related to the employ- es’ safety consciousness and their perceptions of a safe climate Barling et al., 2000; Kelloway et al., 2006). TL impacts critical sub- rdinate attitudes and work-related outcomes (Barling et al., 2000). hus, TL will increase employees’ involvement in their work, and anagers will share foodservice establishment’s values regarding

erving safe food and conducting food safety practices. In turn, mployees adopt a clear idea of their role and an understand- ng of the organizations commitment to follow workplace food afety practices. Because of their understanding of their role in he workplace and the organization’s commitment to food safety, mployees also understand the need to follow food safety practices nd deliver safe food. Therefore, the following hypotheses were eveloped:

ypothesis 2. TL will positively influence employees’ attitudes oward food safety practices.

ypothesis 3. TL will positively influence employees’ intentions o follow food safety practices.

.2. Organizational climate (OC)

OC is defined as a “set of characteristics that describe an rganization and that (a) distinguish the organization from other rganizations, (b) are relatively enduring over time, and (c) influ- nce the behavior of people in the organization” (Forehand and

ality Management 33 (2013) 282–293

Gilmer, 1964). OC is also defined as employees’ shared perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures, as well as the types of behavior that are rewarded and supported in the work- place (Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008). In other words, OC is regarded as the collective attitude of employees toward their organization (Burton et al., 2004), it is produced through their interactions, and it shapes their behaviors within the organization (Manning et al., 2005). Thus, their shared values create a framework of workplace cultural norms and performance standards, revealing clarity about their roles and their increased work commitment (Clark et al., 2009).

Previous research has identified dimensions of OC based on related factors (Litwin and Stringer, 1968; Manning et al., 2005; Patterson et al., 2005). Manning et al. (2005), for example, identified four dimensions of OC in the tourism and hospitality industry: (1) leader facilitation and support; (2) professional and organizational esprit; (3) conflict and ambiguity; and (4) workgroup coopera- tion, friendliness, and warmth. Patterson et al. (2005), in a similar vein, identified four quadrants: (1) human relations with auton- omy, integration, involvement, supervisory support, training, and welfare; (2) internal processes with formalization and tradition; (3) open systems with innovation and flexibility, outward focus, and reflexivity; and (4) rational goals with clarity of organizational goals, efficiency, effort, performance feedback, pressure to produce, and quality. Some researchers have found (Neal et al., 2000) that the general OC significantly impacts workplace safety climate (defined as a specific form of OC describing employees’ perceptions of the value of their workplace health and safety), and safety climate is related to employees’ compliance with workplace safety reg- ulations and procedures. Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), if employees perceive that their organizations treat them well and provide a positive organizational climate, they are more likely to respond with positive work attitudes and behaviors, such as putting forth greater effort and being less inclined to leave the organizations (Gould-Williams, 2007).

Based on the aforementioned theories, it is logical to assume that a positive OC towards food safety practices will result in employees developing positive attitudes towards food safety that should trans- late to an increase in their intentions to follow food safety practices. With this in mind, the following hypotheses were developed.

Hypothesis 4. Positive OC will positively influence employees’ attitudes toward food safety practices.

Hypothesis 5. Positive OC will positively influence employees’ intentions to follow food safety practices.

2.3. Attitude and intention

Constructs of attitude and intention to perform a specific behav- ior have been regarded as strong determinants of the specific behavior (Madden et al., 1992). Based on the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior, attitude is considered a strong antecedent of behavioral intention as it explains an indi- vidual’s positive or negative belief about performing a specific behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Glasmen and Albararracin, 2006). Behav- ioral intention, as the direct antecedent to behavior, explains the motivational influence on the specific behavior, such that the degree of effort people is willing to put forth toward performing the specific behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Therefore, the stronger and more positive the attitude toward a specific behavior, the more likely the intention should be to engage in the behavior.

In restaurants, employees’ attitudes toward following food

safety practices were the only consistent significant predictor for three important food safety behaviors: hand washing, use of ther- mometers, and proper handling of food and work surfaces (Pilling et al., 2008). A previous study (Cochran-Yantes et al., 1996) found

J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 282–293 285

Hypothesis 7: Food safety certification will moderate the relationships among transformational

leadership, organizational climate, and employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety

practices.

Note: TL: Transformational Leadership; OC: Organizational Climate; AT: Attitude toward food safe

TL1

TL2 Transforma�onal

Leadership H3 H2

Behavioral Inten�on

TL3

H1 H6 A�tude

TL4

H4 H5

Climate IN3IN2IN1

AT4AT3AT2AT1 OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7

al mo

t m h

H p f

2

a c t r ( t s t e s h b s

a a S s e t o o s i ( f k t c

safety practices; IN: Intention to perform food

Fig. 1. A conceptu

hat restaurant operators with positive food safety attitudes were ore likely to follow proper practices. Therefore, the following

ypothesis was developed:

ypothesis 6. Positive employee attitudes toward food safety ractices will positively influence employee intentions to perform ood safety practices.

.4. Moderating effect of food safety certification

Some researchers (Neal et al., 2000) found that individual health nd safety knowledge mediated the relationships between safety limate and safety performance and that there was a strong rela- ionship between safety knowledge and compliance with safety egulations and procedures. The Food and Drug Administration FDA) Food Code (FDA, 2009) recommends food safety certifica- ion for the person in charge so that a person can demonstrate food afety knowledge to all employees. To obtain food safety certifica- ion, one must take a food safety course and pass a food safety xamination. Thus, people with this certification have demon- trated that they possess a sufficient amount of knowledge about ow to handle food safely, and it is expected that they will lead y applying their knowledge in the workplace as well as in other ituations.

Cotterchio et al. (1998) suggested that food safety training nd certification had a positive influence on sanitary conditions nd inspection scores. McElroy and Cutter (2004) reported that a tatewide Food Safety Certification Program led to improved food afety behaviors and positive changes among employees. How- ver, other studies (Binkley, 2005; Pilling et al., 2008) have shown hat certification leads to improved knowledge but has no effect n health inspection scores. In addition, the observation research f food safety practices in restaurants has found that while food afety training improved food safety knowledge and behaviors, the mproved knowledge did not improve the corresponding behaviors Roberts et al., 2008). Based on these studies, it was assumed that

oodservice managers’ certification leads to improved food safety nowledge in the workplace. However, there is doubt as to whether his knowledge transfers over to their employees or to actual appli- ation in the food industry or whether it leads to better health

ty practices

del for this study.

inspection scores or fewer occurrences of foodborne illness out- breaks in their workplaces. Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:

Hypothesis 7. Food safety certification will moderate the rela- tionships among TL, OC, and employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety practices.

Based on the hypotheses, this study proposes the conceptual model illustrated in Fig. 1 to examine the influence of employees’ perceptions of TL and OC on their attitudes and intentions to follow food safety practices.

Hypothesis 7. Food safety certification will moderate the relation- ships among transformational leadership, organizational climate, and employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety prac- tices.

Note: TL: Transformational Leadership; OC: Organizational Cli- mate; AT: Attitude toward food safety practices; IN: Intention to perform food safety practices.

3. Methodology

3.1. Instrument development

Based on previous studies, questionnaire statements for the four main constructs were developed: TL (Northouse, 2004, p. 196), OC (Patterson et al., 2005), attitude, and intention (Ajzen, 2006). Based on the authors’ previous experiences with our target audience (foodservice workers) and the work environment, it is a challenge to ask 12 questions focused only on TL and 105 questions focused only on OC. As such, this problem resulted in a significant adverse effect on our response rate. To address this problem, the authors formed a group of 41 experts (academic and industry experts who have extensive experience in supervising employees in the food- service industry) and asked them to evaluate how accurately each statement (question) explained the constructs of TL and OC in a

restaurant setting. For instance, to measure the construct of TL, four attributes are observed: idealized influence, inspirational motiva- tion, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). To measure one attribute of TL, idealized influence, three

2 Hospit

q w t 1 a s a d a t a c r o t o

t a a m a w r o A a c

m a 7 m i m I i t p w 7 t “ b

w o p f l f f t ( m t s p a a t c c y f h

86 J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of

uestions on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), hich is a valid psychometric instrument of leadership, were iden-

ified. Therefore, the total number of statements to measure TL is 2. The group of experts rated three statements that measured the ttribute of idealized influence using a seven-point Likert scale. The tatement receiving the most points was selected to describe the ttribute of idealized influence. Based on the results of the proce- ure, the number of questions related to TL was reduced to four, nd the number of question for OC was reduced to seven. Because he statements within each of the constructs were highly correlated nd logically connected, they were essentially measuring the same onstruct. Some of questionnaires used the two statements that eceived the highest and the second highest points from the group f experts. The additional information in the questions helps clarify he concept for subject. Overall, being able to reduce the number f questions was expected to increase the response rate.

The same procedure was applied to reduce the number of ques- ions in the OC construct. A pilot study was then conducted with group of 12 food safety professionals and a group of 72 students nd faculty in the department of Hospitality and Tourism Manage- ent at a Midwestern university in the U.S. to measure reliability

nd validity. Reliabilities for all constructs (including TL and OC) ere above 0.79. Each of the measurement items were highly cor-

elated with the construct, and the standardized factor loadings f the measurement items under the construct were above 0.77. ll squared correlations were less than the corresponding aver- ge variance extracted (AVE) for each construct (above 0.64). Thus, onstruct validity was supported.

To investigate employees’ direct managers’/supervisors’ TL, four easurement statements adapted from Northouse (2004) were

sked using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to = strongly agree). For instance, “My managers/supervisors make e feel good to be around them, and I am proud to be work-

ng with them” and “My managers/supervisors help me to find eaning in my work and express with a few simple words what

could and should do.” To measure employees’ perceptions of OC n their workplaces, seven measurement statements adapted from he study conducted by Patterson et al. (2005) were presented to articipants who were then asked to rate their level of agreement ith each using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to = strongly agree). Examples included, “Employees receive enough

raining and are strongly encouraged to develop their skills” and Employees are excited about their work and want to do their est.”

To measure frontline employees’ attitudes toward following orkplace food safety practices, four measurement items devel-

ped by Ajzen (2006) were used regarding how food safety ractices affect the way they work. For instance, “In my opinion, ollowing overall food safety practices in my workplace is worth- ess (1) to valuable (7). To examine employees’ intentions to follow ood safety practices in their workplaces, three statements adapted rom the Ajzen’s (2006) study were asked to indicate how much hey agree with the statements using a seven-point Likert scale 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Examples of intention

easurement statements were “I intend to follow food safety prac- ices during working hours” and “I encourage others to follow food afety practices during working hours.” Food safety certification rograms were defined as those programs that issued certification t the completion of the program and training programs included ny food safety training. To determine whether frontline employees ook food safety training programs and/or held food safety certifi- ations, the following four questions were asked: “Have you been

ertified as a food handler through any organizations?” “In what ear were you last certified/recertified?” “Have you ever had any ood safety training?” “How many food safety training sessions ave you had while at this work site?” Demographic questions

ality Management 33 (2013) 282–293

included gender, age, race, education, job title, and work experi- ence. Questions related to their work in foodservice establishments included work experience, position, status, operation type, opera- tion size, and menus.

3.2. Data collection and analysis

Prior to distributing the surveys, the instrument and distribu- tion procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Committee on the Use of Human Research Subjects. A total of 686 paper survey questionnaires were distributed to the frontline employees of Midwestern restaurants. Researchers could not control which employees received the surveys and whether the participants understand what food safety practices are; therefore, examples of food safety practices were included at the beginning of the survey. The researcher randomly visited local restaurants in a Midwestern state without any pre-notice and asked man- agers/owners or the person in charge on that day if they were willing to participate in the study. If they agreed, then the question- naires were distributed to their frontline employees. To minimize the potential impact of managers/owners distributing or collecting the surveys, each survey was sealed in an envelope and that enve- lope was given to the employees. Inside the envelope was an explanation of the purpose of the study and directions for comple- ting the survey. In addition, postage paid envelopes were provided so that the questionnaires could be sent back anonymously to the researcher directly, and so that managers/owners would not know which employees had participated in the study. In addition, some employees completed the survey in front of the researcher and put the survey in the individual envelopes provided. Regardless of which method was used to distribute the surveys, participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that their responses would be kept anonymous. To test the conceptual model and hypotheses, descriptive analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling techniques (SEM) following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach were employed using SPSS 18 and Amos 17. To test the moderating effects of holding food safety certification across groups, multiple group analysis in SEM was used.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Descriptive statistics

To collect data, 686 paper surveys were prepared and dis- tributed to 67 local restaurants in a Midwestern state. Of the 686, 299 responses were received for a response rate of 43.6%. Of the 299 responses, 64 respondents self-described themselves in the survey as managers/leaders, and therefore, the surveys were not used for the data analysis as this study examined frontline employ- ees’ perceptions of their managers’ TL and the OC. Therefore, the total usable number of respondents for the data analysis was 235, yielding a response rate of 34.3%.

The majority of the respondents (51.5%) were female, and 80.4% of the respondents were between 20 and 29 years of age. Approx- imately 73% of the respondents were white and the three largest groups of respondents had a high school diploma, some had culi- nary training, or a college degree (Table 1). More than one-half of the respondents (59.9%) had more than one year of work experience at their current place of employment, and 62.1% of the respondents were working as a server. More than half (71.4%) were working in

family dining and/or casual dining services, and 32.3% were full- time employees (Table 1). Additionally, 32.6% of the respondents had a food safety certificate, and 70.4% of the respondents had received food safety training.

J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospit

Table 1 Profiles of the respondents.

Characteristic Frequency Percentage

Gender (N = 227) Male 106 45.1 Female 121 51.5

Age (N = 219) Younger than 20 years 4 1.8 20–29 years 176 80.4 30–39 years 24 11.0 40–49 years 10 4.5 Older than 50 years 5 2.3

Ethnicity (N = 226) White 165 73.0 Asian 22 9.7 Spanish/Hispanic/Latino 20 8.9 African American 9 4.0 Two or more races 6 2.7 Native American 3 1.3 Other 1 0.4

Education (N = 224) Some high school, no diploma 13 5.8 High school diploma 73 32.6 Some culinary/Technical school/College 68 30.4 Graduated culinary/Technical school 3 1.3 Associate’s degree 12 5.4 Bachelor’s degree 52 23.2 Graduate degree 3 1.3

Work experience (N = 232) Less than 6 months 47 20.3 6 months to 1 year 46 19.8 1 year to 2 years 72 31.0 2 years to 5 years 52 22.4 More than 5 years 15 6.5

Positiona (N = 235) Cook/Food Prep 61 26.0 Server 146 62.1 Cashier 46 19.6 Dishwasher 30 12.8 Otherb 44 18.7

Status (N = 226) Full-time 76 33.6 Part-time 147 65.0 Seasonal/Temporary 3 1.3

Operation Type (N = 227) Fine dining 40 17.6 Family dining/Casual dining 162 71.4 Quick service/Fast-Food 24 10.6 Other 1 0.4

a Respondents checked all that applied; therefore, the total percent is greater than 100%. N = 235.

d

4

s T a e a

t 1 e e s m t

b Other includes bartender, hostess, host, takeout hostess, to go, delivery, cleaning ining hall, and tray passer.

.2. Preliminary analysis of measurement statements

Descriptive statistics of each measurement item of the con- tructs are shown in Table 2. The mean value for each item on L ranged from 5.17 to 5.69 on the seven-point Likert scale with standard deviation ranging from 1.42 to 1.59. A majority of the

mployees in the restaurants felt good being around their managers nd were proud to be working with their managers.

The mean value for each item on OC ranged from 5.00 to 5.53 on he seven-point Likert scale with a standard deviation ranging from .36 to 1.83. Employees understood the goals of their foodservice stablishments (OC5). Employees also thought that they received

nough training and were strongly encouraged to develop their kills (OC4). They also perceived that their foodservice establish- ents were flexible and willing to implement employees’ ideas so

hat they can quickly and efficiently solve problems (OC3).

ality Management 33 (2013) 282–293 287

Employees’ attitudes toward food safety practices were very favorable with high means for all statements (ranging from 6.36 to 6.51 on the seven-point Likert scale) and low standard deviations (less than one). Regarding their behavioral intentions to follow food safety practices, the results showed that employees gener- ally intended to follow food safety practices during working hours with a mean of 6.43 out of 7 points. However, their intentions (IN2) to encourage others to follow food safety practices during working hours was significantly lower than their personal intentions (IN1) to follow food safety practices (p < 0.0001 with t = 8.02).

4.3. Measurement model

Table 3 shows the reliabilities and validities of all constructs (TL, OC, attitude, and intention). Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for each construct was above 0.84, and standardized factor loadings, item reliabilities, and composite reliabilities were all above the desired values (Hair et al., 2006).

Table 4 shows the correlation estimates among the constructs and squared correlations for each construct. If inter-construct squared correlation estimates are less than the variance-extracted estimates for the corresponding constructs, the constructs do not have any problems with discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2006). In this study, all squared correlation estimates were less than the corresponding AVE for corresponding constructs. Therefore, all constructs were statistically distinct, implying that discriminant validity was met.

4.4. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and hypotheses testing

To examine the validity of the proposed model and the hypothe- ses, this study used structural equation modeling (SEM). The values of the normed chi-square was 2.26, which is less than the cut-off point of 3 (Hair et al., 2006); the GFI was 0.911, which is greater than the cut-off point of 0.9 (Hair et al., 2006); the CFI was 0.964, which is greater than the cut-off point of 0.9 (Hair et al., 2006); and the RMSEA was 0.073, which is less than the cut-off point of 0.8 (Hair et al., 2006) indicating that this proposed structural model produced a good fit to the data (Table 5). Standardized path coefficients with p-value indicated the direction and magnitude of the significant impact of each path in the estimated model. The results shown in Table 5 and Fig. 2 were significant and positively supported the hypothesized paths between TL and OC (H1), OC and attitude (H4), OC and behavioral intention (H5), and attitude and behavioral intention (H6).

The relationship between employees’ perceptions of TL and OC (H1) was supported with the standardized path coefficient of 0.846 (p = 0.000). This result indicates that employees’ perceptions of TL strongly influenced the OC in the foodservice industry. This find- ing, which is consistent with the results of previous studies (Patiar and Mia, 2009; Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008), may be explained by restaurant employees regularly observing and interacting with their managers/supervisors and sharing the organizations’ policies and practices to interpret workplace occurrences. Thus, it can be concluded that an OC will be created and maintained based on the degree to which employees understand their managers’ practices and on the perceived closeness regarding the relationships with managers. Therefore, the relationship between employees’ percep- tions of TL and OC indicates that TL in restaurants can help frontline employees to interpret and strengthen a desirable workplace OC.

The relationship between employees’ perceptions of their man- agers’ TL and employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food

safety practices in the workplace (H2 and H3) were not sup- ported, with standardized path coefficients of −0.117 (p = 0.446) and −0.020 (p = 0.880), respectively. This result indicates that employees’ perceptions of TL did not significantly impact their

288 J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 282–293

TL1

TL2 Transforma�on al Leadership - 0.020

-0.117

Behavioral Inten�on

TL3

0.846 0.552 A�tude

TL4

0.482 0.312

Climate IN3IN2IN1

AT4AT3AT2AT1 OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7

model

a p

O i i r O f p p t t t

i s C

T D

A

Fig. 2. Structural equation

ttitudes and intentions with respect to adhering to food safety ractices in the workplace.

However, the relationship between employees’ perceptions of C and their attitudes and intentions toward food safety practices

n the workplace (H4 and H5) were supported, with standard- zed path coefficients of 0.482 (p = 0.002) and 0.312 (p = 0.027), espectively. This result indicates that employees’ perceptions of C significantly influenced their attitudes and intentions to follow

ood safety practices in the workplace. In other words, if employees erceive that their shared perceptions of organizational policies, ractices, and procedures are clear and that their organizations reat them well, they are more likely to have positive attitudes oward their work and are more likely to follow food safety prac- ices in the workplace.

The relationship between employees’ attitudes and their behav- oral intentions toward food safety practices (H6) was also upported, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.552 (p < 0.000). onsistent with previous studies (Ajzen, 1991; Pilling et al., 2008),

able 2 escriptive statistics of measurement items.

Construct with measurement items

Transformational leadership (TL) TL1: Idealized influence—My managers/supervisors make me feel good to be around th

them. TL2: Inspirational motivation—My managers/supervisors help me find meaning in my w

what I could and should do. TL3: Intellectual stimulation—My managers/supervisors encourage me to think about o

ideas that I had never questioned before. TL4: Individualized consideration—My managers/supervisors provide me with feedbac

help me with my career.

Organizational climate (OC) OC1: Involvement—Management involves employees in decision making by talking to

affect them. OC2: Training—Employees receive enough training and are strongly encouraged to dev OC3: Innovation and Flexibility—This foodservice establishment is very flexible and wil

quickly change to solve problems. OC4: Reflexivity—This foodservice establishment uses employee ideas about how to im OC5: Clarity of Organizational Goals—Everyone understands the goals of this foodservic OC6: Efficiency—This foodservice establishment is very efficient and does not waste tim OC7: Effort—Employees are excited about their work and want to do their best.

Attitude toward food safety practices (AA) AA1: Worthless (1) to Valuable (7) AA2: Not important (1) to Important (7) AA3: Not necessary (1) to Necessary (7) AA4: Not desirable (1) to Desirable (7)

Intention to follow food safety practices (IN) IN1: I intend to follow food safety practices during working hours. IN2: I encourage others to follow food safety practices during working hours. IN3: I try to set a good example of food safety practices for others to follow.

ll statements were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1: Strongly disagree, 4: Neu

with parameter estimates.

this result indicates that employees’ behavioral intentions to follow food safety practices were strongly predicted by their attitudes toward workplace food safety practices.

4.5. Moderating effect of holding food safety certification

To examine the moderating effect of having a food safety certifi- cation on the relationships among TL, OC, and employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety practices in the workplace, the respondents were split into two groups: those who had food safety certification and those who did not. A comparison of these models indicated that there was a significant difference between the two groups (Table 6). This implies that the relationship among

employees’ perceptions of TL and CL and employees’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward food safety practices were signifi- cantly different across the groups (employees with certification vs. no certification).

Mean Std Dev.

em, and I am proud to be working with 5.69 1.42

ork and express, with a few simple words, 5.43 1.48

ld problems in new ways and to rethink 5.17 1.59

k about how well I am doing my job and 5.35 1.59

employees before making changes that 5.00 1.83

elop their skills. 5.50 1.46 ling to use new ideas. As a result, we can 5.40 1.37

prove our jobs. 5.22 1.53 e establishment. 5.53 1.36 e or money. 5.28 1.47

5.12 1.53

6.38 0.96 6.42 0.99 6.51 0.95 6.36 0.99

6.43 0.95 5.93 1.18 6.05 1.06

tral, 7: Strongly agree).

J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospit

Table 3 Reliabilities and validities of all constructs.

Construct (Cronbach’s ˛)

Standardized factor loadings

Item reliabilities

Composite reliabilities

AVE

Leadership (0.92)

0.92 0.74

TL1 0.81 0.65 TL2 0.91 0.84 TL3 0.87 0.76 TL4 0.84 0.71 Climate (0.89) 0.89 0.74 HR 0.85 0.72 OS 0.85 0.72 RG 0.88 0.77 Attitude (0.92) 0.92 0.74 AA1 0.83 0.70 AA2 0.92 0.84 AA3 0.88 0.78 AA4 0.80 0.64 Intention (.84) 0.84 0.64 IN1 0.83 0.69 IN2 0.77 0.59 IN3 0.79 0.62

TL: Transformational Leadership; HR: Human Relations; OS: Open Systems; RG: Rational Goal; AA: Attitude toward food safety practices; IN: Intention to perform food safety practices; AVE: Average variance extracted.

Table 4 Correlations and squared correlations between constructs.

Construct Leadership Climate Attitude Intention

Leadership 1.00 0.72a 0.08a 0.17a

Climate 0.85 1.00 0.14a 0.26a

Attitude 0.29 0.38 1.00 0.45a

Intention 0.41 0.51 0.67 1.00

Values below the diagonal are correlation estimates between constructs. a Values shown in italics above the diagonal are squared correlations.

Table 5 Structural parameter estimates.

Hypothesized path Standardized path coefficients

H1: Leadership → Climate 0.846 H2: Leadership → Attitude −0.117 H3: Leadership → Intention −0.020 H4: Climate → Attitude 0.482 H5: Climate → Intention 0.312 H6: Attitude → Intention 0.552

Chi-square = 160.54, p = 0.000, �2 /df = 2.26, GFI = 0.911, CFI = 0.964, RMSEA = 0.073.

Table 6 Comparison of the models (constrained vs. unconstrained model).

Chi-square Df

Unconstrained model 319.882 157 Constrained model 344.967 163

*** p < 0.001.

Table 7 Moderating effect of having a food safety certification.

Hypothesized path Certification (N = 93)

Standardized path coefficients

Leadership → Climate 0.802 Leadership → Attitude 0.310 Leadership → Intention 0.012 Climate → Attitude −0.027 Climate → Intention 0.276 Attitude → Intention 0.741

ality Management 33 (2013) 282–293 289

Table 7 demonstrates the magnitude of the relationships between the constructs across the two groups (with certification and no certification). Within the certification group, the relation- ships among TL and OC, OC and intentions, and attitudes and intentions were significant. Within the no certification group, the relationships among TL and OC, OC and attitudes, OC and intentions, and attitudes and intentions were significant.

Fig. 3 presents structural results for the group with food safety certificates. Consistent with the previous results (Table 5 and Fig. 2), perceived TL did not impact employees’ attitudes and intentions for the certification group. In addition, OC did not have an impact on employees’ attitudes either (Fig. 3). In this group, the relationships between TL and OC, with standardized path coefficient of 0.802 (p < 0.000), OC and intentions, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.276 (p = 0.051), as well as between attitudes and intentions, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.741 (p < 0.000), were pos- itively significant.

Interestingly, TL did not impact the attitudes and intentions of employees with certification; however, their attitudes strongly impacted their intentions to follow food safety practices. These results may imply that employees with certification are likely to be more self-motivated rather than being motivated by their man- agers. In addition, employees with certification are likely to have more knowledge about safe food handling. Accordingly, they are more confident in when and how to implement food safety prac- tices, which, in turn, gives them increased intention and confidence to properly fulfill their roles as related to their jobs.

In the no certification group, while TL negatively impacted employees’ attitudes and intentions, it was not statistically sig- nificant (Fig. 4). The relationships between TL and OC, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.852 (p < 0.000); OC and attitude,

with a standardized path coefficient of 0.639 (p < 0.000); OC and intention, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.372 (p = 0.048); and attitude and intention, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.449 (p < 0.000), were positively significant.

t-value p-value Results

12.95 <0.000 Supported −0.76 0.446 Not Supported −0.15 0.880 Not Supported

3.08 0.002 Supported 2.22 0.027 Supported 7.71 <0.000 Supported

��2 �df Significance of ��2

25.085 6 Significant***

No certification (N = 176)

p-value Standardized path coefficients p-value

<0.000 0.852 <0.000 0.113 −0.220 0.227 0.933 −0.078 0.651 0.891 0.639 <0.000 0.051 0.372 0.048

<0.000 0.449 <0.000

290 J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013) 282–293

- 0.027

0.276

Climate IN3IN2IN1

AT4AT3AT2AT1 OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7

TL1

TL2 Transforma�on al Leadership 0.012

0.310

Behavioral Inten�on

TL3

0.802 0.741 A�tude

TL4

Fig. 3. Structural results for the group with food safety certification.

TL1

TL2 Transforma�on al Leadership -0.078

-0.220

Behavioral Inten�on

TL3

0.852 0.449A�tudeTL4

0.639

0.372

Climate IN3IN2IN1

AT4AT3AT2AT1 OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7

roup with no food safety certification.

a i t i s i g a i t w a t ( w

T M

*

Table 9 Mean differences between group with food safety certificate and those with no certificate.

Food safety certification t-value p-value

Yes (n = 93) No (n = 176) (Mean ± S.D.) (Mean ± S.D.)

Attitude 6.55 ± 0.75 6.40 ± 0.88 1.96 .082

Fig. 4. Structural results for the g

Surprisingly, OC significantly positively impacted employees’ ttitude, a finding that is in contrast with the results that OC did not mpact the attitudes for employees with certification. In addition, he magnitude of the impact of OC on the employees’ attitudes and ntentions was significantly greater than for the group with food afety certification (Tables 7 and 8). Table 8 indicates the signif- cant difference in the magnitude between the two paths across roups. Interestingly, the magnitude of the relationship between ttitudes and intentions across groups was in a different direction; n other words, the certification group’s relationship between atti- udes and intentions (with a standardized path coefficient of 0.741) as significantly stronger than for the no certification group (with

standardized path coefficient of 0.449). This implies that atti-

udes of employees with no certification have a significantly lower weaker) impact on their intentions to follow food safety practices, hile their attitudes are more affected by OC.

able 8 odel comparison (each constrained path vs. unconstrained model).

Constrained path Chi-square � chi-square Significance of � chi-square

Leadership → Climate 321.323 1.440 Not significant Leadership → Attitude 321.822 1.940 Not significant Leadership → Intention 333.614 13.732 Significant*** Climate → Attitude 325.670 5.788 Significant* Climate → Intention 324.129 4.247 Significant* Attitude → Intention 323.784 3.902 Significant* Unconstrained model 319.882

*p < 0.01. * p < 0.05.

*** p < 0.001.

Intention 6.34 ± 0.75 6.08 ± 0.97 5.02 .013

Overall, these results indicate that employees with food safety certification showed significantly better attitudes and behavioral intentions with respect to following food safety practices in the workplace. Additionally, they show that there was a moderat- ing effect of food safety certification. This finding may imply that employees with certification are more self-motivated rather than those who may be motivated by the effects of TL and OC. If employ- ees are interested and confident in what to do and how to do it, they will have greater intention and confidence to perform the required tasks.

In addition, these results indicate that the role of OC was con- siderably more important for employees with no certification. For instance, if managers provide a climate that promotes safe food handling, the attitudes and intentions of employees with no certi- fication are more likely to be higher than those with certification. Therefore, managers are encouraged to create and develop the appropriate climate regarding safe food handling practices in the

workplace.

Table 9 shows the mean difference across the groups (those with certification and those with no certification), revealing that the

Hospit

a c

5

t o p w t a o a p

5

c b r e c a l t e 2 f p o a i I T s T s O s g o

t s i e s h m m p a i a d t e f o r c w f

J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of

ttitudes and intentions for the certification group were signifi- antly greater than for the no certification group (p < 0.1).

. Conclusions

While the sample precluded making generalizations that apply o the industry as a whole, it appears that, for this study sample, verall employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety ractices were significantly influenced by their perceptions of OC, hich in turn, was influenced by their response to TL. Although

he effect of TL did not significantly impact employees’ attitudes nd food safety behavioral intentions, it was statistically significant n impacting OC. Therefore, managers should focus on developing nd creating an appropriate climate to promote safe food handling ractices.

.1. Theoretical and practical implications

To examine the causal relationships among employees’ per- eptions of their managers’ TL, OC, employees’ attitudes, and ehavioral intentions to follow safe food handling practices in estaurants, this study provided a conceptual model to investigate mployees’ intentional influences on food safety performance. The onstructs of OC and TL were used as antecedents of employees’ ttitudes toward food safety practices based on the strongly estab- ished relationship between attitudes and behavioral intentions oward a specific behavior. While many previous researchers (Frash t al., 2005; Griffith et al., 2010a,b; Mitchell et al., 2007; Pilling et al., 008; Powell et al., 2011) have mentioned barriers and suggestions or employees’ food safety practices in the workplace, they did not rovide any theoretical model with empirical evidence. The results f this study provide a theoretical model for the restaurant industry nd contribute to further understanding of employees’ intentional nfluences on their safe food handling practices in the workplace. n other words, the results of this study theoretically explain how L and OC impact employees’ attitudes and intentions to perform a pecific behavior (i.e., safe food handling practices) in restaurants. his conceptual model is useful in examining the causal relation- hips among employees’ perceptions of their managers’ TL, the C, employees’ attitudes, and behavioral intentions to perform a

pecific behavior in other industries. These behaviors may include reen practices in the workplace of any segment of the hospitality r service industry.

The results of this study can support managers in their efforts o understand and improve employees’ intentions to follow food afety practices in the workplace. Specifically, one of the results ndicated that uncertified employees were more likely to be influ- nced by the OC. This implies OC played an essential role in timulating employees’ attitudes and intentions toward safe food andling practices. Therefore, this study suggests that instead of anagers’ direct involvement in employees’ food safety practices, anagers are encouraged to establish a favorable safe climate that

rovides standards of food safety and triggers their employees’ ttitudes and intentions. Furthermore, another result of this study ndicated that employees with food safety certification had better ttitudes and greater intentions to follow food safety practices than id employees with no certification. Therefore, this study suggests hat managers should provide more opportunities for frontline mployees to obtain food safety certification, and offer more on-site ood safety training programs. If employees’ food safety behaviors r food safety certifications will offer opportunities for promotion,

eviews of job performances, bonuses, pay increases, gift certifi- ates, and shift preferences (Mitchell et al., 2007), then employees ith no food safety certification will be more motivated to obtain

ood safety knowledge and perform food safety practices in the

ality Management 33 (2013) 282–293 291

workplace. In addition, this study will be helpful in providing practical guidelines for determining what is needed to support health-related behaviors in restaurants and could be used to cre- ate tailored training programs to improve employees’ food safety practices and increase food code compliance.

5.2. Limitations of the study and recommendations for future study

This study used self-report data and did not control for respon- dents’ affects, emotions or evaluative perceptions. Thus, there may be the possibility that mono-source bias may inflate or distort the parameters of interest. Therefore, the study suggests the need to rely on alternate data sources. In addition, social desirability bias (the participant’s tendency toward a perception of what is “correct” or socially acceptable) may affect variable means and cause mis- leading results (De Jong et al., 2010). For instance, the statement, “I intend to follow food safety practices during working hours,” is considered socially desirable as everyone should follow food safety practices. However, in reality, some employees may not follow and may not intend to follow these, even though they are likely to respond favorably to this statement regardless of their inten- tions because of the social desirability bias. Due to the low response rate of this study (34.3%), the demographic profile of the respon- dents was compared to the labor force and employment data in the foodservice industry from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2008). The age group for employees younger than 20 years old in this study (1.8%) was less than that of the data (19.9%) from the BLS (2008). One possible reason for this finding may be that participants in this study were required to be 18 years of age or older because of the mandates of the Institutional Review Board. In addition, the majority of the respondents (80.4%) in this study were between 20 and 29 years of age, while the data from the BLS showed that 45.9% of employees are between 20 and 34 years of age. The distribution of foodservice employment in this study is somewhat different from that of the BLS data. Furthermore, approx- imately 73% of the respondents in this study were white, which is not reflective of frontline employees in restaurants nationally. Therefore, the results of this study may not represent the general foodservice labor force in the U.S. In addition, this study did not consider the impact of respondents’ ethnicity and cultural norms or the impact of the ownership of the restaurant (chain vs. indepen- dent) on the relationships among TL, OC, and employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety practices in restaurants.

For future study, determining the impacts of ethnicity, cul- tural norms, and restaurant ownership will be recommended because there may be differences among ethnicity and/or organiza- tional structure and vision with respect to policies and procedures (anonymous reviewer). Additionally, the length of time spent with an operation and with the managers may also be another area of future research. The results of this study showed the apparent lack of a relationship between TL and employees’ attitudes and inten- tions to follow food safety practices. A possible reason for this may be that employees do not have feelings of connections with their managers as compared to the connections that they feel with their coworkers. Therefore, it is possible that managers and employ- ees are not aware of the other’s viewpoints. It may also be that managers, in turn, may not effectively motivate and inspire their employees to follow food safety practices. Therefore, if frontline employees spend more time with managers, the impact of TL on employees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety practices may be stronger. The effect of TL and OC on the employees’ atti-

tudes and intentions may need to be observed over a longer period of time, as in a longitudinal study, because issues of time and timing are absolutely central to modern management and organizational behavioral research (Cooper et al., 2001). However, because high

2 Hospit

t n b f t d

t e e 2 i i T s t e F r a s c v f a s w w c v r a c w t o a

A

m t

R

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B B

B

92 J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of

urnover rates are common in the restaurant industry, it is unfortu- ately very likely that follow-up rates in a longitudinal study would e low. Regarding the survey distribution, the managers agreed to ollow the researcher’s instructions, and there was no indication hat they did otherwise. However, it is possible that a manager eviated from the directions.

Based on the nature of the labor market in the restaurant indus- ry, frontline employees are young, have a relatively low-level of ducation, and are part-time or seasonal employees receiving a fed- ral minimum wage of $7.25 per hour (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 010). Frontline employees’ attitudes and intentions to work in an

ndustry that is less well compensated may be also influenced by ncreased monetary or tangible rewards than by the attributes of L. Therefore, the authors suggest, as an area of future study, mea- uring frontline employees’ tips and compensations and compare he impact of transactional leadership style with TL on frontline mployees’ attitudes and intentions to follow food safety practices. ollowing food safety practices and food code compliance is also elated to moral obligation. However, even employees who are well ware of the food safety ‘rules’ may ignore them if there are no upervisors or managers in the workplace or if employees do not hoose to pay attention to them. In addition, they consider that iolations of food safety practices are not that serious or harm- ul. Therefore, an individual’s sense of moral obligation could be nother possible moderating variable. Accordingly, future research hould consider the influence of employees’ moral obligation on orkplace food safety practices. Additionally, while due diligence as exercised to reduce the number of question in the TL and OC

onstructs, it is possible that some of the respondents may have iewed the questions as loaded questions. However, based on the esults of the group of experts, this should not have adversely ffected the results as both parts of the questions were very highly orrelated within their constructs. Finally, the actual performance, hich is beyond the scope of this study, may be of importance in

he area of food safety. Future studies should consider the impact f comprehensive antecedents of attitudes and intentions on the ctual food safety practices.

cknowledgement

The authors thank the editor Abraham Pizam and the anony- ous reviewers for their constructive comments, which allow us

o improve the article during the review process.

eferences

jzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179–211.

jzen, I., 2006. Constructing a TpB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodo- logical Considerations. Retrieved on June 22, 2008, from http://www.people. umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf

nderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3), 411–423.

rendt, S.W., Ellis, J.D., Strohbehn, C., Paez, P., 2011. Development and use of an instrument to measure retail foodservice employees’ motivation for following food safety practices. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 14 (1), 68–85.

rendt, S.W., Sneed, J., 2008. Employee motivators for following food safety prac- tices: pivotal role of supervision. Food Protection Trends 28 (10), 704–711.

arling, J., Slater, F., Kelloway, E.K., 2000. Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: an exploratory study. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 21 (3), 157–161.

ass, B.M., 1985. Comment: Transformational leadership. Looking at other possible antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Inquiry 4, 293–297.

inkley, M. M., 2005. The impact of foodservice manager credentialing on food safety knowledge and health inspection scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette.

lau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York.

ureau of Labor Statistics, 2010. Career Guide to Industries, 2010-11 Edi-

tion. Food Services and Drinking Places, retrieved on June 14, 2010, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs023.htm

urton, R.M., Lauridsen, J., Obel, B., 2004. The impact of organizational climate and strategic fit on firm performance. Human Resource Management 43 (1), 67–82.

ality Management 33 (2013) 282–293

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. Surveillance for Food- borne Disease Outbreaks – United States, 2008, Retrieved January 4, 2012 from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6035a3.htm?s cid= mm6035a3 w

Clark, R.A., Hartline, M.D., Jones, K.C., 2009. The effects of leadership style on hotel employees’ commitment to service quality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (2), 209–231.

Cochran-Yantes, D., Belo, P., Giampaoli, J., McProud, L., Every, V., Ganns, J., 1996. Attitudes and knowledge of food safety among Santa Clara County. California restaurant operators. Foodservice Research International 9 (2), 117–128.

Cooper, C.L., Cartwright, S., Earley, P.C., 2001. The International Handbook of Orga- nizational Culture and Climate. Wiley, New York.

Cotterchio, M., Gunn, J., Coffill, T., Tormey, P., Barry, M.A., 1998. Effect of a manager training program on sanitary conditions in restaurants. Public Health Reports 113 (4), 353–358.

De Jong, M.G., Pieters, R., Fox, J., 2010. Reducing social desirability bias through item randomized responses: an application to measure underreported desires. Journal of Marketing Research XLVII, 14–27.

Dierendonck, D.V., 2011. Servant leadership: a review and synthesis. Journal of Management 37 (4), 1228–1261.

FDA, 2010. FDA Retail Food Risk Factor Study. Retrived January, 8, 2012. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/Foodborne IllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/ucm230313.htm

Forehand, G.A., Gilmer, B.V.H., 1964. Environmental variation in studies of organi- zational behavior. Psychological Bulletin 62, 361–382.

Frash Jr., R., Binkley, M., Nelson, D., Almanza, B., 2005. Transfer of training efficacy in U.S. food safety accreditation. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology 4 (2/3), 7–38.

Gill, A.S., Mathur, N., 2007. Improving employee dedication and pro-social behav- ior. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19 (4), 328–334.

Gill, A.S., Flaschner, A.B., Shachar, M., 2006. Mitigating stress and burnout by imple- menting transformational-leadership. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18 (6), 469–481.

Glasmen, L.R., Albararracin, D., 2006. Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin 132 (5), 778–822.

Gould-Williams, J., 2007. HR practices, organizational climate and employee outcomes: evaluating social exchange relationships in local government. Inter- national Journal of Human Resource Management 18 (9), 1627–1647.

Greig, J.D., Todd, E.C.D., Bartleson, C.A., Michaels, B.S., 2007. Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 1. Description of the problem, methods, and agents involved. Journal of Food Pro- tection 70 (7), 1572–1761.

Griffith, C.J.×, Livesey, K.M., Clayton, D.A., 2010a. Food safety culture: the evolution of an emerging risk factor? British Food Journal 112 (4), 426–438.

Griffith, C.J., Livesey, K.M., Clayton, D.A., 2010b. The assessment of food safety cul- ture. British Food Journal 112 (4), 439–456.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey.

Kelloway, E.K., Mullen, J., Francis, L., 2006. Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol- ogy 11 (1), 76–86.

Lee, J., Nelson, D.C., Almanza, B.A., 2012. Health inspection reports as predictors of specific training needs. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2), 522–528.

Liao, H., Chuang, A., 2007. Transforming service employees and climate: a multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4), 1006–1019.

Litwin, G., Stringer, R.A., 1968. Motivation and Organizational Climate. Harvard Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Madden, T.J., Ellen, P.S., Ajzen, I., 1992. A comparison of the theory of planned behav- ior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18 (1), 3–9.

Manning, M.L., Davidson, M., Manning, R.L., 2005. Measuring tourism and hospitality employee workplace perceptions. International Journal of Hospitality Manage- ment 24 (1), 75–90.

McElroy, D.M., Cutter, C.N., 2004. Self-reported changes in food safety practices as a result of participation in a statewide food safety certification program. Food Protection Trends 24 (3), 150–161.

Medeiros, C.O., Cavalli, S.B., Proenca, R.P.C., 2012. Human resources administration processes in commercial restaurants and food safety: the actions of administra- tors. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (3), 667–674.

Mitchell, R.E., Fraser, A.M., Bearon, L.B., 2007. Preventing food-borne illness in food service establishments: broadening the framework for intervention and research on safe food handling behaviors. International Journal of Environmen- tal Health Research 17 (1), 9–24.

Murphy, K.S., DiPietro, R.B., Kock, G., Lee, J., 2011. Does mandatory food safety train- ing and certification for restaurant employees improve inspection outcomes? International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (1), 150–156.

Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., Hart, P.M., 2000. The impact of organizational cli-

mate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science 34 (1-3), 99–109.

Nieto-Montenegro, S., Brown, J.L., LaBorde, L.F., 2006. Using the health action model to plan food safety educational materials for Hispanic workers in the mushroom industry. Food Control 17 (10), 757–767.

Hospit

N

P

P

P

P

J.-E. Lee et al. / International Journal of

orthouse, P.G., 2004. Leadership Theory and Practice, 3rd ed. Sage Publication Inc., California.

atiar, A., Mia, L., 2009. Transformational leadership style, market competition and departmental performance: evidence from luxury hotels in Australia. Interna- tional Journal of Hospitality Management 28, 254–262.

atterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D.L., Wallace, A.M., 2005. Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26, 379–408.

illing, V.K., Brannon, L.A., Shanklin, C.W., Howells, A.D., Roberts, K.R., 2008. Iden-

tifying specific beliefs to target to improve restaurant employees’ intentions for performing three important food safety behaviors. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 108 (6), 991–997.

owell, D.A., Jacob, C.J., Chapman, B.J., 2011. Enhancing food safety culture to reduce rates of foodborne illness. Food Control 22 (6), 817–822.

ality Management 33 (2013) 282–293 293

Roberts, K.R., Barrett, B.B., Howells, A.D., Shanklin, C.W., Pilling, V.K., Brannon, L.A., 2008. Food safety training and foodservice employees’ knowledge and behavior. Food Protection Trends 28 (4), 252–260.

Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F., Patterson, K., 2004. Transformational versus servant leader- ship: a difference in leader focus. The Leadership and Organization Development Journal 25 (4), 349–361.

Tracey, B., Hinkin, T., 1994. Transformational leaders in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 35 (2), 18–24.

Uhi-Bien, M., 2006. Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly 17 (6), 654–676.

U.S. Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2009). Food Code, Washington, DC: Author.

Zohar, D., Tenne-Gazit, O., 2008. Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: a social network analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (4), 744–757.