essay4

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whrh20

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism

ISSN: 1533-2845 (Print) 1533-2853 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

The effects of leadership satisfaction on employee engagement, loyalty, and retention in the hospitality industry

Laura Book, Anthony Gatling & Jungsun (Sunny) Kim

To cite this article: Laura Book, Anthony Gatling & Jungsun (Sunny) Kim (2019) The effects of leadership satisfaction on employee engagement, loyalty, and retention in the hospitality industry, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 18:3, 368-393, DOI: 10.1080/15332845.2019.1599787

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2019.1599787

Published online: 24 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 153

View Crossmark data

The effects of leadership satisfaction on employee engagement, loyalty, and retention in the hospitality industry

Laura Book, Anthony Gatling, and Jungsun (Sunny) Kim

Las Vegas, Harrah College of Hospitality, University of Nevada, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154, USA

ABSTRACT This research investigates the role of leader satisfaction on employee engagement, loyalty, and intention to stay. The results demonstrate that leadership satisfaction has a direct effect on employee engagement, loyalty and intention to stay. Furthermore, employee engagement was found to mediate the relationship between leader satisfaction and both loyalty and intention to stay. Interestingly, age moderated the rela- tionships between engagement and loyalty as well as engage- ment and intention to stay. The results of this study yield theoretical and practical implications that are useful for hospi- tality leaders. Research limitations and recommendations for further research conclude this research.

KEYWORDS Employee satisfaction with leader; employee engagement; employee loyalty; employee retention

Introduction

Over recent years, practitioners and researchers have been seeking to identify areas of focus that can increase important workforce factors such as employee engagement, loyalty, and retention. Research suggests that 48% of business operators consider employee engagement to be a very important issue (Brown, Bersin, Gosling, & Sloan, 2016). Despite efforts to improve employee engagement, it continues to pose a challenge for organizations with research indicating that only 33% of U.S. employees are engaged, with only 29% of employed Millennials enthusiastic about their jobs (Adkins, 2016; Mann & Harter, 2016). This lack of enthusiasm coming from Millennials is particularly concerning as Millennials are projected to comprise 50% of the workforce by 2020 (“Managing Millennials”, 2016). The concern lies in the fact that a lack of engagement leads to a number of undesirable outcomes including decreased productivity, profitability, and customer satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Thus, understanding and managing employee engagement is a critical part of any business operation.

CONTACT Laura Book [email protected] Las Vegas, Harrah College of Hospitality, University of Nevada, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154, USA. � 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 2019, VOL. 18, NO. 3, 368–393 https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2019.1599787

Since employee to guest interactions are so prevalent within the hospital- ity industry, it is imperative that leaders find ways to engage followers to commit the full range of their efforts and abilities in making contributions to the organization. It is equally important to understand the consequences of employee engagement, namely positive effects of engagement on an organization’s culture and performance. Research suggests that increased engagement increases overall employee well-being as well as enhances an organization’s financial performance (“State of the American Workplace”, 2014). The current research focuses on the relationship between engage- ment and employee loyalty, as well as employees’ intention to stay, as extant research has connected engagement to loyalty and retention (i.e., Jindal, Shaikh, & Shashank, 2017; Saxena & Srivastava, 2015). As an entity operating within the service industry domain, resorts are

responsive to the service-chain profit model (Heskett & Schlesinger, 1994), which suggests that employee satisfaction ultimately leads to profitability. In particular, employee retention is a prevalent human resource focus in many organizations due to the significant costs of employee attrition; with employee replacement costs reaching 150% of the position’s annual salary (Rigoni & Nelson, 2016). Moreover, the hospitality industry has long been plagued with high turnover, and turnover continues to rise with overall turnover for the hospitality and leisure industry at a staggering 72.1% (Ruggless, 2016). Thus, there continues to be a focus on factors that both positively and negatively affect employees’ intention to stay. Employee perceptions of loyalty shown to them by their organizations

have been reflected in high levels of distrust and a sense that organizations do not consider the interests of employees, resulting in a lack of trust and respect for organizational leaders (Aityan & Gupta, 2012). Although research on employee loyalty is scant in the hospitality context (Ineson, Benke, & L�aszl�o, 2013), a study conducted in a retail setting found that employee loyalty significantly affects customer loyalty, customer satisfac- tion, and service quality (Yee, Yeung, & Cheng, 2010), all of which are crit- ical factors for hospitality organizations. Investigating the role of employees’ leader satisfaction on important employee outcomes, including engagement, loyalty, and retention, is warranted as these outcomes signifi- cantly affect an organization’s performance. Furthermore, this research answers a call made by Li, Sanders, and Frenkel (2012) regarding explor- ation of the relationship between the leader and employee loyalty and extends research conducted by Ineson et al. (2013) who suggested that commitment to management and the organization was related to employee loyalty. The purpose of the current research is to determine the effects of leadership satisfaction on key outcomes. The specific objectives of this research are to:

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 369

1. Explore the direct effect of leadership satisfaction on engagement, employee loyalty and retention

2. Test the indirect effects of leadership satisfaction on employee loyalty and intention to stay via employee engagement

3. Examine the indirect effect of employee engagement on intention to stay via loyalty

4. Investigate how age influences the aforementioned relationships.

This is the first study which developed a comprehensive model to meas- ure the relationships among leader satisfaction, engagement, loyalty, and intention to stay based on Leader-member exchange theory (Gerstner & Day, 1997) and Kahn’s (1990) engagement model, incorporated age as a moderator into the model, and empirically tested it with hospitality employees. Thus, this study sheds new light on the growing body of litera- ture on engagement, leadership, and human resource management in the hospitality industry. This study presents a framework and practical sugges- tions for hospitality operators to implement for their human resource man- agement practices and, in turn, achieve positive organizational outcomes.

Literature review

Theoretical background

Employee engagement has been defined many different ways. In basic terms, employee engagement is “a moment-to-moment state of motivation, wherein one is psychologically present, psycho-physiologically aroused, is focused on and aligned with the goals of the job and organization, and channels his or her emotional and cognitive self to transform work into meaningful and purposeful accomplishment” (Byrne, 2014, p. 11). The sem- inal work by Kahn (1990) laid the foundation for understanding how organizations can add dimensions to how employees express themselves in their work role. Most recently, Rich, Lepine, and Crawford (2010) devel- oped a new scale involving three engagement dimensions (i.e., emotional, cognitive, and physical) as originally conceptualized by Kahn (1990). Their empirical study found that the second-order factor loadings for the phys- ical, cognitive, and emotional dimensions were all positive and statistically significant, supporting for the structure of engagement as consisting of these three first-order (lower-order) factors, which load on a second-order (higher-order) factor. Research suggests that there are several antecedents to employee engage-

ment. For example, supportive management was found to promote psycho- logical safety, one of three psychological conditions associated with engagement (Kahn, 1990). This finding served as a basis to identify other

370 L. BOOK ET AL.

supervisory constructs as antecedents of engagement (Saks, 2006). Other scholars have identified leadership to be an important antecedent of employee engagement (e.g., Carasco-Saul, Kim, & Kim, 2015; Luthans & Peterson, 2002; Xu & Cooper Thomas, 2011). Li et al. (2012) were among the first to examine the mediating role of employee engagement on leader satisfaction in the hospitality context. Research has characterized satisfaction with the leader as the perceived

quality of the relationship a follower has with his/her leader (Gerstner & Day, 1997) as well as the perceived level of trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) provides useful insights for this study as it explains the dyadic relationship between employees and their direct supervisors (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). LMX has been used to examine a variety of outcomes, including employees’ perform- ance and attitudes (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Prior research using LMX explains that a positive working relationship increases an employee’s satis- faction with his/her supervisor, overall satisfaction, and job commitment (Gerstner & Day, 1997). In sum, the aforementioned theories and prior research provide a useful theoretical foundation for the current research to develop a research model and investigate the positive impact of leader satis- faction on employee loyalty and intention to stay via employee engagement (consisting of physical, emotional, and cognitive engagement) in a hospital- ity setting.

Leadership and employee engagement

Research suggests that managers account for 70% of variance in employee engagement (Beck & Harter, 2015). It is believed that leadership is an ante- cedent of employee engagement (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Saks & Gruman, 2014) due to the amount of influence that a leader has on how employees perceive their work. Furthermore, it has been argued that the quality of the relationship between an employee and his/her manager is what determines the overall level of employee engagement (“Declining Employee Loyalty”, 2012). For example, research indicates that employees who are empowered by their leaders are more satisfied in their jobs and with their leaders (Namasivayam, Guchait, & Lei, 2014). The relationship between lead- ership and engagement has been examined in sample of military officers by Alarcon, Lyons, and Tartaglia (2010), which found the leader’s influence on engagement to be mediated by role clarity and organizational culture. The relationship between types of leadership style and employee engagement has also been examined, with results indicating that authentic leadership (i.e., displaying consistency between words and actions) had a positive effect on employee engagement (Wang & Hsieh, 2013).

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 371

In the hospitality context, Li et al. (2012) found the relationship between leadership and engagement to be strengthened by human resource consist- ency in a sample of employees and supervisors working in luxury hotels. Recently, in a sample of frontline service employees, Popli and Rizvi (2016) examined the effect of differing leadership styles on employee engagement and found that transactional and transformational styles enable engage- ment. Research suggests that a positive working relationship increases employees’ willingness to go above and beyond (i.e., exert full effort) in providing customer service (Garg & Dhar, 2016). Based on leader-member exchange theory (LMX) and findings of related previous research between leader satisfaction and employee engagement, we propose the follow- ing hypothesis:

H1: Leadership satisfaction will have a positive direct effect on employees’ engagement.

Leadership, engagement, and employee loyalty

The relationship between leadership and loyalty has been studied in a var- iety of contexts, including political, sociocultural, and managerial (Guido- DiBrito, 1995). In the managerial context, employee loyalty describes employees’ faithfulness to an organization (Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely, & Fuller, 2001). This includes taking pride in being a part of an organization and speaking positively about the organization to others (Niehoff et al., 2001). Loyalty has also been described as acting in alignment with the organization’s best interest, and remaining with the same organization (“Declining Employee Loyalty,” 2012). Research indicates that effective leadership can increase employee loyalty. For example, Ding, Lu, Song, and Lu (2012) found that servant leadership (i.e., prioritizing and serving the needs of employees) was positively related to employee loyalty mediated by employee satisfaction. The effect of engagement on employee loyalty has drawn the interest of scholars (e.g., Costen & Salazar, 2011; Ineson et al., 2013). Related to the hospitality context, in a sample of Hungarian hotel employees, Ineson et al. (2013) found a greater effect on employee loyalty from managers’ conduct toward subordinates and social participation than from monetary compensation. Their study revealed that the top factors affecting employee loyalty were all intangible and that staff commitment to the organization and respect for superiors were positively related to inten- tion to stay. Their findings have particular relevance to the current study as we propose that employee satisfaction with their leader is related to employee loyalty in resorts. These previous studies pertaining to the rela- tionships among leadership satisfaction, employee engagement, and loyalty lead us to propose the following hypotheses:

372 L. BOOK ET AL.

H2: Leadership satisfaction will have a positive direct effect on employees’ loyalty.

H3: Leadership satisfaction will have a positive indirect effect on employees’ loyalty via employee engagement.

Leadership and employee retention

Research has demonstrated that leadership quality accounts for a large per- centage of organizational outcomes, including employee retention. Kleinman (2004) found that employees’ perceptions of their managers’ leadership style had an effect on employee retention. Wells and Welty Peachey (2011) found the relationship between both transactional and transformational leadership styles and employee retention, specifically vol- untary organizational turnover, is mediated by leadership satisfaction. Although the hospitality literature is replete with studies focused on employee turnover (e.g., Hinkin & Tracey, 2000; Milman, 2003), there is an emergence of research aimed at examining factors related to retention (Mohanty & Mohanty, 2014; Moncarz, Zhao, & Kay, 2009). Nawaz, Jahanian, and Tehreem (2012) discovered a correlation between supervisory support and perceived retention. Based on the relationship demonstrated by prior research, we propose the following hypothesis:

H4: Leadership satisfaction will have a positive direct effect on employees’ intentions to stay.

Employee engagement, loyalty, and retention

The primary reason that employee engagement has gained significant atten- tion is because it has been linked to both employee attitudes and organiza- tional outcomes. Although there are no studies that we could find that tested the relationship between employee engagement and employee loyalty in the hospitality context, we note that Preko and Adjetey (2013) examined inter-correlations of engagement and employee loyalty and how they affect the performance of sales executives employed by commercial banks. They found positive significant linear correlations among employee loyalty, engagement, and performance. Employee loyalty as a consequence of engagement has not been examined in the hospitality literature, yet there is good reason to do so. Not only does research indicate that engaged employees tend to be more loyal to their organization (“Declining Employee Loyalty,” 2012), but also Yee, Yeung, and Cheng (2011) found a significant positive relationship between employee loyalty and operational performance in the service sector. Thus, the following hypotheses are postulated:

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 373

H5: Employee engagement will have a positive direct effect on employees’ loyalty.

H6: Employee loyalty will have a positive direct effect on employees’ intentions to stay.

H7: Employee engagement will have a positive direct effect on employees’ intentions to stay.

H8: Employee engagement will have a positive indirect effect on employees’ intentions to stay via employee loyalty.

Babcock-Roberson and Strickland (2010) found a relationship between leadership styles and the outcomes of employee engagement and organiza- tional citizenship behaviors. Mendes and Stander (2011) found a relation- ship between leader behavior, engagement, and employee retention. In a sample of MBA students, Ding et al. (2012) found that servant leadership was positively related to employee loyalty. Further to engagement, past aca- demic studies have found engagement to be an indicator of intention to leave (Van Schalkwyk, Du Toit, Bothma, & Rothmann, 2010). One can intuitively envision that intention to leave and intention to stay are con- verse paradigms (Cho, Johanson, & Guchait, 2009). However, Cho et al. (2009) found evidence that the factors affect these two constructs differ- ently and that predictors decreasing the intention to leave do not conse- quently increase intention to stay. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

H9: Leader satisfaction will have a positive indirect effect on employees’ intentions to stay via employee engagement and employee loyalty.

Generational differences in the workplace

The investigation of employee engagement and loyalty warrants an examin- ation of the generational differences in today’s workplace. Research suggests that different generations have different work values. In particular, older generations (i.e., Baby Boomers) tend to respect authority and hierarchy, and are very loyal. Younger generations (i.e., Millennials) are more likely to rebel against authority if their needs are not being met. They often place a higher value on work-life balance, which can lead them to be less likely to make sacrifices for the company (e.g., Gursoy, Maier, & Chi, 2008). Generational differences have been found to affect the level of work

engagement and turnover intention among hotel employees in the U.S. (Park & Gursoy, 2012). In that study, Millennials were found to be distinct in their level of work engagement and turnover intention. Specifically, Millennials were found to be less engaged than older generations and had a lower level of work dedication. This lower level of work dedication is thought to come from the fragile work-life balance that Millennials demand. For example, research indicates that when the workload increases

374 L. BOOK ET AL.

significantly, Millennials are more likely to suffer emotional burnout lead- ing to turnover than Baby Boomers (Lu & Gursoy, 2016). Millennials have been characterized (often inaccurately) as lacking loyalty

due to their varied career paths and openness to switching jobs (e.g., Martson, 2016; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). In recent years, research regarding Millennials and their lack of engagement and loyalty has been prevalent. Research suggests that Millennials have a high need for engage- ment, a need for meaningful work, and display a willingness to leave an employer if they are not satisfied (“Managing Millennials,” 2016). Academic research echoes this difference in generational values in the workplace, finding that Baby Boomers tend to be more loyal and engaged (Gursoy, Chi, & Karadag, 2013; Park & Gursoy, 2012). However, more research is needed when making determinations about a generation’s col- lective work attitudes and values. Moreover, traditional myths about Millennials are being deflated as knowledge of this generation grows (Martson, 2016). Further knowledge of these differences can be discovered through utilizing age as a moderating variable in the examined relation- ships (Lu & Gursoy, 2016). Since there have been inconclusive findings about moderating effects of

ages in the proposed relationships, it is critical to empirically test such effects in a hospitality setting. Given the differences in values of the different age groups, we postulate that age (in particular, Millennials vs. Gen-X/Baby Boomers) will have an effect on the relationships proposed in this study.

H10: Age moderates the relationships proposed in the research model.

Methodology

Sample and setting

This research was conducted with employees working at a large hotel and casino resort in the Southwestern United States. The researchers worked with the Senior Vice President of Human Resources to plan the study and receive approval for both online and on-site data collection. At the time of this study, the hotel had approximately 4,000 employees. All employees were invited to participate; however, only 373 responded (35% online, n ¼ 129 and 65% paper-and-pencil, n ¼ 244). Online invitations with a link to the survey were sent to all employees via the organization’s intranet plat- form. The communication of the online data collection was managed by the organization’s Internal Communication’s team. The online survey remained open for 3-weeks. The research team was granted permission to conduct data collection on-site by describing the purpose of this study to employees and distributing and collecting the paper-based surveys outside

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 375

of the employee dining room and break area. The research team worked in shifts between 7:00 am and 11:00 pm for 3 days. The researchers and the Senior Vice President of Human Resources determined this time frame to reach employees working varied shifts.

Measures

The measurement items are presented in the results tables. The instrument consisted of 4 parts. Part 1 was the leader satisfaction measurement, which included six items on a 5-point scale adapted from Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) as follows: (1) Do you know where you stand with your leader and do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do? (ranging from “rarely” to “very often”); (2) How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs? (ranging from “not a bit” to “a great deal”); (3) Regardless of how much formal authority your leader has built into his or her position, what are the chances that your leader would use his or her power to help you solve problems in your work? (ranging from “none” to “Very high”); (4) Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances that he or she would “bail you out” at his or her expense? (ranging from “none” to “very high”); (5) I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or her decision if he or she were not present to do so. (ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”); and (6) How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader? (ranging from “extremely ineffective” to “extremely effective”). Part 2 was the employee engagement measurement, which was assessed

with 12 items adapted from Rich et al. (2010) using a seven-point Likert- type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. These measures examined physical, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Part 3 was the loyalty measurement, which included four items adapted from the service-oriented citizenship behavior scale by Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meuter (2001) using a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Part 4 was the intention to stay measurement with four items adapted from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979; Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, & Cammann, 1982) and the Propensity to Leave scale (Lyons, 1971). These items were measured on using a seven-point Likert- type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

Analytical techniques

We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), second-order factor analysis, structural equation modeling (SEM), and multigroup analysis to analyze

376 L. BOOK ET AL.

the data. EQS6 statistical software was selected since this program can test our hypotheses, which include mediating and moderating effects. After test- ing the measurement model using CFA, we employed the second-order fac- tor model using CFA as well. Next, hypothesized structural model was tested using SEM and multigroup analysis (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The major reason for employing the second-order factor model was to pro- vide a more parsimonious and easily understandable model with fewer parameters (Gustafsson & Balke, 1993; Rindskopf & Rose, 1988). This approach is consistent with the perspective of Kahn (1990) as well as Rich et al.’s empirical study (2010), which supports specifying engagement as a second-order factor with three first-order engagement dimensions (i.e., physical, engagement, and cognitive).

Results

Sample statistics

A total of 373 completed responses were collected from both online (n ¼ 129, 35%) and on-site (n ¼ 244, 65%) paper-based surveys and used for data analysis. The respondents represent resort employees from various departments, including food and beverage (22%), hotel operations (20%), gaming (14%), and housekeeping (11%). About 66% were Gen-Y, commonly referred to as “Millennials” (18 to 40years old in 2016), and 34% were Gen- X and Baby Boomers. Of these respondents, about 57% were women, and 57.8% were nonwhite including Black (11%), Asian (14%), and multiracial (10%). In terms of their highest level of education attained, 27% had an undergraduate degree, 49% had an associate’s degree or some college, and 16% had a high school degree. Regarding their total number of years of work experience in the resort industry, the majority (54%) reported as 5 years or more, followed by less than 2 years (25%) and 2 to 5 years (21%).

Model fit

To test the model fit, the researchers used several fit indexes: Comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and incremental fix index (IFI) values of .90 or higher and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value of .08 or less are commonly used as indicators of good model fit (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Although the result of chi-square (v2) test is one of the commonly used fit indices, the v2 is highly sensitive to sample size and almost always statistically significant if a sample size is greater than 400 observations. Thus, this test is recommended for a sample size between 70 and 200 (Kenny, 2014). The sample size of this study was close to 400;

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 377

thus, the researchers used an alternate evaluation of the v2 statistic, the ratio of v2 to the degrees of freedom (d.f.). A small v2/d.f. is indicative of good fit (Byrne, 2006; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986). In particular, a v2/d.f. ratio of 5 or less is considered a reasonably good indicator of model fit (Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, & Summers, 1977). According to EQS 6 struc- tural equations program manual (Bentler, 2006, p. 90), “The work of Sobel (1982, 1986, 1987) on indirect effects was extended and modified to be applicable to the classes of models, estimators, and constraints available in EQS.” That is, the EQS output provided the effect size and significance of indirect effects at p <.05 in this study.

Measurement model and second-order factor analysis

The measurement model provided a good fit to the data: v2 (284) ¼ 897.74, p < .05, v2/d.f. ¼ 3.16, CFI ¼ .924, IFI ¼ .924, TLI ¼ .913, RMSEA ¼ .076. For convergent validity, we followed Hair et al.’s suggestion (2006) that “all loadings should be at least .5 and preferably .7” (p. 808) as well as reviewed the multivariate Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test result provided by EQS (i.e., suggestions to drop parameters to improve the model fit). As a result, we found the third item for the cognitive engagement factor (CE3) should be removed from the model since this item had not only a loading score of .6 (lower than .7), but also was cross-loaded on the emotional engagement (EE) factor. After removing this item, the measurement model showed improved fit indices: v2 (260) ¼ 661.15, p < .05, v2/d.f. ¼ 2.54, CFI ¼ .948, IFI ¼ .948, TLI ¼ .940, RMSEA ¼ .064. All retained measurement items and their factor loading values are demonstrated in Table 1. In addition, the average variance extracted (AVE) estimates were all above .5 (see Table 2), which is another way to test convergent validity (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). All factors showed satisfactory scale reliability since composite reliability of each factor exceeded the recommended value of .7 (Hair et al., 2006) (Table 2). Strong discriminant validity was demonstrated as well since the squared correlations between a pair of latent factors were less than the AVE of each factor (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The result of testing the second-order factor model demonstrated a good

fit to the data: v2 (266) ¼ 737.75, p < .05, v2/d.f. ¼ 2.77, CFI ¼ .939, IFI ¼ .939, TLI ¼ .931, RMSEA ¼ .069. We also found statistically significant positive relationships between the first-order factors (i.e., PE, EE, and CE) and the second-order factor (i.e., employee engagement) with the following high-standardized factor loadings: .84 (Physical), .90 (Emotional), and .80 (Cognitive) (p < .05). That is, these three proposed first-order employee engagement dimensions satisfactorily represent the underlying concept of employee engagement.

378 L. BOOK ET AL.

Structural equation modeling

The structural model of this study showed a good model fit: v2 (266) ¼ 737.70, p < .05, v2/d.f. ¼ 2.77, CFI ¼ .939, IFI ¼ .939, TLI ¼ .931, RMSEA ¼ .069. The following sections explain the support for each hypothesis and describe the results.

Hypothesis 1: Leadership satisfaction will have a positive direct effect on employees’ engagement.

Table 1. Results of confirmatory factor analysis. Six factors and scale items Standardized loadinga

F1: Leadership satisfaction (LS) LS1: Do you know where you stand with your leader

and do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do?

.76

LS2: How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs?

.83

LS3: Regardless of how much formal authority your leader has built into his or her position, what are the chances that your leader would use his or her power to help you solve problems in your work?

.83

LS4: Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances that he or she would “bail you out” at his or her expense?

.68

LS5: I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or her decision if he or she were not present.

.83

LS6: How would you characterize your working relation- ship with your leader?

.86

F2: Physical Engagement (PE) PE1: I exert my full effort to my job. .84 PE2: I try my hardest to perform well on my job. .94 PE3: I strive as hard as I can to complete my job. .95 PE4: I exert a lot of energy on my job. .59 F3: Emotional Engagement (EE) EE1: I am enthusiastic in my job. .84 EE2: I am proud of my job. .89 EE3: I feel positive about my job. .89 EE4: I am excited about my job. .89 F4: Cognitive Engagement (CE) CE1: At work, my mind is focused on my job. .81 CE2: At work, I pay a lot of attention to my job. .90 CE3: At work, I concentrate on my job. .93 F5: Employee Loyalty (EL) EL1: I tell outsiders this is a good place to work. .92 EL2: I say good things about this organization to others. .95 EL3: I generate favorable goodwill for the company. .85 EL4: I encourage friends and family to use the

company’s products and services. .74

F6: Intention to Stay (IS) IS1: I plan to work at my present job for as long

as possible. .89

IS2: I will most certainly look for a new job in the near future (reversely coded).

.63

IS3: I plan to stay in this job for at least two to three years.

.67

IS4: I would hate to quit this job. .64

Note: aAll factor loadings are significant at p < .05.

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 379

As demonstrated in Table 3 and Figure 1, an examination of path esti- mates (b) revealed that the respondents’ leadership satisfaction (LS) had a significant direct effect on their engagement (b ¼ .36; p < .05), supporting hypothesis 1 (i.e., leadership satisfaction will have a positive direct effect on employees’ engagement). This result indicates that employees’ satisfaction with their direct leader affects how engaged they are in their job. As satis- faction with their direct leader increases, their engagement increases. Specifically, a 1-point increase in leadership satisfaction will result in a 36% increase in engagement.

Hypothesis 2: Leadership satisfaction will have a positive direct effect on employees’ loyalty.

Leadership satisfaction had a significant direct effect on their loyalty (EL) (b ¼ .23; p < .05), supporting hypothesis 2 (i.e., leadership satisfaction will have a positive direct effect on employees’ loyalty). This result indicates that as leadership satisfaction increases, loyalty will also increase.

Hypothesis 3: Leadership satisfaction will have a positive indirect effect on employees’ loyalty via employee engagement.

In addition, LS had an indirect effect on EL via employee engagement (b ¼ .25; p < .05), supporting hypothesis 3 (i.e., leadership satisfaction will have a positive indirect effect on employees’ loyalty via employee

Table 2. AVE, correlations, and squared correlations. AVE LS PE EE CE EL IS

LS .64 .91a .05c .18 .04 .23 .14 PE .71 .22b .90 .52 .58 .37 .16 EE .77 .43 .72 .93 .46 .58 .36 CE .78 .19 .76 .68 .91 .32 .14 EL .75 .48 .61 .76 .57 .92 .32 IS .51 .37 .40 .60 .37 .57 .80

Note: AVE: average variance extracted; CE: cognitive engagement; EE: emotional engagement; EL: employee loy- alty; IS: intention to stay; LS: leadership satisfaction; PE: physical engagement.

aComposite reliabilities are along the diagonal. bCorrelations are below the diagonal. cSquared correlations are above the diagonal.

Table 3. Relationships among leadership satisfaction, employee engagement, employee loy- alty, and intention to stay.

Direct effect (b) Indirect effect (b) Hypotheses

Effect of LS (F1) on Employee engagement (F7) .36� H1: Supported Effect of LS (F1) on EL (F5) .23� .25� H2: Supported

H3: Supported Effect of LS (F1) on IS (F6) .13� .24� H4: Supported

H9: Supported Effect of Employee engagement (F7) on EL (F5) .70� H5: Supported Effect of EL (F5) on IS (F6) .27� H6: Supported Effect of Employee engagement (F7) on IS (F6) .30� .19� H7: Supported

H8: Supported

Note:.� p < .05, LS ¼ Leadership Satisfaction, EL ¼ Employee Loyalty, IS ¼ Intention to Stay.

380 L. BOOK ET AL.

engagement). This result indicates that in addition to directly affecting employee loyalty, leadership satisfaction also affects employee loyalty through employee engagement. This means that as leadership satisfaction increases, employee engagement increases, and in turn influences employ- ees’ loyalty.

Hypothesis 4: Leadership satisfaction will have a positive direct effect on employees’ intentions to stay.

Moreover, LS directly affected the respondents’ intentions to stay (IS) (b ¼ .13; p < .05), supporting hypothesis 4 (i.e., leadership satisfaction will have a positive direct effect on employees’ intentions to stay). This result indicates that as leadership satisfaction increases, employees are more likely to stay with the organization.

Hypothesis 5: Employee engagement will have a positive direct effect on employees’ loyalty.

Employee engagement (EE) directly influenced employee loyalty (EL), supporting hypothesis 5 (i.e., employee engagement will have a positive direct effect on employees’ loyalty) (b ¼ .70; p < .05), and the effect size was larger than that of LS.

Hypothesis 6: Employee loyalty will have a positive direct effect on employees’ intentions to stay.

The aforementioned result indicates that as employee engagement increases, employees become more loyal to the organization. Specifically, a 1-point increase in engagement will result in a 70% increase in loyalty. The result revealed that EL had a significant direct effect on IS (b ¼ .27, p <

Figure 1. Testing the research model.

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 381

.05), supporting hypothesis 6 (i.e., employee loyalty will have a positive direct effect on employees’ intentions to stay).

Hypothesis 7: Employee engagement will have a positive direct effect on employees’ intentions to stay.

EE was found to have a significant direct effect on IS (b ¼ .30, p < .05) supporting hypothesis 7 (i.e., employee engagement will have a positive direct effect on employees’ intentions to stay). These results indicate that as employee loyalty and engagement increase, employees will be more likely to stay with the organization.

Hypothesis 8: Employee engagement will have a positive indirect effect on employees’ intentions to stay via employee loyalty.

Furthermore, EE was found to have an indirect effect on IS via EL (b ¼ .19, p < .05), indicating that as employee engagement increases, loyalty increases, and this in turn affects employees’ loyalty to the organization. This finding supports hypothesis 8 (i.e., employee engagement will have a positive indirect effect on employees’ intentions to stay via employee loyalty).

Hypothesis 9: Leader satisfaction will have a positive indirect effect on employees’ intentions to stay via employee engagement and employee loyalty.

Finally, LS had an indirect effect on IS via EE and EL (b ¼ .24, p < .05), indicating employee engagement and employee loyalty partially mediate the relationship between employees’ leadership satisfaction and their intentions to stay. This finding supports hypothesis 9 (i.e., leader satisfaction will have a positive indirect effect on employees’ intentions to stay via employee engagement and employee loyalty). Hypothesis 10: Age moderates the relationships proposed in the

research model. To test the tenth hypothesis (i.e., age moderates the relationships proposed

in the research model), the age variable was used to separate the entire respondents into two groups (i.e., Group 1¼ younger group including Generation Y; Group 2 ¼ older group including Generation X and Baby Boomers). This moderating variable was decided based on prior research indicating that Generation Y employees (i.e., Millennials) were distinctly different from older generations in terms of their work engagement and turnover (Park & Gursoy, 2012). To test structural equivalence, the researchers used a total free (TF)

structural model to estimate the identical structural model in both younger and older groups simultaneously. Then we tested a structural model con- straining the specific relationships (i.e., LS ➔ Engagement, LS ➔ EL, Engagement ➔ IS, and EL ➔ IS) in each group. If these constraints

382 L. BOOK ET AL.

significantly worsen the model fit, the moderating effect of age would be supported (Hair et al., 2006). As shown in Table 4, the Dv2 was significant (p < .05), and the other fit indices in the constrained model were weaker than those in the TF mode. In addition, examining the probability values related to the univariate v2 incremental information using the LM test revealed two significant non-invariant parameters (p < .05): Engagement ➔ El and Engagement ➔ IS. That is, employee engagement was found not to be operating in the same way across the groups (Byrne, 2006). After releasing these two constraints, the fit indices of the constrained model improved: v2 (536) ¼ 1198.66, p < .05, v2/d.f. ¼ 2.24, CFI ¼ .915, IFI ¼ .916, TLI ¼ .905, RMSEA ¼ .082. The path estimates (b) for both groups in this model are demonstrated

in Figure 2. In sum, employee engagement had a significant direct effect on IS only in the younger group, indicating that employee engagement signifi- cantly increases intention to stay in the younger group, but not in the older group. Specifically, a 1-point increase in engagement will increase intention to stay by 49% for younger employees. Employee engagement had a signifi- cant direct effect on EL in both groups, but a significantly stronger effect was found in the older group. This result indicates that a 1-point increase in engagement leads to an increase in loyalty by 65% with younger employ- ees and 77% with older employees. Therefore, hypothesis 10 (i.e., age mod- erates the relationships proposed in the research model) was partially supported, suggesting that age moderates the relationships between engage- ment and loyalty as well as engagement and intention to stay.

Discussion

The first research objective of this study was to explore the direct effect of leadership satisfaction on engagement, employee loyalty, and retention. The results of this study indicate that leadership satisfaction positively affects each of these critical outcomes. Such findings are consistent with prior research (e.g., Beck & Harter, 2015; Ding, Lu, Song, & Lu, 2012; Gerstner & Day, 1997,) yet prior research typically focused on one critical outcome (i.e., engagement), and did not provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of leadership satisfaction on these three outcomes. In particular,

Table 4. Fit results: Total free SEM vs. SEM with constraints across age groups. Total free (TF) model Constrained model D (Difference between the Constrained and TF model)

v2 1196.42 1230.28 33.86 df 532 538 6 CFI .915 .912 .003 IFI .916 .912 .004 TLI .904 .902 .002 RMSEA .082 .084 .002

Note: The critical value of v2 is 12.59 with 6 df. Thus, Dv2 larger than this critical value is significant (p < .05).

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 383

research utilizing LMX theory explains that a positive working relationship between a direct leader and employee increases satisfaction (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Specific to employee engagement, this research expands upon Kahn’s (1990) work regarding managerial antecedents that affect the sub- factors of employee engagement, namely physical, cognitive, and emotional engagement. Not only does this study support Kahn’s engagement model with these three sub-factors, but also reveals that employees’ satisfaction with their leader is a key antecedent of engagement. Thus, the present study extends the understanding of the effects of leadership satisfaction by demonstrating that a leader directly affects employees’ engagement, loyalty, and intention to stay. The second objective was to test the indirect effects of leadership satisfac-

tion on employee loyalty and intention to stay via employee engagement. The results suggest that leadership satisfaction primarily influenced the out- comes through employee engagement. Consistent with previous research (i.e. Preko & Adjetey, 2013; Van Schalkwyk et al., 2010), this finding sug- gests that engagement can strengthen the relationship between leadership satisfaction and positive organizational outcomes (i.e., loyalty and reten- tion). The finding that leadership satisfaction influences intention to stay contradicts prior research that suggests the drivers of intention to stay are primarily organizational (Cho et al., 2009). The third objective was to examine the indirect effect of employee

engagement on intention to stay via loyalty. The results indicate that employee engagement not only directly affects both loyalty and intention to stay, but also indirectly affects intention to stay through loyalty. Prior research indicates that employee engagement increases loyalty (i.e., Costen & Salazar, 2011; Ineson et al., 2013), yet the relationships among engage- ment, loyalty, and intention to stay have not been examined closely, par- ticularly in hospitality literature. Thus, this finding brings new insights into the dynamic relationships among these variables. By using a comprehensive

Figure 2. Testing moderating effects of age on structural paths (younger vs. older groups).

384 L. BOOK ET AL.

view of engagement, this research broadens our understanding of a leader’s influence on overall engagement. The last objective was to investigate how age influences the aforemen-

tioned relationships. This study explains that employee engagement is important for all employees, but there are differences in the two groups. Specifically, employee engagement has a stronger influence on intention to stay with younger employees, and employee engagement has a stronger influence on employee loyalty with older employees. These findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that Millennials have a high need for engagement and display a willingness to leave an employer if they are not satisfied (“Managing Millennials,” 2016). While prior research has demonstrated that older employees tend to be more loyal (i.e., Gursoy, Chi, & Karadag, 2013; Park & Gursoy, 2012), this research suggests that loyalty is influenced by engagement for these older employ- ees. This empirical examination assessing the moderating effects of engagement not only builds on previous studies (Christian et al., 2011; Rich et al., 2010; Saks, 2006), but also it extends engagement theory by assessing generational differences and the impact of engagement on employee loyalty. Thus, this research fills the gap in the leadership and employee loyalty literature by developing and testing a theoretical model including both mediator (engagement) and moderator (age). The results of this research highlight the important role that employee engagement plays in regards to employee loyalty.

Conclusion

The current research investigated the relationship between leadership sat- isfaction and the important outcomes of employee engagement, loyalty, and intention to stay. The key findings are as follows: (1) a positive leader/follower relationship is necessary to achieve the aforementioned outcomes; (2) leadership satisfaction is a critical antecedent to engage- ment; (3) leadership satisfaction and engagement affect loyalty and inten- tion to stay; and (4) employees in different age groups are affected differently when it comes to the relationship between engagement and loyalty as well as between engagement and intention to stay. In particular, engagement has a stronger effect on older employees’ loyalty, which is a key driver of their intention to stay, whereas engagement has a significant direct effect on only younger employees’ intention to stay. These findings can help both practitioners and academics understand what motivates employees to stay with their organization and develop effective strategies to retain employees.

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 385

Implications for hospitality operators

This study has several implications for practitioners. First, senior hospitality managers and human resource professionals would benefit from under- standing the association between engaged younger workers and their inten- tion to stay with their organization. Organizations should focus on strengthening the engagement of younger employees, as this might prove useful in reducing the turnover rates within this group. For example, hospi- tality organizations should consider offering educational assistance benefits, as Millennials tend to be more averse to student loan debt than past gener- ations (Landrum, 2017), and providing education assistance programs was found to increase employee engagement (Brack & Kelly, 2012). Another tactic for improving employee engagement is providing younger workers with task variety by intentionally expanding job duties (Zaniboni, Truxillo, Fraccaroli, McCune, & Bertolino, 2014) which allows them to gain work related experience and knowledge, and in turn aids in their career develop- ment. This tactic can be applied to older employees as job complexity has been linked to increased engagement in older workers due to characteristics of knowledge that enable them to use their acquired skills when doing more challenging work (Zacher & Frese, 2009). Second, although engagement happens at all levels of the organization, a

strategic focus on increasing engagement throughout the organization can yield great dividends. Increasingly, employees want to work for organiza- tions that demonstrate meaningfulness, purpose, and connection (SHRM 2016). In particular, Millennials, are more engaged and loyal when working for organizations that are socially conscience, practice sustainability, and that show commitment to communities they serve both locally and globally (Opoku-Dakwa, Chen, & Rupp, 2018). Senior leaders can play a significant role in strengthening engagement and loyalty across the entire organization, but particularly with younger employees, ensuring the employees have the opportunity to be personally involved activities that demonstrate corporate citizenship. While senior leaders understand the importance of commit- ments to social and environmental issues, supervisors and managers may not view these community-related factors as significant to the business. Top organizational leaders should link citizenship to training and include citizenship involvement in performance management, such that account- ability is created at all levels of the organization. Although this study focused on direct leaders, it is likely that communication and action taken by senior leaders will have an indirect impact on the employee’s perception of his/her leader. At the middle management level, leaders should focus on the effective-

ness of direct reports of employees, as these are the leaders that employees engage with on a daily basis. Proper selection of supervisors and managers

386 L. BOOK ET AL.

who oversee line-level employees is critical, yet it is common practice for hospitality organizations to find a “warm body” to fill a supervisor/manager position. Often times, hospitality organizations promote an unprepared line- level employee to supervisor or enlist someone who isn’t qualified or a good fit. Psychometric testing could be useful in determining if a poten- tial supervisor is a good fit for the job or if he/she needs targeted develop- ment. Additionally, using values-based interview questions directed at ensuring a cultural fit (i.e., that the values of the candidates line up with the values of the organization), would help ensure consistency. Middle managers and human resource professionals must train new supervisors and managers on basic leadership skills before they start working with their employees. More specifically, it is critical for these direct leaders to develop higher levels of self-awareness regarding inclusion of employees. While diversity training is important, it is equally important to ensure that super- visors and managers understand how to create and maintain a culture in which disengaged employees are recognized early in the leader-employee relationship. A specific tactic that can foster inclusion is asking for feed- back from different employees through using a 360-degree feedback process to detect issues related to satisfaction with their leader. Third, based on the finding that improving employee loyalty can posi-

tively impact their intention to stay with their organization, hospitality organizations should consider ways to increase and leverage employee loy- alty. Our finding indicates that increasing leadership satisfaction will posi- tively influence employee loyalty. Thus, hospitality companies might want to consider implementing a system which can assist leaders to better under- stand their employees’ job problems and needs and build an effective rela- tionship with them. For example, teaching managers how to embolden pride in employees could help managers build a trustful and effective rela- tionship with employees and result in the creation of “brand ambassadors” who are ready and willing to spread the good news about their work experience and their organization as a whole. This can be accomplished by encouraging employees to develop meaningful personal connections to the causes they care about. In particular, organizations can provide brand- related messages to employees that communicates authentic commitments to serving their communities, then encourage employees to share content that is most meaningful to them as individuals, on social media sites. Social media sharing can be a powerful means of creating a focus that strengthens both engagement and employee loyalty. This form of externally expressed loyalty can be viewed as an authentic form of word-of-mouth marketing. At the organizational level, HR should consider utilizing technology, par-

ticularly mobile technology, to improve employees’ satisfaction with their leaders. Generally, technology can help streamline processes, aid in learning

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 387

and development, and facilitate communication between employees and leaders. Specifically, technology can provide employees with quick and easy access to important information, including payroll, paid time off informa- tion, and benefit information, all of which affect employee morale. It can provide development opportunities for employees via e-learning courses accessible on their mobile devices, so that they can gain knowledge at their convenience as well as receive feedback from their trainers or direct lead- ers. Hospitality companies can also facilitate a social way of communicating about their organizations through their internal social platforms where employees can connect with their leaders, express their opinions and ideas, and receive recognition from their leaders.

Limitations and future research

This research has some limitations, which provide future research direc- tions. The first limitation is possible respondent bias; whereby, respondents may have answered more favorably than what they truly feel. Although the survey data were confidential, it is possible that some respondents adjusted their ratings as to avoid possible retaliation. Even though retaliation was not a possible outcome, the perceived threat of this could have influenced the ratings made by respondents. Second, this research was conducted at an integrated resort with a very positive organizational culture and a turn- over rate well below the industry average. Prior research found that a lead- er’s influence on engagement was mediated by organizational culture (Alarcon et al., 2010); thus, results may vary in an organization with a dif- ferent organizational culture. Since organizational culture could have influ- enced ratings, future research should replicate this study in different settings to increase the generalizability of the results. There are also other factors that can affect the relationship between leader satisfaction and the outcomes in this model. While this model was based upon prior literature and theoretical underpinnings, it is necessary to examine other factors that can influence employee engagement, loyalty, and intention to stay in order to better understand the antecedents of these outcomes. It is important to note that while the researchers split the sample into

younger and older groups in alignment with the typical generational com- position, there is often little agreement as to the years comprising each gen- eration (Smola & Sutton, 2002). In particular, the age ranges used for the younger and older groups in this study have a large range of ages. While this is typical of a generation make-up, these groups likely have different life experiences that can influence their work attitudes and values. Moreover, these shared life experiences and values affect a person’s feelings toward their job and organization (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998). Furthermore, individuals

388 L. BOOK ET AL.

in both groups were likely at different career stages, which could have influ- enced the outcomes. Future research should aim to examine multiple differ- ent age groups, using a more homogenous set of ages, and examine career stage to determine differences in outcomes suggested in this research.

References

Adkins, A. (2016, May 11). What millennials want from work and life. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/191435/millennials-work-life.aspx?g_source¼ CATEGORY_LEADERSHIP&g_medium¼topic&g_campaign¼tiles

Aityan, S. K., & Gupta, T. K. P. (2012). Challenges of employee loyalty in corporate America. Business and Economics Journal, 55(1), 1–13.

Alarcon, G., Lyons, J. B., & Tartaglia, F. (2010). Understanding predictors of engagement within the military. Military Psychology, 22(3), 301–310. doi:10.1080/08995605. 2010.492695

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. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.411

Babcock-Roberson, M., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 313–326. doi:10.1080/00223981003648336

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

Beck, R., & Harter, J. (2015). Managers account for 70% variance in employee engagement. Gallup, Retrieved from: http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/182792/managers- account-variance-employee-engagement.aspx

Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.

Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude, per- sonality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behav- iors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29–41. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.29

Brack, J., & Kelly, K. (2012). Maximizing millennials in the workplace. UNC Executive Development, 1, 14.

Brown, D., Bersin, J., Gosling, W., & Sloan, N. (2016, February 29). Engagement: Always on. Deliotte University Press. Retrieved from https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/ focus/human-capital-trends/2016/employee-engagement-and-retention.html

Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Byrne, Z. S. (2014). Understanding employee engagement: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W., & Kim, T. (2015). Leadership and employee engagement: Proposing research agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource Development Review, 14(1), 38–63. doi:10.1177/1534484314560406

Cho, S., Johanson, M. M., & Guchait, P. (2009). Employees intent to leave: A comparison of determinants of intent to leave versus intent to stay. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(3), 374–381. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.10.007

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 389

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. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x

Costen, W. M., & Salazar, J. (2011). The impact of training and development on employee job satisfaction, loyalty, and intent to stay in the lodging industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(3), 273–284. doi:10.1080/15332845.2011.555734

Declining employee loyalty: A causality of the new workplace. (2012, May 9). Knowledge at Wharton. Retrieved from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/declining- employee-loyalty-a-casualty-of-the-new-workplace/

Ding, D., Lu, H., Song, Y., & Lu, Q. (2012). Relationship of servant leadership and employee loyalty: The mediating role of employee satisfaction. iBusiness, 4(3), 208–215. doi:10.4236/ib.2012.43026

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and impli- cations for research and practice. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. doi:10.2307/3150980

Garg, S., & Dhar, R. L. (2016). Extra-role customer service: The roles of leader–member exchange (LMX), affective commitment, and psychological empowerment. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 17(4), 373–396. doi:10.1080/ 15256480.2016.1226151

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.82.6.827

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

Guido-DiBrito, F. (1995). Student affairs leadership and loyalty: Organizational dynamics at play. Naspa Journal, 32(3), 223–231.

Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G. Q., & Karadag, E. (2013). Generational differences in work values and attitudes among frontline and service contact employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 40–48. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.002

Gursoy, D., Maier, T. A., & Chi, C. G. (2008). Generational differences: An examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 448–458. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.11.002

Gustafsson, J. E., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28(4), 407–434. doi:10.1207/ s15327906mbr2804_2

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: Meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268

Heskett, J. L., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164–174.

Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (2000). The cost of turnover: Putting a price on the learning curve. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 41(3), 14–21. doi:10.1177/001088040004100313

390 L. BOOK ET AL.

Ineson, E. M., Benke, E., & L�aszl�o, J. (2013). Employee loyalty in Hungarian hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 31–39. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm. 2012.04.001

Jindal, P., Shaikh, M., & Shashank, G. (2017). Employee engagement; Tool of talent teten- tion: Study of a pharmaceutical company. SDMIMD Journal of Management, 8(2), 7–16. doi:10.18311/sdmimd/2017/18024

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1986). LISREL6—Computer program. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Generational comparisons of public employee motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4), 18–37. doi:10.1177/ 0734371X9801800403

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. doi:10.5465/256287

Kenny, D. (2014). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm Kleinman, C. (2004). The relationship between managerial leadership behaviors and staff

nurse retention. Hospital Topics, 82(4), 2–9. doi:10.3200/HTPS.82.4.2-9 Landrum, S. (2017, October 20). The impact of student loan debt on Millennial happiness.

Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahlandrum/2017/10/20/the- impact-of-student-loan-debt-on-millennial-happiness/#12c6803a7125.

Li, X., Sanders, K., & Frenkel, S. (2012). How leader–member exchange, work engagement and HRM consistency explain Chinese luxury hotel employees’ job performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1059–1066. doi:10.1016/ j.ijhm.2012.01.002

Lu, A. C. C., & Gursoy, D. (2016). Impact of job burnout on satisfaction and turnover intention: Do generational differences matter? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 40(2), 210–235. doi:10.1177/1096348013495696

Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 21(5), 376–387. doi:10.1108/02621710210426864

Lyons, T. F. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6(1), 99–110. doi:10.1016/0030- 5073(71)90007-9

Managing Millennials: Changing perspectives for a changing workforce. (2016, October 1). Aon Hewitt: Talent, Rewards, Performance. Retrieved from http://images.respond.aonhewitt. com/Web/AonHewitt/%7Bc10490e0-08ab-4d32-bd44-c61909f45206%7D_2016-Managing- Millenials.pdf.

Mann, A., & Harter, J. (2016, January 7). The worldwide employee engagement crisis. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/188033/worldwide-employee- engagement-crisis.aspx?g_source¼engagement&g_medium¼search&g_campaign¼tiles

Martson, C. (2016). September 29). Tips for keeping millennial employees: Understanding myths about Millennials. The Balance. Retrieved from: https://www.thebalance.com/tips- for-retaining-millennial-employees-1918679.

Mendes, F., & Stander, M. W. (2011). Positive organisation: The role of leader behaviour in work engagement and retention. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 1–13.

Milman, A. (2003). Hourly employee retention in small and medium attractions: The Central Florida example. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22(1), 17–35. doi:10.1016/S0278-4319(02)00033-6

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 391

Mohanty, S., & Mohanty, K. (2014). Employee retention: A key driver to the growth of tourism and hospitality in Odisha. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 2(12), 94–112.

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. doi:10.1108/09596110910955695

Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication per- spective on millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225–238. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7

Namasivayam, K., Guchait, P., & Lei, P. (2014). The influence of leader empowering behav- iors and employee psychological empowerment on customer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(1), 69–84. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-11- 2012-0218

Nawaz, N., Jahanian, A., & Tehreem, S. (2012). Determinants of employee retention in Pakistan international airlines (PIA). European Journal of Business and Management, 4(7), 2012.

Niehoff, B. P., Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G., & Fuller, J. (2001). The influence of empower- ment and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment. Group & Organization Management, 26(1), 93–113. doi:10.1177/1059601101261006

Opoku-Dakwa, A., Chen, C. C., & Rupp, D. E. (2018). CSR initiative characteristics and employee engagement: An impact-based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 580–593.

Park, J., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Generation effects on work engagement among US hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1195–1202. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.007

Pledger Weeks, K. (2017, July 31). Every generation wants meaningful work, but thinks other age groups are in it for the money. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/07/every-generation-wants-meaningful-work-but-thinks-other-age- groups-are-in-it-for-the-money.

Popli, S., & Rizvi, I. A. (2016). Drivers of employee engagement: The role of leadership style. Global Business Review, 17(4), 965–979. doi:10.1177/0972150916645701

Preko, A., & Adjetey, J. (2013). A study on the concept of employee loyalty and engage- ment on the performance of sales executives of commercial banks in Ghana. International Journal of Business Research and Management, 4(2), 51–62.

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. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.51468988

Rigoni, B., & Nelson, B. (2016, August 9). Many millennials are job-hoppers–but not all are. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/194204/millennials-job-hoppers- not.aspx?g_source¼hospitality%20turnover&g_medium¼search&g_campaign¼tiles

Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second- order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(1), 51–67. doi:10.1207/ s15327906mbr2301_3

Ruggles, R. (2016, March 23). Hospitality turnover rose to 72.1% in 2015. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://nrn.com/blog/hospitality-turnover-rose-721-rate-2015.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169

Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engage- ment? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155–182. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21187

392 L. BOOK ET AL.

Saxena, V., & Srivastava, R. K. (2015). Impact of employee engagement on employee per- formance—Case of manufacturing sectors. International Journal of Management Research and Business Strategy, 4(2), 139–174.

Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (1982). Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New York, NY: Wiley.

Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382. doi: 10.1002/job.147

Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2016). Employee job satisfaction and engagement: Revitalizing a changing workforce. A research report by The Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends- and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/2016-Employee-Job-Satisfaction-and- Engagement-Report.pdf

State of the American workplace: Employee engagement insights for U.S. business leaders. (2014, September 22). Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/services/176708/state- american-workplace.aspx.

Van Schalkwyk, S., Du Toit, D. H., Bothma, A. S., & Rothmann, S. (2010). Job insecurity, leadership empowerment behaviour, employee engagement and intention to leave in a petrochemical laboratory. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(1), 1–7.

Wang, D. S., & Hsieh, C. C. (2013). The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust and employee engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41(4), 613–624. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.613

Wells, J. E., & Welty Peachey, J. (2011). Turnover intentions: Do leadership behaviors and satisfaction with the leader matter? Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 17(1/2), 23–40. doi:10.1108/13527591111114693

Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8(1), 84–136. doi:10.2307/270754

Xu, J., & Cooper Thomas, H. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(4), 399–416. doi:10.1108/0143773 1111134661

Yee, R. W., Yeung, A. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2011). The service-profit chain: An empirical analysis in high-contact service industries. International Journal of Production Economics, 130(2), 236–245. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.01.001

Yee, R. W., Yeung, A. C., & Cheng, T. E. (2010). An empirical study of employee loyalty, service quality and firm performance in the service industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(1), 109–120. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.10.015

Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2009). Remaining time and opportunities at work: relationships between age, work characteristics, and occupational future time perspective. Psychology and Aging, 24(2), 487–493. doi:10.1037/a0015425

Zaniboni, S., Truxillo, D. M., Fraccaroli, F., McCune, E. A., & Bertolino, M. (2014). Who benefits from more tasks? Older versus younger workers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 508–523. doi:10.1108/JMP-12-2012-0381

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 393