| Literature DB >> 33003521 |
Sang-Won Seo1, Hyeon-Cheol Kim2, Zong-Yi Zhu3, Jung-Tak Lee4.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effect of social network services (SNS) on hotel chef job satisfaction, and to provide an effective strategy to reduce chef turnover and maintain sustainable economic development in hospitality. The intention was to empirically test and analyze the effect of SNS on hotel chef job satisfaction by applying the social capital theory. The social capital theory was explored and the effect of chefs' social capital on their social presence and job satisfaction was demonstrated. Furthermore, this study aimed to determine the moderation effect of customer orientation. A total of 130 surveys were collected from chefs working at Michelin-starred restaurants in Seoul, Korea. SPSS and AMOS were used to conduct statistical analyses. The outputs included exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, convergent analysis, discriminant analysis, path analysis, mediation effect analysis, and moderation effect analysis. The results illustrated that bridging social capital significantly impacts chef social presence, while bonding social capital does not significantly influence their presence. In addition, both bonding and bridging social capital positively relate to chef job satisfaction. Significant mediation and moderation effects were demonstrated on the path taken by chefs. The results of this study offer theoretical and managerial implications for hotel human resources managers to enhance chef job satisfaction.Entities:
Keywords: customer orientation; hotel chefs; job satisfaction; social capital; social presence
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33003521 PMCID: PMC7578984 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17197129
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research model.
Confirmation factor analysis.
| Construct | Measurement | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social Capital | SCBR1: I use this SNS for cooking information because interacting with people whom I do not know in real life makes me interested in what people unlike me are thinking | 0.778 | 0.913 | 0.899 | 0.691 |
| SCBR2: I am willing to spend time on this SNS supporting the cooking information of people whom I do not know in real life | 0.873 | ||||
| SCBR3: I use this SNS for cooking information because interacting with people whom I do not know in real life makes me want to try new things | 0.866 | ||||
| SCBR4: I use this SNS for cooking information because interacting with people whom I do not know in real life makes me feel like part of a larger community | 0.885 | ||||
| Social Capital | SCBO1: I use this SNS for cooking information because there is someone, whom I do not know in real life, who I can turn to for advice about making very important decisions | 0.818 | 0.910 | 0.903 | 0.652 |
| SCBO2: use this SNS for cooking information because the people whom I do not know in real life but with whom I interact with on this SNS would share their last dollar with me | 0.841 | ||||
| SCBO3: I use this SNS for cooking information because the people whom I do not know in real life but with whom I interact with on this SNS would put their reputations on the line for me | 0.774 | ||||
| SCBO4: I use this SNS for cooking information because the people whom I do not know in real life but with whom I interact with on this SNS would help me fight an injustice | 0.819 | ||||
| SCBO5: I use this SNS for cooking information because there are several people on this SNS whom I do not know in real life but who I trust to help solve my problems | 0.840 | ||||
| Social Presence | SP1: There is a sense of human contact in SNS | 0.869 | 0.867 | 0.854 | 0.661 |
| SP2: There is a sense of personalness in SNS | 0.801 | ||||
| SP3: There is a sense of sociability in SNS | 0.813 | ||||
| Job Satisfaction | JS1: How satisfied are you with your overall job? | 0.638 | 0.827 | 0.863 | 0.616 |
| JS2: How satisfied are you with your immediate supervisor? | 0.916 | ||||
| JS3: How satisfied are you with your organization’s policies? | 0.749 | ||||
| JS4: How satisfied are you with the support provided by your supervisor? | 0.680 | ||||
| Model fit: X2 = 267.845, GFI = 0.898, RMSEA = 0.08, RMR = 0.047, NFI = 0.913, and CFI = 0.942. |
CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted; GFI = Goodness of fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; RMR = Root mean square residual; NFI = Normed fit index; and CFI = Comparative fit index.
Discriminant validity.
| Construct | Descriptive Statistics | Discriminant Validity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | SCBO | SCBR | SP | JS | |
| SCBO | 2.84 | 0.98 | 1 | |||
| SCBR | 2.99 | 0.90 | 0.771 *** | 1 | ||
| SP | 3.12 | 0.94 | 0.383 *** | 0.491 *** | 1 | |
| JS | 3.34 | 0.73 | 0.208 *** | 0.123 * | 0.131 * | 1 |
*** p < 0.001; * p < 0.05, SCBO = Social capital bonding; SCBR = Social capital bridging; SP= Social presence; JS = Job satisfaction.
Results of hypothesis pathway.
| Hypothesis | Coefficient | Std. Error | T-Value | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Bonding-Social Presence | −0.178 | 0.154 | −1.152 | No |
| H2: Bridging-Social Presence | 0.693 | 0.137 | 5.054 | Yes |
| H3: Social Presence-Job Satisfaction | 0.129 | 0.057 | 2.276 | Yes |
| H4: Bonding-Job Satisfaction | 0.318 | 0.116 | 2.739 | Yes |
| H5: Bridging-Job Satisfaction | 0.240 | 0.109 | 2.205 | Yes |
| Model Fitness: X2 = 267.845, GFI = 0.898, RMSEA = 0.08, RMR = 0.047, NFI = 0.913, CFI = 0.942. | ||||
GFI = Goodness of fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; RMR = Root mean square residual; NFI = Normed fit index; and CFI = Comparative fit index.
Figure 2Results of hypotheses. Model Fit: X2 = 267.845, GFI = 0.898, RMSEA = 0.08, RMR = 0.047, NFI = 0.913, CFI = 0.942. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Results of moderation effect.
| Default Model | X2 | DF | ΔX2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Model | 410.260 | 196 | |
| H1: Bonding-Social Presence | 414.621 | 197 | 4.361 |
| H2: Bridging-Social Presence | 412.858 | 197 | 2.598 |
| H3: Social Presence-Job Satisfaction | 410.271 | 197 | 0.011 |
| H4: Bonding-Job Satisfaction | 415.063 | 197 | 4.803 |
| H5: Bridging-Job Satisfaction | 412.781 | 197 | 2.521 |
Results of moderation effect.
| Path | High Customer Orientation | Low Customer Orientation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | T |
| Coefficient | T |
| |
| Bonding-Social Presence | −0.134 | −0.731 | 0.465 | 0.331 | 2.882 ** | 0.004 |
| Bridging-Social Presence | 0.565 | 3.028 ** | 0.002 | 0.222 | 1.969 * | 0.049 |
| Social Presence-Job Satisfaction | 0.236 | 1.982 * | 0.05 | 0.256 | 2.199 * | 0.028 |
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Figure 3Results of moderation effect. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. (a) Low group N = 64. (b) High group N = 66.
Mediation effect.
| Dependent Variable | Independent Variable | Mediating Variable | Indirect Effect | Sobel Test | Confidence Interval 95% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLCI | ULCI | |||||
| Job Satisfaction | Social capital bonding | Social Presence | −0.041 | 2.211 * | −0.097 | −0.009 |
| Social capital bridging | −0.077 | 2.386 * | −0.155 | −0.020 | ||
* p < 0.05; LLCI = Lower limit confidence interval; ULCI = Upper limit confidence interval.