| Literature DB >> 33633474 |
Zhen Yan1, Zuraina Dato Mansor2, Wei Chong Choo2, Abdul Rashid Abdullah2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hospitality industry is deemed a great generator of global GDP and employment. However, high rates of voluntary turnover have gradually undermined global service organizations and brought huge losses to them. Nowadays, the hotel sector continues to be plagued by high turnover rates.Entities:
Keywords: four-star and five-star hotels in China; job satisfaction; organizational commitment; position; psychological capital; turnover intention
Year: 2021 PMID: 33633474 PMCID: PMC7901568 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S293839
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Figure 1Direct contribution of hospitality to global GDP. Source: Economic Impact of Global Travel & Tourism (2018).
Figure 2Direct contribution of hospitality to global employment. Source: Economic Impact of Global Travel & Tourism (2018).
The Results of Discriminant Validity Test
| Variables | AFV | COV | NOV | SEV | HOV | OPV | REV | EXV | INV | TIV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFV | ||||||||||
| COV | 0.588** | |||||||||
| NOV | 0.522** | 0.516** | ||||||||
| SEV | 0.225** | 0.304** | 0.220** | 0. | ||||||
| HOV | 0.219** | 0.227** | 0.172** | 0.498** | ||||||
| OPV | 0.190** | 0.200** | 0.168** | 0.557** | 0.550** | |||||
| REV | 0.167** | 0.146** | 0.076 | 0.512** | 0.522** | 0.505** | ||||
| EXV | 0.247** | 0.276** | 0.205** | 0.344** | 0.307** | 0.320** | 0.245** | |||
| INV | 0.282** | 0.294** | 0.213** | 0.359** | 0.287** | 0.278** | 0.238** | 0.582** | ||
| TIV | −.499** | −.539** | −.471** | −.423** | −.417** | −.339** | −.273** | −.506** | −.465** |
Notes: **P<0.01; The square root of AVE is shown in italics.
Abbreviations: AFV, affective commitment; NOV, normative commitment average; COV, continuance commitment average; SEV, self-efficacy average; HOV, hope average; OPV, optimism average; REV, resilience average; EXV, extrinsic satisfaction average; INV, intrinsic satisfaction average; TIV, turnover intention average.
Figure 3Proposed structural model.
Summary of Hypotheses (Causal Effects) and Results
| Hypotheses | Std. Path Coefficient | T-value | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: PsyCap→ (+) JS | 0.561 | 7.637 | *** | Accepted |
| 0.401 | 6.139 | *** | Accepted | |
| −0.426 | −6.440 | *** | Accepted | |
| −0.557 | −9.388 | *** | Accepted | |
| −0.123 | −1.929 | 0.054 | Not accepted |
Note: ***P<0.001.
Abbreviations: PsyCap, psychological capital; OC, organizational commitment; JS, job satisfaction; TI, turnover intention.
Summary of Hypotheses (Mediating Effects) and Results
| Effects | Path | Estimate | Bias-Corrected 95% CI | Percentile 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | ||||
| Direct Effect | PsyCap –>TI | −0.123 | −0.256 | 0.069 | −0.254 | 0.075 | 0.165 |
| Indirect Effects | PsyCap–>JS –>TI | −0.239 | −.439 | −0.141 | −.410 | −0.132 | *** |
| Total Effect | PsyCap–>OC/JS–>TI | −0.586 | −00.705 | −0.458 | −00.699 | −0.454 | 0.001 |
Note: ***P<0 0.001.
Abbreviations: PsyCap, psychological capital; OC, organizational commitment; JS, job satisfaction; TI, turnover intention; CI, confidence interval.
Chi-Square Value and Degree of Freedom for the Constrained and Unconstrained Models
| Model | df | ∆ | ∆ df | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constrained | 209.762 | 148 | 4.064 | 1 | 0.044 |
| Unconstrained | 205.698 | 147 |
Abbreviations: Χ2, Chi-square; df, degree of freedom.
Results of the Multi-Group Comparison Test
| Path | Line-Level Employees | Supervisors | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | SE | CR | Estimate | SE | CR | |
| Organizational Commitment → Turnover Intention | −0.547*** | 0.068 | −7.934 | −0.669*** | 0.192 | −4.724 |
| Job Satisfaction → Turnover Intention | −0.426*** | 0.089 | −5.801 | −0.441* | 0.291 | −2.388 |
Notes: ***P<0.001; *P<0.05.
Abbreviations: SE, standard error; CR, critical ratio.