Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tourism Involvement, Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction Among Frontline Hotel Employees
Tourism Involvement, Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction Among Frontline Hotel Employees
214–239,
2013 0160-7383/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
Abstract: This study examined the relationship among tourism involvement, work engage-ment and
job satisfaction in the hotel industry. Data was gathered from 336 frontline employ-ees of 20
international hotels in Taiwan and was analyzed via structural equation modeling. Findings show
that tourism involvement is positively related to work engagement, while both tourism involvement
and work engagement are positively related to job satisfaction. Work engagement was found to
partially mediate the relationship between tourism involvement and job satisfaction. Implications for
hotel managers, limitations and future research direc-tions are discussed. Keywords: tourism
involvement, work engagement, job satisfac-tion. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
The core product of hotel firms is services (Kusluvan, 2003; Lashley
& Lee-Ross, 2003; Richard & Sundaram, 1994). Despite services being
intangible, hotel frontline employees ‘‘produce tangible services’’ via direct
interaction with customers (Gonzalez & Garazo, 2006; Harris, 2012;
Kusluvan, Kusluvan, Ilhan, & Buyruk, 2010; Smith, 1994). It is for this
reason that frontline employees are critical elements of service quality. To
better serve customers, hotel firms must understand atti-tudes and values
that frontline employees should have in their jobs. Previous research has
demonstrated that high performing tourism-related firms were characterized
by engaged or satisfied frontline employees (Kusluvan et al., 2010; Lam &
Ozorio, 2012; Salanova, Agut,
& Peiro, 2005; Slatten & Mehmetoglu, 2010). Engaged employees pro-vide
better service, which can increase customer loyalty (Salanova et al., 2005).
Satisfied frontline employees can maintain high performance and deliver
quality services (LaLopa, 1997; Kusluvan, 2003).
Due to the known effect of work engagement and job satisfaction on firm
performance, tourism scholars have attempted to identify ante-cedents of
work engagement and job satisfaction (Kusluvan et al., 2010; Slatten &
Mehmetoglu, 2010). The current study, however, ex-plores a factor that has
not been widely examined in the tourism liter-ature: tourism involvement.
Using tourism involvement to predict tourism employees’ work outcomes is
a fair extension of tourism re-search because work life is correlated to
tourism (Dik & Hansen, 2008; McCabe, 2009; McCabe & Stokoe, 2010).
Tourism provides ‘‘an alternative experience of time, that is, time off or
holiday time, which appears as an alternative rhythm, free from constraints
of the daily tempo’’ (Wang, 2000, p. 216). It has positive effects on tourism
participants’ work and overall lives (Dolnicar, Yanamandram, & Cliff, 2012;
Neal, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2007; Sirgy, 2001, 2002; Sirgy, Kruger, Lee, & Yu,
2011). Individuals who enjoy freedom in tourism activities are more likely
to feel a great degree of control and to gain a sense of intrinsic motivation
(Crane, 2011; Witt & Ellis, 1987). They are also more inclined to experience
satisfaction, pleasure and enjoyment in all domains of their lives, including
their work (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004; Neal et al., 2007; Sirgy et al., 2011).
Therefore, it seems appropriate to consider that highly tourism-involved
employees demonstrate better work outcomes than low tourism-involved
employees.
When investigating the influence of tourism involvement on work-re-lated
outcomes, one has to take into account that tourism involvement is not just
simple participation in vacations. In contrast to the effect of vacation, which
fades out rapidly (De Bloom, Geurts, Taris, Sonnentag, Weerth, & Kompier,
2010), Havitz and Dimanche (1990) define tour-ism involvement as a
person’s perceived relevance of tourism activities and the motivational state
with regard to them. Tourism involvement encompasses an individual’s
long-term attitudes toward tourism activi-ties. These attitudes in turn
influence an individual’s behavior over time. Studies have reported that
people with different levels of tourism involvement demonstrate divergent
tourism behaviors, such as infor-mation searching, decision making and
experience sharing (Jamrozy, Backman, & Backman, 1996; Park & Kim,
2010; Zalatan, 1998). Some even adjust their lifestyle, such as travelling and
spending more (Clements & Josiam, 1995; Kim, Scott, & Crompton, 1997)
to become more involved in tourism-related activities. Therefore, tourism
involve-ment has enduring rather than short-term effects on tourists (Havitz,
Dimanche, & Bogle, 1994; Havitz & Mannell, 2005).
Many studies have found a close relationship between tourism, qual-ity of
life and working life of tourists (Dann, 2001; Etzion, 2003; Fritz &
Sonnentag, 2006; Kuhnel & Sonnentag, 2011; Lounsbury & Hoopes, 1986;
Neal, Sirgy, & Uysal, 1999; Neal et al., 2007; Rook & Zijlstra, 2006; Sirgy
et al., 2011; Sonnentag, 2003; Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006; Westman &
Eden, 1997). In general, positive effects of tourism on tour-ists’ overall life
and working life have been found. Despite the positive implications of
tourism on working life, examinations of the effects of tourism involvement
on specific work outcomes have been limited. The current study focuses on
work engagement and job satisfaction as fac-
tors of work outcomes due to their known effect on firm performance.
Moreover, researchers have made significant contributions to identify-ing
correlates of work engagement (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Schaufeli
& Bakker, 2004; Saks, 2006) but it has been unclear whether work
engagement can mediate the relationship between tourism involvement and
job satisfaction.
The current study therefore aims to close these gaps by investigating the
relationship between tourism involvement and work engagement; studying
the relationship between work engagement and job satisfac-tion; examining
the relationship between tourism involvement and job satisfaction; and
exploring the mediating effect of work engage-ment on the relationship
between tourism involvement and job satisfaction.
In developing and testing this model, the current study makes both
theoretical and practical contributions to tourism literature. From a
theoretical perspective, the current study is the first to explore the di-rect
and indirect relationships among tourism involvement, work engagement
and job satisfaction in the tourism domain. Results of the current study can
contribute not only to the knowledge regarding the factors that foster
employees’ work engagement and job satisfac-tion but also to literature on
both tourism involvement and tourism hu-man resource management.
Moreover, a critical review conducted by Kusluvan and his colleagues
(2010) found that work engagement and job satisfaction of employees in the
tourism industry are mainly influenced by demographic, organi-zational and
work-related factors. Most of these studies took place in the context of the
workplace. This may lead to the misunderstanding that work engagement
and job satisfaction can only be enhanced in the workplace. However, the
positive effect of tourism on attitude and behavior at work is clear (Fritz &
Sonnentag, 2006). Such effect is important because it allows managers to
enhance work outcomes through tourism. Surprisingly, this issue has gained
little attention in the tourism literature. The current study explores whether
attitudes to-ward tourism can influence specific work outcomes in the
workplace. It therefore contributes to the tourism literature by linking work
and non-work domains.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the positive effect of tourism fades out
quickly. It may be argued that, in the long term, employees need other
opportunities besides tourism activities to enhance their work attitude and
behavior. Until now, however, most of the existing studies emphasize short-
term effects of tourism. They regard tourism as a short break from work. In
this sense, the current study contributes to tourism literature by examining
whether tourism can have enduring effects on tourists depending on
different levels of involvement. More-over, studies on tourism involvement
often use tourists as sampling units. Few studies have directly used a sample
of hotel frontline employees to investigate their tourism involvement.
From a practical perspective, identifying the effects of tourism
involvement has direct implications for hotel mangers. If the contribu-tions
of tourism involvement on work engagement and job satisfaction
can be confirmed, it may be meaningful for hotel managers to encour-age
frontline employees to get more involved in tourism. Hotels can also
organize tourism activities to increase employees’ work engage-ment and
job satisfaction.
This article is organized by first presenting the literature review relat-ing
to tourism involvement, work engagement and job satisfaction. These are
covered first as they provide the theoretical fundamentals for examining the
hypotheses. The methodology section describes the sampling, instruments
and methods of data analysis. A profile of the respondents and the statistical
results are then presented. In the discussion, the implications of the results,
limitations of the study, rec-ommendations for future research and final
conclusions are explained in detail.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Tourism Involvement
Early studies on involvement can be traced back to the work con-ducted
by Sherif and Cantril (1947). Since then, involvement has been defined
variously in the context of marketing. Houston and Rothschild (1978), for
instance, proposed the notions of situation involvement, enduring
involvement and response involvement. Finn (1983) identi-fied three
orientations of involvement: product-, subject- and re-sponse-centered
involvement. Park and Young (1986) classified involvement into affective
and cognitive involvement. Furthermore, Andrews, Durvasula, and Akhter
(1990) argued that intensity, direction and persistence are major properties
of involvement. Laaksonen (1994) argued that there are three ways of
generating involvement:
cognitive-based, individual-state and response-based approaches.
While there is no conclusive definition, the general view of involve-ment
is a self-concept that relates people’s values to an issue, idea or activity
(Sherif & Cantril, 1947). That is, involvement is people’s per-ceived
connection with a stimulus object in light of their interests and values
(Zaichkowsky, 1985). Involvement with something can influ-ence people’s
attitudes and behaviors (Slama & Tashchian, 1985). When people are highly
involved with something, they have intense attitudes toward it. These
attitudes then influence people’s future con-ducts (Sherif, Kelly, Rodgers,
Sarup, & Tittler, 1973). In other words, involvement does not simply mean
participation, since it has an endur-ing effect on participants (Houston &
Rothschild, 1978).
Havitz and Dimanche (1990, p. 180) defined tourism involvement as ‘‘a
psychological state of motivation, arousal or interest between an individual
and recreational activities, tourist destinations or related equipment, at one
point in time, characterized by the following ele-ments: importance,
pleasure value, sign value, risk probability and risk consequences’’. Havitz
and Dimanche (1990) further proposed that tourism involvement is
positively related to the frequency of searching, evaluating and participating
in tourism activities.
Tourism scholars have studied various aspects of involvement by using
different conceptualizations. In Gursoy and Gavcar’s (2003) study, three
dimensions of tourism involvement were found: Plea-sure—the pleasure
value of a vacation, Risk Probability—the likelihood of mispurchasing a
vacation, and Risk Importance—the perception of importance of negative
outcomes due to mispurchasing a vacation. These three dimensions had
significant and positive impacts on tour-ists’ destination knowledge.
Madrigal, Havitz, and Howard (1992) sam-pled married couples to examine
their involvement in family holidays. The authors found that one dimension
—pleasure/importance—was positively associated with married couples’
gender role ideology and education level. Another dimension—sign value—
was positively re-lated to age. Zalatan (1998) studied wives’ involvement in
tourism deci-sion-making processes. His results demonstrated that wives
were more involved than husbands in pre-vacation planning, such as
choosing the destination, restaurants and lodgings, searching for travel
information, and budgeting for shopping expenditure. Some researchers
used involvement profiles to segment tourists (Cai, Feng, & Breiter, 2004;
Dimanche, Havitz, & Howard, 1993; Fesenmaier & Johnson, 1989; Gur- soy
& Gavcar, 2003), casino gamblers (Lee, Lee, Bernhard, & Lee, 2009; Park,
Yang, Lee, Jang, & Stokowski, 2002), cycle tourists (Ritchie, Tkaczynski, &
Faulks, 2010) and tourism shoppers (Hu & Yu, 2007).
Several studies investigated the relation between involvement and various
tourism issues. Jamrozy et al. (1996) studied a group of nat-ure-based
tourists. They found that tourists who were highly involved in nature-based
tourism were more inclined to become opinion lead-ers. They adopted more
travel information sources and took more nat-ure-based trips. They tended to
share their travel experience and information after their trips. With regard to
tourism decision making, Clements and Josiam (1995) found that highly
tourism-involved indi-viduals were likely to travel more and select overseas
destinations. Moreover, Hwang, Lee, and Chen (2005) indicated that
tourists’ per-ceived place attachment positively influenced tourists’
involvement. A positive association between tourism involvement and
interpretation satisfaction was also found. Kim et al. (1997) reported that
highly in-volved bird-watching tourists tended to go bird watching often,
spent more money on birding equipment and became members of birding
organizations. In addition, Park and Kim (2010) reported that highly
tourism-involved people preferred to consider previous experience and
others’ recommendations as information sources.
Work Engagement
Work engagement refers to a positive status of mind at one’s work-place.
The concept of engagement was initially defined by Kahn (1990) as ‘‘the
harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles’’ (p. 694).
Kahn (1990) further stated ‘‘in engagement, peo-ple employ and express
themselves physically, cognitively, and emo-tionally during role
performances’’ and ‘‘in disengagement, people
withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively and emotion-ally
during role performances’’ (p. 694). Therefore, work engagement refers to a
concept that addresses the divergence among employees and the amount of
energy and commitment they have for work (Kahn, 1990). Engaged
employees are physically, cognitively and emotionally involved in their
work and have an energetic and effective connection with their work (Kahn,
1990; Maslach & Leiter, 1997). In contrast, dis-engaged employees are
physically less involved in work and emotion-ally disconnected with co-
workers (Kahn, 1990).
While Kahn (1990) developed a conceptual framework, Schaufeli and his
colleagues (2002) developed an operationalized concept of engage-ment.
According to Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzales-Roma, and Bakker (2002),
work engagement refers to ‘‘a positive fulfilling, work-related state of mind
that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption’’ (p. 74). Vigor is
defined as ‘‘high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the
willingness to invest efforts in one’s work and persis-tence even in the face
of difficulties’’, while dedication refers to ‘‘a sense of significance,
enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge (p. 74). Absorption refers to
‘‘being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s work, whereby
time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from
work’’ (p. 75).
Studies on work engagement have demonstrated a positive relationship
with various work-related outcomes and organizational performance, such as
low burnout (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2002), low
turnover intention (Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), low work stress
(Britt, Castro, & Adler, 2005), better employee productivity, finan-cial
performance, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship
behavior and customer satisfaction (Richman, 2006; Saks, 2006).
In recent years, research on work engagement in the tourism sector has
been increasingly carried out. For example, Salanova et al. (2005) found that
engaged frontline hotel employees contributed to service climate and
customer loyalty. Karatepe and Olugbade (2009), on the other hand,
reported that trait competitiveness enhanced hotel front-line employees’
work engagement. Employees working for quick-ser-vice restaurants were
more likely to be engaged in their jobs if they were high in
conscientiousness (Kim, Shin, & Swanger, 2009). Also in the restaurant
industry, Pienaar and Willemse (2008) suggested that coping strategies are
related to work engagement of frontline employ-ees. More recently, Slatten
and Mehmetoglu (2011) discovered that in the hospitality industry, work
engagement was predicted by role bene-fit, job autonomy, and strategic
attention. Work engagement was also found to predict innovative behavior.
Moreover, Leung, Wu, Chen and Young’s (2011) study indicated that work
engagement was linked to workplace ostracism and personality traits.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is one of the most studied issues in the human re-source
literature. It can be defined as ‘‘the pleasurable emotional state
resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating ones’ job
values’’ (Locke, 1969, p. 317). In hotel firms, frontline employees have
direct interaction with customers. Customer percep-tion, satisfaction and
loyalty are developed during such interactions. Frontline employees should
themselves be satisfied in order to deliver quality service and to satisfy
customers (Spinelli & Canavos, 2000).
An extensive review of human resource management in the tourism and
hospitality sector conducted by Kusluvan et al. (2010) explained that the
factors contributing to job satisfaction generally included hu-man resource
management practices of tourism firms, job design, job characteristics,
organizational environment and industry structure. Dienhart and Gregoire
(1993), in a study of quick-service restaurants, found that to enhance
employees’ perception of customer focus, man-agers should increase
employees’ job satisfaction, job involvement, and job security. Ghiselli,
LaLopa, and Bai (2001) examined job satisfaction levels of food-service
managers. Their findings showed that managers were satisfied with work
activities, social service, job security and ethical values. Moreover, salary
levels were found to affect job satisfaction.
In the hotel sector, Aksu and Aktas (2005) concluded that middle-and
upper-level managers generally felt satisfied with their jobs, includ-ing
working conditions and extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction, de-spite
usually having long working hours, working under poor physical conditions,
gaining little support from coworkers and earning insuffi-cient wages.
Chuang, Yin, and Dellmann-Jenkins (2009) reported that hotel chefs felt
most satisfied with work itself and supervision, while most dissatisfied with
growth, recognition and company policy. Gal-lardo, Sanchez-Canizares,
Lopez-Guzman, and Jesus (2010) discovered that wages, relationship with
coworkers and supervisors, and work itself were important indicators of job
satisfaction.
Karatepe and his colleagues (2006) reported that self-efficacy can predict
job satisfaction of hotel frontline employees. LaLopa (1997) indicated that
when employees felt satisfied with their work, they were more willing to be
committed to their resorts and to stay longer in their jobs than those who
were dissatisfied. Lam, Zhang, and Baum (2001) suggested that to increase
job satisfaction, hotel managers should orga-nize training workshops and
development plans, particularly for new and highly-educated employees.
Moreover, Liao, Hu, and Chung (2009) found that leader-member
relations had an important influence on job satisfaction of frontline
employees in tourist hotels. Nadiri and Tanova’s (2010) study showed that
organizational justice was the key factor affecting job satisfaction. Spi-nelli
and Canavos (2000) concluded that employees felt satisfied if they were
involved in decision making processes, gained appropriate job train-ing and
employee benefits, and had an effective manager. The authors also
indentified that satisfied employees had satisfied customers.
METHODOLOGY
Sampling
From a total list of 70 international hotels from the Tourism Bureau (a
dependent of the Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Taiwan),
20 hotels voluntarily participated in this study. Participating hotels were
given assurance of confidentiality. A total of 500 question-naires with cover
letters were sent to human resource departments or staff of these
participating hotels. Frontline employees of food and bev-erage,
housekeeping, and front-desk departments were included in the sample. The
human resource departments/staff were asked to deliver questionnaires to
their frontline employees with the assurance that the respondents were
randomly selected. Respondents were asked to com-plete the questionnaires
in a self-reported manner. A total of 347 ques-tionnaires were returned with
anonymity. 11 questionnaires were eliminated due to missing data. A total of
336 (67.2%) valid question-naires were collected.
Instruments
All instruments were originally designed in English. As the respon-dents
were Taiwanese, all questions were translated into Mandarin. A backward
and forward translation approach was used to ensure the
translation was accurate (Hayashi, Suzuki, & Sasaki, 1992). Ten hotel
frontline employees were then invited to participate in a pilot study. They
were asked to examine the wording and clarity of the survey ques-tions, but
participants did not raise any concerns.
The scale used to collect data regarding tourism involvement was adapted
from Gursoy and Gavcar’s (2003) Consumer Involvement Pro-file scale.
The Consumer Involvement Profile scale includes three dimensions
(Pleasure, Risk Probability and Risk Importance) with 11 items and has been
widely applied in both tourism and leisure contexts (Dimanche, Havitz, &
Howard, 1991; Gursoy & Gavcar, 2003; Hwang et al., 2005; Jain &
Srinivasan, 1990; Jamrozy et al., 1996; Kim et al., 1997; Park, 1996). Work
engagement was measured by using the Utr-echt Work Engagement Scale
(Schaufeli, et al., 2002). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale has three
dimensions (Vigor, Dedication and Absorption) with 17 items and has been
widely used by tourism researchers (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2009; Kim et al.,
2009; Pienaar & Willemse, 2008). A 20-item short form of the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire was utilized to measure job satisfaction. The
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire has two dimensions—Intrinsic
Satisfaction and Extrinsic Satisfaction (Hirschfeld, 2000; Weiss, Dawis,
England,
& Lofquist, 1967). It is a widely used and reliable scale. Many research-ers
have successfully applied the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire to
investigate job satisfaction in the tourism sector (Dienhart & Greg-oire,
1993; Fisher, McPhail, & Menghetti, 2010; Ghiselli, LaLopa, & Bai, 2001;
Gunlu, Aksarayli, & Percin, 2010; Hancer & George, 2003).
Data Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis, descriptive statistics, independent t-tests,
and structural equation modeling were conducted to analyze the data.
Convergent validity was assessed based on the findings of the confirmatory
factor analysis. Descriptive analysis was employed to describe the sample
profiles. An independent t-test was carried out to identify differences in
work engagement and job satisfaction be-tween the highly tourism-involved
group and the less tourism-involved group. To determine the level of
tourism involvement, the overall score of tourism involvement was divided
at the 50th percentile into a high and a low tourism involvement (Chang &
Gibson, 2011). Simi-larly, the scale score of work engagement was divided
at the 50th per-centile into a highly work-engaged and a less work-engaged
group. An independent t-test was used to identify the differences in job
satisfac-tion between these two groups. Finally, structural equation modeling
was carried out to determine the relationship between variables.
RESULTS
Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Validity and Reliability
A series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the
underlying dimensional structure, assess the fit of each construct
and determine construct validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). An item was
eliminated if it was heavily cross-loaded on diverse factors (Byrne, 2001).
Consequently, three items from Tourism Involvement, eight items from
Work Engagement and nine items from Job Satisfaction were elimi-nated.
The initial scale items and the items removed during the pro-cess of
confirmatory factor analysis are displayed in the Appendix. The outcomes of
the final confirmatory factor analysis are shown in Table 1. The fit indices
exhibited an accepted level in both the Tour-ism Involvement construct (v 2 =
106.94, df = 17, p = 0.000, GFI = 0.919,
AGFI = 0.828, NFI = 0.971, TLI = 0.960, CFI = 0.976, SRMR = 0.017)
2
and Work Engagement construct (v = 110.158, df = 24, p = 0.000,
GFI = 0.931, AGFI = 0.871, NFI = 0.964, TLI = 0.957, CFI = 0.971,
SRMR = 0.024), while the results generated low fit statistics for the
Job Satisfaction construct (v2 = 718.569, df = 43, p = 0.000,
GFI = 0.743, AGFI = 0.605, NFI = 0.820, TLI = 0.780, CFI = 0.828,
SRMR = 0.061).
Although the fit statistics for the Job Satisfaction construct were not
adequate, the magnitudes of standardized factor loading for all items used by
the current study were between 0.727 and 0.982 (Table 2). These values
exceeded the commonly accepted threshold of 0.7 sug-gested by Hair,
Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). All t-val-ues were significant,
ranging from 13.706 to 41.618. The variances extracted ranged from 0.688
to 0.941. All exceeded the 0.5 rule of thumb. Composite reliabilities ranged
from 0.897 to 0.970. These reached 0.7, suggesting adequate reliability.
Hence, the above evidence supports the convergence validity of each
construct.
Prior to conducting model tests, the discriminant validity had to be
examined to ensure that all constructs in the model were distinct from other
constructs. First, the correlations between dimensions were calculated (Table
3). All of the correlations were below 0.80, at which discriminant validity
may occur (Quintal, Lee, & Soutar, 2010). Sec-ond, to assess discriminant
validity, Hair et al. (2006:778) suggested that a test should be conducted to
‘‘compare the variance-extracted percentages for any two constructs with the
square of the correlation estimate between these two constructs. The
variance-extracted esti-mates should be greater than the squared correlation
estimate’’. Table 3 shows that the average variances extracted from any pair
of fac-tors were greater than the corresponding inter-construct squared cor-
**
p < 0.01.
Pleasure (0.941)
Risk 0.701** (0.861)
Probability
**
Risk 0.758 0.740** (0.939)
Importance
** **
Vigor 0.408 0.480 0.535** (0.887)
Dedication 0.401** 0.494** 0.510** 0.771** (0.744)
Absorption 0.459** 0.476** 0.580** 0.750** 0.797** (0.766)
Intrinsic 0.484** 0.522** 0.497** 0.621** 0.657** 0.499** (0.688)
Satisfaction
** ** ** ** ** **
Extrinsic 0.483 0.412 0.380 0.489 0.538 0.477 0.670** (0.844)
Satisfaction
gued that when ‘‘a researcher cannot obtain the predictor and crite-rion
variables from different sources, cannot separate the measure-ment context,
and cannot identify the source of the method bias, it is best to use a single-
common method-factor approach to statistically control for method biases’’.
The current study met the above criteria and therefore used the Harman’s
single-factor test to examine com-mon method bias.
This test proposes that common method bias is a vital problem if one
individual factor emerges after a factor analysis and one general factor
makes up for the most of the covariance among the measures (Podsakoff et
al., 2003). The outcomes of an exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that
all of the items in the current study were loaded on four different factors and
no dominant factor accounted for the major-ity of the covariance among the
variables. Comparing with that of the three-construct model in the current
study, the fit statistics for a single-factor test were not acceptable (v 2 =
7249.541, df = 350, p = 0.000, GFI = 0.323, AGFI = 0.215, NFI = 0.440,
TLI = 0.407, CFI = 0.451, SRMR = 0.133). These results revealed that
common method bias was not a severe problem in the current study.
Tourism Involvement
Highly involved 178 4.08 0.57
**
Less involved 158 3.34 0.60 11.55
Tourism Involvement
Highly involved 178 3.77 0.69
**
Less involved 158 3.09 0.41 10.73
Work Engagement
Highly engaged 158 3.84 0.59
**
Less engaged 178 3.11 0.53 12.07
**
p < 0.01.
Table 5. Results of Hypothesis Testing
**
p < 0.01.
DISCUSSION
An extensive number of empirical studies have examined the effect of
tourism on tourists’ life and the antecedent of work engagement as well as
job satisfaction. However, little research attention has focused on the effect
of tourism involvement on work engagement and job sat-isfaction. In
awareness of this research gap, the current study examined the relationship
among tourism involvement, work engagement, and job satisfaction.
As expected, tourism involvement had a significant and positive rela-
tionship with work engagement. This result has not been reported in other
published articles and therefore extends understanding of the ef-fect of
tourism on work outcomes. Further, it suggests that recovery theory was a
useful guideline for investigating the relationship between tourism
involvement and work engagement. Frontline hotel employees may become
more engaged in their work if they are more involved with
tourism because they can get more resources and feel more vigorous after
being involved with tourism. That is, highly tourism-involved employees
are more likely to restore resources into work than less tour-ism-involved
employees.
The current study also confirmed a positive relationship between work
engagement and job satisfaction, providing empirical support to existing
literature (Alarcon & Edwards, 2011; Giallonardo et al., 2010;
Kamalanabhan & Prakashsai, 2009; Saks, 2006). This finding pro-vides
evidence that employees engaged in work are more likely to expe-rience job
satisfaction. Consistent with the hypotheses, the findings showed that
tourism involvement was not only directly related to front-line employees’
job satisfaction, but also indirectly through their work engagement. The
findings also support the notion that highly tourism-involved frontline
employees feel more satisfied with their work. The current study extended
spillover theory by focusing on the positive ef-fects of tourism on job
satisfaction. According to spillover theory, tour-ism can have a positive
effect on working life (Neal et al., 2007; Sirgy et al., 2011). The current
study found that higher employee involve-ment with tourism had positive
spillover effects on job satisfaction. Past tourism research has not aimed at
investigating this connection. Thus, the current study is unique in exploring
the relationship between tour-ism involvement and job satisfaction from the
perspective hotel front-line employees.
Based on the above findings, job satisfaction was found to be posi-tively
affected by tourism involvement and work engagement. The cur-rent study
went further by demonstrating that work engagement mediated the effect of
tourism involvement on job satisfaction. The re-sult demonstrated that
tourism involvement had an indirect positive relation with job satisfaction
via increased work engagement. In accor-dance with earlier studies, work
engagement was an important media-tor between antecedent and consequent
variables (Leung et al., 2011; Maslach et al., 2001). This finding supports
the notion that recovery from work via involving with tourism allows
employees to restore job resources, show dedication, and experience
satisfaction in their work. That is, if a highly tourism-involved employee is
present, he or she is more engaged in work, which in turn promotes job
satisfaction.
The findings demonstrate that the indirect effect of work engage-ment
was stronger than the direct effect of tourism involvement on job
satisfaction. This implies that employees who are involved with tourism and
engage in work feel more satisfied than those who are only involved with
tourism. That is, the effect of tourism involvement on job satisfaction is
enhanced via work engagement. Thus, the current study shows that highly
tourism-involved employees generally maintain a higher level of work
engagement than less tourism-involved employees and that the former show
greater levels of satisfaction with their job. This empirical relationship had
not yet been found in the tourism literature.
There are several theoretical implications of the current study. First, based
on the empirical evidence, tourism involvement directly and indirectly
(through work engagement) influenced job satisfaction.
The relationship between tourism involvement and job satisfaction was
better evidenced since work engagement was a mediator. This implies that
there may be some mediators that could be included in the cur-rent model to
better predict job satisfaction. Second, the current study found that recovery
theory was a useful theoretical framework to ex-plain the relationship
between tourism involvement and work engage-ment. As such, recovery
theory may be extended from only explaining the positive effect of recovery
on work to include tourism involvement as a predictor of work outcomes.
Similarly, spillover theory may be extended from only considering the
positive effect of leisure experience on life to examining the direct effect of
tourism involvement on specific work outcomes. The Con-sumer
Involvement Profile scale has been used often to assess the tour-ists’
involvement, so the current study tested this scale on a sample of hotel
employees. The findings of confirmatory factor analysis demon-strated that
the Consumer Involvement Profile scale is a valid and reli-able scale. This
implies that the Consumer Involvement Profile scale can be utilized not only
for tourism marketing research but also in tourism human resource
management research. Finally, the results demonstrated the enduring effect
of tourism involvement on tourists’ behavior. As the current study showed
the relation between tourism involvement on work engagement and job
satisfaction, it contributes to the literature on the effect of tourism on work
outcomes.
The significant effects of tourism involvement found in this study indicate
several managerial implications for hotel firms. Tourism involvement is a
useful tool to enhance work engagement and job sat-isfaction. Hotel firms
should focus on selecting employees who have a high degree of tourism
involvement. Therefore, hotel managers can in-clude tourism involvement
assessments in the selection process. In addition, it may be useful to include
the practice of tourism in manage-ment training. It is recommended to train
hotel managers to be aware of the issue of managing an appropriate work-
life balance.
Hotels should also work to examine whether their managers and pol-icies
sufficiently encourage employees to get involved in tourism activ-ities.
Hotel firms can enhance employees’ tourism perceptions by disseminating
tourism information and benefits in internal meetings, seminars or training
events. Furthermore, hotel firms can organize reg-ular activities to directly
help employees get involved in tourism-related activities. Managers need to
realize that their encouragement will sig-nificantly influence frontline
employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction.
Moreover, the positive effect of work engagement on job satisfaction
implies that hotel firms need to provide frontline employees with job
resources to promote work engagement. Training programs could be helpful
for informing hotel managers about resources, such as partic-ipative
management and team building, to enhance employees work engagement.
Attention should also be paid to whether employees re-cover from work.
Hotel firms can set up regulations that restrict work-ing overtime and
encourage employees to take a vacation regularly. With a high level of work
engagement, hotel employees can experience
positive emotions in their places of work. This leads to better job
satisfaction.
Additionally, the indirect effect of work engagement implies that hotel
managers need to do more than simply promote tourism involvement if the
managers wish to increase employees’ satisfaction. Since the effect of
tourism involvement on job satisfaction is enhanced when employees be-
come engaged in work, hotel managers should implement strategies as
mentioned above to increase employees’ level of tourism involvement and
simultaneously build a work environment that foster employees’ work
engagement, such as increasing job resources. Managers should then be able
to retain engaged employees in their hotels. Such employ-ees could be
offered more opportunities for tourism involvement, which would ultimately
result in more job satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS
Tourism involvement is a significant, yet under-examined issue with
respect to work engagement and job satisfaction among hotel frontline
employees. This study identified a significant relationship among tour-ism
involvement, work engagement and job satisfaction, suggesting a new way
of managing human resources in the tourism industry. Hotel firms should
understand the conditions that contribute to work
engagement and job satisfaction, since engaged and satisfied employ-ees can
provide enhanced quality of service.
APPENDIX A
Tourism Involvement Scale (Gursoy and Gavcar, 2003)
Dimension Item
Dimension Item
Dimension Item