Emotional intelligence or artificial intelligence an employee perspective

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management
ISSN: 1936-8623 (Print) 1936-8631 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/whmm20
Emotional intelligence or artificial intelligence– an

employee perspective
Catherine Prentice, Sergio Dominique Lopes & Xuequn Wang
To cite this article: Catherine Prentice, Sergio Dominique Lopes & Xuequn Wang (2020)
Emotional intelligence or artificial intelligence– an employee perspective, Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 29:4, 377-403, DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2019.1647124
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1647124
Published online: 14 Aug 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 23606
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 104 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whmm20
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT
2020, VOL. 29, NO. 4, 377–403
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1647124
Emotional intelligence or artificial intelligence– an employee

perspective
a b
Catherine Prentice , Sergio Dominique Lopes and Xuequn Wangc
a
Marketing, Griffith Business School, Griffith Institute for Tourism Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane,
Australia; bDepartment of Marketing and Tourism, Polytechnic Institute of Cavado and Ave, Barcelos, Portugal;
c
School of Engineering and Information Technology, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia,
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Emotional intelligence as personal intelligence and artificial intelligence Emotional intelligence;
as a machine intelligence have been popular in the relevant literature artificial intelligence; hotels;
over the last two decades. The current study integrates these two customer service; service
concepts and explores how emotional and artificial intelligence influ- encounter
ences employee retention and performance with a focus on service
employees in the hotel industry. Employee performance is operationa-
lised into internal and external dimensions that captures employees’
task efficiency over both internal and external service encounters with
co-workers and customers respectively. The data were collected from
a variety of different ranking hotels. The results show that emotional
intelligence has a significant effect on employee retention and perfor-
mance; whereas artificial intelligence plays a significant moderating role
in employee performance. A discussion of the findings and implications
concludes this paper.
情感智能作为个人智能和人工智能作为机器智能在近二十年来的相
关文献中得到广泛应用.目前的研究整合了这两个概念，并探讨了情
感和人工智能如何影响员工的保留和绩效，重点关注酒店行业的服
务员工.员工绩效被操作化为内部和外部维度，这些维度分别捕捉员
工在与同事和客户进行内部和外部服务时的任务效率.这些数据来自
不同级别的酒店.结果表明，情绪智力对员工的留用和绩效有显著影
响，而人工智能对员工绩效有显著的调节作用.本文最后对这些发现
和意义进行了讨论.
Introduction
Emotional intelligence (EI and emotional intelligence are used interchangeably in this paper)
as a personal intelligence has been a buzz word for individual and organisational success over
the last two and half decades. While a popular topic, there are ongoing debates regarding its
conceptualisations, measurement, and applications. Individuals with a high level of EI tend to
enjoy life satisfaction, better personal and social relationships, and career success (e.g.
Amdurer, Boyatzis, Saatcioglu, Smith, & Taylor, 2014; Coetzee & Harry, 2014; Fitness, 2001;
Law, Wong, Huang, & Li, 2008; Schutte et al., 2001; Sony & Mekoth, 2016). From an
organisational perspective, EI exhibited in employees is related to organisational outcomes
CONTACT Catherine Prentice cathyjournalarticles@gmail.com Marketing, Griffith Business School, Griffith Institute
for Tourism Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/whmm.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
378 C. PRENTICE ET AL.
including job satisfaction, performance, organisational commitment (Kafetsios & Zampetakis,

2008; Nikolaou & Tsaousis, 2002; Prentice & King, 2011, 2012; Rozell, Pettijohn, & Parker,
2004; Sy, Tram, & O’Hara, 2006), as well as customer satisfaction (Darvishmotevali, Altinay, &
De Vita, 2018; Kernbach & Schutte, 2005; Yao, Wang, Yu, & Guchait, 2019). These outcomes
have implications for employee job efficiency and business profitability (Heskett, Jones,
Loveman, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1994; Yao et al., 2019). EI is particularly useful for service
organisations and employees occupying customer – contact positions (Bardzil & Slaski, 2003;
Prentice, Chen, & King, 2013; Yao et al., 2019).
Artificial intelligence (AI) is referred to as machine intelligence and demonstrated by
humanoid or non-humanoid robots that behave like humans, which can be applied in
businesses to improve and enhance operational efficiency (Russell & Norvig, 2016).
Although founded as an academic discipline in 1950s, it was not until recently that AI
gained popularity in the relevant literature. AI permeates various industries and has
potential to generate substantial financial profitability for businesses, particularly in the
service sectors such as banking, human recourses recruitment, healthcare transit, tourism,
and the hotel industry (e.g. Buhalis & Leung, 2018; Kim, 2011; Yu & Schwartz, 2006).
Table A1 and Figure A1 in Appendix A show its applications and functions in various
industries.
In the service industry, Wirtz et al. (2018) analysed how service robots in conjunction with
AI would impact on service organisations and employees across micro, meso, and macro
levels. AI not only improves operational efficiency by automating mundane tasks, but also
enhances customer experience (Bolton, Machova, Kovacova, & Valaskova, 2018). For
instance, large hotels rely on sophisticated computer programs that use AI to scan historical
data and track patterns, resetting overbooking levels every 15 minutes, based on their goal
reservation systems (Ma, Xiang, Du, & Fan, 2018). Using Chatbots and messaging, AI allows
service organisations to improve service quality in both functional and technical processes
(Chung, Ko, Joung, & Kim, 2018; Ivanov & Webster, 2017; Larivière et al., 2017) and to
automate tasks that are traditionally performed by service employees. Restaurant managers
use robotic servers and AI to assist with self-service ordering. AI can also be used to improve
energy consumption within hotel buildings (Wang, Lin, Tu, Wang, & Huang, 2015). Hilton
Hotels & Resorts adopted Connie as their first AI robot to provide information to tourists and
improve interactions with customers (Solomon, 2016). AI plays different roles within the
service encounter, such as augmentation and substitution of service employees, and network
facilitation (Larivière et al., 2017) (see Figure A1).
The application of AI in the hotel and other related industries (e.g. tourism and
hospitality) has grown considerably, including areas such as marketing intelligence,
customer service, chatbots, and messaging (see https://www.revfine.com/) (Gursoy,
2018). For instance, “Opinion mining” supported by AI techniques (e.g., natural language
processing) can automatically discover and analyse tourism consumers’ opinions
(Akehurst, 2009). This analysis is useful to identify semantic relationships between tour-
ism product features and consumer opinions. Electronic travel agents can be developed to
manage tourism consumers’ travel planning, including how to travel between cities,
airports, rent cars, or book hotel rooms (Camacho, Borrajo, & Molina, 2001; Zanker,
Fuchs, Höpken, Tuta, & Müller, 2008). Recommender Systems is used to recommend a list
of activities based upon tourists’ preferences and requirements (Garcia, Sebastia, &
Onaindia, 2011; Zanker et al., 2008). Smart tourist information points can be utilised to
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 379
talk with tourism consumers and inform them about interesting information related to
certain destinations (Garrido, Barrachina, Martinez, & Seron, 2017). Robots and service
automation techniques (e.g., delivery robots, chatbots, robot-concierge, self-service kiosks)
have been used in this way by hospitality companies to support their business and serve
tourism consumers (Ivanov & Webster, 2017; Yu, 2019). AI analytic tools can also be used
to forecast tourism demand (Kim & Schwartz, 2013; Yu & Schwartz, 2006).
Whilst acknowledging its prevalence and impact on improving business efficiency, AI
also sparks growing concern at its replacement of human jobs (Larivière et al., 2017).
Robinson (2017) refers to the “Momentum Machines Project” as being one step closer to
a reduction in fast-food jobs. In the case of hotels and restaurants it is estimated that
around 25% of activities can be automated by AI related technology (Chui, Manyika, &
Miremadi, 2016). A report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD, 2016) shows that 9% of jobs could become automated in a total
of 21 countries. A 2017 McKinsey report also demonstrates a loss of 5% of jobs due to AI
(Manyika et al., 2017) and an Oxford University study predicted that 47% of jobs could be
automated by 2033 (Ramaswamy, 2017). It is expected that about 50% of financial services
and insurance jobs (e.g. collecting and processing data) are also very likely to be replaced
by AI (He & Guo, 2018). Reports from Pew Research Internet (Smith & Anderson, 2017)
argue that about 72 percent of Americans have expressed concern about the replacement
of human jobs by AI. However, some research (Morikawa, 2017; Smith & Anderson, 2017)
also shows that AI can only play a dominant role in low-level mundane jobs. However, it
is accepted that high level jobs such as science and engineering can be complimented by
AI and robotics, which play a very minor role in human-intensive services such as
occupation-specific skills acquired by attending professional schools or holding occupa-
tional licenses (Smith & Anderson, 2017).
Previous research (e.g. Ghahramani, 2015; Moravčík et al., 2017; Russell & Norvig, 2016)
on AI was primarily focused on functionality and technical efficiency. No research to date, to
the best of our knowledge, has attempted to understand how AI may affect organisational
outcomes from an employee perspective. Research on EI from the organisational perspective
has primarily examined its impact on employee job attitudes and behaviours in conjunction
with employees’ personality and cognitive intelligence (e.g. Bastian, Burns, & Nettelbeck,
2005; Prentice & King, 2011, 2012). No research has investigated its relation and interaction
with AI. Since both AI and EI are related to organisational efficiency through their influence
on employees and/or customers, understanding the interaction between AI and EI has
potential to enhance organisation-related outcomes.
As previously discussed, EI contributes to employee job-related outcomes. The current
study explores how EI and AI contribute to employee-related outcomes with a focus on
the hotel industry. AI is widely used in the hotels, for instance, robots delivering in-person
customer service (Connie adopted by Hilton), chatbots, messaging, and data analysis
(Revfine.com). EI also plays an important role in enhancing job performance and reducing
burnout for employees working in the hotel industry (Prentice et al., 2013). As the study is
intended to understand how EI and AI impact employee-related outcomes respectively,
the outcomes opted for in this study are employee retention and performance, which have
implications for organisational performance. We are especially interested in how EI
influences these outcomes under different levels of AI. This investigation helps to under-
stand the role of employees in service organisations in comparison to that of AI. The
following section presents the relevant literature on EI and AI and forms hypotheses. The
methodology of testing these hypotheses is outlined, followed by data analysis and
presentation of results. Discussion of the findings and implications of the work are then
highlighted for researchers and practitioners.
Literature review
Emotional intelligence
There are various definitions and conceptualisations of EI in the literature, and each of
bears little resemblance on their own. The theoretical paradigms that underpin EI con-
ceptualisations arise from one of two perspectives: as a form of pure intelligence consisting
of cognitive ability only (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), or as mixed intelligence, consisting of
both cognitive ability and personality aspects, the differences in which are attributed to the
different beliefs of what constitutes EI (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1998). The two perspec-
tives, although different, are more complementary than contradictory (Ciarrochi, Chan, &
Caputi, 2000). However, the ability model proposed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) repre-
sents cognitive intelligence as is commonly popularised in the academic community and is
opted for discussion herein.
Subsuming EI under the domain of intelligence, Mayer and Salovey (1997) define EI as the
ability to perceive, respond, and manipulate emotional information without necessarily
understanding it and the ability to understand and manage emotions without necessarily
perceiving feelings well or fully experiencing them. EI consists of four branches. The first
branch is emotional perception, indicating the ability to identify and express emotions
accurately and to discriminate expressions of feelings. The second branch is emotional
assimilation, indicating emotion-prioritised thinking by directing attention to important
information. The third branch is emotional understanding, indicating the ability to label
and recognise emotions among the words and the emotions themselves. The fourth branch is
emotion management, indicating the ability to stay open to pleasant and unpleasant feelings,
to reflectively engage or detach from, monitor, and manage emotions in relation to oneself
and others. The four branches function hierarchically with the perception of emotions acting
as the most basic or bottom branch, and emotional management as the most complex or top
branch (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001). If an individual lacks the ability to
process the lowest level of emotional input, he or she would also lack the ability to manage
emotions at the higher level described in this model. Once perception has gained, emotions
can be utilized to facilitate thought consciously or unconsciously.
EI has the potential to account for some portion of the remaining variance in predicting
work performance and career success, which are left unexplained by traditional intelligence.
People with high levels of EI experience more career success (e.g. Poon, 2004), build stronger
personal relationships (e.g. Schutte et al., 2001), lead more effectively (e.g. George, 2000; Gupta
& Bajaj, 2017), and enjoy better health than those with low levels of EI (e.g. Austin, Saklofske,
& Egan, 2005; Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007).
In work settings, EI has been found to affect a wide variety of job attitudes and
behaviours. The level of the influence is dependent upon study settings (Van Rooy &
Viswesvaran, 2004). EI is especially important for frontline employees in the service
industry broadly and in the hospitality/hotel industry particularly, since these employees
are situated in the boundary spinning positions and have direct interactions with custo-
mers (Prentice et al., 2013). Their jobs contain a high level of emotional labour, which can
be positively moderated by EI (Kim, Jung-Eun Yoo, Lee, & Kim, 2012; Prentice et al.,
2013). Research has shown that emotional labour is positively related to stress and job
dissatisfaction (Lee & Ok, 2012). However, EI is positively related to job satisfaction
because it affects one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and
pressures, thus managing stressful work conditions (emotional labour) (Lee & Ok, 2012;
Prentice et al., 2013; Shi, Prentice, & He, 2014). EI also has a positive effect on employee
commitment because EI facilitates communication, and emotionally intelligent people
make others feel better suited to the occupational environment (Goleman, 1998;
Nikolaou & Tsaousis, 2002; Rozell et al., 2004). It has also been found that job satisfaction
and commitment are common precursors of employee retention (e.g. Brown & Yoshioka,
2003; D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008; Saari & Judge, 2004). Consequently, the following
hypothesis is offered:
H1a. Emotional intelligence is significantly and positively related to employee

retention.
EI has been extensively discussed as a valid predictor of job performance (Carmeli &
Josman, 2006; Cote & Miners, 2006). The efficiency of EI in predicting job behaviours
depends on the type of job and the nature of the business. For jobs that require teamwork,
research (Clarke, 2010; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) shows that EI significantly impacts
employee job efficiency with co-workers (hereafter internal service performance) because
emotionally intelligent people have better personal skills which are needed for group work.
EI is particularly important for jobs that require social skills and interpersonal interac-
tions, such as the frontline positions that involve interactions between service employees
and customers (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Caruso, Mayer, & Salovey, 2002;
Darvishmotevali et al., 2018). Employees with a high level of EI are better at dealing
with service encounters with customers and achieve better service performance (refer to
external service performance herein). Consistent with the foregoing discussion, the fol-
lowing hypotheses are offered:
H1b: EI is significantly and positively related to internal service performance.
H1c: EI is significantly and positively related to external service performance.
Artificial intelligence
AI is the science of designing and building computer-based solutions for performing human
tasks (Simon, 1980). AI finds it origins in various disciplines such as philosophy, mathematics,
economics, neuroscience, psychology, computer engineering, cybernetics, and even linguistics
(Russell Stuart & Norvig, 2009). AI can be defined as “a system’s ability to correctly interpret
external data, to learn from such data and use those learnings to achieve specific goals and
tasks through flexible adaptation” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2019, p. 17). Russell Stuart and Norvig
(2009) have approached AI from different categories to operationalise AI: thinking humanly;
acting humanly; thinking rationally. Rijsdijk, Hultink, and Diamantopoulos (2007) however
have proposed six dimensions of AI: autonomy, ability to learn, reactivity, ability to cooperate,
humanlike interaction, and personality.
AI can also be classified on the basis of its evolution and applications. Evolutionarily AI
includes artificial narrow intelligence, artificial general intelligence, and artificial super intelli-
gence (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2019). Artificial narrow intelligence is the first-generation AI,
applying to specific tasks (e.g., Siri, Tesla). The second-generation AI is referred to as artificial
general intelligence, which is able to solve different problems autonomously. The third-
generation of AI is referred to as artificial super intelligence. This generation is anticipated
to be capable of scientific creativity and social skills. Based on the range of tasks that AI is
capable of, Wirth (2018) classified AI into weak AI (i.e., AI tailored to specific tasks), hybrid AI
(i.e., AI blending multiple solutions and can adapt to new tasks), and strong AI (i.e., AI as
intelligent as human and can deal with a variety of tasks).
Kaplan and Haenlein (2019) have also divided AI into analytical AI, human-inspired
AI, and humanized AI. Analytical AI uses cognitive intelligence and learning (i.e., past
data) to guide future decisions, and has been used in a variety of scenarios. Human-
inspired AI has both cognitive and emotional intelligence. This AI system can understand
human emotions and incorporate them into their decision making. Kaplan and Haenlein
(2019) indicate that human-inspired AI is becoming more popular. For example, Walmart
used facial recognition tools (i.e., human-inspired AI) to identify unhappy customers
waiting at checkouts, thus applying intervention (e.g., open new cashiers). Humanised
AI is anticipated to possess cognitive, emotional, and social intelligence, and can be self-
conscious of their interactions with others. However, this AI system is yet to eventuate.
AI tools have been used in different industries. For example, in retailing, Amazon has used
analytical AI to support inventory management. In entertainment, newspapers such as The
Los Angeles Times have used analytical AI to write articles. In museums, AI tour-guide robots
have been used to increase attendance (Burgard et al., 1999). Analytical AI in human resource
management can help screen and select candidates. In marketing, AI is widely used to
improve customer service (Bolton et al., 2018, 2013; Chung et al., 2018). For example, chatbots
applying analytical AI in the hotel industry can generate automatic responses to customer
inquiries (Chung et al., 2018). AI has also been deployed in contact centres to improve the
customer service experience (Kirkpatrick, 2017). Despite its widespread use in business, the
role of AI in organisations is dependent upon the type of jobs and the level of complexity. In
general, AI is used to automate mundane and low-level tasks. Based on the four taxonomies of
analytical intelligence (mechanical, analytical, intuitive, and empathetic intelligence) proposed
by Huang and Rust (2018), Wirtz et al. (2018) proposed an intuitive understanding of service
delivery based on the complexity of emotional and cognitive tasks (see Figure 1). The authors
indicate that complex emotional-social tasks will tend to be performed by humans, and
complex cognitive-analytical tasks will tend to be executed by robots.
The jobs of service employees are deemed to be complex emotional-social tasks as they
involve interpersonal interactions with customers (Prentice et al., 2013), and this type of job
requires employees’ EI to manage the interactions (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Caruso et al.,
2002; Sjoberg & Littorin, 2005). Although it may not play a dominant role in these tasks, it is
suggested that AI can enhance these social tasks. AI can be operationalised into different
dimensions indicating information and system quality (Wixom & Todd, 2005), namely,
reliability (the degree to which system operation is dependable), flexibility (the degree to
Figure 1. Relationship between tasks and performers (human vs. robot) (Wirtz et al., 2018).
which systems adapt to users’ changing demands), integrity (the degree to which systems
integrate data from different sources), accessibility (the degree which information can be easily
accessed), timeliness (the degree to which systems provide timely responses to requests),
comprehensiveness (the degree to systems provide needed information), accuracy (the degree
to which systems provide correct information), format (the degree to which the information is
well presented), and currency (the degree to which the information is up to date).
The AI dimensions together reflect employees’ perception of AI quality. Previous literature
has shown that these dimensions of information and system quality can result in individuals’
positive attitudes toward technology and facilitate employees’ job-related outcomes (e.g.,
Forsgren, Durcikova, Clay, & Wang, 2016; Wixom & Todd, 2005). AI can facilitate employees’
work by interpreting customers’ questions (e.g., language translation), searching business
knowledge systems, and preparing human-friendly responses (Kirkpatrick, 2017). AI can
also provide information including change of fees and scheduling issues. In the travel industry,
Serbanescu and Necsulescu (2013) show that analytical AI can enhance task performance and
efficiency. Consequently, employees complete work more effectively and will likely affect their
job retention. This discussion leads to the following hypotheses:
H2a: AI quality has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between EI and
employee retention.
H2b: AI quality has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between EI and
internal service performance.
H2c: AI quality has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between EI and
external service performance.
The study model is shown in Figure 2.

Organizational Outcome
H1 Employee
Retention
Emotional
Intelligenc
Internal Service
performance
H2
Artificial External Service

Intelligenc performance
Figure 2. Research model.
Method
Sample
To understand how EI and AI affect service employees’ retention and performance respec-
tively, the study was undertaken at 60 hotels of different types (based on star rankings, namely,
five, four, three, and two-star hotels) in Portugal. Hotels have increasingly used various AI
tools to support their business and provide services to customers. Examples include chatbots,
concierge robots, digital assistance, voice-activated services, and travel experience enhancers.
These analytical tools can collect a variety of information that facilitates a hotel to better
understand their business and customers. Data for the study were collected from service
employees including customer service representatives, hotel receptionists, and concierges.
These employees have direct contact with customers and work with some AI tools. About
12 percent of the employees were from 5-star hotels, 56% from 4-star hotels, 28% from 3-star
hotels and 4% from 2-star hotels. These included some internationally branded hotels such as
Intercontinental, Ibis, Marriot, Axis, others were locally owned.
Instruments
All items used to measure the study variables were based on a seven-point Likert scale,
with 1 indicating strongly disagree, and 7 strongly agree. Emotional intelligence was
measured utilising Law, Wong, and Song (2004) self-report EI scale (WEIS). Several
measures are available in the literature for assessing EI, however, WEIS was opted because
it is based on the four ability dimensions described in the ability EI model (see Brackett &
Mayer, 2003) and has been widely used and cited in the literature. WEIS has also been
cross-validated with great reliability and validity. The original WEIS contained 16 items
(statements), and four dimensions. These four dimensions are labelled as self-emotion
appraisal (SEA), other-emotion appraisal (OEA), use of emotion (UOE), and regulation of
emotion (ROE). Each dimension has four items. The dimension self-emotion appraisal
includes items, “I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time” and “I
have good understanding of my own emotions”. The dimension of other-emotion apprai-
sal items include “I always know my friends’ emotions from their behaviour”. Items such
as “I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them” are included in the
use of emotion dimension. The items measuring regulation of emotion items include “I
am able to control my temper so that I can handle difficulties rationally”. Reliability was
.85 for SEA, .88 for OEA, .84 for UOE, and .88 for ROE.
Employee performance was measured on internal service performance that focused on
work behaviours with co-workers over the internal encounters and mandatory tasks
within the organisation, as well as external service performance that is based on customer-
oriented behaviours over the service encounter with customers that is reflective of
customer service performance. The items that were used to measure internal service
performance were adapted from O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) to reflect each employee’s
general job performance within the organisation. To ensure item appropriateness and
consistency with general job descriptions for employees working in different hotels, four
items that reflect employee performance over internal encounters and are associated with
the systems of the hotel organisations were retained for further analysis. Self-reporting was
deemed to be more appropriate as this study is approached from an individuals’ percep-
tion of job accomplishment. Self-reporting has been widely used in performance research.
Churchill, Ford, Hartley, and Walker (1985) meta-analytical study shows that employees’
anonymous self-reported performance has good validity, with a less restricted range, and
less error than other ratings or objective measures. The items measuring external service
performance were adapted from Hallowell (1996) with regards to employee service that is
specifically aimed at satisfying customers. These items are indicative of employees’ con-
sistent, reliable, prompt, and individualised service.
Employee retention was measured by indicating their willingness to stay with the company,
and by asking the respondents to indicate their intention to leave the job and explore other
career opportunities within next 12 months. The items assessing this variable were adapted from
Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham (1999). For example, “How unlikely do you think you would get
out of your current job within next 12 months;” and “How unlikely it is that you would explore
other career opportunities within next 12 months.” A seven-point Likert scale was used to show
respondents’ degree of agreement (1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree). The reliability
value for this scale was .91.
The measure that assessed employees’ perception of AI was adapted from Wixom and
Todd (2005). This measure has multiple dimensions including comprehensiveness, for-
mat, accuracy, currency, reliability, accessibility, flexibility, integrity, and timeliness. Each
dimension has three items. The items that were used to measure comprehensiveness
included statement such as “AI tools provide me with a complete set of information”.
The dimension format included items such as “The information provided by AI tools is
well formatted”. Items such as “AI tools produce correct information” are included in the
dimension accuracy. The items used to measure currency included “AI tools provide me
with the most recent information”. Reliability was measured by items such as “AI tools
operate reliably”. Items such as “AI tools allow information to be readily accessible to me”
are included in the measurement of accessibility. Items measuring flexibly included “AI
tools can be adapted to meet a variety of needs” and integrity was measured by items such
as “AI tools effectively integrate data from different areas of the company”. Items such as
“AI tools provide information in a timely fashion” are included to measure timeliness. The
reliabilities for each dimension were all above .70.
Data collection procedure

The researchers had a thorough discussion with AI experts from various hotels regarding the
original questionnaires relating to AI dimensionality prior to the survey. To confirm the
validity of the questionnaire (Tabachnick, Fidell, & Ullman, 2007) and ensure a survey
completion time of less than 15 minutes to minimise respondent fatigue, a pilot test was
conducted with 20 randomly selected employees who have experience with AI tools working
in the hotels. After this testing, the questionnaire was modified based on feedback provided by
these participants. Modifications included rewording the items to make them clearer and
simplifying complex sentences with a view to improving face validity and readability.
The researchers contacted the managers from different hotels for permission to conduct
the survey. With their approval, the assistants approached hotel employees personally and
provided a detailed explanation of the research purpose and the specificities of the
questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed using SurveyMonkey Inc. (an online
survey program). To ensure timely responses and facilitate respondents’ participation,
each employee who agreed to participate in this study was provided with an iPad tablet to
access the questionnaires. The research assistants stood by during the survey to provide
support in case there were any questions or concerns raised from the respondents. The
identification of the participants (such as IP address, etc.) was de-selected to ensure
anonymity and no violation of privacy. Respondents were informed of that the completion
of the questionnaire was taken as implied consent.
Of the total usable sample, 51.8% of respondents were male, and 48.2% were female. The
age of participants ranged from 18 to 55 years old and above. About 33 percent of respondents
fell in the age group of 18–24, 30 percent from the age group of 25–34, 20% in the 35–44
group, 13% in the 45–54 group, and only 5% in the 55 or above group. The majority (90%) had
university degrees. About 46% had a bachelor’s degree or above. Table 1 shows the demo-
graphic characteristics of the respondents.
Common method variance

Both ex-ante and ex-post remedies suggested by Lindell and Whitney (2001), Chang, Van
Witteloostuijn, and Eden (2010) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) were
implemented to minimise response errors and examine common method variance. For
instance, previous validated scales were used in this study and thoroughly checked with the
relevant researchers and experts in the field. Respondents were also assured that there were no
right or wrong answers. To minimise response bias, similar questions were dispersed through-
out different sections in the survey to refresh respondents’ memories and ensure identical
responses. Negative and positive wordings were used for the same items.
Statistical remedies including Harman’s single factor test, partial correlation procedure,
and controlling for the effects of an unmeasured latent methods factor (see Podsakoff et al.,
2003) were applied. First, an exploratory factor analysis was performed by loading all study
variables to examine the number of factors and respective variance explained. The results
Table 1. Demographic description of respondents.

Variables Taxonomies Percentage
Gender Male 45.80%
Female 54.20%
Age group Under 18 0.40%
18–24 32.60%
25–34 29.90%
35–44 19.70%
45–54 12.50%
55 or more 4.90%
Academic qualifications Elementary school 4.90%
Some college 35.20%
College 13.60%
Bachelor degree 35.20%
Post-graduation 5.30%
Other 5.70%
Professional experience 1–2 years 19.30%
3–5 years 20.80%
6–10 years 21.20%
11–15 years 15.20%
16–20 years 7.20%
Over 20 years 6.10%
Position Top management 5.70%
Middle management 12.90%
Supervisor 9.50%
Non-supervisory 39.40%
Other 32.60%
Income group Less than €20 000 83.30%
€20 000 – €39 999 8.70%
€40 000 – €59 999 3.40%
€60 000 – €79 999 1.10%
€80 000 – €99 999 0.80%
€100 000 and above 2.70%
Country of origin Portugal 97.00%
Other 2.30%
showed that 11 factors were present, and the first factor explains 39.46% of variance.
A confirmation factor analysis procedure was also conducted to check the model fit for one
factor and multiple factor models (Iverson & Maguire, 2000; Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995).
The one factor (χ2 (1652) = 9944.80, p < .001, CFI = .47; TLI = .45; RMSEA = .13) had a very
poor model fit compared to the 16 factors model (χ2 (1532) = 3035, p < .001, CFI = .90;
TLI = .90; RMSEA = .06). Following the recommendation of Podsakoff et al. (2003), the last
procedure was to control for the effect of an unmeasured latent factor and to compare the item
loadings with and without adding an unmeasured latent methods factor. No great difference
between the two sets of loadings (all less than .01) were identified. A diagnosis of multi-
collinearity, using a variance inflation factor (VIF) showed no issue of multicollinearity, as all
VIFs were below 3.0 (Johnson & Lebreton, 2004).
Data analysis and results

Confirmatory factor analysis
AI and EI are multidimensional constructs and were treated as second-order factors in the
current study as suggested by the scale developers (Law et al., 2004; Wixom & Todd,
2005). First, we assessed the validity of AI following the procedures described in Kumar
and Pansari (2016). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a hierarchical model was
performed to assess AI and its nine dimensions (completeness, format, accuracy, currency,
reliability, accessibility, flexibility, and timeliness). The second-order CFA model fit was
acceptable: χ2 = 882.14, d.f. = 316; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .06. The path
coefficients between the indicators and their respective first-order factors were significant
at the .05 level. In addition, all the path coefficients between the second-order constructs
and its three dimensions were significant at the .05 level. We also examined the second-
order factor structure by conducting a one-factor CFA on the average scores of the four
first-order constructs. The model fit was χ2 = 158.48, d.f. = 27; CFI = .94; TLI = .92;
RMSEA = .06. All the path coefficients were significant at the .05 level.
The results through the same procedure described above for assessing EI show that
the second-order CFA model fit was acceptable: χ2 = 383.13, d.f. = 101; CFI = .91;
TLI = .90; RMSEA = .06. The path coefficients between the indicators and their respective
first-order factors were significant at the .05 level. In addition, all path coefficients between
the second-order construct and its three dimensions were significant at the .05 level. We
also examined the second-order factor structure by conducting a one-factor CFA on the
average scores of the four first-order constructs. The model fit was χ2 = 2.24, d.f. = 2;
CFI = .99; TLI = .99; RMSEA = .04. All the path coefficients were significant at the .05
level. Thus, consistent with common practice (e.g., Jayachandran et al. 2005), the aggre-
gated scale consisting of the average scores of the dimensions of EI for further analysis.
Next, CFA was performed for the proposed model in this study. The results show that
the model had acceptable fit indices: χ2 (367) = 858.58, CFI = .93, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .06
SRMR = .04. All items have significant loadings on their corresponding constructs. The
composite reliabilities for all factors were acceptable, and the average variance extracted
(AVE) for each factor was over .50, indicative of adequate convergence (Table 2) (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981). The results of standardized residuals and modification indices show no
conspicuously significant changes to the model. Table 3 shows the correlations among
variables. The square root of average variance extracted for each construct exceeds the
correlation between constructs, indicating discriminant validity.
Hypotheses testing
Hierarchical regression was performed to test our hypotheses. Our analysis shows that EI
has a significant effect on employee retention (ß = .28, p < .001), internal service
performance (ß = .47, p < .0005), external service performance ß = .43, p < .0005).
These results support H1a-c. Further analysis was performed to examine whether AI
has direct effects on the proposed outcome variables. The results show that AI only has
a significant effect on internal service performance (ß = .23, p < .001), and external service
performance (ß = .30, p < .001). Those results are summarized in Table 4.
H2 proposes AI as a moderator between EI and the outcome variables. The results show
that AI significantly moderates the effect of EI on internal service performance (ß = −.15,
p < .05), and external service performance (ß = −.32, p < .001) (Table 5). The negative effects
indicate that the high ratings of AI reduce the effect of EI on the performance outcome. In
other words, employees with a high level of EI find that the use of AI is counter-productive to
their performance. The results therefore do not support hypotheses of H2b-c and the
moderation effect exerted are graphed below (Figures 3 and 4). Following Aiken and West
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analyses results.

Items Loading Alpha CR AVE
Artificial intelligence
Comprehensiveness .90 .90 .76
AI tools provide me with a complete set of information .86
AI tools produce comprehensive information .91
AI tools provide me with all the information I need .84
Format .91 .91 .77
The information provided by AI tools is well formatted .85
The information provided by AI tools is well laid out .91
The information provided by AI tools is clearly presented on the screen .87
Accuracy .77 .80 .58
AI tools produce correct information .83
There are few errors in the information I obtain from AI tools .60
The information provided by AI tools is accurate .83
Currency .92 .92 .80
AI tools provide me with the most recent information .89
AI tools produce the most current information .92
The information from AI tools is always up to date .88
Reliability .89 .89 .74
AI tools operate reliably .91
AI tools perform reliably .98
The operation of AI tools is dependable .65
Accessibility .92 .91 .76
AI tools allow information to be readily accessible to me .88
AI tools make information very accessible .87
AI tools make information easy to access .87
Flexibility .93 .92 .79
AI tools can be adapted to meet a variety of needs .88
AI tools can flexibly adjust to new demands or conditions .91
AI tools are versatile in addressing needs as they arise .89
Integrity .94 .94 .83
AI tools effectively integrate data from different areas of the company .89
AI tools pull together information that used to come from different places in the company .92
AI tools effectively combine data from different areas of the company .93
Timeliness .75 .82 .60
It takes too long for AI tools to respond to my requests (RC). .60
AI tools provide information in a timely fashion .83
AI tools return answers to my requests quickly .87
Self-emotion appraisal .85 .90 .70
I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time .79
I have good understanding of my own emotions .87
I really understand what I feel .87
I always know whether or not I am happy .80
Others’ emotion appraisal .88 .90 .70
I always know my friends’ emotions from their behaviour .77
I am a good observer of others’ emotions .88
I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others .78
I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me .91
Use of emotion .84 .88 .64
I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them .81
I always tell myself I am a competent person .66
I am a self-motivated person .81
I would always encourage myself to try my best .90
Regulation of emotion .88 .91 .62
I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally .82
I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions .92
I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry .74
I have good control of my own emotions .90
Employee retention .91 .91 .78
It’s very unlikely to leave your current employer .84
It’s very unlikely you would search for a job in another organization .91
(Continued )
Table 2. (Continued).
Items Loading Alpha CR AVE
It’s very unlikely you would leave the organization within the next year. .89
Internal service performance .84 .85 .60
Adequately complete assigned duties with co-workers .78
Fulfil responsibilities specified in job descriptions .94
Perform tasks that are expected of me interacting with co-workers .72
Fulfil performance requiring teamwork with co-workers .63
External service performance .96 .96 .75
Friendliness to customers .89
Willingness to help customers .91
Having a concerned and caring attitude towards customers .90
Providing prompt customer service .87
Being capable and competent with customers’ queries and requests .88
Giving customers undivided attention .81
Being consistently courteous to customers .85
Properly handling any problems that arise .85
Understanding customers’ specific needs for hotel services .80
Table 3. Correlations and square root of AVE (diagonal).

AI EI ER TP CS
AI .84
EI .44** .82
ER .04 .24** .88
IEP .44** .57** .17** .77
EEP .49** .56** .03 .49** .87
Note: Values in bold are squared root Average variance
AI = artificial intelligence characteristics, EI = emotional intelligence, ER = employee
retention, IEP = Internal service performance, ESP = external service performance
** p < .01
Table 4. The direct effect of EI and AI.

Variables Employee Retention Internal service performance External service performance
Artificial intelligence −.08 .23** .30**
Emotional intelligence .28*** .47*** .43***
R2 .06 .37 .39
*** p < .001
Table 5. The moderation effect of AI.

Variables Employee Retention Internal service performance External service performance
AI −.07 .21*** .26***
EI .30*** .39*** .25***
EI × AI .04 −.15* −.32***
R2 .07 .39 .45
Note: * p < .05, *** p < .001, AI = Artificial intelligence, Emotional intelligence = EI
(1991), high EI/AI is measured as the value of one standard deviation above its mean and low
EI/AI is measured as the value of one standard deviation below its mean.
To gain more insights into the influence of AI and EI on the outcome variables, further
analyses were performed to understand the unique variance explained by AI and EI
dimensions (Table 6). These post-hoc analyses helped to understand the effect of each
dimension of AI/EI on employee retention and service performance. Interestingly, none of
Figure 3. The moderation effect of artificial intelligence on EI and internal service performance.
Figure 4. The moderation effect of artificial intelligence on EI and external service performance.
AI and EI dimensions had a significant effect on employee retention. In the case of

internal service performance, only the effect of self-emotional appraisal (ß = .49,
p < .001) and use of emotion (ß = .19, p < .05) were significant. For external service
performance, accuracy (ß = .19, p < .05) exerted a significant effect’ whereas the effects of
self-emotion appraisal (ß = .17, p < .05), others’ emotion appraisal (ß = .15, p < .05), and
regulation of emotion (ß = .17, p < .05) were also significant.
Discussion
EI has been popularised in both scientific and no-scientific communities as a new domain
of human intelligence to predict individual and organisational success. AI has permeated
Table 6. The influence of AI and EI dimensions on the proposed outcome

variables.
Variables ER ISP ESP
Artificial intelligence −0.02 −0.12 −0.03
Comprehensiveness −0.11 −0.06 0.04
Format 0 0.13 .19*
Accuracy 0.11 0.1 0.1
Currency 0 0.11 0.05
Reliability −0.15 0.07 0.11
Accessibility 0.19 0.11 −0.02
Flexibility 0.02 0.05 0.08
Integrity 0.03 −0.08 0.04
Timeliness
Self-emotion appraisal −0.05 .49*** .17*
Others’ emotion appraisal 0.12 −0.03 .15*
Use of emotion 0.14 .19* 0.15
Regulation of emotion 0.07 −0.01 .17*
R2 .06* .39*** .31***
Note: ER = employee retention, ISP = internal service performance, ESP = external
service performance.+
the business world as a transformational evolution utilising machines in place of human

jobs (Gursoy, 2018). The controversies over the role of AI replacing human jobs prompted
the current research to examine how human and machine intelligence respectively affect
employee retention, and internal and external service performance with a focus on the
hotel industry, given AI is broadly used in hotels and EI is critical for hospitality employ-
ees (e.g. Larivière et al., 2017; Prentice et al., 2013). The results show that EI has
a significant and larger impact on all proposed outcomes, whereas AI is deemed to have
no direct effect on employee retention, although it is significantly related to employee
performance. AI does play a moderating role in the relationships between EI and the
proposed outcome variables albeit negative. Detailed discussion of these findings are as
follows.
Emotional intelligence, employee retention and performance

EI has been widely acknowledged as a valid predictor of employee performance and job
satisfaction. Although very few studies have examined the direct impact of EI on
employee retention, this study provides evidence that employee intention to stay with
the hotel organisation is largely attributed to emotional abilities. Service employees in
most hotels, despite the prevalent use of advanced technologies, still play a significant
role in serving and interacting with customers (e.g., Larivière et al., 2017). These
interpersonal encounters with customers can at times be emotionally charged
(Prentice, 2014, 2016; Prentice & Thaichon, 2019) and play an important role in the
customer experience (Yachin, 2018). Employees with a high level of EI are able to
manage the encounter with customers and create a positive customer service experi-
ence, which affects their evaluation of employee service performance and their satisfac-
tion with the employees and the hotel itself. Numerous studies (e.g. Nasution &
Mavondo, 2008; Wu & Liang, 2009; Xiang, Schwartz, Gerdes, & Uysal, 2015) have
shown that customer experience is mostly attributed to employee service performance
over the service encounter. Each encounter experience forms cumulative impression of
the hotel service. A negative experience with a hotel employee (e.g. a receptionist,
a bellboy, a housekeeping employee) can affect the customer’s perception of the hotel.
Therefore, employees are required to perform emotional labour that requires appro-
priate acting strategies to ensure a positive customer experience. Emotional labour
strategies generate positive organisational outcomes; however, they can also have
detrimental effects on service employees given the acting requires emotional manage-
ment skills. Employees with a high level of EI suffer fewer negative consequences from
performing emotional labour, hence, have more positive attitude toward working at the
hotel. Consequently, they are more likely to stay with the hotel.
Post hoc analysis shows that only self-emotion appraisal and utilisation of emotions explain
significant variance in internal encounter performance in this study. This is plausible, given
service employees must be able to understand their own emotions and have the ability to
utilise their emotions to manage the internal encounter that involves interactions with co-
workers. Appropriately managing the internal encounter has implications for external service
performance that is aimed at satisfying customers. Subsequently, customer satisfaction with
the hotel has implications for future behaviours such as referrals, spreading word of mouth
communications, and revisiting the hotel. However, customers are not always right, and can
be emotional when their requests and demands are not fulfilled. Employees bear the onus of
managing their emotions and demands so that an optimal outcome can be reached, benefiting
both the organisation and the customers. This onus entails employees understanding their
own emotions before they are able to assess others’ emotions as indicated in self-emotion
appraisal, and then using their own emotions to guide their behaviours as indicated by the
utilisation of emotions. This capacity enhances their service performance.
On the other hand, customer satisfaction is affected by employee external service perfor-
mance, which entails the employees’ ability to appraise the emotions of oneself and others, as well
as regulating emotions as shown in the current study. To be able to perform well over each service
encounter with customers, it is important to understand their emotions, either positive or
negative. This understanding helps employees to manage emotions, turning negative emotions
to more positive emotions and to then reinforce positive emotions. For instance, an effective
service recovery strategy is to offer better service (more than expected) to a complaining
customer, or by addressing the issues in a timely manner can often lead to better customer-
related outcomes (loyalty behaviours). This is in line with observations by Ogbeide, Boser,
Harrinton, and Ottenbacher (2015), Wu, Qomariyah, Sa, and Liao (2018), and Xu and Li
(2016). Based on the different roles played by employees presented by Larivière et al. (2017),
EI can lead employees to play the role of differentiator, i.e., employees become a differentiating
attribute in service encounter situations (e.g.: Bowen, 2016; Larivière et al., 2017).
Artificial intelligence, employee retention and performance

Although it has a significant effect on employee performance, AI is not related to employee
retention in this study. The effects are less weighted compared to those exerted by EI.
Furthermore, AI has a negative moderation effect on employee job efficiency (internal service
performance) and customer satisfaction (external service performance). This finding indicates
that AI becomes a buffer in employee performance. Employees who have a higher level of EI tend
to perform better when AI is rated lower. Likewise, our results show that employees who rated
high on AI and low on EI do not perform better than those who rated low on AI but high on EI.
These findings are consistent with claims that AI is unlikely to replace human tasks (Bowen,
2016; Larivière et al., 2017; McKendrick, 2018; Mohanty, 2018). The Gartner Reports show that
AI creates more jobs than it destroys. The level of replacement is dependent upon the nature of
the jobs. Reports from the Pew Research Centre (2017) show that only low-level human jobs are
likely to be replaced by robots or AI.
Implications
The study examines the influence of EI as a human intelligence and AI as machine intelligence,
on employee retention and performance. The endeavour to achieve an optimal level of outcomes
has implications for researchers and practitioners. From a research perspective, this is the first
study to reveal the respective and integrated impacts of different types of intelligence on
organisational performance through employee behaviour (retention and performance). This
research confirms that human intelligence, compared to machine intelligence, has a dominant
influence on employees, particularly in a people-intensive industry. AI plays a moderating role in
the relationship between human intelligence and employee outcomes.
EI has been acknowledged as a valid predictor of employee attitudes and behaviours (e.g. job
performance, organisational commitment, employee retention) and the findings of this study
confirm these relationships in the hotel industry. In particular, this study extends this scope into
the customer loyalty research domain by linking EI and customer service, which may impact on
customers’ attitudes and behaviours. This study also extends the AI research that has been
primarily focused on technical and functional efficiency an organisational context to understand
its impact on employee and organisational performance. The findings provide insights into the
role of machine intelligence in employee behaviours and business efficiency.
The research has particular implications for practitioners in the broader services
industry as well as for the hotel sector. The findings provide management and the relevant
EI and AI consultants with guidelines on what should be focused on to optimise organisa-
tional performance through managing the behaviours of employees and customers.
Although AI has become a buzz word to improve business operations, it is human
intelligence with regards to emotional abilities that plays a dominant role in managing
employees and customers. In comparison, customers today still prefer to interact with
employees rather than machines or robots, which can be an instantaneous novelty. The
study confirms that AI can affect human tasks as a buffer but are not likely to replace
human jobs. Given that AI adopted in this study is a multidimensional construct, post hoc
analysis was performed to examine how each dimension moderates the relationship
between EI and the outcomes of interest. The results (in Appendix B) show that none
of AI dimensions had significant moderation effects on employee retention, but most
dimensions had negative moderation effects on employee performance. This analysis again
confirms the buffer effect of AI. The findings indicate that the effect of EI on employee
performance may be compromised when AI is intensively used in the hotels. Given that
frontline employee performance has implications for customers’ perceptions of the orga-
nisation’s service quality (Prentice, 2016), it is imperative for hotel managers to manage
the negative moderation impact of AI. For instance, most hotels use chatbots to commu-
nicate with customers. This AI tool can provide 24 hours service and improve convenience
to customers and operational efficiency. The findings in this study that AI has positive and
direct effects on performance outcomes supports the merit of AI. However, when it
interacts with employees’ EI, the effects become negative. This finding cautions managers’
to find a balance between AI applications and employee performance.
The significant impact on employees and customers exerted by EI indicates that the
organisational resources should be allocated for training to enhance employee emotional
competence as it is understood that effective EI can be a learnt behaviour (Schutte, Malouff &
Thorsteinsson, 2013). EI training not only improves employee performance but may also
minimise the detrimental effects on employees caused by emotional labour given that front-
line employees in the hospitality industry (e.g. hotels) perform emotional work (see Prentice,
Chen & King, 2013). These factors suggest that EI should also be incorporated into staff
recruitment. These findings are consistent with those of Hewagama, Boxall, Cheung, and
Hutchison (2019) and Yao et al. (2019). Management should identify the tasks that AI is able
to perform so that human resources can be optimised for other tasks.
Limitations and future research

The researchers made every endeavour to ensure the rigorousness of this study. However,
collecting data on employees from multiple hotels was not an easy task. There are some
limitations we would like to acknowledge. First, despite the justification of self-reported perfor-
mance that only employees themselves would understand how they have accomplished their job
tasks, we understand that other objective ratings may be more ideal. It is also acknowledged that
the number of employees from different hotels differs. A similar portion of employees from each
hotel may help to compare the findings among hotels. Customer service was also rated by
employees however dyadic ratings (i.e. one customer vs one employee who have had interac-
tions) may provide greater insight. The research could also be approached from a customers’
perspective to better understand their perceptions and experience with services performed by
employees and/or services by AI. Finally, the data were only collected in hotels in Portugal.
Although Portugal presents high standards of hospitality, winning several World and European
Travel Awards in 2018 (e.g.: World’s Leading City Hotel, World’s Leading Classic Hotel, World’s
Leading Design Hotel, World’s Leading Fine Dining Hotel Restaurant, Europe’s Leading All-
inclusive Resort, Europe’s Leading Beach Resort, Europe’s Leading Boutique Resort, Europe’s
Leading Family Resort, Europe’s Leading Lifestyle Hotel & Villas, Europe’s Leading Meetings &
Conference Hotel, Europe’s Most Romantic Resort), the findings may be limited to this region.
Future research should review these aspects to improve rigorousness and generalisability.
ORCID
Catherine Prentice http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7700-3889
Sergio Dominique Lopes http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4574-7154
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, USA: Sage.
Akehurst, G. (2009). User generated content: The use of blogs for tourism organisations and
tourism consumers. Service Business, 3, 51–61. doi:10.1007/s11628-008-0054-2
Amdurer, E., Boyatzis, R. E., Saatcioglu, A., Smith, M. L., & Taylor, S. N. (2014). Long term impact
of emotional, social and cognitive intelligence competencies and GMAT on career and life
satisfaction and career success. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1447. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01447
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in
organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4),
441–452. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health correlates of
trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(3), 547–558. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2004.05.009
Bardzil, P., & Slaski, M. (2003). Emotional intelligence: Fundamental competencies for enhanced
service provision. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 13(2), 97–104.
doi:10.1108/09604520310466789
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQI): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Bastian, V. A., Burns, N. R., & Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Emotional intelligence predicts life skills, but
not as well as personality and cognitive abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6),
1135–1145. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.006
Bolton, C., Machova, V., Kovacova, M., & Valaskova, K. (2018). The power of human-machine
collaboration: Artificial Intelligence, business automation, and the smart economy. Economics,
Management, and Financial Markets, 13(4), 51–56. doi:10.22381/EMFM13420184
Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., … Solnet, D.
(2013). Understanding generation Y and their use of social media: A review and research agenda.
Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245–267. doi:10.1108/09564231311326987
Bowen, D. E. (2016). The changing role of employees in service theory and practice: An inter-
disciplinary view. Human Resource Management Review, 26(1), 4–13. doi:10.1016/j.
hrmr.2015.09.002
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental Validity of
Competing Measures of Emotional Intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9),
1147–1158. doi:10.1177/0146167203254596
Brown, W. A., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in employee
retention. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(1), 5–18. doi:10.1002/nml.v14:1
Buhalis, D., & Leung, R. (2018). Smart hospitality – Interconnectivity and interoperability towards
an ecosystem. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 71, 41–50. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2017.11.011
Burgard, W., Cremers, A. B., Fox, D., Hahnel, D., Lakemeyer, G., Schulz, D., … Thrun, S. (1999).
Experiences with an interactive museum tour-guide robot. Artificial Intelligence, 114, 3–55.
doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00070-3
Camacho, D., Borrajo, D., & Molina, J. M. (2001). Intelligent travel planning: A multiagent planning
system to solve web problems in the e-tourism domain. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent
Systems, 4, 387–392. doi:10.1023/A:1012767210241
Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The relationship among emotional intelligence, task perfor-
mance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Human Performance, 19(4), 403–419.
doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1904_5
Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Relation of an ability measure of emotional
intelligence to personality. Journal of personality assessment, 79(2), 306-320.
Chang, S., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the Editors: Common method variance
in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.
doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.88
Chui, M., Manyika, J., & Miremadi, M. (2016). Where machines could replace humans—And where
they can’t (yet). https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights
/where-machines-could-replace-humans-and-where-they-cant-yet
Chung, M., Ko, E., Joung, H., & Kim, S. J. (2018). Chatbot e-service and customer satisfaction
regarding luxury brands. Journal of Business Research, in press, corrected proof...
Churchill, G. A., Jr., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (1985). The determinants of
salesperson performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 103–118.
doi:10.1177/002224378502200201
Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional
intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(3), 539–561. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(99)00119-1
Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional Intelligence and learning in teams. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22
(3), 125–145. doi:10.1108/13665621011028594
Coetzee, M., & Harry, N. (2014). Emotional Intelligence as a predictor of employees’ career
adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 84(1), 90–97. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.09.001
Cote, S., & Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 1–28. doi:10.2189/asqu.51.1.1
D’Amato, A., & Herzfeldt, R. (2008). Learning orientation, organizational commitment and talent
retention across generations: A study of European managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
23(8), 929–953. doi:10.1108/02683940810904402
Darvishmotevali, M., Altinay, L., & De Vita, G. (2018). Emotional intelligence and creative
performance: Looking through the lens of environmental uncertainty and cultural intelligence.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 73, 44–54. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.014
Fitness, J. (2001). Emotional intelligence and intimate relationships. Emotional intelligence in
everyday life 98–112).
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382–388.
doi:10.1177/002224378101800313
Forsgren, N., Durcikova, A., Clay, P. F., & Wang, X. (2016). The Integrated user satisfaction model:
Assessing information quality and system quality as second-order constructs in system
administration. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 38, 803–839.
doi:10.17705/1cais.
Garcia, I., Sebastia, L., & Onaindia, E. (2011). On the design of individual and group recommender
systems for tourism. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7683–7692. doi:10.1016/j.
eswa.2010.12.143
Garrido, P., Barrachina, J., Martinez, F. J., & Seron, F. J. (2017). Smart tourist information points by
combining agents, semantics and AI techniques. Computer Science and Information Systems, 14
(1), 1–23. doi:10.2298/CSIS150410029G
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human
Relations, 53(8), 1027–1055. doi:10.1177/0018726700538001
Ghahramani, Z. (2015). Probabilistic machine learning and artificial intelligence. Nature, 521(7553),
452. doi:10.1038/nature14541
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, USA: Bantam Books.
Gupta, R., & Bajaj, B. (2017). The relationship between leader’s emotional intelligence and employee
creativity: A conceptual framework of mechanism. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 471–477.
doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.395
Gursoy, D. (2018). Future of hospitality marketing and management research. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 25, 185–188. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.008
Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability:
An empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(4), 27–42.
doi:10.1108/09564239610129931
He, D., & Guo, V. (2018, September 14). 4 ways AI will impact the financial job market. World
Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/4-ways-ai-artificial-intelligence-
impact-financial-job-market/. Retrieved from
Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1994). Putting the
service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164–174.
Hewagama, G., Boxall, P., Cheung, G., & Hutchison, A. (2019). Service recovery through empow-
erment? HRM, employee performance and job satisfaction in hotels. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 81, 73–82. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.03.006
Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21
(2), 155–172. doi:10.1177/1094670517752459
Ivanov, S. H., & Webster, C. (2017). Adoption of robots, artificial intelligence and service automation
by travel, tourism and hospitality companies – A cost-benefit analysis. International Scientific
Conference Contemporary Tourism – Traditions and Innovations. Sofia: Sofia University.
Iverson, R. D., & Maguire, C. (2000). The relationship between job and life satisfaction: Evidence from
a remote mining community. Human Relations, 53(6), 807–839. doi:10.1177/0018726700536003
Jayachandran, S, Sharma, S, Kaufman, P, & Raman, P. (2005). The role of relational information processes
and technology use in customer relationship management. Journal Of Marketing, 69(4), 177-192.
Johnson, J. W., & Lebreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7(3), 238–257. doi:10.1177/
1094428104266510
Kafetsios, K., & Zampetakis, L. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: Testing the
mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work. Personality and Individual Differences, 44
(3), 712–722. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.004
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the
interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62,
15–25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004
Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of work and
family conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4),
337–346.
Kernbach, S., & Schutte, N. S. (2005). The impact of service provider emotional intelligence on
customer satisfaction. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 438–444. doi:10.1108/
08876040510625945
Kim, N., & Schwartz, Z. (2013). The Accuracy of Tourism Forecasting and Data Characteristics: A
Meta-Analytical Approach. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22(4), 349–374.
doi:10.1080/19368623.2011.651196
Kim, S. Y. (2011). Prediction of hotel bankruptcy using support vector machine, artificial neural
network, logistic regression, and multivariate discriminant analysis. The Service Industries
Journal, 31(3), 441–468. doi:10.1080/02642060802712848
Kim, T., Jung-Eun Yoo, J., Lee, G., & Kim, J. (2012). Emotional intelligence and emotional labor
acting strategies among frontline hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 24(7), 1029–1046. doi:10.1108/09596111211258900
Kirkpatrick, K. (2017). AI in Contact Centers. Communications of the ACM, 60(8), 18–19.
doi:10.1145/3127343
Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of
instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of
Management, 21(4), 657–669. doi:10.1177/014920639502100404
Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of Marketing
Research, 53, 497–514. doi:10.1509/jmr.15.0044
Larivière, B., Bowen, D., Andreassen, T. W., Kunz, W., Sirianni, N. J., Voss, C., … De Keyser, A.
(2017). “Service Encounter 2.0”: An investigation into the roles of technology, employees and
customers. Journal of Business Research, 79, 238–246. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.008
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Huang, G. H., & Li, X. (2008). The effects of emotional intelligence on job
performance and life satisfaction for the research and development scientists in China. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, 25(1), 51–69. doi:10.1007/s10490-007-9062-3
Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of Emotional
Intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3),
483–496. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.483
Lee, J. J., & Ok, C. (2012). Reducing burnout and enhancing job satisfaction: Critical role of hotel
employees’ emotional intelligence and emotional labor. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 31(4), 1101–1112. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.01.007
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
Ma, Y., Xiang, Z., Du, Q., & Fan, W. (2018). Effects of user-provided photos on hotel review
helpfulness: An analytical approach with deep leaning. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 71, 120–131. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.12.008
Manyika, J., Lund, S., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Woetzel, J., Batra, P., … Sanghvi, S. (2017). Jobs lost,
jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages. https://www.mckinsey.
com/featured-insights/future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-
for-jobs-skills-and-wages
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence. Emotional Development and
Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications, 3, 31.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard
intelligence. Emotion, 1(3), 232–242.
McKendrick, J. (2018, August 14). Artificial intelligence will replace tasks, not jobs. Forbes.
Published on https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2018/08/14/artificial-intelligence-will-
replace-tasks-not-jobs/#2b2fda7ba7fa
Mohanty, P. (2018, July 6). Do you fear artificial intelligence will take your job? Forbes. 6 https://
www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2018/07/06/do-you-fear-artificial-intelligence-will-take-your-job
/#7b4fda0c11aa
Moravčík, M., Schmid, M., Burch, N., Lisý, V., Morrill, D., Bard, N., … Bowling, M. (2017).
Deepstack: Expert-level artificial intelligence in heads-up no-limit poker. Science, 356(6337),
508–513. doi:10.1126/science.aam6960
Morikawa, M. (2017). Who are afraid of losing their jobs to artificial intelligence and robots? Evidence
from a survey. Japan: Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
Nasution, H. N., & Mavondo, F. T. (2008). Customer value in the hotel industry: What managers
believe they deliver and what customer experience. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 27(2), 204–213. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.02.003
Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects on
occupational stress and organizational commitment. The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 10(4), 327–342. doi:10.1108/eb028956
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492
OECD (2016). Automation and independent work in a digital economy. https://www.oecd.org/
employment/Policy%20brief%20-%20Automation%20and%20Independent%20Work%20in%20a
%20Digital%20Economy.pdf
Ogbeide, G., Boser, S., Harrinton, R., & Ottenbacher, M. (2015). Complaint management in
hospitality organizations: The role empowerment and other service recovery attributes impacting
loyalty and satisfaction. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17, 204–216. doi:10.1177/
1467358415613409
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Poon, J. M. (2004). Career commitment and career success: Moderating role of emotion perception.
Career Development International, 9(4), 374–390. doi:10.1108/13620430410544337
Prentice, C. (2014). Who stays, who walks, and why in high-intensity service contexts. Journal of
Business Research, 67(4), 608–614. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.044
Prentice, C. (2016). Leveraging employee emotional intelligence in casino profitability. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 33, 127–134. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.011
Prentice, C., Chen, P. J., & King, B. (2013). Employee performance outcomes and burnout following
the presentation-of-self in customer-service contexts. International Journal of Hospitality
Prentice, C, Chen, P-J, & King, B. (2013). Employee performance outcomes and burnout following
the presentation-of-self in customer-service contexts. International Journal Of Hospitality
Management, 35, 225-236.
Prentice, C., & King, B. (2011). The influence of emotional intelligence on the service performance
of casino frontline employees. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(1), 49–66. doi:10.1057/
thr.2010.21
Prentice, C., & King, B. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence in a hierarchical relationship: Evidence for
frontline service personnel. Services Marketing Quarterly, 33(1), 34–48. doi:10.1080/
15332969.2012.633426
Prentice, C., & Thaichon, P. (2019). Revisiting the job performance – Burnout relationship. Journal
of Hospitality Marketing & Management. doi:10.1080/19368623.2019.1568340
Ramaswamy, S. (2017). How companies are already using AI. Harvard Business Review, 14(April),
2017. https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-companies-are-already-using-ai
Rijsdijk, S. A., Hultink, E. J., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2007). Product intelligence: Its conceptualiza-
tion, measurement and impact on consumer satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 35, 340–356. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0040-6
Robinson, M. (2017, June 13). This robot-powered restaurant is one step closer to putting fast-food
workers out of a job. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/momentum-machines-funding-robot-
burger-restaurant-2017-6
Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E., & Parker, R. S. (2004). Customer-oriented selling: Exploring the roles
of emotional intelligence and organizational commitment. Psychology & Marketing, 21(6),
405–424. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6793
Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Malaysia: Pearson
Education Limited.
Russell Stuart, J., & Norvig, P. (2009). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. USA: Prentice Hall.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource
Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, the University
of Michigan and in Alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 43(4), 395–407.
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-050X
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9
(3), 185–211. doi:10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., & Wendorf, G.
(2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141
(4), 523–536. doi:10.1080/00224540109600569
Schutte, N. S, Malouff, J. M, & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2013). Increasing emotional intelligence
through training: current status and future directions. International Journal Of Emotional
Education, 5(1), 56.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2007). A
meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 921–933. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.003
Serbanescu, L., & Necsulescu, C. (2013). Improving the performance and efficiency of tavel agencies
with IT technology. Lucrări Ştiinţifice, VOL.XV (4), Seria I.
Shi, Y., Prentice, C., & He, W. (2014). Linking service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty in
casinos, does membership matter? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 81–91.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.03.013
Simon, H. A. (1980). Cognitive science: The newest science of the artificial. Cognitive Science, 4(1),
33–46. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0401_2
Sjobert, L, Littorin, P, & Engelberg, E. (2005). Personality and emotional intelligence as factors in
sales performance. Scandinavian Journal Of Organizational Theory and Practice, 15(2), 21-37.
Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2017). Automation in everyday life. Pew Research Centre. http://www.
pewinternet.org/2017/10/04/automation-in-everyday-life/
Solomon, M. (2016, March 18). Technology invades hospitality industry: Hilton robot, Domino
delivery droid, Ritz-Carlton mystique. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/
micahsolomon/2016/03/18/high-tech-hospitality-hilton-robot-concierge-dominos-delivery-droid
-ritz-carlton-mystique/#25a0730b120b
Sony, M., & Mekoth, N. (2016). The relationship between emotional intelligence, frontline
employee adaptability, job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 30, 20–32. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.12.003
Sy, T., Tram, S., & O’Hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence
to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 461–473. doi:10.1016/
j.jvb.2005.10.003
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Tata Consultancy Services, TCS (2017). Reimagining the enterprise. Annual report 2016-17. https://
www.tcs.com/content/dam/tcs/investor-relations/financial-statements/2016-17/ar/TCS%
20Annual%20Report%202016-2017.pdf
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of
predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 71–95.
doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00076-9
Wang, F., Lin, H., Tu, W., Wang, Y., & Huang, Y. (2015). Energy Modelling and Chillers Sizing of
HVAC System for a Hotel Building. Procedia Engineering, 121, 1812–1818. doi:10.1016/j.
proeng.2015.09.161
Wirth, N. (2018). Hello marketing, what can artificial intelligence help you with? International
Journal of Marketing Research, 60(5), 435–438.
Wirtz, J., Patterson, P. G., Kunz, W. H., Gruber, T., Lu, V. N., Paluch, S., & Martins, A. (2018).
Brave new world: Service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907–931.
doi:10.1108/JOSM-04-2018-0119
Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology
acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102. doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0042
Wu, C. H. J., & Liang, R. D. (2009). Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction with service
encounters in luxury-hotel restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4),
586–593. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.03.008
Wu, W., Qomariyah, A., Sa, N. T. T., & Liao, Y. (2018). The Integration between service value and
service recovery in the hospitality industry: An application of QFD and ANP. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 75, 48–57. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.010
Xiang, Z., Schwartz, Z., Gerdes, J. H., Jr, & Uysal, M. (2015). What can big data and text analytics
tell us about hotel guest experience and satisfaction? International Journal of Hospitality
Xu, X., & Li, Y. (2016). The antecedents of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction toward various
types of hotels: A text mining approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55,
57–69. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.03.003
Yachin, J. M. (2018). The “customer journey”: Learning from customers in tourism experience
encounters. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28, 201–210. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2018.09.002
Yao, S., Wang, X., Yu, H., & Guchait, P. (2019). Effectiveness of error management training in the
hospitality industry: Impact on perceived fairness and service recovery performance.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 79, 78–88. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.12.009
Yu, C. (2019). Humanlike robots as employees in the hotel industry: Thematic content analysis of
online reviews. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. doi:10.1080/
19368623.2019.1592733
Yu, G., & Schwartz, Z. (2006). Forecasting short time-series tourism demand with artificial
intelligence models. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 194–203. doi:10.1177/0047287506291594
Zanker, M., Fuchs, M., Höpken, W., Tuta, M., & Müller, N. (2008). Evaluating recommender
systems in tourism - a case study from Austria. In: P. O’Connor et al. (Hrsg.) Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism, Proceedings ENTER (pp. 24–34).
Appendix A. Applications of AI
Table A1. AI applications in industries

Sector Description of use Example
Banking Digital banking opportunities, Players/brands have Online banking apps for smartphones, Chatbots
to be more helpful, available, relevant that deal with customers, Banking behaviour
analysis tools
Recruitment Smart computers are able to analyse considerable Job recommendation apps, search tools
amount of data (e.g.: company details, culture
codes, hiring trends)
Agriculture Farmers use drones in order to monitor the Drones, cameras, software to estimate total milk
condition of the soil. This way they are able to production
understand if soils need watering or seeding
Healthcare Data management and analysis allow better The Electronic Patient Record and machine learning
healthcare services can predict disease outcomes, Heart rate monitors,
Insulin pumps, Other medical apps
Transit Sensors allow transit providers to predict to predict Self-driving cars, Real time information apps, Maps
wear and to avoid accidents from Apple, Google Maps
Figure A1. The use of artificial intelligence in worldwide companies (Tata Consultancy Services, 2017).
Appendix B. The Moderation Effect of Dimensions of AI
Variables ER ISP ESP

Comprehensiveness −.05 .11* .17**
EI .26*** .46*** .34***
EI × Comprehensiveness .00 −.16** −.33***
R2 .06 .37 .44
Format −.11 .11* .19***
EI .30*** .48*** .33***
EI × Format .02 −.10 −.28***
R2 .07 .35 .42
Accuracy −.08 .17** .24***
EI .27*** .43*** .29***
EI × Accuracy .00 −.13* −.32***
R2 .06 .37 .45
Currency −.05 .15** .22***
EI .30*** .34*** .32***
EI × Currency .05 −.25*** −.21**
R2 .06 .38 .38
Reliability −.06 .21*** .21***
EI .29*** .43*** .30***
EI × Reliability .04 −.11 −.32***
R2 .06 .38 .44
Accessibility −.11 .23*** .20***
EI .32*** .35*** .26***
EI × Accessibility .05 −.19** −.33***
R2 .07 .40 .42
Flexibility .00 .21*** .17**
EI .28*** .42*** .31***
EI × Flexibility .07 −.13* −.34***
R2 .06 .39 .43
Integrity −.03 .19*** .19***
EI .28*** .45*** .33***
EI × Integrity .06 −.11 −.30***
R2 .06 .37 .42
Timeliness −.04 .17** .24***
EI .31*** .40*** .28***
EI × Timeliness .09 −.18** −.32***
R2 .07 .38 .43
Note: ER = employee retention, ISP = internal service performance, ESP = external service performance, Emotional
intelligence = EI.

Emotional intelligence or artificial intelligence an employee perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emotional intelligence or artificial intelligence an employee perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management

ISSN: 1936-8623 (Print) 1936-8631 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/whmm20

Emotional intelligence or artificial intelligence– an

Catherine Prentice, Sergio Dominique Lopes & Xuequn Wang

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1647124

Published online: 14 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 23606

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 104 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Emotional intelligence or artiﬁcial intelligence– an employee

including job satisfaction, performance, organisational commitment (Kafetsios & Zampetakis,

H1a. Emotional intelligence is signiﬁcantly and positively related to employee

H1b: EI is signiﬁcantly and positively related to internal service performance.

H1c: EI is signiﬁcantly and positively related to external service performance.

The study model is shown in Figure 2.

Artificial External Service

Figure 2. Research model.

Data collection procedure

Common method variance

Table 1. Demographic description of respondents.

Data analysis and results

Table 2. Conﬁrmatory factor analyses results.

Table 3. Correlations and square root of AVE (diagonal).

Table 4. The direct eﬀect of EI and AI.

Table 5. The moderation eﬀect of AI.

AI and EI dimensions had a signiﬁcant eﬀect on employee retention. In the case of

Table 6. The inﬂuence of AI and EI dimensions on the proposed outcome

the business world as a transformational evolution utilising machines in place of human

Emotional intelligence, employee retention and performance

Artiﬁcial intelligence, employee retention and performance

Limitations and future research

Table A1. AI applications in industries

Appendix B. The Moderation Eﬀect of Dimensions of AI

Variables ER ISP ESP

You might also like