Effects of recovery experiences on hotel employees’ subjective well-being

International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Effects of recovery experiences on hotel employees’ subjective well-being Kwang-Ho Lee a,1 , Seung-Woo Choo b,2 , Sunghyup Sean Hyun c,∗ a b c

Hospitality and Food Management, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Ball State University, 2000 W. University Avenue, Muncie IN 47306, USA Department of Hotel & Convention Management, Dong Eui University, #995, Eomgwangno, Busangin gu, Busan 614 714, Republic of Korea School of Tourism, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-dong, Seongdonggu, Seoul 133-791, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 19 September 2014 Received in revised form 11 February 2015 Accepted 8 April 2015 Keywords: Recovery Experience Scale Organization-based self-esteem Job dedication Career satisfaction Life satisfaction

a b s t r a c t This study focuses on the occupational well-being process in the formation of hotel employees’ subjective well-being based on the recovery experience scale (RES). More specifically, the study (1) evaluates the construct validity of the RES in the hotel sector and (2) examines structural relationships between the RES, organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), job dedication (JOD), career satisfaction (CAS), and life satisfaction (LIS) in a heuristic model. To test the hypotheses, a total of 376 hotel employees were considered in an empirical analysis using a two-step SEM approach. The results verify sufficient validity for the four RES factors and reveal that all recovery experiences, namely psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery experiences, and control, predicted OBSE. In addition, OBSE had positive effects on JOD, CAS, and LIS, and JOD and CAS had significant positive effects on LIS. These results have important implications, and the study’s limitations provide some interesting avenues for future research. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The ultimate goal of people’s daily lives is to maintain some level of subjective well-being (King et al., 1998). This social paradigm leads to the importance of and need for organizational endeavors for both employees and consumers in research on transformative services (Rosenbaum et al., 2011), which has pointed out individuals’ pursuit of occupational and subjective well-being in their professional lives (e.g., Siltaloppi et al., 2009). However, an unsolved problem of diverse occupational groups (e.g., general practitioners, teachers, and nurses) is related to occupational stress and strain, which can stimulate the necessity of an individual’s recovery experience (Chan et al., 2000). In this sense, organizational theorists have focused on recovery experiences enabling employees to restore their energy resources (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007), which can ultimately lead to the formation of subjective well-being (Cuyper et al., 2008; Simon et al., 2010) as well as the quality delivery of customer service (Gilboa et al., 2008).

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2220 0862; fax: +82 2 2281 4554. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.-H. Lee), [email protected] (S.-W. Choo), [email protected] (S.S. Hyun). 1 Tel.: +1 765 285 7610; fax: +1 765 285 2314. 2 Tel.: +82 51 890 2550; fax: +82 51 890 2613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.04.002 0278-4319/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In an organizational setting, recovery experiences, the initial process in which subjective well-being is formed, are used to understand behavioral patterns of individuals’ recovery activities during their off-work days. Because of its crucial function, the recovery experience scale (RES) has been highlighted mainly in the science of service, including salient subdimensions of psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery experiences, and control (e.g., Bakker et al., 2014; Kinnunen et al., 2011; Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007; Shimazu et al., 2012). These recovery experiences make it possible for employees to not only return to their pre-stressor levels but also maintain their levels of subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction) (Siltaloppi et al., 2009). This indicates that employees with favorable recovery experiences are likely to be satisfied with their psychological subjective well-being. Given this recognition, the application of the RES has been activated in the context of diverse countries such as Germany (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007), Spain (Sanz-Vergel et al., 2010), Finland (Kinnunen et al., 2011), Japan (Shimazu et al., 2012), and the Netherlands (Bakker et al., 2014). However, it remains arguable whether the RES contains either a three-factor trait version (i.e., psychological detachment, relaxation, and mastery experiences) or a four-factor trait version (i.e., psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery experiences, and control). Therefore, the validity of the RES must be identified in new areas of research. In recognition of potential advantages of using recovery experiences, a number of studies have focused on a deeper understanding

2

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

of the formation of employees’ subjective well-being as part of the broader interest in the service sector (Diener et al., 2003, 2009). More specifically, the concept of organization-based self-esteem may play a crucial role as a potential predictor or consequence of occupational well-being (Bowling et al., 2010). In addition, salient components of occupational well-being, such as work engagement (i.e., job dedication) (Rothmann, 2008; Shimazu et al., 2012) and job/career satisfaction (Burke, 2001; Rothmann, 2008), should be understood as determinants of the formation of subjective wellbeing, including life satisfaction. In this regard, one interesting but untouched issue is the causal order of prominent dimensions of subjective well-being in a comprehensive model. Among various types of service organizations in the hospitality industry, hotel work has been regarded as a stressful occupation because of frequent exposure to long working hours, inflexible work schedules, and demanding customers (e.g., Chiang et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2011), among others, which implies that job stressors may deteriorate life satisfaction (subjective well-being) among hotel employees. According to O’Neill and Davis (2011), the nature of hotel employees’ unfavorable situations pertains to work arguments, interpersonal tension, employee/co-worker stressors, hotel guest stressors, and work overload. Because of stressful situations in the hotel sector, employees may actively pursue recovery experiences to replenish new energetic and psychological resources during off-work days. This reveals that employers should offer optimal support for employees in terms of recovery experiences. Despite this, there is paucity in the current literature of empirical research focused on recovery experiences and their potential outcomes, particularly in the hospitality industry. Consequently, it is important to identify the role of recovery experiences through occupational well-being dimensions in the formation of life satisfaction in the hotel sector context. In sum, this study assumes that four factors of recovery experiences, namely psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery experiences, and control, reflect a phase in the development of subsequent well-being outcomes in their casual order, suggesting that they precede organization-based self-esteem, job dedication, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Therefore, this study (1) examines the construct validity of these four factors associated with recovery experiences of hotel employees and (2) tests structural relationships between salient constructs in the formation of subjective well-being based on the RES. The results provide guidelines for organizational support based on employees’ recovery experiences such that they can maintain occupational and overall subjective well-being in the hotel sector.

2. Theoretical background 2.1. Recovery experiences Recovery experiences can be viewed as an individual strategy devoted to restoring individuals’ energy resources and maintaining their psychological and subjective well-being, which can be helpful in stressful organizational situations. The RES can be divided into two types as follows: (1) a three-factor version of the RES (TFRES) and (2) a four-factor version (FF-RES). At first glance, some studies have shed light on the importance of TF-RES, including psychological detachment, relaxation, and mastery experiences during off-work hours in a variety of research areas (Fritz et al., 2010; Oreyzi and Amiri, 2013). In addition, FF-RES has been found to offer good psychometric properties by adding the experience of control to TF-RES in diverse workplaces (Bakker et al., 2014; Kinnunen et al., 2011; Shimazu et al., 2012; Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007). To the authors’ knowledge, FF-RES is effective for employees in the hotel context. However, it remains unclear whether the RES is composed

of the three- or four-aspect subdimension structure. Therefore, this study examines the structural validity of the RES for hotel employees in FF-RES. In this regard, the four factors of recovery experiences are now discussed in greater detail. Many studies have pointed out the concept of psychological detachment as a key dimension of recovery experiences in different organizations. According to previous studies, psychological detachment refers to an individual’s effort to be absent from work situations without any physical and psychological engagement in work tasks during off-job hours (e.g., Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007). As a recovery strategy for regaining new sources of energy, psychological detachment from the workplace allows employees to neglect current or future work demands, which offers opportunities for restoring self-regulatory resources (Hahn and Dormann, 2013). More specifically, those who feel a strong sense of psychological detachment tend to avoid work-related tasks and activities, such as receiving job-related phone calls, reading e-mail messages at home, and thinking about work and job-related problems or opportunities, which can impede the detachment process (Sonnentag et al., 2010; Kinnunen et al., 2011; Shimazu et al., 2012). As a result, psychological detachment is used as a dimension of recovery experiences in the hotel sector. Relaxation has been acknowledged as an important dimension of recovery experiences in human resource management research (Stone et al., 1995; Kinnunen et al., 2011; Oreyzi and Amiri, 2013; Shimazu et al., 2012). Relaxation can be defined as a process of doing some non-demanding activities during off-job hours (Pelletier, 2004), such as taking time off for leisure activities, relaxing, and doing other relaxing activities (Oreyzi and Amiri, 2013; Shimazu et al., 2012). In an organizational setting, relaxation occurs when employees are confronted with off-job hours without any requirements for physical or mental efforts for work-related tasks (Tinsley and Eldredge, 1995). An advantage of relaxation in employees’ recovery experiences is the potential to facilitate employee well-being at work, which can help reduce sympathetic activation (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007) or increase positive affective experiences (Fritz et al., 2010; Smith, 2005). Therefore, employees attempt to arrive at a state of relaxation during off-job hours in the hotel sector. Mastery experiences refer to the extent to which an individual pursues a mastery-related activity during off-job hours/days, such as learning new knowledge (e.g., new service or language skills) (Fritz and Sonnentag, 2006; Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007). Mastery experiences can produce an individual’s sense of recovery achievement, which can help him or her overcome the challenges of a situation in which he or she is confronted with unfamiliar and/or monotonous work tasks (Shimazu et al., 2012). The core function of mastery experiences is closely associated with employees’ improvements with respect to affective experiences and energy levels outside of the workplace (Sonnentag, 2001; Sonnentag and Natter, 2004; Thayer et al., 1994). Thus, employees that engage in favorable mastery-related activities during off-job hours/days are more likely to recover their energy by either gaining new knowledge or doing activities that challenge them. These activities allow them to unwind from stressful situations at work and enhance their levels of competence and self-efficacy when performing their given tasks in an organization (Bakker et al., 2014). In light of the aforementioned discussion, mastery experiences can be considered a key dimension of recovery experiences in the hotel sector. Control in off-work hours is defined as the extent to which an individual believes that he or she can decide on something to do for off-day schedules without being concerned about others in a variety of settings. Experiencing control includes relaxing and perceiving temporarily release from work while being at home or other relaxing places, which may fulfill the individual desire and need for autonomy or control. In addition, the recovery experience of control

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

during regular off-work days offers individuals preferred opportunities for selecting specific leisure activities (Shimazu et al., 2012), and therefore they can recover from their stressors during vacations or holidays. Despite the crucial role of control in recovery experiences, few studies have addressed the question of whether control benefits from these experiences (Sonnentag et al., 2008a,b). In this regard, this study assumes that control in regular off-work days may enable employees to unwind from their stressful situations at work and may be a key dimension of recovery experiences in the hotel sector. 2.2. Organization-based self-esteem Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), conceptualized by Pierce et al. (1989), can be defined as the extent to which an individual believes that he or she is important, valuable, and cooperative in a specific workplace. Subsequently, Baumeister and Leary (1995) illustrated OBSE based on behavioral plasticity theory and demonstrated the role of self-esteem in the relationship between role-conditions (e.g., situations) and behavioral outcomes (performance or satisfaction). Given this, the measure of OBSE may be based on an individual’s self-perception of his or her worth and competence after joining a given organization as an organizational member (Back et al., 2011; Kang et al., 2010; Pierce and Gardner, 2004; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007), which clearly reveals the distinct difference between OBSE and general self-esteem. More importantly, Jian et al. (2012) emphasized the importance of OBSE as a mediator of front-line employees’ service performance in the hotel industry. Despite the critical role of OBSE in organizational research, few service studies have focused on the role of OBSE, particularly in the context of the hotel industry. This study assumes OBSE as a core factor in the occupational well-being process for hotel employees and considers it to refer to the level of employees’ self-perception of their worth and competence as an organizational member. 2.3. Job dedication According to engagement theory, job engagement is a key component of occupational well-being in the domain of occupational behavior (Pienaar and Willemse, 2008; Rothmann, 2008; Shimazu et al., 2012). Here it specifically includes the underlying dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption. In particular, job dedication is considered a key dimension determining an individual’s level of occupational well-being in a given organization (Kinnunen et al., 2011; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008). In this regard, Grant (2008) posited that dedicated employees are more likely to invest time for a task and pretest to overcome obstacles to complete a task in spontaneous contributions. These endeavors allow employees to feel a strong sense of identification with their organizations (Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008), leading them to experience some job-related significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Siltaloppi et al., 2009). However, little is known about the concept of job dedication as a potential component of occupational well-being in the realm of organizations. Therefore, as a valid index of occupational well-being, this study regards job dedication as self-disciplined and commitment-driven behavior of hotel employees. 2.4. Career satisfaction Previous studies have used the terms “job satisfaction” and “career satisfaction” as an index of employees’ career success to represent the utility of their role as occupational well-being in today’s working life. Although both satisfaction measures are important in service research, career satisfaction is more effective

3

than job satisfaction in terms of measuring employees’ psychological and subjective progress, which is consistent with their career goals and value in a given organization (Ng et al., 2005). Therefore, this study employs career satisfaction as a component of the occupational well-being process in an organizational setting. Career satisfaction, suggested by Greenhaus et al. (1990), is viewed as an important measure of employees’ self-evaluation of their overall career success (Burke, 2001; Gattiker and Larwood, 1988). In this regard, career satisfaction has served as a criterion variable in occupational well-being research on employees’ career dynamics (Burke, 2001; Rothmann, 2008). For example, several studies have pointed out career satisfaction in terms of an individual’s self-evaluation (subjective dimension) of career progress in a given workplace (Arthur et al., 2005; Barnett and Bradley, 2007; Kong et al., 2012; Ng et al., 2005; Seibert et al., 2001), which can help measure his or her self-perception of career progress as a whole. Given the literature on career (or job) satisfaction, this study defines career satisfaction as employees’ self-perception of their career progress, accomplishments, and anticipated outcomes and considers it as a type of occupational well-being component. 2.5. Life satisfaction Previous studies have focused on the importance of subjective well-being, revealing individuals’ emotional and cognitive evaluation of their lives, including life satisfaction and happiness (Diener et al., 2003). As an overarching criterion of human experience (e.g., Andrews, 1974), life satisfaction has become a crucial issue in subjective well-being because of its close relationship with life success (Diener et al., 2009). Many studies have assessed the concept of life satisfaction in favor of a subjective judgment about one’s quality of life (Diener et al., 1985; Pavot and Diener, 1993) based on the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). In this sense, subsequent studies have pinpointed that life satisfaction can be used as a proxy for the quality of one’s life as a whole (McDowell, 2010; Hakanen and Schaufeli, 2012). This study defines life satisfaction as the level of employees’ cognitive perception of their subjective well-being. 3. Hypotheses and the conceptual model 3.1. Recovery experience factors and OBSE Employers attempt to provide their employees with a variety of organizational services in terms of human resource management. Following the validation of FF-RES (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007), subsequent studies have examined the effects of various recovery experience factors, including psychological detachment (Bowling et al., 2010; Fritz et al., 2010), relaxation (Fritz et al., 2010), mastery experiences (Ben-Zur, 2002; Benight and Bandura, 2004), and control (Bean et al., 2003; Bowling et al., 2010), on cognitive perceptions (e.g., self-esteem) in organizational contexts. First, previous studies have verified evidence for the positive relationship between psychological detachment and OBSE. According to Sonnentag et al. (2008), experiencing psychological detachment on off-work days helps to enhance an employee’s affective state in an organization. In terms of affect-related outcomes of psychological detachment, Bowling et al. (2010) focused on the concept of OBSE by implementing a meta-analysis and showed that employees’ psychological states are associated with OBSE in organizational settings. Fritz et al. (2010) specifically highlighted that the recovery experience of psychological detachment can drive affective emotions, indicating that employees may favorably perceive self-value and self-competence following psychological

4

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

attachment experiences in hotel organizations. As such, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1. Psychological detachment has a positive effect on hotel employees’ OBSE. Second, relaxation is recognized by social psychologists as a critical component of recovery experiences. The crucial role of relaxation in alleviating psychological activation has been addressed by a number of studies in organizational behavior research (Smith, 2005). Binnewies et al. (2010) demonstrated that relaxation following task demands confronted during the work week may improve the general level of task performance in organizational behavior. With respect to an extended model of the RES, Fritz et al. (2010) showed that relaxation experiences during off-work days served as a robust predictor of positive affective emotions (e.g., self-assurance) based on data obtained from preschool teachers in Germany. This may offer support for the assumption that those who strive to relax during off-work days are more likely to perceive a positive sense of self-worth in hotel organizations. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2.

Relaxation has a positive effect on hotel employees’ OBSE.

Third, mastery experiences have the potential to produce new internal resources that provide a high level of competence and selfefficacy (Bakker et al., 2014). According to Benight and Bandura (2004), a mastery experience is a challenging effort to recover and unwind from diverse types of traumatic experiences, which helps to improve individual’s psychosocial functioning in a particular context. Specifically, Ben-Zur (2002) pointed out the significance of mastery and self-esteem in light of their associations with individuals’ affective cognitions in a local community. In this vein, Binnewies et al. (2010) found that mastery experiences on off-work days help to enable employees to perceive positive affect states, consequently enhancing the magnitude of general level of performance and perceived effort at work in hotel organizations. In this regard, the following hypothesis is suggested: H3. Mastery experiences have a positive effect on hotel employees’ OBSE. Finally, control can be regarded as a key determinant in enhancing individuals’ cognitive confidence and assurance in a specific organization. Theoretical evidence regarding the relationship between control and OBSE can be supported by previous studies in human resource management practices. For example, Bean et al. (2003) revealed that psychological control was significantly related to adolescent self-esteem in ethnic groups (e.g., African American and European American). Consistent with this, Shimazu et al. (2012) proposed that control has significant effects on job situation variables (e.g., perceived ability to perform job-related tasks) in the context of Japanese employees with a variety of occupations. This may provide support for linking control and self-esteem in hotel organizations. In consideration of the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: H4.

Control has a positive effect on hotel employees’ OBSE.

3.2. Consequences of OBSE

the role of OBSE as a link to subsequent occupational and subjective well-being outcomes measured by hotel employees’ job dedication, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction. In terms of the relationship between OBSE and job dedication, few studies have explored the possibility that OBSE influences job dedication. Therefore, this relationship can be supported mainly by theoretical models determining occupational outcomes in organizational research. Previous studies of bank services have identified the effects of OBSE on several desirable occupational outcomes and found that organizational commitment is a robust consequence of OBSE (Lee, 2003). Other studies have posited that those who perceive a high level of OBSE are more likely to be committed and dedicated to their occupational tasks (Payne, 2007; Pierce et al., 1989; Bowling et al., 2010). More importantly, the relationship between OBSE and job dedication has been verified such that (1) general self-esteem is significantly correlated with job dedication behaviors (Chen et al., 2004) and (2) personal resources (e.g., OBSE) have significant positive effects on work engagement (e.g., dedication) (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Taken together, OBSE may enhance the level of job dedication among hotel employees. In this regard, the following hypothesis is proposed: H5. OBSE has a positive effect on hotel employees’ job dedication. OBSE is known to be a significant predictor of career (or job) satisfaction. Previous studies have shown the effect of career satisfaction on OBSE and demonstrated sufficient discriminant and concurrent validity (e.g., Pierce et al., 1989). More specifically, OBSE had a significant effect on career satisfaction in the context of dualincome couples in Hong Kong (Aryee and Luk, 1996). In the context of organizational volunteer activities, the positive effect of OBSE on career motives reveals a potential relationship between OBSE and career satisfaction (Mayer et al., 2007). Bowling et al. (2010) focused on the role of OBSE in occupational outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, and performance through a meta-analysis and found career (job) satisfaction to be a major consequence of OBSE in comparison to occupational outcomes (e.g., job performance). Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: H6. OBSE has a positive effect on hotel employees’ career satisfaction. As a consequence of OBSE, life satisfaction has been regarded as an important factor determining various dimensions of subsequent occupational well-being. The relationship between OBSE and life satisfaction has been validated (Huebner et al., 1999). For example, the direct linkage between self-esteem and life satisfaction has been supported based on multinational samples from Hong Kong and the U.S. (Kwan et al., 1997). Similarly, subsequent studies have verified a strong relationship between self-esteem and life satisfaction in various organizational contexts based not only on retirement community residents in favor of their general health (Benyamini et al., 2004) but also on public high school students in a metropolitan area of the U.S. Northeast (Halvorsen and Heyerdahl, 2006). These findings indicate a potential positive relationship between OBSE and life satisfaction in diverse national and organizational contexts. The integration the aforementioned theatrical and empirical findings leads to the following hypothesis: H7. OBSE has a positive effect on hotel employees’ life satisfaction.

OBSE suggests that employees may perceive themselves as important, meaningful, effectual, and worthwhile in their organizations (Pierce and Gardner, 2004) and thus are more likely to engage in work situations, achieve their career success, and realize wellbeing. As a salient predicator of job dedication, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction, OBSE has been recognized by many scholars in human resource management research (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Given the growing prevalence of OBSE, it is important to focus on

3.3. Job dedication, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction Job dedication, a representative dimension of job engagement, is regarded as an occupational outcome and well-being and considered to influence career (or job) satisfaction. Previous studies have shown that job dedication can predict the level of job satisfaction (e.g., Van Scotter, 2000). Vansteenkiste et al. (2007) focused

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

primarily on the relationship between the work value orientation and psychological need satisfaction and found a strong correlation between job dedication and satisfaction (r = .77, p < .001). Cichy et al. (2009) posited that club leaders engaged in extra endeavors (e.g., time) to accomplish job requirements are likely to perceive their career progress as successful. In a similar vein, Bakker (2011) mentioned that those workers who are engaged are more productive and willing to go the extra mile. These findings provide support for the view that job dedication enhances career satisfaction. In this regard, the following hypothesis is proposed: H8. Job dedication has a positive effect on hotel employees’ career satisfaction. According to Rothmann (2008), job dedication can be an indicator of psychological and subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction). Hakanen and Schaufeli (2012) highlighted a significant positive relationship between job/work engagement (dedication) and life satisfaction, showing that life satisfaction may vary according to job dedication. Similarly, job engagement (e.g., dedication) has been found to reduce the sense of distress or depression, implying that job dedication plays a critical role in maintaining employees’ occupational well-being, such as life satisfaction (Schaufeli et al., 2008). Given the theoretical and empirical background, the following hypothesis is proposed: H9. Job dedication has a positive effect on hotel employees’ satisfaction. A number of studies have identified the link between job satisfaction and satisfaction in a variety of organizational settings, including a meta-analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction) (Bowling et al., 2010). More specifically, job satisfaction has been found to influence employee life satisfaction in the U.S. (Hart, 1999), Australia (Iverson and Maguire, 2000), and Belgium (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). In the context of hospitality organizations, Susskind et al. (2000) examined the relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction by studying frontline service employees from servicebased organizations such as hotels and restaurants. They found that job satisfaction is significantly linked to life satisfaction in a variety of service-based organizations such as hotels and restaurants. In addition, Zhao et al. (2011) studied subjects in China and found that the affective reaction of job satisfaction is positively correlated to hotel employees’ life satisfaction (r = .23, p < .01). Based on the above empirical background, the following hypothesis is proposed: H10. Career satisfaction has a positive effect on hotel employees’ life satisfaction. 3.4. Theoretical framework Considering the synergy between the RES and various dimensions of subsequent occupational well-being (organization-based self-esteem, job dedication, and career satisfaction) as well as life satisfaction (subjective well-being), this study develops a comprehensive model to capture these salient factors from a psychological and organizational perspective and assess the formation of hotel employees’ subjective well-being. Fig. 1 shows the proposed theoretical framework. 4. Research methods 4.1. The measurement instrument All measurement items were adapted from the literature wherever possible (see the Appendix). First, the participants were asked to respond to 16 items of the RES derived from Sonnentag and Fritz

5

(2007) to assess their recovery experiences with respect to their off-work hours of hotel employees on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Four items were employed to measure each experience: psychological detachment (e.g., “I don’t think about work at all”), relaxation (e.g., “I use the time to relax”), mastery (e.g., “I look for intellectual challenges”), and control (e.g., “I take care of things the way that I want them done”). A seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7) was employed for all recovery experience items. OBSE was measured using six items adapted from Pierce et al. (1989). Here the respondents were asked to indicate the level of their self-worth as a hotel employee (e.g., “I am valuable at this hotel”). Seven items for job dedication (e.g., “I put in extra hours to get work done to meet deadlines”) were adopted from Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) and Cichy et al. (2009). Career satisfaction was measured using five items developed expressly for this study (e.g., “Since I started my work at this hotel, I have been satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my overall career goals”). Finally, four items for life satisfaction were measured based on the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in Pavot and Diener (1993) and Diener et al. (1985). The inventory required the respondents to recall their lives since started working at the hotel. A seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7) was used for all measurement items. The instrument included items for the respondent’s profile, including his or her gender, age, education level, job position, employment status, department, and work experience. 4.2. Survey administration The proposed research model was developed based on previous studies of study constructs in the domain of organizational behavior and human resource management and tested using data from employees of luxury hotels. Data were collected over a threemonth period from March to July 2014 by approaching a total of seven four- and five-star hotels identified in three major tourist cities of South Korea based on the following two methods: face-toface contact and direct mail. More specifically, general managers (or human resource managers) of these hotels were asked to distribute a self-administrated questionnaire to the target sample. In the second method, general managers of hotels that were difficult to reach were contacted by once they agreed to help in the survey, enveloped questionnaires were mailed to the hotels. As a result, a total of 428 responses were collected (an 86% response rate). 4.3. Data analysis The hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM requires that certain underlying assumptions be satisfied to ensure accurate inferences, such as multivariate normality, completely random missing data, and sufficiently large sample sizes (Anderson and Gerbing, 1998). Therefore, collected data were screened and purified to ensure that the data set met the requirements for an SEM analysis. After missing data (n = 12), outliers (z-scores >3.29, n = 25), and multivariate normality (Mahalanobis distance values, n = 15) were checked, a total of 376 valid samples were used in the empirical analysis based on their suitability for an SEM analysis using observed constructs consisting of 37 latent variables. In an SEM analysis, at least 10 cases are required for each variable (Nunnally, 1967). To test the hypotheses, a two-step approach was taken in the SEM analysis based on Anderson and Gerbing (1998). The first step involved an analysis of the measurement model, and the second step tested structural relationships between latent constructs. The objective of the two-step approach was to assess the reliability and

6

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

Recovery Experience Scales Subjective Well-Being

Occupational Well-Being Psychological detachment H1(+)

Relaxation

Mastery experiences

H2(+)

H3(+)

H5(+)

Organizationbased selfesteem

Job dedication H9(+) H8(+) H7(+)

Life satisfaction H10(+)

H6(+)

Career satisfaction

H4(+)

Control

Fig. 1. The proposed theoretical framework.

validity of measures before their use in the full model. Before the two-step approach was taken, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted for the RES because it was unclear whether the RES included three or four factors. The two-step approach followed the procedure exploring accurate groups of recovery experience variables. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the maximum likelihood approach was conducted to assess the unidimensionality and construct validity of eight constructs (psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery experiences, control, organization-based self-esteem, job dedication, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction) by using AMOS 19.0. 5. Results 5.1. Characteristics of respondents Table 1 shows the respondents’ characteristics. The 376 respondents were composed of 208 males (55.3%), and the mean age was 31.0 years. In terms of their work experience at their hotels, they worked for an average of 5 years. More than 90% had a college degree or more, indicating a high level of education for a vast

Gender (n = 376) Male Female Education level (n = 376) High school degree Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Graduate degree Work position (n = 376) Regular employee Supervisor (or manager) Employment status (n = 376) Regular Temporary Department (n = 365)a Room Food and beverages Administration Sales/marketing Other Age mean (SD) Work experience mean (SD) a

Missing values = 11.

5.2. EFA for the RES An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of 16 recovery experience items was conducted, and four dimensions were identified: mastery experiences, control, relaxation, and psychological detachment. As shown in Table 2, these four factors explained 52.49% of the total variance. The result of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.91, revealing that the correlation pattern was relatively compact and generated distinct and reliable factors (Hair et al., 1998). As shown in Table 3, Cronbach’s alpha for the four factors ranged from 0.87 to 0.92, all of which exceeded the minimum threshold (0.70) recommended in Hair et al. (1998). Therefore, the items for the four dimensions were considered to be internally consistent and stable to form a reliable scale. 5.3. CFA results of each measurement model

Table 1 The respondent profile. Variable

majority. About 31% (N = 88) held supervisory (or managerial) positions, and about 70% (N = 261) were regular employees. The majority of the respondents worked in departments handling room service (44.1%, N = 161) and providing food and beverages (31.5%, N = 115).

N

Percentage (%)

208 168

55.3 44.7

9 81 269 16

2.4 21.6 71.7 4.3

261 115

69.4 30.6

279 93

74.2 24.7

161 115 26 43 20

44.1 31.5 7.1 11.8 5.5 31 years old (9.49) 5 years (5.29)

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the maximum likelihood estimation method was conducted using 376 cases to assess the structure of each measurement model. According to the results, each measurement model of four-factor RES, OBSE, JOD, CAS, and LIS showed an acceptable fit to the data for hotel employees (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) (see Table 3). 5.4. Measurement model validation According to Podsakoff et al. (2003), using a self-report survey and cross-sectional data may result in common method bias in cognitive research. Due to the problems inherent in these methods, hospitality scholars have suggested the necessity to confirm whether common method bias exists among measurement constructs in hospitality marketing research (Line and Runyan, 2012). In light of this, the current study employed two approaches to test for the presence of common method bias among measurement constructs (Podsakoff et al., 2003). First, principal components factor analysis was performed using Harman’s one-factor test, revealing approximately 48% (<50%) of the largest explained variance before rotation. Next, CFA was conducted with a single factor, the results of which indicated that the one-factor model was a poorer fit

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

7

Table 2 Cross-loadings for the RES. Constructs

Items

Rotated factor loading

Mastery experiences (MAS)

MAS1 MAS2 MAS3 MAS4 CON1 CON2 CON3 CON4 REX1 REX2 REX3 REX4 PSD1 PSD2 PSD3 PSD4

.801 .812 .830 .763 – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – .778 .845 .748 .749 – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – .802 .786 .836 .746 – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – .809 .830 .819 .751

1.014 6.340

1.308 8.178

1.928 12.051

8.398 52.485

Control (CON)

Relaxation (REX)

Psychological detachment (PSD)

Eigenvalue % of the total variance Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin = .909, 2 = .4933.650 (df = 120), p < .001

Note: Factor loadings of less than .40 (N = 376) were deleted based on the recommendation of Hair et al. (1998).

Table 3 CFA results of each measurement model. Constructs

GFI

CFI

NFI

RMSEA

2 (df)

p

REC OBSE JOD CAS LIS

.892 .972 .992 .994 .997

.939 .992 .997 .999 .999

.921 .989 .994 .997 .998

.089 .081 .046 .044 .062

396.497 (96) 33.646 (9) 9.007 (5) 5.150 (3) 2.428 (1)

.000 .000 .109 .161 .119

Note: REC includes the four factors of recovery experiences; OBSE = Organizationbased self-esteem; JOD = Job dedication; CAS = Career satisfaction; LIS = Life satisfaction.

in comparison to the multi-factor models [2 (620) = 6044.1503, CFI = .636, NFI = .612, IFI = RMSEA = 0.153]. These results demonstrate that common method bias is not a problem in this study. A CFA was then tested to assess the underlying structure of all measurement variables in the model, including their unidimensionality, construct validity, and reliability. According to the results, the model provided a marginally fit to the data: 2 = 2101.171, df = 592, 2 /df = 3.549, CFI = 90, IFI = .90, RMSEA = .082 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). This verifies the unidimensionality of all measurement variables in the model. The measurement model was examined for convergent validity and discriminant validity. As shown in Table 4, the composite reliability (CR) of the constructs (convergent validity: the internal consistency of multiple dimensions for each construct) ranged from .861 to .921, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The average variance extracted (AVE) was used to test for the sufficient discriminant validity of the constructs. The AVE values for psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery experiences, and control ranged from .582 to .838, exceeding 0.50 and squared correlation coefficients for corresponding inter-constructs. In addition, the square root of the AVE for each construct ranged from .763 to .915 (see Table 4), exceeding correlations between a construct and all other constructs. Consequently, all measures exceeded the recommended threshold in terms of convergent validity and discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). 5.5. A test of the structural model The full structural model was tested to verify the relationships between the recovery experience constructs (PSD, REX, MAE, and

CON), OBSE, JOD, CAS, and LIS. The model fit was assessed using multiple indices. Table 5 shows the model’s overall fit to the data based on various goodness-of-fit measures. Overall, the results show a reasonable fit (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988): 2 = 2234.136, df = 604, 2 /df = 3.699, CFI = .894, IFI = .893, RMSEA = .085. As shown in Fig. 2, the results provide support for all hypotheses except for the relationship between JOD and LIS. More specifically, PSD (ˇ = .171, t = 3.091, p < .01), REX (ˇ = .213, t = 3.123, p < .01), MAE (ˇ = .202, t = 2.669, p < .01), and CON (ˇ = .172, t = 2.157, p < .05) had significant positive effects on OBSE. In addition, OBSE had significant positive effects on JOD (ˇ = .786, t = 10.712, p < .01), CAS (ˇ = .279, t = 4.343, p < .01), and LIS (ˇ = .264, t = 3.741, p < .01). In addition, JOD had a significant positive effect on CAS (ˇ = .596, t = 7.512, p < .01) but not on LIS (ˇ = .065, t = 0.478, p > .05). Finally, CAS had a significant positive effect on LIS (ˇ = .472, t = 5.564, p < .01). In sum, the results provide support for H1-H10 except for H9. Due to the insignificant relationship between JOD and LIS in the proposed model, an alternative model was established and tested by excluding the JOD-LIS relationship from the proposed model. The results showed a satisfactory model fit: 2 = 2234.624, df = 605, 2 /df = 3.694, CFI = .894, IFI = .893, RMSEA = .085. In terms of the chi-square difference test between the proposed model and the alternative model, no significant difference between the fit of the two models was detected (2 = .488, df = 1, p > .05). In this sense, the alternative model is recommended over the proposed model for use in future research because of the priority of a parsimonious model when choosing the best model among alternative options (Bentler and Mooijaart, 1989). 6. Discussion Previous studies have argued that recovery experiences from occupationally stressful situations include four dimensions, namely PSD, REX, MAE, and CON. These dimensions are assumed to enhance hotel employees’ sense of occupational well-being (i.e., OBSE, JOD, and CAS) and subjective well-being (i.e., LIS) in sequential order. Although a number of studies have found that recovery experiences are of considerable importance for employees as an initial stage of their occupational well-being in their organizations, which in turn can influence their psychological and subjective wellbeing, few empirical studies have considered the causal process of occupational well-being and subjective well-being in sequence, including OBSE, JOD, CAS, and LIS, four dimensions of recovery

8

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

Table 4 Results for the measurement model. Constructs

Items

Standardized estimate

t-Valuea

SMC

Chronbach’s ˛

Psychological detachment (PSD)

PSD 1. PSD 2. PSD 3. PSD 4.

0.838 0.903 0.720 0.639

Fixed 19.538** 15.267** 13.055**

0.786 0.876 0.639 0.665

0.868

REX 1. REX 2. REX 3. REX 4.

0.813 0.867 0.922 0.848

Fixed 20.100** 21.950** 19.452**

0.699 0.833 0.784 0.661

0.920

MAE 1. MAE 2. MAE 3. MAE 4.

0.816 0.836 0.912 0.886

Fixed 23.108** 21.422** 20.594**

0.752 0.536 0.691 0.767

0.924

CON 1. CON 2. CON 3. CON 4.

0.842 0.783 0.86 0.867

Fixed 17.827** 20.609** 20.846**

0.725 0.900 0.951 0.936

0.904

OBSE 1. OBSE 2. OBSE 3. OBSE 4. OBSE 5. OBSE 6.

0.799 0.936 0.968 0.975 0.948 0.851

Fixed 22.800 24.085** 24.394** 23.307** 19.732**

0.347 0.837 0.795 0.771 0.656 0.803

0.967

JOD 1. JOD 2. JOD 3. JOD 4. JOD 5. JOD 6.

0.589 0.686 0.768 0.807 0.795 0.901

Fixed 15.004** 13.639** 11.844** 11.733** 12.609**

0.709 0.612 0.740 0.751 0.408 0.811

0.909

JOS 1. JOS 2. JOS 3. JOS 4. JOS 5.

0.876 0.831 0.732 0.887 0.896

Fixed 27.154** 17.128** 23.659** 24.193**

0.850 0.720 0.518 0.815 0.703

0.924

LIS 1. LIS 2. LIS 3. LIS 4.

0.915 0.892 0.878 0.810

Fixed 26.569** 25.476** 21.307**

0.633 0.652 0.589 0.470

0.930

Relaxation (REX)

Mastery experiences (MAE)

Control (CON)

Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE)

Job dedication (JOD)

Career satisfaction (CAS)

Life satisfaction (LIS)

a **

t-values are equal to the critical ratio; 2 = 2107.118, df = 592, 2 /df = 3.559, CFI = .900, NFI = .890, IFI = .900, RMSEA = .081. p < .01.

experiences. Therefore, this study explores the comprehensive relationships between salient constructs in the formation of hotel employees’ subjective well-being (life satisfaction). According to the results, recovery experiences were composed of PSD, REX, MAE, and CON, which in turn influenced OBSE, JOD, CAS, and LIS in casual order.

6.1. The recovery experience and OBSE With respect to the construct validity of recovery experiences, PSD, REX, MAE, and CON belonged to recovery experiences. This is consistent with the findings of previous studies highlighting the determinant and convergent validity of the four-factor RES in the

Table 5 Correlations between salient constructs. Constructs 1. PSD 2. REX 3. MAE 4. CON 5. OBSE 6. JOD 7. CAS 8. LIS Mean SD AVE CR

1 .782 .494** .476** .412** .440** .468** .470** .352** 4.33 1.24 0.611 0.861

2 .863 .615** .640** .512** .577** .562** .455** 5.05 1.13 0.745 0.921

3

.863 .676** .521** .575** .630** .539** 4.76 1.27 0.745 0.921

4

.838 .494** .540** .566** .470** 4.91 1.11 0.703 0.904

5

.915 .737** .694** .638** 5.46 1.14 0.838 0.969

6

.763 .716** .580** 5.41 0.93 0.582 0.891

7

.847 .676** 4.95 1.13 0.712 0.925

8

.875 4.71 1.34 0.765 0.929

Note: The numbers in bold in the diagonal row are square roots of the average variance extracted; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability; PSD = psychological detachment; REX = relaxation; MAE = mastery experiences; CON = control; OBSE = organization-based self-esteem; JOD = job dedication; CAS = career satisfaction; LIS = life satisfaction. ** p < .01.

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

Psychological detachment

2

R = .617

.171(3.091)

Job dedication

**

2

R = .406

Relaxation .213(3.123)

Mastery experiences

9

.202(2.669)

.786(10.712)

**

Organizationbased self-esteem

*

ns 2

R = .560

**

.596(7.512)

**

.264(3.741) .279(4.343)

.172(2.157)

.065(0.478)

**

**

Life satisfaction

**

.472(5.564)

Career satisfaction

**

Indirect path coefficients: PSD -> LIS = .115

Control

2

R = .694

REX -> LIS = .135 MAE -> LIS = .143 CON -> LIS = .114

Fig. 2. Results for the proposed model. Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; model fit: 2 = 2234.136, df = 604, 2 /df = 3.699, CFI = .894, IFI = .893, RMSEA = .085; Values in parentheses indicate t-values; numbers outside parentheses indicate standardized path coefficients; standardized values (dotted lines indicate non-significant effects).

domain of organizational behavior (Bakker et al., 2014; Kinnunen et al., 2011; Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007; Shimazu et al., 2012). This suggests that hotel employees may pursue recovery experiences to avoid work arguments, interpersonal tension, employee/co-worker stressors, hotel guest stressors, and work overload, including PSD, REX, MAE, and CON. In this study, all constructs of recovery experiences during offwork days were significantly related to hotel employees’ OBSE, revealing the key role of recovery experience dimensions in increasing the level of OBSE. These results are consistent with the findings of previous studies demonstrating a close relationship between each recovery experience dimension and OBSE. More specifically, the positive relationship between PSD and OBSE is consistent with the findings of previous studies highlighting close relationships of recovery experiences to affective emotions and organizational attitudes/self-efficacy (Bakker et al., 2014; Bowling et al., 2010). This suggests that the recovery experience of psychological detachment makes it possible for hotel employees to perceive a positive sense of OBSE such that they may ignore recent work demands (Sonnentag et al., 2010), restore sources of energy (Hahn and Dormann, 2013), and avoid thinking about work-related stressors (e.g., job-related phone calls, promotional opportunities, and previous customer service complaints) (Shimazu et al., 2012) during off-work days. In addition, OBSE may vary according to the level of relaxation, which may be supported by previous research showing that employees’ relaxing activities (i.e., non-demanding activation) during off-wok days may result in affective emotions (e.g., self-esteem) (Fritz et al., 2010). This reveals that hotel employees with the recovery experience of relaxation (e.g., taking time for leisure activities and reading work-related service journals or books,) may perceive a high level of OBSE. Further, the result showing a significant relationship between mastery experiences and OBSE is consistent with the findings of previous studies suggesting mastery to be significantly related to general self-esteem (Ben-Zur, 2002). This indicates that a perceived level of OBSE may vary according to the level of improvements in favor of hotel employees’ affective experiences (e.g., learning new service skills) and energy levels (e.g., participating in social activities). Finally, the result indicating a casual relationship between control and OBSE provide support for previous studies positing a relationship between behavioral/psychological

control and adolescent functioning (e.g., self-esteem) based on a national sample (Bean et al., 2003; Bowling et al., 2010). That is, hotel employees with the recovery experience of control (e.g., an opportunity to choose specific leisure activities during vacations or holidays) may perceive a strong sense of OBSE. Altogether, the results verify a significant relationship between the four-factor RES and OBSE for hotel employees. 6.2. Relationships between OBSE and its consequences The results verify significant relationships between OBSE, JOD, CAS, and LIS. More specifically, OBSE had direct positive effects on JOD (ˇ = .786, t = 10.712), CAS (ˇ = .279, t = 4.343), and LIS (ˇ = .264, t = 3.741), demonstrating the significant direct effect of OBSE on JOD in comparison to effects of OBSE on CAS and LIS. These results are consistent with the findings of previous studies highlighting the OBSE-JOD relationship (Chen et al., 2004; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007), the OBSE-CAS relationship (Bowling et al., 2010; Mayer et al., 2007), and the OBSE-LIS relationship (Benyamini et al., 2004; Halvorsen & Heyerdahl, 2006; Kwan et al., 1997) in organizational contexts. These results imply that organizational theorists should recognize the effects of OBSE on subsequent occupational wellbeing (i.e., JOD and CAS) and subjective well-being (i.e., LIS) factors. 6.3. Relationships between JOD, CAS, and LIS The results identify casual relationships between JOD and CAS, between CAS and LIS, and between JOD and LIS. JOD was an antecedent of CAS, and JOD and LIS had no relationship. In addition, CAS was significantly related to LIS. The result showing a significant JOD-CAS relationship is consistent with a strong correlation between job dedication and satisfaction (r = .77, p < .001) (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). The result showing a CAS-LIS relationship is consistent with the findings of previous studies suggesting a positive relationship between job (or career) satisfaction and LIS (Hart, 1999; Iverson and Maguire, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2011). The result showing no significant relationship between JOD and LIS is inconsistent with the findings of previous studies demonstrating a significant positive relationship between JOD and LIS for organizational members (Hakanen and Schaufeli, 2012; Rothmann, 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2008). This suggests that

10

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

hotel employees’ dedicated activities may not yield their direct life satisfaction. Theoretically, hotel employees who are more dedicated to their work through extra effort and time are likely to pursue success in their occupational careers and then perceive a positive sense of psychological and subjective well-being (e.g., life satisfaction). 6.4. Theoretical applications for future researchers The current study sheds light on a holistic hybrid model of the four factors of RES, OBSE, JOD, CAS, and LIS. A number of theorists in organizational behavior have pointed out the importance of employees’ occupational and subjective well-being in their professional lives (e.g., Rosenbaum et al., 2011; Siltaloppi et al., 2009). Despite this, no prior studies had investigated the role of recovery experiences and their potential consequences (e.g., occupational well-being and subjective well-being) in the domain of hospitality organizations. As such, it is important to examine whether the occupational well-being factors of OBSE, JOD, and CAS serve as converters between RES and subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction). As previously stated, hotel employees who partake in the four types of recovery experiences (namely psychological attachment, relaxation, mastery experiences, and control) are more likely to perceive a high level of self-esteem in their workplaces, helping to enhance the degree of JOD, CAS and LIS in their causal ordering. Most interestingly, JOD was found to serve as an indirect factor of occupational well-being for LIS through CAS. This model process should therefore be saliently recognized for future researchers as a research model for replication. Given the working conditions of hotel workplaces, including frequent exposure to long working hours, inflexible work schedules, and demanding customers (Chiang et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2011), identifying the proposed integrated model may allow future researchers to facilitate hotel employees’ occupational and subjective well-being. Therefore, this study’s empirical results offer critical insights into theoretical prerequisites for future researchers to extend a model of recovery experiences affecting employees’ well-being in hospitality organizations. 6.5. An organization’s service practices for employees The results have important practical implications. The recovery experience dimensions, namely PSD, REX, MAE, and CON, should be widely employed as guidelines for organizational support in term of hotel employees’ recovery experiences during off-work days. Those employees who pursue occupational well-being as well as subjective well-being may unwind from occupationally stressful situations based on their recovery experience of the psychological attachment from work, relaxing activities, mastery orientation, and control of schedules during vacations, holidays, or off-day hours. That is, hotel employees are more likely to enjoy different types of recovery experiences when they perceive the essence of these experiences from the workplace. Thus, this phenomenon should be applied to developing improved human resource management practices in hotel organizations. An important example of a human resource manage practice that takes into account the significant effects of recovery experiences on OBSE would be the development of a database system by hotel management personnel to recognize employees’ physical and psychological states by both offering professional consultant services and by conducting personality tests using survey methods. Using both approaches, the accumulated data can be utilized as a guideline for establishing human resource management practices in favor of employees’ recovery experiences during off-work days, vacations, and/or holidays. Specifically, hotel employers should not

overlook the stressful situations that their employees may face. For example, when employees feel excessive stress arising from customers’ service complaints, they may resort to verbal and physical expressions of anger and even violence. In these situations, hotel employers should allow employees to have extra off-days in order to engage in relaxing pastimes and experience a temporary escape from their work. This may enable them to perceive a high degree of self-esteem in an organization. Additionally, hotel employers should monitor whether employees feel that their occupational lives are monotonous and boring. If so, employees could be offered opportunities to receive monetary support for enjoying mastery experiences (e.g., new service or language skills) or the authority to avoid work-related contacts by retaining alternative workers during off-day hours and/or holidays. In doing so, employees may experience significantly enhanced focus in the workplace after enjoying mastery experiences and controlling their schedules. Consequently, each recovery experience should be recorded by hotel employers to allow employees to maintain their occupational and subjective well-being as part of a human resource practice. According to the results, OBSE was significantly related to JOD, CAS, and LIS for hotel employees. These results imply that hotel employers need to bolster employees’ perceptions of having a strong sense of self-worth as an organizational member through human resource management practices. In order to enhance the degree of OBSE, hotel organizations should hold open regular seminars to not only present organizational policy regarding the benefits of supporting employees’ recovery experiences but also to express appreciation of employees as a way of being mindful of the effect of their service activities on organizational performance. As a result, hotel employees can experience improvements in (1) focusing on important work-related details, (2) being satisfied with their progress toward meeting overall career goals, and (3) experiencing greater life satisfaction. In summary, hotel employers should stimulate employees’ sense of OBSE based on key types of recovery experiences, such as PSD, REX, MAE, and CON, and encourage them to be more dedicated to their work, be satisfied with subjective career accomplishments, and experience greater well-being in life. The results suggest that employees who are actively dedicated to their work are more likely to be satisfied with their subjective career goals. In addition, employees who perceive a high level of career satisfaction are more likely to feel a strong sense of life satisfaction. These results imply that hotel employers should seek to develop internal management strategies such as personal notifications about career development progress, including objective career appraisals, to help employees perceive their career progress and accomplishments and be more satisfied with their lives.

7. Study limitations and suggestions for future research This study has important limitations. First of all, small-scale studies have focused on employees’ subjective well-being process based on the RES in the service sector, particularly in the hotel industry. In this study, to test the hypotheses, an extended model focusing on relationships between various dimensions of occupational and subjective well-being was examined using data from employees of large hotels in three major tourist cities in South Korea. Therefore, the results of cross-sectional data collected by large hotels within a given country may not be generalizable to other hotel segments and countries. Future research should replicate and extend the proposed research model for customercontact service employees by considering a diverse range of the results of cross-sectional data collected by large hotels within a given country may not be generalizable to other hotel segments and countries. Future research should replicate and extend the

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

proposed research model for customer-contact service employees by considering a diverse range of hospitality organizations (e.g., restaurants, convention centers, and casino) and countries (e.g., the U.S., China, and Japan). In addition, the results of the hypothesized model showed that the model was marginally accepted (CFI = .894, IFL = .893, RMSEA = .085), indicating the necessity to reconfirm the appropriateness of the model in terms of robustness. Acknowledgement This work was supported by the research fund of Hanyang University (HY-2015). Appendix. Variables During regular off-work days at this hotel, Psychological detachment (PSD) PSD 1. I forget about work. I do not think about work at all. PSD 2. PSD 3. I distance myself from my work. I get a break from work demands. PSD 4. Relaxation (REX) REX 1. I kick back and relax. REX 2. I do relaxing things. REX 3. I use the time to relax. REX 4. I take time for leisure. Mastery experiences (MAE) I learn new things. MAE 1. I look for intellectual challenges. MAE 2. MAE 3. I do things that challenge me. I do something to broaden my horizons. MAE 4. Control (CON) CON 1. CON 2. CON 3. CON 4.

I feel like I could decide for myself what to do. I decide my own schedule. I determine for myself how I spend my time. I take care of things the way that I want them done.

Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) I am taken seriously at this hotel. OBSE 1. OBSE 2. I am important at this hotel. I am valuable at this hotel. OBSE 3. I am helpful at this hotel. OBSE 4. OBSE 5. I am efficient at this hotel. I am cooperative at this hotel. OBSE 6. Job dedication (JOD) I put in extra hours to get work done to meet deadlines. JOD 1. I exercise personal discipline and self-control. JOD 2. I work harder than necessary. JOD 3. I persist in overcoming obstacles to complete a task.b JOD 4. JOD 5. I enjoy challenging tasks at work. I tackle difficult work enthusiastically. JOD 6. I pay close attention to important details in my work. JOD 7. Since I started my work at this hotel, Career satisfaction (CAS) I have been satisfied with the success I have achieved in my JOS 1. career. I have been satisfied with the progress I have made toward JOS 2. meeting my overall career goals. I have been satisfied with the progress I have made toward JOS 3. meeting my goals for income. I have been satisfied with the progress I have made toward JOS 4. meeting my goals for advancement. JOS 5. I have been satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my goals for the development of new skills. Life satisfaction (LIS)a LIS 1. In most ways, my life is close to my ideal. The conditions of my life are excellent. LIS 2. I am satisfied with my life. LIS 3. So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life. LIS 4. a The inventory required the respondents to think about their lives since they started their position at their hotel. b Items were deleted because of insufficient reliability (Chronbach’s ˛) for each factor.

11

References Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.G., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411–423. Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1998. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411–423. Andrews, F.M., 1974. Social dimensions of perceived life quality. Soc. Dimens. Res. 1 (3), 279–299. Arthur, M.B., Khapova, S.N., Wilderom, C.P., 2005. Career success in a boundaryless career world. J. Organ. Behav. 26 (2), 177–202. Aryee, S., Luk, V., 1996. Work and nonwork influences on the career satisfaction of dual-earner couples. J. Vocat. Behav. 49 (1), 38–52. Back, K.J., Lee, C.K., Abbott, J.A., 2011. Internal relationship marketing: Korean casino employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Cornell Hosp. Q. 52 (2), 111–124. Bakker, A.B., 2011. An evidence-based model of work engagement. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20 (4), 265–269. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 13 (3), 209–223. ˜ Bakker, A.B., Sanz-Vergel, A.I., Rodríguez-Munoz, A., Oerlemans, W.G., 2014. The state version of the recovery experience questionnaire: a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 1359432X.2014.903242. Barnett, B.R., Bradley, L., 2007. The impact of organisational support for career development on career satisfaction. Career Dev. Int. 12 (7), 617–636. Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R., 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117, 497–529. Bean, R.A., Bush, K.R., McKenry, P.C., Wilson, S.M., 2003. The impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and self-esteem of African American and European American adolescents. J. Adolesc. Res. 18 (5), 523–541. Ben-Zur, H., 2002. Coping, affect and aging: the roles of mastery and self esteem. Personal. Individ. Diff. 32 (2), 357–372. Benight, C.C., Bandura, A., 2004. Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: the role of perceived self-efficacy. Behav. Res. Ther. 42 (10), 1129–1148. Bentler, P.M., Mooijaart, A.B., 1989. Choice of structural model via parsimony: a rationale based on precision. Psychol. Bull. 106 (2), 315–317. Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, H., Leventhal, E.A., 2004. Self-rated oral health as an independent predictor of self-rated general health, self-esteem and life satisfaction. Soc. Sci. Med. 59 (5), 1109–1116. Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E.J., 2010. Recovery during the weekend and fluctuations in weekly job performance: a week-level study examining intraindividual relationships. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83 (2), 419–441. Bowling, N.A., Eschleman, K.J., Wang, Q., Kirkendall, C., Alarcon, G., 2010. A metaanalysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83 (3), 601–626. Burke, R.J., 2001. Workaholism components, job satisfaction, and career progress. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31 (11), 2339–2356. Chan, K.B., Lai, G., Ko, Y.C., Boey, K.W., 2000. Work stress among six professional groups: the Singapore experience. Soc. Sci. Med. 50 (10), 1415–1432. Chen, G., Gully, S.M., Eden, D., 2004. General self-efficacy and self-esteem: toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. J. Organ. Behav. 25 (3), 375–395. Chiang, F.F., Birtch, T.A., Kwan, H.K., 2010. The moderating roles of job control and work-life balance practices on employee stress in the hotel and catering industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 29 (1), 25–32. Cichy, R.F., Cha, J., Kim, S., 2009. The relationship between organizational commitment and contextual performance among private club leaders. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 28 (1), 53–62. Cuyper, N.D., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Berntson, E., Witte, H.D., Alarco, B., 2008. Employability and employees’ well-being: mediation by job insecurity. Appl. Psychol. 57 (3), 488–509. Diener, E., Oishi, S., Lucas, R.E., 2003. Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54 (1), 403–425. Diener, E., Oishi, S., Lucas, R.E., 2009. 17 subjective well-being: the science of happiness and life satisfaction. Oxf. Handb. Posit. Psychol., 187–194. Diener, E.D., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, S., 1985. The satisfaction with life scale. J. Personal. Assess. 49 (1), 71–75. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. Fritz, C., Sonnentag, S., 2006. Recovery, well-being, and performance-related outcomes: the role of workload and vacation experiences. Journal of. Appl. Psychol. 91 (4), 936–945. Fritz, C., Sonnentag, S., Spector, P.E., McInroe, J.A., 2010. The weekend matters: relationships between stress recovery and affective experiences. J. Organ. Behav. 31 (8), 1137–1162. Gattiker, U.E., Larwood, L., 1988. Predictors for managers’ career mobility, success, and satisfaction. Hum. Relat. 41 (8), 569–591. Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., Cooper, C., 2008. A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: examining main and moderating effects. Pers. Psychol. 61 (2), 227–272. Grant, A.M., 2008. The significance of task significance: job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 (1), 108–124.

12

K.-H. Lee et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 1–12

Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S.J., Wormley, W.M., 1990. Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Acad. Manage. J. 33 (1), 64–86. Hahn, V.C., Dormann, C., 2013. The role of partners and children for employees’ psychological detachment from work and well-being. J. Appl. Psychol. 98 (1), 26–36. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis (Fifth Edition). Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W.B., 2012. Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. J. Affect. Disord. 141 (2), 415–424. Halvorsen, I., Heyerdahl, S., 2006. Girls with anorexia nervosa as young adults: personality, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 39 (4), 285–293. Hart, P.M., 1999. Predicting employee life satisfaction: a coherent model of personality, work, and nonwork experiences, and domain satisfactions. J. Appl. Psychol. 84 (4), 564–584. Huebner, E.S., Gilman, R., Laughlin, J.E., 1999. A multimethod investigation of the multidimensionality of children’s well-being reports: discriminant validity of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Soc. Dimens. Res. 46 (1), 1–22. Iverson, R.D., Maguire, C., 2000. The relationship between job and life satisfaction: evidence from a remote mining community. Hum. Relat. 53 (6), 807–839. Jian, Z., Kwan, H.K., Qiu, Q., Liu, Z.Q., Yim, F.H.K., 2012. Abusive supervision and frontline employees’ service performance. Serv. Ind. J. 32 (5), 683–698. Kang, B., Twigg, N.W., Hertzman, J., 2010. An examination of social support and social identity factors and their relationship to certified chefs’ burnout. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 29 (1), 168–176. King, L.A., Richards, J.H., Stemmerich, E., 1998. Daily goals, life goals, and worst fears: means, ends, and subjective well-being. J. Personal. 66 (5), 713–744. Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Siltaloppi, M., Sonnentag, S., 2011. Job demands-resources model in the context of recovery: testing recovery experiences as mediators. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 20 (6), 805–832. Kong, H., Cheung, C., Song, H., 2012. From hotel career management to employees’ career satisfaction: the mediating effect of career competency. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 31 (1), 76–85. Kwan, V.S., Bond, M.H., Singelis, T.M., 1997. Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 73 (5), 1038–1501. Lee, J., 2003. An analysis of the antecedents of organization-based self-esteem in two Korean banks. International Journal of Human Resource Management 14 (6), 1046–1066. Line, N.D., Runyan, R.C., 2012. Hospitality marketing research: recent trends and future directions. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 31 (2), 477–488. Mayer, B.W., Fraccastoro, K.A., McNary, L.D., 2007. The relationship among organization-based self-esteem and various factors motivating volunteers. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 36 (2), 327–340. McDowell, I., 2010. Measures of self-perceived well-being. J. Psychosom. Res. 69 (1), 69–79. Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorensen, K.L., Feldman, D.C., 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective career success: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 58 (2), 367–408. Nunnally, J.C., 1967. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. O’Neill, J.W., Davis, K., 2011. Work stress and well-being in the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 30 (2), 385–390. Oreyzi, H.R., Amiri, M., 2013. Personnel performance prediction in the beginning of the week from relaxation, mastery experience, and psychological detachment via recovery. Reef Resour. Assess. Manage. Tech. Pap. 38 (2), 1–11. Pavot, W., Diener, E., 1993. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychol. Assess. 5 (2), 164–172. Payne, H.J., 2007. The role of organization-based self-esteem in employee dissent expression. Commun. Res. Rep. 24 (3), 235–240. Pelletier, C.L., 2004. The effect of music on decreasing arousal due to stress: a metaanalysis. J. Music Ther. 41 (3), 124–192. Pienaar, J., Willemse, S.A., 2008. Burnout, engagement, coping and general health of service employees in the hospitality industry. Tour. Manage. 29 (6), 1053–1063. Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., 2004. Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: a review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. J. Manage. 30 (5), 591–622. Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L., Dunham, R.B., 1989. Organization-based self-esteem: construct definition, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manage. J. 32 (3), 622–648. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903. Rosenbaum, M.S., Corus, C., Ostrom, A.L., Anderson, L., Fisk, R.P., Gallan, A.S., Giraldo, M., Mende, M., Mulder, M., Rayburn, S.W., Shirahada, K., Williams, J.D., 2011.

Conceptualization and aspirations of transformative service research. J. Res. Cons 19, 1–6. Rothmann, S., 2008. Job satisfaction, occupational stress, burnout and work engagement as components of work-related wellbeing: empirical research. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 34 (3), 11–16. Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W.B., 2008. A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 19 (1), 116–131. Sanz-Vergel, A.I., Demerouti, E., Moreno-Jiménez, B., Mayo, M., 2010. Work-family balance and energy: a day-level study on recovery conditions. J. Vocat. Behav. 76 (1), 118–130. Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., Van Rhenen, W., 2008. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Appl. Psychol. 57 (2), 173–203. Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., Liden, R.C., 2001. A social capital theory of career success. Acad. Manage. J. 44 (2), 219–237. Shimazu, A., Sonnentag, S., Kubota, K., Kawakami, N., 2012. Validation of the Japanese version of the recovery experience questionnaire. J. Occup. Health 54 (3), 196–205. Siltaloppi, M., Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., 2009. Recovery experiences as moderators between psychosocial work characteristics and occupational well-being. Work Stress 23 (4), 330–348. Simon, L.S., Judge, T.A., Halvorsen-Ganepola, M.D., 2010. In good company? A multistudy, multi-level investigation of the effects of coworker relationships on employee well-being. J. Vocat. Behav. 76 (3), 534–546. Smith, J.C., 2005. Relaxation, Meditation, and Mindfulness: A Mental Health Practitioner’s Guide to New and Traditional Approaches. Springer Publishing Co., New York, NY. Sonnentag, S., 2001. Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: a diary study. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 6 (3), 196–210. Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., Mojza, E.J., 2008a. Did you have a nice evening? A daylevel study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 (3), 674–684. Sonnentag, S., Fritz, C., 2007. The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12 (3), 204–221. Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., Fritz, C., 2010. Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: a multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. J. Vocat. Behav. 76 (3), 355–365. Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E.J., Binnewies, C., Scholl, A., 2008b. Being engaged at work and detached at home: a week-level study on work engagement, psychological detachment, and affect. Work Stress 22 (3), 257–276. Sonnentag, S., Natter, E., 2004. Flight attendants’ daily recovery from work: is there no place like home? Int. J. Stress Manage. 11 (4), 366–391. Stone, A.A., Kennedy-Moore, E., Neale, J.M., 1995. Association between daily coping and end-of-day mood. Health Psychol. 14 (4), 341–349. Susskind, A.M., Borchgrevink, C.P., Michele Kacmar, K., Brymer, R.A., 2000. Customer service employees’ behavioral intentions and attitudes: an examination of construct validity and a path model. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 19 (1), 53–77. Tinsley, H.E., Eldredge, B.D., 1995. Psychological benefits of leisure participation: a taxonomy of leisure activities based on their need-gratifying properties. J. Couns. Psychol. 42 (2), 123–132. Thayer, R.E., Newman, J.R., McClain, T.M., 1994. Self-regulation of mood: strategies for changing a bad mood, raising energy, and reducing tension. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67 (5), 910–925. Van Scotter, J.R., 2000. Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev. 10 (1), 79–95. Van Scotter, J.R., Motowidlo, S.J., 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 81 (5), 525–531. Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C.P., Soenens, B., Witte, H., Broeck, A., 2007. On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: a self-determination theory approach. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 80 (2), 251–277. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W.B., 2007. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. Int. J. Stress Manage. 14 (2), 121–141. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W.B., 2009. Work engagement and financial returns: a diary study on the role of job and personal resources. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82 (1), 183–200. Zhao, X.R., Qu, H., Ghiselli, R., 2011. Examining the relationship of work–family conflict to job and life satisfaction: a case of hotel sales managers. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 30 (1), 46–54.