Organizational support versus supervisor support: The impact on hospitality managers’ psychological contract and work engagement

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Organizational support versus supervisor support: The impact on hospitality managers’ psychological contract and work engagement ⁎

Xiaolin (Crystal) Shi , Susan Gordon School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-0327, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Perceived organizational support Perceived supervisor support Psychological contract Work engagement Hospitality managers

Considering perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisor support (PSS) at the same time and understanding which one is more critical receives little attention. A scenario-based experimental design was conducted to examine the influences of high PSS & low POS and low PSS & high POS on hospitality employees’ psychological contract (PC) and work engagement. The results show that managers experience both psychological contract breach (PCB) and lower work engagement under these two imperfect situations. Furthermore, managers have relatively higher PCB and lower work engagement under the situation of receiving lower PSS than receiving lower POS. Finally, it was found that PCB has a more negative influence on managers’ work engagement when receiving lower PSS. Theoretical and practical implications based on the results are discussed.

1. Introduction Talent management is increasingly important from the strategic human resource management perspective. Effective talent management can create long-term benefits for executives and organizations (Ashton and Morton, 2005), especially when the right people are hired for the right position and then retained. According to the Managerial Competence Theory (Quinn et al., 2003), managers play critical roles in an organization’s success. Based on the theory, there are four management models, which are: “rational goals,” “internal processes,” “human relations,” and “open systems”. From the perspectives of the human relations and open system models, a manager is a mentor to properly guide employees and an ambassador representing an organization’s brand image and culture. Managers perform important roles in coordinating the relationships between employees and organizations. To some extent, managers could be defined as high job performers or higher performing employees. A previous study found that losing this group of people may bring more negative consequences to organizations than losing poor performers (Nyberg, 2010). In the literature regarding the application of social exchange theory (SET) in predicting employees’ perceptions in the hospitality industry, most studies focus on exploring the perspectives of line-level staff (e.g., Chen and Wu, 2017; Guchait and Back, 2016; Paek et al., 2015). Limited studies focus on employees who are supervisors (e.g., O’Neill and Davis, 2011; Xu et al., 2017). In the hospitality industry, staffing, recruitment, and retention of managers have always been critical issues

⁎

and human resource’s priorities (Dermody and Holloway, 1998). For example, the cost of replacing hotel managers is much higher than that of hourly employees (Davidson et al., 2010). Manager turnover can result in inconsistency in management, which impacts line-level employees’ turnover (Stalcup and Pearson, 2001). In the hospitality industry, managers act in dual roles of both employees and leaders. As employees, they need to manage daily operations and satisfy executive-level leaders. As leaders, they need to care about line-level employees’ well-being. Thus, performing dual roles in the workplace may exert more pressure on them. When supervisors felt supported and cared for, their subordinates’ perceived supervisor support (PSS) and perceived organizational support (POS) increased (Shanock and Eisenberger, 2006). Wu and Chen (2015) found that if hotel managers are supportive, employees will be more likely to perceive their psychological contract (PC) to be fulfilled. Therefore, exploring the well-being, including their perceptions of POS and PSS, of managers has become more essential. POS is valued by employees at all organizational levels, including managers, and provides indications of the organization caring about employee well-being through aspects such as valuing employees’ efforts, rewarding employees’ outstanding performance and contributions, etc. (Eisenberger et al., 1986). PSS is categorized as one of the major work-experience antecedents of POS and is regarded as an important indicator of POS because supervisors act as agents of organizations. Thus, each employee, including managers, may view the support of his manager as support by the organization, too. Previous

Corresponding author at: Marriott Hall, 900 W State St, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (X.C. Shi), [email protected] (S. Gordon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102374 Received 6 November 2018; Received in revised form 9 July 2019; Accepted 26 August 2019 0278-4319/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Xiaolin (Crystal) Shi and Susan Gordon, International Journal of Hospitality Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102374

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

X.C. Shi and S. Gordon

externally equitable reward systems, have a higher POS. In turn, a high POS has a positive relationship with employees proactive behaviors at work (Chen et al., 2017). The same way employees form global perceptions regarding how they are treated and valued by organizations, they develop perceptions concerning how they are valued by their supervisors (Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988). PSS is defined as employees’ perspectives regarding how supervisors care about their well-being and value their contributions (Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988). PSS can contribute to POS because supervisors, as agents of organizations, direct subordinates’ performance and convey information from the organizations to employees (Eisenberger et al., 2002, 1986). Furthermore, employees often perceive that the evaluations from their supervisors are reported to the organizations, contributing to employees’ understanding that receiving supervisor support is associated with receiving organizational support (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Both POS and PSS have been studied in relation to workplace outcomes in the hospitality industry, such as turnover intention (Gordon et al., 2019; Maertz et al., 2007), PC (Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005), and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) (Tang and Tsaur, 2016). Previous studies have shown that PSS negatively influences turnover intention (Gordon et al., 2019). Tang and Tsaur (2016) found that supervisory support climate is a key resource of service-oriented OCB among frontline hospitality employees. Ahmad and Zafar (2018) also found a positive relationship between POS and OCB. Although PSS and POS share the same measurements from the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986), they are two independent concepts; PSS is not just one facet of POS. Empirical findings in the areas of turnover and leadermember exchange suggest that employees can distinguish their relations with the immediate supervisor from their relations with organizations. Therefore, supervisor support should have an independent influence on employees’ work-related outcomes (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Maertz et al., 2007; Tekleab et al., 2005). For example, Maertz et al. (2007) found that PSS can influence employees’ turnover cognition independently without the mediation of POS, and that when supervisors provide high support, organizational support became a less important predictor of turnover cognition. Tekleab et al. (2005) showed that POS and the exchanged relationships with direct supervisors have independent influences on actual turnover behavior. Besides the empirical evidence, Maertz and Griffeth (2004) theorized that attachment to supervisors in the organization has an independent influence on turnover behaviors, apart from the attachment to the organization based on the multiple commitments approach mentioned by Reichers (1985). Among the research exploring how perceived support influences employees’ behavioral intention, one stream indicated that POS plays a full mediating role between PSS and behavior intention, such as turnover intention and psychological contract fulfillment (PCF) (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Guchait et al., 2015; Rhoades et al., 2001), the other stream indicated that POS partially mediates the relationship between PSS and behavior intention (Maertz et al., 2007). How POS and PSS influence employees’ behavior intention at the same time has not been widely examined. In this study, four situations are included in the analysis: (1) employees experience both high PSS and high POS, (2) experience both low PSS and low POS, (3) experience high POS and low PSS, and (4) experience low POS and high PSS.

studies have suggested that PSS and POS have a positive relationship with each other, with PSS leading to POS (Guchait and Back, 2016; Guchait et al., 2015). PC is a mutual and reciprocal obligation of an employment contract between an organization and an employee and emerges when an employee perceives that this mutual obligation exists (Rousseau, 1989). POS and PSS play pivotal roles in determining employees’ PC (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Rousseau, 2001). A positive relationship has been found between POS and PC (Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005; Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000; Guchait et al., 2015). Antecedents of PC are activated at the stage of pre-employment, during the recruitment process, and in early on-the-job socialization (Rousseau, 2001). In the hospitality industry, people who are in management positions are heavily involved in these stages. Managers, as agents of the organization, are in the position of conveying promises and mutual obligations between the organization and employees (Rousseau, 1995). This conveyance may be heightened in the recruiting of managers because directors or executives build relationships with the candidates during the hiring process. Therefore, managers are key to meeting the mutual obligations between their employees and the organization, which includes the managers themselves (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000). Understanding the roles of PSS, POS, and PC can better explore managerial employees’ well-being and predict their behaviors at work. Workplace employee well-being has received much attention, and work engagement is seen to generate a higher frequency of positive effect that increases employees’ well-being (Harter et al., 2003). Most of the previous studies have focused on using either PSS to predict POS or POS to predict PSS. Practically, it is not always that one happens first and leads to the other; the two supports can occur simultaneously to influence employee behavior and may not occur at the same level. Understanding which support is more influential can help hospitality organizations offer more targeted programs to managers. In the hospitality industry, it is common to change ownership, franchise affiliation, and management companies, which could influence organizational support. Also, because of higher turnover, it is possible that the level of supervisor support will change. Understanding the importance of each support type can help hospitality companies decide whether to focus on creating a supervisory support climate or creating an organizational support climate. Hence, to better understand the role of supervisor and organizational support in predicting managerial employees’ work engagement through PC, and to figure out which support has more impact, it is critical to test the effects of both types of support at the same time. The main objectives of this study are: (1) To explore how POS and PSS influence managers’ PC and work engagement and (2) To identify how PC influences managers’ work engagement under four scenarios: (High PSS and High POS, High PSS and Low POS, High POS and Low PSS, and Low PSS and Low POS). 2. Literature review and hypotheses 2.1. Perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support According to the SET, reciprocity is one of the most important rules to elicit a relationship between employees and employers (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Based on the theory, when one treats another person well, he/she may expect favorable treatment in return. Favorable responses from another party leads to positive outcomes for both parties (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). POS is defined as employees’ feelings of the extent to which organizations value their contributions and care about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). POS has shown to increase due to the receipt of praise and recognition (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Receiving POS will lead employees to feel an obligation to the organization and help the organization achieve its goals. A study found that employees who work in hotels with highcommitment HR practices, such as comprehensive training and

2.2. Psychological contract Rousseau (1989) defined psychological contract (PC) as “an individual’s belief regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that focal person and another party” (p.123). PC primarily focuses on the relationship between employees’ perceived work experiences and the favorableness of perceived treatment from the organization (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003). The term 2

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

X.C. Shi and S. Gordon

relationship between an employee and a leader (Gerstner and Day, 1997). According to LMX, every employee has a social exchange relationship with the supervisor (Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004). A highquality exchange relationship between subordinates and supervisors indicates mutual trust, obligation, and respect. Furthermore, employees rely on their supervisors for information, support, and resources to perform their jobs (Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004). A previous study of LMX and PC found that high qualify LMX has a negative relationship with hotel frontline employees’ PCB (Chen and Wu, 2017). Chen and Wu (2017) explained that a high quality relationship between supervisors and employees make employees believe that even if organizations fail to fulfill some obligations, the unfulfilled obligations will be fulfilled in the future. Li et al. (2017) used a multi-level model and found that supervisor support at the team level increases group level trust. If employees work in an environment where all of the group members trust each other, it reduced employees’ turnover intention at the individual level in the casino industry. Li and Kim (2019) applied a three-level model and found that group-level supervisor support moderates the relationship between company-level organizational support and individual-level perceived work ability, such that the positive relationship is much stronger when group-level supervisor support is high. Supervisors act as organizational representatives and have direct daily contact with employees (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Receiving favorable treatment from supervisors contributes to employees’ commitment to the organization (Rhoades et al., 2001). Therefore, PSS probably has a more significant impact on PC than POS does. Hence, this study hypothesizes:

PC is seen to be dynamic and can change over time through employees’ perceptions toward their employers (Robinson et al., 1994) starting from the stage of pre-employment, followed by the stage of recruitment, early socialization, and later experience in the organization (Rousseau, 2001). The foundation of PC is an individual employee’s belief that the organization has made a promise of future return and has the obligation to reward their contributions. PC is subjective and is recognized as an individual perception (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1998). Therefore, employees may have different interpretations of PC depending how they perceive the messages that are signaled by organizations. Several factors of employment, such as pay, career development, long-term job security, and training opportunities, have been used to represent obligations promised by organizations and to explore the influence of PC on work-related outcomes (Robinson, 1996). The concept of PC focuses on an employee’s experience and thus, the perception of PC being fulfilled or broken is from the perspective of the employee and not the organization (Rousseau, 1989). Rousseau (2004) found that managers who perceive they are poorly treated by their employers are less likely to be committed to their employees. On the contrary, managers who perceive that their PC is fulfilled are more likely to give a similar positive signal to their employees, which in turn influences their employees’ performance. Psychological contract breach (PCB) happens when employees perceive the organization failed to fulfill its obligations (Robinson et al., 1994). The breach occurs unavoidably in the workplace because contracts are based on the perception of exchange for promises (Lester et al., 2002). Failing to fulfill PC has been found to have negative outcomes in the hospitality industry. For example, Li et al. (2016) found that hotel employees’ PCB has a negative relationship with organizational identification and affective commitment. Ahmad and Zafar (2018) found that failing to fulfill PC has a negative relationship with hotel employees’ OCB. Based on the reciprocity norm of the SET, both POS and PC assume that employees who receive valuable resources, such as pay raises and developmental opportunities, would feel more obligated to work for the organization (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003). However, Aselage and Eisenberger (2003) also summarized several differences. Firstly, promises are unique features and foundations for the formation of PC (Rousseau, 1995). “Psychological contract is actually promise-based and, over time, takes the form of a mental model or schema, which, like most other schemas, is relatively stable and durable” (Rousseau, 2001, p. 512). As for POS, it does not need to be based on the occurrence of a perceived promise. For example, Aselage and Eisenberger (2003) stated that organizations can provide resources and support to employees in the absence of obligation. Secondly, the formation of PC depends on the types of promise being signaled by organizations, such as pay increases, support to learn new skills, etc. (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000). In contrast, POS disregards what has been perceived to have been promised by organizations and does not need to specify how support will be given. Thirdly, the formation of PC can occur from a very early stage, such as recruitment and selection (Rousseau, 2001) where POS happens based on employees’ own observations or the cues from supervisors after they have begun to work (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003).

Hypothesis 1a. Managers who experience high PSS & low POS or high POS & low PSS will perceive a PCB. Hypothesis 1b. Managers who experience high POS & low PSS will perceive a higher PCB than those who experience high PSS & low POS.

2.4. Work engagement Based on the organizational health research model, employee wellbeing is shown to have an influence on organizational performance, including compensation claims, discretionary performance, customer satisfaction, medical expenses, absenteeism, and turnover (Cotton and Hart, 2003). Therefore, improving employee well-being is critical to improving organizational performance. Work engagement is “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p.74). Employee work engagement is important because it is a predictor of employee well-being and has been found to be related to many motivational jobrelated outcomes (Bakker et al., 2014). According to Saks (2006), engagement is positively associated with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior and negatively associated with the intention to leave. Engaged employees are more likely to be involved, committed, adaptive, satisfied, and proactive (Macey and Schneider, 2008). Studies conducted in the hospitality industry are consistent with general studies. For example, a study found that frontline employees’ engagement is positively associated with job performance and extra-role customer service (Karatepe, 2013). This study showed that engaged hotel employees are willing to go the extra mile to deal with guest issues. Another study showed that front-line employees with higher engagement have relatively higher job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment (Paek et al., 2015). Antecedents of work engagement can be interpreted by using the job demands and job resources model (JD-R model) (Bakker et al., 2014). Job demands are the aspects that require employees to put in sustainable physical and psychological efforts at work. Job resources are defined as the aspects of the job which can reduce the physical and psychological demands and help employees achieve their goals (Jones and Fletcher, 1996). Job resources have been shown to be important

2.3. The relationship between psychological contract and perceived support Previous research has found a negative relationship between POS and PCB (Tekleab et al., 2005). There is also a study that found the relationship could be reversed in that fulfilling PC leads to higher POS (Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005). Aselage and Eisenberger (2003) indicated that receiving favorable or unfavorable treatment from supervisors will lead to perceived fulfillment of PC through POS. Therefore, receiving lower supervisor or organizational support may lead to a breach of PC. The treatment that employees receive could come from recruiters, supervisors, or other upper-level managers. Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory focuses on the dyadic 3

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

X.C. Shi and S. Gordon

(Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988) were used to manipulate the scenarios of POS and PSS. For example, the item “my organization/supervisor really cares about my well-being” has a factor loading of 0.86 under the scale of POS and a factor loading of 0.90 under the scale of PSS. The item “my organization/supervisor shows a lot of concern for me” has a factor loading of 0.88 under the scale of POS and a factor loading of 0.93 under the scale of POS. In this study, compensation & benefits, training opportunities, and promotion system were used to manipulate the fictitious organization’s support. Resources needed to execute projects, feedback, and other supportive workplace behaviors were used to manipulate the support from supervisors. An example of the contents used for manipulating high/low POS and high/low PSS can be found in the Appendix A.

predictors of work engagement (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Examples of job resources include PSS, POS, and co-worker support. From the perspective of JD-R model, studying employees’ work engagement in the hospitality industry is critical because the industry is defined as a workplace with high job demands, such as work stress from both work and guests (O’Neill and Davis, 2011) and higher work-family conflict (Karatepe and Uludag, 2008), and managers may be subjected to higher demands given their positions. Having a high quality relationship with supervisors and organizations can help to reduce job demands. 2.5. Relationship among perceived support, PC, and work engagement As antecedents of work engagement (Saks, 2006), POS and PSS are found to be positively related to employees’ well-being. When employees believe their supervisors and organizations care about their well-being, they are more likely to fulfill their obligations by being more engaged at work (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Based on the JD-R model, Parzefall and Hakanen (2010) defined the fulfillment of PC as a type of economic and socio-emotional resource that employees expect from employers. Their study found that the fulfillment of PC positively influences work engagement. Another study found the breach of PC is negatively associated with work engagement through the mediation of job satisfaction (Rayton and Yalabik, 2014). The fulfilment of PC depends on both supervisors and organizations from the perspective of SET. However, whether POS or PSS is more important to influence employees’ work engagement remains unknown, especially from the management perspective. As noted earlier, POS can either fully or partially mediate the relationship between PSS and employees’ behavior intention or actual behaviors, giving PSS more importance. A meta-analysis conducted by Christian et al. (2011) found that several job resources are related to supervisors. Their results showed that receiving social support, such as supervisor support, contributes to work engagement. Besides that, leadership is also positively associated with work engagement. According to the LMX theory, the quality of the relationship between supervisor and employees influences subordinates’ work attitudes (Engle and Lord, 1997), and a highquality relationship with a superior can be crucial for managers. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

3.1. Participants and procedures 3.1.1. Pretest Two pretests were conducted utilizing convenience sampling. Because this study focused on hospitality managers, five manager participants from the industry were invited to assist in determining the realism of the scenarios. After modifying the scenarios based on the interview results, a questionnaire was designed and conducted to verify that participants could interpret the scenarios as realistic. The questionnaire in the second pretest included 25 hospitality manager participants in the United States. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four scenarios. 3.1.2. Major study Participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online platform that allows the researcher to reach out a vast pool of potential participants. Screening questions were used to ensure that the survey was given only to participants who were currently working in the United States and in the hotel industry in salary-paid management positions. Moreover, it is possible that the nature of the work in the hotel influences participants’ PC and work engagement. To control for that potential influence, participants were asked to report if they work in an operational department, such as food & beverage, housekeeping, and front office, or in a non-operational department, such as human resources, sales, and finance. After separating participants by their departmental groups, they were assigned to one of the four scenarios. Data for those who failed the manipulation checks and attention checks were eliminated from analysis, yielding a total of 256 participants. Seventy participants were in scenario A (High POS and High PSS), 55 participants were in scenario B (High POS and Low PSS), 54 participants were in scenario C (Low POS and High PSS), and 77 participants were in scenario D (Low POS and Low PSS). Demographically, 60% of the participants were male, approximately 56% of the participants were between the ages of 25 and 34, and about 78% of the participants hold a Bachelor degree.

Hypothesis 2a. Managers who experience high POS & low PSS or low POS & high PSS will have lower work engagement. Hypothesis 2b. Managers who experience high POS & low PSS will have lower work engagement than those who experience low POS & high PSS. Furthermore, previous research only examined the relationship between PSS and work engagement, POS and work engagement, or PC and work engagement separately. How PC influences work engagement when employees receive different levels of perceived supports has not yet been explored. Given the above argument that PSS may have a more significant impact on both PC and engagement, the breach of PC may have more influence on work engagement under the varying levels of support. Thus, this study proposes that:

3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Psychological contract PC was measured by using Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler’s (2000) nine employer obligation items (See Appendix B). Before being shown the scenario, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they believe their current employers are obligated to provide the nine items (Cronbach’s α = 0.89) . Respondents rated the items using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘not at all obligated’ to 7 ‘completely obligated.’ Subsequently, participants were given a random scenario and asked to indicate the extent to which in practice they would expect to receive the nine employer obligations if they were working for the fictitious company in the scenario (Cronbach’s α = 0.96) . Respondents were provided with a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘will never receive (0% of the time)’ to 7 ‘will always receive (100% of the time).’

Hypothesis 3. PCB under the scenario of high POS & low PSS has a more negative impact on work engagement than under the scenario of high PSS & low POS.

3. Methods To test the proposed hypotheses, a 2 (PSS: high vs. low) × 2 (POS: high vs. low) between-subjects experimental study was conducted. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental scenarios. Specifically, the scenarios instructed participants to imagine they were in manager roles and worked for a fictitious hotel company. Items with the highest factor loadings from the survey of PSS and POS 4

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

X.C. Shi and S. Gordon

The fulfillment and breach of PC were calculated by subtracting the degree to which each obligation will be perceived in practice from the degree to which it is perceived to be obligated. If an obligation is perceived to be highly obligated (score of 7) and perceived as will never receive in practice (score of 1). It will result in PCB (score of 6). The possible range of scores is from − 6 to + 6 with a score of 0 indicating a perfect psychological contract fulfillment. A score of − 6 means the organization fulfills employees’ PC more than their expectation.

and scenario C (Meanscenario C : Engagement = 4.11) experienced lower work engagement than participants who received scenario A (Meanscenario A : Engagement = 5.28) . An independent sample T-test was used to decide if the mean difference of work engagement is significant between each of the two scenarios (See Table 2). The mean difference of work engagement between scenario A and scenario B is 1.53, p < 0.001, and the mean difference of between scenario A and scenario C is 0.87, p < 0.01. Therefore, hypothesis 2a is supported. From the results of the independent sample T-test, it shows that the mean of PCB in scenario B (Meanscenario B : PCB = 1.25) is greater than it is in scenario C (Meanscenario C : PCB = 0.73) ). The mean difference of PCB between these two groups is significant (Meandiff PCB = 0.52, p < . 05) (See Table 3). Participants who received scenario B experienced a higher PCB than those received scenario C, so Hypothesis 1b is supported. The independent sample T-test also revealed that the mean of work engagement in scenario B (Meanscenario B : Engagement = 3.75) is lower than it is in scenario C (Meanscenario C : Engagement = 4.11).The mean difference of work engagement between these two groups is significant (Meandiff Engagement = 0.66, p < . 05) (See Table 2). Therefore, hypothesis 2b is supported. Hypothesis 3 was tested by using simple linear regression. The equation used for testing Hypothesis 3 is: YEngagement = β0 + β1 PCB + β2 scenario + β3 PCB * scenario + ε . The interaction term between scenario (B and C) and PCB is statistically significant (p = 0.018). Fig. 1 shows that in scenario B with low PSS, the negative relationship between PCB and work engagement is stronger. For scenario B, the marginal effect shows that a one unit increase in PCB will bring a 0.507 decrease in work engagement. For scenario C, the marginal effect reveals that a one unit increase in PCB will bring a 0.173 decrease of work engagement. In sum, PCB under the scenario of high POS & low PSS has a more significant impact on work engagement than under the scenario of low POS & high PSS and thus, hypothesis 3 is supported.

3.2.2. Work engagement Work engagement was measured by using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli et al., 2002). UWES (See Appendix C) is a commonly used scale to measure employee work engagement and has been tested in over ten different countries (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The participants were asked to rate each statement on a seven-point Likert scale with 1 representing ‘never’ and 7 representing ‘always/every day’ about how they would feel at work if they were working under the fictitious scenarios they were given (Cronbach’s α = 0.97). Convergent and discriminant validity were tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by using STATA 15.1 to verify the factor loadings for the constructs of PC before respondents were given the scenarios, PC after respondents were given the scenarios, and work engagement. The standard factor loading values for all three latent variables were above the 0.5 cutoff and were statistically significant at the 0.001 level. The composite reliability (CR) for PC before respondents given the scenarios, PC after respondents given the scenarios, and work engagement were 0.89, 0.96, and 0.97, respectively. The average variance extracted (AVE) values were 0.50, 0.70, and 0.64, respectively. The CR values and AVE values were above the required values of 0.7 and 0.5, suggesting the requirements of both convergent and discriminant validity were satisfied. Finally, demographic questions were asked, including gender, age, and highest level of completed education.

5. Discussion 4. Results This study explored and tested the influences of POS and PSS on PC and work engagement of hotel managers by creating four different scenarios. The data from the sample supported the initial hypotheses.

4.1. Manipulation check The scenario realism was tested both in the second pretest and the major study by asking participants if they believed the scenario is realistic and can happen at work; 96% of the participants in the second pretest indicated that the scenario is realistic and 92% of the participants in the major study rated the scenario as realistic, suggesting that the respondents perceived the given scenarios to be highly realistic. A one-way ANOVA indicated that the mean difference of PCB is significantly different in one of the two group comparison, F = 19.59, p < 0.0001. The same result was also found in the mean difference of work engagement, F = 34.55, p < 0.0001. Independent sample T-tests found that the mean score of PCB and work engagement under each scenario is significantly different, indicating that participants could figure out the difference of each scenario.

5.1. Theoretical contributions The present findings offer a greater understanding of the relationship between PSS and POS. Instead of focusing on the sequential relationship, this study explores the contemporaneous relationship of PSS and POS. This study enriches the field of perceived support by considering the situation in which managers receive supervisor support and organizational support at the same time, and more realistically, it also considers the situations in which the levels of the two supports could vary and even been opposite. By employing an experimental design where four scenarios were created with both supports of different levels, participants were asked to rate their PC and work engagement under each scenario. Consistent with the previous studies that showed PSS and POS are inversely associated with PCB and positively associated with work engagement, participants in this study have PCB and lower work engagement in the scenarios of high POS & low PSS, low POS & high PSS, and low POS & Low PSS. Beyond the initial result, this study found that participants have significantly higher PCB and lower work engagement under the scenario of high POS & low PSS than under the scenario of low POS & high PSS, demonstrating that receiving lower supervisor support may exert more negative influences on managers’ PC and work engagement than receiving lower organizational support. Additionally, the finding of this study is consistent with a previous research result that found that PCB negatively influences work engagement. Integrating POS & PSS (Eisenberger et al., 2002), PC (Rousseau,

4.2. Hypotheses testing To test Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, the mean scores of PCB and work engagement for each scenario were calculated, and an independent sample T-test was used to decide if the mean difference between each of the two scenarios was significant. Hypothesis 1a is supported because the mean scores of PCB for both scenario B (Meanscenario B : PCB = 1.25) and scenario C (Meanscenario C : PCB = 0.73) are above 0, showing participants who experienced Scenario B: High POS & Low PSS and Scenario C: Low POS & High PSS both experienced PCB (See Table 1). The mean score of work engagement (See Table 1) shows that participants who experienced scenario B (Meanscenario B : Engagement = 3.75) 5

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

X.C. Shi and S. Gordon

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the dependent variables. Experimental Manipulation

Mean (Standard Deviation) for PCB and Work Engagement (N = 256) PCB

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario

A: High POS & High PSS B: High POS & Low PSS C: Low POS & High PSS D: Low POS & Low PSS

0.04 1.25 0.73 1.74

(0.93) (1.62) (1.47) (1.50)

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario

A B C D

1.53*** 0.87** 1.90***

Scenario B High POS & Low PSS

Scenario C Low POS & High PSS

Scenario D Low POS & Low PSS

1.53***

0.87** −0.66*

1.90*** 0.37* 1.03***

−0.66* 0.37*

1.03***

A B C D

−1.21*** −0.69** −1.71***

Scenario B High POS & Low PSS

Scenario C Low POS & High PSS

Scenario D Low POS & Low PSS

−1.21***

−0.69** 0.52*

−1.71*** −0.47* −1.01***

0.52* −0.47*

70 55 54 77

Line-level employees in the hospitality industry have received increasing attention, but managerial employees are often overlooked. The findings in this study indicate that PSS could be a more important factor than POS to influence managers’ PC and work engagement. When compared to receiving lower organizational support, receiving lower supervisor support is more detrimental to fulfilling managers’ PC and keeping managers engaged. Instead of only focusing on line-level employees, executives and directors should also pay attention to people who are in middle-level management positions. Human resources needs to ensure that executives/directors are trained on how to support the managers who report to them and educate them to not assume that because their subordinates are in management positions, they do not need to be taken care of in the same way as hourly employees or that organizational support by itself is sufficient. Executives also need to be trained on the concept of PC and understand that statements made in times of recruitment, one-on-one meetings, performance reviews, etc. can be perceived as promises by managers and thus later perceived as being fulfilled or breached. Directors and HR should be forthcoming with managers so that not only are psychological promises seen as fulfilled, but support is extended through actions such as valuing opinions, considering goals, and caring about satisfaction at work. Understanding this concept can be critical in times of change such as when new regional directors are put in place or a brand of restaurant or hotel is sold to another parent company or an organization is restructured. The elements “promised” by a former director or company may no longer be fulfilled after the change, so when changes occur, directors should discuss with managers the expectations both parties have. Organizational programs that are used to care for line-level employees’ well-being should also be extended to managers. However, the findings also suggest that executives and human resources managers should develop supervisory support programs at the unit level even if the overall organization does not provide a high level of support, because support from the supervisor more heavily influences managers’ perceptions that their PC is being fulfilled. This could be especially important in a time of transition such as when a hotel or restaurant changes franchises or management companies and managers are retained or for those hotels which are managed by smaller second-tier management companies that do not have the same organizational support systems in place as the first-tier and larger second-tier management companies. Furthermore, as directors are moved within an organization or newly hired, they should be trained on the unit-level support programs to ensure consistency from director to director and unit to unit. What is more, executives/directors should provide more support on

Table 3 Mean difference of PCB between each two scenarios.

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario

5.28 (1.10) 3.75(1.42) 4.41 (1.06) 3.38 (1.17)

5.2. Managerial implications

* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

Scenario A High POS & High PSS

Cell Size

promissory and reciprocal (Rousseau, 1995). Based on these two features, supervisors may have decisive roles in influencing employees’ PC. Supervisors and organizations both can be the antecedents of PC because PC can be activated by the information offered by supervisors and organizations from recruitment to post-hire socialization (Rousseau, 2001). The results of this study found that the supervisor as an antecedent of PC may play a more important role than the organization.

Table 2 Mean difference of work engagement between each two scenarios. Scenario A High POS & High PSS

Work Engagement

−1.01***

* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

Fig. 1. Interaction between PCB and scenarios on engagement.

1989) and work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002) provides a more complete understanding of the relationship between employee and employer. PC is more likely to be treated as a perception. By adding the theory about work engagement, the framework offers more insight regarding how the perceptions influenced by supervisor support or organizational support affect behavior, such as work engagement. Further enhancing the important role of PSS, this study found that PCB more negatively influences work engagement under the scenario of high POS & low PSS. This indicates that lower supervisor support could lead to more negative consequences in an organization. In the field of PC, POS and PSS have found to positively influence PC (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000; Guchait et al., 2015). This study further shows that PC has a significant influence on managers’ work engagement. Employees’ PC has two features based on social exchange theory, including 6

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

X.C. Shi and S. Gordon

a more frequent basis. A key point to drive work engagement found in this study is PC, which is not easy to manage because of its subjectivity. It is recommended that individual units create a culture of open communication where managers can discuss their expectations with executives in terms of their personal needs for fulfillment of their PC. Different from the daily contact relationship between line-level employees and managers, managers and executive-level leaders may not have the same opportunity for daily communication, especially if a manager reports to a regional director such as the case of general managers of individual restaurants or select-service hotels who also often function as the manager to whom hourly employees directly report. In most organizations, a performance appraisal is conducted on a yearly basis and weekly or monthly one-on-one meetings between managers and executives may focus solely on work goals and issues. Including weekly check-ins to inquire about a manager’s well-being, work-life balance, and other needs as related to the psychological contract should be implemented. Furthermore, regular monthly or quarterly one-on-one meetings regarding performance should be conducted instead of only annually. Valuing managers’ well-being, worklife balance, and opinions and giving them timely feedback are examples of some of the necessary support actions that need to be taken in order to fulfill their PC and increase work engagement.

limited number of items to manipulate PSS and POS that may not cover all of the aspects representing types of support from supervisors and organizations. Second, in the scenario-based experiment, participants were asked to imagine they worked for a fictitious company. It is possible that they did not fully project themselves in the situation. Therefore, future research should use a longitudinal field approach to examine the different influences of PSS and POS on managers’ PC and work engagement at various stages. The scenario-based experimental design in this study captured two time points. To better capture the changing nature of PC, the time points of measuring the key constructs in the longitudinal study can be increased. For example, PC can be measured at the selection stage, the stage of passing probation, and the stage that employees have worked for the organization for one year. By calculating the differences between each stage, any PC changes will be revealed. This study offers important insights regarding how PSS and POS influence PC after employees are working for an organization. The above suggested approach can also examine the change of PC before and after employees start to work for an organization. Finally, this study focuses on a between-person comparison. Future research may also examine if a within-person variability of day-specific PSS predicts employee well-being.

5.3. Limitations and future research

Declaration of Competing Interest None.

This study is not without limitations. First, the current study used a Appendix A. High POS (Low POS) & High PSS (Low PSS) Scenarios

You are a manager for the Cascades Hotel Group (CHG). You report to the Director of your department and are responsible for directly managing line-level employees. You have worked for CHG for 3 years and were promoted to your current role 2 years ago. [High POS] CHG pays comparable to the market and offers a benefit package that includes health, dental, and vision insurance. CHG also offers other perks such as reimbursement for public transportation or gas mileage and provides learning opportunities for those employees with excellent performance to earn professional certifications (e.g., e-Cornell certificate, Court of Master Sommelier certificate, etc.). CHG has a well-established incentive system to reward all employees with outstanding performance with gift cards that can be used in many shopping malls, supermarkets, restaurants, etc. in the city. For those who are rewarded three months continuously, they are a given dinner for two that can be used in any of the CHG F&B outlets or for 50% off of a one night stay at a CHG hotel. While the company expects hard work from its associates, it also embraces and actively pursues work-life balance for its employees. CHG heavily favors promoting from within and offers extensive training and development programs to employees of all levels. CHG provides competitive annual bonuses to managers, which are awarded primarily on managers’ individual contributions as opposed to the company’s yearly performance. [Low POS] CHG does not offer any other extra perks such as reimbursement for public transportation or gas mileage and learning opportunities for those employees with good performance to earn certifications (e.g., e-Cornell certificate, Court of Master Sommelier certificate, etc.) CHG does not have a well-established incentive system to reward employees with outstanding performance. There are limited training and development opportunities to employees of any level. CHG provides annual bonuses to managers, but they are awarded primarily on the company’s yearly performance as opposed to managers’ individual performance. Recently, your director conducted your annual performance review with you. During the review, you talked about your career goals for the next year and some of your plans regarding improving your department. Your director approved your performance development plan for the upcoming year. [High PSS] When you started to execute the plan, your director was very supportive about the plan and gave you the necessary resources you need. In fact, every time you discussed your ideas about driving departmental performance to your director, he/she always valued your opinions and gave you encouraging feedback. Sometimes you had to work longer hours during busy seasons. Your director, caring about your work-life balance, acknowledged your additional hours and gave you extra days off. [Low PSS] However, when you started to execute the plan, your director was not very supportive and no longer seemed to care about the plan. In fact, every time you tried to bring up your ideas about driving departmental performance to your director either in person or by email, he/she did not address what you mentioned or went on to discuss a different topic. It seems like he/she never values your opinions. Furthermore, your director expected you to work considerably more hours on your days off or even on the days you requested off ahead of time without notifying you in advance. He/she did not care about your work-life balance. Appendix B. Scales Used to Measure PC

Fair pay for job responsibilities Support to learn new skills Long term job security Good career opportunities Up to date training and development Pay increases to maintain standard of living

7

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

X.C. Shi and S. Gordon Fair pay in comparison to employees doing similar work in other hotels Fair pay for job responsibilities Fringe benefits that are comparable to what employees doing similar work in other hotels receive

Appendix C. Scales Used to Measure Work Engagement

At CHG, I would feel bursting with energy. I would find the work that I do at CHG full of meaning and purpose. Time would fly if I were working at CHG. In my job at CHG, I would feel strong and vigorous. I would be enthusiastic about my job at CHG. When I am working at CHG, I would forget everything else around me. My job at CHG would inspire me. When I get up in the morning, I would feel like going to work. At CHG I would feel happy when I work intensely. I would be proud of the work that I do at CHG. I would be immersed in my work at CHG. I would be able to continue working for very long periods at a time. To me, my job at CHG would be challenging. At CHG, I would get carried away when I am working. At my job, I would be very resilient, mentally. It would be difficult to detach myself from my job at CHG. At my work at CHG, I would always persevere, even when things do not go well.

relationship to business outcomes: a review of the Gallup studies. Flourishing Positive Psychol. Life Well Lived 2, 205–224. Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N.W., 2004. Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leadermember exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Acad. Manag. J. 47 (3), 368–384. Jones, F., Fletcher, B.C., 1996. Taking work home: a study of daily fluctuations in work stressors, effects on moods and impacts on marital partners. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 69 (1), 89–106. Karatepe, O.M., 2013. High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: the mediation of work engagement. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 32, 132–140. Karatepe, O.M., Uludag, O., 2008. Supervisor support, work-family conflict, and satisfaction outcomes: an empirical study in the hotel industry. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 7 (2), 115–134. Kottke, J.L., Sharafinski, C.E., 1988. Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 48 (4), 1075–1079. Lester, S.W., Turnley, W.H., Bloodgood, J.M., Bolino, M.C., 2002. Not seeing eye to eye: differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach. J. Organ. Behav. 23 (1), 39–56. Li, J.J., Wong, I.A., Kim, W.G., 2016. Effects of psychological contract breach on attitudes and performance: the moderating role of competitive climate. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 55, 1–10. Li, J.J., Kim, W.G., Zhao, X.R., 2017. Multilevel model of management support and casino employee turnover intention. Tour. Manag. 59, 193–204. Li, J., Kim, J.H., 2019. A cross-level analysis of management commitment and work ability among senior casino dealers in Macau. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 31 (5), 2095–2113. Maertz, C.P., Griffeth, R.W., Campbell, N.S., Allen, D.G., 2007. The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. J. Organ. Behav. 28 (8), 1059–1075. Maertz Jr, C.P., Griffeth, R.W., 2004. Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: a theoretical synthesis with implications for research. J. Manag. 30 (5), 667–683. Nyberg, A., 2010. Retaining your high performers: moderators of the performance–job satisfaction–voluntary turnover relationship. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 (3), 440–453. O’Neill, J.W., Davis, K., 2011. Work stress and well-being in the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 30 (2), 385–390. Paek, S., Schuckert, M., Kim, T.T., Lee, G., 2015. Why is hospitality employees’ psychological capital important? the effects of psychological capital on work engagement and employee morale. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 50, 9–26. Parzefall, M.R., Hakanen, J., 2010. Psychological contract and its motivational and health-enhancing properties. J. Manag. Psychol. 25 (1), 4–21. Quinn, R.E., Faerman, S.R., Thompson, M.P., McGrath, M.R., 2003. Becoming a Master Manager: A Competency Approach. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken: NJ. Rayton, B.A., Yalabik, Z.Y., 2014. Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job satisfaction. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 25 (17), 2382–2400. Reichers, A.E., 1985. A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Acad. Manag. Rev. 10 (3), 465–476. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., 2002. Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (4), 698–714. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., 2001. Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (5), 825–836. Robinson, S.L., 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Adm. Sci. Q. 41 (4), 574–599. Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S., Rousseau, D.M., 1994. Changing obligations and the psychological contract: a longitudinal study. Acad. Manag. J. 37 (1), 137–152.

References Ahmad, I., Zafar, M.A., 2018. Impact of psychological contract fulfillment on organizational citizenship behavior: mediating role of perceived organizational support. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 30 (2), 1001–1015. Aselage, J., Eisenberger, R., 2003. Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: a theoretical integration. J. Organ. Behav. 24 (5), 491–509. Ashton, C., Morton, L., 2005. Managing talent for competitive advantage: taking a systemic approach to talent management. Strateg. HR Rev. 4 (5), 28–31. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Sanz-Vergel, A.I., 2014. Burnout and work engagement: the JD–R approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1 (1), 389–411. Chen, T.J., Wu, C.M., 2017. Improving the turnover intention of tourist hotel employees: transformational leadership, leader-member exchange, and psychological contract breach. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 29 (7), 1914–1936. Chen, M., Lyu, Y., Li, Y., Zhou, X., Li, W., 2017. The impact of high-commitment HR practices on hotel employees’ proactive customer service performance. Cornell Hosp. Q. 58 (1), 94–107. Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., Slaughter, J.E., 2011. Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers. Psychol. 64 (1), 89–136. Cotton, P., Hart, P.M., 2003. Occupational wellbeing and performance: a review of organisational health research. Aust. Psychol. 38 (2), 118–127. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Conway, N., 2005. Exchange relationships: examining psychological contracts and perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 (4), 774–781. Coyle-Shapiro, J., Kessler, I., 2000. Consequences of the psychological contract for the employment relationship: a large scale survey. J. Manag. Stud. 37 (7), 903–930. Cropanzano, R., Mitchell, M.S., 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 31 (6), 874–900. Davidson, M.C.G., Timo, N., Wang, Y., 2010. How much does labour turnover cost? A case study of Australian four-and five-star hotels. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 22 (4), 451–466. Dermody, M.B., Holloway, R., 1998. Recruitment and retention of managers: developing a management-career package. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 39 (6), 20–25. Dirks, K.T., Ferrin, D.L., 2002. Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (4), 611–628. Eisenberger, R., Florence, S., Christian, V., Sucharski, I.L., Rhoades, L., 2002. Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (3), 565–573. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., Sowa, D., 1986. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 71 (3), 500–507. Engle, E.M., Lord, R.G., 1997. Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Acad. Manag. J. 40 (4), 988–1010. Gerstner, C.R., Day, D.V., 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues. J. Appl. Psychol. 82 (6), 827–844. Gordon, S., Tang, C.H., Day, J., Adler, H., 2019. Supervisor support and turnover in hotels: does subjective well-being mediate the relationship? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 31 (1), 496–512. Guchait, P., Back, K.J., 2016. Three country study: impact of support on employee attitudes. Serv. Ind. J. 36 (7-8), 299–318. Guchait, P., Cho, S., Meurs, J.A., 2015. Psychological contracts, perceived organizational and supervisor support: investigating the impact on intent to leave among hospitality employees in India. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 14 (3), 290–315. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Keyes, C.L.M., 2003. Well-being in the workplace and its

8

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

X.C. Shi and S. Gordon

Shanock, L.R., Eisenberger, R., 2006. When supervisors feel supported: relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 (3), 689. Stalcup, L.D., Pearson, T.A., 2001. A model of the causes of management turnover in hotels. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 25 (1), 17–30. Tang, Y.Y., Tsaur, S.H., 2016. Supervisory support climate and service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality: the role of positive group affective tone. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 28 (10), 2331–2349. Tekleab, A.G., Takeuchi, R., Taylor, M.S., 2005. Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: the role of contract violations. Acad. Manag. J. 48 (1), 146–157. Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 1 (1), 3–30. Wu, C.M., Chen, T.J., 2015. Psychological contract fulfillment in the hotel workplace: empowering leadership, knowledge exchange, and service performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 48, 27–38. Xu, S., Martinez, L.R., Lv, Q., 2017. Communication is key: the interaction of emotional labor strategies on hotel supervisors’ turnover intentions in China. Tour. Anal. 22 (2), 125–137.

Rousseau, D., 1995. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, US. Rousseau, D., 2001. Schema, promises and mutuality: the building blocks of the psychological contract. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 74 (4), 511–541. Rousseau, D.M., 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 2 (2), 121–139. Rousseau, D.M., Tijoriwala, S.A., 1998. Assessing psychological contracts: issues, alternatives and measures. J. Organ. Behav. 19, 679–695. Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 21 (7), 600–619. Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 25 (3), 293–315. Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., Salanova, M., 2006. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 66 (4), 701–716. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., Bakker, A.B., 2002. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3 (1), 71–92.

9