The effects of mentoring on role stress, job attitude, and turnover intention in the hotel industry

International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

The effects of mentoring on role stress, job attitude, and turnover intention in the hotel industry Samuel Seongseop Kim a,1 , Jaemoon Im b,2 , Jinsoo Hwang c,∗ a b c

School of Hotel & Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Room 831, 17 Science Museum Road, TST East, Kowloon, Hong Kong School of Tourism at Baekseok Culture University, 58 Moonam-ro, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si, Chungcheongnam-do 330-705, South Korea Dongseo University, 47 Jurye-ro, Sasang-gu, Busan 617-716, South Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Mentoring function Job satisfaction Role conflict Role ambiguity Organization commitment Turnover intention

a b s t r a c t In response to a dearth of mentoring studies in the hospitality literature, this study develops and tests a research model to investigate the influence of mentoring functions on role stress, job attitude, and turnover intention in the hotel industry. The data were collected from employees who had experienced mentoring programs at super-deluxe hotels in South Korea. This study conceptualized mentoring activity as having three main functions, including career development, psychosocial support, and role modeling. Structural equation model (SEM) analyses were used to explore the statistical significance of the paths between these functions and the main outcome variables. The psychosocial support function showed a significant relationship with all variables in the model (i.e., a positive effect on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, but a negative effect on role conflict, role ambiguity, and turnover intention). The relationships were not significant between the career development function and role ambiguity, between role modeling and role ambiguity, or between role ambiguity and turnover intention. The results will enable a better understanding of the effects of hotel mentoring programs and indicate directions for improving their outcomes. The findings can help hotel managers in developing more effective mentoring programs. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Workers in the hotel industry face various challenges including those common to all service industry jobs and those specific to the hotel industry, which is characterized by small-scale employers (most hotels have a staff of 50–700 people). In particular, small hotels offer limited opportunities for promotion, advancement, training, or transfer to other departments. Employees’ personal strategies to overcome these challenges and promote career advancement in such organizations have been commonly discussed in the hospitality literature. One such strategy is mentoring; mentoring programs are effective human resource management strategies for tackling the issues of role stress, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention among employees. Mentoring involves a process in which a superior or senior employee helps a less

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 51 510 1856; fax: +82 51 512 1853. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.S. Kim), [email protected] (J. Im), [email protected] (J. Hwang). 1 Tel.: +852 3400 2318; fax: +852 2362 9362. 2 Tel.: +82 41 550 0700; fax: +82 41 550 9113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.04.006 0278-4319/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

experienced employee in adapting to an organization’s culture, in performing tasks better, or developing a better career trajectory (Eby et al., 2008; Haggard et al., 2011; Underhill, 2006). Mentoring has received a great deal of attention from both academic experts and professional managers. In the diverse fields including educational institutions, religious organizations, and other public or private organizations most studies focused on classification of mentoring functions or its benefits to mentee or mentor. The effects of mentoring can be different according to gender composition of the mentor and mentee (Clawson and Kram, 1984; Darling et al., 2006; Dreher and Ash, 1990), mentoring program (Ragins et al., 2000; Ragins and Verbos, 2007), quality of interaction in mentoring (Allen et al., 2006; Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988; Ragins et al., 2000), mentor’s qualification (Haggard et al., 2011; Noe, 1988), time of information exchange (Mullen and Noe, 1999), age of the mentor and mentee (Murphy, 2012). In contrast to the active research in disciplines such as human resources, education, clinical psychology, and sports, few previous studies of the hospitality industry have directly (Ayres, 2006; Rutherford, 1984; Rutherford and Wiegenstein, 1985) or indirectly (Karatepe, 2013; Kong et al., 2012; Lankau and Chung, 1998; Yang, 2010) enumerated the diverse benefits of mentoring programs.

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

Further, no previous study has conceptualized or measured the construct of mentoring in a hospitality context, or tested a model that considers the role of mentoring in role stress, job satisfaction, and turnover intention. As it is likely that staff in the hotel industry, like staff in other service industries, require mentoring programs as a strategy for career advancement and for their mental health (Rutherford, 1984; Rutherford and Wiegenstein, 1985), there is a need to study the role of mentoring in the hotel industry. To fill this research gap, this study tested the effects of mentoring on role stress, job attitude, and turnover intention in the hotel industry. Specifically, the first objective of the study was to identify the relationships among various mentoring functions and role stress, job attitude, and turnover intention. The second objective was to explore the relationship among role stress, job attitude, and turnover intention. The third objective was to analyze the relationship between job attitude and turnover intention. Determining the effectiveness of mentoring by comparing those who received mentoring with those who did not is not the main objective. Rather, this study examines the quality of mentoring among those who were part of a mentoring program.

2. Literature review 2.1. Mentoring Research in mentoring has been conducted for over 30 years in diverse disciplines and professions, including educational institutions, religious organizations, and other public or private organizations. Mentoring is widely seen as beneficial in building on-going relationships between organizations and their members (Murphy, 2012; Ragins and Kram, 2007). In general, mentoring is defined as a work relationship between a mentor (an older, more experienced and qualified adult or senior) and a mentee (a younger or less experienced individual) that is formed to facilitate career and personal development (Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988). The term “mentoring” is interchangeably used with words such as “advising,” “counseling” or “coaching” (Scandura, 1992). However, mentoring has a distinct meaning, because mentoring is oriented toward maintaining a long-term relationship, pursuing long-term goals, developing personal and career characteristics, and revolving diverse outcomes. Mentoring is not “teaching,” “instructing” or “telling” as oneway instruction imposed by a mentor, but a dyadic learning partnership between a mentor and a mentee. This kind of partnership enables the mentees to take charge of their own development, release their potential, and achieve the results that they value. Such mentoring is achievable through formal communication (official mentoring provided by an organization) or by informal communication (an unofficial or individual mentoring approach which is not assigned by an organization) (Ayres, 2006; Eby et al., 2000; Kram, 1985). Since Kram (1985) introduced her seminal work on mentoring, the most popularly discussed research topics concern the positive outcomes generated through mentoring programs. The outcomes of various mentoring programs have been studied in the context of learning (Allen et al., 2008; Lankau and Scandura, 2002; Wangberg et al., 2003), salary (Chao, 1997; Dreher and Ash, 1990), job satisfaction (Ensher et al., 2001; Payne and Huffman, 2005; Lankau and Chung, 1998; Ragins and Cotton, 1999), or reduction in turnover rate (Beckert and Walsh, 1991; Karatepe, 2013; Viator and Scandura, 1991). The effects of mentoring have also been discussed in the context of organizational commitment (Ragins et al., 2000) and career development (Ayres, 2006; Haggard et al., 2011; Rutherford, 1984; Rutherford and Wiegenstein, 1985; Scandura, 1992). Such studies have explored mentoring programs

69

from the perspective of the benefits to the mentees (Chao, 1997; Dreher and Ash, 1990; Ensher et al., 2001; Ragins et al., 2000; Scandura, 1992), the social exchange of benefits between mentors and a mentees (Allen, 2007; Allen and Eby, 2003; Ensher et al., 2001; Lankau and Scandura, 2002), and the communal development achieved through mutual learning and personal growth (Mullen and Noe, 1999; Ragins and Verbos, 2007; Wangberg et al., 2003). 2.2. Mentoring functions Another research stream has tried to identify the different functions or roles of mentoring. As these functions and roles vary across fields, there is no consensus on what comprises mentoring functions. However, most studies agree that mentoring is multidimensional (Chao, 1997; Haggard et al., 2011; Lankaua et al., 2006; Scandura, 1992; Viator, 2001). Some studies have identified two dimensions of mentoring: the career development function and the psychosocial support function (Chao, 1997; Reid et al., 2008). Other studies have proposed three functions: a career development function, a psychosocial support function, and a role modeling function (de Janasz and Godshalk, 2013; Scandura, 1992; Scandura and Viator, 1994; Weinberg and Lankau, 2011). The career development function has been the most frequently discussed. This aspect of mentoring mainly involves a mentor’s support for a mentee to learn his/her own job specifications, to enhance job professionalism, and to solve job-related problems (Allen and Eby, 2003; Ayres, 2006; Aryee et al., 1999; Patwardhan and Venkatachalam, 2012; Scandura, 1992; Viator, 2001). Evaluating this function involves investigating how mentors teach task-related roles to their mentees, and motivate them by providing sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, or challenging assignments (Dutton and Heaphy, 2003; Dutton and Ragins, 2007; Higgins and Kram, 2001; Kram, 1983, 1985; Ragins and Cotton, 1999; Rutherford and Wiegenstein, 1985). For example, Patwardhan and Venkatachalam (2012) found that mentoring was very helpful for the career advancement of female hotel staff, as it enabled information sharing among women in a male-dominated Indian hotel working environment. Based on interviews with 200 hotel general managers, Rutherford and Wiegenstein (1985) found that even though mentoring did not significantly influence the mentees’ job satisfaction or mental and emotional well-being, it did play a decisive role in the mentees’ career development process toward becoming hotel general managers. These researchers concluded that mentoring is an effective vehicle for enabling individual job/career advancement, such as promotion to a better position or transfer to a better company. Wang (2013) also found that communication and networking with other staff members was one of the career competency dimensions enabled by mentoring. The career development function allows mentees to improve their working performance and reach their career goals. However, it tends to over emphasize “ambition for success” or “opportunism for success,” and encourages mentees to aggressively take advantage of mentoring (Allen et al., 2008; Noe, 1988; Viator, 2001). This means that in reality, a mentee may learn how to please or even flatter a superior, how to easily complete workloads using temporary expedient measures, or how to be speedily promoted. These issues led academics to study the social and psychological functions of mentoring. The psychosocial support function has been relatively less referenced in the mentoring literature than the career-development function. However, another important function of mentoring is to help mentees stabilize their psychological relation to an organization or society, and adjust themselves to their organizational

70

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

environment (Allen et al., 2008; Kram, 1985). Such support happens as mentees share personal worries or concerns with their mentors and form an emotional relationship (Lankaua et al., 2006). This function of mentoring can be explained through leader-member exchange theory (LMX), in which high quality LMX relationships are characterized by respect and trust. Such quality relationships are fostered by close mentoring (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kim et al., 2010; Schyns and Croon, 2006). As a result, this function is promoted through multiple approaches that involve a mentor’s personal support/counseling, the formation of friendships, or the consolidation of the mentees’ psychological stability in their organizational community (Chao, 1997; Eby et al., 2000; Fagenson, 1992; Mullen and Noe, 1999). The two-dimensional framework does not include the role modeling function (Chao, 1997; Reid et al., 2008). Thus the role modeling function of mentoring in early organizational behavior studies was treated as part of the psychosocial support function (Kemery et al., 1985; Kram, 1985; Miles and Perreault, 1976). However, the importance of the role model function was highlighted in the development of the concept of mentoring. Frequent contact in the process of mentoring makes a mentee spontaneously respect his or her mentor as a role model. Therefore, this function was eventually recognized as a single dimension. As a result, role modeling has since been separated into its own category as one of the fundamental functions of mentoring (Baugh and Scandura, 2000; Burke, 1984; Lankaua et al., 2006; Scandura, 1992; Viator, 2001; Weinberg and Lankau, 2011). Mentors act as facilitators for mentees by providing role models. The role models demonstrate enhanced job competency and professional undertaking of assigned duties (Lankau and Chung, 1998; Rutherford, 1984). This function can also have a wider effect on the workforce, because in following the example of their mentors, the mentees may share the know-how, experience, and professionalism they have received with the other employees. As a result, a mentee may serve as an exemplary person to enhance the staff’s effectiveness and quality of service. In sum, most previous studies of mentoring have focused on its importance, types, outcomes, and benefits. Most of these studies were conducted in the 1980s and 1990s and subsequent empirical studies of mentoring have not actively used mentoring as a main influential variable. In particular, there has been insufficient effort to develop a reliable and valid measurement for the construct. Further, there have been very few attempts to develop theories or to test regression models or SEM that include mentoring functions and their related variables. In the hospitality field, there are no methods for statistically testing the effects of mentoring.

3. Research model and hypotheses 3.1. The relationship between mentoring function and role stress The seminal study on role stress by Kahn et al. (1964) identified two common role stressors in work environments, role conflict and role ambiguity. Rizzo et al. (1970) attempted to develop a scale for measuring role stress. They identified two factors, which they called role conflict and role ambiguity. They developed these factors after factor-analyzing 30 items related to role stress. The two-dimensional structure has been used to study role stress in a variety of settings (Jackson and Schuler, 1985; Karatepe, 2009; Kemery et al., 1985; Madera et al., 2013; Onyemah, 2008). Role conflict refers to the degree of incongruity or incompatibility between various expectations of role performance (Jung and Yoon, 2013; Riley, 2007). In other words, employees may experience role conflict when they are given instructions by two or more persons at the same time, and these different instructions are incompatible.

This conflict of directives may lead to great tension and anxiety for a role performer. Role conflict is also subdivided into intra-role and inter-role conflict (Jawahar et al., 2007; Miles and Perreault, 1976). Intra-role conflict occurs when a role performer fails to successfully undertake assigned tasks. The intra-role conflict also includes the definition of work overload relative to an individual’s capability. In contrast, inter-role conflict occurs when the standards or expectations for a role are increased, and the role performer finds it difficult to meet the new requirements. The second dimension of role stress, role ambiguity, occurs when there is a lack of understanding about a role performer’s assigned job or about the expectations related to role transfer (Jackson and Schuler, 1985; Onyemah, 2008; Riley, 2007). In general, role ambiguity is most likely to arise when there is a lack of information about organizational goals, policies, guidelines, or duties. Role ambiguity can also stem from rapid shifts in roles due to organizational change (Madera et al., 2013). It is not surprising that role ambiguity is significantly associated with low job satisfaction, high turnover intention, low commitment, and poor job performance (Jang and George, 2012; Kim et al., 2009; Ortqvist and Wincent, 2006). Furthermore, such conflict causes personal dysfunction that generates negative physiological states and emotions in the workplace. Such dysfunction is commonly described as occupational stress (Kim et al., 2009; Ross, 1995). Role conflict and ambiguity are likely to be influenced by mentoring. Previous studies have discussed multi-dimensional functions of mentoring, including career development, psychosocial support, and role modeling (Scandura, 1992). These functions play an effective role in easing the negative effects of stress and in taking precautions against it (Beehr and McGrath, 1992; Kalargyrou and Woods, 2011; Rutherford and Wiegenstein, 1985; Viator, 2001; Yang, 2010). The first mentoring function, career development, contributes to dissipating role conflict and role ambiguity because it helps a mentee to gain heightened confidence in solving job-related problems, enhancing job performance and increasing job efficiency (Allen and Eby, 2003; Noe, 1988; Scandura, 1992; Viator, 2001). The career development function serves to alleviate role conflict and role ambiguity by motivating mentees through formal or informal coaching and through a process of mutual learning between mentors and mentees (Ragins and Verbos, 2007). As mentoring for career development helps to promote further regular career advancement, this function naturally serves to reduce role stress (Patwardhan and Venkatachalam, 2012; Rutherford and Wiegenstein, 1985). In particular, career development serves a pivotal role in decreasing role conflict and role ambiguity among subordinates serving at low levels in the organization’s hierarchy (Ayres, 2006; Haggard et al., 2011; Ragins and Kram, 2007). The psychosocial support function of mentoring can improve mentees’ work performance, because the emotional attachment, friendship, mutual respect, and recognition that are formed between mentors and mentees can inspire employees with a desire to work for their organization and to carry out their given tasks (Allen et al., 2008; Kram, 1985). This function, which can be promoted by sharing personal problems, contributes to the psychosocial progress of the protégés by enhancing their self-image and competency (Kram, 1983; Kram and Isabella, 1985). A mentee who receives psychosocial support from a mentor tends to believe that his or her work for the hotel contributes to his or her own personal growth, and this belief results in stronger dedication to the organization (Rutherford, 1984; Rutherford and Wiegenstein, 1985). The psychosocial function helps to reduce role conflict and ambiguity, as escalated competency and selfmotivation naturally lead to less role conflict and role ambiguity. For example, Linnehan (2001) indicated that stress caused by cultural diversity in the Los Angeles working environment can be

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

71

Fig. 1. Proposed structural equation model.

alleviated by mentoring. Viator’s (2001) study also found that the psychosocial support function was most effective in diminishing role stress among higher ranking employees. The psychological stability that mentees gain through counseling and support generally helps to maximize their role performance rather than assuage their role stress (Chao, 1997; Eby et al., 2000; Lankaua et al., 2006; Murphy and Olsen, 2009). As a result, the psychosocial function of hotel mentoring programs curbs mentees’ role conflict and role ambiguity. Role modeling is regarded as a separate dimension, as it influences the learning processes of new employees such as interns and new hires (Ragins and Kram, 2007). That is, a new mentee learns his or her mentor’s thoughts, philosophy, behavior, skill, know-how, manners, and working habits. Therefore, a role model is an example to his or her protégés; they learn from and follow their mentor in or out of an organization. The role modeling function increases mentees satisfaction with their work and teaches them how to be role models for other employees (Kemery et al., 1985; Kram, 1985). As a positive function of mentoring, role modeling also helps to build favorable attitudes and positive life values and to develop proper organizational behavior (Lankau and Chung, 1998; Miles and Perreault, 1976; Rutherford, 1984). Therefore, the role modeling function reduces role conflict, as mentees try to imitate role models and learn how to make their hotel career successful. In addition, this function motivates them to be professional, and to provide a high quality service in hotel management. Consequently, these efforts are likely to reduce role ambiguity. The conceptual framework and the related hypotheses are illustrated in Fig. 1. The foregoing discussion suggests a series of hypotheses to be tested, which include the following:

1a: The career development function is likely to have a negative effect on role conflict. 1b: The career development function is likely to have a negative effect on role ambiguity. 2a: The psychosocial support function is likely to have a negative effect on role conflict. 2b: The psychosocial support function is likely to have a negative effect on role ambiguity. 3a: The role modeling function is likely to have a negative effect on role conflict. 3b: The role modeling function is likely to have a negative effect on role ambiguity.

3.2. The relationship between mentoring function and job attitude Job attitude is defined as an employee’s feelings toward a given job. Such attitudes are associated with positive or negative emotions, value systems, or the kinds of behavior that employees show in undertaking their job duties. Specifically, both job satisfaction and organizational commitment are part of job attitude. Job satisfaction indicates that an employee has a favorable attitude toward the job and a positive mental state concerning his/her job performance (Hon, 2013; Madera et al., 2013). Job satisfaction has usually been researched as an antecedent of organizational outcomes such as turnover, business performance and organizational commitment, or as an outcome of organizational conditions such as the quality of leadership (Chung et al., 2010; Kim and Brymer, 2011; Payne and Huffman, 2005; Schyns and Croon, 2006; Yang, 2010). Organizational commitment has been defined as that aspect of an employee’s psychological state that binds an employee to an organization and its tasks (Allen and Meyer, 1990), or as a mindset that takes different forms and binds an individual to a course of action relevant to a particular target (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001). Commitment has an affective component (Allen and Meyer, 1996; Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002; Mowday et al., 1982), which consists of an emotional attachment to an organization such as a strong sense of belonging or a sense that the organization has a personal meaning for the employee. In a three-tier model of mentoring outcomes Bozeman and Feeney (2009) divided mentoring outcomes into individual and organizational scopes. The individual scope includes improved individual human capital, increased career and job opportunity, and enhanced career motivation. On the one hand, organization scope includes increased organizational commitment, increased vertical mobility, and improved quality of organization’s human capital. Most studies of mentoring have identified the contribution of mentoring to enhanced job satisfaction (e.g., Allen et al., 1997; Ensher et al., 2001; Feeney and Bozeman, 2008; Hezlett and Gibson, 2007; Lankau and Chung, 1998; Lankaua et al., 2006; Noe et al., 2002; Payne and Huffman, 2005; Ragins et al., 2000; Sosik and Godshalk, 2000; Viator, 2001; Weinberg and Lankau, 2011; Xu and Payne, 2014). Specially, Payne and Huffman (2005) argued that employees are more likely to be satisfied with their own jobs when they strongly perceive that they are receiving psychosocial support from their mentors. A study of Feeney and Bozeman (2008) also found that mentoring enhances a network

72

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

tie of mentees and it positively links to their attitude toward job. These studies can be supported by some studies that mentors offer psychological support to their mentees by assisting them in developing their own identity with the organization while promoting work-role effectiveness (Kram, 1985, 1988; Lankau and Chung, 1998; Lankaua et al., 2006; Noe, 1988; Ragins et al., 2000; Weinberg and Lankau, 2011). Likewise, role modeling is highly influential on protégé’s job satisfaction because when a protégé respects the knowledge and competencies of his/her mentor and further when the protégé openly talk and share friendship with the reputable mentor, the mentee will have a confidence in fulfilling his/her work and feel sprits of job accomplishment (Kram, 1985; Weinberg and Lankau, 2011). Hezlett and Gibson (2007) posited that job satisfaction is a short-term gain of mentoring, whereas organization commitment or career success is a long-term gain. Bozeman and Feeney (2009) considered organizational commitment as one of organizational benefits of mentoring because mentoring contributes to increasing career satisfaction and improving social networks. The three main mentoring functions are contributory to boosting careerrelated outcomes including organizational commitment (Aryee and Tan, 1992; Dreher and Ash, 1990; Duke et al., 2009; Hezlett and Gibson, 2007; Kim et al., 2010; Patwardhan and Venkatachalam, 2012; Payne and Huffman, 2005; Ragins and Cotton, 1999; Ragins et al., 2000; Reid et al., 2008; Weinberg and Lankau, 2011). A study of Ragins and Cotton (1999) also posited that mentoring program brings out strong organizational commitment to both mentor and mentee. Aryee and Tan’s (1992) study also proposed a model that identified some predictors of organizational commitment, and found that the career development function of mentoring significantly affected organizational commitment. Thus the more effective the mentees perceive their mentoring program to be, the higher their organization commitment (Kim et al., 2010). With regard to a relationship between mentoring and organizational commitment Weinberg and Lankau (2011) identified that the three mentoring functions are positively related to organizational commitment. Furthermore, a study by Payne and Huffman (2005) discovered that mentoring programs which involve sharing between lower-ranking mentees and higher-ranking mentors are more effective than other types of mentoring programs in building robust organizational commitment. In addition, research in an Indian hotel showed that mentoring more favorably enables female hotel staff than male staff in terms of career advancement and job satisfaction (Patwardhan and Venkatachalam, 2012). Xu and Payne (2014) identified that the effect of mentoring on job satisfaction was positive even though the result was affected by the mentorship quality. Reid et al. (2008) investigated if psychosocial and career mentoring functions positively influence mentee’s organizational commitment using a sample of public IT workforces. Interestingly, psychosocial mentoring function was significantly in predicting the organizational commitment, whereas career mentoring function was not significant. Their results imply that emotional caring for a protégé is more important than counseling toward career development to public IT employees. Since their study used public sector staff who feel job stability the result can be different when this study is adopted in a private hospitality business. These studies show that the various mentoring functions serve as facilitators of more positive job attitudes, so that the mentees in hotel organizations are more satisfied and bring a more coherent commitment to the hotel. According to these findings, another set of hypotheses is proposed, as follows: 1c: The career development function is likely to positively affect job satisfaction.

1d: The career development function is likely to positively affect job commitment. 2c: The psychosocial support function is likely to positively affect job satisfaction. 2d: The psychosocial support function is likely to positively affect job commitment. 3c: The role modeling function is likely to positively affect job satisfaction. 3d: The role modeling function is likely to positively affect job commitment.

3.3. The relationship between mentoring function and turnover intention Turnover intention is defined as an employee’s intention to leave a job. Such intention may appear when employees speak negatively about their positions, when they limit their participation in the organization, or when they actually leave their jobs (Karatepe, 2013; Jang and George, 2012). Employee turnover has both positive and negative aspects. From the employer’s perspective, the turnover of capable employees is a loss to the company. However, the turnover of incapable or complaining employees is an opportunity to hire new employees and stabilize the organization. From the employee’s perspective, turnover may be considered a positive factor if it leads to a better position. However, turnover intention is an unpleasant thing so long as the employees remain dissatisfied with their current positions or organizations. A high turnover rate of employees can ruin the quality of service at a hotel. If long-established hotel staff leave their positions, the organization’s loss is substantial in terms of cost, time and effort (Kim et al., 2009; Payne and Huffman, 2005). Additionally, turnover of competent employees results in deterioration in the image of the organization and a decline in service quality for customers (Kim and Brymer, 2011; Moncarz et al., 2009). One of the measures that a company can take to reduce its turnover rate is to make the most of a mentoring program (Beckert and Walsh, 1991; Karatepe, 2013; Kim et al., 2010; Viator and Scandura, 1991). For example, a study by Viator and Scandura (1991) found that employees with mentors had lower levels of turnover intention than employees without mentors. A study by Kim et al. (2010) found that mentoring relationships between leaders and staff members were conducive to reducing turnover intention, and the magnitude of this effect differed according to their organizational levels. In a similar vein, Karatepe (2013) indicated that the mentoring functions of supervisor support and coworker support indirectly affect turnover intention through job embeddedness. Many studies in the mentoring literature showed consistency in emphasizing career-related outcomes including career motivation (Day and Allen, 2004; Tharenou, 2001), career attainment or career success (Turban and Dougherty, 1994), and career development desire (Allen et al., 2004). Since the career success of a protégé is positive evidence of the mentoring functions the protégé makes more efforts to work hard toward upward mobility and the process leads to strong commitment to his/her affiliated organization (Haggard et al., 2011). Some studies (Allen et al., 2004; Underhill, 2006) found existence of a negative linkage between mentoring and turnover though a meta-analysis, even though the magnitude of significance was small. Further through data analyses four studies (Lankau and Scandura, 2002; Payne and Huffman, 2005; Ragins et al., 2000; Xu and Payne, 2014) proved the negative relationship, indicating that mentoring stimulates retention to an organization. Therefore, in the highly motivated work-related environment the mentee will not strongly reveal turnover intention. In accordance with these finding, another set of hypotheses is proposed, as follows:

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

1e: The career development function is likely to have a negative effect on turnover intention. 2e: The psychosocial support function is likely to have a negative effect on turnover intention. 3e: The role modeling function is likely to have a negative effect on turnover intention. 3.4. The relationships between role stress and job attitude, and between role stress and turnover intention As the factors that affect role stress are diverse, role stress must be defined in the context of variables such as environmental factors, personal factors, and job characteristics (Faulkner and Patiar, 1997; Hon, 2013; Hwang et al., 2014; Jogaratnam and Buchanan, 2004; Jung and Yoon, 2013; Karatepe, 2013; Ross, 1995; Torkelson et al., 2007). Most occupational stress occurs due to negative feelings that are the result of unclear orders from different people or incompatibility in job guidelines. Role stress also occurs when hotel staff do not clearly understand the goals or responsibilities of their jobs. In addition, operational duties in a hotel often require staff members to take on multiple roles and even to play roles that are contradictory (Kim et al., 2009). Hotel employees are likely to experience role conflict and role ambiguity because of the conflict between jobs based on manual service delivery and their cooperative working environment (Hon, 2013; Yang, 2010). Kong et al. (2012) assessed the relationships between hotel career management, career competency, and career satisfaction. They found that for hotel employees, mentoring played a mediating role between career competency and career satisfaction. Likewise, mentoring serves as a bridge between enhanced job satisfaction and substantial commitment, because mentoring helps to resolve contradictory role expectations and softens the individual conflicts that mentees confront within their organizations (Ensher et al., 2001; Lankau and Chung, 1998; Ragins et al., 2000; Rutherford, 1984; Rutherford and Wiegenstein, 1985). However, although mentoring programs tend to reduce mentees’ stress levels, role conflict and ambiguity is still likely to affect their job attitudes, because the hotel working environment requires staff to provide high quality face-to-face service, no matter what their emotional or personal condition. Therefore, a negative relationship between role stress and job attitude is likely to occur. This conclusion leads to a further set of hypotheses to be tested: 4a: Role conflict is likely to negatively affect job satisfaction. 4b: Role conflict is likely to negatively affect job commitment. 4c: Role conflict is likely to positively affect turnover intention. 4d: Role ambiguity is likely to negatively affect job satisfaction. 4e: Role ambiguity is likely to negatively affect job commitment. 4f: Role ambiguity is likely to positively affect turnover intention. 3.5. The relationship between job attitude and turnover intention Employees may express commitment to an organization through an emotional attachment or by doing whatever is needed to achieve the organizational goals (Cichy et al., 2009; Iun and Huang, 2007). An individual who shows a high level of organizational commitment is likely to have goals and values that are congruent with the organization’s and, as a result, may become more loyal to the job and organization over time. In particular, many studies have found that commitment is an antecedent of job satisfaction and turnover intention (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Iun and Huang, 2007; Kim and Brymer, 2011; Yao and Wang, 2006). Previous studies have indicated a negative relationship between mentoring-related job satisfaction and turnover intention (Cichy et al., 2009; Dreher and Ash, 1990; Eby et al., 2008; Kram, 1983;

73

Ragins and Cotton, 1999; Scandura, 1992). If an employee is highly satisfied with a hotel mentoring program, this satisfaction indicates a cohesive commitment to the organization. Employees expressing such satisfaction are less likely to have intentions of leaving the company. The main reason why mentoring is helpful for reducing turnover intention is that it assists a mentee in seeking career advancement and maintaining psychological stability in the face of various problems that arise in the organization. Other studies have discussed how informal mentoring relationships can show greater results in reducing a protégé’s turnover intentions than formal mentoring or non-mentoring (Fagenson, 1992; Haggard et al., 2011; Sosik and Godshalk, 2000). Understanding the role of turnover intention is important for hotel managers because it is linked to immediate behavior such as absenteeism, complaints, imputations of responsibility to others, lack of commitment, and job dissatisfaction (Cichy et al., 2009; Yang, 2010). Previous research has reported a strong linkage between intentions and actual behavior, and therefore turnover intention is considered a proxy indicator to predict actual turnover (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Jang and George, 2012; Jung and Yoon, 2013; Yang, 2010). However, as mentors help their mentees to acquire technical skills and learn how to work effectively, this kind of support is likely to produce greater job satisfaction. The following hypotheses are therefore proposed:

5a: Job satisfaction is likely to negatively affect turnover intention. 5b: Organizational commitment is likely to negatively affect turnover intention.

4. Methods 4.1. Data collection In Seoul, 21 hotels were registered as super-deluxe level hotels as of May 2013. The data were collected from employees who had experienced mentoring (either as mentors or as mentees) at 13 of these super deluxe hotels that had implemented mentoring programs. The survey samples were limited to full-time staff members who were working in the room or the food and beverage (F&B) divisions, because these staff members were qualified for mentoring programs as regular workers under labor union regulations. The number of questionnaires distributed for each hotel was 35–40. The questionnaires were given to hotel employees who had experienced a mentoring program in a hotel. To facilitate survey participation, the researchers held a meeting with managers of the hotel room and F&B divisions. One of the researchers in this study had extensive previous experience as a senior hotel manager. As organizational culture in Korea has a hierarchical and seniority-oriented structure, junior employees tend to be influenced by senior staff, particularly male staff who collectively experience military service. Thus the presence of a senior manager encouraged the junior staff and other colleagues to actively support this study by filling out the questionnaires. To enhance the staff’s willingness to answer the questionnaires, two lottery tickets worth US$1 each, were provided to each employee who completed a questionnaire. Although the value of the lottery tickets was low, they encouraged respondents to answer a questionnaire because the potential prize of a million dollars could be checked on the spot. As a result, a range of between 30 and 42 questionnaires were collected from each hotel, and a total of 453 questionnaires were garnered. After excluding 15 questionnaires with untrustworthy or missing answers, a total of 438 questionnaires were used for further data analysis.

74

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

Table 1 Demographic profile of respondents (N = 438). Variable

Category

%

Variable

Category

%

Age (mean = 31.2, SD = 5.7)

20s

44.1

Monthly income

1500 or less 1501–2000

20.3 27.9

30s

48 2001–2500

23.5

2501–3000

16.7

3001 or more

11.6

Staff

70.3

Captain Manager

18.7 10.5

Above manager

0.5

Male Female Contract-based worker Long-term contract worker (protected by labor union law)

52.5 47.5 32.2 67.8

Room division

45.7

F & B division

54.3

Years of working for hotel industry

Final education Level

Marital status

40s

7.5

50s and older

0.4

1 year or less

9.4

1.1–4 years 4.1–6 years 6.1–10 years Longer than 10 years

33.1 14.8 21.7 20

High school Junior college 4 year college Graduate school

1.8 50.3 43.4 4.5

Single Married

61.2 38.1

Others

Position

Gender Employment relationship Working division

0.7

4.2. Measurement

5. Results

Few previous mentoring studies have explored the dimensionality of the construct. However, some studies have conceptualized mentoring as having two dimensions (Chao, 1997), whereas others have identified three dimensions (de Janasz and Godshalk, 2013; Scandura, 1992; Weinberg and Lankau, 2011). This study adopts a three-dimensional framework that consists of career development, psychosocial support, and role modeling. Such a model is suitable for identifying the effects of multi-dimensional mentoring functions on other outcome variables, as it clearly illustrates how each function individually influences the resultant variables. In this study, the three constructs of the mentoring functions were measured using 22 items extracted from previous studies (Noe, 1988; Scandura and Viator, 1994). The 12 items used to assess role conflict and role ambiguity were derived from the study by Rizzo et al. (1970). The items were scored on a scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.” For the analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity, the items were reverse coded. Four items extracted from the scale by Hartline and Ferrell (1996) (e.g., “I like my salary or wages”) were used to measure job satisfaction with fairness, and items for assessing job satisfaction with good fit for aptitude were taken from Lytle (1994) (e.g., “I find real enjoyment in my work). The respondents were asked to score items on a 5-point scale from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.” Organization commitment was operationalized with five items developed by Allen and Meyer to show affective commitment (1990). The items were rated on a 5-point scale from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.” Turnover intention was measured with the three-item scale used by Kim et al. (2010). Respondents scored the items on a 5-point scale from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.” The questionnaire items were translated from English to Korean. In addition, articles in Korean that used mentoring scales were perused. To ensure precise translations, the questionnaire was pre-tested using 50 graduate students, some of whom worked in the hospitality industry. Once the pre-test confirmed the suitability of the questionnaire, the main survey was conducted.

5.1. Profile of respondents The demographic profile of respondents is summarized in Table 1. The average age of the respondents was 31.1 years (SD = 5.7). Respondents between 30 and 39 years of age represented the majority, accounting for 48% of the total. Regarding educational levels, junior college graduates represented 50.3%, followed by 4-year college graduates (43.4%), master’s degree graduates (4.5%), and high school graduates (1.8%). The majority of the respondents were single (61.2%). There were slightly more male respondents (52.5%) than female respondents (47.5%). Respondents with a monthly income of between US$1501 and $2000 accounted for 27.9%, and those with a monthly income between US$2001 and 2500 made up 23.5% of the total. Long-term contract or full-time employees accounted for 67.8%, and part-time employees made up 32.2%. As for the length of the participants’ careers in the hotel industry, those who had worked between 1.1 and 4 years represented 33.1%, followed by those who had worked between 6.1 and 10 years (21.7%), and those working longer than 10 years (20%). Regarding the participants’ working positions, the regular staff was made up of 70.3%. The respondents included more F&B division workers (54.3%) than room division workers (45.7%). 5.2. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability check An exploratory factor analysis was conducted for each mentoring function (i.e., career development, psychosocial support, and role modeling). This approach is useful when new scales are used or are being developed. As a scale to measure mentoring functions has not been previously applied in the hospitality industry, this study attempted to identify its dimensionality in the hotel setting using exploratory factor analysis. Factor analysis of the career development function initially identified four main factors (Table 2). However, as four items showed factor loadings lower than .4, these items were excluded. The choice of a cut-off criterion for the factor loading depends on the researcher’s preference and the easiness of item interpretation; this study used 0.4 as the cut-off criterion, which is higher than the 0.32 suggested by Tabachinick and Fidell (1996). After this, the factor analysis produced a

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

75

Table 2 Exploratory factor analysis regarding mentoring function. Constructs and domains Career development function

Domain 1 (Coaching and protection)

Domain 2 (Exposure and visibility)

Domain 3 (Challenging assignments)

Domain 4 (Sponsorship)

Psychosocial support function

Domain 1 (Counseling and acceptance)

Domain 2 (Friendship)

Role modeling function

a b

Domain 1 (Role modeling)

Items

Factor loading

Eigen value

Explained variance

Reliability

a

.791

1.841

18.404

.751

1.831

18.315

.735

1.689

16.893

.822

1.255

12.541

.695

3.258

40.730

.815

1.807

22.587

.744

2.830

70.751

.862

My mentor (s) gives me special coaching on the job. a My mentor (s) helps to coordinate my job goals. b My mentor reduced unnecessary risks that could threaten the possibility of receiving a promotion. b My mentor (s) helped me to meet new colleagues. b My mentor gave me assignments that increased written and personal contact with other influential colleagues. b My mentor assigned responsibilities to you that have increased your contact with people in the district who may judge your potential for future advancement. b My mentor gave me assignments that present opportunities to learn new skills. a My mentor has placed me in important assignments. a My mentor (s) devoted special time and consideration to my job. a My mentor advises me about promotional mechanism and opportunities. b

.754 .746

.756 .754

.741

.844

.828 .823 .689

My mentor has demonstrated good listening skills in our conversations. b My mentor has kept feelings and doubts I shared with him/her in strict confidence. a My mentor (s) and I have confidence in each other. a I socialize with my mentor (s) after work. a A mentor advises me how to accept new duties and working environments. a I share personal problems with my mentor (s). a My mentor (s) and I consider each other as friends. a My mentor (s) and I often go to eat together after work or day off.

.806

a

.860

a

.843

I admire my mentor’s (s’) ability to motivate others. I try to model behavior after my mentors. a I respect my mentor’s (s’) knowledge of the profession. a I respect my mentor’s (s’) ability to teach others.

.779

.715 .691 .666 .663 .905 .800

.840 .820

Items were extracted form Scandura and Viator (1994). Items were derived from Noe (1988).

different four-factor solution that explained 66.15% of the variance. The four identified domains were named “coaching and protection,” “exposure and visibility,” “challenging assignments,” and “sponsorship.” The factor analysis was considered a useful validation of the factor model because the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .82. The factor loadings and communalities were greater than .69 and .61, respectively. The reliability alphas within the four domains were greater than .76. As these values exceeded the .70 criterion recommended by Nunnally (1978), the domains were considered to have a good internal consistency of items for each domain. The factor analysis of the psychosocial function initially produced three factors. However, the factor loadings on three items were lower than 0.4. Deleting these three items produced a two-factor solution. The two identified domains were labeled as “counseling and acceptance” and “friendship.” As the

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.87, this measure indicated a useful validation of the factor model. The factor loadings and communalities of all items were greater than .66 and .55, respectively. The two-factor structure accounted for 63.32% of the variance. The reliability alphas for these two domains were .82 and .74, which confirmed good internal consistency of the items within each domain. A factor analysis of the role modeling function produced a unidimensional solution, in which only one eigenvalue was greater than 1.0. As the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .81, this factor model was considered valid. Factor loadings and communalities on the four items involved were greater than .82 and .62, respectively. The single domain explained 70.75% of the variance. The reliability alpha for the one factor was .86, which exceeded the .70 criterion recommended by Nunnally (1978).

76

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

Table 3 Exploratory factor analysis on the role of role stress, job attitude and turnover intention. Constructs and domains Role conflict

Domain 1 (Inter-role conflict)

Domain 2 (Intra-role conflict)

Role ambiguity

Domain 1 (Role ambiguity about job)

Domain 2 (Role ambiguity about expectation) Job satisfaction

Domain 1 (Satisfaction with fairness)

Domain 2 (Good fit for aptitude) Organizational commitment

Turnover intention

Domain 1 (Organizational commitment)

Domain 1 (Turnover intention)

Items

Factor loading

Eigen value

Explained variance

Reliability

I know when I receive incompatible requirements from two or more people. I know when I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others. I know when I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently. I know when I work under incompatible policies and guidelines. I know that I have to work under vague directives or orders. I know that I have to do things that should be done differently.

.809

2.339

38.985

.776

1.680

28.002

.757

2.421

40.344

.796

1.713

28.544

.771

2.327

38.790

.790

1.736

28.938

.653

2.848

61.954

.809

2.035

67.830

.753

.803

.706 .685 .874 .870

I know that I have to divide my time properly. I know planned goals and objectives for my job. I understand what my responsibilities are. I receive the right amount of work to do. I know what has to be done.

.834 .774 .723 .717 .877

I know what is expected of me.

.871

I like my salary or wages. I like my opportunities for advancement with this hotel. I like the support provided by this hotel. I feel satisfied with my overall job. I definitely like my work I find real enjoyment in my work.

.873 .813

I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this hotel. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my hotel. I enjoy discussing my hotel with people outside it. I really feel as if this hotel’s problems are my own. This hotel has a great deal of personal meaning for me. I am thinking of quitting. I have intention to quit. I have intention to search for a new job.

.795

The factor analysis to explore the underlying dimensions of role conflict generated two domains, both with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Table 3). These extracted domains were labeled “inter-role conflict” and “intra-role conflict.” The factor structure was regarded as valid because the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.78. The two factors accounted for 66.99% of the variance. The factor loadings and communalities for all items were greater than .68 and .61, respectively. As the reliability alphas within the two domains were .78 and .76, these values confirmed acceptable internal consistency of the items within each domain. Factor analysis on the underlying structure of role ambiguity revealed two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The factors were named “role ambiguity about job” and “role ambiguity about expectation.” The factor model extracted from results of this analysis confirmed a useful validation, as the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .76. The factor loadings and communalities for all items were greater than .71 and .60, respectively. The reliability alphas within the two domains showed .80 and .77. As a result, the items in these domains were considered to have good internal consistency. The factor analysis to ascertain the dimensions for job satisfaction showed two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. These two domains were labeled “satisfaction with fairness” and “good fit for aptitude.” The factor model explained 67.73% of the variance. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was .77, which indicated a useful validation of the factor model. The factor loadings and

.680 .647 .853 .816

.772 .744 .744 .684 .885 .793 .789

communalities exceeded .64 and .62, respectively. A check of the reliability alphas within the two domains indicated .79 and .65, which exceeded or were close to the .70 criterion recommended by Nunnally (1978). Consequently, it was confirmed that the items within these domains had good internal consistency. Factor analysis on the organizational commitment construct showed uni-dimensionality, because only one factor had an eigenvalue of 1.0. The one-factor solution model explained 61.95% of the variance. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was .84, which indicated a useful validation of the factor model. All factor loadings and communalities were in excess of .68 and .60, respectively. The reliability alpha for the single domain was .81, which exceeded the criterion of Nunnally (1978). The factor analysis for turnover intention also generated a single-factor model. This factor structure explained 67.83% of the variance. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was .75, which indicated a useful validation of the factor model. All factor loadings and communalities were greater than .78 and .61, respectively, which exceeded the criterion of Nunnally (1978). 5.3. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis Following an exploratory factor analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to ensure the proposed model which indicates the positioned relations of the observed variables to the

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

77

Table 4 Results of the second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Second-order constructs

First-order factors

Standard estimate

S.E.

C.R.b

CCRc

AVEd

Mentoring

Career development function Psychosocial functions Role modeling Role Conflict Role ambiguity Job satisfaction Organization commitment Turnover intention

.925 .965 .824 .748 .657 .632 .616 –

.055 .069 –a .059 – .082 – –

16.810 12.700 – 7.536 – 9.239 – –

.92

.82

.62

.50

.56

.39

Variables Coaching and protection Exposure and visibility Challenging assignments Sponsorship Counseling, acceptance and confirmation Friendship Role modeling Interrole conflict Intrarole conflict Role ambiguity of job Role ambiguity relating to firm’s expectation Job satisfaction of personnel fairness Satisfaction of personnel attitude Organization commitment Turnover intention

Standard estimate .794 .849 .720 .720 .626 .899 – .807 .899 .794 .772 .944 .755 – –

S.E. – .052 .055 .055 – .072 – – .075 – .075 .087 – – –

C.R.b – 19.192 15.654 15.656 – 13.826 – –

Role stress Job attitude Turnover intention First-order factor Career development function

Psychosocial functions Role modeling Role conflict Role ambiguity Job satisfaction Organization commitment Turnover Intention

– 11.921 13.174 – – –

– .042 .066 .026 .018 .022 .021 – –

–

–

CCRc .86

AVEd .60

.74

.60

– .84

– .73

.76

.61

.84

.73

– –

– –

Fit indices: 2 = 175.403 (df = 72, p = .000), Normed-2 = 2.460, RMR = .026, GFI = .939, AGFI = .909, CFI = .961, RMSEA = .051. a In the measurement model, the estimated parameter was fixed at 1.00. b CR (critical ratio = t-value) is the absolute value.    c Composite construct reliability (CCR) = ( standardized loadings)2 /( standardized loadings)2 + εj . d



Average variance extracted (AVE) = [



standardized loadings2 /

standardized loadings2 +

latent constructs using the maximum likelihood method of estimation. In this study second-order factor structure for CFA estimation was used to identify a tree-like structure in which the factors of one stage become variables of another (Wind et al., 1973). For example, “mentoring” as the second-order construct includes three first-order factors, while one of the three first-order factors, “career development function” include three variables. In this situation, second-order CFA can be used because the variables-by-factors loading matrix is a loading matrix of first order factor on second order factors. As Table 4 showcases, the goodness-of-fit measures to assess the overall model fit reported 2 (72) = 175.403 (p = .000), GFI (goodness of fit index) = .939, AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit index) = .909, Normed-2 = 2.460, RMR (standardized root mean residual) = .026, CFI (comparative fit index) = .961, and RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) = .051. Conclusively, the fit indices were in acceptable level of fit with the exception of chi-square value. Construct reliability was checked by calculating the composite construct reliability (CCR), whereas the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was checked to assess the discriminant validity. The measurement model can be considered reliable except for role stress and job attitude because the CCR values except for those on the two factors were greater than the .70 criterion which was recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The discriminant validity is satisfactory because the AVE for each construct is greater than the squared correlations between the construct and all other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The lowest AVE value was .39 in Table 4, whereas the highest squared correlation between each pair of constructs was .39. Since the lowest AVE value was the same as the highest squared correlation, this measurement model guaranteed discriminant validity.” However, since this AVE value for job attitude is somewhat lower than .50 which was recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981), there is a need to cautiously interpret discriminant validity.



εj ], where εj is the measurement error.

5.4. Structural equation model results and hypothesis tests After successful checking goodness-of-fit, reliability, and validity, structural equation model (SEM) was tested to identify whether the hypothesized theoretical model was consistent with the data collected. Table 5 presents descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the variables, and Cronbach’s alpha values. The covariance matrix was input to test the hypothesized structural equation model. The goodness-of-fit indices for the hypothesized structural model demonstrated that the model was adequate showing 2 = 189.668 (df = 65, p = .105), Normed-2 = 2.918, GFI = .944, AGFI = .898, RMR = .021, NFI = .944, CFI = .962, RMSEA = .055. Results of structural equation model analyses are described in Table 6 and Fig. 2. Among 23 estimated path coefficients, 19 paths were statistically significant at the .05 or .001 level. The significant relationships were found between “career development function” and “role conflict” ( 11 = −.312, CR = 2.254, p < .05), “job satisfaction” ( 31 = .408, CR = 2.981, p < .01), “organization commitment” ( 41 = .375, CR = 3.170, p < .01), and “turnover intention” ( 51 = −.414, CR = 2.678, p < .01). Regarding relationships of “psychosocial support function” to other variables, “psychosocial support function” was significantly associated with “role conflict” ( 12 = −.304, CR = 3.265, p < .01), “role ambiguity” ( 22 = −.482, CR = 2.457, p < .05), “job satisfaction” ( 31 = .353, CR = 3.443, p < .01), “organization commitment” ( 41 = .381, CR = 4.031, p < .01), and “turnover intention” ( 51 = −.302, CR = 2.754, p < .01). The significant relationships were discovered between “role modeling function” and other variables such as “role conflict” ( 13 = −.424, CR = 3.307, p < .01), “job satisfaction” ( 33 = .482, CR = 2.504, p < .01), “organization commitment” ( 43 = .634, CR = 2.906, p < .01). The significant paths were observed between “role conflict” and other variables, such as “job satisfaction” (ˇ31 = −.328, CR = 3.788, p < .01), “organizational commitment” (ˇ41 = −.687,

78

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

Table 5 Means, standard deviation, correlations, and reliability alpha values.

1. Career development function 2. Psychosocial support function 3. Role modeling function 4. Role conflict 5. Role ambiguity 6. Job satisfaction 7. Organizational commitment 8. Turnover intention

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

3.397 3.468 3.470 3.110 2.527 3.383 3.418 2.756

.500 .501 .578 .611 .591 .483 .539 .719

(.862) .614* .608* −.384* −.167* .397* .303* −.508*

(.692) .625* −.396* −.372* .488* .396* −.237*

(.862) −.623* −.230* .433* .413* .043

(.839) .188* −.273* −.534* .486*

(.832) −.252* −.274* .074

(.837) .475* −.431*

(.809) −.414*

(.753)

Note: N = 432. Reliability alpha values are shown on the diagonal. * p < .05. Table 6 Detailed information on results of structural equation model analyses. Hypothesis

Path

Indirect effect

H1a H1b H1c H1d H1e H2a H2b H2c H2d H2e H3a H3b H3c H3d H3e H4a H4b H4c H4d H4e H4f H5a H5b

Career development function → Role conflict Career development function → Role ambiguity Career development function → Job satisfaction Career development function → Organization commitment Career development function → Turnover intention Psychosocial support function → Role conflict Psychosocial support function → Role ambiguity Psychosocial support function → Job satisfaction Psychosocial support function → Organization commitment Psychosocial support function → Turnover intention Role modeling function → Role conflict Role modeling function → Role ambiguity Role modeling function → Job satisfaction Role modeling function → Organization commitment Role modeling function → Turnover intention Role conflict → Job satisfaction Role conflict → Organizational commitment Role conflict → Turnover intention Role ambiguity → Job satisfaction Role ambiguity → organizational commitment Role ambiguity → Turnover intention Job satisfaction → Turnover intention Organizational commitment → Turnover intention

– – .045 .146 −.348 – – .247 .384 −.342 – – .101 .252 −.296 – – .273 – – .320 – –

Total effect −.312 −.184 .453 .521 −.762 −.304 −.482 .599 .765 −.644 −.424 −.121 .583 .886 −.381 −.328 −.687 .796 −.307 −.364 .422 −.527 −.438

Note: CR (critical ratio = t-value) is the absolute value. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

Fig. 2. Results of structural equation model analyses.

S.E.

Standardized coefficient

CR

Results of hypothesis tests

.211 .194 .164 .135 .221 .112 .214 .137 .106 .130 .208 .164 .217 .240 .102 .114 .104 .187 .130 .121 .152 .226 .170

−.312 −.184 .408 .375 −.414 −.304 −.482 .353 .381 −.302 −.424 −.121 .482 .634 −.085 −.328 −.687 .503 −.307 −.364 .102 −.527 −.438

2.254* n.s. 2.981** 3.170** 2.678** 3.265** 2.457* 3.443** 4.031** 2.754** 3.307** n.s. 2.504** 2.906** n.s. 3.738** 7.210** 3.123** 2.791** 3.271** n.s. 2.959** 3.289**

Accepted Rejected Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected Accepted Accepted Rejected Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected Accepted Accepted

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

CR = 7.210, p < .01), “turnover intention” (ˇ51 = .503, CR = 3.123, p < .01). The significant relations of “role ambiguity” to “job satisfaction” (ˇ32 = −.307, CR = 2.791, p < .01), “organizational commitment” (ˇ42 = −.364, CR = 3.271, p < .01) were identified. In addition, two paths between “job satisfaction” and “turnover intention” (ˇ53 = −.527, CR = 2.959, p < .01) and between “organizational commitment” and “turnover intention” (ˇ54 = −.438, CR = 3.289, p < .01) were also significant at the .01 level. Four insignificant paths at the .05 level were found between “career development” and “role ambiguity”, between “role modeling function” and “role ambiguity”, between “role modeling function” and “turnover intention”, and between “role ambiguity” and “turnover intention”. All results are exhibited in Table 6 and Fig. 2.

6. Conclusion and implications 6.1. Discussion and implication The purpose of this study was to identify the role of mentoring on role stress, job attitude, and turnover intention. Empirical analysis of the survey produced eight important findings and implications. First, all three mentoring functions (career development, psychosocial support and role modeling) showed a significant negative effect on role conflict. This result means that all three mentoring functions are effective in reducing role conflict. The findings are consistent with previous studies showing that mentoring functions play an effective role in alleviating role stress (Allen and Eby, 2003; Ayres, 2006; Haggard et al., 2011; Ragins and Verbos, 2007; Scandura, 1992; Viator, 2001). Second, according to the results of SEM analysis, the psychosocial support function had a significant effect in reducing role ambiguity. This finding is similar to those of previous studies, which also reported a negative effect of psychosocial support on role ambiguity (Allen et al., 2008; Chao, 1997; Eby et al., 2000; Kram, 1985; Lankaua et al., 2006; Murphy and Olsen, 2009). In other words, socially amicable environments, as found in building friendships or counseling relationships with mentees, contribute to dissipating role ambiguity concerning job-related expectations. In a hotel working culture, which necessarily requires “team play” and cooperation among team members, mentoring relationships can help mentees to better understand their job specifications, roles, duties, abilities and skills. Third, the career development and role modeling functions of mentoring did not significantly affect role ambiguity, even though role ambiguity was significantly affected by the psychosocial support function. This finding indicates that role ambiguity is more effectively removed when a mentor engages in counseling, or advises a mentee with an open-minded and fraternal intention. In other words, showing friendship initially, without invoking seniority in rank or position, is a more effective mentoring approach than giving one-way directives from superiors to subordinate employees. Especially in situations where strong trust has not been built between a mentor (senior) and a mentee (junior), a psychosocial support function focused on mentoring through a personal relationship is more conducive for helping to diminish role ambiguity and to build psychological stability in lower-level staff. Fourth, the role modeling function was not influential in explaining turnover intention. That is, a mentee’s effort to emulate a mentor or serve as a role model for others is not associated with his or her turnover intention. There may be several reasons for this finding. One reason may be that acting as a role model is possible in any organization, even for mentors and mentees who transfer

79

to other organizations. Another reason is that turnover intention is determined mainly by realistic considerations concerning salary, promotion, working hours, shift assignments, or other job-related requirements, rather than by any lofty interest in being a role model for future mentees. Last, turnover intention is also related to a mentee’s individual characteristics, such as physical condition, interest in other job areas, unfavorable relationships with current coworkers, distance between residence and company, possibilities for combining work and study, or day care availability (Jang and George, 2012; Moncarz et al., 2009; Yao and Wang, 2006). Fifth, all three of the main mentoring functions had a significant and positive effect on job satisfaction. This finding is supported by several previous studies that indicated a positive association between mentoring and job satisfaction (Ensher et al., 2001; Lankaua et al., 2006; Payne and Huffman, 2005). In the similar way, the three mentoring functions also showed a significant and positive influence on organizational commitment. This finding also confirms the results of previous studies (Aryee and Tan, 1992; Dreher and Ash, 1990; Duke et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Payne and Huffman, 2005; Ragins et al., 2000). Therefore, it seems clear that all three mentoring functions act as stimulators that give rise to positive job attitudes. In other words, a mentee who is involved in a hotel mentoring program becomes better satisfied with the organization, and brings a stronger commitment to the organization. Sixth, role stress significantly and negatively affected both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In other words, even though mentees felt that their levels of role stress were assuaged through mentoring functions, the more role stress they experienced, the lower their job satisfaction and organizational commitment was. In a hotel working environment where the customers require high quality service, the hotel employees are likely to experience heavy role stress, which naturally has negative effects on their levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. On this point, the results of this study also correspond to those of previous studies (Behrman and Perreault, 1984; Hon, 2013; Iun and Huang, 2007; Jackson and Schuler, 1985; Jung and Yoon, 2013; Kemery et al., 1985; Kim et al., 2009, 2010; Kong et al., 2012; Madera et al., 2013; Ortqvist and Wincent, 2006). Seventh, role conflict had a greater (positive) effect on turnover intention than role ambiguity. That is, even when hotel employees received benefits from mentoring, they continued to experience role conflict in a stressful service-providing work environment, and therefore had relatively high levels of turnover intention. This outcome is very understandable, even though mentoring plays a mediating role in reducing turnover intention through assuaging the individual conflicts that the mentees confront (Ensher et al., 2001; Lankau and Chung, 1998; Ragins et al., 2000; Rutherford, 1984; Rutherford and Wiegenstein, 1985). The survey, however, indicated that role ambiguity did not significantly influence turnover intention. This result means that there is a difference in the ways employees conceptualize role conflict and role ambiguity. Role conflict has a directly negative effect on employees, and it consequently leads to turnover intention. However, role ambiguity is a less serious problem, because it can be more easily solved through better understanding of given tasks or job duties, which may be learned through a mentoring program. As a result, role ambiguity is less likely to be directly associated with turnover intention. Eighth, job satisfaction and organizational commitment had a negative effect on turnover intention. This result is very reasonable, because an employee who is satisfied with a hotel will naturally show a much lower level of turnover intention than an employee who is not satisfied. This survey result is supported by previous studies (Cichy et al., 2009; Dreher and Ash, 1990; Eby et al., 2008; Kram, 1983; Ragins et al., 2000; Scandura, 1992). The results of the SEM analysis also indicated that organizational commitment negatively influenced turnover intention. This finding too is supported

80

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

by previous studies, which have shown that turnover intention can be curbed by strong organization commitment, and that such commitment can reduce absenteeism, complaints, imputations of responsibility to others, lack of commitment, and job dissatisfaction (Cichy et al., 2009; Jang and George, 2012; Jung and Yoon, 2013; Yang, 2010). 6.2. Conclusions In conclusion, this study is expected to fill a void in the literature concerning mentoring studies in the hospitality field. The results of this study provide evidence on the practical benefits of mentoring programs in hotels. The evidence from the survey indicates how such programs can help to reduce role stress, negative job attitudes, and turnover intentions, even though the data on three of the paths between these factors were statistically insignificant. 6.3. Limitations As an initial attempt regarding the effects of hotel mentoring, the design of this study has involved four limitations. First, the sample populations for the study were limited to hotel employees who were working in the room and the food and beverage divisions. Therefore, a future study needs to extend samples to other divisions of the hotels, to discern whether the results of this study apply to all hotel service divisions. Second, this study employed the human resources literature in operationalizing and measuring items, because there were insufficient previous studies relating to mentoring in the hospitality field. As a consequence, additional future studies are required to develop comprehensive mentoring theories, to develop instruments that measure mentoring and its effects, to conceptualize relations between related constructs, to identify more effective mentoring methods, and to further explore the mediating variables between mentoring and its effects. Third, there is a need to explore how the dyadic nature of the mentorship relationship affects mentoring, specifically, the differing roles of mentors and mentees. Fourth, this study focused on the quality of mentoring received by staff who attended a mentoring program. Further studies are needed to compare hotel employees who have participated in a mentoring program with those who have not participated in a mentoring program. A longitudinal research design would be helpful for tracking the effects of mentoring. These studies will help to more precisely assess the usefulness of mentoring programs. Last, the effects of mentoring programs on role stress, job attitude, or turnover intention are likely to vary according to socio-demographic characteristics or job experience which a mentor/mentee has (Haggard et al., 2011; Lyons and Oppler, 2004; Ragins et al., 2000; Weinberg and Lankau, 2011) or mentoring quality (Allen and Eby, 2003; Allen et al., 2006; Egan, 2005; Ensher and Murphy, 1997; Godshalk and Sosik, 2003; Lankau and Scandura, 2002; Xu and Payne, 2014). Therefore future research needs to identify the role of these variables as moderators in the effectiveness of mentoring. References Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, normative and continuance commitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 63, 1–18. Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., 1996. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: an examination of construct validity. J. Vocat. Behav. 49, 252–276. Allen, T.D., 2007. Mentoring relationships from the perspective of the mentor. In: Ragins, B.R., Kram, K.E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice. Sage, Los Angeles, pp. 123–148. Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., 2003. Relationship effectiveness for mentors: factors associated with learning and quality. J. Manage. 29, 465–483.

Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Lentz, E., 2006. The relationship between formal mentoring program characteristics and perceived program effectiveness. Pers. Psychol. 59 (1), 125–153. Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., O’Brien, K.E., Lentz, E., 2008. The state of mentoring research: a qualitative review of current research methods and future research implications. J. Vocat. Behav. 72, 269–283. Allen, T.D., Potect, M.L., Russell, J.E., Dobbins, G.H., 1997. A filed study of factors related to supervisors’ willingness to mentor others. J. Vocat. Behav. 50, 1–22. Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L., Lentz, E., Lima, L., 2004. Career Benefits Associated With Mentoring for Proteges: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of. Applied Psychology 89 (1), 127. Aryee, S., Tan, K., 1992. Antecedents and outcomes of career commitment. J. Vocat. Behav. 40 (3), 288–305. Aryee, S., Lo, S., Kang, I.L., 1999. Antecedents of early career stage mentoring among Chinese employees. J. Org. Behav. 20, 563–576. Ayres, H., 2006. Career development in tourism and leisure: an exploratory study of the influence of mobility and mentoring. J. Hosp. Tourism Manage. 13 (2), 113–123. Baugh, S.G., Scandura, T.A., 2000. The effects of multiple mentors on protege attitudes toward the work setting. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 14 (4), 503–521. Beckert, J., Walsh, K., 1991. Development plans replace performance reviews at Harvey hotels. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 32 (4), 72–80. Beehr, T.A., McGrath, J.E., 1992. Job stress, employee health and organizational effectiveness: a fact analysis, model and literature view. Pers. Psychol. 31, 668. Behrman, D.N., Perreault, W.D., 1984. A role stress model of the performance and satisfaction of industrial salespersons. J. Market. 48, 9–21. Bozeman, B., Feeney, M.K., 2009. Public management mentoring: a three-tier model. Rev. Publ. Pers. Admin. 29 (2), 134–157. Burke, R., 1984. Mentors in organizational group and organization studies. Bus. Quart. 42 (9), 353–372. Chao, G.T., 1997. Mentoring phases and outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 51, 15–28. Chung, J.Y., Jung, C.S., Kyle, G.T., Petrick, J.F., 2010. Servant leadership and procedural justice in the U.S. National Park Service: the antecedents of job satisfaction. J. Park Recreat. Admin. 28 (3), 1–15. Cichy, R.F., Cha, J., Kim, S., 2009. The relationship between organizational commitment and contextual performance among private club leaders. IJHM 28 (1), 53–62. Clawson, J.G., Kram, K.E., 1984. Managing cross-gender mentoring. Business Horizons 27 (3), 22–32. Darling, N., Bogat, G.A., Cavell, T.A., Murphy, S.E., Sanchez, B., 2006. Gender, ethnicity, development, and risk: mentoring and the consideration of individual differences. J. Community Psychol. 34 (6), 765–779. Day, R., Allen, T.D., 2004. The relationship between career motivation and selfefficiency with protégé career success. J. Vocat. Behav. 64, 72–91. de Janasz, S.C., Godshalk, V.M., 2013. The role of e-mentoring in proteges’ learning and satisfaction. Group Org. Manage. 38 (6), 743–774. Dreher, G.F., Ash, R.A., 1990. A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. J. Appl. Psychol. 75, 539–546. Duke, A.B., Goodman, J.M., Treadway, D.C., Breland, J.W., 2009. Perceived organizational support as a moderator of emotional labor/outcomes relationships. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39 (5), 1013–1034. Dutton, J.E., Heaphy, E.D., 2003. The power of high quality connections. In: Cameron, K., Dutton, J.E., Quinn, E.R. (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship. BerrettKoehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 263–278. Dutton, J.E., Ragins, B.R., 2007. Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation. Lawrence Erbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Eby, L.T., Allen, T.D., Evans, S.C., Ng, T., DuBois, D., 2008. Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. J. Vocat. Behav. 72, 254–267. Eby, L.T., McManus, S.E., Simon, S.A., Russell, J.E., 2000. The protégé’s perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: the development of a taxonomy. J. Vocat. Behav. 57, 1–21. Egan, T.M., 2005. The impact of learning goal orientation similarity on formal mentoring relationship outcomes. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 7 (4), 489–504. Ensher, E.A., Murphy, S.E., 1997. Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior 50 (3), 460–481. Ensher, E.A., Thomas, C., Murphy, S.E., 2001. Comparison of traditional, step-ahead, and peer mentoring on protégés support, satisfaction, and perceptions of career success: a social exchange perspective. J. Bus. Psychol. 15, 419–438. Fagenson, E.A., 1992. Mentoring: who needs it? A comparison of protégés’ and nonprotégé needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. J. Vocat. Behav. 41, 48–60. Faulkner, B., Patiar, A., 1997. Workplace induced stress among operational staff in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 16 (1), 99–117. Feeney, M.K., Bozeman, B., 2008. Mentoring and network ties. Hum. Relat. 61 (12), 1651–1676. Fornell, C., Larcker, D., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. J. Marketing Res. 18, 39–50. Godshalk, V.M., Sosik, J.J., 2003. Aiming for career success: the role of learning goal orientation in mentoring relationships. J. Vocat. Behav. 63, 417–437. Graen, G.B., Uhl-Bien, M., 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quart. 6, 219–247.

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82 Haggard, D.L., Dougherty, T.W., Turban, D.B., Wilbanks, J.E., 2011. Who is a mentor? A review of evolving definitions and implications for research. J. Manage. 37 (1), 280–304. Hartline, M.D., Ferrell, O.C., 1996. The management of customer-contact service employees: an empirical investigation. J. Market. 60 (4), 52–70. Hezlett, S.A., Gibson, S.K., 2007. Linking mentoring and social capital: implications for career and organization development. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 9 (3), 384–412. Higgins, M.C., Kram, K.E., 2001. Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 26, 246–289. Hon, A., 2013. Does job creativity requirement improve service performance? A multilevel analysis of work stress and service environment. IJHM 35 (December), 161–170. Hwang, J., Lee, J., Park, S., Chang, H., Kim, S.S., 2014. The impact of occupational stress on employee’s turnover intention in the luxury hotel segment. Int. J. Hosp. Tourism Admin. 15 (1), 60–77. Iun, J., Huang, X., 2007. How to motivate your older employees to excel? The impact of commitment on older employees’ performance in the hospitality industry. IJHM 26 (4), 793–806. Jackson, S., Schuler, R., 1985. A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 36, 16–78. Jang, J., George, R.T., 2012. Understanding the influence of polychronicity on job satisfaction and turnover intention: a study of non-supervisory hotel employees. IJHM 31 (2), 588–595. Jawahar, I.M., Stone, T.H., Kisamore, J.I., 2007. Role conflict and burnout: the direct and moderating effects of political skill and perceived organizational support on burnout dimensions. Int. J. Stress Manage. 14 (2), 142–159. Jogaratnam, G., Buchanan, P., 2004. Balancing the demands of school and work: stress and employed hospitality students. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 16 (4), 237–245. Jung, H., Yoon, H., 2013. Is the individual or the organization the cause of hotel employees’ stress? A longitudinal study on differences in role stress between subjects. IJHM 33 (June), 494–499. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D., Rosenthal, R.A., 1964. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. Wiley, Oxford, England. Kalargyrou, V., Woods, R.H., 2011. Wanted: training competencies for the twentyfirst century. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 23 (3), 361–376. Karatepe, O.M., 2009. Do job resources moderate the effect of emotional dissonance on burnout? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 23 (1), 44–65. Karatepe, O.M., 2013. The effects of work overload and work-family conflict on job embeddedness and job performance. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 25 (4), 614–634. Kemery, E.R., Bediean, A.G., Mossholder, K.W., Touliators, J., 1985. Outcomes of role stress: a multi-sample constructive replication. Acad. Manage. J. 28 (2), 363–375. Kim, B.P., Murrmann, S.K., Lee, G., 2009. Moderating effects of gender and organizational level between role stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees. IJHM 28, 612–619. Kim, B., Lee, G., Carlson, K., 2010. An examination of the nature of the relationship between Leader-Member-Exchange (LMX) and turnover intent at different organizational levels. IJHM 29 (4), 591–597. Kim, W., Brymer, R.A., 2011. The effects of ethical leadership on manager job satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm performance. IJHM 30 (4), 1020–1026. Kong, H., Cheung, C., Song, H., 2012. From hotel career management to employees’ career satisfaction: the mediating effect of career competency. IJHM 31, 76–85. Kram, K.E., 1983. Phases of the mentoring relationship. Acad. Manage. Rev. 26, 608–625. Kram, K.E., 1985. Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Scott, Foresman and Company, New York. Kram, K., 1988. Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Lanham. MD: University Press of America. Kram, K.E., Isabella, L.A., 1985. Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal 28 (1), 110–132. Lankaua, M.J., Carlson, D.S., Nielsonc, T.R., 2006. The mediating influence of role stressors in the relationship between mentoring and job attitudes. J. Vocat. Behav. 68 (2), 308–322. Lankau, M.J., Chung, B.G., 1998. Exploring the effects of mentoring for line-level employees. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 39 (6), 14–19. Lankau, M.J., Scandura, T.A., 2002. An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: content, antecedents and consequences. Acad. Manage. J. 45, 779–790. Linnehan, F., 2001. The relation of a work-based mentoring program to the academic performance and behavior of African American students. Journal of Vocational Behavior 59 (3), 310–325. Lytle, R.S., (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation) 1994. Service Orientation, Market Orientation, and Performance: An Organizational Culture Perspective. Arizona State University, Arizona. Lyons, B., Oppler, E.S., 2004. The effect of structural attributes and demographic characteristics on protégé satisfaction in mentoring programs. J. Career Dev. 30 (3), 215–229. Madera, J.M., Dawson, M., Neal, J.A., 2013. Hotel managers’ perceived diversity climate and job satisfaction: the mediating effects of role ambiguity and conflict. IJHM 35 (December), 28–34. Miles, R.H., Perreault Jr., W.D., 1976. Organizational role conflict: its antecedents and consequences. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 17, 19–44.

81

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., 1982. Employee–Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. Academic Press, New York. Moncarz, E., Zhao, J., Kay, C., 2009. An exploratory study of US lodging properties’ organizational practices on employee turnover and retention. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 21 (4), 437–458. Mullen, E.J., Noe, R.A., 1999. The mentoring information exchange: when do mentors seek information from their protégés? J. Org. Behav. 20, 233–242. Murphy, K., Olsen, M., 2009. Dimensions of a high performance management system. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 21 (7), 836–853. Murphy, W.M., 2012. Reverse mentoring at work: fostering cross-generational learning and developing millennial leaders. Hum. Resour. Manage. 51 (4), 549–574. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resour. Manage. Rev. 1, 61–89. Meyer, J.P., Herscovitch, L., 2001. Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model. Human Resour. Manage. Rev. 11 (3), 299–326. Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., Topolnytsky, L., 2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocat. Behav. 61 (1.). Noe, R.A., 1988. An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Pers. Psychol. 41, 457–479. Noe, R.A., Greenberger, D.B., Wang, S., 2002. Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. Research in personnel and human resources management 21, 129–174. Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw Hill, New York. Onyemah, V., 2008. Role ambiguity, role conflict, and performance: empirical evidence of an inverted-U relationship. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manage. 28 (3), 299–314. Ortqvist, D., Wincent, J., 2006. Prominent consequences of role stress: a metaanalytic review. Int. J. Stress Manage. 13 (4), 399–422. Patwardhan, V., Venkatachalam, V.D., 2012. A study on career management issues of women managers in Indian Hospitality Industry. J. Hosp. Appl. Res. 7 (1), 67–80. Payne, S.C., Huffman, A.H., 2005. A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover. Acad. Manage. J. 48, 158–168. Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J., 1999. Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 84, 529–550. Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L., Miller, J.S., 2000. Marginal mentoring: the effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Acad. Manage. J. 43, 1177–1194. Ragins, B.R., Kram, K.E., 2007. The Handbook of Mentoring at Work Theory, Research, and Practice. Sage Publications, Inc., Los Angeles. Ragins, B.R., Verbos, A.K., 2007. Positive relationships in action: relational mentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace. In: Dutton, J.E., Ragins, B.R. (Eds.), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 91–116. Reid, M.F., Allen, M.W., Riemenschneider, C.K., Armstrong, D.J., 2008. The role of mentoring and supervisor for state IT employees’ affective organizational commitment. Rev. Publ. Pers. Admin. 28 (1), 60–78. Riley, M., 2007. Role interpretation during service encounters: a critical review of modern approaches to service quality management. IJHM 26 (2), 409–420. Rizzo, J., House, R., Lirtzman, S., 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 15 (2), 150–163. Ross, G.F., 1995. Work stress and personality measures among hospitality industry employees. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. (6), 9–13. Rutherford, D.G., 1984. Mentoring hospitality managers. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 25 (1), 16–19. Rutherford, D.G., Wiegenstein, J., 1985. The mentoring process in hotel general managers’ careers. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 25 (4), 16–25. Scandura, T.A., 1992. Mentorship and career mobility: an empirical investigation. J. Org. Behav. 13, 169–174. Scandura, T.A., Viator, R.E., 1994. Mentoring in public accounting firms: an analysis of mentor-protégé relationships, mentorship functions, and protégé turnover intentions. Account. Org. Soc. 19 (8), 717–734. Schyns, B., Croon, M.A., 2006. A model of task demands, social structure, and leadermember exchange and their relationship to job satisfaction. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 17 (4), 602–615. Sosik, J.J., Godshalk, V.M., 2000. Leadership styles, mentoring functions received and job-related stress: a conceptual model and preliminary study. J. Org. Behav. 25, 365–390. Tabachinick, B., Fidell, L., 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed. HarpCollins College Publishers, New York. Tharenou, P., 2001. Giving up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in management? Acad. Manage. J. 44, 1005–1017. Torkelson, E., Muhonen, T., Peiro, J.M., 2007. Constructions of work stress and coping in a female- and a male-dominated department. Scand. J. Psychol. 48, 261–270. Turban, D.B., Dougherty, T.W., 1994. Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Acad. Manage. 37, 688–702. Underhill, C.M., 2006. The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: a meta-analytic review of the literature. J. Vocat. Behav. 68, 292–307. Viator, R.E., 2001. The association of formal and informal public accounting mentoring with rolestress and related job outcomes. Account. Org. Soc. 26, 73–93. Viator, R.E., Scandura, T.A., 1991. A study of mentor–protege relationship in large accounting firm. Account. Horizons 5, 20–30.

82

S.S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 48 (2015) 68–82

Xu, X., Payne, S.C., 2014. Quantity, quality, and satisfaction with mentoring: What matters most? Journal of Career Development 41, 507–525. Yang, J.-T., 2010. Antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction in the hotel industry. IJHM 29, 609–619. Yao, X., Wang, L., 2006. The predictability of normative organizational commitment for turnover in Chinese companies: a cultural perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 17 (6), 1058–1075. Wang, Y., 2013. Constructing career competency model of hospitality industry employees for career success. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 25 (7), 994–1016.

Wangberg, C.R., Welsh, E.T., Hezlett, S.A., 2003. Mentoring research: a review and dynamic process model. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manage. 22, 39–124. Weinberg, F.J., Lankau, M.J., 2011. Formal mentoring programs: A mentorcentric and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Management 37 (6), 1527– 1557. Wind, Y., Green, P.E., Jain, A.K., 1973. Higher order factor analysis in the classification of psychographic variables. J. Market Res. Soc. 15 (4), 224–232.