This article was downloaded by: [175.45.187.255]On: 16 June 2015, At: 20:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Journal of Human Resources inHospitality & TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

Turnover Intention and Commitment asPart of Organizational Social Capital inthe Hotel IndustryAnthony Briena, Nicholas Thomasb & Ananda Sabil Husseinc

a Department of Business Management, Marketing and Law, LincolnUniversity, Lincoln, New Zealandb Apparel, Events, and Hospitality Management Department, IowaState University, Ames, Iowa, USAc Faculty of Economics and Business, Brawijaya University, Haryono,Malang, IndonesiaPublished online: 15 May 2015.

To cite this article: Anthony Brien, Nicholas Thomas & Ananda Sabil Hussein (2015) Turnover Intentionand Commitment as Part of Organizational Social Capital in the Hotel Industry, Journal of HumanResources in Hospitality & Tourism, 14:4, 357-381, DOI: 10.1080/15332845.2015.1008385

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2015.1008385

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 14:357–381, 2015Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1533-2845 print / 1533-2853 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15332845.2015.1008385

Turnover Intention and Commitment as Partof Organizational Social Capital

in the Hotel Industry

ANTHONY BRIENDepartment of Business Management, Marketing and Law, Lincoln University, Lincoln,

New Zealand

NICHOLAS THOMASApparel, Events, and Hospitality Management Department, Iowa State University, Ames,

Iowa, USA

ANANDA SABIL HUSSEINFaculty of Economics and Business, Brawijaya University, Haryono, Malang, Indonesia

The purpose of this research was to understand how the variables oforganizational social capital, that is, communication, influence,and trust, impact organizational commitment (employee turnover)in the hotel industry. Exploratory, qualitative research is used tohighlight how various organizational social capital factors impactemployee turnover intention. The authors measured several vari-ables and sought to identify their relationships; the objective topredict impacts using generalized structured component analysisto analyze the data and test hypotheses. This article validates thatcommitment can be positively impacted by communication andinfluence, but much less by trust. Additionally, given that commu-nication flows through several layers of management (senior andoperational), ensuring management is equipped with the right toolsand strategies that enable trust and the ability to be influential, isessential. Attention to the commitment of managers is an area forgeneral managers to focus on, as they have the power to increase ordecrease the power-of-impact. The research provides managers withthe dimensions that impact employee turnover intention, enablingthem to concentrate on factors to positively impact organizationalcommitment with the aim of reducing turnover.

Address correspondence to Anthony Brien, Department of Business Management,Marketing, and Law, Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand. E-mail:anthony.brien@lincoln.ac.nz

357

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

358 A. Brien et al.

KEYWORDS commitment, employee turnover intention, hotels,organizational social capital, New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

Employee turnover intention (ETI) is the research agenda of many academicsand a daily concern for hotel industry practitioners, yet neither academicswho report via literature, nor practitioners via operational results, have acomplete understanding of, or explanation for ETI. However, both agreethat actioned ETI, that is turnover, is expensive (Davidson & Timo, 2006) andresults in reduced organizational productivity (Kacmar, Andrews, Van Rooy,Steilberg, & Cerrone, 2006; Rothwell, 1982). The purpose of this researchwas to understand how the variables of organizational social capital (OSC):communication, influence, and trust, impact organizational commitment inthe hotel industry. To achieve this purpose, several research objectives weredeveloped and the gathered data from hotel employees subjected to variousstatistical testing. Specifically, this research developed objectives to identifyif (1) communication is fundamental to the development of trust, influence,and commitment; (2) trust would positively impact influence; and (3) trustimpacts influence, which then significantly impacts commitment.

The data used in this article is drawn from a much larger longitudinalresearch project reviewing how OSC impacts organizational productivity, an-other major challenge for hotel industry practitioners. Arguably, commitment(sometimes referred to as retention) and productivity are entwined withinthe framework of the service profit chain (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser, &Schlesinger, 1994), which, in itself, provides a platform on which to considerthe ETI challenge.

As a concept related to employees and productivity, commitment isfound within various themes: (1) turnover (Md Zabid Abdul, Sambasivan, &Johari, 2003); (2) “obligation” via economic benefits (McDonald & Makin,2000); (3) willingness to exert considerable (extra) effort (Maxwell & Steele,2003); and (4) a relationship to absenteeism (Maharaj & Schlechter, 2007),to name a few. Though the general literature suggests what commitmentmight be and how it can be enhanced, less is known about the variables that“impact” commitment. Furthermore, research into employee commitment inthe hotel industry is sparse compared with other industries where researchhas focused on certain roles, for example, general managers, or against onlyone other variable, for example, empowerment (Chew & Wong, 2008; He, Li,& Lai, 2011; Hemdi & Rahim, 2011; Kazlauskaite, Buciuniene, & Turauskas,2006). However, research into the actioned result of ETI has been, andcontinues to be, extensively researched (for example Brien, 2004b; Davidson,Nils, & Ying, 2010; Hemdi & Rahim, 2011; Hinkin & Tracey, 2000; Hoga, 1992;Wasmuth & Davis, 1983)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 359

This article presents new and important findings for both industry prac-titioners and academics: (1) the biggest impacting OSC variable on employeeorganizational commitment is organizational communication; (2) when or-ganizational communication flows through an influential source, the impacton commitment is even more positive; and (3) that trust significantly affectsinfluence.

Literature Review

COMMITMENT

As a concept, commitment has been extensively researched and can befound entwined within many theoretical fields, for example: organizationalcitizen behavior (Bateman & Organ, 1983); role theory (Bass, 1985), socialexchange theory (Homans, 1961); corporate culture (Kotter & Heskett, 1992),and psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1995). It is from these and othertheoretical bases that commitment is seen as multi-faceted and supports thenotion that commitment is not easily defined, or even the view that it shouldnot be defined, but left open as an evolving concept.

Some view commitment as a “personal” relationship with fellow work-ers and the employer as a result of frequent interaction (Chen, Tsui, & Farh,2002; Martin, 2008), potentially from the base of social exchange theory(Cole, Schaninger, & Harris, 2002) in which individuals support each otherin terms of information and emotion. In expanding the employee-employercollegiality theme, commitment is said to be stronger between full-time em-ployees than part-time employees and between respective genders, how-ever, counter research highlights the conflict and reduced commitment thatcontingent workers (as proliferates the hotel sector) express (Liden, Wayne,Kraimer, & Sparrowe, 2003). Though such interactions may be fundamentalinterpersonal commitment-building-blocks, they also help create the cultureof the organization which, in itself, is said to be a commitment-enabler (MdZabid Abdul et al., 2003). Physicality appears to be a prime commitmentenabler; Koh and Elfred (2004) augment this notion by adding the elementof organizational ethics. As the notion of commitment grows in complexity,linkages to ETI are exposed when positive employee physicality, culture, andethics combine to present a greater retention opportunity, whereas, if neg-ative, they reduce commitment with one possible outcome being employeeturnover.

Narrowing the theme to consider “organizational” commitment, Maxwelland Steele (2003) define it as a strong belief in, and acceptance of, organi-zational goals, as a willingness to exert considerable effort and a desire tomaintain organizational membership. Maxwell and Steele also view social in-teraction, higher levels of pay and the expansion of one’s roles builds com-mitment, whereas role-conflict, unfriendly co-workers, and perceived low

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

360 A. Brien et al.

levels of importance decrease commitment. Maharaj and Schlechter (2007)support the Maxwell and Steel thesis and add the aspect that if work is mean-ingful, stronger commitment and performance follows. As time progresses,the element of trust, solidarity among workers and psychological contractsbecome predominant in the understanding of how organizational commit-ment develops (Martin, 2008), which again supports previous research interms of social interaction. In building these elements and, in particular, trust,Bammacas and Patrickson (2008) view that effective communication is key,that is, communication involving interpersonal skills, clarity in the way mes-sages are sent, and providing feedback, which supports Requena’s (2003)OSC concept in which communication and commitment are co-existingvariables.

Later, Ahmad, Veerapandian, and Ghee (2011) highlights the need for aperson-to-organization “fit” to develop organizational commitment and bringinto account the known commitment themes of affective, continuance, andnormative commitment. The latter has certainly helped ground commitmentas a concept and deepened the understanding, but this continues to growas new variables are added as seen in the work of Passarelli (2011) whoproposes that the more qualified employees are (an area organizations havefocused on in recent times) and the larger the organization they work for (asorganizations merge as a result of competition), the more committed theywill be.

Many of the above discoveries, views, and outcomes of what constitutescommitment are relevant to any industry; however, to understand the multi-faceted concept of commitment in the hotel industry requires more research.Most of the above provides a general discussion of OSC. To narrow thefocus, and to align with the research questions, the literature review nowcontinues with hotel industry-specific research.

COMMITMENT IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY

Organizational commitment in a hotel is often focused on managers (Maxwell& Steele, 2003), possibly because they can be expensive, more difficult toreplace and are fewer in number to research. For example, Davidson andTimo (2006) in their research of employee turnover in the Australian hotelindustry that highlighted the average managerial employee turnover rate was39.1% and that the cost to replace them in the average hotel per annum was$109,909.00. Their research, in terms of operational employee commitment,is less than managerial positions (50.74%) costing $9,591.00 per employee,yet arguably desired skill level and recruitment systems enable more rapidreplacement, albeit at a collectively higher cost.

Employee commitment in the hotel sector is often measured by em-ployee turnover—an area that has been extensively researched (Carbery,Garavan, O’Brien, & McDonnell, 2003; Cheng & Brown, 1998; Davidson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 361

et al., 2010; Deery & Jago, 2002; Johnson, 1986; Mohamad Abdullah & Ab-dul Rahman Abdul, 2011; Moncarz, Zhao, & Kay, 2009; Simmons & Hinkin,2001). Employee turnover, however, is not necessarily all negative; indeed,organizations need turnover to generate fresh ideas from new employeesand allow out-going employees to move to other career opportunities (Dal-ton, Todor, & Krackhardt, 1982); it is, however, the level of turnover thatneeds to be considered.

The continued demand for research into hotel employee turnover isrooted in the fact that the hotel industry is known for high levels of employeeturnover, a fact that the hotel sector appears to accept as part of general busi-ness practice (Deery & Shaw, 1998). Potentially, employee turnover worksfor both the employee and the employer in that employees may consideremployment in hotels as something they do until the get a professional job(Brien, 2004a) and, for hotels, it is a way of managing business flow.

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER AND TURNOVER INTENTION

Employee turnover can be defined as the movement of people into, andout of, employment within an organization (Denvir & McMahon, 1992) withprevious studies demonstrating the determinants and consequences of em-ployee turnover in the workplace. Employee turnover is also said to have arelationship with low-quality customer service and increases in recruitmentand training costs within lodging organizations (Birdir, 2002; Chen, 2007;Horner & Swarbrooke, 2004; Karsh, Booske, & Sainfort, 2005; Lashley, 2000;Lee, Huang, & Zhao, 2012; Mohsin, Lengler, & Kumar, 2013). Lashley (2000)continues this focus on expenses by identifying that employee turnover costscan be divided into direct costs and hidden costs. Direct costs include ad-vertising for replacements, interviewing, orientation, and training expenses.Indirect costs include management’s time spent recruiting, selecting, andtraining, lost staff expertise, and decreased quality of service, productivity,and customer satisfaction. Therefore, a high rate of employee turnover cancause an organization’s costs to rise and is negatively associated with itsfinances (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000).

The lodging industry throughout the world has continued to experiencehigh rates of turnover. Lee et al. (2012) shows that working hours, heavyworkloads, shift-work, irregular vacation days, and relatively low levels ofwages are catalysts for this trend. The reasons for the high turnover havebeen investigated by Chen (2007). In that research, the focus was on em-ployee’s self-regulation and a disregard for the emotional needs of employ-ees. Chen also found that turnover was higher among hourly employees thanmanagerial-level employees (30 and 10%, respectively). Studies have shownthat high staff turnover rates in the hotel industry are not country specific,but are worldwide (Birdir, 2002). Yang, Wan, and Fu (2012), Kalotina and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

362 A. Brien et al.

Sigala (2010), Blomme, van Rheede, and Tromp (2010), Cho, Johanson, andGuchait (2009), Bonn and Forbringer (1992) and Iverson and Deery (1997)also confirm that turnover is a major long-term area of concern for hospitalityindustry organizations.

The theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 2002) can be used to ex-plain why turnover intention, instead of actual turnover behavior in the hotelindustry, should be reviewed. Human behavior is affected by behavioral in-tention, which refers to the likelihood of acts, accordingly, people are moreprone to act as they intend. This implies that the “intention” for somethingis a dependable predictor of the actual behavior. Along with the TPB, Mob-ley, Horner, and Hollingworth (1978) consider the turnover intention theintegrated performance related to the job satisfaction and intention to leave.

Organizational commitment and job satisfaction are major determinantsof turnover intention in employees (Bartle, Dansby, Landis, & McIntyre, 2002;Clegg, 1983; Karsh et al., 2005; Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005; Price, 1977).The studies by Leiter and Robichaud (1997) and Schaufeli and Enzmann(1998) also reveal that there are significant correlations among emotional ex-haustion, job satisfaction, organizational attachment, and turnover intention.Based on the literature, job satisfaction and organizational commitment canbe significant determinants of employees’ turnover intentions.

VARIABLES THAT IMPACT COMMITMENT AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

In this section, the OSC variables of trust, communication, and influence arediscussed in relation to their impact on commitment, and from this discus-sion research hypotheses are presented. Figure 1 demonstrates the authors’representation of each of Requena’s OSC variables (2003). Requena’s finalOSC variable of social-relations is not analyzed in terms of any connection tocommitment, the terminating variable for this article, or its effect on the otherthree variables for the following reasons. First, though the authors intuitivelybelieve that, holistically, social relations impact all other OSC variables, and itwas measured as part of the overall data-gathering, the measurement scalesvaried, that is, depending on the question, a range of options (Likert from1–6) was made available as opposed to the Likert 1–5 for all other questions.Thus, a separate analysis is first needed to arrive at a final metric of socialrelations and this is still to be completed. The authors accept the latter as apotential limitation of this article, but justify the results as presented becauseof the ability to directly show a correlation for trust, communication, andinfluence to commitment.

COMMUNICATION

Senhaya and Pekerti (2010) propose that communication can build trust andineffective communication can suggest the opposite. Dhollakia and Bagozzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 363

FIGURE 1 OSC variables impact on trust.

(2002) suggest that the ability to communicate goals and to understand themotivation of others can lead to being influential. Additionally, Johlke &Duhan (2000) suggest that the communication ability, in particular fromsupervisors, has positive effects on job outcomes for employees, includingsatisfaction, which may lead to enhanced commitment.

On the basis that communication, good or bad, is part of human inter-action and is consequently the foundation for engendering trust, influence,and commitment, the authors propose the first three hypotheses as:

Hypothesis 1: Increased communication has a significant effect on trust.

Hypothesis 2: Increased communication has a significant effect on influ-ence.

Hypothesis 3: Increased communication as a significant effect on commit-ment.

Trust

The concept of trust, and literature related to trust is extensive. In terms ofemployment, trust is reported by Costa, Roe, and Taillieu (2001) as being acritical factor in team development, is said to enfold the areas of solidarityamong workers through to psychological contracts (Martin, 2008), and leadsto a form of commitment (McDonald & Makin, 2000). Expanding the former,Bijlsma and Koopman (2003) report that relational contracts (potentially theOSC variable of social relations) impacts trust, which impacts commitment,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

364 A. Brien et al.

that is, the higher the relational contract and, in this case trust, the higherthe commitment.

Given communication may impact trust, it is possible that the more acolleague is trusted, the more influential he/she may be. Thus, the authorspropose:

Hypothesis 4: High levels of trust have a significant effect on influence.

Hypothesis 5: High levels of trust have a significant effect on commitment.

Influence

In building the case that commitment is influenced by other OSC variables,the concept of influence itself needs to be considered and has already beenso in a different manner above. The authors propose that someone cannotbe influential, or accept being influenced, unless there is appropriate verbalor written communication and trust. As such, the authors present the finalhypothesis as:

Hypothesis 6: Increased levels of influence have a significant effect oncommitment.

Social Relations

The authors acknowledge the linkage of social exchange theory, as reportedby Cole et al. (2002), to commitment, and feel supported in their views fromsuch literature that suggests increased socialization builds trust by connectingits citizens and developing relationships (Pucetaite, Lamsa, & Novelskaite,2010; Pucetaite & Lamsa, 2008; Ross & Boles, 1994).

While academic research provides a variety of definitions for the vari-ables used in this research, it can be useful to also include a series of prac-tical definitions for the variables used in this research, these are as follows:Communication refers to the both written and oral about matters impact-ing an employee’s job, encouraged to communicate and their views on theamount of constructive communication. Trust refers to the employees’ viewson how people are treated, promises kept, openness, being able to counton colleagues for support and sharing of information. Influence refers towhat motivates employees including the level of teamwork, persuasivenessof other, perhaps via the use of policy or threats, the level of planning thanreduces pressure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 365

METHODOLOGY

Sample

General managers from all (112) hotels within the New Zealand Hotel Coun-cil database were invited, by e-mail, to participate in an OSC benchmark-ing exercise. This database holds the majority of New Zealand hotels over50 rooms and luxury lodges if fewer than 50 rooms, therefore, is almosta total census of the New Zealand major hotel inventory. General man-agers of hotels wishing to participate advised the researchers how manyemployees (both full- and part-time) were employed and the hotels weresubsequently supplied with that number of questionnaires in individual un-sealed envelopes. Envelopes contained a research briefing sheet and wereeither handed out by supervisors and/or made available in employee breakrooms. Postage paid envelopes were addressed to the researchers to en-sure participants had control over their completed questionnaire by send-ing them direct to the researchers and not via the hotel. Additionally, thismethod ensured no financial expense was incurred by the participants orthe hotel. Participants were given four weeks to complete and return thequestionnaire.

Questionnaire Development

To measure OSC, and in the case of this research the impact that communi-cation, trust and influence have on commitment, a questionnaire was devel-oped. It included 12 questions related to commitment using the Porter andSmith (1970) organizational commitment questionnaire, 9 questions relatedto communication using Mount and Back’s (1999) communication satisfac-tion questionnaire, 14 trust-based questions from Tzafrir and Dolan’s (2004)trust questionnaire, 12 questions related to influence using Yukl, Seifert, andChavez’s (2008) influence behavioral questionnaire, and 6 questions relatedto social capital drawn from Putnam’s (2000) families and work institutesurvey. Measurement of the questions for the first four variables (the focusof this article) used a Likert scale of 1–5 (where 5 was the highest level ofpositive agreement); social relations were measured using varying responseoptions.

Data Analysis

In this research, the authors measured several variables and sought to iden-tify their relationships with the objective of predicting impacts, therefore,generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) was used to analyze the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

366 A. Brien et al.

data and test hypotheses. Such an approach facilitates the analysis of a com-plex model. Specifically, GSCA with a 500 bootstrap resampling procedurewas used.

Findings

Data was loaded into SPSS where it was subjected to descriptive and infer-ence analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) (confidence level of 5%)to determine differences of means between groups. Of the total of 1922hotel employees invited to participate, 419 participants returned completedquestionnaires, a 21.96% response rate.

The following demographic profile emerged from the sample: 37.5% ofthe respondents are aged between 21 and 30, 51% held tertiary educationqualifications, 65.5% are full-time employees, and around 44% had workedin their hotel for between 1 and 5 years.

To test the proposed hypotheses, this study employed GSCA. GSCA(Hwang, Montreal, & Takane, 2004) is an advancement from partial leastsquare (PLS) analysis (Wold, Ruhe, Wold, & Dunn, 1984) and though itsubstitutes components for factors as in PLS, it optimizes the criterion ofglobal least squares in the analysis, which estimates model parameters. Thisapproach enables model fit to be checked while maintaining the benefitsof PLS analysis, which was important in this study because the hypothesisproposed many different paths of possible impact on organizational com-mitment. In using GSCA, a two-step approach was taken, first, to measureproperties and second, to test the structural model.

Examining Measurement Properties

Anderson and Gerbing (1988) contend that a measurement model of allconstructs is needed to assess the acceptability of each multi-item scale tocapture its construct. For this study, unidimensionality, convergent validity,discriminant validity, and model fit are used to indicate the adequacy ofmeasurement properties.

In checking each of the above properties, Cronbach alpha was used toindicate any problems with unidimensionality; this study produced scoresvarying from 0.795 to 0.917. Given that these Cronbach alpha scores areabove the accepted cut off value (0.7), it suggests that there is no problemof unidimensionality in this study.

Second, two indicators were used to investigate any convergent valid-ity problem, namely factor loading and average variance extracted (AVE).Table 1 shows that the factor loading values are above the suggested cut-offof 0.60, with a minimum 0.612; all were significant (p < 0.05). Table 1 shows

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 367

TABLE 1 Summary of Psychometric Properties

FL Alpha Cronbach AVE

CommunicationReceive information about change 0.761The communication between

people and departments in thishotel makes me feel part of apositive hotel community

0.815

Written communication in thishotel is relevant and helps medo my job better

0.714

Meetings we have are informative 0.797The hotel formally and informally

communicates with me abouthow I am doing in my job

0.745 0.878 0.581

The communication I receiveabout all sorts of things in thishotel is about right—not toomuch or too little

0.767

I know that I can makesuggestions about how toimprove things and they arelistened to

0.731

InfluencePeople use facts and figures to

influence me about any new jobthey want me to do

0.678

People take time to explain whysomething has to be done in aparticular way

0.696 0.793 0.548

People are always prepared tohelp me to get things done

0.703

I am encouraged to ask questionsand provide suggestions toimprove the way things are done

0.772

I am motivated to achieve more inthis hotel because of the wayeveryone works together

0.84

TrustMy colleagues will keep the

promises they make0.696

My colleagues really look out forwhat is important to each other

0.775

I think that the people in this hotelwill not breach any trust to getahead

0.694

My colleagues express their truefeeling about important issues

0.723

It is best to share information withmy colleagues

0.68 0.893 0.513

My colleagues would notknowingly do anything to hurtthis hotel

0.636

(Continued on next page)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

368 A. Brien et al.

TABLE 1 Summary of Psychometric Properties (Continued)

FL Alpha Cronbach AVE

My colleagues are open andupfront with me

0.804

My work colleagues’ needs anddesires are very important toeach other

0.781

I can count on my workcolleagues to help me if I havedifficulties with my job

0.737

If I make a mistake, my workcolleagues are willing to “forgiveand forget”

0.612

CommitmentI find that my values and this

hotel’s values are very similar0.814

This hotel really inspires the verybest in me in the way of jobperformance

0.801

I am extremely glad that I chosethis hotel to work for, over otherjobs that I could have taken

0.799

For me, this is the best of allpossible hotels to work for

0.794 0.916 0.668

I tell my friends that this hotel is agreat place to work

0.872

I feel very strong loyalty to thishotel

0.853

I really care about the future ofthis hotel

0.786

that the AVE values range from 0.513 to 0.668, which Fornell and Larcker(1981) suggest are an acceptable level of validity for the measures that ascore. Based on these indicators, it is concluded that there are no conver-gent validity problems for the measured properties. Table 1 summarizes theevaluation of psychometric properties.

The third test to assess the measured properties is discriminant validity.Discriminant validity can be indicated by the correlation among constructs.Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) suggest that the correlation between

TABLE 2 Correlations of Latent Variables

Communication Influence Trust Commitment

Communication 1Influence 0.799 (0.021)∗ 1Trust 0.658 (0.035)∗ 0.709 (0.036)∗ 1Commitment 0.703 (0.034)∗ 0.666 (0.030)∗ 0.538 (0.053)∗ 1

∗Significant at 0.05 level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 369

TABLE 3 Model Fit Indicators

Model Fit

FIT 0.554AFIT 0.551GFI 0.996SRMR 0.054NPAR 64

constructs must be less than 0.85; Table 2 demonstrates that there is noconstruct for which the correlation exceeds 0.85; hence, no discriminantvalidity problem was detected.

The last indicator to examine the measurement properties is model fit. Interms of assessing the fitness of the model this study relies on four indicators;FIT, AFIT, GFI, and SRMR. Based on the results from Table 3, the scores ofFIT, AFIT, and GFI are relatively close to 1 and SRMR is close to 0. Hwang(2011) contend that such results concluded that the model is fit.

Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing

The results of psychometric properties indicate that the constructs used inthis study are valid and reliable. By having valid and reliable constructs,the evaluations of structural model can be performed. The outcomes ofstructural model evaluation also explained that the model proposed is fit.Having established measures and a robust model, hypothesis testing canproceed. Table 4 summarizes the results of the hypotheses testing.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that employee communication has a significanteffect on employee trust. Testing indicates that this effect exists (t = 18.96;β = 0.658), therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. This result, therefore,suggests that the higher the level of communication the potential higherlevel of trust, however, it should not be assumed that this will automatically

TABLE 4 Hypotheses Testing

Path Coefficients

Estimate CR Hypothesis

H1 Communication –> Trust 0.658 18.96∗ SupportedH2 Communication –> Influence 0.588 14.0∗ SupportedH3 Communication –>

Commitment0.461 6.45∗ Supported

H4 Trust –> Influence 0.322 6.61∗ SupportedH5 Trust –> Commitment 0.048 0.58 Not supportedH6 Influence –> Commitment 0.264 2.49∗ Supported

CR∗ = significant at 0.05 level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

370 A. Brien et al.

flow into a higher level of commitment as noted below (Hypothesis 5), higherlevels of trust do not necessarily convert to a higher level of commitment.That said, most organizations desire an environment of trust, if nothing butgood relations, and if positive communication aids this, then all is good andwell. The reverse of all this is a more negative OSC.

Hypothesis 2 proposed communication has a significant effect on in-fluence. As with Hypothesis 1, testing identifies this to be true (t = 14.00;β = 0.588); Hypothesis 2 is also supported. Furthermore, the structural modelindicates a positive relationship between these constructs, hence the highercommunication perceived by employees, the higher their influence percep-tion. Potentially, along with working with trusting/trusted colleagues, butnot assuming that this makes people more committed, the matter that somepeople can be influential adds more “weight” to the overall opportunityfor commitment. Ideally, the more “weight” that OSC variables gather as atotal-sum, the better for everyone.

Hypothesis 3 proposed there is a significant relationship between com-munication and commitment, which again was proven (t = 6.45; β = 0.461)meaning the higher perceived communication the higher employees’ com-mitment. It is noted that there is a direct-line to commitment and is ar-guably the root of commitment given communications flow through trustand influence. This, of course, is also potentially a hotel greatest chal-lenge in that hotels employ so many different cultures with different lan-guages; indeed one hotel produced an in-house weekly newsletter in 20languages.

Hypothesis 4 and 5 relate to trust and its impact on influence and com-mitment. Testing suggests though trust significantly affects influence (t =6.61; β = 0.322), in this study there is no significant relationship betweentrust and commitment (t = 0.58; β = 0.048). Hence, Hypothesis 5 is notsupported. The researchers feel this is a counter-intuitive result, that is, onewould assume the higher the level of trust the higher the commitment. Po-tentially, however, respondents are more focused on personal relationships,that is, trust builds influence, and may have perceived that organizationalcommitment is not the focus of their attention.

Finally, Hypothesis 6 proposed a significant effect of influence on com-mitment. This study found a significant relationship between these constructs(t = 2.49; β = 0.264), therefore Hypothesis 6 is supported. As such, the higheremployee perceived the influence, the higher their commitment toward or-ganization. This result also demonstrates the “weighting” factor in action.Not only is commitment positively impacted by communication, but addedweight via influence and trust.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) provides the value of coefficientdetermination. In this study, communication has a 43.3% effect on trustwhich means variables other than those tested in this research impact trustto a higher degree. The model indicates that communication and trust

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 371

TABLE 5 Summary of Coefficient Determination

R2 of Latent Variable

Communication 0Influence 0.698Trust 0.433Commitment 0.525

affected perceived influence 69.8% and, finally, commitment is affected bycommunication, trust, and perceived influence around 53%. The coefficientdetermination analysis summarized in Table 5.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

If not managed well, ETI can eventually lead to actual employee turnoverand financial strain in an organization; a reduction in turnover could poten-tially lead to greater productivity and greater financial success. This articleproposes that the most important element in the reduction of ETI, and thepotential increase in employee commitment, is the variable of employeecommitment. To affirm this, the researchers tested what, if any, impact theOSC variables of communication, influence, and trust have on commitment.The need to know such impacts is from the base that managers deal with ETIon a daily basis, therefore, knowing the power of each impacting variable,and being able to develop strategies to positively enhance them, may wellreduce ETI thoughts and produce a significant financial benefit or, in otherwords, an organizational financial productivity gain.

The researchers acknowledge what could be seen as a common-senseanswer to what impacts commitment as part of ETI: communication, trust,and influence. However, organizations are often set in tier ways of doingthings and do not always adapt to change, even when common sense saysthey should. The authors also acknowledge literature highlighting factors re-lated to ETI, such as the cost of employee turnover (for example Davidson &Timo, 2006) and the inter-relationship between communication and commit-ment (see Bambacas & Patrickson, 2008). Additionally, the literature suggestscommunication and the transmission of knowledge can potentially engendera person be more influential and via communication from, in particular, topmanagement can also build trust, which is said to positively impact commit-ment (Mahajan, Bishop, & Scott, 2012). However, what has not been signaledto hotel managers before, or indeed the general management community, isthe impacting power that communication, influence, and trust have on com-mitment, and in the case of this research, in the hotel industry. As such, thisresearch is new and unique with the findings assisting managers to knowwhich variables to concentrate on to reduce the impact of ETI. As stated,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

372 A. Brien et al.

these findings are a first for, and thus, unique to the hotel industry. Indeedno other non-hotel industry comparison is available; so what do they meanin practice?

Not surprisingly, communication significantly and directly impacts com-mitment; therefore, hotels must ensure effective communication with theiremployees if they wish to mitigate the ETI factor. The challenge for hotelsin terms of communication is that this is an industry that engages signifi-cant numbers from different nationalities, therefore, the message sent is notalways the message received. ETI can be further reduced and commitmentincreased by influential employees. It is possible that when employees re-ceive effective communication it enables them to become influential by wayof legitimate position (power) or personal power (expert or referent; Taber& Yukl, 1983), and when interacting with others they influence the level ofETI. Alternatively, communication can flow through trust into influence, andthen to commitment which enhances the power of the overall impact oncommitment.

A summation of the findings so far suggests that communication isthe base impacting ETI, but this can be enhanced by developing trust andinfluential employees who, through their actions, may reduce ETI in othersand themselves. However, it is important to note that in this research trust hasless impact on ETI, a matter that contradicts the present literature as reportedbelow. Therefore, managers must balance the effort put into developingtrust within every employee and rather concentrate on communication anddeveloping influential employees.

Ruppel and Harrington’s (2000) research presents the view that trustmoderates the impact that communication has on commitment, which sug-gests that trust comes before communication; however, that view is notshared by Zeffane, Tipu, and Ryan (2011) who consider that communica-tion may be the starting point but is at least on an equal level as trust, andthat these two variables impact commitment. The article’s authors supportZeffane et al.’s view given the results from the present analysis. The authorsalso agree that there can be a back-flow effect from trust to communicationthat then flows to commitment via influence, which suggests commitmentcan be secured via a two-pronged approach. Zeffane et al.’s research, how-ever, did not include any other variables, as in this research, where influencewas considered something that could impact commitment and ETI. Indeedthis aspect and the fact that trust has much less impact on commitment iswhat is new in terms of the literature and unique in the context of hotelresearch.

While Zaffane et al.’s (2011) research is possibly the most recent interms of the discussion of the communication, trust, and commitment triad,and Mahajan et al.’s (2012) in terms of (management) communication andorganizational commitment, this research expands both findings and notesthat for the hotel industry, though trust is important, it has a much weaker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 373

impact on commitment than Zaffane et al. (2011) suggest. Reasons for thisdifference may be the characteristics of hotel employees and their engage-ment, that is, a significant multi-cultural and contingent workforce, not theresearch base used by Zaffane et al. (2011) or Ruppel and Harrington(2000) study. In concluding this section, the researchers are of the viewthat hotels need to actively utilize the communication, trust, and influenceOSC variables in different ways as combined they can positively impactcommitment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of hypothesis testing that stemmed from several research ob-jectives. Specifically, this research developed objectives to identify if (1)communication is fundamental to the development of trust, influence, andcommitment; (2) trust would positively impact influence; and (3) trust im-pacts influence, which then significantly impacts commitment.

First, while it may appear to be common sense to communicate withemployees in general as part of getting the work done, it is absolutely vital asa tool to reduce ETI and develop commitment. For an industry that is focusedon service, communication is more than instructions. High-level communi-cation ensures that employees are not hindered in any way from doing theirjob and doing it well, which leads to happier employees, which then poten-tially governs their view on commitment. Communication is of course moredifficult in a contingent and multi-cultural working environment as is foundin hotels, therefore, this means that more efforts is needed by everyone, inparticular managers to ensure the service standards remain as desired. Morerelated to this finding follows in the implications for practitioners.

The second key finding relates to the counterintuitive view that trust isnecessary for building commitment and is part of the decision for someoneto stay committed to an organization. While the literature mentioned earliersuggests this to be the case, it is not so in hotels in this research. The authorsare of the view that this is the case due to, again, the multicultural workforcewho will have different views on what trust is and how it is developed, thusreducing this to a non-significant impacting variable. Additionally, the tasknature of many of the roles in hotels does not always require the buildingof trust between employees and the organization; therefore, the view thatit is easy to find another position means that employees do not have toinvest energy in developing trust. While this position may exist in hotels,it may not be the same in other industries where highly complex activitiesneeding stronger inter-employee engagement are the norm. This researchwould need to be tested in the latter setting to prove this. However, theoverarching theme in this finding is one of a double-loss, that of a lackof trust between employees and the organization and the additional loss of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

374 A. Brien et al.

possible enhanced productivity as the outcome of committed employees andorganizational profitability due to turnover.

By way of concluding this research, the researchers consider the issuesthat both academics and practitioners face related to ETI and commitment.

Issues for Academic Researchers of ETI

The topic of turnover intention is frequently studied in a variety of industries,including the lodging industry. That being said, little research exists on theconnection of ETI and OSC variables such as commitment. This research addsto the limited research on this topic and encourages academic researchersto broaden their research on the topic. By doing this, academia can helpcreate a larger theoretical framework related to ETI and actual employeeturnover. Additional research on both these areas could provide significantbenefits to industry practitioners, not just those within the hotel industry ofNew Zealand.

Implications for Practitioners

This research has implications to practitioners in the hotel industry in NewZealand, and in some cases, other hotel markets and hospitality sectorsaround the world. While others practitioners outside of the New Zealandhotel industry may have unique challenges pertaining to the managementof their employees, and in some instances, similar human resource (HR)issues may exist. In the latter case, the results of this research may be highlybeneficial in the areas of turnover intention and commitment.

The results of this research highlight the importance of finding effectiveways to communicate with employees in their native language. The ideathat hotels have a multi-national workforce in hotels is not a new concept,but the results of this research show that employees still feel that a gap ex-ists in communication with their organization. By making an effort to bettercommunicate with their employees in their native languages, organizationscan have a positive impact on, among other things, commitment (turnoverintention) and trust. While the authors are not asserting that all communi-cation should be done in multiple languages, employers should realize thatthe sensitivities when it comes to employees who are more accustomed totheir native language.

Keeping with the theme of communication, organizations should diver-sify the mediums, or methods, in which organizations communicate withtheir employees. The results of this research show that communication hasan impact on trust, influence, and commitment. Decreases in these threevariables can have impact on a service-based organization such as hotels.Practitioners should watch and track which communication methods aregenerating positive responses and in some cases, consider communicating

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 375

across vary mediums: digital, face-to-face, and through print formats such asnewsletters, bulletin boards, and memorandums.

Practitioners should also ensure that employees have a mechanism tocommunicate with not only their peers (colleagues), but also their superiors.This could include the use of employee-led focus groups, online discus-sion forums, and proactive organization-facilitated programs to encourageinteraction amongst employees. Regardless of the medium selected, the endresult is the same; employees will interact with one another, which can havea positive impact on trust, influence, and commitment.

Employees who participated in this research indicated that trust is hasan impact on influence in the workplace. While this is not entirely sur-prising due to the nature of commitment and turnover intention in thisindustry, organizations should make an effort to improve this trust in therelationships of a superiors and subordinates, as well as employees andtheir peers. One specific way to improve this trust amongst employees isto identify positive and influential employees in the work environment.Once this has been done, practitioners should make efforts to encouragethem to form stronger professional relationships with employees. Addition-ally, organizations should make efforts to retain and develop these positiveand influential individuals in the work environment. This could include,but is not limited to: job promotions, financial compensation increases,or tuition assistance for collegiate education (undergraduate and graduate-level degrees). These strategies have been shown to increase retention ofindividuals in a variety of work environments, not just those related tohospitality.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

All academic research has limitations, and this research is no exception. It isacknowledged that this research only focused on one country (New Zealand)for its analysis. Due to this fact, issues related to large-scale global industrygeneralizability are limited. In a global hotel industry, where challengesrelated to the management of human capital are common and somewhatuniversal, there is value in replicating this research. Future studies turnoverintention and commitment, as part of social capital, should focus on the hotelsectors of other countries to account for variances in demographics, cultures,and other applicable human resource characteristics.

In addition to the global nature of the hotel industry, this research hasapplicability to other sectors of hospitality and tourism. This research onlyfocused on the hotel sector, and while this is an important contributor to theoverall hospitality and tourism industry, segments such as food and beverage,airlines, cruise lines, and the casino-entertainment industry could potentiallyfind benefit in a replication of this study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

376 A. Brien et al.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, K. Z., Veerapandian, K. A. P., & Ghee, W. Y. (2011). Person-environmentfit: The missing link in the organisational culture-commitment relation-ship. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11), 11–20.doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n11p11

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, andthe theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4),665–683. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),411–423.

Bambacas, M., & Patrickson, M. (2008). Interpersonal communication skills thatenhance organisational commitment. Journal of Communication Management,12(1), 51–72. doi:10.1108/13632540810854235

Bartle, S., Dansby, M., Landis, D., & McIntyre, R. (2002). The effect of equalopportunity fairness attitudes on job satisfaction, organisational commitment,and perceived work group efficacy. Military Psychology, 14(4), 299–319.doi:10.1207/S15327876MP1404_5

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,NY: Free Press.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: Therelationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” The Academy of Man-agement Journal, 26(4), 587–595. doi:10.2307/255908

Bijlsma, K., & Koopman, P. (2003). Introduction: Trust within organisations. Person-nel Review, 32(5), 543. doi:10.1108/00483480310488324

Birdir, K. (2002). General manager turnover and root causes. Interna-tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14(1), 43–47.doi:10.1108/09596110210415123

Blomme, R. J., van Rheede, A., & Tromp, D. M. (2010). The use of the psychologicalcontract to explain turnover intentions in the hospitality industry: A researchstudy on the impact of gender on the turnover intentions of highly educatedemployees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(1),144–162. doi:10.1080/09585190903466954

Bonn, M. A., & Forbringer, L. R. (1992). Reducing turnover in the hospitality industry:An overview of recruitment, selection, and retention. International Journal ofHospitality Management, 11(1), 47–63. doi:10.1016/0278-4319(92)90035-T

Brien, A. R. (2004a). Do I want a job in hospitality? Only till I get a real job! In K.A. Smith & C. Schott (Chair), Victoria University. Symposium conducted at themeeting of the New Zealand Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference 2004,Wellington, New Zealand.

Brien, A. R. (2004b). The New Zealand hotel industry—vacancies increase whileapplicant numbers and calibre decrease. International Journal of Hospitalityand Tourism Administration, 5(1), 87–104. doi:10.1300/J149v05n01_05

Carbery, R., Garavan, T., O’Brien, F., & McDonnell, J. (2003). Predicting hotel man-agers’ turnover cognitions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1), 649–679.doi:10.1108/02683940310502377

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 377

Chen, Q. (2007). A research into the Chinese hotel management of emptional labor.Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 5, 40–44.

Chen, Z., Tsui, A., & Farh, J. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organi-sational commitment: Relationship to employee performance in China.Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 75(3), 339–356.doi:10.1348/096317902320369749

Cheng, A., & Brown, A. (1998). HRM strategies and labour turnover inthe hotel industry: A comparative study of Australia and Singapore. TheInternational Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(1), 136–155.doi:10.1080/095851998341233

Chew, Y. T., & Wong, S. K. (2008). Effects of career mentoring experience andperceived organizational support on employee commitment and intentions toleave: A study among hotel workers in Malaysia. International Journal of Man-agement, 25(4), 692–700, 779.

Cho, S., Johanson, M. M., & Guchait, P. (2009). Employees intent to leave: A com-parison of determinants of intent to leave versus intent to stay. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, 28(3), 374–381. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.10.007

Clegg, M. (1983). Psychology of employee lateness, absence, and turnover: Amethodological critique and an empricial study. Journal of Applied Psychology,68(1), 88–101. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.1.88

Cole, M. S., Schaninger, W. S., Jr., & Harris, S. G. (2002). The workplace social ex-change network: A multilevel, conceptual examination. Group & OrganizationManagement, 27(1), 142–167. doi:10.1177/1059601102027001008

Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relationwith performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 10(3), 225–244. doi:10.1080/13594320143000654

Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D., & Krackhardt, D. M. (1982). Turnover overstated: Thefunctional taxonomy. Academy of Management. The Academy of ManagementReview (pre-1986), 7(1), 117.

Davidson, M., Nils, T., & Ying, W. (2010). How much does labour turnover cost? In-ternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4), 451–466.doi:10.1108/09596111011042686

Davidson, M., & Timo, N. (2006). Labour turnover and costs in the Australian ac-commodation industry. Royal Exchange, NSW: Griffith University.

Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2002). The core and the periphery: An examination of the flex-ible workforce model in the hotel industry. International Journal of HospitalityManagement, 21, 339. doi:10.1016/S0278-4319(02)00013-0

Deery, M. A., & Shaw, R. N. (1998). An explanatory analysis of turnover culture inthe hotel industry in Australia. International Journal of Hospitality Management,16(4), 375–392. doi:10.1016/S0278-4319(97)00031-5

Denvir, A., & McMahon, F. (1992). Labour turnover in London hotels and the cost ef-fectiveness of preventative measures. International Journal of Hospitality Man-agement, 11(2), 143–154. doi:10.1016/0278-4319(92)90007-I

Dholakia, U. M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). Mustering motivation to enact deci-sions: How decision process characteristics influence goal realization. Journal ofBehavioral Decision Making, 15(3), 167–167. doi:10.1002/bdm.408

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

378 A. Brien et al.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, D. R. (2010). Multivariate dataanalysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

He, Y., Li, W., & Lai, K. K. (2011). Service climate, employee commitment, andcustomer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man-agement, 23(5), 592–607. doi:10.1108/09596111111143359

Hemdi, M. A., & Rahim, A. R. A. (2011). The effect of psychological contract andaffective commitment on turnover intentions of hotel managers. InternationalJournal of Business and Social Science, 2(23), 76–88.

Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A.(1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review,(March–April), 164–174.

Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (2000). The cost of turnover. Cornell Hotel and Restau-rant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 14–21.

Hoga, J. J. (1992). Turnover and what to do about it. Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, 33(1), 40–45. doi:10.1177/001088049203300120

Homans, G. (1961). The humanities and the social sciences. The American Behav-ioral Scientist (pre-1986), 4(8), 3–6.

Horner, S., & Swarbrooke, J. (2004). International cases in tourism management.Oxford, UK: Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hwang, H. (2011). GeSAC user manual, page 9. Retrieved from http://www.sem-gesca.org/GeSCA_Manual.pdf

Hwang, H., Montreal, H., & Takane, Y. (2004). Generalized structured componentanalysis. Psychometrika, 69(1), 81–99.

Iverson, R., & Deery, M. (1997). Turnover culture in the hospitality industry. HumanResource Management Journal, 7(4), 71. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.1997.tb00290.x

Johlke, M. C., & Duhan, D. F. (2000). Supervisor communication practices andservice employee job outcomes. Journal of Service Research: JSR, 3(2), 154.doi:10.1177/109467050032004

Johnson, K. (1986). Labour turnover in hotels—an update. Services Industries Jour-nal, 6(3), 362–380. doi:10.1080/02642068600000044

Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Van Rooy, D. L., Steilberg, R. C., & Cerrone, S. (2006).Sure everyone can be replaced. . .but at what cost? Turnover as a predictor ofunit-level performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 133.

Kalotina, C., & Sigala, M. (2010). Staff turnover in the Greek tourism industry. In-ternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 335–359.doi:10.1108/09596111011035945

Karsh, B., Booske B. C., & Sainfort, F. (2005). Job and organizational determinants ofnursing home employees commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to turnover.Ergonomics, 48(10), 1260–1281. doi:10.1080/00140130500195

Kazlauskaite, R., Buciuniene, I., & Turauskas, L. (2006). Building employee commit-ment in the hospitality industry. Baltic Journal of Management, 1(3), 300–314.doi:10.1108./17465260610690944

Koh, H. C., & Elfred, H. Y. B. (2004). Organisational ethics and employee satisfactionand commitment. Management Decision, 42(5/6), 677–693.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 379

Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York,NY: Free Press.

Lashley, C. (2000). Hospitality retail management: A unit managers’ guide. Oxford,UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Lee, C., Huang, S., & Zhao, C. (2012). A study of factors effecting turnover intentionof hotel employees. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 2(7), 886.

Leiter, M., & Robichaud, L. (1997). Relationships of occupational hazards withburnout: An assessment of measures and models. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 2, 1–11.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S., Kraimer, M. L., & Sparrowe, R. (2003). The dual commit-ments of contingent workers: An examination of contingent’s commitment tothe agency and the organisation. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 24(5),609–625. doi:

Mahajan, A., Bishop, J. W., & Scott, D. (2012). Does trust in top management mediatetop management communication, employee involvement, and organizationalcommitment relationships? Journal of Managerial Issues, 24(2), 122, 173–190.

Maharaj, I., & Schlechter, A. F. (2007). Meaning in life and meaning of work: Rela-tionships with organisational citizenship behaviour, commitment, and job satis-faction. Management Dynamics, 16(3), 24–41.

Martin, S. (2008). Relational and economic antecedents of organisational commit-ment. Personnel Review, 37(6), 589–608. doi:10.1108/00483480810906856

Maxwell, G., & Steele, G. (2003). Organisational commitment: A study of managers inhotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(7),362–369. doi:10.1108/09596110310496006

McDonald, D. J., & Makin, P. J. (2000). The psychological contract, organisationalcommitment, and job satisfaction to temporary staff. Leadership and Organisa-tional Development Journal, 21(2), 84–91. doi:10.1108/01437730010318174

Md Zabid Abdul, R., Sambasivan, M., & Johari, J. (2003). The influence of corpo-rate culture and organisational commitment on performance. The Journal ofManagement Development, 22(7/8), 708–728.

Mobley, W., Horner, S., & Hollingworth, A. (1978). An evaluation of precursorsof hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 408–414.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.408

Mohamad Abdullah, H., & Abdul Rahman Abdul, R. (2011). The effect of psy-chological contract and affective commitment on turnover intentions of ho-tel managers. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(23),76–88.

Mohsin, A., Lengler, J., & Kumar, B. (2013). Exploring the antecedents of intentions toleave the job: The case of luxury hotel staff. International Journal of HospitalityManagement, 35(0), 48–58. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.002

Moncarz, E., Zhao, J., & Kay, C. (2009). An exploratory study of US lodgingproperties’ organizational practices on employee turnover and retention. In-ternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(4), 437–458.doi:10.1108/09596110910955695

Mount, D., & Back, K. -J. (1999). A factor-analytic study of communication satisfactionin the lodging industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 23(4),401–418. doi:10.1177/109634809902300405

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

380 A. Brien et al.

Parker, R., & Kohlmeyer, J. (2005). Organizational justice and turnover in publicaccounting firms: A research note. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 30,357–369. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.05.001

Passarelli, G. (2011). Employees’ skills and organisational commitment. InternationalBusiness Research, 4(1), 28–42.

Porter, L., & Smith, F. (1970). Organisational commitment questionnaire. Retrievedfrom www.regent.edu/acad/global/. . ./Example%20Measure%20Paper.doc

Price, J. (1977). The study of turnover. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.Pucetaite, R., & Lamsa, A. (2008). Developing organisational trust through advance-

ment of employees’ work ethics in a post-socialist context. Journal of BusinessEthics, 82, 325–337.

Pucetaite, R., Lamsa, A.-M., & Novelskaite, A. (2010). Building organizational trustin a low-trust societal context. Baltic Journal of Management, 5(2), 197–217.doi:10.1108/17465261011045124

Putnam, R. (2000). Families and work institute survey. Families and Work InstituteNew York: Simon & Schuster.

Requena, F. (2003). Social capital, satisfaction, and quality of life in the workplace.Social Indicators Research, 61(3), 331.

Ross, L. E., & Boles, J. S. (1994). Exploring the influence of workplace relationshipson work-related attitudes and behaviours in the hospitality work environment.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 13(2), 155–171.

Rothwell, S. (1982). Productivity improvement through reduced labour turnover.Long Range Planning, 15(2), 67–76.

Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contacts in organisations—understanding writ-ten and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethicalwork climate, and trust to commitment and innovation [Article]. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 25(4), 313–328.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study andpractice: A critical analysis. London: Taylor and Francis.

Senjaya, S., & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in or-ganizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 643–663.doi:10.1108/01437731011079673

Simmons, T., & Hinkin, T. R. (2001). The effect of employee turnover on hotel prof-its: A test across multiple hotels. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly, 42(4), 65–69.

Taber, T., & Yukl, G. (1983). The effective use of managerial power. Personnel,(March–April), 37–44.

Tzafrir, S., & Dolan, S. (2004). Trust me: A scale for measuring manager-employeetrust. Management Research, 32(3), 115–132.

Wasmuth, W., & Davis, S. (1983). Managing employee turnover: Why employ-ees leave. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 24(1),11–18.

Wold, S., Ruhe, A., Wold, H., & Dunn, I. W. J. (1984). The collinearity problem in lin-ear regression. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to generalized inverses.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. SIAM Journal on Scientific andStatistical Computing, 5(3), 735–739. doi:10.1137/0905052

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5

Turnover Intentions in Hotels 381

Yang, J. -T., Wan, C. -S., & Fu, Y. -J. (2012). Qualitative examination of em-ployee turnover and retention strategies in international tourist hotels inTaiwan. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 837–848.doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.001

Yukl, G., Seifert, C., & Chavez, C. (2008). Validation of the ex-tended influence behavior questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 19,609–621.

Zeffane, R. P., Tipu, S. A., & Ryan, J. C. (2011). Communication, commitment, &trust: Exploring the triad. International Journal of Business and Management,6(6), 77–87.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

175.

45.1

87.2

55]

at 2

0:48

16

June

201

5