Relationship between Emotional Labor and Customer Orientation among Airline Service Employees: Mediating Role of Depersonalization

Abstract

Drawing on Hobfoll’s conservation of resources theory and Maslach’s burnout theory, this study proposed and tested a conceptual model depicting relationships among the two forms of emotional labor strategies, depersonalization and customer orientation (CO). The model also examined the mediating role of depersonalization in the relationship between emotional labor and CO. Multigroup analyses were conducted to examine moderating effects of job position and job responsibility. Data obtained from cabin crews, airport service staff, and call center representatives working for an airline company in Korea were used to gauge these relationships. Results of structural equation modeling revealed that deep acting affects CO positively while surface acting affects CO negatively. The results further suggest that these relationships are mediated by both reduced and increased depersonalization, and the strength of the direct relationships may differ by employee position and area of service work. Theoretical and management implications are discussed based on the findings.

Keywords

emotional labor customer orientation depersonalization airline service employees

Introduction

As Hochschild (1983) described so well in her seminal study of flight attendants, airline service employees engage in managing authentic or inauthentic emotions during service interactions. Each day, customer service staff members spend hours working face-to-face or voice-to-voice with the public. Such constant contact with customers means employees must express emotions prescribed by the organization. Flight attendants, for example, must keep smiling when talking to passengers even during an exhausting and lengthy flight.

This emotional labor, defined as managing emotions and emotional expressions to fulfill organizational requirements for emotional display during service work (Hochschild 1983), has meaningful implications to a service industry where employee service performance is a critical part of success. Particularly, emotional labor is a topic more important in the airline service sector than other sectors in the service industry like lodging or foodservice. Airline service employees are more often exposed to emotionally charged interactions with customers because of the unique context that characterizes air travel, including time-schedule-based service operations and emphasizing the security and well-being of both customers and staff. For instance, airline personnel at customer service counters may more frequently face unsatisfied customers because it is more likely that airlines will suffer service delays or cancellations, unlike the lodging or foodservice sectors. Also, airport check-in staff must cope with impatient passengers who are running late for a flight because they had to wait in a long security check process. Flight attendants may also be exposed to more emotionally charged encounters for longer durations than other hospitality employees because airline service encounters occur over long hours of flight and in an even more tense service atmosphere because of security and safety requirements.

Airlines often enforce display rules on their employees. Employees may thus display inauthentic emotions, hiding their felt emotions or showing unfelt emotions (i.e., surface acting). Employees may also attempt to modify internal feelings to create the emotions that the display rule requires (i.e., deep acting) (Gabriel et al. 2015; Hochschild 1983). In previous empirical studies in tourism and hospitality, different consequences of emotional labor have been highlighted: burnout, dissatisfaction with the job, service misbehavior, and turnover intention (Karatepe 2011; Karatepe and Choubtarash 2014; Karatepe and Aleshinloye 2009; Lee and Ok 2012). Despite a large body of research, however, employee emotional labor during service encounters has been only sparingly addressed as a determinant of customer orientation (CO) among service employees. As a result, our understanding of the relationship remains limited (Groth, Hennig-Thurau, and Walsh 2009).

CO refers to a service employee’s affective inclination or attitudinal commitment to engage in continuous improvement and exert effort to meet customer needs and expectations for service quality (Kelley 1992). A service employee who has high CO is characterized as an individual who puts the customer interests first and strives to provide superior service to customers through help, responsiveness, courtesy, and consideration (Brown et al. 2002; Susskind, Kacmar, and Borchgrevink 2003).

A close look at the CO literature shows that the research covers little of job-associated personal traits of service employees that affect their CO. First, most CO studies tend to focus more on how CO affects marketing, particularly at the firm level (Macintosh 2007). The research has linked CO to a firm’s economic success, particularly in profitability or with customer attitudes, satisfaction, repurchase intention, and loyalty (e.g., Donavan, Brown, and Mowen 2004; Hennig-Thurau and Thurau 2003; Stock and Hoyer 2005). Second, previous research done on the individual CO level focused mostly on how stable personalities (e.g., agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extroversion), personal traits (e.g., emotional intelligence and job knowledge), or job-related attitudes and behaviors (e.g., job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior) acted as possible determinants of CO (Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meuter 2001; Donavan, Brown, and Mowen 2004). Relatively little research on the individual CO level has examined how job characteristics influence employee CO. More specifically, although the emotional nature of service encounters is an inherent attribute of service jobs and thus decisively influences employee predisposition, attitudes, and behaviors (Farrell and Oczkowski 2009; Susskind et al. 2000), previous studies have not fully addressed whether the CO of service employees may differ in the forms of employee emotional acting and, if so, how such different consequences can be explained.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the link between the two forms of emotional labor and CO. More specifically, this study aims to answer the research question, “Would the CO of airline service employees differ depending on the form of emotional labor they usually use?” “Would CO increase or decrease if employees engage in deep acting or surface acting? If so, how do these two different relationships operate?” Drawing on Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources theory in combination with Maslach’s (1978) burnout theory, we developed a research model that links two types of emotional labor, depersonalization, and CO. Managing the depersonalized responses of service employees is important because depersonalization not only erodes service delivery, and thus substantially damages customer perceptions of service quality, but also demotivates employees in their commitment to fulfill customer needs and ultimately impairs the service mindset of employees (Maslach and Leiter 1997; Peccei and Rosenthal 1997; Stock and Hoyer 2005). By examining depersonalization as a mediator in an integrated model of the two most generally understood theories (conservation of resource theory and burnout theory), we can build a better understanding of depersonalization itself and provide a robust theoretical underpinning to explain the relationships between emotional labor and CO.

Based on the Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) job characteristics model, this study also examines the effect of work characteristics (e.g., autonomy, skill variety, and task significance) on the proposed relationships. Empirical research (e.g., Chuang and Lei 2011; Gursoy, Boylu, and Avci 2011; Meng and Han 2014; Ozturk, Hancer, and Im 2014) clearly supports the link between perceived work characteristics and job-related attitudes and behaviors, suggesting the possibility that the relationships hypothesized in our study may differ between managers and employees and among airport ground staff, call center staff, and flight attendants because of the nature of their responsibilities. By examining emotional labor and CO at different job positions and in different areas of service work, this study will provide insight into employee service management for airline services operators and scholars. Furthermore, emotional labor and CO are critical aspects of human services in hospitality. Therefore, our findings suggest important implications for practitioners in other hospitality sectors including lodging, foodservice, conventions, and tourism in light of selecting and retaining effective employees in service interactions. This study also provides further evidence of the need to expand the scope of the study to other hospitality contexts.

Literature Review

Emotional Labor

Hochschild (1983) noted that a substantial part of being a flight attendant involved coping with passengers and their emotions. She coined the term “emotional labor,” defining it as “the management of feeling to create publicly observable facial and body display” (p. 7). Since then, a growing number of scholars have redefined the term, examined its dimensionality, and/or explored its antecedents and consequences. In line with Hochschild’s (1983) definition, Morris and Feldman (1996) defined emotional labor as “the effort, planning and control needed to express organizationally desired emotion during interpersonal transactions” (p. 987). This perspective of emotional labor acknowledges that emotions and emotional expressions at work can be modified and regulated by an individual for the benefit of an organization (Grandey 2000). Thus, emotional labor often involves the display of largely inauthentic emotions because felt and displayed emotions can be separated (Ashforth and Humphrey 1993). Later, Grandey (2000) defined emotional labor as “the process of regulating both feelings and expressions for organizational goals” (p. 97). This definition integrated previous conceptualizations of emotional labor and has guided contemporary emotional labor research that encompasses situational cues and individual and organizational factors that affect emotion regulation among service employees (Johnson and Spector 2007). Therefore, this study uses Grandey’s (2000) definition.

Dimensions of Emotional Labor

Scholars conceptualized two dimensions of emotional labor: surface acting and deep acting. Although some scholars have added a third dimension, most studies consider emotional labor a bidimensional concept, reflecting both Hochschild (1983) and Grandey (2000). Surface acting refers to feigning and simulating unfelt emotions and/or suppressing felt emotions by engaging in verbal and/or nonverbal behaviors like facial expressions, gestures, and voice tone (Hochschild 1983). Surface acting involves the change of visible emotional display without changing the inner emotional state. Therefore, in surface acting, employees focus on managing outward emotional expression to comply with organizational display rules, while their inner feelings remain unchanged (Hochschild 1983). In surface acting, service employees hide or suppress their actual emotions and display or intensify fake emotions (Grandey 2000).

Deep acting, on the other hand, refers to an effortful attempt by service employees to modify their inner feelings to invoke and express the feelings they are expected to express (Grandey 2000). Hochschild (1983) refers to deep acting as “deceiving oneself as much as deceiving others” (p. 33) because, in deep acting, service employees not only engage in outward, expressive behavior but also regulate inner feelings. It is the degree to which employees psyche themselves into experiencing the emotions they wish to display (Ashforth and Humphrey 1993). In deep acting, service employees actively strive to conjure up thoughts, images, and memories to induce a certain emotion so that their emotions match their behavior or organizationally desired emotion (Ashforth and Humphrey 1993). Engaging in deep acting has been regarded as a “good faith” (p. 100) type of emotional labor because it shows the service employee has goodwill toward the customer in the service interaction (Grandey 2000).

Relationship between Emotional Labor and Depersonalization

Maslach and Jackson (1981) conceptualized depersonalization as one of the three salient syndromes of burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment. In burnout, service employees may feel emotionally overextended and depleted, a dearth of physical energy, lacking the psychological resources to cope with continuing demands. Then, in response to high levels of emotional exhaustion, they reduce emotional and cognitive involvement with work by detaching themselves, developing an impersonal view of others, and begin to treat customers as objects.

In the emotional labor literature, emotional dissonance is held primarily accountable for the detrimental consequences of surface acting, including the three dimensions of burnout. Emotional dissonance, a discrepancy between inner feelings and feigned expressions (Hochschild 1983), may cause discomfort and internal states of tension like stress, depression, and cynicism (Brotheridge and Grandey 2002). Supporting this dysfunctional role of emotional dissonance, prior empirical studies (e.g., Brotheridge and Lee 2002; Zhang and Zhu 2008; Zapf et al. 1999) showed a positive link between surface acting and depersonalization via emotional dissonance. These studies commonly revealed that surface acting may be detrimental to the emotional or psychological status, triggering emotional dissonance and possibly causing depersonalization. This discrepancy between the felt emotion and the displayed emotion may cause service employees to experience increased emotional strain, and in an attempt to reduce this strain, they may choose to invest less effort in social relationships. Studies of flight attendants similarly demonstrated a clear positive association between surface acting and depersonalization via psychological strain (Chen and Kao 2012; Hur, Moon, and Jun 2013; Karatepe 2011; Kim and Back 2012; Williams 2003).

In contrast, research generally shows that deep acting has functional effects on depersonalization among service employees. Empirical studies (e.g., Côté 2005; Hur, Moon, and Jun 2013; Kammeyer-Mueller et al. 2013) commonly suggest that deep acting can decrease depersonalization in responding to positive display rules. Zapf (2002) also suggested that deep acting may prevent employees from becoming depersonalized because deep acting (1) reduces potential negative effects of work; (2) induces positive emotions; and (3) fulfills needs and expectations. A customer treated sincerely tends to react positively in return. Such sincere treatment would help avoid embarrassing interpersonal conflicts and help employees avoid unpleasant situations that may cause depersonalization (Zapf 2002). Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1a: Surface acting is positively associated with depersonalization among airline service employees.

Hypothesis 1b: Deep acting is negatively associated with depersonalization among airline service employees.

Customer Orientation

Saxe and Weitz (1982) defined CO as the extent to which a salesperson seeks to satisfy customer needs and enhance a long-term customer relationship. Similarly, Kelley (1992) refers to CO as the extent to which service providers emphasize customer needs for service offerings and are willing to put forth time and effort to satisfy customers. More recently, Brown et al. (2002) defined CO as the individual predisposition or tendency “to meet customer needs in an on-the-job context” (p. 111). This psychological perspective of CO involves the innate tendency to provide superior service through responsiveness, courtesy, and a genuine desire to satisfy customer needs (Brown et al. 2002; Donavan, Brown, and Mowen 2004). Therefore, customer-oriented service employees are characterized as individuals who are internally driven to pamper customers, accurately identify their circumstances and needs, create a personal relationship with customers, and deliver quality service that satisfies customer needs (Donavan, Brown, and Mowen 2004; Mowen 2000). Based on Saxe and Weitz’s (1982) conceptualization of CO, Brown et al. (2002) conceptualized CO in a service setting as a two-dimensional construct: need dimension and enjoyment dimension. The need dimension reflects the degree to which employees believe in their ability to fulfill customer needs and wishes; the enjoyment dimension represents the extent to which employees inherently enjoy interacting with and serving customers. In this perspective, researchers conceptualized the dispositional form of CO as personalities with flexibility, agreeability, sociability, emotional stability, and likeability (Donavan, Brown, and Mowen 2004; Hogan, Hogan, and Busch 1984; Mowen 2000). Dispositional CO from the psychological approach also includes affective beliefs among service employees and an understanding of how important service quality is for customers, the attitudinal commitment and mindset to continuously enhance service quality for the sake of customers (Susskind, Kacmar, and Borchgrevink 2003; Zablah et al. 2012).

Researchers also conceptualized CO as behavior (Hennig-Thurau 2004; Peccei and Rosenthal 1997). Behaviorally, CO involves a set of employee behaviors aimed at engendering customer satisfaction. It describes the discretionary service performance of service employees to improve continuously and exert the effort required to deliver extra care and special attention during employee–consumer interaction (Cha 2005; Hennig-Thurau 2004). Expanding this conceptualization, recent service literature also included service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors of frontline employees as behavioral CO, defined as helping peers and cooperative behavior with peer service providers in service-related responsibilities and tasks (Cha 2005).

In this research, we adopted Brown et al.’s (2002) psychological view of CO because previous research using the psychological perspective generally suggests that CO is particularly related to job stress (e.g., Babakus, Yavas, and Ashill 2009; Donavan, Brown, and Mowen 2004; Rod and Ashill 2010; Zablah et al. 2012). More specifically, previous studies in hospitality service (e.g., Susskind et al. 2000; Susskind, Kacmar, and Borchgrevink 2003; Lee and Ok 2015) focused on the psychological construct of CO; therefore, using the CO construct conceptualized from this perspective should expand the conceptual model proposed in those studies to cover the airline service industry. Furthermore, behaviors are predicted by attitudes (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977). Therefore, by focusing on psychological CO, this study may provide a more rigorous research foundation for further research on behavioral CO.

Relationship between Depersonalization and Customer Orientation

Many studies have suggested that depersonalization has deleterious consequences for service employee CO. For example, Cordes and Dougherty (1993) found that service employee cynicism may cause reduced service quality and negative attitudes or behaviors toward customers. Lee and Ashforth (1996) and Cropanzano, Rupp, and Byrne (2003) also found that psychologically exhausted employees are less likely to be willing to interact with customers; they thus show less commitment to their service job. In such studies, researchers commonly posit that the depersonalization–CO relationship is caused by psychological strain repeatedly experienced during personal interactions, which greatly affects attitudes and behaviors. Thus, when service employees experience apathy toward customers and coworkers due to depersonalization, they then may alienate themselves from their work and reduce helpful and participative behaviors, ultimately experiencing erosion of CO (Lee et al. 2012). In a hotel setting, unlike Karatepe and Uludag’s (2008) argument that depersonalization erodes service job performance because employees no longer possess adequate resources to cope with difﬁculties, they failed to demonstrate a significant relationship between depersonalization and job performance. Such mixed findings warrant further investigation, and, therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Depersonalization is negatively associated with customer orientation among airline service employees.

Relationships among Emotional Labor, Depersonalization, and Customer Orientation

Very few studies have examined the direct relationship between emotional labor and CO, but several have provided compelling theoretical frameworks that explain how the relationship is established via depersonalization. Among the theoretical frameworks, Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resource theory is widely cited as the foundation for the relationship model. According to the conservation of resource theory, people strive to obtain, build, and protect resources, and they experience psychological stress when these resources are threatened, or if they fail to replenish resources after significant investment. Given that emotional labor uses psychological energy and emotional resources during service interaction, service employee CO can be significantly influenced by the form of emotional labor that they generally use (Grandey 2000, 2003). With frequent, emotionally charged service interactions during which employees must be inauthentic, employees may feel fatigue or depleted of psychological energy and resources. To avoid losing scarce resources or facing a threat of losing such resources, employees may choose to distance themselves from customers by taking an impersonal view of the customers or treating the customers callously or cynically; ultimately, such negative attitudes may also negatively influence their CO (Karatepe and Aleshinloye 2009).

In contrast, deep acting is positively related to CO because, as effortful behavior to empathize with customers and understand their perspectives, deep acting may facilitate positive emotional synchronization between experienced and expressed emotions (Rafaeli and Sutton 1990); this emotional harmony, instead of causing emotional dissonance, may help employees keep, increase, or regain important psychological resources by yielding desirable positive outcomes, such as a feeling of satisfaction with their ability to fulfill their service obligations and their confidence in solving problems in challenging service encounters (Brotheridge and Lee 2002; Hochschild 1983; Lee and Ashforth 1996). Such positive outcomes, because of their motivational potential, may in turn encourage employees to feel positive about themselves and their work, foster meaningful interpersonal interactions, and become more committed to their service job (Brotheridge and Grandey 2002; Lee and Ok 2012; Pugh 2001; Rafaeli and Sutton 1990; Smith et al. 2012; Zapf 2002).

Similarly, the positive linkage between deep acting and CO can be supported by emotional contagion effect or facial feedback mechanisms (Stock and Hoyer 2005). Because emotions and attitudinal states can pass between persons in interpersonal encounters (Hatfield, Cacioppo, and Rapson 1994), a service employee’s positive emotional expressions like empathy and consideration generated from the customer’s perspective can be favorably transferred over to and caught by the customer (Van Dijk, Smith, and Cooper 2011). The satisfied customer’s positive emotional cues, like positive feedback or expressions of gratitude, may in return result in an employee’s increased feelings of self-esteem, personal accomplishment, efficacy, and professionalism, all of which may increase the resources the employee has available for positive social interactions with customers, subsequently improving the service employee’s attitudes about his or her role in his or her job (Brotheridge and Grandey 2002; Côté 2005; Pugh 2001; Zapf 2002).

Empirical research has offered support for the conservation of resource theory, suggesting a relationship between emotional labor and CO via depersonalization. For example, Lee et al.’s study (2012) indicates that workplace stressors are related to customer service; these relationships are mediated by the negative affectivity and emotional exhaustion among employees, both of which are important antecedents of depersonalization in Maslach’s burnout theory (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001). Bakker and Heuven (2006), Brotheridge and Grandey (2002), and Karatepe and Aleshinloye (2009) also found that surface acting was more detrimental to emotional status and job satisfaction, but deep acting or authenticity positively affects emotional status after emotional labor, decreasing emotional dissonance, reducing burnout, and enhancing satisfaction. Given that the relationship between emotional labor and CO can be largely explained by the effect of the burnout dimensions, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 3a: The negative relationship between surface acting and CO is mediated by increased depersonalization.

Hypothesis 3b: The positive relationship between deep acting and CO is mediated by reduced depersonalization.

Moderating Effect of Job Position and Job Responsibility

Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) theory of job characteristics posits that intrinsic job characteristics affect job-related attitudes and behaviors through a perceptual process. More specifically, differences in certain job attributes or conditions like skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback may cause employees to have different subjective perceptions of the meaningfulness of their work, feelings of responsibility for outcomes of the work, and knowledge of the results of the work activities. Ultimately, the differences in these psychological states in turn cause employees to vary in their work-related attitudes and behaviors, including job satisfaction, motivation, and job performance. For example, employees whose job requires a variety of activities and has a substantial impact on the lives or work of other people may view the job as important, valuable, and worthwhile whereas employees whose job possesses less autonomy feel less personal responsibility for the results of the job. Therefore, the more these psychological states vary because of the characteristics of the work, the more variance in employee motivation, performance, and satisfaction. In fact, Cho, Choi, and Lee (2014) evidenced that role stress greatly contributes to flight attendants’ emotional exhaustion and turnover intention.

Drawing upon this job characteristics theory, we hypothesized that job position and job task would moderate the relationships between emotional labor, depersonalization, and CO. Emotional labor in the service industry involves expressing organizationally desired emotions during service interactions and is generally associated with service work requiring employees to display a variety of emotions at varying degrees of intensity (Morris and Feldman 1996). Therefore, job-context factors like frequency of emotional expression, as well as duration, intensity, appropriateness, and variety of emotions, may affect emotional labor itself and influence the type of emotional labor (i.e., deep acting versus surface acting) (Ashforth and Humphrey 1993; Morris and Feldman 1996). Consistent with the job characteristics theory, studies by Sutton and Rafaeli (1988) and Rafaeli (1989) have suggested that short customer service interactions like a simple greeting and a slight smile often involve highly scripted interactions (i.e., surface acting) because the level of effort required for emotional display of short duration is minimal. However, employees may engage in deep acting in longer interactions because the emotional displays would require more effort. Additionally, research indicated that job characteristics or work conditions like job autonomy, job complexity, job demands, and task routineness may also engender different forms of emotional labor (Erickson and Wharton 1997; Kruml and Geddes 2000; Pugliesi 1999). Flight attendants may experience more emotional dissonance than pursers because flight attendants have more frequent and quick direct contact with customers. In contrast, managers who work in a resourceful environment may feel more capable of performing their tasks and prouder of the work they do, finding meaning in their work, and, in turn, more engaged in deep acting, experiencing less depersonalization than line employees. Additionally, managers may be less likely to experience depersonalization because they, as problem-solvers, work with customers in a more effortful way for relatively longer periods per customer interaction than flight attendants, and thus use more deep acting strategies (Cordes and Dougherty 1993). Lv, Xu, and Ji (2012) called for studies examining the differences on the effects of emotional strategies on burnout and turnover intention between the management and the nonmanagement. In response, Lee and Ok (2015) reported that display rules and depersonalization influence hotel line employees more than managers on their service orientation. Such differences suggest that the effects of emotional labor on depersonalization and CO may also differ between managerial positions and line positions in an airline setting.

Furthermore, those in cabin service (i.e., flight attendants), in ground customer service (i.e., customer service agents at check-in counters or gates), and in call centers differ in the amount and type of emotional labor because of the differences in their jobs. For example, service agents at the check-in counters may engage in more surface acting than deep acting because they interact with customers for less time than cabin crews, who fly long hours. Also, call center representatives have different levels and frequencies of emotional labor than cabin crews and service agents at the airport check-in counters because they usually engage in voice-to-voice interaction instead of face-to-face interaction. Customer mistreatment in voice-to-voice interactions could be more common because of the absence of visual signals (Grandey, Dickter, and Sin 2004), so call center representatives may engage more in surface acting and suffer more emotional dissonance. However, call center staff have relatively short voice-to-voice interactions, but cabin crews have face-to-face interactions over longer periods with interactions that may be frequently repeated, thus creating different dynamics and different opportunities for emotional labor. Taken all together, this study proposes that the degree of the relationships of emotional labor with depersonalization and CO may differ depending on job position and work area:

Hypothesis 4a: The relationships between emotional labor and customer orientation via depersonalization differ by position of airline service employees (i.e., there is a difference between line employees and managers in emotional labor, depersonalization, and CO).

Hypothesis 4b: The relationships between emotional labor and CO via depersonalization differ by airline job (i.e., cabin crews, ground service staff, and call center representatives all differ in emotional labor, depersonalization, and CO).

Based on the theoretical background, 12 theoretical hypotheses were derived, and a conceptual model was developed integrating the 12 hypotheses (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Proposed conceptual model.

Methodology

Measures

Various measures validated in previous research were adopted and measured on 5-point Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Emotional labor was measured using a 10-item scale. One item from Kruml and Geddes (2000), “When working with customers, I try to create certain emotions in myself to present the image the company desires,” was added to the nine items developed by Diefendorff, Croyle, and Gosserand (2005) to reflect the conceptualization of deep acting defined by Grandey (2000), that is, modifying feelings by “thinking good thoughts” or reappraising the event. These scales tapped the two underlying dimensions of emotional labor (i.e., deep acting and surface acting) and have been used widely in prior research into emotional labor in hospitality (e.g., Lee and Ok 2012, 2015). Depersonalization was assessed with the five items from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach and Jackson 1986). The scale measures how often the employees feel depersonalization. Employee CO was assessed using the 12 items from Brown et al.’s (2002) dispositional service orientation scale.

Before collecting the data, a pretest was conducted to assess the content adequacy of the survey instrumentation, specifically the accuracy and appropriateness of the questions, scales, and instructions. The original questionnaires were sent to 50 employees working in airport service, cabin service, and call center in the airline company. Based on their feedback, several items were reworded to improve the performance of the questionnaire.

Sample and Data Collection

The sample used in this study comprised entry-level and manager-level flight attendants, airport service employees, and call center representatives employed by one major airline in Korea. Data collection was conducted by field research assistants in three locations in Korea. Data collection from flight attendant and call center representatives was conducted at the cabin crew lounge, cabin crew conference room, and call center employee lounge in the airline company building near the airport. Data collection from airport service crews also took place at the airline office and employee lounge in the two largest international airports in Korea. During the flight attendants’ regular pre-departure or post-arrival meetings and airport service crews’ and call center representatives’ break times and shift meetings, field research assistants outlined the purpose of the research project and then asked possible respondents to participate in the survey. To increase the validity of the responses, anonymity of the respondents and confidentiality of their responses were emphasized. Upon consent, the field research assistants distributed self-administered questionnaires to the participants. A total of 250 flight attendants, 150 airport service staff members, and 130 call center representatives participated in the survey. Completed questionnaires were returned directly to the research assistants in sealed envelopes to ensure confidentiality. No other methods (mail or fax) were used to return the questionnaires. Of the total of 530 distributed questionnaires, 479 were returned: 208 from flight attendants, 131 from airport service staff, and 114 from call center representatives. After removing 26 incomplete responses, 453 responses were retained for data analysis, resulting in a response rate of 85.5%.

Data Analysis

All variables were examined for accuracy of data entry, missing values, outliers, normality, and multicollinearity. Then, a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) via AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structures) 22 was performed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the measures for convergent and discriminant validity. Finally, using structural equation modeling (SEM), the proposed model was tested, and direct and indirect relationships among the variables were examined. To test the moderating effect of job position and job responsibility on the hypothesized direct relationships, multiple group analysis in AMOS 22 was conducted. Multisample confirmatory factors analysis (MCFA) allowed us to determine if components of the measurement model and structural model were equal across different groups (Byrne 2001). Regression coefficients between several models were also compared in MCFA to detect any significant differences in relationships when a moderating variable was introduced (Hair et al. 2010).

Results

Descriptive Statistics of the Sample

Of 453 survey participants, 84.5% were female, and almost two thirds were younger than 35. Nearly all had completed at least two years of college, and many had finished four-year degrees. Almost two-thirds had worked less than ten years (Table 1). Demographic characteristics of participants in this study were similar to those reported in existing studies done with airline service employees (e.g., Kim and Back 2012; Lee, An, and Noh 2012). To examine the moderating effects of job position, half of the responses were collected from line employees, and the rest were from the management.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Respondents.

Characteristic	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	70	15.5
Female	383	84.5
Marital status
Single	267	58.9
Married	185	40.8
Other	1	0.2
Age, years
18–24	38	8.4
25–29	138	30.5
30–34	168	37.1
35–39	76	16.8
40–44	25	5.5
45–49	4	0.9
≥50	4	0.9
Education
High school	2	0.4
2-year college	138	30.5
4-year college/university	296	65.3
Graduate degree	17	3.8
Job responsibility
Ground customer service	131	28.9
Call center customer service	114	25.2
Cabin service	208	45.9
Job position
Line employee	227	50.1
Supervisor	145	32.0
Manager	71	15.7
Assistant director	10	2.2
Job tenure, years
<5	151	33.3
5–9	149	32.9
10–14	88	19.4
15–19	48	10.6
≥20	17	3.8

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The CFA results showed that the overall fit of the measurement model was satisfactory (incremental fit index [IFI] = .94; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .93, comparative fit index [CFI] = .94; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .05) (Byrne 2001). Table 2 shows the variables used in this study with their standardized factor loadings. Of the 12 items of CO, we dropped 3 at this stage because of poor loading and/or evidence of cross-loading. The factor loadings for the remaining items were equal to or greater than .64, and all factor loadings were significant at p < .05.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Items and Loadings.

Construct and Scale Item	Standardized Loading^a
Surface acting ( Diefendorff, Croyle, and Gosserand 2005)
I put on an act in order to deal with customers in an appropriate way.	.86
I fake a good mood when interacting with customers.	.80
I put on a “show” or “performance” when interacting with customers	.85
I just pretend to have the emotions I need to display for my job.	.73
I show feelings to customers that are different from what I feel inside	.67
Deep acting (items 1–4, Diefendorff, Croyle, and Gosserand 2005; item 5, Kruml and Geddes 2000)
I try to actually experience the emotions that I must show to customers.	.75
I make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need to display toward others.	.81
I work hard to feel the emotions that I need to show to customers.	.84
I work at developing the feelings inside of me that I need to show to customers.	.74
When working with customers, I try to create certain emotions in myself to present the image the company desires.	.74
Depersonalization (Maslach and Jackson 1981)
I feel that I treat some customers as if they were impersonal objects.	.72
I’ve become more callous toward people since I took this job.	.64
I don’t really care what happens to some customers.	.77
I feel customers blame me for some of their problems	.71
Customer orientation (Brown et al. 2002)
I find it easy to smile at each of my customers.	.71
I enjoy remembering my customers’ names.	.65
It comes naturally to have empathy for my customers.	.73
I enjoy responding quickly to my customers’ requests.	.66
I get satisfaction from making my customers happy.	.73
I really enjoy serving my customers.	.73
I try to help customers achieve their goals.	.65
I achieve my own goals by satisfying customers.	.68
I get customers to talk about their service needs with me.	.86

All factors loadings are significant at p <.05.

As shown in Table 3, the average variance extracted (AVE) value for all constructs was higher than .50, suggesting that convergent validity of the measurement scales was well established (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The composite reliabilities of constructs ranged from .81 to .90, indicating adequate internal consistency (Hair et al. 2010). Finally, AVE for each construct was higher than all the squared correlations (R²) between any pair of constructs, confirming discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Associated Measures.

	Surface Acting	Deep Acting	Depersonalization	Customer Orientation
Surface acting	.89^a	.00^b	.32	−.11
Deep acting	.01^c	.89	−.31	.58
Depersonalization	.10	.10	.81	−.40
Customer orientation	.01	.34	.16	.90
Mean	3.39	3.56	2.14	3.37
Standard deviation	.77	.67	.73	.55
Cronbach’s α	.89	.90	.79	.87
AVE	.61	.61	.51	.51

Note: All correlations among variables are significant at p < 0.01. AVE = average variance extracted.

Composite reliabilities are along the diagonal in bold.

Correlations are above the diagonal.

Squared correlations are below the diagonal.

Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing

Test of direct relationships

Fit indices showed that the proposed model had an adequate fit (IFI = .94; TLI = .93, CFI = .94; RMSEA = .05) (Byrne 2001). Figure 2 shows SEM results with standardized coefficients and their t values. First, the results showed that the effect of surface acting on depersonalization is significant (β = .35; t = 6.37, p < .001), supporting hypothesis 1a. In addition, the estimates of the standardized coefficients indicated deep acting and depersonalization are linked (β = –.37; t = −6.54, p < .001), supporting hypothesis 1b. The results also revealed a statistically significant influence of depersonalization on CO (β = –.21; t = −3.88, p < .001). Thus, hypothesis 2 was also supported.

Figure 2.

Structural model with standardized path coefficients of direct relationships (t values).

Test of indirect relationships

This study adopted Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four-step mediation analysis, chi-square (χ²) difference tests, and Sobel (1982) tests to investigate the mediating effect of depersonalization on the relationships between surface acting and CO and between deep acting and CO. The results of the mediation tests, χ² difference tests, and Sobel tests are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.

Testing Mediating Effects of Depersonalization.

Mediating Effect of:	Between	Statistics of P^a → O^b, When M^c → O Is Set at 0					Statistics of P → O, When M → O Allowed					Decrease^d in χ²	Sobel Test (z)
Mediating Effect of:	Between	B	SE	β ^e	t	χ ²	B	SE	β	t	χ ²	Decrease^d in χ²	Sobel Test (z)
DEP^f	SA – CO	−.12	.05	−.14	−2.72^**	787.77	−.05	.04	−.06	−1.35^h	727.08	60.69	−4.62^***
DEP^g	DA – CO	.65	.06	.67	10.59^***	600.86	.55	.06	.58	9.36^***	578.18	22.68	5.41^***

Note: DA = deep acting; DEP = depersonalization; CO = customer orientation; SA = surface acting.

Independent variable.

Dependent variable.

Mediator.

Decrease in χ² for the decrease of one degree of freedom.

Size of direct effect when the direct effect of the mediator on the dependent variable is controlled.

Hypothesis 3a.

Hypothesis 3b.

p = .176.

p < .01, ^***p < .001.

For hypothesis 3a, that increased depersonalization mediates a negative relationship between surface acting and CO, the first two conditions have been satisfied (see results for hypotheses 1a and 2). To check the third and four conditions, the structural model was reestimated by constraining the direct effects of depersonalization on CO (set β = 0). With the direct path from depersonalization to CO set at zero in the constrained model, the estimated path from surface acting to CO was significant at p < .01 (β = –.14, t = −2.72). However, when the direct effect of surface acting on CO was estimated along with depersonalization in the mediating model, the path from surface acting to CO became nonsignificant (β = –.06, t = −1.35, p = .18), showing that depersonalization fully mediated the relationship between surface acting and CO (see Figure 3). In addition, the result of the difference in χ² value between the constrained model (χ²₍₂₁₆₎ = 787.77) and the mediating model (χ²₍₂₁₅₎ = 727.08) was also significant (χ² = 60.69 > χ² = 0.5(1) = 3.84, df = 1). In summary, increased depersonalization fully mediates the relationship between surface acting and CO.

Figure 3.

Testing the mediating effect of surface acting.

For hypothesis 3b, that reduced depersonalization mediates a positive relationship between deep acting and CO, the structural model was reestimated by constraining the direct effects of depersonalization on CO (set β = 0) to test the four conditions. Figure 4 shows that depersonalization was a partial mediator between deep acting and CO; the strength of the relationship between deep acting and CO was significantly reduced when depersonalization was added to the model. In other words, when the direct path from depersonalization to CO is controlled, the estimated path from deep acting to CO was significant at p < .001 (β = .67, t = 10.59). However, when the direct effect of deep acting on CO was estimated along with depersonalization in the mediating model, the path coefficient (β) from deep acting to CO decreased to .58 (t = 9.36), demonstrating partial mediation of depersonalization, although the estimated path remained significant at p <.001. Furthermore, the difference in χ² value between the constrained model and the mediating model was significant (χ² = 22.68 > χ² = 0.5(1) = 3.84, df = 1). This result suggests that the mediating model was a significant improvement over the constrained model, thus supporting hypothesis 3b.

Figure 4.

Testing the mediating effect of deep acting.

The Sobel (1982) tests were also applied for statistical significance of the mediated effect (MacKinnon et al. 2002). As shown in the first column of Table 4, surface acting did show statistically significant indirect effects on CO through increased depersonalization (Δχ² = 60.69, Δdf = 1; z = −4.62, p < .001). Also, deep acting showed statistically significant indirect effects on CO through reduced depersonalization (Δχ² = 22.68, Δdf = 1; z = 5.41, p < .001).

Testing the moderating effect of job position

To check the moderating effects of job position between line employees and managers, the chi-square difference between constrained and unconstrained models was examined (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Table 5 shows the results of the multiple group analyses. The chi-square difference between the fully constrained model and the unconstrained model was significant (Δχ² = 163.21, Δdf = 5, p < .001). Multigroup path analyses were further conducted to find which pairs of parameters (i.e., paths) differ significantly by job position. As shown in Table 5, the paths between surface acting and depersonalization and between depersonalization and CO were significantly different, indicating that job position significantly moderated the relationships (SA → DEP: Δχ² = 3.55, Δdf = 1, p < .05; DEP → CO: Δχ² = 6.57, Δdf = 1, p < .01). However, the path between deep acting and depersonalization was not significant (Δχ² = .478, Δdf = 1, p = .49), indicating no difference in the degree of this relationship between line employees and managers.

Table 5.

Testing the Moderating Effects of Job Position.

Path	Line Employees	Managers	Critical Ratio for Difference	Path Significance			Hypothesis 4a
Path	Estimate (CR)	Estimate (CR)	Critical Ratio for Difference	χ ²	df	Δχ²	Hypothesis 4a
Unconstrained model				950.33	430
Full constrained model				1113.54	435	163.21^***
SA → DEP	0.37 (5.99^***)	0.19 (2.98^**)	−2.01^**	953.88	431	3.55^*	Supported
DA → DEP	−0.44 (–6.39^***)	−0.36 (–3.79^***)	0.75	950.81	431	0.48	Not supported
DEP → CO	−0.43 (–7.41^***)	−1.00 (–3.63^***)	−2.02^**	956.90	431	6.57^**	Supported

Note: CR = critical ratio; DA = deep acting; DEP = depersonalization; CO = customer orientation; SA = surface acting.

p < .05, ^**p < .01, ^***p < .001.

These significant relationships in the two models were confirmed using a pairwise parameter comparison test. As shown in Table 5, all regression coefficients were significant. These regression coefficients between the two models were compared; a critical ratio higher than 1.96 indicates that the difference between two regression coefficients is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed z test) (Byrne 2001). Results confirmed that surface acting created more depersonalization for line employees (γ = 0.37, t = 5.99) than managers (γ = 0.19, t = 2.98) while depersonalization had more negative effect on CO for managers (γ = −1.00, t = −3.63) than line employees (γ = −0.43, t = −7.41). Taking these results together, hypothesis 4a was partly supported.

Testing the moderating effects of job responsibility

Another set of multiple group analyses (for the cabin crew group, airport ground staff group, and call center representative group) were conducted to test the moderating effect of job responsibility. The chi-square differences between the full constrained model and the unconstrained model were significant (Δχ² = 148.55, Δdf = 8, p < .001), suggesting that the strength of the relationships among emotional labor, depersonalization, and CO would vary across the three job groups (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Testing Moderating Effects of Task.

Path	Cabin Crews	Airport Staff	Call Center Representatives	Critical Ratio for Difference	Path Significance			Hypothesis 4b
Path	Estimate (CR)	Estimate (CR)	Estimate	Critical Ratio for Difference	χ ²	df	Δχ²	Hypothesis 4b
Unconstrained model					1112.12	645
Full constrained model					1260.67	653	148.55^***
SA → DEP	0.29 (4.26^***)	0.31 (3.41^***)		0.20	1112.16	646	0.04	Not supported
DA → DEP	−0.67 (–5.30^***)	−0.29 (–3.24^**)		2.43^**	1117.46	646	5.34^**	Supported
DEP → CO	−0.34 (–5.58^***)	−0.46 (–3.87^***)		−0.93	1112.96	646	0.84	Not supported
SA → DEP		0.31 (3.41^***)	0.33 (2.91^**)	−0.14	1112.14	646	0.02	Not supported
DA → DEP		−0.29 (–3.24^**)	−0.45 (–4.21^***)	−1.13	1113.29	646	1.17	Not supported
DEP → CO		−0.46 (–3.87^***)	−0.80 (–4.59^***)	−1.59	1114.36	646	2.24	Not supported
SA → DEP	0.29 (4.26^***)		0.33 (2.91^**)	0.33	1112.22	646	0.10	Not supported
DA → DEP	−0.67 (–5.30^***)		−0.45 (–4.21^***)	1.33	1113.86	646	1.74	Not supported
DEP → CO	−0.34 (–5.58^***)		−0.80 (–4.59^***)	−2.50^**	1119.26	646	7.14^**	Supported

Note: CR = critical ratio; DA = deep acting; DEP = depersonalization; CO = customer orientation; SA = surface acting.

p < .01, ^***p < .001.

Two paths were significantly different: deep acting to depersonalization between cabin crews and airport staff (Δχ² = 5.34, Δdf = 1, p < .01) and depersonalization to CO between cabin crews and call center representatives (Δχ² = 7.14, Δdf = 1, p < .01). The degree of the paths between airport staff and call center representatives showed no significant differences. Significant differences were confirmed using a pairwise parameter comparison test. As shown in Table 6, the results of the two-tailed z test using critical ratio differences confirmed that deep acting had more negative effect on depersonalization for cabin crews (γ = –.67, t = −5.30) than airport staff (γ = –.29, t = −3.24). Also, depersonalization affected CO more negatively for call center representatives (γ = –.80, t = −4.59) than cabin crews (γ = –.34, t = −5.58). No other paths between the airport staff group and the call center representatives group were significantly different. Taking these results together, Hypothesis 4b was also partly supported.

Discussion and Implications

The research question in this study was “How would engaging in emotional labor affect the CO of airline employees?” We addressed this question by developing a conceptual research model consisting of employee surface acting, deep acting, depersonalization, and CO. We also hypothesized differences in the proposed relationships across different job positions and job responsibility. Our findings suggest a variety of theoretical and managerial implications.

Theoretical Implications

As predicted, airline service employees who engage in deep acting are less likely to experience depersonalization and thus more likely to have higher levels of CO. On the other hand, those employees who engage in surface acting are more likely to experience depersonalization and thus show lower levels of CO. Given that depersonalization represents an affective reaction to the gradual depletion of the intrinsic energetic resources of employees engaging in emotional labor (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001), a combination of the burnout theory and conservation of resource theory is a particularly relevant theoretical framework to respond to the research questions of this study (Park, O’Rourke, and O’Brien 2014). Therefore, this study can be more precise in predicting how the two different forms of emotional labor among airline employees create different levels of CO through depersonalization.

The conservation of resource (Hobfoll 1989) model has been the leading theory for explaining the process of stress and burnout (Halbesleben et al. 2014). However, it is not without flaws. Although the theory is well supported in the literature and this study, the focus of the theory is motivation to protect resources from loss or to avoid the threat of loss. The conservation of resource theory explains substantive variances in organizationally desired outcomes, particularly in negative outcomes; however, it might not be the best for positive outcomes. In fact, our study observed a full mediating effect of increased depersonalization between surface acting and customer orientation but partial mediation of reduced depersonalization between deep acting and customer orientation. Therefore, to better explain the relationship between deep acting and organizationally desired outcomes, other theoretical frameworks might work better. Using other research frameworks, researchers could explore mediators related to something that employees value and try to obtain (or re-obtain) through their job performance, such as self-enhancement or achievements. One example, the self-determination theory, which emphasizes intrinsic motivation, could help in further evaluating the proposed relationship (Gagné and Deci 2005).

This study contributes to the tourism and hospitality field by identifying how depersonalization affects the relationship between emotional labor and CO. Despite the amount of research on emotional labor that specifically addresses burnout as a serious consequence, remarkably little research has focused on depersonalization and its consequences, especially on emotional labor and CO (Humphrey, Ashforth, and Diefendorff 2015). Discovering the underlying psychological process involved in the relationships of predictors and outcome variables is necessary for theory development (Whetten 1989), so the present study contributes to the literature by building an integrative path model, clarifying the process by which emotional labor influences CO through depersonalization.

Finally, this study investigated how job position and job responsibility moderate the links among emotional labor, depersonalization, and CO. Our findings suggest that surface acting creates more and stronger depersonalization among line employees than managers although depersonalization affects CO among managers more strongly and negatively than line employees. Also, deep acting reduces depersonalization more among cabin crews than airport staff while depersonalization affects CO among call center representatives more strongly and negatively than cabin crews. These findings do partly confirm Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) job characteristics theory that suggests different job characteristics lead to different psychological states, which in turn lead to different job-related outcomes. Our results provide evidence that depersonalization affects the process through which emotional labor develops CO and can differ between line employees and managers and between groups of different service areas. This builds on the previous literature reporting the effects of emotional labor on employee burnout and service attitude and performance.

Managerial Implications

The findings of this study have important practical implications for practitioners. First, our results show emotional labor has both functional and dysfunctional effects on CO. Surface acting, via depersonalization, reduces CO, while deep acting enhances CO because it decreases depersonalization. In recruiting and selecting employees, airline companies should focus on identifying types of emotional actors, especially for customer contact positions. Profiling applicants in the initial selection process would be useful because it enables firms to identify those who have greater proclivity for deep acting (Gabriel et al. 2015). Human resources managers must also consider person–job fit because employees who see congruence between the emotional demands of a position and their own abilities are more likely to engage in deep acting (Gabriel et al. 2015; Sohn and Lee 2012).

Airline companies may also want to think of emotional intelligence as a personal psychological resource for emotional labor. Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to adaptively perceive, understand, regulate, and express emotions (Mayer and Salovey 1997). Because emotional intelligence provides the fundamental cognitive ability to understand the context of emotional expression, those employees with more emotional intelligence are less likely to experience emotional dissonance and more likely use emotional regulation (Grandey 2000; Opengart 2005). Therefore, using emotional intelligence measures in the selection process or offering training programs for developing emotional intelligence would help in retaining employees (Prentice and King 2011). Further, management may consider specialized training for current employees, including emotional regulation. Training in deep acting like response modulation, cognitive reappraisal, and attention deployment have been suggested in the literature (see Grandey 2000; Totterdell and Holman 2003; Van Dijk and Kirk 2007).

Given that employees may not always feel what they are expected to display, using surface acting to conform to display rules is not totally avoidable (Grandey 2003; Hochschild 1983). Although organizations cannot control the emotions of their employees, they can take steps to mitigate the effects of surface acting on CO. Therefore, another practical implication of the study involves securing and saving emotional resources among employees by neutralizing the effects of depersonalization. Our study findings suggest that surface acting is detrimental to CO, creating aversive and untenable emotional dissonance (Hochschild 1983). Depersonalization develops to protect threatened, potential, or actual loss of psychological resources during and/or after emotionally charged service interactions. Thus, airline companies should work to help their employees protect their psychological resources, assisting them in replenishing emotional resources and minimizing any loss of resources.

Furthermore, airline companies should be alert for behavioral symptoms related to depersonalization among customer-contact employees and managers. Proactively detecting and identifying depersonalization-related behaviors would allow management to implement strategies to ensure frontline employees of the organization can commit to customers. One practical way for airline companies to do this is to implement periodic interviews and regularly conduct formal and informal surveys. Using validated measurement tools like the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach and Leiter 1997), Burnout Measure (Pines and Aronson 1988), and the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti and Bakker 2008) may provide integrated information about frontline employee depersonalization symptoms and thus ensure their CO is not adversely affected.

Our results highlight the moderating effects of job position and area of service work. The findings suggest that because airline service employees are in different positions and areas of service work, the one-size-fits-all approach may not encourage all employees to use deep acting and minimize surface acting, thus avoiding depersonalization and dysfunctional effects on CO. Bearing this in mind, airline companies should use the most effective resources for employees in different positions and areas of work to minimize depersonalization. For example, the significant and strong effect of surface acting on depersonalization among line employees indicates that line employees are relatively more vulnerable to emotional dissonance, the harmful by-product of surface acting, and, therefore, they are more likely to suffer emotional exhaustion, leading them to show impersonal attitude/behaviors to customers (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001). Therefore, airline companies should shape the organizational environment and practices with psychological resources in mind. For example, encouraging supervisors to cultivate supportive relationships, providing high-quality feedback and empathy, sharing information on how to effectively handle difficult service encounters, and offering opportunities for developing interpersonal skills would help line employees by enhancing their psychological resources (Schaufeli and Salanova 2007). Moreover, autonomy is a salient difference between line employees and managers (Hackman and Oldham 1980), so our results suggest providing front-line staff with a reasonable amount of autonomy during emotionally demanding service encounters. Such increased autonomy may work particularly well to reduce depersonalization because it gives line employees increased flexibility and broader decision-making discretion, which they may need to cope with difficult service encounters (Sternberg 1992; Stock and Hoyer 2005).

Finally, this study focused on the airline industry, and thus the application of the study findings is limited to that particular industry. However, given that emotional labor engagement and customer-oriented dispositions are critical aspects of overall hospitality services, the implications of the study findings could also be expanded to the general hospitality industry sectors, including hotels, restaurants, conventions, and tourism. Therefore, results of this study will provide valuable insights into the mechanism of the emotional labor and CO process for human resources (HR) practitioners in the fields of hotel and restaurant operations and travel services. With a deeper and clearer understanding of the mechanism, they may also be able to develop effective programs to guide functional emotional labor engagement in service interactions. Our findings may also help HR managers in those sectors develop and implement policies for recruiting, selecting, training, and retaining employees who carry out their service job through effective emotional work.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Results of this study should be interpreted with some care. First, because this study used self-reporting to determine personal emotions, attitudes, and predispositions, the survey might reflect a conscious response from participants hoping to make a good impression under the influence of social desirability. As a result, the relationships among variables could be exaggerated because of the common method variance or social desirability response bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). However, results of Harman’s one-factor test and a confirmatory factor analysis indicated that such bias is not of great concern and is unlikely to confound the interpretation of results. Although the self-report technique is a useful approach for measuring emotion and perceptual variables (Schmitt 1994; Wallbott and Scherer 1989), it might still elicit socially desirable answers, and thus the influence of same-source variance cannot be completely controlled. Therefore, to obviate this bias, future research could use more objective measures combined with archival data from organizational records, physiological measures, or respondent superiors or coworkers.

Second, the cross-sectional design is also a limitation. Because the data were collected from individual respondents at a single point in time, claims about the direction of causality between the studied variables might be limited (Bobko and Stone-Romero 1998). Therefore, future research could use a longitudinal design or cross-lagged model; inferences about the causal nature of the studied relationships can then be better determined. Although this study had strong theoretical underpinning to presume causal ordering, and this was subsequently reflected in the SEM analysis, alternative or opposite causal models are also plausible. For example, although this study considered depersonalization as a mediator through which emotional labor could affect CO, this study did not consider alternative roles that these concepts might play. Future research on this issue might help researchers and practitioners understand more clearly how emotional labor, depersonalization, and CO are interrelated.

Third, the external validity of the findings is limited. The data for this study were collected from employees and managers working for a single airline company in South Korea. Thus, the findings of this study may not generalize to other airline companies, hospitality settings, geographical areas and cultures, or times. Given this limitation, future studies might replicate this study in different settings to establish the validity and generalizability of the present findings across different contexts. It would also be worthwhile to conduct cross-cultural or cross-industry studies to examine the possible moderating effect of cultures or industries on the relationships in this study. Another limitation involves the composition of the sample. Although the gender ratio is reflective of the typical gender makeup in the three service areas in the Korean airline industry (female–male = 90:10), it might be interesting to examine gender differences in the proposed relationships. However, because of the small sample size of male employees and managers and unequal sample sizes for each group, this study could not conduct difference tests. Therefore, future research may use sufficient, equal sample sizes for each group to investigate the moderating effect of gender on the relationships examined in this study.

Fourth, depersonalization is one of three dimensions that constitute the burnout model (Maslach and Jackson 1981). Since the three-dimensional burnout model consisting of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment is currently the most widely accepted theory to explain dysfunctional outcomes of job stress (Cho, Choi, and Lee 2014; Lv, Xu, and Ji 2012; Schaufeli, Leiter, and Maslach 2009), including all three dimensions in our model would provide more detail and a more comprehensive mechanism to explain the relationship between emotional labor and CO. Therefore, future research may confirm where the emotional labor–CO relationships lie within the sequential process of the three burnout dimensions.

Research suggests that lowered CO may also lead to dysfunctional consequences like job dissatisfaction, reduced job involvement and organizational commitment, and poor performance, all of which ultimately predict employee turnover (Chen 2006; Donavan, Brown, and Mowen 2004; Lee, Ok, and Hwang 2016; Hwang et al. 2014; Rozell, Pettijohn, and Parker 2004; Wallace and Chernatony 2009). One of the major reasons contemporary consumers in the airline service industry tend to perceive lower service quality overall and are less satisfied (American Customer Satisfaction Index 2016) is that less skilled frontline employees deliver lower-quality service (Zeithaml, Bitner, and Gremler 2013). Additional research could explore how CO increases or decreases as a result of engaging in different types of emotional labor, which affect dysfunctional attitudes or behaviors.

Furthermore, although CO was conceptualized as a two-dimensional construct that consists of a needs dimension and an enjoyment dimension (Brown et al. 2002) in this study, a combined construct of CO was used in the relationship model to reflect a global, surface-level personality trait to meet customer needs. The approach was taken to examine how the different types of emotional labor affect employees’ general CO with considering a mediating role of depersonalization and moderating roles of job position and job responsibility. It could, however, be more desirable to use a two-factor structure of CO if a study aims to provide more thorough and detailed insights into how the two dimensions of CO are related to emotional labor strategies or how differently the different dimensions of CO contribute to other outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

JungHoon (Jay) Lee, is an assistant professor in the School of Hospitality Leadership at East Carolina University. He earned his MS in Hotel Administration from University of Nevada Las Vegas and PhD in Human Ecology from Kansas State University. His research interests focus on emotional labor, service orientation, employee engagement, and cultural intelligence.

Chihyung “Michael” Ok, is an associate professor of Tourism and Hospitality Management at Temple University, where he teaches Hospitality Management Systems and Strategic Decision Making. His research interests include customer relationship management, emotional labor and intelligence, food and travel experience, and senior citizens’s attitudes and behaviors in hospitality product and service consumption.

Seung-Hoon Lee is a manager of Team of Employee Relations at Asiana Airlines in South Korea. He is interested in emotional labor and customer service.

Choong-Ki Lee, is a professor in the College of Hotel and Tourism Management at Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea. His research includes forecasting tourism demand, the economic impact of tourism, valuation of ecotourism resources, motivation of mega-events, resident perceptions toward casino development, and corporate social responsibility. He currently serves on the editorial boards of Tourism Management, Tourism Management Perspectives, and Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing.

References

American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) LLC (n.d.). American Customer Satisfaction Travel Reports 2016. Retrieved from https://www.theacsi.org/news-and-resources/customer-satisfaction-reports/reports-2016

Ajzen

Fishbein

1977. “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research.” Psychological Bulletin 84 (5): 888–918.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

1988. “Structural Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–23.

Ashforth

B. E.

Humphrey

R. H.

1993. “Emotional Labor in Service Roles: The Influence of Identity.” Academy of Management Review 18 (1): 88–115.

Babakus

Yavas

Ashill

N. J.

2009. “The Role of Customer Orientation as a Moderator of the Job-Demand-Burnout-Performance Relationship: A Surface-Level Trait Perspective.” Journal of Retailing 85 (4): 480–92.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

2008. “Towards a Model of Work Engagement.” Career Development International 13 (3): 209–23.

Bakker

A. B.

Heuven

2006. “Emotional Dissonance, Burnout, and In-Role Performance among Nurses and Police Officers.” International Journal of Stress Management 13 (4): 423–40.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173–82.

Bettencourt

L. A.

Gwinner

K. P.

Meuter

M. L.

2001. “A Comparison of Attitude, Personality, and Knowledge Predictors of Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1): 29–41.

10.

Bobko

Stone-Romero

E. F.

1998. “Meta-analysis May Be Another Useful Research Tool, But It Is Not a Panacea.” In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, edited by Ferris

G. R.

, 259–397. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

11.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Grandey

A. A.

2002. “Emotional Labor and Burnout: Comparing Two Perspectives of People Work.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 60 (1): 17–39.

12.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Lee

R. T.

2002. “Testing a Conservation of Resources Model of the Dynamics of Emotional Labor.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7 (1): 57–67.

13.

Brown

T. J.

Mowen

J. C.

Donavan

D. T.

Licata

J. W.

2002. “The Customer Orientation of Service Workers: Personality Trait Influences on Self and Supervisor Performance Ratings.” Journal of Marketing Research 39 (1): 110–19.

14.

Byrne

B. M.

2001. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Cha

2005. “Effects of Perceived Service Climate and Service Role Ambiguity on Frontline Employees’ Service Orientation in Foodservice Establishments.” PhD diss., Michigan State University, East Lansing.

16.

Chen

C-F.

2006. “Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Flight Attendants’ Turnover Intentions: A Note.” Journal of Air Transport Management 12 (5): 274–76.

17.

Chen

C. F.

Kao

Y. L.

2012. “Investigating the Antecedents and Consequences of Burnout and Isolation among Flight Attendants.” Tourism Management 33 (4): 868–74.

18.

Cho

J.-E.

Choi

H. S.

Lee

W. J.

2014. “An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Role Stressors, Emotional Exhaustion and Turnover Intention in the Airline Industry.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19 (9): 1023–43.

19.

Chuang

N. K.

Lei

S. A.

2011. “Job Stress among Casino Hotel Chefs in a Top-Tier Tourism City.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 20 (5): 551–74.

20.

Cordes

C. L.

Dougherty

T. W.

1993. “A Review and an Integration of Research on Job Burnout.” Academy of Management Review 18 (4): 621–56.

21.

Côté

2005. “Do Emotionally Intelligent People Manage Their Emotions Wisely?” In Toward a Better Understanding of Emotion Regulation at Work, chaired by R. Gosserand Diefendorff

Symposium conducted at the 20th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles.

22.

Cropanzano

Rupp

D. E.

Byrne

Z. S.

2003. “The Relationship of Emotional Exhaustion to Work Attitudes, Job Performance, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (1): 160–69.

23.

Diefendorff

J. M.

Croyle

M. H.

Gosserand

R. H.

2005. “The Dimensionality and Antecedents of Emotional Labor Strategies.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2): 339–57.

24.

Donavan

T. D.

Brown

T. J.

Mowen

J. C.

2004. “Internal Benefits of Service-Worker Customer Orientation: Job Satisfaction, Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.” Journal of Marketing 68 (1):128–46.

25.

Erickson

R. J.

Wharton

A. S.

1997. “Inauthenticity and Depression Assessing the Consequences of Interactive Service Work.” Work and Occupations 24 (2): 188–213.

26.

Farrell

M. A.

Oczkowski

2009. “Service Worker Customer Orientation, Organisation/Job Fit and Perceived Organisational Support.” Journal of Strategic Marketing 17 (2): 149–67.

27.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18:39–50.

28.

Gabriel

A. S.

Daniels

M. A.

Diefendorff

J. M.

Greguras

G. J.

2015. “Emotional Labor Actors: A Latent Profile Analysis of Emotional Labor Strategies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 100 (3): 863–79.

29.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

2005. “Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 (4): 331–62.

30.

Grandey

A. A.

2000. “Emotion Regulation in the Workplace: A New Way to Conceptualize Emotional Labor.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5 (1): 95–110.

31.

Grandey

A. A.

2003. “When ‘the Show Must Go On’: Surface Acting and Deep Acting as Determinants of Emotional Exhaustion and Peer-Rated Service Delivery.” Academy of Management Journal 46 (1): 86–96.

32.

Grandey

A. A.

Dickter

D. N.

Sin

H. P.

2004. “The Customer Is Not Always Right: Customer Aggression and Emotion Regulation of Service Employees.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 (3): 397–418.

33.

Groth

Hennig-Thurau

Walsh

2009. “Customer Reactions to Emotional Labor: The Roles of Employee Acting Strategies and Customer Detection Accuracy.” Academy of Management Journal 52 (5): 958–74.

34.

Gursoy

Boylu

Avci

2011. “Identifying the Complex Relationships among Emotional Labor and Its Correlates.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (4): 783–94.

35.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

1980. Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

36.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

2010. “Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective.” Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

37.

Halbesleben

Jonathon R. B.

Neveu

Jean-Pierre

Paustian-Underdahl

Samantha C.

Westman

Mina

. 2014. “Getting to the ‘COR’: Understanding the Role of Resources in Conservation of Resources Theory.” Journal of Management 40 (5): 1334–64.

38.

Hatfield

Cacioppo

R. L.

Rapson

1994. Emotional Contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Hennig-Thurau

2004. “Customer Orientation of Service Employees: Its Impact on Customer Satisfaction, Commitment, and Retention.” International Journal of Service Industry Management 15 (5): 460–78.

40.

Hennig-Thurau

Thurau

2003. “Customer Orientation of Service Employees toward a Conceptual Framework of a Key Relationship Marketing Construct.” Journal of Relationship Marketing 2 (1/2): 23–41.

41.

Hobfoll

S. E.

1989. “Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.” American Psychologist 44 (3): 513–24.

42.

Hochschild

A. R.

1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

43.

Hogan

Busch

C. M.

1984. “How to Measure Service Orientation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 69:167–73.

44.

Humphrey

R. H.

Ashforth

B. E.

Diefendorff

J. M.

2015. “The Bright Side of Emotional Labor.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 36 (6): 749–69.

45.

Hur

W.-M

Moon

T. W.

Jun

J.-K.

2013. “The Role of Perceived Organizational Support on Emotional Labor in the Airline Industry.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25 (1): 105–23.

46.

Hwang

Lee

J. J.

Park

Chang

Kim

S. S.

2014. “The Impact of Occupational Stress on Employee’s Turnover Intention in the Luxury Hotel Segment.” International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 15 (1): 60–77.

47.

Johnson

H. M.

Spector

P. E.

2007. “Service with a Smile: Do Emotional Intelligence, Gender, and Autonomy Moderate the Emotional Labor Process?” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12 (4): 319–33.

48.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

Rubenstein

A. L.

Long

D. M.

Odio

M. A.

Buckman

B. R.

Zhang

Halvorsen-Ganepola

M. D. K.

2013. “A Meta-analytic Structural Model of Dispositonal Affectivity and Emotional Labor.” Personnel Psychology 66 (1): 47–90.

49.

Karatepe

O. M.

2011. “Do Job Resources Moderate the Effect of Emotional Dissonance on Burnout?: A Study in the City of Ankara, Turkey.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 23 (1): 44–65.

50.

Karatepe

O. M.

Aleshinloye

K. D.

2009. “Emotional Dissonance and Emotional Exhaustion among Hotel Employees in Nigeria.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3): 349–58.

51.

Karatepe

O. M.

Choubtarash

2014. “The Effects of Perceived Crowding, Emotional Dissonance, and Emotional Exhaustion on Critical Job Outcomes: A Study of Ground Staff in the Airline Industry.” Journal of Air Transport Management 40:182–91.

52.

Karatepe

O. M.

Uludag

2008. “Role Stress, Burnout and Their Effects on Frontline Hotel Employees’ Job Performance: Evidence from Northern Cyprus.” International Journal of Tourism Research 10:111–26.

53.

Kelley

S. W.

1992. “Developing Customer Orientation among Service Employees.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 20 (1): 27–36.

54.

Kim

Back

K. J.

2012. “Antecedents and Consequences of Flight Attendants’ Job Satisfaction.” Service Industries Journal 32 (16): 2565–84.

55.

Kruml

S. M.

Geddes

2000. “Exploring the Dimensions of Emotional Labor: The Heart of Hochschild’s Work.” Management Communication Quarterly 14 (1): 8–49.

56.

Lee

Noh

2012. “The Social Dimension of Service Workers’ Job Satisfaction: The Perspective of Flight Attendants.” Journal of Service Science and Management 5 (2): 160–70.

57.

Lee

Kim

T. T.

Shin

S. H.

I. K.

2012. “The Managed Heart: The Structural Analysis of the Stressor-Strain Relationship and Customer Orientation among Emotional Labor Workers in Korean Hotels.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (4): 1067–82.

58.

Lee

2012. “Reducing Burnout and Enhancing Job Satisfaction: Critical Role of Hotel Employees’ Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Labor.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (4): 1101–12.

59.

Lee

2015. “Examination of Factors Affecting Hotel Employees’ Service Orientation: An Emotional Labor Perspective.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 39 (4): 84–98.

60.

Lee

J. J.

C. M.

Hwang

2016. “An Emotional Labor Perspective on the Relationship between Customer Orientation and Job Satisfaction.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 54:139–50.

61.

Lee

R. T.

Ashforth

B. E.

1996. “A Meta-analytic Examination of the Correlates of the Three Dimensions of Job Burnout.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (2): 123–33.

62.

2012. “Emotional Labor Strategies, Emotional Exhaustion, and Turnover Intention: An Empirical Study of Chinese Hotel Employees.” Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 11 (2): 87–105.

63.

Macintosh

2007. “Customer Orientation, Relationship Quality, and Relational Benefits to the Firm. Journal of Services Marketing 21 (3): 150–59.

64.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Hoffman

J. M.

West

S. G.

Sheets

2002. A Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and Other Intervening Variable Effects.” Psychological Methods 7 (1): 83–104.

65.

Maslach

1978. “The Client Role in Staff Burn-Out.” Journal of Social Issues 34 (4): 111–24.

66.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

1981. “The Measurement of Experienced Burnout.” Journal of Occupational Behavior 2 (2): 99–113.

67.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

1986. Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

68.

Maslach

Leiter

M. P.

1997. The Truth about Burnout. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

69.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

2001. “Job Burnout.” Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 397–422.

70.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

1997. “What Is Emotional Intelligence?” In Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications, edited by Salovey

Sluyter

D. J.

, 3–34. New York: Basic Books.

71.

Meng

Han

2014. “The Effects of Empowerment on Employee Psychological Outcomes in Upscale Hotels.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 23 (2): 218–37.

72.

Morris

J. A.

Feldman

D. C.

1996. “The Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences of Emotional Labor.” Academy of Management Review 21 (4): 986–1010.

73.

Mowen

J. C.

2000. The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory and Empirical Applications to Consumer Behavior. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

74.

Opengart

2005. “Emotional Intelligence and Emotion Work: Examining Constructs from an Interdisciplinary Framework.” Human Resource Development Review 4 (1): 49–63.

75.

Ozturk

A. B.

Hancer

J. Y.

2014. “Job Characteristics, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment for Hotel Workers in Turkey.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 23 (3): 294–313.

76.

Park

H. I.

O’Rourke

O’Brien

K. E.

2014. “Extending Conservation of Resources Theory: The Interaction between Emotional Labor and Interpersonal Influence.” International Journal of Stress Management 21 (4): 384–405.

77.

Peccei

Rosenthal

1997. “The Antecedents of Employee Commitment to Customer Service: Evidence from a UK Service Context.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 8 (1): 66–86.

78.

Pines

Aronson

1988. Career Burnout: Causes and Cures. New York, NY: Free Press.

79.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (1): 879–903.

80.

Prentice

King

2011. “The Influence of Emotional Intelligence on the Service Performance of Casino Frontline Employees.” Tourism and Hospitality Research 11 (1): 49–66.

81.

Pugh

S. D.

2001. “Service with a Smile: Emotional Contagion in the Service Encounter.” Academy of Management Journal 44:1018–27.

82.

Pugliesi

1999. “The Consequences of Emotional Labor: Effects on Work Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Wellbeing.” Motivation and Emotion 23 (2): 125–54.

83.

Rafaeli

1989. “When Cashiers Meet Customers: An Analysis of the Role of Supermarket Cashiers.” Academy of Management Journal 32 (2): 245–73.

84.

Rafaeli

Sutton

R. I.

1990. “Busy Stores and Demanding Customers: How Do They Affect the Display of Positive Emotion?” Academy of Management Journal 33 (3): 623–37.

85.

Rod

Ashill

N. J.

2010. “The Effect of Customer Orientation on Frontline Employees Job Outcomes in a New Public Management Context.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 25 (5): 600–24.

86.

Rozell

E. J.

Pettijohn

C. E.

Parker

R. S.

2004. “Customer-Oriented Selling: Exploring the Roles of Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Commitment.” Psychology and Marketing 21:405–24.

87.

Saxe

Weitz

B. A.

1982. “The SOCO Scale: A Measure of the Customer Orientation of Salespeople.” Journal of Marketing Research 19 (3): 343–51.

88.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

Maslch

2009. “Burnout: 35 Years of Research and Practice.” Career Development International 14:204–20.

89.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

2007. “Efficacy or Inefficacy, That’s the Question: Burnout and Work Engagement, and Their Relationships with Efficacy Beliefs.” Anxiety, Stress, and Coping 20 (2): 177–96.

90.

Schmitt

1994. “Method Bias: The Importance of Theory and Measurement.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 15 (5): 393–98.

91.

Smith

M. R.

Rasmussen

J. L.

Mills

M. J.

Wefald

A. J.

Downey

R. G.

2012. “Stress and Performance: Do Service Orientation and Emotional Energy Moderate the Relationship?” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 17 (1): 116–28.

92.

Sobel

M. E.

1982. “Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models.” In Sociological Methodology, edited by Leinhart

, 290–312. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

93.

Sohn

H.-K.

Lee

T. J.

2012. Relationship between HEXACO Personality Factors and Emotional Labour of Service Providers in the Tourism Industry.” Tourism Management 33 (1): 116–25.

94.

Sternberg

L. E.

1992. “Empowerment: Trust vs. Control.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 33 (1): 68–72.

95.

Stock

R. M.

Hoyer

W. D.

2005. “An Attitude-Behavior Model of Sales People’s Customer Orientation.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (4): 536–52.

96.

Susskind

A. M.

Borchgrevink

C. P.

Kacmar

K. M.

Brymer

R. A.

2000. “Customer Service Employees’ Behavioral Intentions and Attitudes: An Examination of Construct Validity and a Path Model.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 19 (1): 53–77.

97.

Susskind

A. M.

Kacmar

K. M.

Borchgrevink

C. P.

2003. “Customer Service Providers’ Attitudes Relating to Customer Service and Customer Satisfaction in the Customer-Server Exchange.” Journal of Applied Psycholog 88 (1): 179–87.

98.

Sutton

R. I.

Rafaeli

1988. “Untangling the Relationship between Displayed Emotions and Organizational Sales: The Case of Convenience Stores.” Academy of Management Journal 31 (3): 461–87.

99.

Totterdell

Holman

2003. “Emotion Regulation in Customer Service Rolls: Testing a Model of Emotional Labor.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 8 (1): 55–73.

100.

Van Dijk

P. A.

Kirk

2007. “Being Somebody Else: Emotional Labour and Emotional Dissonance in the Context of the Service Experience at a Heritage Tourism Site.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 14 (2): 157–69.

101.

Van Dijk

P. A.

Smith

L. D. G.

Cooper

B. K.

2011. “Are You for Real? An Evaluation of the Relationship between Emotional Labour and Visitor Outcomes.” Tourism Management 32 (1): 39–45.

102.

Wallace

De Chernatony

2009. “Service Employee Performance: Its Components and Antecedents.” Journal of Relationship Marketing 8 (2): 82–102.

103.

Wallbott

H. G.

Scherer

K. R.

1989. “Assessing Emotion by Questionnaire.” Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience 4:55–82.

104.

Whetten

1989. “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 490–95.

105.

Williams

2003. “Sky Service: The Demands of Emotional Labour in the Airline Industry.” Gender, Work, and Organization 10 (5): 513–50.

106.

Zablah

A. R.

Franke

G. R.

Brown

T. J.

Bartholomew

D. E.

2012. “How and When Does Customer Orientation Influence Frontline Employee Job Outcomes? A Meta-analytic Evaluation.” Journal of Marketing 76 (3): 21–40.

107.

Zapf

2002. “Emotion Work and Psychological Well-being. A Review of Literature and Some Conceptual Considerations.” Human Resources Management Review 12 (2): 237–68.

108.

Zapf

Vogt

Seifert

Mertini

Isic

1999. “Emotion Work as a Source of Stress: The Concept and Development of an Instrument.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8 (3): 371–400.

109.

Zhang

Zhu

2008. “Exploring Emotion in Teaching: Emotional Labor, Burnout, and Satisfaction in Chinese Higher Education.” Communication Education 57 (1): 105–22.

110.

Zeithaml

Bitner

Gremler

2013. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm, 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.