Serving Diverse Customers: The Impact of Cultural Intelligence on Employee Burnout,Engagement,and Job Satisfaction

Abstract

This study examined the impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on three key work-related attitudinal outcomes (burnout, engagement and job satisfaction) in a structural equation model. Data were collected from 288 restaurant employees in Hawaii, United States, where restaurant patrons are culturally diverse. Among the four dimensions of CQ (metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral), cognitive and motivational CQ played a primary role in the proposed model. Motivational CQ predicted employee burnout and engagement; cognitive CQ predicted engagement. In addition, both motivational and cognitive CQs had an indirect influence on job satisfaction through engagement or burnout. Unlike previous studies of people who are studying or working abroad, this study indicates that CQ can be a salient personal resource for hospitality employees in their home countries but who have diverse customers. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed based on the findings of this research.

Keywords

cultural intelligence burnout engagement job satisfaction hospitality

Introduction

While international borders become increasingly blurred, people still tend to feel more comfortable in a culture similar to their own (Ting-Toomey & Dorjee, 2018). Culture is inherited by means of social learning, forming a strong bond among people who share the same cultural background (Reisman, 2007). Thus, those who are exposed to unfamiliar cultures in the workplace may have difficulties adjusting to a new foreign environment, potentially leading to conflicts (Bücker et al., 2014; Malek & Budhwar, 2013). Several studies indicate that a large number of expatriates fail in their position because of an inability to adjust to a new culture (Forster, 1994; Tung, 1987).

While some employees struggle to survive in a new cultural environment, others perform well or even thrive in culturally diverse situations. This discrepancy raises the question: What individual characteristics allow an employee to be successful in a culturally diverse workplace? Prior research suggests cultural intelligence (CQ), an individual’s capability of intercultural effectiveness, may help people to be successful in an unfamiliar culture (e.g., Earley & Ang, 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2008). Like other types of intelligence (e.g. cognitive, emotional, or social) that are typically related to the capability to complete tasks, CQ may indicate the attitudinal or behavioral outcomes of an individual (e.g., Ang et al., 2007; Wagstaff et al., 2020).

Although the positive impact of CQ has been reported in the management literature, the scope of prior research is limited. Most studies investigate situations where individuals relocate to environments with unfamiliar cultures for work or study (e.g., international businessmen, expatriate managers, and international students; Bücker et al., 2014; Malek & Budhwar, 2013; Stoermer et al., 2020). An important multicultural interaction that is not addressed in these prior studies occurs in the hospitality industry where face-to-face service encounters are the norm. In addition to tens of millions of international visitors to the United States (National Travel and Tourism Office, 2018), the ethnic minority population in the United States has increased over the past several decades (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The purchasing power of minority groups in the United States is also increasing (Ouellet, 2007).

This unprecedented customer diversity presents a challenge to the hospitality industry because the success of a company depends on the customer service skills of their contact employees (J. Lee et al., 2018). For this reason, it is necessary to identify strategies to enhance the performance of domestic employees who frequently interact with diverse customers. On one hand, the prominent role of CQ in expatriates’ performance (Ang et al., 2007; Wagstaff et al., 2020) suggests that CQ might be a useful personal resource for domestic hospitality employees when working with diverse customers. On the other hand, given the fact that domestic hospitality employees typically have only brief interactions with customers, it is not certain if domestic employees’ CQ will be as effective. In other words, is the effect of domestic employees’ CQ comparable to that of expatriates’ CQ in the workplace? If CQ is indeed a critical resource for domestic employees, do all CQ facets (metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral) play a significant role in work-related outcomes? Although answers to these questions greatly benefit the hospitality industry, hospitality research has been scant in the realm of CQ. To date, prior hospitality research has been either conceptual or qualitative in nature (e.g., Teng, 2011), and direct and indirect effects of CQ have not been empirically tested on work outcomes (e.g., Darvishmotevali et al., 2018).

To fill this gap, this study examines the direct effects of domestic hospitality employees’ CQ on fundamental work-related outcomes such as burnout and engagement. Furthermore, this study explores the indirect effect of CQ on job satisfaction via employees’ feeling of burnout and engagement. A structural equation model was applied to data collected from restaurant workers in Hawaii, United States. Additionally, this study compares the relative importance of the four CQ facets (metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral) in work outcomes by treating each CQ facet as an independent variable in the model. The findings of this study not only advance understanding of CQ in hospitality literature but also assist hospitality practitioners with employee selection and training that will enable them to flourish in today’s diverse customer market.

Literature Review

Cultural Intelligence

Research on human intelligence has primarily emphasized the academic or cognitive domain of intelligence (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004). More recently, multiple intelligence theory has proposed that people may also have nonacademic intelligences, which can help explain individual thoughts and social interactions (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004). Among the most common of these nonacademic intelligences are emotional, social, and practical intelligences (Thorndike & Stein, 1937). CQ was conceptualized to understand human thoughts and behaviors in the intercultural environment (Earley & Ang, 2003).

CQ was originally identified as a construct comprising three facets—cognition, motivation, and behavior (Earley & Ang, 2003). Later, Ang et al. (2007) developed and validated a new scale of CQ with four facets by separating metacognition from cognition. Ang et al. (2007) defined CQ as the ability of an individual to manage and function effectively in an intercultural context. Following this definition, CQ is an individual difference unique in culturally diverse settings. Although there have been efforts to develop other CQ scales, the four-dimensional CQ conceptualized by Ang et al. (2007) is most widely studied and accepted (Stoermer et al., 2020).

First, metacognitive CQ is defined as the conscious cultural awareness of an individual (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; J. Lee et al., 2018). Metacognitive CQ promotes active thinking about people or situations in cross-cultural interactions; it allows individuals not to rely on their own culturally bounded knowledge or thinking but to adapt to unfamiliar cultural norms (Earley & Peterson, 2004; Malek & Budhwar, 2013). Second, cognitive CQ is “knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures that has been acquired from educational and personal experiences” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 5); it indicates an individual’s knowledge of how one’s own culture is different from others (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008).

Third, motivational CQ, which reflects an individual’s interest in other cultures, drives his or her learning about situations that are characterized by cultural differences and to enjoy interactions with diverse people. Last, behavioral CQ refers to the capability of an individual to successfully interpret verbal or nonverbal actions when interacting with people from different cultural background (Van Dyne et al., 2008). Researchers have argued that CQ can explain why some individuals excel in a multicultural context after demonstrating incremental validity over cognitive intelligence in work-related outcomes (Groves & Feyerherm, 2011). In other words, the ability to handle a multinational situation is predicted not only by cognitive intelligence but also by CQ, which is a combination of cultural awareness, cultural knowledge, cultural motivation, and cultural behavior.

CQ differs from other specialized intelligences. Other intelligences apply to a particular “content” domain (e.g., emotional intelligence); CQ relates to behavioral and motivational aspects in a particular “context” domain—culturally diverse situations (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). For example, emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize the emotions of others and to use one’s own emotions based on the home culture and therefore, it may not automatically transfer to unfamiliar cultures. On the other hand, CQ is not bound to the home culture but rather is a set of abilities with relevance to other cultures.

Cultural Intelligence as an Individual Resource

Resources are material, social, or personal aspects that an individual possesses to make progress toward personal goals. Management research has widely examined individuals’ resources due to the impact of these resources on positive organizational outcomes including job performance and work engagement (e.g., Crawford et al., 2010; J. Lee & Ok, 2015). Prior studies have suggested that resources can be either external or internal and an individual’s intelligence is among their most valuable internal resources (Diener & Fujita, 1995). Likewise, a significant role of various types of intelligences—social, emotional, and cognitive intelligences—has been documented (Cote & Miners, 2006; Mayer & Salovey, 1993). In the workplace, the various types of intelligence are considered beneficial to achieving the goals of an individual or organization (e.g., Cote & Miners, 2006).

Similarly, CQ may be a significant predictor of work-related outcomes in the multinational work environment. Prior empirical studies found that the CQ of expatriates increases their intercultural effectiveness such as cultural judgment and cultural adaptation, task performance, and job satisfaction (Ang et al, 2007; Bücker et al., 2014). A study by Chudzikowski et al. (2011) shows that CQ can alleviate international businessmen’s stress through their ability to function well in a multicultural environment. The researchers add that business travelers with a high level of CQ believe in their ability to adapt to new cultures and the utility of their knowledge regarding different cultures; this belief helps their business in unfamiliar cultural destinations.

Prior studies have identified CQ subfacets as antecedents of job outcomes. Metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ have been found to influence task performance of foreign professionals (Ang et al., 1987). Peng et al. (2015) suggest that motivational CQ can increase cultural well-being and the perceived suitability among students participating in study abroad programs. Motivational CQ has also been identified as an antecedent of the cultural effectiveness and task performance of expatriates (L. Y. Lee & Sukoco, 2010).

While the most significant facets of CQ have yet to be identified, the positive effect of CQ in a diverse cultural workplace seems clear. We extend this line of thought to hospitality employees and look for empirical evidence that CQ is important for workers who stay in their home countries, serving diverse customers. When considering employees working with culturally diverse customers, CQ may become a personal resource where the various subfacets of CQ influence job-related attitudinal outcomes. CQ helps employees to be alert to cultural differences and to use their cultural knowledge to behave appropriately and provide satisfactory service with confidence (alternative hypothesis). However, we also suspect CQ may not be imperative for domestic hospitality employees who have only a brief interaction with overseas customers (null hypothesis). In contrast, expatriates spend prolonged periods abroad, and their success essentially depends on their interactional adjustments. The more detailed, proposed hypotheses are presented in the next section.

Cultural Intelligence and Hospitality Employees’ Burnout, Engagement, and Job Satisfaction

The hospitality literature shows that employee burnout and work engagement are crucial factors for company success in the labor-intensive hospitality industry (e.g., Kim et al., 2007; J. Lee & Ok, 2012). Job burnout is the psychological and physical response to occupational stressors; it comprises three elements: exhaustion (reduced energy), cynicism (negative or detached response to work), and inefficacy (decrease in occupational accomplishment; Maslach et al., 1986). Work engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is manifested by vigor (high energy), dedication (sincere involvement in one’s work), and absorption (full concentration on work; Schaufeli et al., 2006).

Of the three elements, exhaustion and cynicism are considered core dimensions of job burnout; likewise, their opposites, vigor and dedication, are regarded as core dimensions of work engagement (González-Romá et al., 2006). Inefficacy is more closely connected with a personality characteristic (e.g., self-efficacy) than a genuine element of burnout (Green et al., 1991; González-Romá et al., 2006); absorption was added as a dimension after the establishment of the first two dimensions of work engagement (Green et al., 1991; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Due to these reasons, inefficacy and absorption are not conceptual opposites. Also, relatively low correlations are found between the third dimension of burnout (inefficacy) and engagement (absorption) and their respective, two other dimensions of burnout (exhaustion and cynicism) and engagement (vigor and dedication; González-Romá et al., 2006; Green et al., 1991; Min et al., 2015). It is widely known that burnout is positively related to “undesirable” job outcomes, such as the intent to leave, and engagement positively influences “desirable” outcomes, such as job satisfaction (Karatepe & Uludag, 2007; Min et al., 2015).

According to the conservation of resources theory, psychological stress occurs when there is a threatened or actual loss of resources; thus, the distribution of one’s resources greatly affects one’s work and/or home life (Hobfoll, 1989). The job demands-resource model elaborates on the influence of resources on one’s work, theorizing a positive relationship between job resources (e.g., supervisor support, autonomy, and social support) and work engagement, and a negative relationship between job resources and burnout (Schaufeli et al., 2006). More recent studies report that not only job resources but also personal resources (e.g., individual characteristics or traits) can influence burnout and engagement (e.g., Karatepe & Olugbade, 2009; Min et al., 2015). For example, Karatepe and Olugbade (2009) show that self-efficacy and trait competitiveness are determinants of work engagement for hotel employees; Min et al. (2015) reveal the role of hospitality workers’ psychological capital in work stress and engagement.

Given that CQ leads to positive outcomes in culturally diverse environments, it stands to reason that CQ is likely a key personal resource in these environments. Personal resources also have a significant effect on burnout and engagement, meaning that CQ likely influences burnout and engagement as well. Individuals who encounter unfamiliar cultural environments (e.g., expatriates, hospitality employees with multicultural customers) may have to depend on CQ to effectively detect cultural differences and develop appropriate strategies to create positive work outcomes. For example, the typical length of an expatriate assignment is about 3 years (Garonzik et al., 2000). During that time, expatriates need to adjust to a new environment, communicate with unfamiliar people, and understand the appropriate norms and rules in order to complete the assignment.

Unlike expatriates, domestic employees may not have to adjust to a new environment or learn new norms because they live in their home country. However, if domestic employees predominantly serve customers from unfamiliar cultures on a daily basis, they may encounter situations where cultural knowledge is required. For example, strong eye contact is widely used in European countries but relatively less so in most Far East Asian countries (Cutler, 2018).

Resources inherent within an individual help cope with job demands and anxiety (Kim & Agrusa, 2010; Ma et al., 2019; Nielsen et al., 2017). Hospitality contact employees who are high in CQ may be more adept at handling culturally diverse customers. This ability enables them to focus on their work with less stress. Specifically, consciousness of the existence of other cultures (metacognitive CQ) and one’s knowledge of different cultures (cognitive CQ) likely aid in providing better service to customers from other countries. Moreover, the unique characteristics of service, such as close face-to-face interactions, cause customers to pay attention to the verbal and nonverbal cues of service providers (Min & Kim, 2019). Hospitality employees who are motivated to interact with diverse customers (motivational CQ) would make attempts to modify their behaviors for customers who possess different cultural norms (behavioral CQ). Through these efforts, hospitality employees who have CQ as personal resources would endure their job stress coming from unfamiliar customers and are less likely to feel exhausted and cynical about what they do.

CQ may also have a favorable impact on work engagement. Because CQ can serve as a strong personal ability in a work environment with diverse customers, hospitality employees who have a high level of CQ would be able to perform their job with ease. In other words, those who realize a customer from a different culture would have different preferences, norms, and expectations (metacognitive CQ) and are knowledgeable about proper ways to please customers from other countries (cognitive CQ) do not need to be worried about whether the service provided is appropriate or not. Additionally, because they enjoy interacting with diverse customers (motivational CQ) and adjust their verbal or nonverbal behavior according to their customers’ cultural backgrounds (behavioral CQ), they are likely to be engaged in their work with more enthusiasm. This logic leads us to the following null and alternative hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1_₀: Metacognitive CQ (H1a_₀), cognitive CQ (H1b_₀), motivational CQ (H1c_₀), and behavioral CQ (H1d_₀) are not related to hospitality employees’ burnout.

Hypothesis 1__a: Metacognitive CQ (H1a__a) cognitive CQ (H1b__a), motivational CQ (H1c__a), and behavioral CQ (H1d__a) are negatively related to hospitality employees’ burnout.

Hypothesis 2_₀: Metacognitive CQ (H2a_₀), cognitive CQ (H2b_₀), motivational CQ (H2c_₀), and behavioral CQ (H2d_₀) are not related to hospitality employees’ engagement.

Hypothesis 2__a: Metacognitive CQ (H2a__a) cognitive CQ (H2b__a), motivational CQ (H2c__a), and behavioral CQ (H2d __a) are positively related to hospitality employees’ engagement.

Job satisfaction is defined as a positive emotional state that results from the judgment of one's job or job experiences (Kim et al., 2009). Job satisfaction has been widely studied in organizational behavior research due to its strong association with organizational success (Hsiao et al., 2020; Lu & Gursoy, 2016). The salience of employees’ feeling of burnout and work engagement in their job satisfaction has been well-documented (e.g., Lu & Gursoy, 2016; Ma et al., 2019). By and large, a low level of job burnout and a high level of work engagement predict job satisfaction (e.g., J. Lee & Ok, 2012). Given the link from CQ to burnout and engagement (described in Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2) and from burnout and engagement to job satisfaction, we propose burnout and engagement as mediating variables between CQ and job satisfaction (CQ → burnout/engagement → satisfaction). In other words, hospitality contact employees’ CQ indirectly affects their job satisfaction by decreasing burnout and increasing engagement when these employees encounter diverse, unfamiliar customers in their home countries. Based on the above discussion, the following null and alternative hypotheses are set forth.

Hypothesis 3_₀: Hospitality employees’ burnout does not mediate the relationship between metacognitive CQ (H3a_₀), cognitive CQ (H3b_₀), motivational CQ (H3c_₀), and behavioral CQ (H3d_₀) and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3_a: Hospitality employees’ burnout mediates the relationship between metacognitive CQ (H3a__a), cognitive CQ (H3b__a), motivational CQ (H3c__a), and behavioral CQ (H3d__a) and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4_ ₀: Hospitality employees’ engagement does not mediate the relationship between metacognitive CQ (H4a_₀), cognitive CQ (H4b_₀), motivational CQ (H4c_₀), and behavioral CQ (H4d_₀) and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4__a: Hospitality employees’ engagement mediates the relationship between metacognitive CQ (H4a__a), cognitive CQ (H4b__a), motivational CQ (H4c__a), and behavioral CQ (H4d__a) and job satisfaction.

Figure 1 depicts all the proposed relationships in this study.

Figure 1

The proposed theoretical model with cultural intelligence (CQ), burnout, engagement, and job satisfaction

Method

Sample and Procedure

Data for this study were collected from full-service restaurants in Hawaii, United States, ranging from casual to fine dining. We selected Hawaii because it is a renowned tourism destination, attracting tourists from all over the world. In 2019 alone, about 3.37 million international travelers visited Hawaii and stayed for 9.97 days on average (Hawai‘i Tourism Authority, 2020). Of the international travelers, more than 50% were from Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea, and China, and almost 11% were from Oceanian countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Hawaii is also a popular destination for neighboring countries such as Canada (16%). This information suggests that hospitality employees have frequent interactions with diverse customers.

We contacted over 100 restaurants in Oahu, Hawaii’s most visited island (Hawaii Tourism Authority, 2020), and 43 restaurant managers approved data collection in their establishment. Research assistants visited each restaurant and explained the purpose of the study to restaurant employees who have direct interactions with customers (e.g., servers and bartenders). Research assistants emphasized the importance of this study and guaranteed the employees’ anonymity. We offered a 5-dollar Starbucks gift card to those who voluntarily agreed to participate. The competed survey was collected from participants on site by research assistants. Our study sample consisted of only local employees without any expatriates. Of 605 surveys distributed, 298 were collected (response rate: 49%). We removed poorly answered questionnaires (e.g., questionnaires with many missing answers, and 288 surveys remained for data analyses. Table 1 shows the demographic profile of our sample. Among the 288 participants, 51% were women (n = 139), 79.5% were in a nonmanagerial position (n = 202), and the average age was 29 years old. Their hospitality industry experience varied, ranging from one month to 35 years with a mean of 5 years. In terms of ethnicity, 30% reported themselves as Asians (n = 80), 24% as Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders (n = 66), 21% as Caucasians (n = 56), and 11% as African Americans (n = 29). Sixty percent of participants (n=168) stated they had lived in Hawaii all their life, 20% (n= 56) lived there for more than 10 years, 13.5% (n=38) between 6 and 10 years, and 6.5% (n= 18) for 5 years or less. Employees served customers from three different ethnic groups and four different countries at the minimum level and four different ethnic groups and eight different countries at the maximum level every day. On average, employees reported encountering diners from four ethnic groups and seven countries on a daily basis.

Table 1

Demographic Profile of the Sample

	n	%
Age, years
18-29	166	62.8
30-39	67	25.1
40-49	23	8.5
50-59	3	1.3
60 or older	6	2.2
Total	265	100
Gender
Male	133	48.9
Female	139	51.1
Total	272	100
Ethnicity
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	66	24.4
Asian	80	29.5
Caucasian	56	20.7
African American	29	10.7
Hispanic	9	3.3
Other	31	11.4
Total	271	100
Length of time living in Hawaii
Entire life	168	60
More than 10 years	56	20
6 Years to 10 years	38	13.5
5 Years or less	18	6.5
Total	280	100
Length of time working in the current job
Less than 1 year	135	52.3
1 Year and 1 month to 3 years	74	28.7
3 Years and 1 month to 5 years	23	8.9
5 Years and 1 month to 7 years	15	5.8
More than 7 years	11	4.3
Total	288	100
Length of time working in the restaurant industry
Less than 1 year	85	32.6
1 Year and 1 month to 3 years	76	29.1
3 Years and 1 month to 5 years	36	13.8
5 Years and 1 month to 7 years	17	6.5
More than 7 years	47	18.0
Total	261	100

Note: The total number of responses of each category varies due to missing data.

Measures

We utilized Ang et al.’s (2007) scale to measure CQ. This 20-item scale encompasses (1) metacognitive CQ (4 items, α = .80; e.g., I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions); (2) cognitive CQ (6 items, α= .88; e.g., I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures); (3) motivational CQ (5 items, α = .85; e.g., I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me); and (4) behavioral CQ (5 items, α = .88; e.g., I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

We adopted the Maslach Burnout Inventory General Survey (Maslach et al., 1986) to assess burnout. Two core dimensions of burnout—exhaustion (5 items, α = .92) and cynicism (5 items, α = .90)—were used in this study. Engagement was measured by the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006). As with burnout, two core dimensions of engagement—vigor (3 items, α = .87) and dedication (3 items, α = .89)—were used in this study. All items of burnout and engagement were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Cammann et al.’s (1979) classic job satisfaction scale (2 items, α = 0.92) was used to measure employee job satisfaction (e.g., All in all, I am satisfied with my job). Participants expressed a level of agreement with the statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Last, we elicited demographic information (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, and job position) and the number of ethnic groups and nationalities of customers they handle. All study constructs and their measurement items are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Results of the Measurement Model

	Factor Loading	CR
Cultural intelligence (CQ)
Metacognitive CQ		0.80
I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds.	0.76
I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me.	0.76
I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions.	0.78
I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from different cultures.	0.60
Cognitive CQ		0.88
I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures.	0.74
I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages.	0.78
I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures.	0.73
I know the marriage systems of other cultures.	0.75
I know the arts and crafts of other cultures.	0.75
I know the rules for expressing nonverbal behaviors in other cultures.	0.72
Motivational CQ		0.85
I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.	0.65
I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me.	0.70
I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me.	0.65
I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me.	0.81
I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a different culture.	0.83
Behavioral CQ		0.88
I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it.	0.70
I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations.	0.82
I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it.	0.90
I change my nonverbal behavior when a cross-cultural situation requires it.	0.74
I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it.	0.70
Burnout		0.96
Exhaustion		0.91
I feel emotionally drained from my work.	0.86
I feel used up at the end of the workday.	0.93
I feel tired when I get up in the morning and have to have another day on the job.	0.88
Working all day is stressful to me.	0.78
I feel burned out from my work.	0.60
Cynicism		0.92
I have become less interested in my work since I started this job.	0.85
I have become less enthusiastic about my work.	0.88
I have become more cynical about whether my work contributes anything.	0.75
I doubt the significance of my work.	0.80
I just want to do my job and not be bothered.	0.87
Engagement		0.92
Vigor		0.83
At my work, I feel bursting with energy.	0.84
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.	0.82
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.	0.71
Dedication		0.85
I am enthusiastic about my job.	0.83
My job inspires me.	0.90
I am proud of the work that I do.	0.70
Job satisfaction		0.92
All in all, I am satisfied with my job.	0.93
In general, I like working at my organization.	0.91

Note: All factor loading values are significant (p < .05). CR = composite reliabilities.

Results

We began by conducting descriptive analysis and reviewing the correlations among study constructs. We then reviewed the measurement model to assess the psychometric properties of all measures, including the measurement model fit and reliabilities and validities of study constructs. To test the proposed hypotheses, we examined the structural model fit along with parameter estimates. We used a structural equation modeling technique with Mplus (version 7.0) for hypotheses testing.

Descriptive Analysis and Correlations

The mean values of four CQ dimensions appear fairly equal between males (metacognitive = 3.96, cognitive = 2.93, motivational = 3.90, behavioral = 3.60) and females (metacognitive = 3.97, cognitive = 3.12, motivational = 4.05, behavioral = 3.66). The means of CQ dimensions do not seem much different between employees of different ethnic groups (not reported here). A series of ANOVA (analysis of variance) tests confirmed no significant differences in metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQs based on employee gender and ethnicity. Only job position (ANOVA) displayed a significant difference in CQ ratings (p ≤ .05). In general, supervisors/managers show higher ratings (metacognitive = 4.22, cognitive = 3.42, motivational = 4.17, behavioral = 3.85) than nonsupervisors/managers (metacognitive = 3.92, cognitive = 2.95, motivational = 3.94, behavioral = 3.60). As shown in Table 3, the relationships between CQ and outcome variables appear fairly congruent with the proposed hypotheses. All four components of CQ are negatively correlated with burnout and positively correlated with engagement and job satisfaction. Of the four dimensions, motivational CQ has the strongest correlations with burnout (r = −.36, p < .01), engagement (r = .47, p < .01) and job satisfaction (r = .44, p < .01).

Table 3

Correlations, AVEs, and Squared Correlations

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Metacognitive CQ	3.98	0.75	0.53	0.32	0.31	0.27	0.04	0.16	0.08
2. Cognitive CQ	3.02	0.90	0.57	0.56	0.29	0.40	0.05	0.14	0.12
3. Motivational CQ	3.95	0.78	0.56	0.54	0.54	0.35	0.13	0.22	0.19
4. Behavioral CQ	3.62	0.90	0.52	0.63	0.59	0.60	0.07	0.10	0.13
5. Burnout	2.77	1.00	−0.21	−0.22	−0.36	−0.27	0.68	0.06	0.42
6. Engagement	3.67	0.89	0.40	0.37	0.47	0.32	−0.25	0.65	0.16
7. Job satisfaction	3.57	0.76	0.28	0.35	0.44	0.36	−0.65	0.40	0.85

Note: Correlations are below the diagonal. Squared correlations are above the diagonal. Average variance extracted (AVE) are in bold on the diagonal. All correlations are significant (p < .01). CQ = cultural intelligence.

Measurement Model

The measurement model fits the data well with satisfactory model fit: χ²(640) = 1240.63, p < 0.05; root mean square of error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05; (comparative fit index) CFI = 0.90; (Tucker–Lewis index) TLI = 0.90; and (standardized root mean square residual) SRMR = 0.06. All standardized loadings are greater than the threshold value of 0.50 (Wang & Wang, 2012), ranging from 0.60 to 0.90 (p < .05). The average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct is greater than the criterion value of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The values of composite reliability are greater than 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978), ranging from 0.80 to 0.92. These results indicate satisfactory convergent validity as well as good internal consistency for all latent variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Wang & Wang, 2012). The correlations among latent constructs (−0.21 < r < .63) are below 0.75, indicating seven distinctive constructs in the model (Wang & Wang, 2012). In addition, the AVE for each construct (0.53 < AVE < 0.85) is higher than the squared interconstruct correlations (0.04 < r² < .40), further confirming discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing

Like the measurement model, the structural model shows overall satisfactory model fit: χ²(642) = 1265.35, p < .05; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.90; TLI = 0.90; and SRMR = 0.06. The results of parameter estimates are shown in Figure 2.¹ Hypothesis 1 is concerned with the relationship between CQ and hospitality employees’ burnout. Motivational CQ appears to be the only significant predictor of burnout (β = −.53, p = .00). Metacognitive CQ (β = .10, n.s.), cognitive CQ (β = −.07, n.s.), and behavioral CQ (β = .10, n.s.) are not significantly related to burnout. Therefore, Hypothesis 1c_a is supported, but Hypothesis 1a_a, Hypothesis 1b_a, and Hypothesis 1d_a are rejected. As for Hypothesis 2, concerning the impact of CQ on hospitality employees’ engagement, cognitive CQ (β = .26, p < .05) and motivational CQ (β = .35, p < .01) are significant predictors of work engagement. Metacognitive CQ (β = −.07, n.s.) and behavioral CQ (β = .01, n.s) are not significantly associated with engagement. These results lend support to Hypothesis 2b_a and Hypothesis 2c_a, but not to Hypothesis 2a_a and Hypothesis 2d_a.

Figure 2

Results of the Structural Model

The last two hypotheses highlight the indirect effect of CQ on job satisfaction through burnout (Hypothesis 3) and engagement (Hypothesis 4; CQ → burnout/engagement → satisfaction). Mediation tests indicate that motivational CQ has a significant, positive indirect effect on job satisfaction via burnout (β = .14, p < .05) and engagement (β = .23, p < .05); these results support Hypothesis 3c_a and Hypothesis 4c_a. Cognitive CQ has a significant, positive indirect effect on job satisfaction via engagement (β = .17, p < .05), whereas the indirect effect of cognitive CQ on job satisfaction via burnout is not significant (β = .02, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 4b_a is supported, and Hypothesis 3b_a is rejected. All three significant indirect paths (Hypothesis 3c_a: motivational CQ → burnout → satisfaction; Hypothesis 4c_a: motivational CQ → engagement → satisfaction; Hypothesis 4b_a: cognitive CQ → engagement → satisfaction) reveal full rather than partial mediation.

Given the earlier results of Hypothesis 1_a and Hypothesis 2_a rejecting alternative hypotheses from CQ (metacognitive and behavioral) to burnout and engagement, it is unlikely to see any significant indirect effects of metacognitive and behavioral CQs on job satisfaction via burnout and engagement. Indeed, neither metacognitive (via engagement: β = −.05, n.s.; via burnout: β = −.03, n.s.) nor behavioral CQs (via engagement: β = .00, n.s.; via burnout: β = .03, n.s.) is found to have indirect effects on satisfaction. Accordingly, Hypothesis 3a_a, Hypothesis 3d_a, Hypothesis 4a_a, and Hypothesis 4d_a are rejected.

Discussion

This study investigated the role of CQ in burnout, engagement, and job satisfaction among domestic hospitality employees who frequently serve culturally diverse customers. Although we proposed that higher CQ should help domestic hospitality employees to be more engaged in their work and resilient to stress, we questioned if the CQ effect for domestic employees is as compelling as it is for people who work or study abroad. While most CQ facets have played a significant role in expatriates’ various performance (e.g., Presbitero, 2016; Rockstuhl & Van Dyne, 2018; Tay et al., 2008), two CQ facets largely appear influential in our sample. This result seemingly endorses a more substantial role of CQ in expatriates’ performance; it is yet important to note albeit limited, certain CQ facets are truly conducive to hospitality contact employees’ attitudinal or behavioral outcomes.

Speaking of salient CQ components, when it comes to hospitality employees’ engagement, motivational CQ (β = .35) is most impactful, followed by cognitive CQ (β = .26). When it comes to job burnout, motivational CQ (β = −.53) exerts the greatest impact; in fact, this is the only CQ that plays a critical role in burnout. Furthermore, the indirect effect of motivational CQ on job satisfaction through burnout and engagement highlights motivational CQ as the key CQ element for domestic hospitality employees’ work-related variables. The expectancy theory of motivation tells us that individuals are motivated to perform a task based on the expectation of successful accomplishment of the job and the value of the outcome (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). The essence of motivational CQ lies in intrinsic interest (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Grove & Feyerherm, 2011). This genuine interest in different cultures seems to motivate employees to welcome diverse customers, and appreciate the joy coming from cross-cultural situations that they face at work. The significance of motivational CQ is also consistently found in previous studies using expatriates or international students (Chen et al., 2012; Peng et al., 2015).

Interestingly, the effect of cognitive CQ is seldom found in previous research with expatriates (e.g., Van Dyne et al., 2008). Cognitive CQ indicates the actual cultural knowledge that people possess (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Prospective expatriates would surely learn about the culture of their destination in advance. For expatriates, cultural knowledge may be so rudimentary that it is no longer perceived as a vital CQ facet; for domestic hospitality employees, however, this basic cultural information may be crucial. Through cognitive CQ, domestic employees can realize that foreign customers might have different needs and wants from domestic customers; this realization helps employees serve diverse customers with a more positive attitude, which in turn boosts their satisfaction. We also suspect that more and broad cultural knowledge may be appreciated by hospitality contact employees who have to deal with customers from many countries, while expatriates require cultural knowledge about one particular target destination.

Contrary to our hypotheses, cultural awareness (metacognitive CQ) and the capability to adjust behavior in cross-cultural, social interactions (behavioral CQ) did not affect either burnout or engagement of hospitality employees. These findings do not concur with those of previous articles reporting the significant effects of metacognitive and behavioral CQs of expatriates (e.g., Ang et al., 2007; Van Dyne et al., 2008). Expatriates have extensive interactions with local people both at work and in daily life. Their actual, culturally well-suited behavior and constant monitoring regarding cultural accuracy is needed for their survival. However, for domestic hospitality employees, a long conversation is rare in a service encounter. Moreover, customers are the ones who are in a culturally distant land; they are unlikely to expect the perfect cultural behavior from employees in a foreign land. A small effort or gesture to acknowledge customers’ culture may be enough to please them. Consequently, the ability to adjust behavior or extensive cultural awareness may be less essential for domestic hospitality employees.

Theoretical Implications

This study makes several important contributions to the existent literature. First, because CQ is a newly emerging intelligence, it is underresearched. It has been also studied mainly in specific contexts such as international business and education (e.g., Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Wagstaff et al., 2020). We expanded the boundary of prior study contexts by presenting CQ as an effective personal resource for domestic (hospitality) employees who serve diverse customers. Higher levels of various intelligences (e.g., cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence) are known as one’s personal resources that can increase employees’ well-being and performance (Stoermer et al., 2020; Wen et al., 2020). In harmony with the conservation of resources theory, this study demonstrates that CQ is another feasible personal resource that helps employees reduce psychological stress and increase work engagement. We hope our findings stir more interest in CQ research among management scholars, not to mention hospitality service researchers, utilizing various domestic industries.

In addition, this study sheds light on the dimensionality of CQ. The four facets of CQ have been well-established (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Peterson, 2004; Min et al., 2020). However, a good number of scholars have regarded CQ as unidimensional by combining or using the average score of subfacets (e.g., Darvishmotevali et al., 2018; Wagstaff et al., 2020). Others have treated CQ as having distinctive subfacets thereby utilizing these subfacets independently (e.g., Chen et al., 2012; Peng et al., 2015, Van Dyne et al., 2008). Our satisfactory measurement model along with low-to-medium correlations among four CQ components seems to advocate the latter practice. This study also demonstrates the advantage of separating four subfacets because it clarifies which CQ element is a real determinant.

Last, this study adds to the CQ literature by pointing out that the effectiveness of CQ dimensions may vary among populations (e.g., expatriates vs. domestic workers). We found that two facets of CQ (cognitive and motivational) are mostly connected with burnout, engagement, and job satisfaction for domestic hospitality employees. However, it is unknown if these two facets would be most crucial to domestic workers across all (hospitality) occupations. More scholarly attention needs to be paid to this area in order to draw a firm conclusion.

Practical Implications

This study offers valuable information to hospitality practitioners. Hospitality operators particularly in major cities or popular travel destinations should incorporate CQ into their recruitment and hiring practices. As implied in the study result, employees low in CQ are likely to leave work, feeling exhausted and dissatisfied unless they become comfortable with customers whose cultures are unfamiliar to them. Employee turnover is a serious issue in the hospitality business (Hsiao et al., 2020). In this global society, we urge hospitality operators not only in large, international organizations but also in small, independent properties to be mindful of the importance of having high CQ workers.

As CQ grows in significance, it may be wise for hospitality practitioners to consider systematic, organized CQ training to enhance their employees’ capacity of CQ. Unlike innate, stable personality traits, human intelligence can improve (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004); in other words, it is teachable, and CQ is no exception. During training sessions, hospitality practitioners should spend more time on their employees’ cognitive and motivational CQs. Cognitive CQ emphasizes broadening cultural knowledge. Instead of teaching all world cultures, trainers should prioritize the cultures that are most represented in the customer base. As shown in the cognitive CQ scale, various topics should be taught ranging from legal and economic systems to marriage traditions, religions, and so forth. This knowledge will enable contact employees to carry out a short but meaningful conversation with their diverse customers.

To improve motivational CQ, hospitality operators should strive to boost employee confidence and emphasize enjoyment in cross-cultural situations. Given that motivational CQ is the most critical element, affecting all attitudinal work outcomes in a desirable direction, hospitality companies must instill “can-do” mindsets to customer contact employees. When employees realize that handling culturally diverse customers is a challenging, yet enjoyable task and truly believe in their ability to provide excellent service in cross-cultural situations, they will find their job rewarding and satisfying.

Limitations and Future Research

The results of this study should be interpreted in view of the following limitations. Generalizability is of utmost concern to academic researchers. To our best knowledge, this study is the first to link domestic hospitality employees’ CQ with burnout, engagement and satisfaction. Thus, as mentioned before, the importance of two CQ facets (cognitive and motivational) must be validated with employees in other occupations. Within the hospitality and tourism sectors, airlines, hotels, or tour companies are some good candidates. Researchers may also consider collecting data from two distinct regions or towns in the United States (e.g., with heavily diverse international visitors vs. no/very few international visitors) to validate the effect of CQ on employee performance by contrasting the results. We suspect CQ will play a more prominent role in the region where more diverse customers visit. Furthermore, we recommend cross-cultural studies by collecting data from countries where (hospitality) employees are ethnically homogeneous (e.g., Japan and South Korea). The average ratings of CQ could be relatively lower in these countries; and those with higher CQ could outperform other employees when working for international hotels or airline companies.

Next, this study focuses on the role of CQ in self-reported, work-related attitudinal outcomes. In the future, hospitality researchers could consider objective task performance rated by immediate supervisors or colleagues, or customer satisfaction assessed by diners or hotel guests, as outcome variables in the CQ research model. These variables are critical because they directly affect customer loyalty or repeat business, the main source of revenue for hospitality companies. Future research may also consider incorporating some factors that are closely related to CQ such as prior international travel or cultural immersion experiences. These variables eliminate the possibility of confounding effects.

Finally, this study used a cross-sectional research design. Researchers have pointed out the possibility of inflated causal relationships among variables in a cross-sectional study (see Min et al., 2016, for more details). If resources are available, it is worth conducting a longitudinal study—collecting data over a long period of time—to ensure CQ as a cause of work-related outcomes. For example, researchers may assess new hires’ CQ before they start their job (Time 1) and assess their burnout/engagement 3 months (Time 2) and job satisfaction 6 months (Time 3) after the start of their job.

Concluding Summary

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of CQ on major work-related outcomes, namely burnout, engagement and job satisfaction. With data collected from restaurant employees who serve diverse customers daily, the findings suggest that among the four facets of CQ, cognitive and motivational CQs play a primary role in employee burnout and engagement and ultimately job satisfaction. This study assures the significance of CQ in employees’ work-related outcomes, but highlights the important facets of CQ may differ between domestic contact employees and expatriates working overseas. In addition, this study expands the existing CQ theory by demonstrating CQ as a critical personal resource for employees in their home countries serving diverse customers. Hospitality organizations should embrace the findings of this study in recruitment, training, talent management, and other human resources practices.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Hyounae (Kelly) Min

Notes

Hyounae (Kelly) Min (min@cpp.edu), is an assistant professor in the Collins College of Hospitality Management at California State Polytechnic University Pomona, CA. Her current research focuses on justice and diversity management. In particular, she is interested in the impact of diversity from both customer and employee perspectives. Hyun Jeong Kim (jennykim@wsu.edu), is a professor and Craig Schafer Fellow in the School of Hospitality Business Management at the Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. She teaches service operations management and travel and society and business and serves as the coordinator and advisor of the National Society of Minorities in Hospitality. Jerome Agrusa (jagrusa@hawaii.edu), is a professor in the School of Travel Industry Management at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI. He is well regarded for his expertise in research and teaching in the area of hospitality and tourism management.

References

Ang

Van Dyne

(2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In Ang

Van Dyne

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3-15). Routledge.

Ang

Van Dyne

Koh

K. Y.

Templer

K. J.

Tay

Chandrasekar

N. A.

(2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x

Bücker

Furrer

Poutsma

Buyens

(2014). The impact of cultural intelligence on communication effectiveness, job satisfaction and anxiety for Chinese host country managers working for foreign multinationals. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(14), 2068-2087. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.870293

Cammann

Fichman

Jenkins

Klesh

(1979). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire (Unpublished manuscript). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Chen

X. P.

Liu

Portnoy

(2012). A multilevel investigation of motivational cultural intelligence, organizational diversity climate, and cultural sales: Evidence from U.S. real estate firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024697

Chudzikowski

Fink

Mayrhofer

Ramsey

J. R.

Leonel

J. N.

Gomes

G. Z.

Monteiro

P. R. R.

(2011). Cultural intelligence's influence on international business travelers' stress. Cross Cultural Management, 18(1), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601111104278

Cote

Miners

C. T.

(2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.1.1

Crawford

LePine

Rich

(2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364

Cutler

(2018). The cross-cultural communication trainer's manual: Volume Two: Activities for Cross-Cultural Training. Routledge.

10.

Darvishmotevali

Altinay

De Vita

(2018). Emotional intelligence and creative performance: Looking through the lens of environmental uncertainty and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 73(July), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.014

11.

Diener

Fujita

(1995). Resources, personal strivings, and subjective well-being: A nomothetic and idiographic approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 926-935. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.926

12.

Earley

Ang

(2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press.

13.

Earley

P. C.

Peterson

R. S.

(2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 100-115. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.12436826

14.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

15.

Forster

(1994). The forgotten employees? The experiences of expatriate staff returning to the UK. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), 405-425. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585199400000024

16.

Garonzik

Brockner

Siegel

P. A.

(2000). Identifying international assignees at risk for premature departure: The interactive effect of outcome favorability and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.13

17.

González-Romá

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Lloret

(2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of vocational behavior, 68(1), 165-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.003

18.

Green

D. E.

Walkey

F. H.

Taylor

A. J. W

(1991). The three-factor structure of the Maslach Burnout Inventory: A multicultural, multinational confirmatory study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(3), 453-472.

19.

Groves

K. S.

Feyerherm

A. E.

(2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context: Testing the moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36(5), 535-566. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111415664

20.

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. (2020). 2019 Annual visitor research report. https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-research/2019-annual-visitor.pdf

21.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

22.

Hsiao

Lloyd

Reid

(2020). Organizational ethnic diversity’s influence on hotel employees’ satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention: Gender’s moderating role. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(1), 76-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348019883694

23.

Karatepe

O. M.

Olugbade

O. A.

(2009). The effects of job and personal resources on hotel employees’ work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 504-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.02.003

24.

Karatepe

O. M.

Uludag

(2007). Conflict, exhaustion, and motivation: A study of frontline employees in Northern Cyprus hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(3), 645-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.05.006

25.

Kim

H. J.

Agrusa

(2010). Emotional intelligence and coping styles among hospitality industry employees (International CHRIE Conference-Refereed Track, p. 8). https://scholarworks.umass.edu/refereed/CHRIE_2010/Saturday/8

26.

Kim

H. J.

Shin

K. H.

Umbreit

W. T.

(2007). Hotel job burnout: The role of personality characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 421-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.03.006

27.

Kim

H. J.

Tavitiyaman

Kim

W. G.

(2009). The effect of management commitment to service on employee service behaviors: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33(3), 369-390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348009338530

28.

Lee

Crawford

Weber

Dennison

(2018). Antecedents of cultural intelligence among American hospitality students: Moderating effect of ethnocentrism. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 30(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2018.1444494

29.

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), 1101-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.01.007

30.

Lee

(2015). Examination of factors affecting hotel employees’ service orientation: An emotional labor perspective. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39(4), 437-468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348013491593

31.

Lee

L. Y.

Sukoco

B. M.

(2010). The effects of cultural intelligence on expatriate performance: The moderating effects of international experience. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7), 963-981. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783397

32.

A. C. C.

Gursoy

(2016). Impact of job burnout on satisfaction and turnover intention: Do generational differences matter? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 40(2), 210-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348013495696

33.

Kim

H. J.

Shin

K. H.

(2019). From customer-related social stressors to emotional exhaustion: An application of the demands–control model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 43(7). 1068-1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348019849667

34.

Malek

M. A.

Budhwar

(2013). Cultural intelligence as a predictor of expatriate adjustment and performance in Malaysia. Journal of World Business, 48(2), 222-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.006

35.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

Leiter

M. P.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Schwab

R. L.

(1986). Maslach burnout inventory (Vol. 21). Consulting Psychologists Press.

36.

Min

H. K.

Kim

H. J.

(2019). When service failure is interpreted as discrimination: Emotion, power, and voice. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 82(September), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.03.017

37.

Min

H. K.

Kim

H. J.

Lee

S. B.

(2015). Extending the challenge–hindrance stressor framework: The role of psychological capital. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50(September), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.006

38.

Min

H. K.

Lee

P. C.

Park

(2020). Open to diversity! Investigating the impact of cultural intelligence on students’ preference for group work. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 32(1), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2019.1654892

39.

Min

H. K.

Park

Kim

H. J.

(2016). Common method bias in hospitality research: A critical review of literature and an empirical study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 56(July), 126-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.04.010

40.

National Travel and Tourism Office. (2018). Fast facts: United States travel and tourism industry. https://travel.trade.gov/outreachpages/download_data_table/Fast_Facts_2018.pdf

41.

Nielsen

M. B.

Ogbonnaya

Känsälä

Saari

Isaksson

(2017). Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 31(2), 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463

42.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

43.

Ouellet

J. F.

(2007). Consumer racism and its effects on domestic cross-ethnic product purchase: An empirical test in the United States, Canada, and France. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.1.113

44.

Peng

A. C.

Van Dyne

(2015). The influence of motivational cultural intelligence on cultural effectiveness based on study abroad: The moderating role of participant’s cultural identity. Journal of Management Education, 39(5), 572-596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562914555717

45.

Presbitero

(2016). Cultural intelligence (CQ) in virtual, cross-cultural interactions: Generalizability of measure and links to personality dimensions and task performance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50(January), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.11.001

46.

Reisman

(2007). Is culture inherited through social learning? Biological Theory, 2(3), 300-306. https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2007.2.3.300

47.

Rockstuhl

Van Dyne

(2018). A bi-factor theory of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence: Meta-analysis and theoretical extensions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148(September), 124-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.07.005

48.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248

49.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

50.

Stoermer

Davies

Froese

F. J.

(2020). The influence of expatriate cultural intelligence on organizational embeddedness and knowledge sharing: The moderating effects of host country context. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(3), 432-453. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00349-3

51.

Sternberg

R. J.

Grigorenko

E. L.

(2004). Intelligence and culture: How culture shapes what intelligence means, and the implications for a science of well–being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1427-1434. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1514

52.

Tay

Westman

Chia

(2008). Antecedents and consequences of cultural intelligence among short-term business travelers. In Ang

Van Dyne

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 126-144). Routledge.

53.

Teng

C. C.

(2011). Commercial hospitality in restaurants and tourist accommodation: Perspectives from international consumer experience in Scotland. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 866-874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.01.007

54.

Thorndike

R. L.

Stein

(1937). An evaluation of the attempts to measure social intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 34(5), 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053850

55.

Ting-Toomey

Dorjee

(2018). Communicating across cultures. Guilford Press.

56.

Tung

R. L.

(1987). Expatriate assignments: Enhancing success and minimizing failure. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1(2), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1987.4275826

57.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). The foreign-born population in the United States: 2010. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2012/acs/acs-19.html

58.

Van Dyne

Ang

Koh

., (2008). Development and validation of the CQS. In Ang

Van Dyne

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 16-38). Routledge.

59.

Van Eerde

Thierry

. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575-586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.575

60.

Wagstaff

M. F.

Kim

S. H.

Arévalo

F. R. J.

Al-Riyami

Huerta

(2020). Individual bicultural identity and cultural intelligence. Management Research, 18(1). 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-06-2019-0931

61.

Wang

(2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley & Sons.

62.

Wen

Huang

S. S.

Hou

(2019). Emotional intelligence, emotional labor, perceived organizational support, and job satisfaction: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 81(August), 120-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.009