Role of individual and organizational variables as predictors of job satisfaction among hotel employees

Abstract

Job satisfaction is a key concept in the organizational literature, as satisfied employees allow organizations to achieve desired work-related outcomes. Nevertheless, more research is needed to understand what organizational and individual variables shape the job satisfaction of employees from the hospitality sector. This study assesses the role of organizational variables (perceived organizational support and organizational health) and individual variables (positive psychological capital and creative personality) as possible determinants of job satisfaction. A total of 504 hotel employees from the Algarve region, the main Portuguese tourism destination, participated in this study. Structural equation modeling with latent variables was used to evaluate the proposed model. Results showed that perceived organizational support was the most important predictor of job satisfaction, followed by organizational health. Organizational health also predicted positive psychological capital, which, in turn, was significantly associated with job satisfaction. These results have important practical implications for human resources management in the hospitality industry.

Keywords

Job satisfaction organizational health perceived organizational support creative personality positive psychological capital

Introduction

Job satisfaction is a widely addressed construct in the organizational literature, especially if we consider that human beings spend a considerable amount of their day at the workplace (Hantula, 2015; Kong et al., 2018). This construct, the most important job attitude, can be defined as “an evaluative state that expresses contentment with, and positive feelings about, one’s job” (Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012, p.347). This definition, adopted in the present study, combines two components, cognitive and affective. Other conceptual definitions and measures have neglected the importance of the affective component, emphasizing solely the role of cognitive processes in satisfaction (Judge and Cl Dalal, 2011). However, an employee evaluates if he/she is satisfied with his/her job (cognitive component) and, depending on this evaluation, he/she will develop a set of affects, positive or negative, about it (affective component). Accordingly, these two components of job satisfaction must be jointly considered.

Overall, satisfied workers are an added-value for their organizations, reporting increased physical and psychological health (Hantula, 2015; Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). In the hospitality literature, this concept is also of great importance (Appiah, 2019; Kong et al., 2018). Dissatisfied hotel employees provide a low-quality service, which may negatively influence the business unit performance (e.g. decrease in the number of costumers and negative word of mouth; Li et al., 2017; McPhail et al., 2015). Furthermore, hospitality workers who are not satisfied present decreased morale and high turnover rates (Meng and Han, 2014). Therefore, hotel managers must guarantee that their workforce is satisfied, which will bring benefits for employees and hotels, as well as for the economic development of a country and/or region.

Given the central role of this concept in the organizational context, it is important to understand how it can be fostered (Daskin, 2019). For example, it may be useful to explore some of the antecedents, individual and organizational, of job satisfaction. The literature on the antecedents of this construct, in the general working population, is diversified. Previous studies (e.g. Judge and Bono, 2001; Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012; Judge et al., 2000) demonstrated that individual factors, as well as aspects from the social environment of organizations, and organizational practices, are among the most studied topics. In addition, past meta-analyses and literature reviews (e.g. Avey et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2014; Riggle et al., 2009) showed that satisfaction can be predicted by individual resources and organizational-related concepts. Despite the bulk of research, the empirical evidence on the antecedents of satisfaction in hospitality is still reduced, thus it is relevant to assess the predictors of this construct in this context. To conduct this study, some antecedents of job satisfaction were considered, namely organizational health, perceived organizational support, positive psychological capital and creativity.

A study performed with Portuguese employees from the public sector demonstrated that two organizational health indicators, one internal (referring to the organization itself) and another external (referring to the environment where the organization is integrated), were positively and significantly related with the satisfaction that employees felt with their occupation, organization, and tasks performed (Viseu et al., 2015). Organizational health is an organizational-related variable aimed at understanding, from the point of view of employees, how effectively an organization performs. In terms of the social context of organizations, the role of perceived organizational support, which is based on the assumptions of social exchange and reciprocity, must be underlined. When a worker feels that an organization is concerned about his/her well-being and that there is an appreciation about his/her contributions and suggestions, the worker will act reciprocally, e.g. by helping the organization to achieve its goals (Stinglhamber et al., 2020). Moreover, the literature review of Newman et al. (2014), with the objective of analysing the developed research on positive psychological capital (PsyCap), observed that this construct promotes desirable job attitudes. Thus, individuals with high PsyCap will feel more confident, optimistic, hopeful, and resilient. As such, they will put more effort in the tasks performed, resulting in increased job satisfaction. Moreover, creative employees, e.g. those who seek novel solutions for work-related problems and procedures, present more positive affects at work, i.e. job satisfaction (Kim et al., 2009; Tavares, 2016). These arguments suggest that satisfaction is better perceived if individual and organizational-related variables are simultaneously considered.

Some of these concepts and the relationships established between them have also been studied in the context of tourism and hospitality, namely in terms of the occupational well-being of hotel employees (e.g. Akgunduz et al., 2018a; Karatepe and Karadas, 2015; Paek et al., 2015). Akgunduz et al. (2018a) underlined that perceived organizational support and proactive personality predicted creativity in a sample of Turkish hospitality employees. In turn, Karatepe and Karadas (2015) and Paek et al. (2015) observed that PsyCap promotes job satisfaction, work engagement, and workforce morale. These studies addressed some of the concepts mentioned earlier, namely perceived organizational support, PsyCap, creativity, and job satisfaction. However, they did not consider the role of organizational health, one aspect that underlines the relevance and innovative character of this study.

The main objective of this research is to understand what factors contribute to the job satisfaction of Portuguese hotel employees from the Algarve, the most important tourism destination in Portugal (Turismo de Portugal, 2018). Over the last years, the tourism indicators of the Algarve (e.g. overnight stays) have been higher than the Portuguese average. For example, in 2018, the Algarve registered the highest rate of overnight stays (30.2%) comparatively to Lisbon (25.9%) and the North of Portugal (14.5%; Statistics Portugal, 2019). In addition, there has been an increase in the business volume, directly or indirectly, related to tourism in this region (Statistics Portugal, 2019). According to Andraz et al. (2015), tourism in the Algarve contributes significantly to the regional economic development, being only surpassed by Lisbon. However, this situation only occurs because Lisbon is the Portuguese region with greater economic activity, not being a mature tourism destination, like the Algarve (Andraz et al., 2015). The empirical evidence has also showed that the Algarve is a studied destination regarding tourists’ experiences, satisfaction, and loyalty (e.g. Agapito et al., 2017). Other studies observed how tourism is affecting the residents of this region (e.g. Vargas-Sánchez et al., 2015). However, as far as we could identify, there are no studies about employees in the tourism industry, particularly regarding their job satisfaction. Thus, this study will overcome an important research gap in an important mature destination, which can potentiate further research in other similar contexts. Specifically, the theoretical model proposed assesses how individual characteristics (PsyCap and creative personality) and organizational-related variables (perceived organizational support and organizational health) predict the job satisfaction of hotel employees from the Algarve. Considering the relevance of this construct to hospitality, it is important to identify the weight that each of these determinants have on workers’ satisfaction in order to develop a set of proposals to promote it, benefiting employees, hotels (e.g. increased customer satisfaction), and the country/regional economy (e.g. higher gross domestic product).

Literature review

Job satisfaction: Definition, measurement, and importance

Job satisfaction is the most important job attitude and one of the main research topics in the organizational literature (Akgunduz et al., 2018b). This construct relies on an assessment that an individual performs regarding the tasks accomplished, work conditions, and work environment (Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). If the individual evaluates these aspects positively, then he/she will be satisfied with his/her job. However, if the result of this evaluation is negative, the worker will be dissatisfied. Therefore, we can affirm that this concept has two components, cognitive and affective (Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). The cognitive component is related with the assessment of work-related aspects (e.g. tasks, conditions, and environment) and the affective component refers to the affects that emerge from this assessment, positive (i.e. employees are satisfied with their job) or negative (i.e. employees are dissatisfied with their job; Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Also, the analysis of one’s satisfaction is an individual process. For example, two individuals may perform the same tasks, have the same work conditions, and share the same work context; however, one of them may be satisfied and the other may be dissatisfied (Brown et al., 2012). Another question regarding job satisfaction is how this construct is measured. According to Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller (2012), there are two ways of assessing it: unidimensional (i.e. job satisfaction is perceived holistically) or multidimensional (e.g. satisfaction with promotion prospects, colleagues, and/or with benefits). In the literature, the unidimensional perspective has gained more relevance, especially because the multidimensional framework is associated with the momentum. At a given moment, a worker may be dissatisfied with the benefits package, but at a later moment, the same worker may reach a satisfaction level (Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012; Judge and Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2000).

Organizations must be interested in fostering the job satisfaction of their employees, since satisfied workers are more engaged and committed, have increased physical and psychological health, and present lower absenteeism and turnover intention rates (Hantula, 2015; Southgate and Mondo, 2017). Despite the importance of its outcomes, it is essential to understand the individual and organizational-related mechanisms that allow the achievement of a satisfied workforce (Daskin, 2019).

Organizational variables as predictors of job satisfaction

This study considers two organizational variables, perceived organizational support and organizational health, as predictors of job satisfaction. Perceived organizational support refers to the employees’ perceptions of the importance that an organization confers to their contributions and is concerned with their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Riggle et al., 2009). In a meta-analysis, Riggle et al. (2009) observed that perceived organizational support was positively and significantly associated with job satisfaction. The review of Park et al. (2019) underlined that this concept plays a crucial role for hospitality employees. For example, Cheng and O-Yang (2018), in a study conducted with Taiwanese frontline hotel employees, observed that perceived organizational support was positively related with job satisfaction. The same study showed that this construct moderated the association between an ill-being indicator (burnout) and job satisfaction (Cheng and O-Yang, 2018). According to Eisenberger et al. (1986) and Stinglhamber et al. (2020), perceived organizational support is based on principles of social exchange and reciprocity. In the case of hospitality, an employee who perceives that there is a concern with his/her well-being and that there is an openness by management to analyze his/her contributions and/or suggestions to improve the operation of the hotel unit, will present increased job satisfaction and other desired work-related outcomes (Park et al., 2019). In addition, when an employee perceives that the relationship with the hotel is positive, he/she will feel obligated to help the organization to achieve its goals. Finally, the association between employee–hotel unit will contribute to the development of a sense of belonging. Taking these aspects into account, it is critical to understand how hotel units and their managers can improve perceived organizational support (e.g. what human resources management practices or procedures could be implemented) to promote job satisfaction. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Perceived organizational support is positively related to job satisfaction.

According to Jesus et al. (2016), the health of an organization refers to the ability to integrate individuals on work-teams (internal dimension) and to the adaptability to changes in the business environment (external dimension). In other words, this concept acts as an organizational functioning indicator. When employees make a positive assessment concerning the internal and external dimensions, they will develop a positive perception of organizational functioning. In opposition, when the evaluation is negative in both dimensions, the perception of organizational functioning will also be negative. Organizational health is a relatively new concept, and the literature has assigned it a simplistic role; however, the organizational functioning dynamics are complex (Gomide Júnior and Fernandes, 2008). Due to this situation, the empirical evidence on this construct is reduced. The existing studies underline that organizations that create work-teams and, simultaneously, respond effectively to the changes in their environment contribute to an increase in employee job satisfaction (Viseu et al., 2015). This innovative perspective of organizational functioning has not yet been tested in the hospitality sector. Nevertheless, the empirical evidence from other occupations (e.g. teaching) supports that positive perceptions on the internal and external dimensions lead to a satisfied workforce (Viseu et al., 2015). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Organizational health is positively related to job satisfaction.

The relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational health has not been empirically tested yet, neither in the hospitality sector nor in other occupational sectors. However, a link between these concepts may be established through the assumptions of reciprocity. Thus, when employees feel that their organization values their contributions and is concerned about their well-being, they will develop positive perceptions about it. As such, these favorable perceptions may contribute to reinforce organizational health. Therefore, it can be suggested that perceived organizational support is an enabler of positive organizational-related outcomes. Accordingly, the following research hypotheses are also proposed in our study:

H3: Perceived organizational support is positively related to organizational health.

Individual variables as predictors of job satisfaction

This study considers two individual variables, PsyCap and creative personality, as predictors of job satisfaction. PsyCap is a construct from the positive organizational behavior framework and is composed by four dimensions, self-efficacy (i.e. have confidence to achieve the proposed objectives), hope (i.e. try to attain the proposed goals and, if necessary, develop alternative strategies to accomplish them), optimism (i.e. make positive attributions about the present and future), and resilience (i.e. ability to resist the adversities that emerge at the workplace and overcome them; Youssef-Morgan and Luthans, 2015). Two characteristics of this construct must be highlighted. The first is that PsyCap possesses a state-like nature, i.e. it can be developed through training programs. The second is that it promotes desirable job attitudes and behaviors, decreases the impact of undesirable job attitudes and behaviors, and positively influences job performance (Luthans et al., 2015). For example, PsyCap promotes organizational health, job satisfaction, work engagement, organizational commitment, employee creativity, organizational citizenship behaviors, and job performance and decreases distress, depression, burnout, absenteeism, and turnover (Avey, 2014; Viseu et al., 2015). These aspects make this construct an added-value for organizations (Avey et al., 2011; Newman et al., 2014; Youssef-Morgan and Luthans, 2015).

The relationship between organizational health and PsyCap has already been addressed in the general working population. Viseu et al. (2015), in a study with public sector employees, showed that a healthy organization reinforces the positive psychological resources of employees. As such, workers who perceive that their organization is performing well on the internal and external dimensions will (a) be more confident about their skills, (b) develop a positive perspective regarding the present and future, (c) create paths for goal-achievement, and (d) be prepared to face adverse situations when they arise. So, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4: Organizational health is positively related to PsyCap.

Some studies have shown that employees with high PsyCap are more satisfied with their jobs, which, in turn, will have a spill-over effect on other types of satisfaction (e.g. career and life; Karatepe and Karadas, 2015; Paek et al., 2015). There is also some empirical evidence about the relationship between PsyCap and creativity, with studies suggesting that high levels of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience will promote a higher creative performance (Newman et al., 2014). There are few studies that support this relationship in the hospitality sector (e.g. Ozturk and Karatepe, 2018). However, studies performed in other occupations (e.g. Gupta and Singh, 2014) demonstrated that PsyCap is a predictor of employees’ creative behaviors. The association between PsyCap and its consequents can be explained by two theories, the Conservation of Resources theory (COR; Hobfoll et al., 2018) and the Broaden-and-Built theory (Fredrickson, 2001). According to the COR theory, concepts are better perceived when they are organized into a higher order factor (i.e. self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism interact with each other and manifest themselves through PsyCap), leading to the development of desired outcomes (Luthans and Youssef-Morgan, 2017). Relatively to the Broaden-and-Built theory, when the dimensions of PsyCap are congregated, they originate a motivated behavior that benefits organizations, e.g. greater job satisfaction and creativity (Luthans et al., 2008). So, two additional hypotheses are proposed:

H5: PsyCap is positively related to job satisfaction.

H6: PsyCap is positively related to creative personality.

Organizations must value the creativity of their employees, which may serve to develop competitive advantages in an increasingly competitive environment (Akgunduz et al., 2018a). A creative employee demonstrates curiosity, enthusiasm, intrinsic motivation, openness to experience, and flexibility (Garcês et al., 2015). These are valuable characteristics; creative employees can develop novel strategies to solve problems or develop innovative business strategies. In the literature, there is no consensus regarding the direction of the relationship between creativity and job satisfaction (i.e. creativity is a predictor of job satisfaction or job satisfaction is a predictor of creativity; e.g. Amabile et al., 2005; Runco, 1995; Zhou and George, 2001). This lack of consensus is also reflected in the studies performed in hospitality. However, studies conducted in the organizational sector (e.g. Runco, 1995) suggested that creativity predicts job satisfaction. Thus, an employee who works at an organization that values creativity (e.g. that allows the exploration of alternative solutions to create novel competitive advantages) will be more satisfied with the job in general but also with his/her tasks, work conditions, and work environment. So, a final hypothesis is proposed:

H7: Creative personality is positively related to job satisfaction.

Figure 1 shows the theoretical model proposed in this study and the respective hypotheses. PsyCap and organizational health will be measured as second-order constructs.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model proposed.

Research methodology

Data collection and analysis

Hotel directors from the Algarve region (Portugal) were contacted in order to understand if they were available to participate in this study. In total, 40 hotel establishments were contacted, and from these, 18 participated in this study (8 four-star hotels and 10 five-star hotels). Each hotel that accepted to participate in the study received as many questionnaires as the number of employees. The hotel directors were asked to explain the objectives of the study in a staff meeting and distribute the questionnaires to the heads of department who would hand them over to the corresponding employees. The questionnaires were accompanied by a blank envelope where they should be placed after completion. Data were collected from February to May 2014. Before completing the questionnaire, participants were asked to read and sign an informed consent statement, which guaranteed the complete confidentiality and anonymity of the collected data. Furthermore, respondents were informed that they could withdraw their participation at any time and that there were no rewards for participating, monetary, or otherwise. Of the 1675 paper-and-pencil questionnaires distributed, 567 were returned (33.85% response rate). After a thorough analysis, 504 questionnaires were considered valid.

Firstly, this study used SPSS 24.0 to describe the collected data and test the potential existence of common method bias (CMB). Accordingly, the Harman’s (1967) single-factor test was implemented, following the procedure proposed by Roni (2014). This procedure implies running an exploratory factor analysis with all items loaded on a single factor. A total explained variance inferior to 50% means that CMB is not prejudicing the data set. Then, structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was implemented with AMOS 18.0 to test the proposed conceptual model and hypotheses. Simulation studies showed that the most applied estimation method in SEM, the maximum likelihood method, produces biased estimates when data significantly departures from a multivariate normal distribution. This occurs when skewness and kurtosis coefficients are higher than 2 and 7, respectively (Finnley and DiStefano, 2006). In our study, we verified that all items presented absolute values for skewness and kurtosis inferior to 1.2 and 1.9, respectively. Before testing the hypotheses, an overall evaluation of the model was performed. Then, the measurement and structural models were individually assessed.

Measures

Job satisfaction was assessed by the Job Satisfaction Scale (Lima et al., 1995) composed by eight items (e.g. Satisfaction regarding promotion prospects) measured in a seven-point Likert-scale (1 – Extremely dissatisfied; 7 – Extremely satisfied). Organizational support was analyzed by the Portuguese version (Santos and Gonçalves, 2010) of the Perceived Organizational Support Scale of Eisenberger et al. (1986). This scale has eight items (e.g. the organization values my contribution to its well-being), measured with a seven-point Likert-scale (1 – Totally disagree; 7 – Totally agree). Organizational health was assessed by the Portuguese version of the Organizational Health Perception Scale (Gomide Júnior and Fernandes, 2008; Jesus et al., 2016). This scale has 26 items (e.g. Individuals are aware of the goals that the organization aims to achieve) measured with a five-point Likert-scale (1 – Totally disagree; 5 – Totally agree). Organizational health is considered a multidimensional latent trait, comprising the dimensions “integration of individuals and work-teams” (18 items) and “flexibility and adaptability to external demands” (eight items).

PsyCap was analyzed by the Portuguese version of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire-12 (Luthans et al., 2007; Viseu et al., 2012). This scale presents 12 items (e.g. I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management) measured with a six-point Likert-scale (1 – Totally disagree; 6 – Totally agree). PsyCap is a multidimensional latent trait, aggregating four dimensions, self-efficacy (three items), hope (four items), resilience (three items), and optimism (two items). For the use of this measure, authorization was requested to the organization who owns its copyright (www.mindgarden.com). Creative personality was evaluated by the Creative Personality Scale (Garcês et al., 2015). This scale has 30 items (e.g. I like to perfect my ideas until they are well defined) measured with a five-point Likert-scale (1 – Totally disagree; 5 – Totally agree).

In this study, only Portuguese-language instruments were used. When the original instruments were in English, the authors used the validations studies of those instruments for Portuguese working samples (e.g. Santos and Gonçalves, 2010; Viseu et al., 2012). Past studies using the measures mentioned above demonstrated that they possess good psychometric qualities in terms of validity and reliability. Questions regarding socio-demographic attributes were also included in the survey questionnaire (gender, age, educational background, professional occupation, and job tenure).

Our model was firstly estimated with all items from the scales. Then, some items needed to be deleted in order to achieve acceptable levels of reliability and validity. Table 1 contains the final set of items used to measure the latent constructs of the proposed model.

Table 1.

Results for the measurement model.

Constructs and scale items	Standard loading*	Alpha/CR	AVE
Job satisfaction		.883/.887	.529
JS1 Regarding your promotion perspectives	.663
JS2 Regarding the organization and the department where you work	.768
JS3 Regarding cooperation and environmental relation with your working colleagues	.689
JS4 Regarding competence and functioning of your direct supervisor	.688
JS6 Regarding the work that you do	.705
JS7 Regarding competence and functioning of your co-workers	.733
JS8 Overall satisfaction considering all aspects of your work and life in this organization	.833
Organizational support		.882/.867	.621
OS1 The organization values my contribution to its well-being	.779
OS2 The organization really cares about my well-being	.835
OS3 The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work	.783
OS4 The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work	.754
Organizational health (integration of individuals and work-teams)		.940/.962	.609
OH1 Individuals are aware of the goals that the organization aims to achieve	.643
OH2 Individuals work together for the organization to achieve its goals	.714
OH3 One can talk about the perceived problems directly with the people involved	.728
OH4 Individuals have access to the necessary information to make work-related decisions	.708
OH5 Actions are team planned	.733
OH6 There is cooperation between individuals during task performance	.760
OH7 Solutions for problems are searched, in a way that all individuals can express their opinion	.760
OH8 Individual needs are considered when it is necessary to diagnose organizational problems	.741
OH9 Competition between teams is done in an honest way	.727
OH10 Individuals try to spontaneously help their colleagues by means of providing suggestions	.670
OH11 Individuals try to spontaneously help their colleagues by means of concrete actions	.705
OH12 When there is a crisis individuals’ work together to solve it	.720
OH13 Individuals respect one another	.687
OH14 Individuals regard their job as something important	.607
OH15 Individuals regard their job as something that provides pleasure	.676
Organizational health (integration of individuals and work/Flexibility and adaptability to external demands)		.920/0.961	.576
OH16 Managers vary their administration styles depending on different work situations	.605
OH17 There is a general sense of freedom	.703
OH19 Policies are flexible, may adapting rapidly to the needs of change	.751
OH20 Procedures are flexible, may adapting rapidly to the needs of change	.782
OH21 Policies are established in order to help individuals to be effective at work	.795
OH22 Procedures are established in order to help individuals to be effective at work	.776
OH23 Innovations are continuously searched	.726
OH24 Individuals prepare themselves for the future, being aware of new working methods	.691
PsyCap (self-efficacy)		.866/.869	.689
PC1	.807
PC2	.854
PC3	.830
PsyCap (hope and optimism)		.801/0.835	.505
PC4	.627
PC5	.736
PC6	.784
PC7	.632
PC8	.663
Creative personality		.921/0.949	.484
CP1 I like new ideas	.642
CP2 I am curious person and enjoy giving suggestions	.638
CP3 I am a person open to new ideas	.631
CP4 I am not afraid of new situations	.686
CP5 I find motivation in everything that I do	.677
CP6 I am an optimistic person	.645
CP7 I perceive environmental gaps and have new ideas to fix them	.692
CP8 Even when I make a mistake, I try new alternatives	.692
CP9 To solve problems in a different way is something that fascinates me	.685
CP10 I have the courage to initiate a new activity even when there is some risk involved	.610
CP11 I believe that for every problem there is a solution	.683
CP12 I like projects that allow me to have several ideas	.765
CP13 I have great enthusiasm for everything I do	.648
CP14 I am a spontaneous person	.624
CP15 I put a lot of energy in everything I do	.702
CP16 I use my imagination for professional and personal growth	.712
CP17 I enjoy improving my ideas until they become clear	.730
CP18 Even failing, I enjoy and believe in the importance of what I do	.650
CP19 I can find several solutions for the same problem	.705
CP20 I have ease in finding the beauty in things	.678

Note. PsyCap items are not identified in the table due to copyright.

PsyCap: positive psychological capital; OH: Organizational health.

*p = .000.

Results

Participants’ characteristics

A total of 504 hotel employees from the Algarve (Portugal) participated in this study, 50% were males and 50% females. The age of the participants varied from 16 to 69 years old (M = 39.48; SD = 11.98). The age group with the largest number of workers was between 36–45 years old (27.8%), and the age group with the lowest number of workers was between 66–70 years old (6%). Regarding the educational background, 12.5% had the basic education (fourth grade), 26.2% of the respondents had the ninth grade, 36.5% the twelfth grade, and 19.4% had a college degree. The participants’ average job tenure was 11.13 years (SD = 11.20). Lastly, the professional occupations with more representation were waiters (7.1%), cleaning personnel (8.1%), kitchen staff (8.9%), and receptionists (13.5%).

Testing for CMB and assessing overall model fit

The common factor solution applied to the items in Table 1 showed a total variance of 26.1%, meaning that CMB is not a problem in our data. Then, the Chi-squared goodness-of-fit test was used as the first fit index: χ² = 2751.29 (p = .000). However, because it is very sensitive to the number of cases under analysis and model complexity, other indexes were observed (Hair et al., 2010). These were the relative chi-squared (χ²/df; <2 suggests a good fit), the Root Mean Square Residual (RMR; <.08 suggests a good fit), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; <.05 suggests a good fit), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI; >.80 suggests an acceptable fit), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI; CFI, TLI, IFI >.90 suggests a good fit), and the Parsimonious Comparative Fit Index (PCFI; >.80 suggests a good fit). Overall, our results suggest an adequate data fit: χ²/df = 1.63, RMR = .056, RMSEA = .035, GFI = .851, AGFI = .828, CFI =.947, TLI = .940, IFI = .947, PCFI = .843.

Assessing measurement model fit

Measurement model evaluation focuses on the reliability and validity of the constructs included in the model. Table 1 presents the results regarding the constructs’ reliability and validity for the final set of items included to measure the constructs. An attempt at using all items in the original scales showed to compromise convergent validity. In the final model, the composite reliability (CR) coefficients and Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .80 to .98, all above the minimum required value of .70, suggesting a good internal consistency (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hair et al., 2010). Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct was higher than the threshold value of .50, suggesting convergent validity. Regarding factor validity, Table 1 shows that all loadings surpassed .60 and were significant at the .01 level (all p = .00).

As for discriminant validity, the correlations between constructs were compared with the constructs’ AVEs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As Table 2 shows, the squared root of each AVE, in the principal diagonal, exceeds the correlation between each pair of variables, providing evidence for discriminant validity. To note that, in the final model, PsyCap was assessed as a second-order construct comprised of two first-order constructs: (a) self-efficacy and (b) hope and optimism. In the same way, the construct organizational health was also evaluated as a second-order construct. This concept was measured by two first-order constructs: (a) flexibility and adaptability to external demands and (b) integration of individuals on work-teams. These solutions ensure that these constructs report adequate levels of reliability and validity.

Table 2.

Correlations among latent variables.

Constructs	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Creative personality	.707*
2. Self-efficacy (PsyCap)	.435	.830*
3. Hope and optimism (PsyCap)	.669	.495	.714*
4. Organizational support	.257	.250	.341	.801*
5. Flexibility and adaptability to external demands (OH)	.244	.310	.378	.569	.708*
6. Integration of individuals and work-teams (OH)	.251	.302	.359	.589	.704	.713*
7. Job satisfaction	.265	.294	.399	.487	.562	.559	.723*

Note. All correlations were statistically significant for a p < .05. *Diagonal values correspond to the squared value of Average Variance Extracted for each latent variable in order to assess the Fornell–Larcker Criterion; PsyCap: positive psychological capital; OH: Organizational health.

Tests of hypotheses

The hypotheses were tested by observing the signal and statistical significance of the estimated path coefficients (Table 3). From the seven initial hypotheses, six of them (H1 to H6) were supported by the obtained results, i.e. the path coefficients presented the expected positive signal and were statistically significant (p = .000). Only the relationship between creative personality and the job satisfaction of hotel employees (H7) was not supported.

Table 3.

Structural model results.

Research hypotheses	Standardizedcoefficients	Z	Hypotheses results
H1. Organizational support → Job satisfaction	.153	2.317*	H1 is supported
H2. Organizational health → Job satisfaction	.467	6.308**	H2 is supported
H3. Organizational support → Organizational health	.715	11.552**	H3 is supported
H4. Organizational health → PsyCap	.284	3.510**	H4 is supported
H5. PsyCap → Job satisfaction	.285	3.141**	H5 is supported
H6. PsyCap → Creative personality	.782	9.979**	H6 is supported
H7. Creative personality → Job satisfaction	−.110	−1.393	H7 is not supported

PsyCap: positive psychological capital.

^**p < .01. * p < .05.

AMOS also indicates the path estimates of the second-order constructs, PsyCap and organizational health. Regarding PsyCap, results highlighted the relevance of the dimension hope and optimism in forming the construct, in comparison to the weaker importance of the dimension self-efficacy (β1 = .968; β2 = .611; p = .000). Concerning organizational health, the two dimensions, flexibility and adaptability, on one hand, and integration of individuals on work-teams, on the other hand, reported similar weights (β3 = .926; β4 = .94; p = .000).

Also, the squared multiple correlation coefficients for the latent dependent constructs, PsyCap, creative personality, organizational health, and job satisfaction, were calculated. These values were of .165, .612, .512, and .494, respectively. In the latter case, this means that the proposed model explains 49.4% of the variance of job satisfaction. Total effects on job satisfaction can complement this analysis. AMOS also produces these results. Based on them, we can verify that the strongest predictor of job satisfaction was organizational support (βT2 = .528), followed by organizational health (βT1 = .524) and PsyCap (βT3 = .199).

Discussion and conclusion

Our study aimed to understand how different organizational (organizational health and perceived organizational support) and individual (PsyCap and creative personality) determinants predicted job satisfaction of hotel employees working in the Algarve (Portugal). All the relationships proposed, except one (the relationship between creative personality and job satisfaction), were corroborated by the obtained results.

The first aspect to note is that perceived organizational support and job satisfaction are positively associated (H1), confirming the results obtained in past works (Cheng and O-Yang, 2018; Riggle et al., 2009). Accordingly, when employees perceive that their organization values their contributions and well-being, they will feel more satisfied with the tasks performed, conditions, and work environment. In turn, the association between organizational health and job satisfaction (H2) means that when employees perceive that their organization is effective in dealing with external demands and able to integrate individuals on work-teams, the job satisfaction of the workforce increases. Indeed, the adaptability to external circumstances facilitates task performance, and the creation of work-teams may foster positive work environments (Viseu et al., 2015). The confirmation of both research hypotheses indicates that organizational determinants, in this case, organizational health and perceived organizational support, promote the job satisfaction of hotel employees.

Another aspect to note is that perceived organizational support was significantly associated with organizational health (H3), meaning that when employees perceive that an organization values their contributions and well-being, they will develop positive perceptions regarding its functioning on the internal and external dimensions. There was no empirical evidence, to our knowledge, about this relationship in the literature. However, through reciprocity assumptions, one of the theoretical foundations of perceived organizational support, it was possible to argue for the existence of an association between these two concepts. We can conclude that the perceptions of organizational support foster positive perceptions of organizational functioning, in this case, hotel functioning, at the internal and external levels. Thus, hotels that provide support to their workers will facilitate the development of healthy work environments and be able to create policies, practices, and procedures that allow effective responses to changes in the business context.

As demonstrated in past studies (e.g. Viseu et al., 2015), organizational health promotes PsyCap (H4). Thus, when there is a positive perception of organizational health, this will shape employees’ self-efficacy beliefs, make them more optimistic about present and future events, and prepared to develop alternative solutions to solve work-related problems. Hotels should seek to develop positive perceptions about their functioning, since this has an impact on employees’ PsyCap, as well as on job attitudes and work behaviors.

Also, PsyCap promotes the creativity of employees and their job satisfaction (H5 and H6), two aspects corroborated by the literature (Avey et al., 2011; Newman et al., 2014; Youssef-Morgan and Luthans, 2015). Employees with high PsyCap perceive themselves as more efficient, are more persistent in problem-solving, seek alternative solutions to achieve goals, and are prepared to deal with adverse events. As such, they will be more motivated to solve work-related problems or develop new business ideas (Luthans and Youssef-Morgan, 2017). The association between PsyCap and job satisfaction has been widely addressed in the literature, as job satisfaction is one of the job attitudes predicted by PsyCap (Avey et al., 2011; Karatepe and Karadas, 2015; Paek et al., 2015). The corroboration of these hypotheses confirms the ability of PsyCap to predict desirable job attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction) and behaviors (e.g. creativity), which demonstrates that hotels must rely on employees’ positive psychological resources as enablers of competitive advantages and distinctive factors. Furthermore, the corroboration of these research hypotheses also has theoretical support, e.g. in the COR theory (Hobfoll et al., 2018) and in the Broaden-and-Built theory (Fredrickson, 2001).

The only hypothesis that was not confirmed established a relationship between the creative personality and job satisfaction (H7). In the literature, this association is yet to be adequately clarified, since some studies argue that creativity is a predictor of job satisfaction (e.g. Zhou and George, 2001) and others state the reverse (e.g. Jaussi et al., 2017). Also, Tavares (2006) discussed that there is limited evidence regarding the impact of creativity on affective states at work (e.g. job satisfaction), since most of the research performed focuses on the association between creativity and job performance. However, the study of Runco (1995) addressed a possible explanation for the negative relationship between creativity and job satisfaction. Employees who do not have time and job resources to implement creative work strategies tend to feel dissatisfied with their work. Also, the fact that employees perform routine activities (e.g. receptionists) may prevent the implementation of creative strategies, which leads to a decrease in job satisfaction. However, this issue should be subject of further research.

Implications for practice

The results of our study have implications for the hospitality industry. Hotel managers should seek to value the contributions of their employees and demonstrate concern about their well-being, which will develop positive perceptions regarding organizational functioning. For example, hotel managers can improve the quality of their feedback, by recognizing workers’ positive contributions and suggestions for hotel functioning and, when necessary, help them to improve their work skills. For this to occur, it is necessary that managers show openness toward employees to receive new contributions/suggestions. Managers can also try to create a supportive environment for employees, which will promote occupational well-being (Paek et al., 2015). Nevertheless, this supportive environment should not seek to solely improve that relationship between employees, but also between employees and managers. Internal studies may also be conducted to assess employees’ well-being levels, which will allow, in case of need, the adoption of human resources management measures aimed at increasing the occupational well-being of the workforce. Lastly, another way to foster organizational support is through the implementation of training programs, with an individual or professional focus, and design of promotion policies based on the merit of workers (Akgunduz et al., 2018a).

Positive perceptions of organizational health will lead to greater satisfaction with work, tasks performed, and work environment. Two strategies may be used to increase organizational health: (a) the creation of work-teams that promote a positive work environment and (b) the development of effective methods to detect (or anticipate) changes in the hospitality sector (Viseu et al., 2015). In addition, it can be useful to define how the different work teams can interact during the work schedule, to perform the usual tasks in hotel operation and/or to solve possible problematic situations. Regarding the flexibility and adaptability to external changes, it is necessary to underline that this sector of activity is influenced by changes in economic cycles and seasonality. By knowing the hotel’s policies, practices, and procedures, employees will develop a more complete understanding of the functioning of their organization. Thus, when facing situations of change, employees will already know the tools they have available to deal with them.

The emergence of job satisfaction, a work-related positive affect, is crucial for the increase of employees’ morale and decrease of absenteeism and turnover intention rates (Meng and Han, 2014). From a business perspective, satisfied employees lead to better service quality, which will contribute to increased customer satisfaction (Li et al., 2017). The fact that PsyCap promotes the creativity and job satisfaction of hotel employees makes it a valuable construct, since there are training and intervention programs destined to foster this individual variable (e.g. Psychological Capital Intervention [PCI]; Luthans et al., 2006). Through the PCI, employees develop strategies aimed at improving their PsyCap levels. It must be emphasized that when intervening in one dimension, the other dimensions will also suffer the positive effects of the intervention. For example, at the end of the intervention and relatively to the hope dimension, an employee must be able to define which work-related goals are more important for him/her (Luthans et al., 2006). These goals should be clear, measurable, and, when necessary, be divided into subgoals (Luthans et al., 2006). Regarding the optimism dimension, workers should identify possible adverse situations and create alternative strategies to minimize their effects (Luthans et al., 2006). In turn, the promotion of self-efficacy, through social persuasion, aims at helping individuals in the definition of plans and in the identification of the resources needed for goal achievement (Luthans et al., 2015). Lastly, at the resilience level, employees must think about previous negative situations and how they were overcome, considering the options available to act and that there are aspects that cannot be decided by an employee (e.g. due to reduced decision latitude; Luthans et al., 2006). Recently, Luthans and Youssef-Morgan (2017) proposed four actions to foster PsyCap (a) establish work goals that are clear and measurable, (b) define alternative methods for problem-solving, (c) try to receive constructive feedback from managers, and (d) think about past adverse events and reflect on how they were overcome.

Theoretical contribution

Theoretically, this paper provides new insights on the relationship between constructs and corroborates past research. For example, past works (e.g. Avey, 2014) addressed the need to investigate the possible antecedents of PsyCap. As in the work of Viseu et al. (2015), this study demonstrated that organizational health could be an antecedent of PsyCap. Furthermore, given the need to address the outcomes of organizational health, it was also registered that job satisfaction is one of the consequents of this construct. Moreover, the association between perceived organizational support and organizational health underlined that when employees feel that their organization value their contributions and well-being, then they will develop positive perceptions about organizational functioning. Therefore, the analysis of this relationship allowed the identification of a new antecedent of organizational health. Lastly, our study did not allow advances on the relationship between creativity and job satisfaction. In this study, it was defined that employees who can act creatively at their workplace will present greater job satisfaction, situation that was not confirmed.

Limitations and future research

This study has limitations worth considering. Firstly, our study solely considered hotel employees from the Algarve, which influences the possibility of generalizing our results to the Portuguese context. Moreover, the cross-sectional design of our study prevented the inference of causality, which would be useful to clarify the direction of the relationship between creativity and job satisfaction (e.g. creativity as a predictor of job satisfaction, job satisfaction as a predictor of creativity, or bidirectional association between creativity and job satisfaction). Future studies should consider hotel workers from other regions of Portugal and use a longitudinal design, which would allow the inference of causality.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This paper was financed by National Funds provided by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the project UIDB/04020/2020.

ORCID iDs

João Viseu

Patrícia Pinto

Auhtor Biographies

João Viseu is an Invited Assistant Professor of Faculty of Human and Social Sciences at the University of Algarve. He is also Integrated Researcher at the Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs).

Patrícia Pinto is an Associate Professor with Aggregation of Faculty of Economics at the University of Algarve. She is also an Integrated Researcher at the Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs).

Sérgio Borralha is a Collaborator Researcher at the Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs).

Saul Neves de Jesus is a Full Professor of Faculty of Human and Social Sciences at the University of Algarve. He is also an Integrated Researcher at the Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs).

References

Agapito

Pinto

and Mendes

(2017) Tourists’ memories, sensory impressions and loyalty: In loco and post-visit study in Southwest Portugal. Tourism Management 58: 108–118.

Akgunduz

Alkan

Gok

(2018a) Perceived organizational support employee creativity and proactive personality: The mediating effect of meaning of work. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 34: 105–114.

Akgunduz

Kizilcalioglu

Sanli

(2018b) The effects of job satisfaction and meaning of work on employee creativity: An investigation of EXPO 2016 exhibition employees. Tourism 66(2): 130–147.

Amabile

Barsade

Mueller

, et al. (2005) Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly 50: 367–403.

Andraz

Norte

Gonçalves

(2015) Effects of tourism on regional asymmetries: Empirical evidence for Portugal. Tourism Management 50: 257–267.

Appiah

(2019) Community-based corporate social responsibility activities and employee job satisfaction in the US hotel industry: An explanatory study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 38: 140–148.

Avey

(2014) The left side of positive psychological capital: New evidence on the antecedents of PsyCap. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 21: 141–149.

Avey

Reichard

Luthans

, et al. (2011) Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes behaviors and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly 22: 127–152.

Bagozzi

(1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16: 74–94.

10.

Brown

Charlwood

Spencer

(2012) Not all that it might seem: Why job satisfaction is worth studying despite it being a poor summary measure of job quality? Work Employment and Society 26: 1007–1018.

11.

Cheng

O-Yang

(2018) Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. International Journal of Hospitality Management 72: 78–85.

12.

Daskin

(2019) The role of job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation on hygienic attitudes and behaviours in fast-food restaurants. Tourism 67: 59–72.

13.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchinson

, et al. (1986) Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 500–507.

14.

Finnley

DiStefano

(2006) Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation models. In: Hancock

Mueller

(eds) Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing, pp.269–314.

15.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50.

16.

Fredrickson

(2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden and built theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56: 218–226.

17.

Garcês

Pocinho

Jesus

, et al. (2015) Validation of the creative personality scale. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica 40: 17–24.

18.

Gomide Júnior S and Fernandes M (2008) Saúde Organizacional [Organizational health]. In: Siqueira M (coord) Medidas Do Comportamento Organizacional: Ferramentas de Diagnóstico e de Gestão [Organizational Behavior Measures: Diagnostic Tools and Management]. Porto Alegre: Artmed, pp.275–282.

19.

Gupta

Singh

(2014) Psychological capital as a mediator of the relationship between leadership and creative performance behaviors: Empirical evidence from the Indian Rand D sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25: 1373–1394.

20.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis 7th Edition New York: Pearson.

21.

Hantula

(2015) Job satisfaction: The management tool and leadership responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 35: 81–94.

22.

Harman

(1967) Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

23.

Hobfoll

Halbesleben

Nevey

, et al. (2018) Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 5: 103–128.

24.

Jaussi

Knights

Gupta

(2017) Feeling good being intentional and their relationship to two types of creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal 29: 377–386.

25.

Jesus SN, Viseu J, Lobo P, et al. (2016) Validação de uma medida de saúde organizacional para a população portuguesa [Validation of an organizational health measure for the Portuguese population]. In: Chambel MJ (ed) Psicologia da Saúde Ocupacional [Occupational Health Psychology]. Lisboa: Pactor, pp.51–69.

26.

Judge

Bono

Locke

(2000) Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. The Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 237–249.

27.

Judge

Bono

(2001) Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem – generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 80–92.

28.

Judge

Cl Dalal

(2011) Job satisfaction and job affect. In: Kozlowski

SWJ

(ed) The Oxford Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.496–525.

29.

Judge

Kammeyer-Mueller

(2012) Job attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 341–367.

30.

Karatepe

Karadas

(2015) Do psychological capital and work engagement foster frontline employees’ satisfaction? A study in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27: 1254–1278.

31.

Kim

Hon

Crant

(2009) Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology 24: 93–103.

32.

Kong

Jiang

Chan

, et al. (2018) Job satisfaction research in the field of hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30: 2178–2194.

33.

(2017) Knowledge mapping of hospitality research: A visual analysis using CiteSpace. International Journal of Hospitality Management 60: 77–93.

34.

Lima ML, Vala J and Monteiro MB (1995) A satisfação organizacional [Organizational satisfaction]. In: Vala J, Monteiro MB, Lima L, et al. (eds) Psicologia Social Das Organizações: Estudos em Empresas Portuguesas [Social Psychology of Organizations: Research in Portuguese Organizations] (2ª ed). Oeiras: Celta Editora, pp.101–122.

35.

Liu

Jiang

Shalley

, et al. (2016) Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 137: 236–263.

36.

Luthans

Avey

Avolio

, et al. (2006) Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27: 387–393.

37.

Luthans

Avey

Patera

(2008) Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning & Education 7: 209–221.

38.

Luthans

Youssef

Avolio

(2007) Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. New York: Oxford University Press.

39.

Luthans

Youssef-Morgan

Avolio

(2015) Psychological Capital and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.

40.

Luthans

Youssef-Morgan

(2017) Psychological capital: An evidence-based approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4: 339–366.

41.

Meng

Han

(2014) The effects of empowerment on employee psychological hotels in upscale hotels. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 23: 218–237.

42.

McPhail

Patiar

Herington

, et al. (2015) Development and initial validation of a hospitality employees’ job satisfaction index: Evidence from Australia. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27: 1814–1838.

43.

Newman

Ucbasaran

Zhu

, et al. (2014) Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35: 120–138.

44.

Ozturk

Karatepe

(2018) Frontline hotel employees’ psychological capital trust in organization and their effects on nonattendance intentions absenteeism and creative performance. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 28: 217–239.

45.

Paek

Schuckert

Kim

, et al. (2015) Why is hospitality employees’ psychological capital important? The effects of psychological capital on work engagement and employee morale. International Journal of Hospitality Management 50: 9–26.

46.

Park

Johnson

Chaudhuri

(2019) Promoting work engagement in the hotel sector: Review and analysis. Management Research Review 42: 971–990.

47.

Riggle

Edmondson

Hansen

(2009) A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research 62: 1027–1030.

48.

Roni

(2014) Introduction to SPSS. School of Business, Edith Cowan University, Australia. Available at: www.researchgate.net/publication/262151892_Introduction_to_SPSS

49.

Runco

(1995) The creativity and job satisfaction of artists in organizations. Empirical Studies of the Arts 13: 39–45.

50.

Santos J and Gonçalves G (2010) Contribuição para a adaptação portuguesa da escala de Perceção de Suporte Organizacional de Eisenberger Huntington Hutchison e Sowa (1986) [Contribution for the Portuguese adaptation of the Perceived Organizational Support Scale of Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa (1986)]. Laboratório de Psicologia 8: 213–223.

51.

Southgate

Mondo

(2017) Perceptions of job satisfaction and distributive justice: A case of Brazilian FandB hotel employees. Tourism 65: 87–102.

52.

Statistics Portugal (2019) Tourism Statistics of 2018. Lisbon: Statistics Portugal.

53.

Stinglhamber

Ohana

Caesens

, et al. (2020) Perceived organizational support: The interactive role of coworkers’ perceptions and employees’ voice. Employee Relations: The International Journal 42: 107–124.

54.

Tavares

(2016) How does creativity at work influence employee’s positive affect at work? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 25: 525–539.

55.

Turismo de Portugal (2018) Tourism in Portugal 2018. Lisbon.

56.

Vargas-Sánchez

Valle

Mendes

, et al. (2015) Residents’ attitude and level of destination development. Tourism Management 48: 199–210.

57.

Viseu J, Jesus SN, Rus C, et al. (2012) Capital psicológico e sua avaliação com o PCQ-12 [Psychological capital and its' assessment with PCQ-12] ECOS. – Estudos Contemporâneos de Subjetividade 2: 4–17.

58.

Viseu

Rus

(2015) How organizational justice and health influence teachers’ work engagement? The mediating role of positive psychological capital and job satisfaction. The European Health Psychologist 17: 165–173.

59.

Youssef-Morgan

Luthans

(2015) Psychological capital and well-being. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress 31: 180–188.

60.

Zhou

George

(2001) When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal 44: 682–696.