The Influence of Social Perceptions on Restaurant Employee Work Engagement and Extra-Role Customer Service Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of restaurant employees’ social perceptions of their supervisors on employees’ work engagement and extra-role customer service behavior. We also assessed restaurant employees’ social perceptions of their coworkers as a moderator. Utilizing an online survey design, data were collected from frontline restaurant employees via an online commercial subject pool (N = 477). Results showed that the more employees perceive their supervisors as warm, competent, and moral, the more employees were willing to engage in extra-role customer service behavior via the indirect effect of increased work engagement. The effect of work engagement on extra-role customer service was also found to be more pronounced when employees developed positive social perceptions of their coworkers. These results offer implications for work engagement, as they suggest a new antecedent in the form of social perceptions, as well as a boundary condition to the positive outcomes of engagement through the interactive effect of social perceptions of coworkers and extra-role customer service behavior. In doing so, these results also shed light on the relevance of social perceptions in hospitality operations.

Keywords

social perceptions restaurants coworkers supervisors work engagement extra-role customer service warmth competence morality

Introduction

Work engagement has become a strategic goal for businesses around the world. Engaged employees are important for organizational effectiveness; they perform better and are more productive (Young et al., 2018). Yet while the percentage of engaged workers in the United States rose slightly in 2018, only 34% were actually engaged while 53% of employees were not engaged. Even more concerning was that 13% of American employees were actively disengaged (Harter, 2018). Nonengaged employees are generally satisfied but not attached to their work or workplace, meaning they show up to work and do the minimum required but they aren’t connected; these employees will leave their company as soon as they obtain a better job offer elsewhere. In comparison, actively disengaged employees are those who have miserable work experiences, often complaining to coworkers, lowering morale, and participating in nonproductive inappropriate behaviors while on the job, including watching Netflix, shopping online, playing pranks on coworkers, or napping (Harter, 2018; Wilkie, 2017). This lost productivity can cost U.S. businesses up to US$550 billion annually (Ray et al., 2017). Conversely, extant research shows that work engagement is linked to positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, employee performance, and lower absenteeism and turnover (Salanova et al., 2003; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Martínez, et al., 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002).

Furthermore, extensive research focused on the quality of work relationships has demonstrated how such relationships can positively impact work engagement and subsequent behaviors. These studies have largely organized work relationships into one of two broad categories of antecedents to employee engagement: leadership, especially leader–member exchange (Breevaart et al., 2015; Christian et al., 2011; Kim & Koo, 2017) and perceived social support (Lee & Ok, 2015; Li et al., 2012; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2009; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Critically, within these categories of work relationships, both supervisors and coworkers represent important stakeholders who can influence employees’ work engagement and, of particular relevance to the hospitality sector, their service performance.

However, as noted by Lee and Ok (2015), hospitality researchers still need to find additional predictors of work engagement. This is important not only from a theoretical perspective but also from a practical one given that the accommodation and food services sector suffers from much higher turnover rates than the rest of the private sector. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019), the accommodation and food services sector had an average turnover rate of 74.9% in 2018 while the overall private sector had an average turnover rate of 49.0%. High turnover is a corollary for high levels of disengagement (Harter, 2018), and companies with disengaged employees tend to be less productive and possess lower customer loyalty than firms with a high-engagement culture (Harter, 2018; Sims, 2015).

This study advances the research on work engagement and hospitality research in three ways. First, we suggest a new antecedent of work engagement: social perceptions. Social perceptions or evaluations are universal dimensions of social cognition, as they help people to quickly evaluate or judge others based on social and professional interactions (Fiske et al., 2007). Social perceptions are comprised of three fundamental dimensions: warmth, competence, and morality. Warmth encompasses traits related to perceived sociability, competence reflects traits associated with perceived ability, and morality portrays traits connected to perceived honesty (Leach et al., 2007). Although social perceptions started to gain researchers’ attention back in the 1940s, a small number of studies have measured their effects in a corporate setting (Cuddy et al., 2011). Indeed, the few organizational behavior studies to measure the effects of social perceptions in hospitality literature focused on four main outcomes: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and firm performance (Bufquin, DiPietro, Orlowski, et al., 2017, 2018; Bufquin, DiPietro, Park, et al., 2017; Bufquin, DiPietro, Partlow, et al., 2018). However, social perceptions are so significant that they contribute to as much as 95% of people’s overall evaluations of others (Wojciszke et al., 1998; Wojciszke & Klusek, 1996), and thus in the workplace, they contribute to how employees perceive or judge both their supervisors and their coworkers. Accordingly, given the importance of work relationships in predicting behavior, testing whether social perceptions of supervisors can be an antecedent to work engagement is a clear contribution to the literature.

Second, we consider extra-role customer service behavior as a positive outcome of both social perceptions of supervisors and work engagement. Drawing on attitude theory, we examine work engagement as the linking mechanism between social perceptions of supervisors and extra-role customer service behavior.

Third, we consider the interactional effect of work engagement and social perceptions of coworkers. By introducing social perceptions of coworkers as a boundary condition in the relationship between work engagement and extra-role customer service behavior, this study extends our understanding of how such judgments may enhance or detract from the effect of engagement on workplace outcomes.

In sum, the current study investigates how social perceptions can influence work engagement and subsequent behavior in this specific sector. The specific objectives of this study are threefold: (a) to examine the relationship between social perceptions of supervisors and front-line employee extra-role customer service behaviors; (b) to examine the mediating effect of work engagement on this relationship; and (c) to assess social perceptions of coworkers as a moderator of the mediating effect of work engagement. Due to the importance of supervisors and coworkers in the workplace, the goal is to help restaurateurs improve the ways supervisors and frontline employees are judged or evaluated by their respective subordinates and coworkers to have more engaged employees, so that the latter can adopt service-oriented behaviors. This in turn should improve restaurants’ organizational and financial outcomes (Bates, 2004; Baumruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Saks, 2006).

Literature Review

Social Perceptions

One of the first authors to study social perceptions was Asch (1946), who described the prominence of two social attributes often used by people when they evaluate others, namely their perceived warmth and competence. Warmth encompasses traits connected to perceived intent, such as friendliness and helpfulness, whereas competence reflects traits associated with perceived ability, including skill, intelligence, creativity, and efficacy (Fiske et al., 2007). In recent years, researchers have demonstrated that warmth and competence are two universal dimensions of human social cognition, both from an individual perspective and a group perspective (Fiske et al., 2007). Although most contemporary research has focused on the warmth and competence constructs, Leach et al. (2007) reported that morality is more important for in-group evaluations than warmth and competence perceptions. Morality, which includes traits such as honesty and trustworthiness, has long been considered by traditional Western psychology as the most important human virtue (MacIntyre, 1984). Interestingly, these three traits are associated with humanness perceptions (Gray et al., 2007; Harris & Fiske, 2009; Haslam, 2006).

Although other studies have used similar constructs, such as impression formation (e.g., Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Wyer & Srull, 2014) and person perception (e.g., Forgas & Bower, 1987; Swann, 1984), social perceptions represent traits which people use to evaluate others in both social and professional settings (Fiske et al., 2007). Moreover, as mentioned earlier, these traits can be used to evaluate single individuals as well as larger groups (Allport, 1954; Bettelheim & Janowitz, 1950). Furthermore, studies have shown that warmth, competence, and morality perceptions contribute to as much as 95% of people’s overall evaluations of others (Wojciszke et al., 1998; Wojciszke & Klusek, 1996); much more than any other related construct previously developed in social psychology.

Although previous studies have demonstrated that warmth, competence, and morality are distinct in-group characteristics (Leach et al., 2007), a recent study by Bufquin, DiPietro, Orlowski, et al. (2018) showed that warmth and competence perceptions represent a single dimension, thus contradicting a variety of sociological and social psychology studies (e.g., Cuddy et al., 2008; Wojciszke et al., 1998). Similarly, in another study by Bufquin, DiPietro, Orlowski, et al. (2017), a high correlation was found between warmth and competence evaluations (r = .86). A third study also supported the unidimensionality of the social perceptions construct, as Bufquin, DiPietro, Partlow, et al. (2018) revealed through a cluster analysis that restaurant employees tend to evaluate their managers and coworkers in opposing ways: as either warm and competent or as cold and incompetent. Hence, given that social perceptions seem to represent a unique dimension instead of distinct characteristics, the present study will consider warmth, competence, and morality perceptions as a single “social perceptions” dimension, to empirically assess its effects on frontline restaurant employees’ work engagement and extra-role customer service behavior.

Extra-Role Customer Service Behavior

Performance that extends beyond an employee’s “in-role” job requirements has been defined in a number of conceptually comparable ways in organizational literature, including contextual performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), prosocial behavior, and extra-role behavior (Moliner et al., 2008). As the present study is focused on frontline restaurant employees, we concentrate specifically on extra-role customer service behaviors, which are one facet or dimension of Bettencourt and Brown’s (1997) model of prosocial service behaviors. Extra-role customer service behavior refers to the “discretionary behaviors of contact employees in serving customers that extend beyond formal role requirements” (Bettencourt & Brown, 1997, p. 41). These are the behaviors that, in the jargon of the hospitality industry, reflect front-line employees going above and beyond, providing memorable service experiences, and exceeding guest expectations, which in turn influence customer perceptions of service quality and customer satisfaction (Kang et al., 2020). Such behaviors are also critical for effective service recovery (Karatepe, 2015).

Based on evidence from both organizational and hospitality literature, leaders can have an impact on their employees’ service-related behaviors. For example, in a recent study by Tang and Tsaur (2016), a supervisory support climate was found to have a positive effect on the service-oriented OCBs of front-line hotel employees. A supervisory support climate implies that supervisors are concerned about employees’ needs (Eisenberger et al., 2002), while service-oriented OCB is defined as the citizenship behavior (i.e., extra-role behavior) of service employees toward customers (Bettencourt et al., 2001).

In another study of travel agents from Hong Kong, findings indicated that leader–member exchange (LMX) is positively associated with travel agents’ organizational citizenship behavior (Chow et al., 2015). LMX describes the quality of a relationship between an employee and his or her immediate supervisor (Dansereau et al., 1975). Because the quality of such relationships can vary between high and low (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), the social exchange theory (SET) posits that employees generally perceive an obligation to reciprocate high-quality work relationships with their leaders over time (Blau, 1964). Furthermore, SET implies that the fair and ethical treatment displayed by a party is likely to engender the feeling of indebtedness or obligation to reciprocate by engaging in behaviors needed in the work environment (Garba et al., 2018). This was demonstrated by Garba et al. (2018), who found that ethical leadership positively influenced customer-driven OCBs in their study of hotel workers.

Based on this theoretical framework, it is reasonable to suggest that frontline restaurant employees who evaluate their direct supervisors as warm, competent, and moral will want to reciprocate such positive social traits and, as a result, will tend to develop customer-centric behaviors that go beyond their role requirements. As such, we suggest that:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): The social perceptions of restaurant supervisors will positively affect frontline employees’ extra-role customer service.

The Mediating Effect of Work Engagement

Work engagement is defined as a positive affective-motivational state of work-related well-being that generally comprises the following three constructs: vigor, dedication, and absorption (Bakker et al., 2008). As Bakker et al. (2008) explain,

vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. . . . Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work, and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work. (p. 188)

Although work engagement can be examined via a three-factor model, literature has shown that a one-factor model is also acceptable and widely used (e.g., Babakus et al., 2017; Cheng & Chen, 2017; Karatepe & Olugbade, 2016; Schaufeli et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2017).

As a motivational construct, work engagement has been found to play a mediating role, serving as the critical linking mechanism between a number of antecedents and positive work outcomes (Karatepe, 2015; Saks & Gruman, 2014). Saks (2006) found that job and organization engagement mediated the relationships between several antecedents, such as job characteristics, and work outcomes, such as organizational citizenship behaviors. Christian et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis demonstrated that work engagement mediated the relationship between transformational leadership (along with other distal predictors) and both task and contextual job performance.

There is also empirical evidence of work engagement as a mediator in hospitality literature. In a sample of Spanish hotel employees, Molinar et al. (2008) found that procedural and interactional justice indirectly increased extra-role customer service behavior through work engagement. In a series of studies conducted with frontline hotel employees across multiple countries, Karatepe (2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2015) also found support for the mediating effect of work engagement. Although the antecedents varied (e.g., procedural justice, perceptions of organizational politics, high-performance work practices, family support), extra-role customer service behavior was a significant outcome in each study.

Moreover, research has also offered evidence of the relationship between work engagement, leadership, and employee service performance. For instance, a study by Lyu et al. (2016) demonstrated that abusive supervision negatively influenced service employees’ customer-oriented OCB by undermining work engagement. On the contrary, empowering leadership was found to positively influence work engagement, which in turn positively influenced employee service innovation behaviors (Wihuda et al., 2017). Similarly, studies by Li et al. (2012) and by Kim and Koo (2017) both indicated that LMX is positively related to employee job performance, and that work engagement mediates this relationship, thus suggesting the critical role leaders play in fostering work engagement and subsequent performance behaviors. Hence, when employees have good relationships with their immediate supervisors, the former tend to develop increased levels of work engagement, which then ends up improving their service behaviors and performance.

Thus, we suggest that when frontline restaurant employees perceive their immediate supervisors as warm, competent and moral, their work engagement should increase as a result of such positive social perceptions. Furthermore, this heightened work engagement should culminate in the adoption of additional customer service-oriented behaviors by said frontline restaurant employees, as prior literature has shown that engaged employees tend to work hard, remain focused, and put in extra efforts (Kahn, 2010). The proposed influence of social perceptions on extra-role customer service, mediated by work engagement, is supported by the tripartite view of Bagozzi’s (1992) Attitude Theory. This theory suggests that the cognitive evaluations of events, outcomes, and situations precede affective reactions, which in turn influence individuals’ behaviors. As such, frontline restaurant employees who perceive that they work for warm, competent and moral supervisors should have increased work engagement, which would induce them to adopt extra-role customer service behaviors. Based on the aforesaid literature and theory, it is suggested that:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Work engagement will mediate the effects of social perceptions of restaurant supervisors on frontline employees’ extra-role customer service.

The Moderating Effect of Coworkers’ Warmth, Competence, and Morality

Limited research has examined the influence coworkers may have on an employee’s work engagement and/or work behaviors, including service-related behaviors. Generally, the research that does explore these relationships considers coworkers within the context of some form of support, such as emotional support (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2018), instrumental support (Xu et al., 2018), or a more broadly defined construct of social support (Chen & Kao, 2014; Guchait et al., 2014; Karatepe, 2012; Zhu et al., 2019). Perhaps most directly relevant to the current study are the findings of Guchait et al. (2014), who examined the influence of perceived supervisor and coworker support for error management on hospitality employees’ engagement in service recovery performance. Their results indicated that (a) perceived supervisor and coworker support have direct effects on employee engagement in service recovery performance; (b) perceived supervisor and coworker support have a positive interaction effect on perceived psychological safety; and (c) perceived psychological safety has a significant mediating effect between perceived support and employee engagement. In other words, employees believe that they can freely share their service errors when they perceive having the support of both their supervisors and coworkers, and from such belief, they are then able to engage in service recovery.

However, the findings of other studies also suggest that coworkers can play a critical role with respect to influencing workplace outcomes, and that this role is different than that of supervisors. Susskind et al. (2003) argued that an employee’s relationship with their supervisor and their coworkers is different due to the hierarchical nature of the supervisor–employee dyad; thus interactions between an employee and their coworkers may be more open, warm, and friendly (Zhu et al., 2019). Employees may obtain useful information from their coworkers, which can help them solve job-related problems and address challenging customers (Karatepe, 2012). As noted by Guchait et al. (2014), supportive coworkers tend to share their experiences and how they resolve work-related issues, especially when solutions are not easily at hand. Coworker support also positively influences employee attitudes, including overall morale (Susskind et al., 2003) and work engagement (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009), thus also indirectly leading to improved service performance. Conversely, Xu et al. (2018) found that when employees perceive their coworkers to be emotionally supportive, it attenuates the negative effects of abusive supervision.

Accordingly, we suggest it is likely that an employee’s social perceptions of their coworkers (e.g., warmth, competence, and morality) will impact that employee’s extra-role customer service behavior. More specifically, we suggest that social perceptions of coworkers act as a boundary condition on the relationship between work engagement and extra-role customer service behavior. This implies that the more an employee develops positive social perceptions regarding their fellow coworkers, the more significant the influence of work engagement will be on their respective extra-role service behaviors. Since frontline restaurant employees tend to work more closely with their coworkers than with their immediate supervisors, we suggest that positive social perceptions of their coworkers will enhance the effect of employees’ work engagement on extra-role customer service behaviors in a restaurant setting, because warm, competent and moral coworkers will entice frontline employees to engage in superior service performance.

This suggestion is supported by two theoretical frameworks. The first is Tuckman’s (1965) Teamwork Theory, which posits that for teams to reach the “performing” stage, in which team members focus both on tasks and on team relationships, they must first go through three different stages: forming, storming, and norming. In the “forming” stage, individuals have not yet come together and are finding their place within a team. In the “storming” stage, conflict and confrontation often occur as employees become part of a team. In the “norming” stage, employees start to come together and establish processes, ground rules, and clarify who does what. If employees perceive that they work with warm, competent, and moral coworkers, this implies that they are likely in the “performing” stage, in which the team has a high degree of autonomy and focuses on overachieving goals, while also attending to relationships. In this stage, team members look after each other and focus on the tasks that need to be performed. Moreover, in this stage the team is able to stand on its own with no interference or participation from the leader (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

The second theoretical framework is the phenomenon of role models, which is based on the theory of role identification (Gibson, 2003, 2004). A role model refers to an individual who sets examples to be emulated by others, and who may stimulate or inspire other individuals to make certain decisions and achieve certain goals (Basow & Howe, 1980; Shapiro et al., 1978; Wright et al., 1997). Role identification is best described as a cognitive response to an individual’s belief that the characteristics of another person (i.e., the role model) are close to his or her own motivations and character (Kagan, 1958), and that this model plays a desirable role (Bell, 1970). Role identification may result in imitative behaviors and provide someone with the motivation and inspiration to choose a particular direction or activity (Krumboltz et al., 1976). Hence, if frontline restaurant employees perceive that they work with warm, competent, and moral coworkers, their work engagement should lead them to significantly improve their service performance and overdeliver, as employees will be motivated to imitate the attitudes and behaviors of their “model” coworkers. As a result, the following hypothesis is suggested:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The indirect effect of social perceptions of restaurant supervisors on frontline employees’ extra-role customer service through work engagement is moderated by the social perceptions of coworkers.

The influence mechanisms hypothesized above are delineated by a second-stage moderated mediation model, as portrayed by Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual Model.

Method

Design and Sample

We used an online survey design for this study. All participants were recruited from a Qualtrics commercial subject pool over a 2-week period at a cost of US$10 per useable survey, which targeted U.S.-based frontline restaurant employees. As part of the design, we included a screening question at the beginning of the survey to ensure respondents were employed in a nonmanagerial role in the restaurant industry. A total of 920 responses were collected, and 394 were deleted based on the response to the screening question. An additional 49 responses were deleted for failure to pass embedded attention check questions, leaving a useable sample of 477 (106 males, M_age = 33.1 years ± 12.2 SD). Among the respondents, the mean tenure in the restaurant industry was 3.7 years, 54.5% were full-time employees, and 64.4% were front-of-house employees. Additional demographics of the sample are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Profile.

Variable	M (SD)	Median	Range
Age	33.1 (12.17)	29.0	17.0–67.0
Tenure	3.7 (4.42)	2.3	0.0–30.1
Hours worked per week	31.6 (10.65)	32.0	4.0–64.0
		n ^a	%
Restaurant structure
Chain		269	56.6
Independent		206	43.4
Total		475	100.0
Segment
Quick service		85	17.9
Fast casual		79	16.7
Casual		139	29.3
Upscale casual		59	12.4
Fine dining		27	5.7
Other		85	17.9
Total		474	100.0
Work status
Full-time		260	54.5
Part-time		217	45.5
Total		477	100.0
Shift
Breakfast		93	19.5
Lunch		115	24.1
Dinner		229	48.0
Late night		40	8.4
Total		477	100.0
Work area
Back of house		145	30.4
Front of house		307	64.4
Administrative		25	5.2
Total		477	100.0
Gender
Male		106	22.2
Female		371	77.8
Total		477	100.0
Marital status
Single		207	43.4
Living together		103	21.6
Married		114	23.9
Separated		14	2.9
Divorced		32	6.7
Widowed		7	1.5
Total		477	100.0
Education
Less than high school		17	3.6
High school		151	31.7
Some college		228	47.8
Bachelor’s degree		64	13.4
Master’s degree		17	3.6
Total		477	100.0
Income
Less than US$20,000		172	36.1
US$20,000–US$24,999		117	24.5
US$25,000–US$29,999		54	11.3
US$30,000–US$34,999		40	8.4
US$35,000–US$44,999		32	6.7
US$45,000 or more		62	13.0
Total		477	100.0

Subcategories may not total to 477 due to missing data.

Measures

Social perceptions

Social perceptions were measured twice with the same nine items, or traits, from Leach et al. (2007), with the wording adjusted accordingly to reflect either managers or coworkers. Sample statements included “I consider my immediate supervisor/coworkers at my restaurant to be likable,” “I consider my immediate supervisor/coworkers at my restaurant to be competent,” and “I consider my immediate supervisor/coworkers at my restaurant to be honest.” Respondents rated the items from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree for both sets of social perceptions items.

Work engagement

Work engagement was measured with nine items from Schaufeli et al. (2006). Sample items included “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” and “I feel proud of the work that I do.” Respondents rated the items from 1 = never to 7 = always.

Extra-role customer service behavior

Extra-role customer service behavior was measured with four items from Bettencourt and Brown (1997) and Karatepe (2015) and included items such as “I voluntarily assist customers even if it means going beyond job requirements” and “I help customers with problems beyond what is expected or required.” Respondents rated the items from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Social desirability

Social desirability bias is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others, and can be a common problem with self-report survey designs (Zikmund et al., 2013). As this study included measures with the potential for biased responding (e.g., extra-role customer service behavior), a 4-item social desirability scale was also included, with responses coded 0 = No and 1 = Yes (sample item: “Would you ever lie to people?”). Scores for the social desirability items were summed, with higher scores indicating a higher tendency toward socially desirable responses (Haghighat, 2007).

Demographic profile

A total of 11 work-related and sociodemographic variables were included in the survey such as restaurant segment, hours worked per week, shift, work area, age, and income (see Table 1).

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Table 2 reports the mean values, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables. Prior to hypothesis testing, we conducted preliminary analysis to determine if there was any effect of social desirability on the measures used in this study. Significant correlations were found between social desirability and social perceptions of coworkers (r = .13, p < .01), employee work engagement (r = .23, p < .001), and extra-role customer service (r =.17, p < .001). However, these relationships only explained minor amounts of variation (1.6%, 5.5%, and 2.7%, respectively), and thus were not deemed critical enough to exclude any participants or to include social desirability as a control variable in the model. The correlation between social desirability and social perceptions of supervisors was not significant (r =.08, p = .096).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

Scales	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Social perceptions of supervisors	5.41	1.239	(.940)
2. Social perceptions of coworkers	5.11	1.068	.450***	(.936)
3. Work engagement	4.73	1.173	.379***	.439***	(.903)
4. Extra-role customer service behaviors	5.93	0.982	.099*	.120**	.381***	(.885)

Note. Cronbach’s alpha values for measurement scales are reported on the diagonal.

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Then, both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted prior to hypothesis testing. Although all scales used in this study were established and validated through prior literature, we opted to first perform exploratory factory analysis (EFA) due to the varying results from prior literature regarding the dimensionality of both social perceptions and work engagement. Using a randomly drawn subsample of approximately 40% of the data (N = 221), the 31 items that addressed social perceptions of managers, social perceptions of coworkers, work engagement, and extra-role customer service behavior were entered into an EFA with maximum likelihood factoring and Promax rotation. The Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.903 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (χ² = 4,866.423 [df = 465, p < .001]); thus, the sample was considered appropriate for EFA. The rotated solution returned four dimensions and, notably, all nine items for social perceptions of supervisors loaded onto a single factor, as did all nine items for social perceptions of coworkers. This result aligned with the more recent work suggesting that “social perceptions” is a unidimensional construct (Bufquin, DiPietro, Orlowski, et al., 2018). Work engagement was also unidimensional, which has been supported by prior studies (Babakus et al., 2017; Cheng & Chen, 2017; Karatepe & Olugbade, 2016; Schaufeli et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2017), although two items had significant but low factor loadings. As expected, extra-role customer service behavior was unidimensional as well. Together, the four factors accounted for 64.0% of the variance. The Cronbach’s alpha for each factor exceeded .70, indicating a high level of reliability: social perceptions of managers = .94; social perceptions of coworkers = .93; work engagement = .87; and extra-role customer service behavior = .88.

Then, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the maximum likelihood estimator was conducted on the entire sample based on the results of the EFA. MPlus v8.0 was used for this analysis (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Although initial model fit was acceptable (χ² = 1,362.153 [df = 428, p < .001], root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.068, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.043, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.907), the two work engagement items with the low factor loadings in the EFA were removed from the measurement model due to nonsignificant loadings. Fit of the adjusted measurement model was improved (χ² = 1,147.194 [df = 370, p < .001], RMSEA = 0.066, SRMR = 0.041, CFI = 0.921) and all factor loadings were significant with loadings above 0.60. The subsequent average variance extracted (AVE) values were all above 0.50, ranging from 0.57 to 0.66, while the construct reliabilities were all above .90 (see Table 3). The interconstruct squared correlations ranged from .01 to .23 and thus were all lower than their corresponding AVE values. Collectively, these results provided evidence for both convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs (Hair et al., 2010).

Table 3.

Convergent Validity Estimates.

Items	Std. Loading	AVE	Construct Reliability
Social perceptions of supervisors (I consider my immediate supervisor at my restaurant to be . . .)		0.632	.939
Honest	0.855
Sincere	0.841
Trustworthy	0.830
Likable	0.801
Warm	0.757
Friendly	0.749
Competent	0.770
Intelligent	0.804
Skilled	0.740
Social perceptions of coworkers (I consider my coworkers at this restaurant to be . . .)		0.622	.937
Honest	0.811
Sincere	0.825
Trustworthy	0.813
Likable	0.789
Warm	0.792
Friendly	0.750
Competent	0.766
Intelligent	0.787
Skilled	0.760
Work engagement		0.573	.903
At my work, I feel bursting with energy	0.724
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous	0.733
I am enthusiastic about my job	0.835
My job inspires me	0.819
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work	0.733
I feel happy when I am working intensely	0.757
I am proud of the work that I do	0.686
Extra-role customer service behavior		0.664	.976
I voluntarily assist customers even if it means going beyond job requirements	0.747
I willingly go out of my way to make a customer satisfied	0.799
I often go above and beyond the call of duty when serving customers	0.850
I help customers with problems beyond what is expected or required	0.859

AVE: average variance extracted.

We also compared the fit of the adjusted measurement model to a series of alternative models which addressed the dimensionality variations of social perceptions and work engagement. These models are summarized in Table 4 and collectively supported retaining social perceptions and work engagement as unidimensional constructs. For social perceptions, the fit indices suggested the first-order three-factor model was actually a better fit than the unidimensional model (Δχ² = 394.34, Δdf = 22, p < .001); however, further examination revealed that when warmth, competence, and morality were modeled separately, these factors were so highly correlated they failed to achieve discriminant validity for both perceptions of supervisors and perceptions of coworkers. Given this result, it was deemed unnecessary to test a second-order model of social perceptions. For work engagement, the fit of our adjusted measurement model was significantly better than either alternative model (first-order three-factor model Δχ² = 80.79, Δdf = 48, p < .01; second-order model Δχ² = 91.08, Δdf = 55, p < .01).

Table 4.

Measurement Model Comparisons.

Measurement Models	χ² (df)	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI
Hypothesized Model 1: Baseline	1,362.15 (428)	0.068	0.043	0.907
Hypothesized Model 2: Adjusted	1,147.19 (370)	0.066	0.041	0.921
Alternative Model 3: Social perceptions modeled as three first-order factors^a	752.85 (348)	0.051	0.035	0.945
Alternative Model 4: Work engagement modeled as three first-order factors	1,227.98 (418)	0.064	0.042	0.919
Alternative Model 5: Work engagement modeled as a higher order factor	1,238.27 (425)	0.063	0.043	0.919
Alternative Model 6: Common method variance test^b	5,642.04 (377)	0.171	0.153	0.468

Note. All alternative models compared against Model 2. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean squared residual; CFI = comparative fit index.

Failed discriminant validity test for both supervisors and coworkers. ^bAll items loaded onto single latent factor.

To complete our preliminary analyses, we assessed common method variance (CMV) with a final CFA. Fitting a single common latent factor to all items used in our study did not fit the data well, returning extremely poor indices (χ² = 5,642.04 [df = 377, p < .001], RMSEA = 0.171, SRMR = 0.153, CFI = 0.468). This indicated that the potential for CMV to influence the results due to the use of a self-report questionnaire and single-source data collection method was minimal (Podsakoff et al., 2012).

Hypothesis Testing

As this study conceptualized a second-stage moderated mediation model, hypothesis testing was conducted in SPSS v24.0 using PROCESS Model 14 (Hayes, 2013). This allowed us to test all three hypotheses simultaneously, as PROCESS calculates moderated mediation, or conditional indirect effects (the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable through a mediating variable for different levels of, or conditioned on, a moderating variable), while also taking into account any direct effects in the model. For this analysis 10,000 bootstrap samples were used, and conditional indirect effects were considered statistically significant if the bootstrapped confidence interval did not contain zero.

As depicted in Figure 2, the direct effect of social perceptions of restaurant supervisors on employee extra-role customer service behavior was nonsignificant (b = −0.027, β = −.034, p = .48); thus, H1 was not supported. However, the index of moderated mediation was significant (index = 0.031, SE = 0.013, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.005, 0.058]), which supports both the presence of an indirect effect of social perceptions of restaurant supervisors on employee extra-role customer service behavior through work engagement, and indicates that this indirect effect is a function of social perceptions of coworkers. Therefore, H2 and H3 were both supported.

Figure 2.

Statistical Model Results.

Given the support for H3, we further explored the moderating effect of the social perceptions of coworkers. Using a spotlight analysis technique, we probed the interaction by looking at conditional effects of social perceptions of restaurant supervisors (the focal predictor) at different values of social perceptions of coworkers (the moderator); specifically, the mean, one standard deviation above the mean, and one standard deviation below the mean of the moderator. The indirect effect of social perceptions of restaurant managers on extra-role customer service through employee work engagement was significant for all values, as the boot-strapped confidence intervals all excluded zero, but the indirect effect was increasingly positive as social perceptions of coworkers increased (see Figure 3). The point estimate for employees with moderate social perceptions of their coworkers was 0.123 (95% CI = [0.080, 0.173]), as compared with 0.090 (95% CI = [0.046, 0.142]) for employees with low social perceptions of their coworkers and 0.156 (95% CI = [0.102, 0.221]) for employees with high social perceptions of their coworkers. In short, higher perceptions of supervisors leads to increased work engagement among restaurant employees, and this in turn leads to increased extra-role customer service behavior. The effect is enhanced when an employee’s social perception of their coworkers is higher; on the contrary, this effect is depressed when employees have low perceptions of their coworkers’ warmth, competence, and morality.

Figure 3.

The Moderating Effect of Social Perceptions of Coworkers.

Discussion

The present study examined the influence of frontline restaurant employees’ social judgments or perceptions, as related to their supervisors and coworkers, on employees’ work engagement and extra-role customer service behavior. A moderated mediation process was revealed to be the mechanism through which restaurant employees’ social perceptions of these two stakeholder groups (i.e., supervisors and coworkers) ultimately influence their extra-role customer service behavior. Notably, the lack of a direct influence of employees’ social perceptions of their supervisors on employees’ extra-role customer service behavior was also revealed. Our results demonstrated that when an employee has a positive social perception of their supervisor, their extra-role customer service behavior increased; however, this influence operated indirectly through increased work engagement. Independent of this mechanism, there was no evidence of an effect of supervisors on employee extra-role customer service behavior. Moreover, an employee’s social perception of their coworkers played a critical role, as it provided a boundary condition for the mediation mechanism.

Theoretical Implications

The current study provides several theoretical contributions to the current literature on work engagement, social perceptions, and extra-role customer service behavior. First, our study contributes to the literature on work engagement by demonstrating that employees’ social perceptions of supervisors can be an antecedent. This study is among the first to propose and provide empirical evidence for this relationship. Although prior research has studied the influence of supervisors on employee work engagement, it has largely been conceptualized as leader–member exchange and/or transformational leadership (Christian et al., 2011; Saks & Gruman, 2014). Our findings were consistent with the literature linking high-quality leader–employee relationships with positive job attitudes, as they suggest that when an employee maintains a positive social judgment of their supervisors, they are more willing to be actively engaged in their work.

Second, our study adds to the current understanding of work engagement as the underlying process connecting job resources to workplace outcomes. Drawing on attitude theory (Bagozzi, 1992), we found that employees’ positive social perceptions of their supervisor leads to increased extra-role customer service behavior; however, there was not a direct relationship. Critically, the impact of social perceptions of supervisors on extra-role customer service behavior only operated indirectly through work engagement. The lack of a direct effect, although a nonsignificant result within the context of this study, aligns with the work of Karatepe (2011), Karatepe (2013b), Karatepe et al. (2013), Li et al. (2012), and Moline et al. (2008). In each of the aforementioned studies, work engagement fully mediated the relationships between hypothesized antecedents and workplace outcomes. This finding is also consistent with attitude theory in that it delineates the process by which cognitive evaluations (e.g., social perceptions) influence affective reactions (e.g., work engagement), which subsequently influence intentions and behavior (e.g., extra-role customer service behavior).

Third, the findings of this study extend our knowledge about the relationship between work engagement and extra-role customer service behavior by showing that an employee’s social perceptions of their coworkers can have a moderating effect. Previous research has focused on coworker social or emotional support, rather than cognitive evaluations (Chen & Kao, 2014; Guchait et al., 2014; Karatepe, 2012; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2019). In addition, findings related to the moderating effects of coworker social support have been inconsistent (Zhu et al., 2019). Our results highlight the importance of coworkers as a stakeholder group, as they demonstrate that an employee’s social perception of their coworkers can enhance or diminish the indirect relationship between that employee’s social perception of their supervisor and their extra-role customer service behavior.

Practical Implications

This study also provides several implications for restaurant managers. First, both supervisors and employees need to be aware of how they are perceived at work. Through social perceptions or judgments, both stakeholder groups can significantly impact employee work engagement and extra-role customer service behavior. This suggests that both supervisors and employees must display warmth, competence, and morality in an authentic fashion. These qualities should be incorporated into the overall culture of the organization and supported through ongoing training, coaching, counseling and rewards programs.

Building a team of supervisors and employees with high levels of warmth, competence, and morality begins at the recruitment and hiring process. Although knowledge and skills do reflect the competence component of social perceptions, our findings indicate that warmth and morality should not be disregarded. Prehire assessments can be used to screen potential candidates and provide scientifically valid and reliable predictive accuracy and rigor to hiring decisions. About 82% of companies use some form of preemployment assessment screening, and the emergence of new technologies offers more advanced methods that move beyond traditional pencil-and-paper multiple-choice formats (Zielinski, 2018). These assessments allow for a hiring manager to screen for “soft” skills, such as the social traits of warmth and morality, that are important in the service environment, as well as to select employees who may be predisposed to experiencing work engagement (Young et al., 2018).

All employees in the restaurant, whether in a supervisory role or a frontline position, should participate in training that emphasizes the “social” aspects and expectations of the job. For example, warmth, competence, and morality can be translated into “soft” (behavioral) and “hard” (technical) core competencies (Woodruffe, 1993) and incorporated into the overall training curriculum. In addition, ongoing coaching and training efforts should focus on providing guidance and resources for employees to utilize during opportunities for extra-role customer service.

Continuing focus, communication and education should also be provided to supervisors and management staff on the importance of teamwork for increased work engagement and coworker support to achieve the desired extra-role customer service behaviors. Teamwork is important in most organizations; however, in the hospitality industry an exceptional level of teamwork is required to meet and exceed guest expectations (Pizam & Shani, 2009). Coordination of a restaurant’s front-of-the-house and back-of-the-house teams is critical for delivering consistent customer service and a quality product. Collaboration among employees to create a product that is more than the sum of the individual parts (guest experience) is certainly the benefit of this effort (Guchait, 2016).

Finally, as discussed in the research by Testa (2001), hospitality leaders need to be mindful of gaps that may exist between their awareness of their leadership effectiveness and the perception of that leadership by their employees. The consequences of such incongruent perceptions could lead to detrimental impacts on the leader’s effectiveness, as well as on employees’ attitudes, work engagement, and performance. There are a wide range of work engagement tools and services available, all focused on gaining insight on employee priorities, satisfaction and organizational commitment (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Although these tools and services may come with a financial investment, the result and payoff can be substantial when utilized by supervisors displaying authentic warmth, competence, and morality.

Limitations and Future Research

Prior studies in this line of research noted limitations that we, while still using a survey design, attempted to overcome. Specifically, the previous work indicated the use of a self-administered survey and data collection from a single restaurant chain as limitations to be addressed in future work (Bufquin, DiPietro, Park, et al., 2017; Bufquin, DiPietro, Orlowski, et al., 2018; Bufquin, DiPietro, Partlow, et al., 2018). Although in this study we also used a self-administered survey, which can inherently by their design result in self-report bias, we included a measure of social desirability to assess the extent to which responses may have been inflated due to a participant’s desire to “look good” and control for it if needed (Haghighat, 2007). We also made use of a commercial subject pool (i.e., an online market research panel composed of people preregistered to complete surveys) for data collection rather than partnering with a single restaurant company or brand. Although recognizing that the subject pool may not be representative of the entire population of restaurant employees in the United States, and thus generalizability is still a limitation of this study, it did allow for respondents from different restaurant segments and brands rather than a limited, restrictive sample from a single restaurant segment and/or organization.

An additional limitation of this study is that we focused primarily on employee social perceptions of supervisors and coworkers, and how these perceptions ultimately influence extra-role customer service behavior. However, there are other work-related variables that may be relevant which were not considered in the model conceptualized in this study. For example, the findings in the current study may differ based on meal period, restaurant type/segment, or even restaurant organizational structure (chain vs. independent). Each of these offers an opportunity for future research. Given our results and the critical influence of an employee’s social perception of their coworkers, we also suggest that future research examine differences in employee tenure and work status.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Marissa Orlowski

Diego Bufquin

Author Biographies

Marissa Orlowski, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University of Central Florida, where she teaches beverage and restaurant operations courses. Her research interests include food and beverage consumption, food packaging and presentation, and multisensory food experiences. She also specializes in quantitative research methods.

Diego Bufquin, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University of Central Florida, where he teaches restaurant, lodging, and brand management at the undergraduate and graduate level. His research focuses on organizational and consumer behavior, primarily within the food & beverage segment.

Michael E. Nalley, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University of Central Florida, where he teaches lodging operations, brand management, and guest services. His research focuses on operations management, customer service, and industry certifications.

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Asch

S. E.

(1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290.

Babakus

Yavas

Karatepe

O. M.

(2017). Work engagement and turnover intentions: Correlates and customer orientation as a moderator. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(6), 1580–1598.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204.

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

Taris

T. W.

(2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187–200.

Basow

Howe

(1980). Role-model influence: Effects of sex and sex-role attitude in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 558–572.

Bates

(2004). Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49(2), 44–51.

Baumruk

(2004). The missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan, 47, 48–52.

Bell

(1970). Role modelship and interaction in adolescence and young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 2(1), 123–128.

10.

Bettelheim

Janowitz

(1950). Dynamics of prejudice. Harper.

11.

Bettencourt

L. A.

Brown

S. W

. (1997). Contact employees: Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 39–61.

12.

Bettencourt

L. A.

Gwinner

K. P.

Meuter

M. L

. (2001). A comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29–41.

13.

Blau

(1964). Exchanges and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.

14.

Breevaart

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

van den Heuvel

(2015). Leader-member exchange, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(7), 754–770.

15.

Bufquin

DiPietro

R. B.

Orlowski

Partlow

C. G.

(2017). The influence of restaurant co-workers’ perceived warmth and competence on employees’ turnover intentions: The mediating role of job attitudes. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 60, 13–22.

16.

Bufquin

DiPietro

R. B.

Orlowski

Partlow

C. G.

(2018). Social evaluations of restaurant managers: The effects on frontline employees’ job attitudes and turnover intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1827–1844.

17.

Bufquin

DiPietro

R. B.

Park

J.-Y.

Partlow

C. G.

(2017). Effects of social perceptions and organizational commitment on restaurant performance. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26(7), 752–769.

18.

Bufquin

DiPietro

R. B.

Partlow

C. G.

Smith

S. J.

(2018). Differences in social evaluations and their effects on employee job attitudes and turnover intentions in a restaurant setting. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(3), 375–396.

19.

Chen

C. F.

Kao

Y. L.

(2014). Investigating the moderating effects of service climate on personality, motivation, social support, and performance among flight attendants. Tourism Management, 44, 58–66.

20.

Cheng

J. C.

Chen

C. Y.

(2017). Job resourcefulness, work engagement and prosocial service behaviors in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(10), 2668–2687.

21.

Chow

C. W. C.

Lai

J. Y. M.

Loi

(2015). Motivation of travel agents’ customer service behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of leader-member exchange and internal marketing orientation. Tourism Management, 48, 362–369.

22.

Christian

M. S.

Garza

A. S.

Slaughter

J. E.

(2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.

23.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149.

24.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

Beninger

(2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73–98.

25.

Dansereau

Graen

Haga

W. J.

(1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78.

26.

Eisenberger

Stinglhamber

Vandenberghe

Sucharski

I. L.

Rhoades

(2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573.

27.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2007). Universal constructs of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11(2), 77–83.

28.

Fiske

S. T.

Neuberg

S. L.

(1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–74.

29.

Forgas

J. P.

Bower

G. H.

(1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 53–60.

30.

Garba

O. A.

Babalola

M. T.

Guo

(2018). A social exchange perspective on why and when ethical leadership foster customer-oriented citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 70, 1–8.

31.

Gibson

D. E.

(2003). Developing the professional self-concept: Role model construals in early, middle, and late career stages. Organization Science, 14(5), 591–610.

32.

Gibson

D. E.

(2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 134–156.

33.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

34.

Gray

H. M.

Gray

Wegner

D. M.

(2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619.

35.

Guchait

(2016). The mediating effect of team engagement between team cognitions and team outcomes in service-management teams. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 40(2), 139–161.

36.

Guchait

Pasamehmetoglu

Dawson

(2014). Perceived supervisor and co-worker support for error management: Impact on perceived psychological safety and service recovery performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, 28–37.

37.

Haghighat

(2007). The development of the Brief Social Desirability Scale (BSDS). Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v3i4.417

38.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

39.

Harris

L. T.

Fiske

S. T.

(2009). Social neuroscience evidence for dehumanised perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 192–231.

40.

Harter

(2018). Employee engagement on the rise in the U.S. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/241649/employee-engagement-rise.aspx

41.

Haslam

(2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264.

42.

Hayes

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.

43.

Kagan

(1958). The concept of identification. Psychological Review, 65, 296–305.

44.

Kahn

W. A.

(2010). The essence of engagement: Lessons from the field. In Albrecht

S. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 20–30). Edward Elgar.

45.

Kang

H. J.

Kim

W. G.

Choi

H. M.

(2020). How to fuel employees’ prosocial behavior in the hotel service encounter. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 84, Article 102333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102333

46.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2011). Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes: Evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20(8), 855–878.

47.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2012). The effects of coworker and perceived organizational support on hotel employee outcomes: The moderating role of job embeddedness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(4), 495–516.

48.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2013a). High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: The mediation of work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 132–140.

49.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2013b). Perceptions of organizational politics and hotel employee outcomes: The mediating role of work engagement. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(1), 82–104.

50.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2015). The effects of family support and work engagement on organizationally valued job outcomes. Tourism, 63(4), 447–464.

51.

Karatepe

O. M.

Karadas

Azar

K. A.

Naderiadib

(2013). Does work engagement mediate the effect of polychronicity on performance outcomes? A study in the hospitality industry in Northern Cyprus. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(1), 52–70.

52.

Karatepe

O. M.

Olugbade

O. A.

(2016). The mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between high-performance work practices and job outcomes of employees in Nigeria. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2350–2371.

53.

Kim

M. S.

Koo

D. W.

(2017). Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance in hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(12), 3044–3062.

54.

Krumboltz

Mitchell

Jones

(1976). A social learning theory of career selection. The Counseling Psychologist, 6, 71–80.

55.

Leach

C. W.

Ellemers

Barreto

(2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234–249.

56.

Lee

(2015). Drivers of work engagement: An examination of core self-evaluations and psychological climate among hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 44, 84–98.

57.

Sanders

Frenkel

(2012). How leader–member exchange, work engagement and HRM consistency explain Chinese luxury hotel employees’ job performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1059–1066.

58.

Lyu

Zhu

Zhong

H. J.

(2016). Abusive supervision and customer-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of hostile attribution bias and work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53, 69–80.

59.

MacIntyre

(1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press.

60.

Markos

Sridevi

(2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance. International Journal of Business Management, 5(12), 89–96.

61.

Moliner

Martínez-Tur

Ramos

Peiró

J. M.

Cropanzano

(2008). Organizational justice and extrarole customer service: The mediating role of well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 327–348.

62.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).

63.

Pizam

Shani

(2009). The nature of the hospitality industry: Present and future managers’ perspectives. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 134–150.

64.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

65.

Ray

R. L.

Aparicio

Hyland

Dye

D. A.

Simco

Caputo

(2017). DNA of engagement: How organizations can foster employee ownership of engagement. https://www.conference-board.org/topics/dna-of-engagement

66.

Richman

(2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan, 49, 36–39.

67.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

68.

Saks

A. M.

Gruman

J. A.

(2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155–182.

69.

Salanova

Llorens

Cifre

Martínez

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43–73.

70.

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.

71.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2006). The measure of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.

72.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Van Rhenen

(2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893–917.

73.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Martínez

Marqués-Pinto

A. M.

Salanova

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481.

74.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

González-Romá

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

75.

Shapiro

Haseltine

Rowe

(1978). Moving up: Role models, mentors, and the “patron system.” Sloan Management Review, 6(1), 19–47.

76.

Sims

(2015). Lack of employee engagement can be a costly disadvantage. https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2015/10/lack-of-employee-engagement-can-be-a-costly.html

77.

Susskind

A. M.

Kacmar

K. M.

Borchgrevink

C. P.

(2003). Customer service providers’ attitudes relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 179–187.

78.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91(4), 457–477.

79.

Tang

Y. Y.

Tsaur

S. H.

(2016). Supervisory support climate and service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality: The role of positive group affective tone. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2331–2349.

80.

Testa

M. R.

(2001). Hospitality leaders: Do they know how their employees feel about them? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 80–89.

81.

Tuckman

B. W.

(1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.

82.

Tuckman

B. W.

Jensen

M. A. C.

(1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427.

83.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Job openings and labor turnover survey (Data file). https://www.bls.gov/jlt/

84.

Wihuda

Kurniawan

A. A.

Kusumah

A. I.

Adawiyah

W. R.

(2017). Linking empowering leadership to employee service innovative behavior: A study from the hotel industry. Tourism, 65(3), 294–313.

85.

Wilkie

(2017, November 2). Miserable modern workers: Why are they so unhappy? https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/employee-engagement-.aspx

86.

Wojciszke

Bazinska

Jaworski

(1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1245–1257.

87.

Wojciszke

Klusek

(1996). Moral and competence-related traits in political perception. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27(4), 319–324.

88.

Woodruffe

(1993). What is meant by a competency? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14(1), 29–36.

89.

Wright

Wong

Newill

(1997). The impact of role models on medical students. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12, 53–56.

90.

Wyer

R. S.

Jr. Srull

T. K.

(2014). Advances in social cognition, Vol. I: A dual process model of impression formation. Psychology Press.

91.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183–200.

92.

Martinez

L. R.

Van Hoof

Tews

Torres

Farfan

(2018). The impact of abusive supervision and co-worker support on hospitality and tourism student employees’ turnover intentions in Ecuador. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(7), 775–790.

93.

Young

H. R.

Glerum

D. R.

Wang

Joseph

D. L.

(2018). Who are the most engaged at work? A meta-analysis of personality and employee engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1330–1346.

94.

Zhang

Guo

Newman

(2017). Identity judgements, work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating effects based on group engagement model. Tourism Management, 61, 190–197.

95.

Zhu

J. N.

Lam

L. W.

Lai

J. Y.

(2019). Returning good for evil: A study of customer incivility and extra-role customer service. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 81, 65–72.

96.

Zielinski

(2018, January 22). Predictive assessments give companies insights into candidates’ potential. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/predictive-assessments-insight-candidates-potential.aspx

97.

Zikmund

W. G.

Babin

B. J.

Carr

J. C.

Griffin

(2013). Business research methods (9th ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.