International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 9–18

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

The effects of leadership style on employee well-being in hospitality

Derya Kara a,1 , Muzaffer Uysal b,∗ , M. Joseph Sirgy c,2 , Gyumin Lee d,3
a
Department of Tourism Management Education, Commerce and Tourism Education Faculty, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
b
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States
c
Department of Marketing, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States
d
College of Hotel & Tourism Management, School of Hospitality Management, Kyung Hee University, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: We conducted a study to test the notion that transformational leadership style is more effective than
Transformational leadership transactional leadership style by fostering employee well-being (enhancing quality of work life and life
Transactional leadership satisfaction as well as increasing organizational commitment and decreasing employee burnout. We
Quality of work life
surveyed 443 employees at 5-star hotels in Turkey. The results provide support for the positive effect of
Quality of life
transformational leadership in the hospitality industry, which implies that hospitality managers should
Employee well-being
Employee burnout be trained to use a transformational leadership style to enhance employee well-being.
Organizational commitment © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
5-Star hotels

1. Introduction 2004; Clark et al., 2009; Geijsel et al., 2003; Leach, 2005; Lok and
Crawford, 1999), emotional intelligence (e.g., Barling et al., 2000;
Leadership style is an important management tool because, if Downey et al., 2006; Vrba, 2007), organizational learning and adap-
used properly, it can enhance positive relationships with employ- tation (e.g., Castiglione, 2006), job stress and burn out (e.g., Gill
ees, improve the organizational climate, and increase service et al., 2006; Kanste et al., 2007; Zopiatis and Constanti, 2010),
performance (Kozak and Uca, 2008). One key element of success job satisfaction (e.g., Mancheno-Smoak et al., 2009; Wu, 2009),
for a hospitality firm is for managers to motivate their employ- employee performance (e.g., Lowe et al., 1996; MacKenzie et al.,
ees to reach their maximum potential, to be engaged, to embrace 2001; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007), employee motivation (e.g., Mehta,
change, and to make good technical decisions. Effective managers 2000), and organizational culture (e.g., Bass and Avolio, 1994).
as leaders provide guidance that encourages employees to take Nevertheless, there has been limited research on the effects of
ownership of tasks, to think outside the box to solve business prob- leadership style on employee quality of working life (QWL) and
lems, and to make decisions that can enhance the good of the team employee quality of life (QOL) at large in the context of the hos-
and company (Bennett, 2009). Like other business firms, hospital- pitality industry. Organizational and personal outcomes play an
ity firms should embrace the importance of leadership and apply important role in best management practices in hospitality firms;
its principles to enhance organizational well-being. Failure of lead- and as such, leadership affects employee well-being (Firth-Cozens
ership is very costly. It shows its ugly face in terms of employee and Mowbray, 2001). For example, Kuoppala et al. (2008) con-
turnover, absenteeism, low performance, and customer dissatisfac- ducted a study demonstrating that leadership is associated with job
tion, which in the long run can be extremely costly to the success well-being. Good leadership seems to improve job satisfaction and
of the hospitality organization (Lim and Boger, 2005). decrease sickness absenteeism and disability pensions. Thus, the
Leadership style is a rich construct related to many employee goal of the study reported in this paper is to highlight the effects of
and organizational variables in the hospitality industry. For exam- leadership style on employee well-being in hospitality firms: QWL,
ple, leadership style has been linked to personality (e.g., Brown QOL, employee burnout, and organizational commitment.
and Reilly, 2009), organizational commitment (e.g., Avolio et al.,

2. Conceptual development
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 540 231 8426; fax: +1 540 231 8313.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Kara), [email protected] (M. Uysal), This section provides a brief review of leadership style followed
[email protected] (M.J. Sirgy), [email protected] (G. Lee). by arguments that link leadership style with employee well-being
1
Tel.: +90 312 485 1460.
2
Tel.: +1 540 231 5110.
(QWL, QOL, employee burnout, and organizational commitment).
3
Tel.: +82 2 961 0810/82 10 8861 2705. Hypotheses are developed and articulated accordingly.

0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.001
10 D. Kara et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 9–18

2.1. Leadership style and quality of work life (QWL) Based on this research, managers were encouraged to empower
employees and develop them into high involvement individuals
Management scholars have long recognized the importance of and teams by focusing on quality, service, cost effectiveness, and
leadership style in relation to a spectrum of organizational pro- quantity of output of production (Bass, 1999). Indeed, in many
cesses and outcomes – ranging from acceptance of innovations European and Asian countries, managers in the hospitality industry
and to work attitudes, perceptions, behavior, service quality, and are observed to spend much time cultivating social relationships
client outcomes (Aarons, 2006). Leadership style was originally with hospitality employees in an attempt to increase their effec-
conceptualized as transactional versus transformational in the 1970s tiveness in an industry where guest expectations are rising. This
and 1980s (Bennett, 2009). Burns (1978) was one of the first is deemed the way to inspire both trust and loyalty in employees
to treat leadership style in terms of transactional and transfor- but clearly requires strong interpersonal skills and knowledge of
mational characteristics (Emery and Barker, 2007). Bass (1990) cross-cultural differences. Essentially, it is the relationships in the
provided a measure of leadership style in terms of transforma- workplace that are the “glue” that keeps employees and managers
tional versus transactional leadership – the Multifactor Leadership connected (Nicolaides, 2006). Doing so inspires both trust and loy-
Questionnaire (MLQ). According to Bass and Avolio (2005), trans- alty in employees. Essentially, relationships in the workplace keep
formational leadership is a process of influencing in which leaders employees and managers connected. Managers’ use of different
change their associates’ awareness of what is important, and move leadership styles in the workplace is likely to have direct effects
them to see themselves and the opportunities and challenges on employee outcomes. Transformational leadership (as opposed
of their environment in a new way. In contrast, transactional to transactional leadership) should result in higher employee satis-
leaders engage in behaviors associated with constructive style faction, commitment, and productivity. Therefore, effective use of
management (contingent reward) and corrective style manage- leadership style should increase the effectiveness of both managers
ment (management-by-exception). Thus, the focus of transactional and the hospitality organizations at large (Erkutlu, 2008).
leadership is to clearly articulate role expectations and promote Quality of work life (QWL) refers to the impact of the workplace
role performance to achieve these expectations. on satisfaction in work life, satisfaction in non-work life domains,
Specifically, transformational leadership is conceptualized in and satisfaction with overall life (Sirgy et al., 2001). An organization
terms of five factors: characterized as high in QWL has favorable workplace conditions
that support and promote employee satisfaction by meeting the
(1) Charisma: provides vision and sense of mission, instills pride, employees basic and growth needs (May et al., 1999). Given the
gains respect and trust; amount of time and energy people expend at work, it is important
(2) Inspirational motivation: communicates high expectations, uses for managers to ensure that employees’ basic and growth needs are
symbols to focus efforts, expresses important purposes in sim- sufficiently met through organizational resources and conditions.
ple ways; Because work plays a very important role in the lives of most people,
(3) Intellectual stimulation: promotes intelligence, rationality, and such resources and conditions are likely to affect not only their
careful problem solving; and physical well-being (i.e., economic and safety needs) but also their
(4) Individualized consideration: gives personal attention, treats psychological and spiritual well-being (i.e., growth needs) (Berg
each employee individually, coaches, and advises (Bass, 1990). et al., 2003; Chan and Wyatt, 2007).
Van Dierendonck et al. (2004) investigated leadership style and
its effects on both job-related affective well-being and context-free
In contrast, transactional leadership encourages the devel-
psychological well-being, suggesting that high-quality leadership
opment of interest-based relationships between employees and
(transformational as opposed to transactional) is associated with
managers, which is at the heart of a political process. It encour-
increased employee well-being (cf. Arnold et al., 2007). Thus, one
ages negotiation about interests and puts a price tag on everyone
can argue that transformational leadership style in the hospitality
and everything. This may lead employees to promote their interests
industry should enhance the QWL and QOL of hospitality employ-
more aggressively in an environment that struggles over limited
ees (cf. Firth-Cozens and Mowbray, 2001; Kuoppala et al., 2008).
resources (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Specifically, Bass (1990) defined
Thus, this study proposes the following hypotheses that will be
transactional leadership in terms of four dimensions:
subjected to an empirical test:

(1) Contingent reward: contracts exchange of rewards for effort, H1. Transactional leadership has a significant negative influence
promises rewards for good performance, and recognizes on hotel employees’ perceived quality of work life (see relationship
accomplishments; in Fig. 1).
(2) Management by exception (active): watches and searches for H2. Transformational leadership has a significant positive influ-
deviations from rules and standards, and takes corrective ence on hotel employees’ perceived quality of work life (see
action; relationship in Fig. 1).
(3) Management by exception (passive): intervenes only if standards
are not met; and 2.2. The effects of quality of work life (QWL) on burnout,
(4) Laissez-faire: abdicates responsibilities and avoids making deci- organizational commitment, quality of life (QOL or life
sions. satisfaction)

Studies have consistently showed that transformational lead- The complex and changing environment of the hospitality
ership, as opposed to transactional leadership, has a positive industry presents a never ending array of stimuli, pressures and
relationship with work outcomes such as job satisfaction (e.g., demands that can be stressful, especially for front-line personnel.
Emery and Barker, 2007; Rad and Yarmohammadian, 2006), work Sunny Hu and Cheng (2010) reported that 28% of European workers
performance and organizational commitment (e.g., Barling et al., suffer from stress and 23% have burnout.
2000; Limsila and Ogunlana, 2008), positive working conditions What is burnout? Maslach et al. (2001) claim that burnout is a
(e.g., Nielsen et al., 2008), organizational citizenship (e.g., Podsakoff problem that is specific to the work context, in contrast to depres-
et al., 1996), and higher employee ratings of effectiveness and sat- sion that tends to pervade every domain of a person’s life. The
isfaction (e.g., Hater and Bass, 1988; Mandell and Pherwani, 2003). feelings created by burnout can have a significant effect on an
 D. Kara et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 9–18 11

Transactional Employee
Leadership Burnout
H3 (-) H6 (-)
H1 (-)
H5 (+)
Quality of Life
Working Life Satisfaction
H2 (+)
H4 (+))
H7 (+)
Transformational Organizational
Leadership Commitment

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.

employee’s ability to deliver quality service (Ledgerwood et al., Changing workforce demographics and an increasingly compet-
1998). For example, Humborstad et al. (2007) investigated the rela- itive recruitment market may influence current employees’ needs
tionship between service employees’ burnout and their willingness with respect to well-being and the availability of new employees
to deliver quality services. Self-administered questionnaires from (Abbott and De Cieri, 2008). Quality of life (QOL) is a very popular
110 operational staff in three hotels in Macau were analyzed. The topic, frequently used in the daily conversation but is indeed highly
results indicated that job burnout reduces staff’s willingness to complex (Lepage, 2009). Let us simplify this complexity by inject-
deliver quality services, and that this effect is moderated by individ- ing a popular definition of QOL. QOL of an individual is traditionally
ual staff’s level of affective organizational commitment and their defined as a person’s perception of his/her overall life quality, over-
perceptions of the extent of organizational and supervisor sup- all happiness, or satisfaction with life overall (e.g., Dallimore and
port provided. Also, burnout appears to be a factor in job turnover, Mickel, 2006; Sirgy, 2012).
absenteeism, low morale and reduced service quality (Maslach and Hence, as can be inferred from the above definition, QOL of an
Jackson, 1981; Singh, 2000). Furthermore, Maslach and Jackson individual involves the individual’s evaluation of his or her life in
(1981) claimed that burnout seems to be correlated with vari- positive terms. Social scientists also refer to individual’s QOL as sub-
ous self-reported indices of personal distress, including physical jective well-being or life satisfaction (Diener, 2009; Sirgy, 2012).
exhaustion, insomnia, increased use of alcohol and drugs, and mar- Life satisfaction is construed in terms of satisfaction hierarchy in
ital and family problems. Thus, the current study will test the which the top of the hierarchy is life satisfaction, the middle of
following hypothesis: the hierarchy are domain satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with work
life, family life, social life, community life, financial life, etc.), and
H3. Hotel employees’ perceived quality of work life has a negative satisfaction with particular life events that ultimately spillover to
influence on their burnout (see relationship in Fig. 1). domain satisfaction. In other words, satisfaction with life events
(satisfaction with concrete events at the bottom of the satisfac-
Mowday et al. (1979) define commitment as a strong belief in, tion hierarchy) influence life satisfaction (satisfaction with the most
and acceptance of, the organization’s goals and values; willing- abstract concept – life at large) is mediated by satisfaction with spe-
ness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; cific life domains (satisfaction with social life, work life, family life,
and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organiza- etc.) (Scherpenzeel and Saris, 1996; Andrews and Withey, 1976;
tion. QWL programs tend to heighten employee’s commitment to Cummins, 1996; Jeffres and Dobos, 1995; Roberts and Clement,
the organization and increase employee productivity (Nadler and 2007; Sirgy, 2012; Sirgy and Cornwell, 2002).
Lawler, 1983). Mowday et al. (1979) hypothesized that structural Berg et al. (2003) reported that experiences at work that affect
influences and work experiences, such as increased participation, the quality of a worker’s life on the job may influence the psycho-
should foster organizational commitment. That is, a QWL interven- logical state or well-being of workers when they are home and may
tion that allows employees to increase their control over decisions affect their ability to address the demands of family life. Chan and
affecting their work through greater participation should result Wyatt (2007) studied QWL in China in terms of how work life satis-
in increased commitment to the employing company (Fields and fies eight basic needs of employees, and how the satisfaction of each
Thacker, 1992). Providing opportunities for employees to make individual need in their work life affects employees’ job satisfaction,
meaningful contributions to their organizations is a key aspect of affective commitment, turnover intention, life satisfaction and the
QWL. This feature is considerably different from simply attempting sense of general well-being. Esteem need satisfaction was found to
to make employees satisfied or “happy” with their jobs (Chisholm, be the most important predictor of life satisfaction and turnover
1983). In today’s competitive world of business, a productive work- intentions. Satisfaction of knowledge and health and safety needs
force is very important in gaining and maintaining sustainable predicted affective commitment. Also, satisfaction of economic and
competitive advantages for any business organization (Chan and family needs, health and safety needs, and knowledge needs were
Wyatt, 2007). If managers work hard to meet the employees’ basic found to be important predictors of job satisfaction. Finally, being
and growth needs, then the workplace is likely to be perceived as recognized and appreciated for one’s work was found to be a strong
a desirable place to work and to live. In this sense, it is also likely predictor of how satisfied employees with their lives.
that those who are satisfied at work will be more committed to Satisfaction hierarchy and the empirical evidence cited above
such a place and will have lower intention to quit. Thus, this study suggest that QWL is an important factor in satisfaction with work
proposes to test the following hypothesis: life, and such satisfaction plays an important role in life satisfaction.
Given this discussion, this study will test the following hypothesis:

H4. Hotel employees’ perceived quality of work life has a positive

impact on their organizational commitment (see relationship in H5. Hotel employees’ perceived quality of work life has a positive
Fig. 1). influence on their life satisfaction (see relationship in Fig. 1).
12 D. Kara et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 9–18

By the same token, much research has shown that stress, depres- then translated into Turkish, and back-translated into English to
sion and anxiety takes a significant toll on life satisfaction (Diener, verify meaning equivalence.
1984; Sirgy, 2012), which suggests that burnout should also play a
negative role in life satisfaction. Therefore, this will test the follow- 3.2. Measurement of the study constructs
ing hypothesis:
Transactional leadership: this construct was measured using a
H6. Hotel employee burnout has a negative influence on l
16-item measure developed by Bass and Avolio (2005). Responses
employee life satisfaction (see relationship in Fig. 1).
to the 16 items were captured using 5-point Likert scales varying
Another factor that influences life satisfaction is organizational from “I do not agree at all” (1) to “I agree completely” (5). The instru-
commitment (see Fig. 1). Much research in organizational psychol- ment involves four dimensions: contingent reward, management
ogy has shown that organizational loyalty and commitment play active, management passive, and laissez-faire. Managers guided
a role in employee life satisfaction. Efraty and Sirgy (1990) were by contingent reward tend to provide reward for effort, promises
able to demonstrate that organizational loyalty and commitment reward for good performance, and recognize accomplishments
is a direct function of the employee’s fit of their self-concept with (e.g., “My supervisor provides others with assistance in exchange
that of the organization – the greater the self-image congruence the for their efforts”); managers guided by management by exception
greater to employee loyalty and commitment to the organization. (active) tend to monitor employees behavior to identify deviations
Sirgy et al. (2001) were able to demonstrate that organizational from rules and standards, and take corrective action (e.g., “My
loyalty and commitment plays a significant and positive role in life supervisor focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions,
satisfaction. Employees who are more engaged in their work are and deviations from standards”); managers guided by manage-
likely to feel more commitment to their employers. This engage- ment by exception (passive) tend to intervene only if standards
ment and commitment generates purpose and meaning in one’s are not met (e.g., “My supervisor fails to interfere until prob-
life, which in turn contributes to life satisfaction (Seligman, 2002). lems become serious”); and managers guided by laissez-faire tend
As such this study will test the following hypothesis: to abdicate responsibilities and avoid making decisions (e.g., “My
supervisor avoids getting involved when important issues arise”). A
H7. Hotel employee organizational commitment positively influ- reliability analysis was performed on the 16-item measure and the
ences employee life satisfaction (see relationship in Fig. 1). results indicated good reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha = .90). Based on
the discussion pertaining to optimal structural equation modeling
3. Methods analysis (Bentler and Chou, 1987), four composite values reflecting
the four conceptual dimensions (rather than 16 items) were used
3.1. Data and sampling in the statistical analysis.
Transformational leadership: this construct was captured using a
Data collection took place during the months of June 2010 20-item instrument also developed by Bass and Avolio (2005). Par-
through October 2010 from 5-star hotel employees in Turkey. To ticipant responses were captured on 5-point Likert scales anchored
prevent potential language problems, the questionnaire was trans- with “I do not agree at all” (1) and “I agree completely” (5). The
lated into Turkish using back translation method by the research measure involves five dimensions: idealized attributes, idealized
team. 5-Star hotels selected in this study because these hotels have behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
a larger number of employees allowing us to populate the sample individual consideration. Manager guided by Charisma (idealized
with “enough” employees. The study used a proportional strati- attributes and idealized behaviors) tend to provide vision and sense
fied random sampling based on the number of 5-star hotels and of mission; they instill pride, and attempt to gain respect and trust
their total number of employees. According to the survey “Hotel (e.g., “I instill pride in others for being associated with me”; “My
and Tourism Industry Labor Force Survey” conducted by the Turkish supervisor talks about her/his most important values and beliefs”).
Ministry of Culture and Tourism (1989), the number of staff per bed Managers guided by inspirational motivation tend to communi-
is 0.59 in 5-star hotel establishments. Moreover, according to data cate high expectations, they use symbols to focus efforts, and they
obtained from the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2009), expressed important purposes in simple ways (e.g., “My supervisor
the total number of beds in the certified tourism business is 209.471 talks optimistically about the future”). Managers guided by intel-
in Turkey. Based on this information, the total survey population is lectual stimulation tend to promote intelligence, rationality, and
estimated by multiplying the number of beds by the number of careful problem solving (e.g., “My supervisor re-examines critical
staff per bed, which resulted in 123.587. This figure (123.587) was assumptions to question whether they are appropriate”). Finally,
treated as the limit of the universe and following the sample size managers guided by individual consideration tend to give personal
calculation as suggested by Yamane (2001), the appropriate sample attention to employees; they treat each employee individually, and
size turned out to be 384. Initially, based on the size of the hotel, an coaches and advises (e.g., “My supervisor spends time teaching
appropriate number of questionnaires were sent to each hotel man- and coaching”). A reliability analysis was performed on the 16-
agers who had been contacted beforehand for cooperation. These item measure and the results indicated good reliability (Cronbach’s
hotel managers distributed questionnaires to employees and col- Alpha = .95). Based on the discussion pertaining to optimal struc-
lected them. To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, the hotel tural equation modeling analysis (Bentler and Chou, 1987), four
employees were instructed not to identify themselves in the ques- composite values reflecting the four conceptual dimensions (rather
tionnaire, and asked to return the completed questionnaire in a box than 16 items) were used in the statistical analysis.
located in a place accessible to all employees. In total, 1200 ques- Quality of work life: this construct was measured using a 16-item
tionnaires were distributed. The questionnaire was completed by measure developed by Sirgy et al. (2001). Responses were captured
employees in all departments of the hotels selected for this study. using 5-point Likert type scales: from “I do not agree at all” (1) to “I
After a waiting period of 5 months, 443 usable questionnaires were agree completely” (5). The measure consists of seven dimensions:
generated which provided a response rate of almost 37%. satisfaction of health and safety needs (employee judgment that the
As will be explained in this section, the constructs in this organization does a good job meeting his or her health and safety
study were operationalized using reliable and valid scales well- needs; example items include “I feel physically safe at work” and
established in the research literature. As recommended by Adler “My job provides good health benefits”), satisfaction of economic
(1983), the survey questionnaire was originally written in English, and family needs (employee judgment that the organization does a
 D. Kara et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 9–18 13

good job satisfying his or her financial needs and family obligations; (8) “How do you feel about your friends and associates in general?”
example items include “I am satisfied with what I am getting paid (9) “How do you feel about your neighborhood in general?” (10)
for my work” and “My job does well for my family”), satisfaction of “How do you feel about your community in general?” (11) “How
social needs (employee judgment of the organization doing a good do you feel about your spiritual life in general?” (12) “How do you
job meeting his or her social needs; example items include “I have feel about your environment in general?” (13) “How do you feel
good friends at work” and “I have enough time away from work to about your housing situation in general?” (14) “How do you feel
enjoy other things in life”), satisfaction of esteem needs (employee about your cultural life in general?” and (15) “How do you feel about
judgment that the organization is doing a good job meeting his your social status in general?” Responses to these items were cap-
or her self-esteem needs; example items include “I feel appreci- tured using a 5-poing satisfaction rating scales varying from “very
ated at work” and “People at work respect me as a professional dissatisfied” (1) to “very satisfied” (5). The Cronbach’s Alpha for
and an expert in my field of work”), satisfaction of actualization the complete measure was .88, which is deemed acceptable. One
needs (employee judgment that the organization is doing a good composite value was used for the statistical analysis reflecting the
job tapping into and making the most use of his or her talents construct formative nature.
and skills; example items include “I feel that my job allows me to The two-step procedure of structural equation modeling
realize my full potential” and “I feel that I am realizing my poten- (SEM), measurement model analysis and structural model analysis
tial as an expert in my line of work”), satisfaction of knowledge (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), was employed. The measurement
needs (employee judgment that the organization is doing a good model was assessed first. Based on the measurement model, the
job meeting his or her intellectual and educational needs; example reliability and discriminant/convergent validity of model con-
items include “I feel I am always learning new things that help do structs were examined. Then the structural model was assessed.
my job better” and “This job allows me to sharpen my professional That is, the hypothesized theoretical model was assessed and
skills”), and satisfaction of esthetics needs (employee judgment that parameters were estimated. LISREL (Version 8.30) was used to
the organization cares about employees’ sense of esthetics and cre- perform the structural analysis and maximum likelihood was
ativity; example items include “There is a lot of creativity involved employed to estimate the parameters based on the assumption of
in my job” and “My job helps me develop my creativity outside multivariate normality of data (Bollen, 1989).
of work”). The reliability of these 16 items was good (Cronbach’s
Alpha = .91). Seven composite values reflecting the seven concep-
tual dimensions (rather than 16 items) were used for statistical 4. Results
analysis.
Employee burnout: this construct was captured using a 22-item Descriptive statistics of the sample demographics (see Table 1)
measure developed by Maslach and Jackson (1981). The mea- reveal that 73% of the respondents (N = 323) were male and 61%
sure involves three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, personal were single. Overall the subjects ranged in age from 20 to 54 with
accomplishment, and depersonalization. The subscale of emotional a mean age of 32 years. Respondents had been working for an
exhaustion includes 9 items that describe feelings of being emo- average of 4.6 years in their current organization, with 6.2% hav-
tionally overextended and exhausted by one’s work (e.g., “I feel ing been with their current organization for more than 10 years.
emotionally drained from my work”). The 5 items in the deperson- Their primary functional areas were: food and beverage depart-
alization subscale describe an unfeeling and impersonal response ments (51.9%), rooms side (34.5%), and a variety of other areas
toward recipients of one’s care or service (e.g., “I feel I treat some such sales and marketing (13.6%). On average, sample respondents
colleagues as if they were impersonal objects”). The subscale of had 6.6 years of hotel experience. According to the overall demo-
personal accomplishment contains 8 items that describe feelings of graphics of respondents, as shown in Table 1, it was considered that
competence and successful achievement in one’s work with people a variety of hotel employees, representing a population properly,
(e.g., “I can easily understand how my recipients feel about things”). participated in this research.
Responses were captured using 5-point Likert scales ranging from For the purpose of checking for common method bias, a couple
“I do not agree at all” (1) to “I agree completely” (5). Coefficient of statistical tests were conducted. First, a Harman’s one-factor test
Alpha for this entire 22-item measure was 0.76, which is deemed was carried out on the all measurement variables included in the
acceptable. Three composite values reflecting the three conceptual model. It is considered there is a substantial amount of common
dimensions were used for statistical analysis. method variance when either a single factor emerges from the fac-
Organizational commitment: this construct was operationalized tor analysis or one dominant factor accounts for the majority of
using a 15 items measure developed by Mowday et al. (1979). the covariance among the variables (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
Example items include “I am willing to put in a great deal of effort From the Harmon’s one-factor test, six principal components were
beyond that normally expected in order to help (name of the orga- extracted accounting for 70.5% of the variance. And the first three
nization) be successful,” “I talk up (name of the organization) to my factors accounted for 24%, 13%, and 11% of the variance, respec-
friends as a great organization to work for,” “I feel very little loy- tively. Given that a single dominant factor did not emerge and one
alty to (name of organization)” (reverse coded). Responses to these factor did not account for most of the variance, this suggested that
items were captured using 5-point Likert scales with the end-points there exist little probability of common method bias. Second, one-
labeled with “I do not agree at all” (1) and “I agree completely” (5). factor CFA was conducted loading all variables on one factor. If the
The Cronbach’s Alpha for the complete instrument was .88, which one-factor CFA model fit the data well, it is considered that com-
is deemed acceptable. One composite value was used for statistical mon method variance is largely responsible for the relationship
analysis because of the measure is considered unidimensional. among the variables (Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995; Mossholder
Life satisfaction: this construct was measured using a 15-items et al., 1998). The one-factor CFA model did not represent the data
instrument developed by Sirgy et al. (2001). The items are as fol- well (2 = 3664.94, df = 137; RMSEA = .39; CFI = .66 NFI = .65; and
lows: (1) “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?” (2) “How GFI = .42), providing evidence that the inter-item correlations are
do you feel about your present job in general?” (3) “How do you feel not to a large extent driven by common method bias.
about your family situation in general?” (4) How do you feel about The correlations, means, and standard deviations of the study
your leisure life in general?” (5) “How do you feel about your finan- constructs are shown in Table 2. The pattern and direction of the
cial situation in general?” (6) “How do you feel about your health in correlations among latent constructs in the research model were as
general?” (7) “How do you feel about your education in general?” expected. As can be seen, statistical support at the 1% level can be
14 D. Kara et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 9–18

Table 1 the normed-fit index (NFI), and comparative fit index (CFI) were
Demographic characteristics of respondents.
employed (Hu and Bentler, 1998, 1999). Generally, RMSEA value
Total (N = 220) at or below .08 demonstrates good fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1989).
NFI and CFI values of .90 indicate an acceptable level of good fit. See
N Percentage (%)
these results in Table 3.
Gender
First, multiple measurement items for each construct were
Male 323 72.9
Female 120 27.1 aggregated into several composite indicators guided by the spec-
Marital status ification of their conceptual dimensions (Bollen, 1989). Before
Married 172 38.8 validating the structural model, measurement model should be
Not married 271 61.2 assessed and refined taking the loading of indicators and model
Age
19–26 years old 84 19.0
fitness into consideration. Through measurement analysis, one
27–34 years old 116 26.2 indicator of transactional leadership (laissez-faire) and one indi-
35–42 years old 108 24.4 cator of employee burnout (personal accomplishment) were
43–50 years old 94 21.2 dropped due to their relatively poor loadings. The measurement
51 years old and above 41 9.3
model at large demonstrated a high degree of good fit to the
Tenure in current org.
Less than 1 year 128 28.9 data (2 = 432.31, df = 120; RMSEA = .077; CFI = .97; NFI = .96; and
1–5 years 212 47.9 GFI = .90).
6–10 years 70 15.8 As shown in Table 3, all measurement items significantly loaded
11 years and over 33 7.4 on their corresponding constructs below an Alpha level of .001.
Organizational level
Cronbach’s Alpha values of each construct surpassed the minimum
General manager 17 3.8
General manager assistant 71 16.0 requirement of .70. Composite reliability of each construct ranged
Depart manager 163 36.8 from .70 to .89, demonstrating internal consistency with its cor-
Other supervisorial level 78 17.6 responding construct. Discriminant and convergent validity were
Employee 114 25.7
also assessed. The average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs
Employment status
Full-time 84 19.0 was greater than the squared correlation between constructs and
Part-time 359 81.0 exceeded minimum criterion of .50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Department Therefore, it is concluded that all six constructs involved in the
Front office 52 11.7 conceptual model are verified as six unique constructs.
Accounting 45 10.2
After identifying a well-fitting measurement model, the rela-
Housekeeping 92 20.8
Food and beverage 66 14.9 tionships between variables in the proposed model were tested
Human resources 58 13.1 using structural equation modeling. The results of maximum like-
Sales and marketing 34 7.7 lihood estimation provided an adequate fit to the data (2 = 461.08,
Public relations 46 10.4
df = 126; RMSEA = .078; CFI = .97; NFI = .95; and GFI = .90). The
Other (security, laundry, technical) 50 11.3
Education
results of the hypothesis testing are summarized in Table 4.
Primary education 94 21.2 Hypothesis 1 (H1) states that transactional leadership has a pos-
High school 212 47.9 itive influence on hotel employees’ QWL. No statistical support for
Associate 58 13.1 this causal path (ˇ = −.15, t = −.56, p > 05) was found; therefore, it is
College 63 14.2
concluded that H1 is not supported. On the other hand, Hypothesis
Graduate 16 3.6
2 supported. Transformational leadership had a significant positive
influence on QWL (ˇ = .72, t = 2.74, p < .05). Thus, we conclude that
found for the correlations between constructs in each hypothesis: H2 is supported.
transactional leadership and QWL (r = .37, p < .01), transformational Hypothesis 3 (H3) states that QWL has a negative influence on
leadership and QWL (r = .50, p < .01), QWL and employee burnout burnout. This hypothesis (H3) was supported (ˇ = −.60, t = −10.61,
(r = −.41, p < .01), QWL and organizational commitment (r = .40, p < .01). Hypothesis 4 (H4) states that QWL has a positive impact
p < .01), QWL and life satisfaction (r = .43, p < .01), employee burnout on organizational commitment. The study results indicate that
and life satisfaction (r = −.35, p < .01), and organizational commit- QWL has a significant predictive influence on organizational com-
ment and life satisfaction (r = .34, p < .01). mitment (ˇ = .51, t = 9.43, p < .01); hence, we conclude that H4 is
According to the two-step approach of Anderson and Gerbing supported. Similarly, Hypothesis 5 (H5), which states that QWL has
(1988), before investigating relationships between variables in the a positive predictive influence on life satisfaction, is also supported
hypothesized model, the measurement model should be exam- by the data (ˇ = .22, t = 2.81, p < .05).
ined using confirmatory factor analysis to validate the research The model also hypothesized a negative causal path between
constructs. To assess the overall fit of the model, chi-squared employee burnout and employee life satisfaction (H6). The data
statistic (2 ), chi-squared statistics adjusted by the degrees of free- supported this hypothesis (ˇ = −.28, t = −3.59, p < .01). Lastly,
dom (2 /df), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Hypothesis 7 (H7) states that organizational commitment is a

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among constructs (N = 443).

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Transactional leadership 3.40 0.77 –

2. Transformational leadership 3.45 0.81 0.65** –
3. Quality of work life 3.42 0.70 0.37** 0.50** –
4. Employee burnout 2.66 0.48 −0.12** −0.23** −0.41** –
5. Organizational commitment 3.39 0.67 0.40** 0.37** 0.40** −0.06 –
6. Life satisfaction 3.64 0.75 0.16** −0.37** 0.43** −0.35** 0.34**
**
p < .01.
 D. Kara et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 9–18 15

Table 3
Properties of the measurement model.

Constructs and indicators Completely standardized loading t-Value Cronbach’s Alpha Composite reliability Average variance extracted

Transactional leadership .90 .78 .54

TSL1: contingent reward .84 –
TSL2: management – active .78 17.98
TSL3: management – passive .56 11.94
Transformational leadership .95 .89 .63
TFL1: idealized attributes .75 –
TFL2: idealized behaviors .76 20.40
TFL3: inspirational motivation .83 17.80
TFL4: intellectual stimulation .82 17.60
TFL5: individual consideration .80 17.11
Quality of work life .91 .85 .50
QWL1: health and safety needs .71 –
QWL2: economic and family needs .67 13.11
QWL3: social needs .68 13.24
QWL4: esteem needs .77 14.80
QWL5: actualization needs .70 13.63
QWL6: knowledge needs .67 13.09

Employee burnout .76 .70 .55

BO1: emotional exhaustion .90 –
BO2: depersonalization .55 7.98

Organizational commitmenta .88 .88 .88

OC1 .94 –

Life satisfactiona .88 .81 .81

LS1 .93 –

N = 443.
a
Use of one composite value taking its uni-dimension into consideration.

positive predictor of life satisfaction. The data provided support have felt too threatened to express their honest opinions concern-
for H7 (ˇ = .24, t = 4.32, p < .001). ing transactional leadership within their hotel. However, we tried
to minimize the effect of social desirability by ensuring confiden-
5. Discussion tiality and anonymity by instructing the respondents not to identify
themselves in the questionnaire and to return the questionnaire
The constructs of leadership style on quality of work life (QWL), to a designated box. The other, more plausible explanation is that
burnout, and organizational commitment independently or in the nature of the hospitality sector being people-oriented and the
some combinations have been examined extensively, but their selection of 5-star employees as the unit of analysis may truly make
assumed relationship to QOL has not been empirically demon- transactional leader style a moot point. That is, this type of lead-
strated in a hospitality setting. There has been, if any, very limited ership inherently may not have much to do with creating a good
research on the effects of leadership style on burnout, organiza- work environment, which explains its nonsignificant relationship
tional commitment, QWL and QOL of hospitality employees. This with QWL.
study was an initial attempt to understand and empirically test H2 was supported in this study. Transformational leadership
hypothesized effects of transactional and transformational leader- had a significant positive influence on QWL (ˇ = .72, t = 2.74, p < .05).
ship style on hotel employees’ QOL. Our model postulates that the The finding implies and reaffirms that transformational leadership
effect of leadership style on employee QOL is mediated first and style in the hospitality industry should enhance the QWL of hospi-
foremost by QWL, burnout, and organizational commitment. The tality employees (cf. Firth-Cozens and Mowbray, 2001; Kuoppala
study results provided support for the mediation model at large et al., 2008). As transformational leader’s behavior is likely to
with the exception of the first hypothesis (transactional leadership increase employees’ effectiveness and productivity in the organiza-
has a negative predictive influence on QWL). tion, employees would feel better and that this positivity may also
First, let us try to explain the fact that the data failed to sup- spill over into their quality of life and work like. The study findings
port H1 (that transactional leadership is a negative predictor of have both theoretical and practical implications. From a theoret-
QWL). The study finding that there is not significant relation- ical perspective, this study demonstrated and further confirmed
ship between these two constructs. Why? One explanation may that leadership style (transformational leadership in particular)
involve a social desirability confound. Sample respondents may does have a significant predictive effect on employee perceived

Table 4
Results of the proposed model.

Hypothesized path Standardized coefficient (ˇ) t-Value Hypotheses testing

H1: transactional leadership → quality of work life −.15 −.56 Not supported
H2: transformational leadership → quality of work life .72 2.74* Supported
H3: quality of work life → employee burnout −.60 −10.61** Supported
H4: quality of work life → organizational commitment .51 9.43** Supported
H5: quality of work life → life satisfaction .22 2.81* Supported
H6: employee burnout → life satisfaction −.28 −3.59** Supported
H7: organizational commitment → life satisfaction .24 4.32** Supported
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
16 D. Kara et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 9–18

quality of work life. This finding reinforces the findings of Sirgy outcomes. QWL is indeed is a powerful explanatory factor. It is
et al.’s (2001) study and also empirically demonstrates that need based on need satisfaction along the full spectrum of human devel-
satisfaction related to supervisory behavior tends to positively opmental needs (i.e., basic and growth needs). Transformation
impact QWL. This finding is also consistent with past research relat- leadership can go a long way to help meet the employee’s basic
ing the impact of supervisory behavior on employee emotional and growth needs. The elements of transformational leadership
well-being (e.g., Caplan et al., 1980; Lowe and Northcott, 1988; Teas such as idealized attributes and behaviors (charisma), inspirational
et al., 1979). The same finding linking transformational leadership motivation, intellectual simulation and individual consideration
with QWL is highly consistent with past research. Our contribution all positively affect the QWL of hotel employees. As expected
here is to demonstrate this relationship clearly in the context of the employee burnout is negatively associated with QWL and employ-
hospitality industry. ees’ overall life satisfaction.
H3 states that QWL has a negative influence on burnout. This The managerial implication of this study is very clear to man-
hypothesis was supported (ˇ = −.60, t = −10.61, p < .01). As stated agement in the hospitality industry. Practicing transformational
above, burnout appears to be a factor in job turnover, absenteeism, leadership is a good thing and is highly recommended. Transfor-
low morale and reduced service quality (Maslach and Jackson, mational leadership serves to enhance hotel employees’ perceived
1981; Singh, 2000). It is known from research that the feelings QWL, which in turn enhances organizational commitment, reduces
created by burnout can have a significant effect an employee’s abil- employee burnout, and most importantly enhances employees’
ity to deliver quality service. Unhappy employees cannot make overall life satisfaction.
customers happy. The hospitality sector is known to be labor Understanding how leadership style influences QWL, burnout,
intensive and low-paying jobs are pervasive in the industry. Trans- organizational commitment, and employees’ satisfaction with life
formational leadership can go a long way to improve the QOL in the hospitality industry should empower hospitality leaders to
of employees and their well-being. Transformational leadership create the best working environment that would mitigate the neg-
should be promoted along with other conditions that can reduce ative effects of the work place while improving the well-being of
employee burnout and enhance organizational commitment. employees. Doing so should also enhance stronger commitment
H4 states that QWL has a positive impact on organizational to hospitality organizations and reduce employee turnover. There
commitment. The study results indicate that QWL has a signifi- is enough evidence accumulating to date suggesting that if man-
cant predictive influence on organizational commitment (ˇ = .51, agers do not try to use a humanistic approach to human resource
t = 9.43, p < .01); hence, we conclude that H4 is supported. Managers management the organization may suffer significantly through
use different leadership styles in the work environment and their turnover and absenteeism (cf. Lim and Boger, 2005). In a mod-
behavior has direct effects on employee outcomes. Effective use of erately developed country such as Turkey, hospitality leaders are
leadership style (i.e., using transformational leadership) may result constantly challenged to improve working conditions and provide
in higher employee satisfaction, commitment, and productivity unique incentives for employees. Thus, it is important that these
(Erkutlu, 2008). Therefore, leaders can contribute significantly to managers not only understand but also accept the importance of
organizational health by providing healthy working conditions for creative leadership and integrate the specific needs of individuals
their employees in a competitive business world and make every into their organization and decision-making.
attempt to increase their employees’ organizational commitment. With respect to the study limitations and future research, we
H5, which states that QWL has a positive predictive influ- would like to point out the following: first, our study sample
ence on life satisfaction, is also supported by the data (ˇ = .22, may not be generalizable to the employee population of the 5-
t = 2.81, p < .05). As mentioned above, quality of life (QOL) is a star hotels in Turkey. Future research should employ a better
very popular topic, frequently used in the daily conversation but probability sample to ensure generalizability. Second, the gener-
is indeed highly complex. Because life satisfaction is thought to alizability of the study is even further restricted to employees of
be on top of an attitude hierarchy, it is influenced by satisfaction 5-star hotels in Turkey. Future research should test the model in
with life domains such as satisfaction with community, family, the context of other types of hotels and outside of Turkey. Third, the
work, social life, health, and so on (Sirgy and Cornwell, 2002). The study is essentially on a cross-sectional survey (i.e., correlational
model also hypothesized a negative causal path between employee study), which means that we cannot demonstrate cause and effect.
burnout and employee life satisfaction (H6). The data supported Future research should employ a longitudinal design that is better
this hypothesis (ˇ = −.28, t = −3.59, p < .01). Lastly, Hypothesis 7 equipped to test for causation. Finally, our study has shown that
(H7) states that organizational commitment is a positive predic- transformational leadership plays an important role in predicting
tor of life satisfaction. The data provided support for H7 (ˇ = .24, QWL. However, our study does not address the specific mechanism
t = 4.32, p < .001). by which this occurs. Future research should explore the mediat-
Our study findings are consistent with past research. For exam- ing constructs that may help us better understand the influence of
ple, Arnold et al. (2007) reported that high-quality leadership is transformational leadership on QWL.
associated with increased employee well-being. For this reason,
transformational leadership may contribute toward quality of life
References
through the effects they have on the well-being of staff (Firth-
Cozens and Mowbray, 2001). Furthermore, Kuoppala et al. (2008) Aarons, G., 2006. Transformational and transactional leadership: association with
investigated leadership, job well-being, and health effects and attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychiatric Services 57, 1162.
their findings showed that leadership is associated with job well- Abbott, J., De Cieri, H., 2008. Influences on the provision of work-life benefits: man-
agement and employee perspectives. Journal of Management & Organization 14,
being. Good leadership seems to improve job satisfaction and job 303–322.
well-being as well as decrease sickness absenteeism and disability Adler, N.J., 1983. A typology of management studies involving culture. Journal of
pensions. International Business Studies 14, 29–47.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice:
Our second study contribution to theory is the notion that the a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103,
effect of transformational leadership does impact a host of other 411–423.
employee outcomes such as burnout, organizational commitment, Andrews, E.M., Withey, S.B., 1976. Social Indicators of Well-Being. Plenum Press,
New York.
and QOL. These effects are all mediated through QWL. In other Arnold, K., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E., McKee, M., 2007. Transformational
words, this study highlights the importance of QWL is explaining leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of meaningful
the effects of transformational leadership on a variety of employee work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12, 193–210.
 D. Kara et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 9–18 17

Avolio, B., Zhu, W., Koh, W., Bhatia, P., 2004. Transformational leadership and orga- Humborstad, S., Humborstad, B., Whitfield, R., 2007. Burnout and service employees’
nizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and willingness to deliver quality service. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality
moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25, & Tourism 7, 45–64.
951–968. Jeffres, L., Dobos, J., 1995. Separating people’s satisfaction with life and public per-
Barling, J., Slater, F., Kelloway, E., 2000. Transformational leadership and emotional ceptions of the quality of life in the environment. Social Indicators Research 34,
intelligence: an exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development 181–211.
Journal 21, 157–161. Kanste, O., Kyngas, H., Nikkila, J., 2007. The relationship between multidimensional
Bass, B., 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share leadership and burnout among nursing staff. Journal of Nursing Management
the vision. Organizational Dynamics 18, 19–31. 15, 731–739.
Bass, B., 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational lead- Korsgaard, M.A., Roberson, L., 1995. Procedural justice in performance evaluation:
ership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8, 9–32. the role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal
Bass, B., Avolio, B., 1994. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. discussions. Journal of Management 21, 657–669.
International Journal of Public Administration 17, 541–554. Kozak, M., Uca, S., 2008. Effective factors in the constitution of leadership styles:
Bass, B., Avolio, B., 2005. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Feedback. Mind Gar- a study of turkish hotel managers. Anatolia-Ankara-International Journal of
den, Inc. http://www.mindgarden.com Tourism and Hospitality Research 19, 117–130.
Bennett, T., 2009. A study of the management leadership style preferred by it sub- Kuoppala, J., Lamminpa, A., Liira, J., Vainio, H., 2008. Leadership, Job Well-being, and
ordinates. Journal of Organizational Culture Communications and Conflict 13, Health Effects – A Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis. CME Available for
1–15. this Article at ACOEM.org, pp. 904–915.
Bentler, P.M., Chou, C.P., 1987. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Leach, L., 2005. Nurse executive transformational leadership and organizational
Methods & Research 16, 78–117. commitment. Journal of Nursing Administration 35, 228–240.
Berg, P., Kalleberg, A., Appelbaum, E., 2003. Balancing work and family: the role of Ledgerwood, C., Crotts, J., Everett, A., 1998. Antecedents of employee burnout in the
high commitment environments. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and hotel industry. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 4, 31–44.
Society 42, 168–188. Lepage, A., 2009. The quality of life as attribute of sustainability. The TQM Journal
Brown, F., Reilly, M., 2009. The Myers–Briggs type indicator and transformational 21, 105–115.
leadership. Journal of Management Development 28, 916–932. Lim, E., Boger, E., 2005. Management requires leadership. Consortium Journal of
Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley & Sons, Hospitality & Tourism 9, 59–66.
Inc., New York. Limsila, K., Ogunlana, S., 2008. Performance and leadership outcome correlates of
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1989. Single sample cross-validation indices for covari- leadership styles and subordinate commitment. Engineering Construction and
ance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 24, 445–455. Architectural Management 15, 164–184.
Burns, J.M., 1978. Leadership. Harper, New York. Lok, P., Crawford, J., 1999. The relationship between commitment and organiza-
Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R., Van Harrison, R., Pinneau, S.R., 1980. Job Demands tional culture, subculture leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational
and Worker Health: Main Effects and Occupational Differences. Survey Research change and development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 20,
Center, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. 365–374.
Castiglione, J., 2006. Organizational learning and transformational leadership in the Lowe, G.S., Northcott, H.C., 1988. The impact of working conditions, social roles and
library environment. Library Management 27, 289–299. personal characteristics on gender differences in distress. Work and Occupations
Chan, K., Wyatt, T., 2007. Quality of work life: a study of employees in Shanghai, 15, 55–77.
China. Asia Pacific Business Review 13, 501–517. Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., Sivasubramaniam, N., 1996. Effectiveness correlates of trans-
Chisholm, R., 1983. Quality of working life: critical issue for the 80s. Public Produc- formational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
tivity Review 7, 10–25. literature. Leadership Quarterly 7, 385–425.
Clark, R., Hartline, M., Jones, K., 2009. The effects of leadership style on hotel MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., Rich, G., 2001. Transformational and transactional
employees’ commitment to service quality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50, leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
209–220. Science 29, 115–125.
Cummins, R., 1996. The domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos. In: Mancheno-Smoak, L., Endres, G., Potak, R., Athanasaw, Y., 2009. The individual cul-
Michalos, A.C. (Ed.), Citation Classics from Social Indicators Research. Springer tural values and job satisfaction of the transformational leader. Organization
Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 559–584. Development Journal 27, 9–21.
Dallimore, E., Mickel, A., 2006. Quality of life: obstacles advice and employer assis- Mandell, B., Pherwani, S., 2003. Relationship between emotional intelligence and
tance. Human Relations 59, 61–75. transformational leadership style: a gender comparison. Journal of Business and
Diener, E., 1984. Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 75, Psychology 17, 387–404.
542–575. Maslach, C., Jackson, S., 1981. The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Diener, E., 2009. Subjective well-being. In: Diener, E. (Ed.), The Science of Well-being: Organizational Behavior 2, 99–113.
the Collected Works of Ed Diener. Springer Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., 2001. Job burnout. Annual review of Psy-
pp. 11–58. chology 52, 397–422.
Downey, L., Papageorgiou, V., Stough, C., 2006. Examining the relationship between May, B., Lau, R., Johnson, S., 1999. A longitudinal study of quality of work life and
leadership emotional intelligence and intuition in senior female managers. Lead- business performance. South Dakota Business Review 58, 1–7.
ership & Organization Development Journal 27, 250–264. Mehta, R., 2000. Impact of leadership style on channel partner motivation. Journal
Efraty, D., Sirgy, M., 1990. The effects of quality of working life (QWL) on employee of Marketing Channels 7, 121–153.
behavioral responses. Social Indicators Research 22, 31–47. Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 1989. Hotel and Tourism Industry Labor Force
Emery, C., Barker, K., 2007. The effect of transactional and transformational leader- Survey. Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Ankara, Turkey.
ship styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2009. Tourism Statistics, Retrieved from
contact personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture Communication and Con- http://www.kultur.gov.tr/TR/belge/1-63779/turizm-belgeli-tesisler.html
flict 11, 77–90. Mossholder, K.W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E.R., Wesolowski, M.A., 1998. Relationships
Erkutlu, H., 2008. The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and between bases of power and work reactions: the mediational role of procedural
leadership effectiveness: the Turkish case. Journal of Management Development justice. Journal of Management 24, 533–552.
27, 708–726. Mowday, R., Steers, R., Porter, L., 1979. The measurement of organizational commit-
Fields, M., Thacker, J., 1992. Influence of quality of work life on company and union ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 14, 224–247.
commitment. Academy of Management Journal 35, 439–450. Nadler, D., Lawler 3rd., E., 1983. Quality of work life: perspectives and directions.
Firth-Cozens, J., Mowbray, D., 2001. Leadership and the quality of care. British Med- Organizational Dynamics 11, 20–30.
ical Journal 10 (Suppl. 2). Nicolaides, A., 2006. Management versus leadership in the hospitality industry.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob- Journal of Travel and Tourism Research 6.
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 48, Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Brenner, S., Randall, R., Borg, V., 2008. The importance of trans-
39–50. formational leadership style for the well being of employees working with older
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., 2003. Transformational leadership people. Journal of Advanced Nursing 63, 465–475.
effects on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Podsakoff, M.P., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems
Educational Administration 41, 228–256. and prospects. Journal of Management 12, 531–544.
Gill, A., Flaschner, A., Shachar, M., 2006. Mitigating stress and burnout by imple- Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Bommer, W., 1996. Transformational leader behav-
menting transformational-leadership. International Journal of Contemporary iors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
Hospitality Management 18, 469–481. commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Man-
Hater, J.J., Bass, B.M., 1988. Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of agement 22, 259.
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology Rad, A., Yarmohammadian, M., 2006. A study of relationship between managers’
73, 695–702. leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1998. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitiv- 19, 11–28.
ity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 3, Roberts, J., Clement, A., 2007. Materialism and satisfaction with over-all quality of
424–453. life and eight life domains. Social Indicators Research 82, 79–92.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analy- Scherpenzeel, A., Saris, W., 1996. Causal direction in a model of life satisfac-
sis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling tion: the top-down/bottom-up controversy. Social Indicators Research 38,
6, 1–55. 161–180.
18 D. Kara et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 9–18

Seligman, M., 2002. Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Van Dierendonck, D., Haynes, C., Borrill, C., Stride, C., 2004. Leadership behavior and
Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. Free, New York. subordinate well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 9, 165–175.
Singh, J., 2000. Performance productivity and quality of frontline Vigoda-Gadot, E., 2007. Leadership style, organizational politics and employees’
employees in service organizations. Journal of Marketing 64, performance: an empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel
15–34. Review 36, 661–683.
Sirgy, M.J., 2012. The Psychology of Quality of Life: Hedonic Well-being, Life Satis- Vrba, M., 2007. Emotional intelligence skills and leadership behavior in a sample of
faction, and Eudaimonia. Springer, New York. South African first-line managers. Management Dynamics 16, 25–35.
Sirgy, M.J., Cornwell, T., 2002. How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Social Wu, F., 2009. The Relationship between leadership styles and foreign English tea-
Indicators Research 59, 79–114. chers job satisfaction in adult English cram schools: evidences in Taiwan. The
Sirgy, M.J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P., Lee, D., 2001. A new measure of quality of work Journal of American Academy of Business 14 (2) (Abstract).
life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Yamane, T., (Alptekin Esin, M. Akif Bakir, Celal Aydin Esen Gurbuzsel, Trans.) 2001.
Research 55, 241–302. Temel ornekleme yontemleri, first ed. Literatur yayıncılık, Istanbul.
Sunny Hu, H., Cheng, C., 2010. Job stress, coping strategies and burnout among hotel Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P., 2010. Leadership styles and burnout: is there an asso-
industry supervisors in Taiwan. The International Journal of Human Resource ciation? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22,
Management 21, 1337–1350. 300–320.
Teas, R.K., Wacker, J.G., Hughes, E., 1979. A path analysis of causes and consequences
of salespeople’s perception of role clarity. Journal of Marketing Research 16,
355–369.