In this study, in order to examine antecedents and consequences of group task satisfaction, We collected 204 questionnaires with 35 hotel groups from 4 hotels located in Guangzhou and Shenzhen and used HLM to test the relationship between group task satisfaction and other variables in group level and individual level. The research findings show that employee individual job satisfaction mediates the effect of group task satisfaction on employee turnover intention and job performance; group task satisfaction mediates the positive effect of group cohesion and group job characteristics on individual job performance; group cohesion moderates the effect of individual job satisfaction on turnover intention and job performance.
In recent years, due to low switching cost and low salary of hotel employees, hotel employee turnover rate is high. The high employee turnover rate will cause certain pressure toward the human resources department, training department, finance department and management of hotels. Therefore, many hotel managers spent a lot of human, financial and material resources in seeking the reasons for high employee turnover rate and the corresponding solutions. Meanwhile, a heated discussion was also raised in the academic circle [
At present, the academic research on employee job satisfaction was more and more mature. However, the academic research on employee job satisfaction in group level is very rare. At the beginning of this century, Mason and Griffin [
Concept of cohesion was first put forward by Lewin [
H1: Group cohesion has a significant positive influence on group task satisfaction.
Group job characteristics, as the name implies, are inherent attributes of a group work or task. At present, a typical job characteristics theory proposed by Hackman and Oldham [
H2: Group job characteristics have a significant positive influence on group job satisfaction.
Mason and Griffin [
H3: group job satisfaction has significant positive influence on job satisfaction.
From the above, the author argues that group job characteristics and group cohesion do not directly affect employee job satisfaction, but indirectly affect it through group task satisfaction. On this basis, the author puts forward hypotheses:
H4a: Group task satisfaction mediates the positive influence group job characteristics on job satisfaction;
H4b: Group task satisfaction mediates the positive influence group cohesion on job satisfaction.
The more satisfied employees are more willing to stay in the enterprise instead of quitting [
H5a: Employee job satisfaction mediates the negative influence of group task satisfaction on turnover intention;
H5b: Employee job satisfaction mediates the positive influence of group task satisfaction on job performance.
Little research regarded group cohesion as a moderator variable, and cross-level moderating effect was less. Group cohesion could be divided into two dimensions. One is emotional cohesion, also called social cohesion, which refers to close relationship among group members, and interdependence tendency formed in daily life in which they get along with each other. Another is task cohesion which puts emphasis on coordination and distribution of responsibilities and complementary skills of group members when they are completing group task together [
H6a: Group cohesion moderates the positive effect of employee job satisfaction on turnover intention;
H6b: Group cohesion moderates the negative effect of employee job satisfaction on job performance.
From what has been discussed above, the author puts forward hypothesis model shown in
The author issued formal questionnaires to the employees in the front-line service group and back office group of three five-star hotels and a four-star hotel in Guangzhou and Shenzhen. Before issuing, the author packed corresponding questionnaires into the envelope according to the number of each group and marked the group name on it to avoid packing by mistake. After employees completed, the author sealed the envelope and took them back. A total of 252 questionnaires from 40 groups were collected. Eliminating invalid questionnaires such as incomplete questionnaires, 204 questionnaires from 35 groups were valid, with an 81% effective rate. In the valid study samples, women accounted for 56.1%; employee between 18 and 28 years old accounting for 74.6%;between 29 and 45 years old accounting for 23.9%; 46 years old or above accounting for 1.5%; below high school degree, 43.4%, college degree or above, 56.6%; monthly income below 3000 RMB, 68.2%, between 3000 and 8000, 30.3%, above 8000, 1.5%; respondents who work in current hotel are less than 1 year, 55.6%, between 1 year and 5 years, 39.5%, above 5 years, 4.9%.
The measurements of key variables in present study adopt Likert 5-points scale, 1 for complete disagreement
and 5 for complete agreement. Group task satisfaction (GTS) was measured with group task satisfaction scale developed by Mason and Griffin [
Firstly, this research has adopted the SPSS17.0 to conduct exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the three multidimensional variables, which are group task satisfaction, group job characteristic and group cohesion. The sub- scales of group task satisfaction and group job characteristics hold very high loads among their common factors; meanwhile, they have achieved convergent validity and discrimination validity. Among the sub-scales of group cohesion, the item coefficient of GC11 was less than 0.45, it had to be deleted; while GC3, GC5 and GC7 fell over the dimension of planned construct and they couldn’t be explained easily, therefore, they also had to be deleted.
After revising the scale, this research will adopt LISREL8.80 to conducted the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA ) of group task satisfaction, group cohesion and group job characteristics, which furthermore will use indexes of ×2 testing, RMSEA, NNFI, CFI, SRMR to judge the fitting degree of models. As shown in
Among the hierarchical linear models, level 1 (individual level) includes the employee’s job satisfaction, turnover intention, job performance and control variables. Level 2 (group level)includes group job characteristics, group cohesion and group task satisfaction. RWG value, coefficient of ICC (1) and ICC (2) of employees’ score of group job characteristics, group cohesion and group task satisfaction basically reached acceptable aggregation conditions recommended by Klein et al. [
Using HLM 6.08 software, the author carried out data analysis according to Hofman’s multilevel linear model analysis method [
1) After controlling the control variables, the independent variables of level 1 and independent variables of level 2 (i.e., group cohesion and group job characteristic), group task satisfaction had significant positive influence on employee job satisfaction (γ 03 = 0.932, p < 0.01), supporting H3; meanwhile group task satisfaction had no significant effect on employee turnover intention (γ 03 = −0.283, p > 0.1) and job performance (γ 03 = −0.411, p > 0.1).
2) After controlling the control variables and the independent variables of level 1 and independent variables of level 2, group cohesion had significant moderating effect on the relationship between employee job satisfac-
Variable | df | χ2 | Significance | RESEA | SRMR | NNFI | CFI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group task satisfaction | 32 | 51.150 | 0.00 | 0.061 | 0.057 | 0.950 | 0.970 |
Group cohesion | 16 | 37.860 | 0.00 | 0.087 | 0.054 | 0.910 | 0.950 |
Group job characteristic | 24 | 51.910 | 0.00 | 0.082 | 0.061 | 0.930 | 0.960 |
*p < 0.001.
Dependent variable Models | JS | TI | JP | |
---|---|---|---|---|
M1: Null model | ||||
Intercept | γ00 | 3.35** | 2.46** | 5.47** |
D (NP) | 432.65 (2) | 479.11 (2) | 496.48 (2) | |
M2: Random coefficient regression model (Increase control variables of the level 1) | ||||
Q01 | γ10 | −0.02 | −0.06 | −0.09 |
Q02 | γ20 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.10 |
Q03 | γ30 | −0.02 | −0.01 | −0.09 |
Q04 | γ40 | −0.14** | −0.06 | 0.08 |
Q05 | γ50 | 0.19** | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Q06 | γ60 | −0.05 | −0.09 | 0.20+ |
D (NP) | 417.33 (9) | 474.42 (9) | 466.90 (9) | |
Δχ2 (Δdf) | 15.32 (7)* | 4.69 (7) | 29.56 (7)** | |
M3: Random coefficient regression model (Increase independent variable of the level 1) | ||||
JS | γ70 | −0.67** | 0.34** | |
D (NP) | 389.45 (12) | 425.32 (12) | ||
Δχ2 (Δdf) | 84.97 (5)** | 41.58 (5)** | ||
M4: Model of Intercept as results (Increase control variables of the level 2) | ||||
GC | γ01 | 0.00 | 0.24 | 1.15** |
GJC | γ02 | 0.00 | −0.15 | 0.61* |
GTS | γ03 | 0.93** | −0.28 | −0.41 |
D (NP) | 397.80 (12) | 387.06 (15) | 416.45 (15) | |
Δχ2 (Δdf) | 19.53 (5)** | 2.39 (3) | 8.87 (3)* | |
M5: Model of slope as results (Increase the hierarchical interactive items) | ||||
GC × JS | γ71 | −0.47* | 0.54* | |
D (NP) | 383.38 (16) | 412.60 (16) | ||
Δχ2 (Δdf) | 3.68 (1)+ | 3.85 (1)* |
Q01 = gender; Q02 = age; Q03 = education background; Q04 = length of service to the department; Q05 = position; Q06 = monthly income level. D represents deviation square; NP represents number of parameter estimated; Δ × 2 represents the difference between bias squares; Δdf represents the difference between the degrees of freedom; **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, +p < 0.1.
tion and employee turnover intention (γ 71 = 0.472, p < 0.05), and the relationship between job satisfaction and employee job performance (γ 71 = 0.538, p < 0.05). The result of Chi-square test showed that M5 fitted data more than M4 (Δx2 = 3.68, Δdf = 1, p < 0.1; TI as DV) (Δx2 = 3.85, Δdf = 1, p < 0.05; JP as DV). According to Simple Slope (SS) test method by Cohen et al. [
In this study, with the mediation effect analysis method of Barron and Kenny [
This research has improved and deepened Mason and Griffin’s group task satisfaction theory [
These research conclusions provide some revelations for hotel managers on how to reduce employee turnover intention and improve job performance from a group point of view. It is necessary for the hotel managers to create a high cohesive group to reduce the employee turnover rate and improve the employee job performance. In addition, hotel managers should also pay attention to the improvement of work diversity, autonomy and feedback. Especially in terms of autonomy, due to the limited mandate, the hotel junior employees only report to their superiors based on the principles of basic services when facing unexpected situations, which may result in service delays and other issues. At last, it may affect the customer experience and employee motivation initiative. Based on this, we think the group managers should give a reasonable authorization based on the group member personality, experience, skills, etc., in order to save time, avoid unnecessary delays in service and complaints, mobilize the member’s initiation, and increase their sense of accomplishment.
Mediation model Analysis steps | Mediating effect of GTS on GC and JS | Mediating effect of GTS on GJC and JS | Mediating effect of JS on GTS and TI | Mediating effect of JS on GTS and JP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step1: The influence of IV on DV | 0.415+ | 0.373+ | −0.830** | 0.720* | |
Step2: The influence of IV on MV | a0.330 (0.143)* | 0.394 (0.118)** | 0.928 (0.170)** | 0.928 (0.170)** | |
Step3: The influence of MV on DV | 0.928 (0.170)** | 0.928 (0.170)** | −0.674 (0.071)** | 0.459 (0.078)** | |
Step4: The influence IV and MV on DV | IV to DV | −0.008 | −0.002 | −0.255 | 0.380 |
MV to DV | 0.932 (0.182)** | 0.929 (0.197)** | −0.654 (0.073)** | 0.445 (0.080)** | |
Z value | 2.104 (p < 0.05) | 2.725 (p < 0.01) | −4.662 (p < 0.01) | 3.896 (p < 0.01) |
IV represents Independent variable; DV represents dependent variable; MV represents mediation variable. athe first value is the regression coefficient, and the value in parentheses is the standard error; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
There are still some limitations in this research. First of all, we only investigated the hotel industry, so the general applicability of the findings needs testing. In addition, in this research, we failed to make paired questionnaires to collect data for the reason of operational difficulties, so there may be homologous error problems.
This research is funded by NSFC (71472075).