International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 48–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

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

Discussion paper

Hospitality employees promotional attitude: Findings from graduates

of a twelve-month management training program
Wen Chang a,∗ , James A. Busser b
a
Department of Apparel, Events, and Hospitality Management, Iowa State University, 6W MacKay Hall, 2302 Osborn Drive, Ames, IA, 50010-1078, United
States
b
William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 456021, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6021,
United States

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

Article history: Mentoring is considered an important human resources training program but is seldom discussed as an
Received 7 October 2015 internal marketing tool in the hospitality management literature. This study, using a major hotel com-
Received in revised form pany’s formal mentoring program, empirically tested mentoring’s influence on employee’s promotional
26 September 2016
attitude. Employee psychological contract theory provided the theoretical foundation for the study. The
Accepted 27 September 2016
proposed research model was tested using Partial Least Squares (PLS) SEM. The results showed that
Available online 15 October 2016
mentor functions (i.e., career development and psychosocial support) were antecedents of employee
promotional attitude. In addition, employee’s psychological contract breach and employee’s affective
Keywords:
Formal mentoring
organizational commitment were mediators between mentor functions and promotional attitude, with
Mentor functions affective organizational commitment showing a full mediation effect. These results provide both theo-
Promotional attitudes retical and managerial implications and offer opportunities for future research.
Employee psychological contract Published by Elsevier Ltd.
PLS-SEM

1. Introduction shapes mentees’ attitudes toward the organization as an inter-

To increase hospitality employees’ career satisfaction, a suc-
cessful career management program should contain three key
elements: (1) appraisal and advice, (2) development, and (3) train-
ing (Kong et al., 2011, 2012). Career management programs are
particularly important for younger hospitality employees that
expect a genuine and meaningful start to their career, providing
personal and professional development (Anastasios, 2007). This is
easily achieved through well designed and administrated mentor
program. Mentoring is a critical element of employee development
and training and often considered an organizational socialization
tool, especially when a mentor is formally assigned to a new recruit
(Chao, 2007). Various mentoring benefits were revealed in the
literature both at the organization and individual level, such as
increased organization attractiveness (Allen and O’Brien, 2006) and
improved job performance (Li et al., 2016). In the hospitality indus-
try, lacking mentor support was a major factor preventing female
employees from succeeding in their career (Kattara, 2005). How-
ever, there is a lack of research investigating whether mentoring
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wchang@iastate.edu (W. Chang), james.busser@unlv.edu
(J.A. Busser).
nal marketing tool. Internal marketing emphasizes communicating
organizational values to employees and helping them to set up a
clear understanding of what to expect (Rafiq and Ahmed, 2000),
thereby increasing employee satisfaction and service quality (Kong
et al., 2015). Hospitality employees, especially front-line employees
are the most valuable resource for a company because they are the
ones who deliver services to customers and are brand ambassadors.
An efficient internal marketing process could substantially assist
organizations to shape their employees’ attitudes and behaviors.
Over time, hospitality employees develop opinions about their
employer and share them with friends, family and cowork-
ers (Trowbrige, 2001). Moreover, these opinions have also been
posted on social media (Higginbottom, 2014). With the explo-
sion of social media usage, employees’ shared information has
become increasingly important to companies. Externally, employ-
ees’ shared opinions toward the company influence their friends
and family, who are potential customers or employees of the com-
pany (Greene et al., 1994). Internally, since hospitality companies
rely on employee-customer interactions to deliver services (To
et al., 2015), it is imperative to avoid having negative opinions
shared among their employees. Therefore, promoting employees’
positive information sharing has become an urgent concern in the
workplace, especially in the hospitality industry. However, the link-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.09.013
0278-4319/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 W. Chang, J.A. Busser / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 48–57
age between mentoring and employee’s promotional attitude is
missing in the literature.
Adding to the dearth of mentorship study in the hospitality
industry, this research investigates a major hospitality company’s
formal mentoring program with the purpose to understand the role
of mentor functions on hospitality mentees’ promotional attitude.
In addition, this study included psychological contract breach and
affective organizational commitment as two mediators between
the antecedent of mentor functions and the outcome of promo-
tional attitude (Fig. 1). As an exploratory study to understand
mentees’ promotional attitude, this case study extends scholars’
understanding of promotional attitude and its linkage to mentor-
ing. By introducing two mediators into the relationship, this study
potentially provides a new approach to assess mentoring and its
theoretical outcomes. Furthermore, it contributes to the litera-
ture on psychological contract theory by clarifying mentors’ role in
psychological contract breach. Practically, this study provides rec-
ommendations to hospitality managers regarding the design and
implementation of formal mentoring programs. More importantly,
it offers managers a potential psychological remedy to improve
employee attitudes that are broadly shared through social media.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. Mentorship and mentorship functions
Mentorship is “an intense interpersonal exchange between
a senior experienced colleague and a less experienced junior
colleague in which, the mentor provides support, direction,
and feedback regarding career plans and personal development”
(Russell & Adams, 1997, p. 2). Different types of mentorship are
often discussed in the literature, especially formal and informal
approaches (e.g. Allen and O’Brien, 2006; Ragins and Cotton, 1999).
Duration and initiation of a mentorship are two key elements
to distinguish formal mentoring from informal mentoring (Kram,
1985; Ragins and Cotton, 1999). Formal mentorships are initiated
by the organization and are usually shorter in duration compared
to informal mentorships. Normally, in a formal mentorship the
organization assigns mentors to mentees and determines specific
responsibilities for mentors. Conversely informal mentorships start
spontaneously with either the mentor or mentee initiating the rela-
tionship and usually lasts longer, sometimes over the span of a
career. Regardless of the mentorship type, mentoring is considered
a beneficial tool in building and maintaining relationships between
employees and the organization (Ragins and Kram, 2007).
It is worth noting that informal mentoring is more of a personal
level relationship than a managerial tool. In the workplace, infor-
mal mentoring is preferred and can be encouraged through formal
mentor programs. However, the development and success of infor-
mal mentoring depends on many personal characteristics including
gender and personality (Scandura and Williams, 2001; Turban and
Lee, 2007). Personal characteristics are often beyond the organiza-
tions’ ability to match mentors and mentees. Therefore, this study
focuses only on a formal mentoring program.
Mentoring is beneficial to mentors as well as mentees. Men-
toring increases mentors’ personal satisfaction (Allen et al., 1997),
rewards and recognition among peers (Ragins and Scandura, 1999),
and encourages their learning of emerging technologies and skills
(Lankau and Scandura, 2002). All of these benefits contribute
to mentors’ meaning of work, which in turn increases their job
engagement and organizational commitment in the hospitality
industry (Jung and Yoon, 2016). For mentees, mentorship provides
two major functions: career development and psychosocial sup-
port (Kram, 1985). Career development includes the opportunity
and guidance for mentees to acquire work knowledge and facil-
49
itate their advancement in the organization. Research revealed
that active knowledge sharing in hospitality organizations had
a positive effect on the organization’s learning environment and
effectiveness as well as frontline employee job satisfaction (Lee,
2016; Yang, 2009). Psychosocial support addresses the interper-
sonal aspects of the mentoring relationship and enhances mentees’
sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional
role. While career development focuses on providing the neces-
sary working knowledge, skills and abilities to mentees and assists
them to achieve their career goal, psychosocial support centers on
the quality of personal relationships between mentors and mentees
(Ragins and McFarlin, 1990) and fosters mentees’ psychological sta-
bility. This function is normally achieved through mentor’s personal
support and consultation. Psychosocial support was highly related
to hospitality employee job satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment and turnover intention (Kim et al., 2015). In addition to the
benefits that mentoring brings to individual mentors and mentees,
it also benefits the organization as a whole. Some key organizational
benefits from mentoring include increased socialization (Ostroff
and Kozlowski, 1993), improved diversity practices (Madera, 2013)
and reduced turnover (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004).
Mentoring is a communication process, in which, organizations
can systematically deliver the organizations’ culture, values, vision
and mission to their employees. This kind of systematic and ongo-
ing communication is ardently advocated by internal marketing
(Berry et al., 1976). Researchers suggest that internal marketing
is an implementation vehicle for organizational strategies and an
organizational change management tool (Rafiq and Ahmed, 2000).
Therefore, mentoring, as an effective communication tool, is indis-
pensable to an organization’s internal marketing process.
2.2. Mentoring and psychological contracts
Psychological contract theory has been widely used to explain
the relationship between an organization and its employees
(Conway and Briner, 2005). A psychological contract is defined
as “an individual’s belief regarding the terms and conditions of
a reciprocal exchange agreement between that focal person and
another party” (Rousseau, 1989, p. 123). Unlike written contracts,
psychological contracts are dynamic and grounded on implicit per-
ceptions between the organization and employees. Therefore, on
the basis of perceived employer promises, employees dynamically
change their perceptions of these promises, and evaluate the fulfill-
ment of the psychological contract by comparing their expectations
with the organization’s actual inducements. Since employees do
not negotiate their contract terms with the organization, psycho-
logical contracts are subjective, unilateral and reside only in the
eyes of the beholder (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). In formal
mentoring, once a mentor is provided, this person is signaled as
the liaison between the mentee and the organization; effectively
an agent of the organization. The mentor’s behavior is consid-
ered an indication of the organization’s intentions (Levinson, 1965).
In this case, mentors develop psychological contracts with their
mentees (Rousseau, 1995) and their behaviors influence mentees’
beliefs. When the mentees’ beliefs of mentors’ promises are higher
than actual inducements, a psychological contract breach occurs
(Robinson and Morrison, 2000).
Psychological contract breach has a compelling ability to link
psychological contracts with outcomes and has emerged as the
most empirically examined construct in the literature. Morrison
and Robinson (1997) identified two types of psychological contract
breach: (a) breach from deliberately reneging and (b) breach from
incongruence. The former breach occurs when the organizations’
agents (e.g., mentors) know they are breaching promises, while
incongruence occurs when agents’ understanding of promises dif-
fer from employees’ understanding. Research suggested that when
50 W. Chang, J.A. Busser / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 48–57
Fig. 1. Proposed Research Model.
a psychological contract breach occurs, employees view them-
selves as victims and analyze the situation through both cognitive
and emotional loops to identify a resolution (To et al., 2015).
Four types of psychological contract outcomes were proposed:
thriving, reactivation, impairment and dissolution (Tomprou et al.,
2015). The first three outcomes all lead to a new psychological
contract, while the dissolution outcome leaves employees in a dys-
functional state and a feeling of violation. When mentees do not
receive expected mentor functions, they either adjust their expec-
tations to create a new psychological contract or they do not accept
the circumstances and exhibit anger or resentment. No matter
which outcome is finally realized, psychological contract breach
was found to have negative impacts on employee work attitudes
and behaviors. Research revealed that a breach of employer obliga-
tions resulted in negative consequences for employee commitment
(Bashir and Nasir, 2013), satisfaction (Gakovic and Tetrick, 2003),
trust (Robinson, 1996) and even turnover (Collins, 2010).
Mentoring can be seen as a promise from an organization to
mentees, especially when a formal mentoring program is designed
as a part of a required management-training program. Meanwhile,
it can also be seen as a managerial tool on organization-employee
relationships. When a mentor cares about their mentee and exceeds
their expectations, mentees’ determination of a contract breach
should be low. But if a mentor provides unsatisfactory mentor func-
tions to them, mentees’ feelings of a psychological contract breach
should increase. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1. Mentees’ perceived mentor function is negatively related to
their psychological contract breach.
2.3. Affective organizational commitment
When new employees start their job in an organization through
a formal mentoring program, this mentoring program often is con-
sidered a part of organizational socialization, in which mentees
acquire necessary attitudes, values and social knowledge to
be effective (Chao, 2007). It is long held belief that organiza-
tional socialization fosters employees’ organizational identification
(Buchanan, 1974). In other words, mentorship assists employees
to identify themselves with the organization by sharing a common
goal, values and attitudes.
Organizational commitment captures the relative strength of
an employee’s identification with and involvement in a particular
organization (Mowday et al., 1982). More specially, affective orga-
nizational commitment is an employee’s emotional attachment
to a particular organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Employees
with high affective organizational commitment feel they are part
of the company and remain because they want to not because
they have to. Affective organizational commitment was consid-
ered a very similar but distinct construct from organizational
identification. Van Knippenberg and Sleebos (2006) argued that
organizational identification focuses more on self-definition and
self-concept while affective organizational commitment focuses
more on social exchanges by recognizing individuals as a psycho-
logically separate entity from organizations. However, they also
suggested that affective organizational commitment has a strong
correlation with organizational identification (Van Knippenberg
and Sleebos, 2006). In other words, affective organizational com-
mitment can be a strong indicator of employees’ organizational
identification.
Researchers found that affective organizational commitment
has a significant positive relationship with desired employee
behaviors including reduced turnover intention and actual
turnover (Meyer et al., 2002). In the mentoring context, organiza-
tional commitment was found to have a mediating effect between
mentoring and desired employee variables including job perfor-
mance, job involvement and reduced turnover intention (Chew
and Wong, 2008; Craig et al., 2013; Payne and Huffman, 2005).
Lankau and Chung (1998) found that hotel line-employees, who
have a mentor, reported higher organizational commitment. This
underlying relationship is easy to explain. Employees, who receive
more assistance from their mentors perceive more support from
their organization and trust their organization more because their
mentors were assigned by the organization. This feeling of being
supported by the organization along with trust in the organiza-
tion increases their affective commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1990).
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2. Mentees’ perceived mentor function is positively related to
their affective organizational commitment.
Psychological contract breach also plays a critical role in affec-
tive organizational commitment. Research has found that general
employees’ psychological contract breach was negatively related
to their affective organizational commitment (Zhao et al., 2007).
Similarly, this effect was also found in hospitality employees (Li
et al., 2016). Moreover, hospitality employees, who experienced
emotional exhaustion from an unfulfilled organizational mission,
were depressed and had lower performance levels (Karatepe and
Kaviti, 2016; Karatepe and Tizabi, 2011). Mentors, especially those
in a formal program, are often considered a representative of the
organization. Therefore, a mentor’s breach of mentees’ psycho-
logical contract signals a lower level of organizational support,
which diminishes mentees’ trust in the organization (Robinson,
1996). In the hospitality industry, research showed that organi-
zational support buffered the effect of employees’ emotions on
burnout (Karatepe, 2011) and mediated the effect of their personal
resources on job performance (Karatepe, 2015). This diminished
 W. Chang, J.A. Busser / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 48–57
trust and feeling of less care and support from the organization
increases the psychological distance between the mentee and the
organization, which in turn reduces mentees’ identification and
commitment with the organization (Li et al., 2016). In other words,
when mentees experience dissatisfactions with their mentors, they
start to feel less belonging to the organization. This reduced sense
of belonging also reduces mentees’ emotional attachment to the
organization as well as performance. Therefore:
H3. Mentees’ psychological contract breach is negatively related
to their affective organizational commitment.
H4. Mentees’ psychological contract breach mediates the positive
relationship between mentor functions and affective organiza-
tional commitment.
2.4. Promotional attitude
People share opinions about products they consume in their life
and this shared behavior has become a most reliable source of infor-
mation in purchase decisions (Reynolds and Beatty, 1999). In the
workplace, employees also share opinions about their employer
with their friends and family; increasingly they share on social
media (Higginbottom, 2014). These opinions shared online and
offline significantly impact an organization’s image and reputa-
tion. In marketing, customers’ intention to share opinions with
their friends and family is called word-of-mouth (WOM) inten-
tion. While in human resource management, employees’ sharing
of positive employer information in their personal life is a promo-
tional attitude (Arnett et al., 2003). In other words, promotional
attitude captures the concept of providing positive WOM for orga-
nizations by employees in their personal life. It has been recognized
as an important brand-building attitude (Morhart et al., 2009), but
was not thoroughly studied in the management literature. How-
ever, since promotional attitude is very similar to WOM intention,
arguments can be borrowed from WOM literature.
Research has well established the importance of both online
and offline WOM (Brown and Reingen, 1987; Dellarocas, 2003).
Although WOM can be both positive and negative, researchers and
practitioners tend to emphasize positive WOM. Customer satisfac-
tion and commitment were found as the two major antecedents
of positive WOM (de Matos and Rossi, 2008). Cantallops and Salvi
(2014) further identified several generating factors or antecedents
of online WOM in the literature, including customer satisfaction,
helping companies, helping other vacationers and social identity.
Mirroring the WOM literature, when employees are treated well
in a company, they feel more attached so they are more likely to
communicate positively. Conversely when they feel dissatisfied or
when their expectations are not fulfilled, they are less likely to
communicate positively. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
H5. Mentees’ psychological contract breach negatively relates to
their promotional attitude.
H6. Mentees’ affective organizational commitment is positively
related to their promotional attitude.
2.5. Mentors’ role in psychological contract breach recovery
As discussed, mentors play a significant role in forming mentees’
psychological contracts; they could also play critical roles in
psychological contract breach recovery. Mentees’ psychological
contracts could be breached by mentors but also by other employ-
ees such as direct supervisors, managers and human resource
personnel. However, the presence of a beneficial mentor could
potentially reduce the negative impact created by a psychological
contract breach. Besides the role of providing organizational sup-
port, mentors could also play a significant role in providing rapid
51
“service” recovery. When mentees experience psychological con-
tract breach from other parties in the organization, mentor’s rapid
response to adjust the incongruence between the organization’s
inducement and mentees’ expectation can actually help to reduce
mentees’ negative emotions. Mentors can support mentees either
by correcting the wrongful organizational action or by adjusting
mentees’ unrealistic expectations. Since mentees’ psychological
contracts are dynamic and impacted by their experience (Rousseau,
2001), a mentor can substantially influence a mentee’s expecta-
tions. After a psychological contract breach happens, the faster
that mentees adjust their expectations to meet the organization’s
inducements, the better outcomes realized, such as new psycholog-
ical contracts (Tomprou et al., 2015). By reducing the negative affect
of a psychological contract breach, mentees’ promotional attitude
could also be increased.
Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) introduced affective event theory
to explain employee work attitudes. They proposed that employ-
ees are exposed to various events at work, and these events trigger
a number of affective experiences. Accumulated affective expe-
riences eventually shape employees’ work attitudes resulting in
employees’ judgment and affect driven behaviors at work. Under
a formal mentoring context, mentees receive different facets of
mentor functions. These mentor functions shape their perceived
psychological contract and affective commitment at work. By
viewing psychological contract breach as a work event and affec-
tive commitment as an affective experience, these two constructs
together should predict employees’ promotional attitude. There-
fore, we hypothesize:
H7. Mentees’ affective organizational commitment mediates the
relationship between mentor functions and promotional attitude.
H8. Mentees’ affective organizational commitment mediates the
relationship between their psychological contract breach and pro-
motional attitude.
3. Method
3.1. Sample and data collection
The population of this case study consisted of the mentees who
graduated from a management-training program at a major hos-
pitality company in the United States. On average, about 30–35
mentees graduate from the program each year. Therefore, in order
to obtain more responses, this study used a convenience sampling
strategy. Convenience sampling allows researchers to collect large
number of completed questionnaires quickly and conveniently,
especially for exploratory studies (Zikmund et al., 2012). However,
since a convenience sample is a non-probability sample, it is sub-
ject to selection bias and sampling error and also is vulnerable on
its generalizability (Zikmund et al., 2012).
Questionnaires were distributed through Qualtics.com to every
eligible employee’s email address (N = 138). Data collection was
executed in a semi-chronological order. Recent graduates were
surveyed earlier except for the 2015 graduates, since they grad-
uated after the beginning of the initial data collection. Specifically,
the survey was sent to employees in three rounds. The first round
was collected from the 2014 graduates in May 2014; the second
round targeted the 2012 and 2013 graduates and was collected in
October 2014; and the final round for the 2015 graduates was com-
pleted in September 2015. During the data collection, mentees who
graduated in 2012 indicated substantial recall challenges, there-
fore the sample frame for this study was determined to include
only mentees who graduated from 2013 through 2015. In total,
112 employees started the questionnaire but 43 completed less
than 85% of the survey and were not included in the analysis due to
substantial missing data (Hair et al., 2014). Therefore, 69 responses
52 W. Chang, J.A. Busser / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 48–57

Table 1 mentor function and together explains the latent construct of men-
Demographic information.
tor function, this construct is a formative construct. The indicators
Demographic n % for career development and psychosocial support are all manifes-
Gender tations of these two types of mentor functions respectively.
Male 28 40.6
Female 35 50.7
3.3. Common method bias
Prefer not to disclose 6 8.7

Ethnicity In order to minimize common method bias, the research fol-

White 42 60.9
Hispanic/Latino(a) 3 4.3
lowed the recommendations by Podsakoff et al. (2003). First, at
Black/African American 3 4.3 the beginning of the survey, the authors insured participant’s
Asian 8 11.6 anonymity and acknowledged that there was not a preferred
Others 2 2.9 answer for the questions in the survey. Then, after the data was
Prefer not to disclose 11 15.9
collected, Harman’s one-factor test was conducted. The results
Age of the exploratory factor analysis showed that the common fac-
22–25 41 59.4 tor explained 38.37% of the variance in the data. A confirmatory
26–30 9 13.0
factor analysis was conducted and the results showed that a one-
31+ 7 10.1
Prefer not to disclose 12 17.4 factor model does not fit the data very well (␹2 = 1791.52, df = 434,
p = 0.000, CFI = 0.37; RMSEA = 0.21). A four-factor model fit the data
better (␹2 = 1125.36, df = 428, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.68; RMSEA = 0.11),
were retained for the final analysis, yielding a 50% response rate. but a five-factor model fit the data the best (␹2 = 850.57, df = 424,
Table 1 presents the demographic information for the participants. p = 0.000, CFI = 0.81; RMSEA = 0.09). These results suggested that
The majority of participants were White (60.9%) and female (50.7%), common method bias would not interfere with the PLS-SEM anal-
who were 22–25 years old (59.4%). ysis. Moreover, the difference between the four-factor model and
the five-factor model indicated that the mentoring function was
better depicted as a two-factor 2nd order construct.
3.2. Measurement of variables

The measures used in this study were all validated scales.
Mentor functions were assessed using Noe’s (1988) 17-item mea-
sure scale with a 5-point Likert response scale, with 1 = “Disagree
Strongly” to 5 = “Agree Strongly” (Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.86 and 0.87
respectively to career mentoring and psychosocial mentoring).
Psychological contract breach was measured by Robinson and
Morrison’s (2000) 5-item scale that also used a 5-point Lik-
ert response scale, 1 = “Disagree Strongly” to 5 = “Agree Strongly”
(Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.92). Meyer et al., 1993 6-item measure of affec-
tive organizational commitment was used with a 7-point Likert
response scale, 1 = “Disagree Strongly” to 7 = “Agree Strongly”
(Cronbach’s ␣ = 0.73). Finally, Arnett et al.’s (2003) 3-item pro-
motional attitude measure used a 5-point Likert response scale,
1 = “Disagree Strongly” to 5 = “Agree Strongly” was utilized (Cron-
bach’s ␣ = 0.90).
Based on classic test theory (Lord et al., 1968), reflective mea-
surement models dominate modern business empirical research.
However, several researchers suggested that reconsidering mea-
surement model types is necessary, because misspecification in
the model can cause a significant concern (Diamantopoulos et al.,
2008; Podsakoff et al., 2006). Reflective measurement models con-
sider all measurement items as indicators of the construct. These
indicators are manifestations of the latent variable and changes
in the latent variable cause changes in the indicators. The logic of
causality in formative measurement models is directly opposite of
reflective models. That is, instead of considering indicators as man-
ifestations; formative models recognize indicators as components
of the latent variable. Since indicators are components of the latent
variable, one indicator’s changes are not necessarily associated with
another indicator’s changes. Thus, indicators in a formative mea-
surement model can be weakly correlated or not correlated at all
(Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). Also, because each indi-
cator represents a unique aspect of the latent variable, formative
measurement model indicators are not changeable and replace-
able; and, as a combination, they explain the latent variable. In this
case, the latent construct of mentor function becomes a reflective-
formative second order measurement model. Career development
and psychosocial support are two sub-dimensions of mentor func-
tion. But since each of them represents a unique aspect of the
3.4. Data analysis
Because of the exploratory nature of this study, the limitation of
the sample size and the formative 2nd order measurement model,
Partial Least Square (PLS) SEM was used to analyze the data (Hair
et al., 2014). According to sample size recommendations provided
by Hair et al. (2014), 69 subjects was sufficient to test the pro-
posed relationships at an 80% statistical power. Data was analyzed
using SPSS 22 and SmartPLS 3. Unlike covariance based SEM, PLS
SEM does not provide a global goodness-of-fit measure (Henseler
and Sarstedt, 2013), but Hair et al. (2014) provided a two-step
procedure to assess the adequacy of the model. All of the results
were evaluated under Hair et al.’s (2014) suggestions. The proposed
model is provided in Fig. 1. The repeated indicators method was
used to test the second order formative factors (Chin et al., 2003).
4. Results
4.1. Outer model results
In order to assess the reflective measurement, four aspects need
to be evaluated: internal consistency reliability, indicator reliabil-
ity, convergent validity and discriminant validity. All of the outer
loadings in the model were higher than 0.73 and were statistically
significant (p < 0.001), except three items in affective commit-
ment. Among those three items, “I really feel as if the company’s
problems are my own” had the lowest outer loading (b = 0.51).
Therefore, it was deleted from further analysis. As a result, the
model showed high reliability and validity (Table 2). Cronbach’s
alpha’s for all constructs in this study ranged from 0.89 to 0.96 and
the composite reliability ranged from 0.91 to 0.96, which indicated
satisfactory internal consistency of the measurement model. The
average variance extracted for each construct were all above 0.50,
which indicated acceptable convergent validity of the measure-
ment model. The Fornell-Larcker criterion (Table 3) as well as the
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios were both checked to ensure
that the measurement model had adequate discriminant validity.
In terms of the formative second order construct, both psychoso-
cial support (b = 0.61, p < 0.001) and career development (b = 0.50,
 W. Chang, J.A. Busser / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 48–57 53

Table 2
Measurement model results.

Constructs Indicators Item Mean SD Outer Loadings ␣ CR AVE

Psychosocial Support PS 1. I agree with my mentors’ attitudes and values 4.13 0.97 0.79 0.95 0.95 0.67
(Mean = 4.06) regarding my career.
PS 2. I respect and admire my mentor. 4.45 0.88 0.83
PS 3. I will try to be like my mentor when I reach a similar 3.90 1.27 0.74
position in my career.
PS 4. My mentor has demonstrated good listening skills in 4.14 1.07 0.79
our conversations.
PS 5. My mentor has discussed my questions or concerns 3.91 1.22 0.84
regarding feelings of competence, commitment to
advancement, relationships with peers and supervisors or
work/family conflicts.
PS 6. My mentor has encouraged me to prepare for 4.25 1.01 0.89
advancements.
PS 7. My mentor has encouraged me to talk openly about 3.68 1.17 0.76
my anxiety and fears that detracts from my work.
PS 8. My mentor has conveyed empathy for the concerns 3.94 1.12 0.87
and feelings that I have discussed with him/her.
PS 9. My mentor has conveyed feelings of respect for me as 4.25 1.06 0.84
an individual.
PS 10. My mentor has encouraged me to try new ways of 3.90 1.14 0.85
behaving in my job.

Career Development CD 1. My mentor helped me finish assignments/tasks to 2.83 1.29 0.86 0.95 0.96 0.78
(Mean = 3.06) meet deadlines that otherwise would have been difficult to
complete.
CD 2. My mentor gave me assignments that increased 2.86 1.44 0.89
written and personal contact with upper management.
CD 3. My mentor assigned responsibilities to me that have 2.91 1.44 0.92
increased my contact with managers who may judge my
potential for future advancement.
CD 4. My mentor gave me assignments or tasks in my 3.09 1.51 0.92
work that prepare you for an advanced position.
CD 5. My mentor gave me assignments that present 3.13 1.48 0.92
opportunities to learn new skills.
CD 6. My mentor reduced unnecessary risk that could be a 3.22 1.33 0.82
detriment.
CD 7. My mentor provided me with feedback regarding my 3.35 1.42 0.87
performance.

Psychological Contract PCB 1. Almost all the promises made by the organization 2.62 1.38 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.80
Breach (Mean = 2.52) during recruitment have been kept so far. (R)
PCB 2. I feel that the organization has come through in 2.45 1.35 0.96
fulfilling the promises made to me when I was hired. (R)
PCB 3. So far the organization has done an excellent job of 2.51 1.30 0.94
fulfilling its promises to me. (R)
PCB 4. I have not received everything promised to me in 2.62 1.31 0.73
exchange for my contributions.
PCB 5. The organization has broken many of its promises 2.39 1.33 0.90
to me even though I’ve upheld my side of the deal.

Affective AOC 1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my 5.04 1.87 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.67
Organizational career with the organization.
Commitment AOC 2. I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to the 5.07 1.76 0.75
(Mean = 5.11) organization. (R)
AOC 4. I do not feel like a “part of the family” at the 5.23 1.74 0.77
organization. (R)
AOC 5. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to the 4.78 7.91 0.83
organization. (R)
AOC 6. The organization has a great deal of personal 5.42 1.96 0.87
meaning for me.

Promotional Attitude Pro 1. I talk up the organization to people I know. 4.30 0.81 0.82 0.90 0.94 0.84
(Mean = 4.37) Pro 2. I bring up the organization in a positive way in 4.41 0.91 0.96
conversations I have with friends and acquaintance.
Pro 3. In social situations, I often speak favorably about the 4.41 0.91 0.96
organization.

p < 0.001) were significant. Overall, the measurement model was
adequate for further analysis.
4.2. Inner model results
The VIFs ranged from 1.09 to 1.64, indicating that multicollinear-
ity was not a concern in this model. The inner model results are
summarized in Fig. 2. The model predicted a moderate level of
variance in mentees’ promotional attitude toward their organiza-
tion (R2 = 0.43) and in their affective organizational commitment
(R2 = 0.30), but only predicted 9% (R2 = 0.09) of the variance in
mentees’ psychological contract breach. Out of the five hypotheses,
four of them were supported by the analysis at a significance level
of 0.05. Only the proposed negative effect from mentees’ perceived
psychological contract breach to promotional attitude was not
supported by the analysis(Table 4). Mentor functions directly influ-
54 W. Chang, J.A. Busser / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 48–57

Fig. 2. PLS-SEM Model.

Table 3 a strong positive indirect effect on mentees’ promotional attitudes

Discriminant validity.
(ˇ = 0.29, t = 3.79).
AOC CD PCB PS Pro

AOC 0.82 5. Discussion

CD 0.40 0.89
PCB −0.46 −0.32 0.90
This study explored the factors in a formal mentoring program
PS 0.35 0.63 −0.22 0.82
Pro 0.63 0.19 −0.45 0.19 0.92 related to mentees’ promotional attitude toward their employer.
A model was developed based on the literature and relationships
Note: Values on the diagonal (in bold) represent the square root of AVE. Lower
diagonal values indicate factor correlations.
tested. In this model, mentee’s perceived mentor functions were
hypothesized to have a positive relationship with promotional
attitude toward their employer, through perceived psychological
Table 4
PLS-SEM Direct Paths Results.
contract breach and affective organizational commitment. Data
was collected in a major hospitality company in the US. All par-
B t p CI (2.5–97.5%) f2 ticipants were graduates from a formal mentoring program hosted
PS -> MF 0.61 17.61 0.00 (0.53, 0.67) – by the hospitality company. Overall, the results of this study sup-
CD -> MF 0.50 12.78 0.00 (0.43, 0.59) – ported psychological contract theory by showing that employee’s
MF -> AOC 0.32 2.58 0.01 (0.08, 0.55) 0.13
psychological breach was negatively related to their affective orga-
MF -> PCB −0.29 2.27 0.02 (−0.54, −0.05) 0.09
PCB -> AOC −0.37 3.00 0.00 (−0.65, −0.17) 0.18 nizational commitment and promotional attitude. The findings also
PCB -> Pro −0.20 1.67 0.10 (−0.39, 0.07) 0.05 suggested that unmet mentor function expectations could create
AOC -> Pro 0.54 5.11 0.00 (0.37, 0.78) 0.40 employee psychological contract breach.
All of the proposed hypotheses were supported except the direct
Table 5 relationship between psychological contract breach and promo-
PLS-SEM Indirect Path Results. tional attitude. The results suggested that the more career and
psychological support mentees received from their mentor, the less
B t p
likely they would perceive that implicit promises were broken by
MF -> AOC 0.10 0.07 0.14 their employer and the more they were emotionally attached to
MF -> Pro 0.30 0.08 0.00
the organization. These two findings further predicted mentees’
PCB -> Pro −0.19 0.09 0.04
attitude toward the organization. In other words, mentees would
recommend the organization to their friends and family more when
enced mentees’ perceived psychological contract breach (ˇ = −0.29, they perceived enough support from their mentors both for per-
t = 2.25). Mentees’ affective organizational commitment was pos- sonal and for work related aspects. These results align with previous
itively predicted by their perceived mentor functions (ˇ = 0.32, studies suggesting that employee’s affective organizational com-
t = 2.54) and also negatively predicted by their perceived psycho- mitment was influenced by various human resource practices and,
logical contract breach (ˇ = −0.37, t = 2.99). Mentees’ promotional at the same time, promoted positive performance and other work
attitude toward the organization was positively predicted by their behaviors (e.g. Tian et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2005). Also, this study
affective organization commitment (ˇ = 0.54, t = 5.01). Although offers insights on employee’s promotional attitude and related fac-
psychological contract breach did not directly influence mentees’ tors, contributing to the currently limited research literature.
promotional attitude, the negative indirect effect from psycho- Although the direct effect from psychological contract breach
logical contract breach to promotional attitude through affective to promotional attitude was not supported by the results, this
organizational commitment was significant (ˇ = −0.20, t = 2.17) study found that affective organizational commitment was a
(Table 5). This result indicated that affective organizational com- full mediator between employee psychological contract breach
mitment was a full mediator between psychological contract and promotional attitude. This result provides empirical support
breach and promotional attitude. Lastly, mentor functions also had for Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) affective event theory (AET).
 W. Chang, J.A. Busser / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 48–57
AET argues that work events expressly impact employees’ work
attitudes through accumulated affective experiences. However,
whether workplace events can directly influence employees’ work
attitudes has yet to be determined (Zhao et al., 2007). This study
empirically supported affective experiences’ role as a full media-
tor. In other words, work events do not influence employee work
attitudes directly, but indirectly through emotions. This conclu-
sion offers managerial implications, which are discussed in the next
section.
Also, this study found that the formal mentoring program in this
hospitality company provided a higher level of psychosocial sup-
port (Mean = 4.06) than career development (Mean = 3.06), which
is counterintuitive. When an organization sets up a formal men-
toring program, the primary purpose is assisting mentees to better
perform their jobs. Therefore, it will be expected that a mentor
in a formal mentoring program would produce a higher level of
career development than psychological support. However, consis-
tent with the finding of Chao et al. (1992), mentees in this formal
mentoring program perceived more psychosocial support than
career development. This finding also echoes the theoretical dif-
ference between mentoring and coaching. Theoretically, coaching
focuses on job effectiveness while mentoring contains a relatively
longer relationship between the mentor and the mentee for devel-
opment (Woods et al., 1992). Therefore, considering mentoring as
an organizational socialization program might be a better direction
for future research.
5.1. Managerial implications
The practical implications of this study are threefold. First,
because of the impact that mentor functions have on mentees’
promotional attitude, hospitality employers should pay attention
to the design and implementation of mentoring programs. Hos-
pitality employers should view mentoring not only as a training
program but also as an organizational socialization process and
incorporate it as a part of an organization’s internal marketing
program (Huang and Rundle-Thiele, 2014). An effective internal
marketing program could potentially increase employees’ promo-
tional attitude toward the employer. This positive attitude benefits
an organization’s image as an employer. A positive employer image
can help companies attract more potential talent (Mandhanya and
Shah, 2010), assist organizational change (Backhaus and Tikoo,
2004; Lievens et al., 2007); and further increase customer affective
and cognitive reactions to the company (Baumgarth and Schmidt,
2010).
Second, hospitality employers should carefully choose mentors.
Interpersonal and leadership competencies were identified as two
most critical for hospitality managers to develop (Koenigsfeld et al.,
2012). Therefore, qualified mentors should have a certain commu-
nication skill level with an adequate understanding of the goals of
the program and the processes necessary for a successful outcome.
More importantly, the mentor should have a strong positive atti-
tude toward the organization that can be communicated in a variety
of ways to mentees. If mentors are unable to establish the appropri-
ate expectations for mentees’, incorrect expectations could develop
leading to psychological contract breach, which further destroys
employee and customer satisfaction. Therefore, it is recommended
that hospitality organizations consider employees’ psychological
contract and guide them to form appropriate expectation through
the mentor program.
Finally, this study found that employee psychological contract
breach was not able to influence employees’ promotional attitude
directly but rather indirectly through employee affective organiza-
tional commitment. This finding provides managers with potential
remedies to employees’ psychological contract breach at work.
Mentors need to play dual roles in this process. First, mentors
55
should provide support to mentees when there is a psychological
contract breach because mentors’ behavior and attitude indicate
the level of caring for employees from the broader organization.
Moreover, mentors can provide rapid “service” recovery to mentees
if there is a psychological contract breach. Assisting mentees to
adjust unrealistic expectations or explaining difficult situations
that an organization experiences, mentors can substantially reduce
mentees’ feelings of betrayal. In summary, a mentor’s role dur-
ing mentee psychological contract breach is like the glue between
the mentee and the organization, to increase mentee’s organiza-
tional identification. Once the emotional attachment is increased,
dissatisfaction from broken promises can be diminished.
6. Limitations and future research
As every other study, this study has several limitations. First,
there are some limitations derived from the research design and
methodology in this study. This study employed a cross sectional
study design, in which causal inferences can only be assumed and
theoretically argued. Causality or longitudinal attitude change con-
clusions should not be drawn from this study. Future research may
focus on employees’ attitude change throughout a mentoring pro-
gram by collecting data at multiple stages of the program.
Harman’s one-factor test was used to detect common method
bias but did not statistically control them (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Therefore, the results of this study may be subject to common
method bias. However, currently the literature does not suggest
other useful methods to statistically control common method bias
in PLS-SEM (Chin et al., 2012). Since mentees are the best resource
for the constructs of interest in this study, a survey collected from
mentees is arguably the best data source. However, future stud-
ies should try to find a better way to statistically control common
method bias.
Furthermore, this study employed a convenience sample, which
consisted of a limited number of respondents who were from the
same mentoring program. This sampling strategy allowed us to
assess the most relevant sample quickly and effectively but it also
limits this study’s generalizability and put the results under the
impact of sampling bias. Future research should employ a more
generalizable approach to data collection to assess similar topics,
such as other HR practices’ influence on employee promotional
attitude.
From a content perspective, this study only found that employ-
ees’ promotional attitude was influenced by the mentoring
program but did not explore other possible factors in hospital-
ity workplace and their effect on employee promotional attitudes,
such as organizational culture, coworker behavior, etc. Future
research could explore on this area. Lastly, this study focuses on
the antecedents of employee promotional attitudes but neglected
the outcomes of employee word-of-mouth. Overall, this study was
exploratory examining employee’s promotional attitude and psy-
chological contract; two important areas for future research.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation.
References
Allen, T.D., O’Brien, K.E., 2006. Formal mentoring programs and organizational
attraction. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 17 (1), 43–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.
1160.
Allen, T.D., Poteet, M.L., Burroughs, S.M., 1997. The mentor’s perspective: a
qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. J. Vocational Behav. 51, 70–89.
Anastasios, Z., 2007. Hospitality internships in Cyprus: a genuine academic
experience or a continuing frustration? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 19 (1),
65–77.
56 W. Chang, J.A. Busser / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 48–57
Arnett, D.B., German, S.D., Hunt, S., 2003. The identity salience model of
relationship marketing success: the case of nonprofit marketing. J. Mark. 67
(2), 89–102.
Backhaus, K., Tikoo, S., 2004. Conceptualizing and researching employer branding.
Career Dev. Int. 9 (5), 501–517.
Bashir, S., Nasir, M., 2013. Breach of psychological contract, organizational
cynicism and union commitment: a study of hospitality industry in Pakistan.
Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 34, 61–65.
Baumgarth, C., Schmidt, M., 2010. How strong is the business-to-business brand in
the workforce? An empirically-tested model of ‘internal brand equity’in a
business-to-business setting. Ind. Mark. Manag. 39 (8), 1250–1260.
Berry, L.L., Hensel, J.S., Burke, M.C., 1976. Improving retailer capability for effective
consumerism response. J. Retailing 52 (3), 3–14.
Brown, J.J., Reingen, P.H., 1987. Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. J.
Consum. Res., 350–362.
Buchanan, B., 1974. Building organizational commitment: the socialization of
managers in work organizations. Adm. Sci. Q., 533–546.
Cantallops, A.S., Salvi, F., 2014. New consumer behavior: a review of research on
eWOM and hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 36, 41–51.
Chao, G.T., Walz, P.M., Gardner, P.D., 1992. Formal and informal mentorships: a
comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored
counterparts. Pers. Psychol. 45 (3), 619.
Chao, G.T., 2007. Mentoring and organizational socialization. In: Ragins, B.R., Kram,
K.E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and
Practice. Sage Publications, pp. 21–50.
Chew, Y.T., Wong, S.K., 2008. Effects of career mentoring experience and perceived
organizational support on employee commitment and intentions to leave: a
study among hotel workers in Malaysia. Int. J. Manag. 25 (4), 692–700.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R., 2003. A partial least squares latent
variable modelling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a
Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail adoption study. Inf. Syst.
Res. 14 (2), 189–217.
Chin, W.W., Thatcher, J.B., Wright, R.T., 2012. Assessing common method bias:
problems with the ULMC technique. MIS Q. 36 (3), 1003–1019.
Collins, M.D., 2010. The effect of psychological contract fulfillment on manager
turnover intentions and its role as a mediator in a casual, limited-service
restaurant environment. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 29 (4), 736–742.
Conway, N., Briner, R.B., 2005. Understanding Psychological Contracts at Work: A
Critical Evaluation of Theory and Research. Oxford University Press.
Craig, C.A., Allen, M.W., Reid, M.F., Riemenschneider, C.K., Armstrong, D.J., 2013.
The impact of career mentoring and psychosocial mentoring on affective
organizational commitment, job involvement, and turnover intention. Adm.
Soc. 45 (8), 949–973.
de Matos, C.A., Rossi, C., 2008. Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a
meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36
(4), 578–596.
Dellarocas, C., 2003. The digitization of word of mouth: promise and challenges of
online feedback mechanisms. Manag. Sci. 49 (10), 1407–1424.
Diamantopoulos, A., Winklhofer, H.M., 2001. Index construction with formative
indicators: an alternative to scale development. J. Mark. Res. 38 (2), 269–277.
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., Roth, K.P., 2008. Advancing formative measurement
models. J. Bus. Res. 61 (12), 1203–1218.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., Davis-LaMastro, V., 1990. Perceived organizational
support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. J. Appl.
Psychol. 75 (1), 51.
Gakovic, A., Tetrick, L.E., 2003. Psychological contract breach as a source of strain
for employees. J. Bus. Psychol. 18 (2), 235–246.
Greene, W.E., Walls, G.D., Schrest, L.J., 1994. Internal marketing: the key to external
marketing success. J. Serv. Mark. 8 (4), 5–13.
Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2014. A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Henseler, J., Sarstedt, M., 2013. Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares
path modeling. Comput. Stat. 28 (2), 565–580.
Higginbottom, K., 2014. Social Media Ignites Employee Activism. Forbes, Retrieved
from http://www.forbes.com/sites/karenhigginbottom/2014/04/14/social-
media-ignites-employee-activism/#7bf29e33182f, April 14.
Huang, Y.T., Rundle-Thiele, S., 2014. The moderating effect of cultural congruence
on the internal marketing practice and employee satisfaction relationship: an
empirical examination of Australian and Taiwanese born tourism employees.
Tour. Manag. 42, 196–206.
Jung, H.S., Yoon, H.H., 2016. What does work meaning to hospitality employees?
The effects of meaningful work on employees’ organizational commitment:
the mediating role of job engagement. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 53, 59–68.
Karatepe, O.M., Kaviti, R., 2016. Test of a mediational model of organization
mission fulfillment: evidence from the hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manag. 28 (5), 988–1008.
Karatepe, O.M., Tizabi, L.Z., 2011. Work-related depression in the hotel industry: a
study in the United Arab Emirates. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 23 (5),
608–623.
Karatepe, O.M., 2011. Do job resources moderate the effect of emotional
dissonance on burnout?: a study in the city of Ankara, Turkey. Int. J. Contemp.
Hosp. Manag. 23 (1), 44–65.
Karatepe, O.M., 2015. Do personal resources mediate the effect of perceived
organizational support on emotional exhaustion and job outcomes? Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 27 (1), 4–26.
Kattara, H., 2005. Career challenges for female managers in Egyptian hotels. Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 17 (3), 238–251.
Kim, W.G., Leong, J.K., Lee, Y.K., 2005. Effect of service orientation on job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention of leaving in a casual
dining chain restaurant. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 24 (2), 171–193.
Kim, S.S., Im, J., Hwang, J., 2015. The effects of mentoring on role stress, job attitude,
and turnover intention in the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 48, 68–82.
Koenigsfeld, J.P., Youn, H., Perdue, J., Woods, R.H., 2012. Revised competencies for
private club managers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 24 (7), 1066–1087.
Kong, H., Cheung, C., Song, H., 2011. Hotel career management in China:
developing a measurement scale. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 30 (1), 112–118.
Kong, H., Cheung, C., Song, H., 2012. Determinants and outcome of career
competencies: perspectives of hotel managers in China. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 31
(3), 712–719.
Kong, H., Wang, S., Fu, X., 2015. Meeting career expectation: can it enhance job
satisfaction of Generation Y? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 27 (1), 147–168.
Kram, K.E., 1985. Mentoring at Work: Development Relationships in
Organizational Life. Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Lankau, M.J., Chung, B.G., 1998. Mentoring for line-level employees. Cornell Hotel
Restaur. Adm. Q. 39 (6), 14–19.
Lankau, M.J., Scandura, T.A., 2002. An investigation of personal learning in
mentoring relationships: content, antecedents and consequences. Acad.
Manag. J. 45, 779–790.
Lee, K.-J., 2016. Sense of calling and career satisfaction of hotel frontline
employees: mediation through knowledge sharing with organizational
members. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 28 (2), 346–365.
Levinson, H., 1965. Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization.
Adm. Sci. Q., 370–390.
Li, J.J., Wong, I.A., Kim, W.G., 2016. Effects of psychological contract breach on
attitudes and performance: the moderating role of competitive climate. Int. J.
Hosp. Manag. 55, 1–10.
Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., Anseel, F., 2007. Organizational identity and employer
image: towards a unifying framework? Br. J. Manag. 18 (s1), S45–S59.
Lord, F.M., Novick, M.R., Birnbaum, A., 1968. Statistical Theories of Mental Test
Scores. Oxford, England.
Madera, J.M., 2013. Best practices in diversity management in customer service
organizations an investigation of top companies cited by Diversity Inc. Cornell
Hosp. Q. 54 (2), 124–135.
Mandhanya, Y., Shah, M., 2010. Employer branding—a tool for talent management.
Glob. Manag. Rev. 4 (2).
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., 1991. A three-component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1 (1), 61–89.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., Smith, C.A., 1993. Commitment to organizations and
occupations: extension and test of three-component conceptualization. J. Appl.
Psychol. 78 (4), 538–551.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., Topolnytsky, L., 2002. Affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis
of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocational Behav. 61 (1),
20–52.
Morhart, F.M., Herzog, W., Tomczak, T., 2009. Brand-specific leadership: turning
employees into brand champions. J. Mark. 73 (5), 122–142.
Mowday, R.T., Poter, L.W., Steers, R.M., 1982. Employee-Organization Linkage: The
Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. Academic Press, New
York.
Noe, R.A., 1988. An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned
mentoring relationships. Pers. Psychol. 41, 457–479.
Ostroff, C., Kozlowski, S.W., 1993. The role of mentoring in the information
gathering processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization. J.
Vocational Behav. 42, 170–183.
Payne, S.C., Huffman, A.H., 2005. A longitudinal examination of the influence of
mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover. Acad. Manag. J. 48 (1),
158–168.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879.
Podsakoff, N.P., Shen, W., Podsakoff, P.M., 2006. The role of formative measurement
models in strategic management research: review, critique, and implications
for future research. In: Ketchen, D.J., Bergh, D.D. (Eds.), Research Methodology
in Strategy and Management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 197–252.
Rafiq, M., Ahmed, P.K., 2000. Advances in the internal marketing concept:
definition, synthesis and extension. J. Serv. Mark. 14 (6), 449–462.
Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L., 1999. Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of
men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. J. Appl.
Psychol. 84 (4), 529.
Ragins, B.R., Kram, K.E., 2007. The roots and meaning of mentoring. In: The
Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice. Sage
Publications, pp. 3–15.
Ragins, B.R., McFarlin, D.B., 1990. Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender
mentoring relationships. J. Vocational Behav. 37, 321–339.
Ragins, B.R., Scandura, T.A., 1999. Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits
of being a mentor. J. Organ. Behav. 20 (4), 493–509.
Reynolds, K.E., Beatty, S.E., 1999. Customer benefits and company consequences of
customer-salesperson relationships in retailing. J. Retailing 75 (1), 11–32.
Robinson, S.L., Morrison, E., 2000. The development of psychological contract
breach and violation: a longitudinal study. J. Organ. Behav. 21 (5), 525–546.
 W. Chang, J.A. Busser / International Journal of Hospitality Management 60 (2017) 48–57
Robinson, S.L., 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Adm. Sci. Q.,
574–599.
Rousseau, D.M., 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Empl.
Responsibilities Rights J. 2, 121–139.
Rousseau, D., 1995. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding
Written and Unwritten Agreements. Sage Publications.
Rousseau, D.M., 2001. Schema, promise and mutuality: the building blocks of the
psychological contract. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 74 (4), 511–541.
Russell, J.E.A., Adams, D.M., 1997. The changing nature of mentoring in
organizations: an introduction to the special issue on mentoring in
organizations. J. Vocational Behav. 51 (1), 1–1.
Scandura, T.A., Williams, E.A., 2001. An investigation of the moderating effects of
gender on the relationships between mentorship initiation and protégé
perceptions of mentoring functions. J. Vocational Behav. 59 (3), 342–363.
Smith, T.M., Ingersoll, R.M., 2004. What are the effects of induction and mentoring
on beginning teacher turnover? Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 26 (3), 681–714.
Tian, Q., Zhang, L., Zou, W., 2014. Job insecurity and counterproductive behavior of
casino dealers–the mediating role of affective commitment and moderating
role of supervisor support. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 40, 29–36.
To, W.M., Martin, E.F., Billy, T.W., 2015. Effect of management commitment to
internal marketing on employee work attitude. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 45, 14–21.
Tomprou, M., Rousseau, D.M., Hansen, SD, 2015. The psychological contracts of
violation victims: a post-violation model. J. Organ. Behav. 36 (4), 561–581.
57
Trowbrige, E.H., 2001. Attracting and retaining hospitality employees. Hosp. Rev.
19 (1), 1.
Turban, D.B., Lee, F.K., 2007. The role of personality in mentoring relationships. In:
Ragins, B.R., Kram, K.E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory,
Research, and Practice. Sage Publications, pp. 21–50.
Van Knippenberg, D., Sleebos, E., 2006. Organizational identification versus
organizational commitment: self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes.
J. Organ. Behav. 27 (5), 571–584.
Weiss, H.M., Cropanzano, R., 1996. Affective events theory: A theoretical
discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences
at work. In: Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 19. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-74.
Woods, R.H., Johanson, M.M., Sciarini, M.P., 1992. Managing hospitality human
resources. Pearson Educ.
Yang, J.-T., 2009. Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing in
international tourist hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 29 (1), 42–52.
Zhao, H.A.O., Wayne, S.J., Glibkowski, B.C., Bravo, J., 2007. The impact of
psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Pers. Psychol. 60 (3), 647–680.
Zikmund, W., Babin, B., Carr, J., Griffin, M., 2012. Business Research Methods, 9 ed.
Cengage Learning.