The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

Work social
Work social support, work support and
engagement and their impacts on work
engagement
multiple performance outcomes
Niusha Talebzadeh and Osman M. Karatepe 1227
Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkey
Received 4 June 2018
Revised 8 January 2019
26 September 2019
Abstract 28 October 2019
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a research model in which work engagement (WE) Accepted 18 November 2019
mediates the influence of work social support on job satisfaction ( JS), in-role performance (IRP), creative
performance (CP) and extra-role performance (ERP).
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from cabin attendants via three surveys two weeks
apart and their pursers. The aforesaid relationships were assessed through structural equation modeling.
Findings – In general, there is support for the preponderance of hypotheses. Specifically, WE completely
mediates the impact of coworker support on JS and IRP, while the impact of supervisor support on CP is
completely mediated by WE. WE partly mediates the effect of coworker support on CP and ERP.
Furthermore, the effect of supervisor support on JS, IRP and ERP is partly mediated by WE.
Practical implications – Management should make sure that the work environment consists of supportive
supervisors and coworkers who are trained on how they can enhance the cooperation and collaboration among
employees. Management should also create an employee platform where cabin attendants can contribute to
service delivery process by sharing their experiences arising from passenger requests and problems.
Originality/value – The study extends and contributes to the current service research by assessing the
impact of WE simultaneously on three performance outcomes. The study adds to current knowledge by
investigating the mediating mechanism linking work social support to the attitudinal and behavioral
outcomes. The study also controls the threat of common method variance with at least two procedural
remedies, which have been rarely used in the current service research.
Keywords Work engagement, Creative performance, In-role performance, Job satisfaction, Cabin attendants,
Work social support, Extra-role performance
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Customer-contact employees, including cabin attendants, do emotional work and spend
much time directly handling customer requests, problems and/or complaints. The notion
that such employees have a significant role in delivery of exceptional services and
successful solutions to complaints, establish strong bonds with customers and display
brand-oriented behaviors is highlighted in a number of studies (e.g. Ashill et al., 2015;
Erkmen and Hancer, 2015; Piaralal et al., 2016; Vatankhah and Darvishi, 2018). To this end,
management of companies needs to retain cabin attendants who feel bursting with energy
to do the job (cf. Chen and Chen, 2012). This is so important because work engagement (WE)
which is identified by “vigor,” “dedication” and “absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2006) enhances
customer service performance under a service failure recovery climate, increases customer
loyalty, activates job performance and fosters career satisfaction (Karatepe, 2012; Menguc
et al., 2017; Reijseger et al., 2017).
Despite the positive consequences of WE mentioned above, the work environment is beset
with plenty of actively disengaged employees. According to Gallup (2016), 32.6 percent of
International Journal of
Data used in this study were collected as part of the first author’s master thesis and came from part Productivity and Performance
Management
of a larger project. The extended abstract of this paper (906 words including references) was Vol. 69 No. 6, 2020
presented in the 7th Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Marketing and Management (AHTMM) pp. 1227-1245
© Emerald Publishing Limited
Conference, July 10–15, 2017, in Gazimagusa in Northern Cyprus and was published in the 1741-0401
proceedings of this conference. DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-05-2018-0195
IJPPM employees in the USA were engaged in their work, while 50.7 percent were disengaged and
69,6 the rest were actively disengaged. Among these employees, customer-contact employees were
the least engaged (Menguc et al., 2017). Evidence also highlights that disengagement among
employees seems to be widespread in the Asian region (Al Mehrzi and Singh, 2016).
Grounded in the above backdrop, our study proposes a research model in which WE
mediates the impacts of both coworker and supervisor support on four organizationally
1228 relevant and valued outcomes of cabin attendants such as job satisfaction ( JS), in-role
performance (IRP), creative performance (CP) and extra-role performance (ERP).
Specifically, our study investigates: the impacts of both coworker and supervisor support
on WE and the aforesaid job outcomes; the impact of WE on JS, IRP, CP and ERP; and (c)
WE as a mediator in these linkages.
JS is conceptualized as an emotional state resulting from an employee’s appraisal of the
job (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996). The present investigation uses three critical performance
outcomes of cabin attendants’ work social support (i.e. coworker and supervisor support)
and WE. IRP highlights “the level of productivity of an individual employee, relative to his
or her peers, on several job-related behaviors and outcomes” (Babin and Boles, 1998, p. 82),
while ERP highlights “discretionary behaviors of contact employees in serving customers
that extend beyond formal role requirements” (Bettencourt and Brown, 1997, p. 41).
CP refers to fresh ideas generated and novel behaviors displayed by service workers in
managing various requests and complaints voiced by customers (Wang and Netemeyer,
2004). CP is a significant behavioral outcome among cabin attendants because they are
encouraged to bring new perspectives to their roles (Karatepe and Vatankhah, 2014).
In addition, the airline companies such as Singapore Airlines and JetBlue expect their cabin
attendants to provide feedback and new ideas for service improvement (Heracleous and Wirtz,
2009; Lages and Piercy, 2012). Studies conducted in the aviation industry also highlight the
relevance and significance of performance outcomes such as IRP, CP and ERP for cabin
attendants (Chen and Kao, 2012; Karatepe and Vatankhah, 2014; Xanthopoulou et al., 2008).
Our study extends and contributes to the current service research on work social support
and WE by investigating the aforesaid linkages in the following ways. First, WE is still a
very important issue for service companies (e.g. Chaudhary and Panda, 2018; Cheng et al.,
2018; Suhartanto and Brien, 2018; Yin, 2018). Saks and Gruman (2014) state, “[…] we really
do not know what causes employee engagement, the effect of employee engagement on
employee and organizational outcomes, and the most effective programs and interventions
for improving employee engagement” (p. 178). This echoes the work of Zhong et al. (2016)
that has drawn attention to the need for research concerning the organizational and
individual factors influencing WE. The importance of an examination of the factors
influencing employees’ WE has also been underscored in Anitha’s (2014), Kataria et al.’s
(2019) and Khoreva and van Zalk’s (2016) empirical works.
Research indicates that both supervisor and coworker support are important signals of
organizational support in the workplace (Kurtessis et al., 2015). Research also demonstrates
that the aforesaid social support variables are important job resources for enabling
customer-contact employees to manage customer requests and complaints (Guchait et al.,
2014). This may be accomplished through retention of employees who are high on
WE (Karatepe, 2012). Ng and Sorensen’s (2008) past meta-analytic study highlighted
evidence regarding the impacts of both supervisor and coworker support on attitudinal
outcomes. However, little is known about the mediating mechanism linking management
support/supervisor support and/or coworker support to employees’ attitudinal and
performance outcomes (cf. Chiang and Wu, 2014; Diamantidis and Chatzoglou, 2019; Gordon
et al., 2019; Nichols et al., 2016).
Second, there are calls for empirical research regarding the relationship of WE to multiple
performance constructs (Reijseger et al., 2017). A systematic search of the relevant literature
delineates less than a handful of studies, which have gauged the linkage between WE and Work social
three or more performance consequences (Karatepe, 2012; Reijseger et al., 2017; Yin, 2018). support and
Therefore, to ascertain the impact of WE simultaneously on cabin attendants’ subsequent role work
performances, our study links WE to three critical outcomes such as IRP, CP and ERP (cf.
Karatepe et al., 2018). The findings of such an investigation also contribute to the understanding engagement
of why engaged employees display higher job performance (Reijseger et al., 2017).
At last, using a time-lagged design and collecting data from multiple sources is not 1229
rampant in the current service literature (e.g. Etehadi and Karatepe, 2019; Jakobsen and
Jensen, 2015; Min et al., 2016). Accordingly, our study utilizes two significant procedural
remedies such as obtaining data from cabin attendants with three surveys two weeks apart
and their pursers to mitigate the threat of common method variance.

2. Theory and hypotheses development

2.1 Social exchange theory and job demands-resources theory
Our study uses social exchange theory and job demands-resources theory ( JD-R) for
development of hypotheses. Specifically, social exchange theory proposes that employees
can form economic and social exchange relationships at work. Specifically, economic
exchange relationships are related to “[…] the exchange of relatively concrete, often
economic benefits that are exchanged in a quid pro quo fashion,” while social exchange
relationships are associated with the exchange of socioemotional benefits, which highlight
“[…] personal attachments and open-ended obligations” (Cropanzano et al., 2003, p. 161).
Our study focuses on social exchange relationships. When both employees and the
employer abide by certain rules of exchange, there will be a trusting and loyal relationship
between the two parties (Saks, 2006). Employees feel obliged to respond via higher WE and
positive job outcomes when there are favorable reciprocal exchanges (Saks, 2006). Such
employees also exhibit desirable outcomes when they continue to have full concentration on
their work roles due to favorable reciprocal exchanges.
Bakker and Demerouti (2017) present several propositions in JD-R. The second proposition
refers to the health-impairment and motivational pathways. The health-impairment pathway
proposes that chronic job demands (e.g. emotional demands and verbal aggression) deplete
employees’ physical and mental resources and therefore give rise to health-related problems
(e.g. depression) as well as undesirable outcomes (e.g. turnover) (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017).
On the other hand, the motivational pathway proposes that job resources (e.g. social support
and autonomy) enhance employees’ learning and development (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017).
These resources enable employees to accomplish their goals. Employees with sufficient job
resources are energetic, are proud of the work they are responsible for and are happy when
they work intensely. These employees, in turn, show intended consequences (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2017).
Figure 1 presents the research model. Our study contends that coworker and supervisor
support activate cabin attendants’ WE. Cabin attendants high on WE are more satisfied
with their job, fulfill the basic requirements of the job successfully, create new ideas for
solutions to passenger problems and go the extra mile during the complaint-handling
interface. The ones who receive sufficient support from their coworkers and supervisors
also display JS, IRP, CP and ERP at elevated levels. Consequently, WE is a mediator
between work social support and the abovementioned outcomes.

3. Hypotheses
3.1 Coworker and supervisor support and work engagement
Supportive supervisors give assistance to subordinates when they are beset with work- and
non-work-related problems and encourage subordinates to display voice behaviors
IJPPM Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
69,6

H2b
Job
satisfaction H2a
1230
H6a
Coworker H1a
support H3b
Purser rating
H6b In-role
Work
engagement performance H3a
H6c
H7a–H8d

H6d H4b
Supervisor H1b Purser rating
support Creative
Control variables performance H4a
Gender and
organizational
tenure H5b
Purser rating
Extra-role
Figure 1. performance H5a
Research model

(Susskind et al., 2007). Under these circumstances, adequate support surfacing from
supervisors helps management to cultivate a trustworthy environment where employees
trust each other (Li et al., 2017). Such a trustworthy environment also consists of supportive
coworkers. In this environment, employees obtain assistance from coworkers to handle their
work-related problems and fulfill the requirements of their jobs (Susskind et al., 2007).
In accordance with social exchange theory (Saks, 2006), these employees feel obliged to
repay the organization by demonstrating elevated levels of WE.
The impacts of coworker and supervisor support on WE appear to be straightforward.
However, the current literature delineates a number of inconsistent findings appertaining to
the impact of work social support or coworker and/or supervisor support (e.g. Bakker and
Bal, 2010; Karatepe, 2012; Karatepe et al., 2010; Saks, 2006). Despite these mixed findings, we
propose that support emerging from both coworkers and supervisors activates cabin
attendants’ WE. From this we hypothesize the following:
H1a. Coworker support relates positively to WE.
H1b. Supervisor support relates positively to WE.

3.2 Coworker and supervisor support and JS

As stated by Graen and Scandura (1987), “each party must offer something the other party
sees as valuable and each party must see the exchange as reasonably equitable or fair”
(p. 182). If employees perceive that there are supportive coworkers and supervisors in the
workplace and management tries to encourage and direct such individuals through specific
training programs, they become satisfied with their jobs. Supervisory actions such as
listening to disputes, encouraging employees to learn new things and communicating the
company’s strategies and goals to employees signal that supervisors consider them as
strategic partners (cf. Gordon et al., 2019). Likewise, helping the colleagues to handle difficult
service encounters and backing them up when needed signal that there is support surfacing Work social
from coworkers in the workplace (cf. Kim et al., 2017). Under these conditions, both coworker support and
and supervisor support enhance employees’ JS. work
A synthesis of the current literature presented evidence for the impact of coworker
and/or supervisor support on JS (Babin and Boles, 1996; Orgambídez-Ramos and engagement
De Almeida, 2017). Chiang and Wu’s (2014) study documented that coworker and supervisor
support stimulated cabin attendants’ JS. This prompts the following hypotheses: 1231
H2a. Coworker support relates positively to JS.
H2b. Supervisor support relates positively to JS.

3.3 Coworker and supervisor support and in-role performance

Cabin attendants do emotional labor and have to develop relationships with their coworkers
quickly (Xanthopoulou et al., 2008). This is due to the fact that these cabin attendants are likely
to work together for a short period of time. They also need to develop camaraderie and team
spirit during their flights to carry out their tasks successfully (cf. Heracleous and Wirtz, 2009).
This makes coworker support an important job resource for cabin attendants. Employees who
perceive that they can obtain assistance for work-related issues from their coworkers and
supervisors when needed can implement their tasks opportunely. As propounded by social
exchange theory (Saks, 2006), employees feel obliged to respond to such support associated with
coworkers and supervisors through elevated levels of IRP. These employees carry out their
daily tasks effectively as a result of support associated with their coworkers and supervisors.
In empirical terms, a recent study by Mushtaq et al. (2017) demonstrated that supervisor
support was positively associated with employees’ IRP. Kim et al. (2017) also reported that
coworker and supervisor support fostered cabin attendants’ job performance. In light of
this, we postulate the following hypotheses:
H3a. Coworker support relates positively to IRP.
H3b. Supervisor support relates positively to IRP.

3.4 Coworker and supervisor support and creative performance

Cabin attendants can generate new ideas to find solutions to novel passenger problems,
provide feedback to management for service improvement and offer new ideas for
satisfying passengers and exceeding their expectations. However, this can be achieved
through a pool of talented cabin attendants who develop camaraderie, work in teams and
get sufficient and satisfactory support from coworkers and supervisors. Support arising
from coworkers and supervisors sends signals to cabin attendants that management invests
in work social support. This is concordant with social exchange theory (Cropanzano et al.,
2003; Saks, 2006) that cabin attendants feel obliged to repay the organization through higher
CP due to coworker and supervisor support.
The abovementioned discussion leads to the conclusion that both coworker and
supervisor influence employees’ CP. Though limited, it seems that there is evidence
supporting these relationships. However, such evidence does not emerge from the aviation
industry. For example, Madjar et al. (2002) found that work social support (i.e. coworker and
supervisor support) activated employees’ CP in the knitwear industry. Škerlavaj et al. (2014)
documented that supervisor support was positively associated with idea generation and
implementation among employees in the manufacturing industry. Hence, we postulate the
following hypotheses:
H4a. Coworker support relates positively to CP.
H4b. Supervisor support relates positively to CP.
IJPPM 3.5 Coworker and supervisor support and extra-role performance
69,6 Cabin attendants’ ERP can also increase due to their favorable perceptions of coworker and
supervisor support in the workplace. That is, the presence of sufficient support surfacing from
coworkers and supervisors can enable cabin attendants to go beyond the requirements of the
job. With this realization, to meet or exceed passengers’ expectations, cabin attendants can
take advantage of support emerging form their coworkers (Xanthopoulou et al., 2008) because
1232 such coworkers influence the work environment. This is in accordance with social exchange
theory (Saks, 2006) that adequate and satisfactory support emanating from coworkers and
supervisors makes subordinates feel obliged to respond to the organization’s actions by
exhibiting elevated levels of ERP. Though there is evidence supporting these relationships, it
does not surface from the aviation industry. For instance, coworker and/or supervisor support
was found to enhance organizational citizenship behavior (Li et al., 2017). Accordingly, we
postulate the following hypotheses:
H5a. Coworker support relates positively to ERP.
H5b. Supervisor support relates positively to ERP.

3.6 Work engagement and critical job outcomes

As social exchange theory proposes, highly supported cabin attendants repay the
organization by reporting elevated levels of JS, IRP, CP and ERP. Cabin attendants who are
more engaged in their work are likely to possess trusting and high quality relationships
with their company and therefore may exhibit the aforesaid outcomes (cf. Saks, 2006).
There is evidence supporting the premise that work-engaged employees at elevated levels
display higher levels of job outcomes. Broadly speaking, Chen and Kao (2012) highlighted the
positive effect of WE on cabin attendants’ IRP and ERP. WE was found to be a predictor of
both IRP and ERP among hotel employees (Karatepe et al., 2018). Al Zaabi et al.’s (2016) work
presented a positive linkage between WE and organizational citizenship behavior among
employees in a petroleum company. Orgambídez-Ramos and De Almeida (2017) showed that
WE was positively linked to JS. Reijseger et al.’s (2017) study documented that an increase in
WE gave rise to an increase IRP and ERP. Karatepe’s (2012) work showed that high levels of
WE led to elevated levels of in-role and CP among hotel employees.
Yeh (2012) reported that WE exerted a strong positive impact on cabin attendants’
service performance. Kasekende (2017) demonstrated that WE activated public servers’
discretionary behaviors. Likewise, Cheng et al.’s (2018) recent study highlighted that WE
activated cabin attendants’ service behaviors (IRP and ERP). Suhartanto and Brien (2018)
found that WE positively affected frontline retail employees’ job performance. According to
the findings of Yin’s (2018) study, WE weakened salespeople’s counterwork productive
behavior, while it elevated their task performance as well as organizational citizenship
behavior. A more recent research showed that WE was positively linked to employees’ job
performance in Lebanon (Ismail et al., 2019). However, this relationship was completed
mediated by creativity.
The abovementioned studies have enhanced the understanding of the impact of WE on
performance outcomes. However, what is missing in the current literature is the assessment
of the effect of WE simultaneously on three critical performance outcomes (i.e. IRP, CP and
ERP) among cabin attendants. That is, assessing these relationships enables us to ascertain
the impact of WE on cabin attendants’ subsequent role performances. Collectively, our
study proposes that cabin attendants with high WE develop a trusting and high quality
relationship with the company and therefore exhibit positive attitudinal and behavioral
consequences. From this we hypothesize the following:
H6. WE relates positively to (a) JS, (b) IRP, (c) CP and (d) ERP.
3.7 Work engagement as a mediator Work social
The motivational pathway in JD-R theory suggests that both coworker and supervisor support and
support enable cabin attendants to handle work-related problems, exchange opinions and work
ideas and offer new ideas (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). Such support contributes to their
learning and development as well as the achievement of goals (Bakker and Demerouti, engagement
2017). These employees are high on WE, even in the face of difficulties and therefore display
intended outcomes (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). There is evidence about the underlying 1233
mechanism linking job resources (e.g. supervisor and coworker support and innovative
climate) to cabin attendants’ attitudinal (e.g. proclivity to quit) and behavioral (e.g. CP)
consequences (e.g. Chen and Chen, 2012; Chiang and Wu, 2014; Karatepe and Vatankhah,
2014; Xanthopoulou et al., 2008; Yeh, 2014).
Using JD-R as the theoretical framework, our study contends that cabin attendants
working in an environment where there are supportive coworkers and supervisors possess
higher WE and therefore report elevated levels of JS, display good IRP, provide feedback
and solutions about novel passenger problems and exhibit ERP at higher levels. Testing
these relationships is significant due to the dearth of empirical research pertaining to WE as
a mediator of the individual effects of coworker and supervisor support on four critical
outcomes among cabin attendants. From this we hypothesize the following:
H7. WE mediates the impact of coworker support on (a) JS, (b) IRP, (c) CP and (d) ERP.
H8. WE mediates the impact of supervisor support on (a) JS, (b) IRP, (c) CP and (d) ERP.

4. Method
4.1 Sample and data collection
Data came from cabin attendants in the three private airline companies in Iran. One of the
airline companies had domestic flights, while the others had both international and
domestic flights. These companies provided permission for obtaining data from cabin
attendants through their supervisors. To decrease the risk of common method variance,
several remedies were employed (Podsakoff et al., 2012). First, this study had a three-wave
design and gathered data from pursers for the assessment of cabin attendants’ IRP CP and
ERP. The interval between each wave was two weeks. Second, each survey had a cover
page that included the following information: “There are no right or wrong answers in this
questionnaire,” “Any sort of information collected during our research will be kept
confidential,” “Participation is voluntary but encouraged” and “Management of your
company fully endorses participation.” Third, all respondents returned their surveys in
sealed envelopes. Fourth, matching the surveys with each other was completed with
identification codes.
In total, 230 cabin attendants were invited to fill out the Time 1 surveys (i.e. coworker
and supervisor support and items about the subject profile). Respondents returned 230
surveys. However, one survey was eliminated because of missing information. Then 229
cabin attendants were re-invited to fill out the Time 2 surveys (i.e. WE). Respondents
returned 216 surveys, of which 16 were discarded due to missing information. In the last
wave, 200 Time 3 surveys (i.e. JS) were distributed to the cabin attendants. Respondents
returned 200 surveys. The response rate (200/230 ¼ 86.96 percent) was very good. In all,
42 pursers participated in our study to assess 200 cabin attendants’ IRP, CP and ERP.
Regarding the sample characteristics, 56 percent were female. The sample included
mostly participants (60 percent) who were aged between 28 and 37 years. In all, 57 percent of
the participants possessed four-year college degrees. In terms of organizational tenure, the
sample included mostly participants (94 percent) who worked for their current organization
between 1 and 10 years.
IJPPM 4.2 Instrumentation
69,6 Five items from Karasek et al. (1982) were utilized to assess supervisor support, while
Hammer et al.’s (2004) scale which consisted of five items was used to assess coworker
support. IRP and ERP each was measured with five items. Items adapted from Babin and
Boles (1998) were used to operationalize IRP, while items came from Bettencourt and Brown
(1997) to assess ERP. CP was measured with six items, which were adapted from Wang and
1234 Netemeyer (2004). Respondents demonstrated how much they agreed with each item in
supervisor support, coworker support, IRP and ERP on a five-point scale where it ranged
from “5 ¼ strongly agree” to “1 ¼ strongly disagree.” Respondents rated the CP items via a
five-point scale (“5 ¼ almost always” to “1 ¼ never”).
WE was measured with Schaufeli et al.’s (2006) nine-item scale. All items were rated on a
seven-point scale where it ranged from “6 ¼ always” to “0 ¼ never.” Three items from
Netemeyer et al. (1997) were utilized to operationalize JS. All of these items were scored on a
seven-point scale. The first two items had a “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” scale
and the last item had a “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied scale.” To control the possible
confounding effects, gender and organizational tenure were incorporated into the model.
The Appendix delineates the scale items and their sources.
All surveys were prepared based on the back-translation technique. Each type of surveys
in Persian was subjected to a pilot test of five flight attendants or five pursers. The findings
suggested no changes in the surveys since respondents had no difficulties concerning the
understandability of items.

5. Results
5.1 The seven-factor measurement model
Covariance matrix was utilized in LISREL 8.30 to assess the seven-factor measurement model
( Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996). The findings demonstrated that it fits the data well:
χ2 ¼ 1,004.89, df ¼ 637; χ2/df ¼ 1.58; “Comparative fit index” (CFI) ¼ 0.93; “Parsimony normed
fit index” (PNFI) ¼ 0.76; “Root mean square error of approximation” (RMSEA) ¼ 0.054;
“Standardized root mean square residual” (SRMR) ¼ 0.078. The loadings from 0.39 to 0.95
were significant (t-valuesW2.33). The average variance extracted (AVE) by coworker
support, supervisor support, WE, JS, IRP, CP and ERP was 0.47, 0.49, 0.61, 0.77, 0.50, 0.65 and
0.63, respectively. The AVEs by coworker support and supervisor support were slightly
below 0.50. Despite these findings, the loadings that belonged to these variables were
significant. In addition, these variables did not deteriorate the model fit statistics. Overall, the
results illustrated that convergent validity was achieved (Hair et al., 2010).
All AVEs were larger than any squared correlation among variables, excluding the one
between IRP and CP. Therefore, we checked discriminant validity via pair-wise χ2 difference
test (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). We compared a two-dimensional model with a one-factor
model. The finding was significant (Δχ2 ¼ 4.98, df ¼ 1, po0.05). In short, discriminant
validity was confirmed (e.g. Hair et al., 2010). The findings further showed that composite
reliability score for coworker support, supervisor support, WE, JS, IRP, CP and ERP was 0.81,
0.82, 0.93, 0.91, 0.83, 0.92 and 0.89, respectively. The composite reliabilities were larger than the
0.60 threshold (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Table I gives summary statistics and correlations.

5.2 Tests of research hypotheses

We compared the partially mediated model ( χ2 ¼ 1,091.94, df ¼ 702) with the non-mediated
model ( χ2 ¼ 1,156.66, df ¼ 706) and the fully mediated model ( χ2 ¼ 1,151.12, df ¼ 710). In the
fully mediated model, the direct paths from coworker support and supervisor support to JS,
IRP, CP and ERP were not set free, while in the non-mediated model, WE was not treated as
a mediator. The finding regarding the comparison between the partially mediated model
and fully mediated model was significant (Δχ2 ¼ 59.18, df ¼ 8). Likewise, the result
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Work social
support and
1. Gender – work
2. Organizational tenure −0.066 –
3. Coworker support −0.059 −0.087 – engagement
4. Supervisor support −0.067 −0.148* 0.393** –
5. Work engagement −0.035 0.035 0.378** 0.372** –
6. Job satisfaction 0.044 0.017 0.383** 0.498** 0.629** – 1235
7. In-role performance 0.040 0.272** 0.253** 0.256** 0.415** 0.355** –
8. Creative performance 0.019 0.123* 0.335** 0.212** 0.356** 0.295** 0.755** –
9. Extra-role performance −0.007 −0.046 0.333** 0.354** 0.431** 0.326** 0.631** 0.639** –
Mean 0.57 2.36 3.58 2.89 4.13 4.26 3.40 3.46 2.72 Table I.
SD 0.50 0.78 0.70 0.84 1.23 1.50 0.82 0.78 0.87 Summary statistics
Notes: Gender was coded as a binary variable (0 ¼ male and 1 ¼ female). Organizational tenure was and correlations of
measured in four categories. One-tailed test. *p o0.05; **p o0.01 observed variables

concerning the comparison between the partially mediated model and the non-mediated
model was significant (Δχ2 ¼ 64.72, df ¼ 4). Table II shows that the partially mediated model
( χ 2 ¼ 1,091.94, df ¼ 702; χ2 /df ¼ 1.56; CFI ¼ 0.92; PNFI ¼ 0.74; RMSEA ¼ 0.053;
SRMR ¼ 0.077) which fit the data well was used to assess the hypothesized relationships.
The findings based on structural equation modeling illustrated that both coworker
(β ¼ 0.24, t ¼ 2.79) and supervisor support (β ¼ 0.35, t ¼ 3.89) depicted positive associations
with WE. Hence, H1a and H1b were supported. The empirical data did not support H2a
because coworker support was not significantly associated with JS. H2b was supported since
supervisor support had a positive impact on JS (β ¼ 0.31, t ¼ 4.08). H3b was supported due to
the fact that supervisor support exerted a positive influence on IRP (β ¼ 0.29, t ¼ 3.02).
However, the data did not support H3a because coworker support had no bearing on IRP.
The results demonstrated that there was a positive linkage between coworker support
and CP (β ¼ 0.24, t ¼ 2.55). Hence, the data supported H4a. H4b was not supported because
of the non-significant positive impact of supervisor support on CP. The findings regarding
the effects of coworker support (β ¼ 0.17, t ¼ 1.94) and supervisor support (β ¼ 0.16,
t ¼ 1.77) on ERP were consistent with the study predictions. Therefore, H5a and H5b
were supported.
The results further revealed that WE was positively linked to JS (β ¼ 0.52, t ¼ 7.00), IRP
(β ¼ 0.34, t ¼ 3.93), CP (β ¼ 0.20, t ¼ 2.33) and ERP (β ¼ 0.25, t ¼ 3.05). Hence, H6a–H6d
were supported.
Table III presents the findings concerning the mediating effects. All hypotheses
pertaining to the mediating effects were supported. That is, the empirical data supported the
full or partial mediating effects. Specifically, WE was a full mediator between coworker
support and JS (z ¼ 2.51) and IRP (z ¼ 2.18). Hence, H7a and H7b were supported. There was
empirical support for H7c and H7d since WE partly mediated the impact of coworker
support on CP (z ¼ 1.71) and ERP (z ¼ 2.03).
The findings further indicated that WE partly mediated the impact of supervisor support
on JS (z ¼ 3.45) and IRP (z ¼ 2.71). Hence, H8a and H8b were supported. WE was a full
mediator between supervisor support and CP (z ¼ 1.93) and partly mediated the impact of
supervisor support on ERP (z ¼ 2.44), leading to the conclusion that H8c and H8d were
supported. The indirect effects were provided in Table III.
As given in Table II, organizational tenure was negatively linked to supervisor support
(g ¼ −0.15, t ¼ −1.95), while it was positively associated with in-role (g ¼ 0.37, t ¼ 5.25) and
creative (g ¼ 0.14, t ¼ 1.97) performances. The findings revealed that cabin attendants with
longer tenure had unfavorable perceptions of supervisor support. On the other hand, cabin
attendants with longer tenure exhibited higher IRP and ERP.
IJPPM Standardized Supported/not
69,6 Hypothesized path estimate (β) t-value supported

Hypotheses
H1a Coworker support → 0.24 2.79** Supported
Work engagement
H1b Supervisor support → 0.35 3.89** Supported
1236 Work engagement
H2a Coworker support → 0.09 1.39 Not supported
Job satisfaction
H2b Supervisor support → 0.31 4.08** Supported
Job satisfaction
H3a Coworker support → 0.10 1.11 Not supported
In-role performance
H3b Supervisor support → 0.29 3.02** Supported
In-role performance
H4a Coworker support → 0.24 2.55** Supported
Creative performance
H4b Supervisor support → 0.07 0.78 Not supported
Creative performance
H5a Coworker support → 0.17 1.94* Supported
Extra-role performance
H5b Supervisor support → 0.16 1.77* Supported
Extra-role performance
H6a Work engagement → 0.52 7.00** Supported
Job satisfaction
H6b Work engagement → 0.34 3.93** Supported
In-role performance
H6c Work engagement → 0.20 2.33* Supported
Creative performance
H6d Work engagement → 0.25 3.05** Supported
Extra-role performance
Control variables g
Organizational tenure → −0.15 −1.95*
Supervisor support
Organizational tenure → 0.37 5.25**
In-role performance
Organizational tenure → 0.14 1.97*
Creative performance
Notes: There was no evidence for non-normality since the skewness values for all variables were below 3.00.
That is, the skewness value for coworker support, supervisor support, work engagement, job satisfaction,
Table II. in-role performance, creative performance and extra-role performance was −1.383, −0.258, −0.929, −0.731,
Test of research −0.550, −0.332 and 0.297, respectively. R2 for coworker support 1 percent; supervisor support 2 percent; work
hypotheses: engagement 25 percent; job satisfaction 58 percent; in-role performance 46 percent; creative performance
direct effects 18 percent; extra-role performance 22 percent. T-values: one-tailed test *tW 1.65, p o0.05; **tW 2.33, p o0.01

The findings explained 1 percent of the variance in coworker support, 2 percent in

supervisor support, 25 percent in WE, 58 percent in JS, 46 percent in IRP, 18 percent in CP
and 22 percent in ERP. The findings appertaining to the significant effects also remained the
same with or without gender and organizational tenure.

6. Discussion
6.1 Key findings
Applying social exchange and JD-R theories, our study proposed a research model in which
WE mediated the effects of coworker and supervisor support on cabin attendants’ JS, IRP,
 Supported/not
Work social
Hypothesis Hypothesized path Indirect effect z-value supported support and
work
H7a Coworker support → Work engagement → 0.13 2.51** Supported
Job satisfaction (full) engagement
H7b Coworker support → Work engagement → 0.08 2.18* Supported
In-role performance (full)
H7c Coworker support → Work engagement → 0.05 1.71* Supported 1237
Creative performance (partial)
H7d Coworker support → Work engagement → 0.06 2.03* Supported
Extra-role performance (partial)
H8a Supervisor support → Work engagement → 0.18 3.45** Supported
Job satisfaction (partial)
H8b Supervisor support → Work engagement → 0.12 2.71** Supported
In-role performance (partial)
H8c Supervisor support → Work engagement → 0.07 1.93* Supported
Creative performance (full) Table III.
H8d Supervisor support → Work engagement → 0.09 2.44** Supported Test of research
Extra-role performance (partial) hypotheses:
Notes: One-tailed test. *po 0.05; **p o0.01 mediating effects

CP and ERP. Broadly speaking, our study assessed: the impacts of coworker and supervisor
support on JS, IRP, CP and ERP; the influence of WE on JS, IRP, CP and ERP; and WE as a
mediator between work social support and the abovementioned outcomes. In general, the
results lend empirical support to the overwhelming majority of the relationships. A number
of useful observations can be made using the previously mentioned findings.
Coworker and supervisor support are significant predictors of WE among cabin
attendants. The positive effect of supervisor support on WE is stronger than that of
coworker support. It seems that that cabin attendants take more advantage of support
emanating from supervisors when compared with support arising from coworkers and
therefore display higher WE. These results are congruent with social exchange theory
(Cropanzano et al., 2003; Saks, 2006) and the work of Karatepe (2012), which has
demonstrated the similar findings among hotel customer-contact employees.
The finding regarding the WE → JS relationship is not only congruent with social
exchange theory (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Saks, 2006) but also obtains support from the
work of Orgambídez-Ramos and De Almeida (2017). Cabin attendants who feel bursting
with energy, find their job challenging, and are unable to detach themselves from their job
are highly satisfied with the job. More importantly, WE has a positive influence
simultaneously on cabin attendants’ IRP, CP and ERP. The findings suggest that the
positive influence of WE on IRP is stronger than on CP and ERP. Though the findings
pertaining to the impact of WE on IRP and CP seem to be consistent with what has been
reported by Karatepe (2012), they do not receive support from the work of Chen and Kao
(2012). This is because of the fact that the effect of WE on ERP is stronger than on IRP (Chen
and Kao, 2012). Our findings suggest that work-engaged cabin attendants pay greater
attention to their tasks. However, when needed, they offer new ideas for satisfying
passenger needs and display higher CP. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that WE is a
motivational construct triggering cabin attendants’ IRP, CP and ERP at the same time.
In addition, coworker support is an important job resource for fostering cabin attendants’ CP
and ERP. Not surprisingly, these employees have to develop camaraderie and work in teams
effectively to contribute to the company via CP and ERP. The coworker support → CP and ERP
linkages are also mediated by WE. That is, developing camaraderie and working in teams
successfully makes cabin attendants have WE at elevated levels. These employees, in turn,
IJPPM display higher CP and ERP. These findings are critical since cabin attendants exchange ideas to
69,6 solve novel passenger problems and exceed passengers’ expectations. Unexpectedly, coworker
support is not significantly linked to IRP. This may be due to the fact that cabin attendants may
not perceive coworker support as a significant job resource to carry out the tasks. The
non-significant path from coworker support to JS suggests that cabin attendants do not perceive
coworker support as a necessary resource to be satisfied with different aspects of the job.
1238 WE mediates the impact of coworker support on cabin attendants’ JS, IRP, CP and ERP.
WE fully mediates the effect of coworker support on JS and IRP, while it partially mediates
the impact of coworker support on CP and ERP. These findings are congruent with JD-R
theory (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). Coworker support is critical for displaying CP and
extra-role passenger service. The availability of coworker support is also important for
enhancing cabin attendants’ WE, which, in turn, gives rise to higher JS and IRP.
The findings suggest that supervisor support is also an important job resource for
enhancing IRP and ERP. Cabin attendants receive support and directions from their pursers
to carry out the traditional tasks as well as manage unexpected problems or requests. The
findings given above are in accordance with social exchange theory (Cropanzano et al., 2003;
Saks, 2006) and receive partial support from other empirical works (Kim et al., 2017;
Xanthopoulou et al., 2008). The significant path from supervisor support to JS suggests that
cabin attendants obtain support from their supervisors or pursers to be satisfied with their
jobs. This may due to the fact that good support from supervisors signals the presence of
care given to cabin attendants. On the other hand, the non-significant path from supervisor
support to CP suggests that supervisors or pursers are unlikely to support cabin attendants
for offering novel ideas for passenger problems. This may be related to the pursers’ fear of
losing their current supervisory positions in the company.
The aforementioned findings also highlight WE as a mediator. That is, the impact of
supervisor support on JS, IRP and ERP is partially mediated by WE, while its impact on CP
is fully mediated by WE. Again in accord with JD-R theory (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017),
cabin attendants with sufficient supervisor support are high on WE and therefore display
better CP. The availability of support emanating from supervisors positively affects cabin
attendants’ WE, JS, IRP and ERP directly. WE also mediates these linkages.

6.2 Theoretical implications

Our study enhances current knowledge in the extant service research by testing WE as a
mediator of the impacts of coworker and supervisor support on cabin attendants’ JS, IRP, CP
and ERP. Specifically, our study responds to the call for more research about the factors
influencing service workers’ WE. This has been stressed in the works of Anitha (2014),
Khoreva and van Zalk (2016), Saks and Gruman (2014) and Zhong et al. (2016). With this
recognition, this empirical work has assessed the individual effects of coworker and
supervisor support on cabin attendants’ WE.
Our study focuses on WE as the underlying mechanism linking coworker and supervisor
support to cabin attendants’ attitudinal (i.e. JS) and performance (i.e. IRP, CP and ERP)
outcomes. This is significant because empirical studies have underscored such a gap in the
relevant literature (cf. Chiang and Wu, 2014; Gordon et al., 2019). In our study, WE is linked
to three organizationally relevant and valued performance outcomes for cabin attendants.
That is, our study tests the influence of WE simultaneously on IRP, CP and ERP. This
extends past and recent works (Karatepe, 2012; Karatepe et al., 2018; Reijseger et al., 2017)
and contributes to current knowledge that cabin attendants high on WE carry out their
tasks successfully, provide novel ideas and feedback concerning passenger problems, and
often go out the way to help passengers at the same time. In addition, supervisor support
fosters cabin attendants’ JS, IRP and ERP, while coworker support activates their CP
and ERP. These findings add to the extant service research since work social support is still
a key to bolstering employees’ work and non-work outcomes (Diamantidis and Chatzoglou, Work social
2019; Gordon et al., 2019). support and
From a methodological perspective, our study controls the threat of common method work
variance using at least two procedural remedies. Specifically, we utilized a time-lagged
sample of cabin attendants and multiple sources of data (cabin attendants’ IRP, CP and ERP engagement
were rated by their pursers) in one study. These rigorous remedies have been rarely used in
one study (e.g. Etehadi and Karatepe, 2019; Min et al., 2016). 1239
6.3 Practical implications
Our study offers implications for practice for both supervisory and non-supervisory
employees. First, there is a strict competition among companies in the aviation industry. Not
surprisingly, management of these companies takes actions to achieve a competitive
advantage. However, these companies should consider cabin attendants as strategic
partners to achieve such an advantage. Management should offer intense training programs
to cabin attendants and their pursers to show that the organization pays utmost attention to
a work environment that consists of supportive coworkers and supervisors. These training
programs should focus on how cabin attendants can increase their cooperation
and collaboration with each other and how their pursers can contribute to this process.
Second, WE activates JS and boosts IRP, CP and ERP. With this realization, management
should retain cabin attendants who feel strong and vigorous, find the work meaningful and
are immersed in their work. To do this, management should relinquish control over many
aspects of service delivery process (e.g. Limpanitgul et al., 2017). Management should also
make the job more attractive through individual learning and development to retain them in
the company (cf. Karatepe and Shahriari, 2014). This is important because today’s
competitive work environment suffers from a lack of engaged employees at the bottom line
who may display high levels of job performance (Gallup, 2016; Menguc et al., 2017).
Third, management could create an employee portal where cabin attendants can share
their experiences associated with handling passenger requests and problems. Such
experiences are likely to contribute to service delivery process because when cabin
attendants fulfill the requirements of the job (IRP) and display ERP to exceed passenger
requests, they enhance delivery of service quality in the company. These experiences
enable cabin attendants to learn from various mistakes, which would prevent them from a
double deviation from passenger expectations. Pursers can also contribute to this process
by sharing their ideas and providing feedback about any problems encountered in service
delivery process via the aforementioned portal. However, cabin attendants and their
coworkers and pursers should make sure that their ideas and feedback are congruent with
the organizational expectations (e.g. achievement of passenger satisfaction and loyalty).

6.4 Limitations and implications for future research

Our work has several limitations. Specifically, our study assessed cabin attendants’
perceptions of work social support as an antecedent to WE. In future studies including a
bundle of high-performance work systems (e.g. information sharing, work-life balance) in
the model would delineate a detailed picture about the antecedents of WE. Our study also
used IRP, CP and ERP as the behavioral outcomes of WE. Inclusion of other outcomes such
as service-sales ambidexterity and counterproductive work behaviors would enhance
current knowledge.
In closing, conducting a cross-national study to broaden the database for further
generalizations in future studies would be useful. For example, data could be obtained from
cabin attendants and their pursers in the aviation industry in the USA, Iran and Russia. Utilizing
time-lagged samples of cabin attendants as well as multiple sources of data in a cross-national
study would contribute to the antecedents and outcomes of WE in the aviation industry.
IJPPM References
69,6 Al Mehrzi, N. and Singh, S.K. (2016), “Competing through engagement: a proposed framework”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Measurement, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 831-843.
Al Zaabi, M.S.A.S., Ahmad, K.Z. and Hossan, C. (2016), “Authentic leadership, work engagement and
organizational citizenship behaviors in petroleum company”, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Measurement, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 811-830.
1240 Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Anitha, J. (2014), “Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Measurement, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 308-323.
Ashill, N.J., Rod, M. and Gibbs, T. (2015), “Coping with stress: a study of retail banking service workers
in Russia”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 23, March, pp. 58-69.
Babin, B. and Boles, J.S. (1996), “The effects of perceived coworker involvement and supervisor support
on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72
No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Babin, B. and Boles, J.S. (1998), “Employee behavior in a service environment: a model and test of
potential differences between men and women”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 77-91.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bakker, A.B. and Bal, P.M. (2010), “Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among
starting teachers”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 189-206.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2017), “Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking
forward”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 273-285.
Bettencourt, L.A. and Brown, S.W. (1997), “Contact employees: relationships among workplace
fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1,
pp. 39-61.
Chaudhary, R. and Panda, C. (2018), “Authentic leadership and creativity: the intervening role of
psychological meaningfulness, safety and work engagement”, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Measurement, Vol. 67 No. 9, pp. 2071-2088.
Chen, C.-F. and Chen, S.-C. (2012), “Burnout and work engagement among cabin crew: antecedents and
consequences”, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 41-58.
Chen, C.-F. and Kao, Y.-L. (2012), “Moderating effects of work engagement and job tenure on
burnout-performance among flight attendants”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 25,
December, pp. 61-63.
Cheng, T.-M., Hong, C.-Y. and Yang, B.-C. (2018), “Examining the moderating effects of service climate
on psychological capital, work engagement, and service behavior among flight attendants”,
Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 67, March, pp. 94-102.
Chiang, C.-F. and Wu, K.-P. (2014), “The influences of internal service quality and job standardization
on job satisfaction with supports as mediators: flight attendants at branch workplace”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 19, pp. 2644-2666.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.R. and Byrne, Z.Z. (2003), “The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work
attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 160-169.
Diamantidis, A.D. and Chatzoglou, P. (2019), “Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical
approach”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 68 No. 1,
pp. 171-193.
Erkmen, E. and Hancer, M. (2015), “Linking brand commitment and brand citizenship behaviors
of airline employees: the role of trust”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 42, January,
pp. 47-54.
Etehadi, B. and Karatepe, O.M. (2019), “The impact of job insecurity on critical hotel employee Work social
outcomes: the mediating role of self-efficacy”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, support and
Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 665-689.
work
Gallup (2016), “U.S. employee engagement steady in June”, available at: http://news.gallup.com/poll/
193901/employee-engagement-steady-june.aspx (accessed December 13, 2017). engagement
Gordon, S., Tag, C.-H.(H.)., Day, J. and Adler, H. (2019), “Supervisor support and turnover in hotels:
does subjective well-being mediate the relationship?”, International Journal of Contemporary 1241
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 496-512.
Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T.A. (1987), “Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing”, in Cummings, L.L. and
Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 175-208.
Guchait, P., Pasamehmetoglu, A. and Dawson, M. (2014), “Perceived supervisor and coworker support
for error management: impact on perceived psychological safety and service recovery
performance”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 41, August, pp. 28-37.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hammer, T.H., Saksvik, P.Ø., Nytrø, K., Torvatn, H. and Bayazit, M. (2004), “Expanding the
psychosocial work environment: workplace norms and work-family conflict as correlates of
stress and health”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 83-97.
Hartline, M.D. and Ferrell, O.C. (1996), “The management of customer-contact service employees: an
empirical investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 52-70.
Heracleous, L. and Wirtz, J. (2009), “Strategy and organization at Singapore Airlines: achieving
sustainable advantage through dual strategy”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 15,
November, pp. 274-279.
Ismail, H.N., Iqbal, A. and Nasr, L. (2019), “Employee engagement and job performance: the mediating
role of creativity”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 68
No. 3, pp. 506-523.
Jakobsen, M. and Jensen, R. (2015), “Common method bias in public management studies”, International
Public Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, Scientific Software International,
Chicago, IL.
Karasek, R.A., Triantis, K.P. and Chaudhry, S.S. (1982), “Coworker and supervisor support as moderators
of associations between task characteristics and mental strain”, Journal of Occupational Behavior,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 181-200.
Karatepe, O.M. (2012), “Job resources, work engagement, and hotel employee outcomes: a time-lagged
analysis”, Ekonomska Istrazivanja (Economic Research), Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 1127-1140.
Karatepe, O.M. and Shahriari, S. (2014), “Job embeddedness as a moderator of the impact of
organizational justice on turnover intentions in Iran”, International Journal of Tourism Research,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 22-32.
Karatepe, O.M. and Vatankhah, S. (2014), “The effects of high-performance work practices and job
embeddedness on flight attendants’ performance outcomes”, Journal of Air Transport Management,
Vol. 37, May, pp. 27-35.
Karatepe, O.M., Keshavarz, S. and Nejati, S. (2010), “Do core self-evaluations mediate the effect of
coworker support on work engagement? A study of hotel employees in Iran”, Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 62-71.
Karatepe, O.M., Yavas, U., Babakus, E. and Deitz, G.D. (2018), “The effects of organizational and
personal resources on stress, engagement, and job outcomes”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 74, August, pp. 147-161.
Kasekende, F. (2017), “Psychological contract, engagement and employee discretionary behaviors:
perspectives from Uganda”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 896-913.
IJPPM Kataria, A., Garg, P. and Rastogi, R. (2019), “Do high-performance HR practices augment OCBS? The
69,6 role of psychological climate and work engagement”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 1057-1177.
Khoreva, V. and van Zalk, M. (2016), “Antecedents of work engagement among high potential
employees”, Career Development International, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 459-476.
Kim, H.J., Hur, W.-M., Moon, T.-W. and Jun, J.-K. (2017), “Is all support equal? The moderating effects of
1242 supervisor, coworker, and organizational support on the link between emotional labor and job
performance”, Business Research Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 124-136.
Kurtessis, J.N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M.T., Buffardi, L.C., Stewart, K.A. and Adis, C.S. (2015),
“Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1854-1884.
Lages, C.R. and Piercy, N.F. (2012), “Key drivers of frontline employee generation of ideas for customer
service improvement”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 215-230.
Li, J.( J.)., Kim, W.G. and Zhao, X.(R.). (2017), “Multilevel of management support and casino employee
turnover intention”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59, April, pp. 193-204.
Limpanitgul, T., Boonchoo, P., Kulviseachana, S. and Photiyarach, S. (2017), “The relationship between
empowerment and the three-component model of organizational commitment: an empirical study
of Thai employees working in Thai and American airlines”, International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 227-242.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G.R. and Pratt, M.G. (2002), “There is no place like home? The contributions of work
and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 757-767.
Menguc, B., Auh, S., Yeniaras, V. and Katsikeas, C.S. (2017), “The role of climate: implications for
service employee engagement and customer service performance”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 428-451.
Min, H., Park, J. and Kim, H.J. (2016), “Common method bias in hospitality research: a critical review of
literature and an empirical study”, International Journal of Hospitality Research, Vol. 56, July,
pp. 126-135.
Mushtaq, R., Raja, U. and Khan, M.B. (2017), “Unpacking the combined effects of job scope and
supervisor support on in-role performance”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 36 No. 9,
pp. 1170-1179.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., McKee, D.O. and McMurrian, R. (1997), “An investigation into the antecedents
of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling concept”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61
No. 3, pp. 85-98.
Ng, T.W.H. and Sorensen, K.L. (2008), “Toward a further understanding of the relationships between
perceptions of support and work attitudes: a meta-analysis”, Group and Organization Management,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 243-268.
Nichols, H.M., Swanberg, J.E. and Bright, C.L. (2016), “How does supervisor support influence turnover
intent among frontline hospital workers? The mediating role of affective commitment”, Health
Care Manager, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 266-279.
Orgambídez-Ramos, A. and De Almeida, H. (2017), “Work engagement, social support, and job
satisfaction in Portuguese nursing staff: a winning combination”, Applied Nursing Research,
Vol. 36, August, pp. 37-41.
Piaralal, S.K., Bhatti, M.A., Piaralal, N.K. and Juhari, A.S. (2016), “Factors affecting service recovery
performance and customer service employees: a study of Malaysian life insurance industry”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Measurement, Vol. 65 No. 7,
pp. 898-924.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Reijseger, G., Peeters, M.C.W., Taris, T.W. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2017), “From motivation to activation: Work social
why engaged workers are better performers”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 2, support and
pp. 117-130.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
work
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619. engagement
Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2014), “What do we really know about employee engagement?”, Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 155-182. 1243
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Škerlavaj, M., Černe, M. and Dysvik, A. (2014), “I get by with a little help from my supervisor:
creative-idea generation, idea implementation, and perceived supervisor support”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 987-1000.
Suhartanto, D. and Brien, A. (2018), “Multidimensional engagement and store performance: the
perspective of frontline retail employees”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Measurement, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 809-824.
Susskind, A.M., Kacmar, K.M. and Borchgrevink, C.P. (2007), “How organizational standards and
coworker support improve restaurant service”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 370-379.
Vatankhah, S. and Darvishi, M. (2018), “An empirical investigation of antecedent and consequences of
internal brand equity: evidence from the airline industry”, Journal of Air Transport Management,
Vol. 69, June, pp. 49-58.
Wang, G. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2004), “Salesperson creative performance: conceptualization,
measurement, and nomological validity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 8, pp. 805-812.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “Working in the
sky: a diary study on work engagement among flight attendants”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 345-356.
Yeh, C.-W. (2012), “Relationships among service climate, psychological contract, work engagement and
service performance”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 25, December, pp. 67-70.
Yeh, Y.-P. (2014), “Exploring the impacts of employee advocacy on job satisfaction and organizational
commitment: case of Taiwanese airlines”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 36, April,
pp. 94-100.
Yin, N. (2018), “The influencing outcomes of job engagement: an interpretation from the social
exchange theory”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 67
No. 5, pp. 873-889.
Zhong, L., Wayne, S.J. and Liden, R.C. (2016), “Job engagement, perceived organizational support,
high-performance human resource practices, and cultural value orientations: a cross-level
investigation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 823-844.

Further reading
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “Burnout and work engagement among teachers”,
Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 495-513.

Appendix. Scale items and their sources

Coworker support (Karasek et al., 1982):

• I receive help and support from my coworkers.
• I feel I am accepted in my work group.
• My coworkers are understanding if I have a bad day.
IJPPM • My coworkers back me up when I need it.
69,6 • I feel comfortable with my coworkers.

Supervisor support (Karasek et al., 1982):

• My supervisor encourages flight attendants he/she supervises to develop new ways of doing things.
1244 • My supervisor shows me how to improve my performance.
• My supervisor encourages flight attendants he/she supervises to work as a team.
• My supervisor offers new ideas.
• My supervisor encourages flight attendants he/she supervises to exchange opinions and ideas.

Work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2006):

• At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
• At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
• I am enthusiastic about my job.
• My job inspires me.
• When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
• I feel happy when I am working intensely.
• I am proud of the work that I do.
• I am immersed in my work.
• I get carried away when I am working.

Job satisfaction (Netemeyer et al., 1997):

• I feel fairly well satisfied with my present line of work.
• I feel a great sense of satisfaction from my line of work.
• All things considered (i.e. pay, promotion, supervisors, coworkers, etc.), how satisfied are you
with your present line of work?

In-role performance (Bettencourt and Brown, 1997):

• This flight attendant is a top performer.
• This flight attendant is in the top 10 percent of flight attendants here.
• This flight attendant gets along better with passengers than do others.
• This flight attendant knows more about services delivered to passengers than others.
• This flight attendant knows what his/her passengers expect better than others.

Creative performance (Wang and Netemeyer, 2004):

• This flight attendant carries out his/her routine tasks in ways that are resourceful.
• This flight attendant comes up with new ideas for satisfying passenger needs.
• This flight attendant generates and evaluates multiple alternatives for novel passenger problems.
 • This flight attendant has fresh perspectives on old problems. Work social
• This flight attendant improvises methods for solving a problem when an answer is not apparent. support and
• This flight attendant generates creative ideas for service delivery. work
engagement
Extra-role performance (Bettencourt and Brown, 1997):
• This flight attendant voluntarily assists passengers even if it means going beyond job requirements. 1245
• This flight attendant helps passengers with problems beyond what is expected or required.
• This flight attendant often goes above and beyond the call of duty when serving passengers.
• This flight attendant willingly goes out of his/her way to make a passenger satisfied.
• This flight attendant frequently goes out the way to help a passenger.

About the authors

Niusha Talebzadeh holds a Master Degree in Tourism Management from Eastern Mediterranean
University (Gazimagusa, TRNC, via Mersin 10, 99628, Turkey). Her research interests are in the area of
human resource management.
Dr Osman M. Karatepe, PhD, is Professor of Marketing in the Faculty of Tourism at Eastern
Mediterranean University (Gazimagusa, TRNC, via Mersin 10, 99628, Turkey) and Fellow of the
Hospitality and Tourism Management Academy: A Research Community. He obtained the PhD Degree
in Business Administration from Hacettepe University in Turkey. His research interests are in the
areas of services marketing and management, internal marketing and strategic management. Dr
Karatepe serves on the editorial review boards of top-tier journals such as Journal of Hospitality
Marketing and Management and International Journal of Hospitality Management. He is the Regional
Editor for the Middle East and Africa of the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management. Dr Karatepe who has an h-index of 53 according to Google Scholar citations database
has authored or co-authored over 140 articles in various journals, including Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Air Transport Management, Service
Business, Journal of Services Marketing, Employee Relations, The Service Industries Journal,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Tourism Management, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Journal of Hospitality Marketing
and Management and International Journal of Hospitality Management. Dr Karatepe is frequently
shown as one of the most prolific researchers in the field of hospitality management. Dr Osman M.
Karatepe is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: osman.karatepe@emu.edu.tr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com