Next Article in Journal
Mopane Worm (Gonimbrasia belina Westwood) Meal as a Potential Protein Source for Sustainable Quail Production: A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Understanding the Connection between Sustainable Human Resource Management and the Hotel Business Outcomes: Evidence from the Green-Certified Hotels of Egypt
Previous Article in Journal
Tracing the Impact Pathways of COVID-19 on Tourism and Developing Strategies for Resilience and Adaptation in Iran
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Green HRM on Employees’ Eco-Friendly Behavior: The Mediator Role of Organizational Identification
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/su14095509
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Self-Sacrifice Leadership on Social Capital and Job Performance in Hotels

by
JaeWon Shin
1 and
HyoungChul Shin
2,*
1
Division of Business Administration, Seokyeong University, Seoul 033746, Korea
2
Department of Foodservice and Culinary Management, Kyonggi University, Seoul 033746, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(9), 5509; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095509
Submission received: 12 April 2022 / Revised: 29 April 2022 / Accepted: 2 May 2022 / Published: 4 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Human Resource Management and Marketing Studies in the Service Industry)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between self-sacrifice leadership and social capital or job performance in the hotel industry. Four hypotheses have been proposed to accomplish this. First, self-sacrifice leadership positively affects social capital. Second, social capital has a positive impact on job performance. Third, self-sacrifice leadership has a positive effect on job performance. Fourth, self-sacrifice leadership positively affects job performance through the mediation of social capital. Further, eligible respondents (n = 371; 282 male and 89 female) were recruited from hotels with a three-star or above rating in metropolitan areas and then evaluated for the online survey method. Results showed that self-sacrifice leadership had significant positive effects on social capital and job performance. Moreover, social capital significantly improved job performance and mediated the interaction between self-sacrifice and job performance. Therefore, building social capital for employees is critical, which implies that hotels require education and training to promote self-sacrificing leadership. In particular, self-sacrificing leadership has a decisive influence on employees’ job performance; thus, a system that improves the working environment must be established.

1. Introduction

Companies in modern society cannot refuse to change and innovate to maintain a competitive advantage in the era of super-competition, despite rapid environmental changes and the incompleteness of organizational composition. Hence, attention has focused on the dedication and participation of the organization members, who are the sources of a company’s sustainable survival and competitive advantage. Moreover, factors that generate innovative ideas have received considerable attention. In this process, the leader’s behavior can have a significant impact on the behavior of the organizational members [1]; therefore, there has been much research on effective leadership [2]. Many researchers have conducted research on leadership that positively affects the performance and creativity of organization members [3,4,5].
As the business environment becomes more uncertain, leadership has evolved beyond the initial leadership theories of characteristics, behavior, and situation; one of these styles of leadership is self-sacrifice leadership [6,7].
The efficient performance of the organization requires its members’ voluntary participation, risk-taking, and sacrifice, as self-sacrifice leadership acts as a catalyst for their dedication, effort, and risk-taking [8,9]. Furthermore, the more rapid the changes in the corporate environment, the more members expect the leader’s sacrificial behavior [10]. Moreover, they hope that the leader demonstrates excellent self-sacrifice leadership for the organization’s survival and development [11,12]. As a result, a leader’s voluntary self-sacrifice instills self-belief in members that they can form a positive and active attitude to improve job performance and overcome difficulties even in complex environments [13]. This implies that the leader’s self-sacrifice behavior can have a significant impact on the behavior and attitude of employees.
To achieve a company’s long-term goal, various departments must perform their duties well and collaborate closely with one another. This concept is known as social capital, which promotes the specific behavior of members of the organizational structure. An organization’s intangible assets are productive and allow for creating organizational performance [14]. Hence, when social capital is formed within an organization, its members can create new values by sharing resources within the organization through cooperation and support for corporate goals and corresponding gains [15,16].
As a result, the self-sacrificing leadership of perceived leaders, or members of the organization, will influence the formation of attitudes toward their duties or organizations. It also exerts significant influence on social capital formed through active mutual exchanges with other members. Furthermore, the employee’s job performance depends on whether the organization has core capital [17] and how effectively it uses its capital [18]. In other words, the ability to utilize and convert intangible capital held by a company or created by its members is a critical factor in improving and maintaining a company’s competitiveness [19]. Therefore, the leader’s self-sacrifice leadership and social capital are critical requirements for the performance creation of hotel companies.
Despite emphasizing the importance of self-sacrifice leadership and social capital, few studies have applied and observed the relationship between self-sacrifice leadership and social capital in the hotel industry. This study aims to empirically validate the influence of the leader’s self-sacrifice behavior on the organization’s social capital formation and job performance. We also examine the mediating effect of social capital on self-sacrifice leadership and job performance in this relationship. These empirical studies intend to investigate the importance of self-sacrifice leadership that can positively affect the formation of social capital in hotel companies and employee job performance. Furthermore, implications for maximizing the efficiency of human resource management in hotel companies based on the leader’s self-sacrifice leadership are proposed.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Self-Sacrifice Leadership

Leadership research is a topic that has long piqued the interest of many researchers [20]. Various theories and approaches to effective leadership have been proposed, particularly in organizational behavior and personnel management. For instance, Hughes et al. [21] divided leadership into leaders, members, and situations. Most leadership studies recognized three components of the leadership process: leaders, members, and situations. Moreover, many scholars have focused on effective leadership that encourages members to pursue organizational goals voluntarily [6], with self-sacrifice of the leader being recognized as a desirable and essential leadership behavior [22,23].
Self-sacrificing leadership is defined as sacrificial work behavior beyond the scope of work officially granted by the organization; it is the act of refraining from or giving up the use of authority or privileges granted to an employee position and the suspension or waiver of benefits granted to him/her [12,24]. Van Knippenberg et al. [25] defined actions taken to achieve the goals and interests of an organization or group to which an individual belongs as self-sacrifice leadership, in which individuals were at risk of losing, and those affected by this were designated as organizations’ employees.
According to previous research on self-sacrifice leadership, leaders’ self-sacrifice made members of the organization perceive their bosses as desirable leaders [26]. It demonstrated administrative outcomes that prompted additional efforts from members [27]. Furthermore, charismatic perception and trust in leaders [28], trust [29], and leadership effectiveness [30] improved self-sacrifice obligations and organizational commitment.

2.2. Social Capital

Social capital, which refers to networks, norms, trust, and relationship structures that promote collective action, is one of the essential core concepts in raising awareness of the interrelationship between economic outcomes and social achievement. According to Adler and Kwon [31], social capital can influence organizational members’ career success and managerial remuneration, encourage resource exchange and product innovation, reduce turnover, foster entrepreneurship, and strengthen supplier relationships, networks, and learning.
Meanwhile, Coleman [32] defined social capital as a component that rapidly shapes individual and organizational behavior within the social structure. He regarded mutual trust, norms, expectations, obligations, and information power as forms of social capital. Putnam [33] called social organization characteristics such as trust, norms, and networks that can increase social efficiency by facilitating cooperative work behavior social capital. Furthermore, Ostrom [34] defined social capital as shared understanding, clarification, rule, and knowledge of interactions that cause individuals and organizations to repeat actions. In addition, Inkpen and Tsang [35] stated that it refers to the sum of resources that arise from and are inherent in the relationship held by individuals or organizations in the network. In this way, social capital can be divided into structural and cultural aspects. In contrast, structural characteristics emphasize social network connections, whereas cultural elements emphasize trust, norms, and values [36].
Because there are various definitions of social capital, each previous study presents different perspectives on the components. For example, Putnam [33] presented network, trust, and norm as sources of social capital, and Nahapiet and Ghoshal [15] classified social capital into structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions and proposed factors for each dimension.
Among the components of social capital, trust, norms, and networks take a central position. Trust is a belief that exists between people, and in the case of organizations, it plays a critical role in sharing and communicating knowledge and information [37]. Meanwhile, the norm is a primary mechanism that promotes the organization’s culture by causing group members to act in accordance with the shared language, behavior, and goal [38]. The network functions as an infrastructure for social capital, allowing it to exist as a relationship within a group.

2.3. Job Performance

Job performance refers to the physical behavior of the investigator to achieve the organization’s goal [39]. From this perspective, job performance refers to actions evaluated by the organization as part of the employee’s responsibilities and duties [40].
As the organization’s need for adaptability grows, job performance is classified as task performance and contextual performance. Research on the model system of job performance progresses; thus, the concept of adaptive performance, which necessitates individual adaptability on the part of employees, emerges [41,42]. The performance of tasks is an official job that is specified in job descriptions. It can be defined as an action that either directly executes the organization’s core skills or indirectly performs the tasks necessary for such skills [43]. Meanwhile, contextual performance is an action that supports the organization’s social and psychological environment so that its core functions can be carried out smoothly. Adaptation performance is a concept that encompasses behaviors, abilities, and attributes that helps members comprehend the organizational environment for changing and uncertain situations and adapt accordingly [41]. As a result, job performance has evolved into a concept that encompasses various job behaviors, such as anti-productivity and organizational citizenship, including contextual and task performance that contributes to organizational effectiveness [44]. Job performance in this study is composed of three factors: adaptive performance, task performance, and contextual performance.

2.4. Hypothesis Development

Self-sacrifice increases altruism and generates sufficient interest in others [45]. According to Matteson and Irving [46], the primary focus of self-sacrifice leadership is ethical self-transcendence. Self-sacrificing leaders are concerned with others and strive for empathy and altruism [46,47]. These leaders are critical in shaping their followers’ perceptions of the value and internalization and the importance of collective needs [48]. Through self-sacrificing behavior, leaders aim to include making the organizational mission more critical to followers, activating value, and sacrificing self-interest for collective needs [10,29]. The following hypothesis was developed based on previous research.
Hypothesis 1.
Self-sacrifice leadership positively affects social capital.
Social capital can induce desirable employee behavior, and according to Parzefall and Kuppelwieser [49], social exchange theory and norms of reciprocity provide explanatory mechanisms for profit generation. Moreover, social capital improves employee job performance by instilling in them a sense of debt and a recognized sense of duty to repay the employee’s collaborative work environment. This implies that the period of reciprocity exchange extends beyond heterogeneous relationships and interactions [49,50]. This is consistent with social exchange theory, which holds that individuals repay others involved in the exchange process rather than directly repaying the source of profits received [51,52,53,54]. Employees who exhibit civic behavior and refrain from negative behavior are rewarded with work behavior in organizations that share similar goals and values, trust each other, and have essential access to information [49]. Accordingly, the following hypothesis was established.
Hypothesis 2.
Social capital positively affects job performance.
Self-sacrificing leadership is recognized as an organizational belief. Examples of self-sacrifice leadership include the boss performing more work than employees, not abusing their authority, taking responsibility for ambiguous responsibilities, or yielding compensation [55]. This motivates employees to perform well on the job and creates a sense of obligation to achieve the organization’s goals [56,57]. Leaders who self-sacrifice cultivate one-on-one relationships with their subordinates and inspire consideration for their needs and growth. Furthermore, employees are willing to forgo their own interests, privileges, and welfare to motivate them and achieve organizational interests and goals [27,58]. In this regard, self-sacrificing leaders’ attitudes and actions enable employees to become role models and encourage followers to believe that they are confident in overcoming all problems in the creative process [59,60]. Based on these previous studies, the following hypothesis was developed.
Hypothesis 3.
Self-sacrifice leadership positively affects job performance.
Finally, the fourth hypothesis was tested to determine whether social capital had a mediating effect on self-sacrifice leadership and job performance.
Hypothesis 4.
Through social capital, self-sacrifice leadership positively affects job performance.
This study looked into the relationship between self-sacrificing leadership, social capital, and job performance, as shown in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Ethical Statement

Participants were involved in this study through the administration of a self-report questionnaire. Generally, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is not required because there were no procedures, such as treatments, that could cause psychological and social inconvenience to participants.

3.2. Data Collection and Methods

In Korea, food and beverage services are provided from hotels with three or more stars. The number of hotels with more than three stars in Korea is 372, of which 193 are located in a metropolitan area, more than half of all hotels [61]. For this reason, this study’s survey was conducted from 1–31 March 2021, among hotel food and beverage workers who worked at three-star or above hotels in Korea’s metropolitan area. Among the online survey methods, the snowball sampling method was used. This study was explained to participants via social network services (SNS), and only those who agreed to collect data could participate. Hence, the survey was conducted voluntarily, with anonymity and confidentiality guaranteed. Among the survey responses, 32 copies were deemed unreliable and thus excluded, and 371 copies were used for empirical analysis. The data collected were analyzed using the SPSS 24.0 statistical program (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). For statistical analysis, a two-step procedure was used [62]. First, reliability analysis was performed for each factor and to verify the conceptual independence of this study. Second, confirmation factor analysis was performed using AMOS 24.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). We also conducted correlation analyses to validate the direction and differential validity of the hypotheses before testing them with structural equation modeling.

3.3. Measurement

The questionnaire was designed by revising and supplementing the previous research insights into self-sacrifice leadership, social capital, and job performance. All measurement questions were evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
The self-sacrifice leadership measurement questions were designed by revising and supplementing questionnaires developed through case collection, expert review, and factor analysis based on the definition of research on labor division, reward distribution, and power exercise [63,64]. The sample responses to nine questions are “The supervisor in the department is responsible for the tasks that the employees find difficult to appreciate” and “The supervisor in the department wants to take responsibility for the work within the department.” The survey questions used in Putnam [33] and Coleman’s [32] empirical studies were revised to measure social capital in this study. Trust, norm, and network are three of the sub-factors that comprise the concept of social capital. The responses to nine questions include “My hotel co-workers trust each other,” “The hotel I belong to complies with the organization’s norms and rules,” and “The employees of the hotel I belong to share the information they need with each other and communicate well.” In terms of measuring job performance, previous studies’ methods were revised and supplemented [65]. Meanwhile, for job performance evaluation, task performance, contextual performance, and adaptive performance are all factors to consider. The responses to 16 questions were evaluated, including “I fulfill the responsibilities specified in the job description” and “The employees of the hotel I belong to share the information they need with each other and communicate well” [66].

4. Results

4.1. Demographics of the Participants

The demographics of the participants are explained as follows. Male and female participants accounted for 76% and 24% of the sample, respectively. Among them, 77.9% were full-time workers, and the majority were in their 30s. Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the participants.

4.2. Analysis of the Reliability and Validity

4.2.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Table 2 shows the results of the confirmatory factor analysis used to demonstrate the validity and reliability of this study’s structure. In this study, social capital and job performance, composed of secondary factors, were parameterized as the main factors after finding the average of the evaluated sub-variables. The following results were obtained, and the model was deemed acceptable: χ2 = 228.667 (df = 87, p = 0.000), CMIN/DF = 2.628, RMR = 0.026, GFI = 0.926, AGFI = 0.898, NFI = 0.906, IFI = 0.940, TLI = 0.927, CFI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.066. Furthermore, the standardized factor loading and the conceptual reliability were greater than 0.5 and 0.7, respectively, indicating the findings’ statistical significance [67].

4.2.2. Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity and discriminant validity were successfully demonstrated. Discriminant validity exists when the average variances extracted (AVEs) for the two constructs are more significant than the square of the correlation coefficient for said constructs [68]. The data presented in Table 3 demonstrate discriminant validity. A formularization of the relationship between “self-sacrificed leadership” and “social capital,” which had the highest correlation coefficient of any variable, reveals that the correlation coefficient for self-sacrificed leadership and social capital is 0.717, which means (0.717)2 = 0.514. Meanwhile, self-sacrificed leadership and social capital have AVEs of 0.529 and 0.806, respectively. The AVEs for both variables were more significant than the square of the correlation coefficient, and the AVE for self-sacrificed leadership was more than 0.514, thereby demonstrating discriminant validity.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

To test the hypotheses, this study analyzed the structural equation model. The model fit was determined to be acceptable based on the results: χ2 = 228.667 (df = 87, p = 0.000), CMIN/DF = 2.628, RMR = 0.026, GFI = 0.926, AGFI = 0.898, NFI = 0.906, IFI = 0.940, TLI = 0.927, CFI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.066 [66]. The data in Table 4 and Figure 2 represent the results of the hypothesis testing. Furthermore, self-sacrificing leadership was found to have a positive effect on social capital (β = 0.837, p < 0.001), thus supporting Hypothesis 1. Moreover, social capital has a positive effect on job performance (β = 0.488, p < 0.001), thus supporting Hypothesis 2. Self-sacrificed leadership positively affects job performance (β = 0.309, p < 0.01), thus supporting Hypothesis 3. As an indirect result of using 500 bootstrap samples to test Hypothesis 4, self-sacrificed leadership was found to correlate positively with job performance via social capital mediation (β = 0.409, p < 0.01).

5. Discussion

Because of the rapid change in the hotel business environment, it is more important than ever to adapt to the changing environment. Employees’ voluntary and dedicated participation and efforts are required for the hotel’s organizational response, which will be influenced by the behavior of the organization’s leader. Therefore, this study was conducted to provide data for hotel organization personnel management by understanding the influence relationship between the organization’s social capital formation and job performance.
The following are the findings of this study’s empirical analysis. Hypothesis 1 shows that hotel employees perceive that the leader’s self-sacrifice leadership affects the formation of social capital in the organization. This confirms the findings of previous studies showing the effect of self-sacrifice leadership on social capital [10,29,46]. self-sacrifice leadership is a friendly behavior that considers members of the organization by giving up and delaying private interests in the areas of authority, compensation, and privilege. This empirically verifies that it can be a prerequisite for the formation of social capital.
Hypothesis 2 confirmed that an organization’s social capital has a direct impact on job performance, supporting the findings of previous studies [49,50]. This is interpreted to mean that, for hotel companies with relatively high reliance on human capital to maintain strong competitiveness, social capital within the organization, such as trust and promise, has a significant influence on job interactions between departments. Hotel management’s self-sacrifice leadership is required because departments’ selfish work handling and the formation of exclusive relationships with other departments can harm the organization.
Results of the validation of Hypothesis 3 confirmed that the leader’s self-sacrifice behavior as perceived by hotel employees has a direct impact on job performance, which agrees with the findings of existing studies [59,60]. The job performance of organization members can be an important factor influencing the organization’s success and long-term survival. Organizational members feel obligated to repay the organization for the leader’s friendliness and self-sacrifice, and they are highly likely to repay the leader in active response to the duties assigned to them.
Hypothesis 4 confirms that self-sacrifice leadership influences job performance via social capital. The leader’s self-sacrifice behavior has a positive effect on employee’s trust and cooperation, which in turn has a positive impact on job performance.
The following are the implications of this study. Social capital formation is critical in hotels, with higher human dependence than other industries; therefore, education and training are needed to promote self-sacrificing leadership. If managers forgo privileges and rewards as a leader to have a positive impact on employees’ job performance, measures to provide these leaders with various benefits should be prepared. In that case, measures should be devised to provide them with various benefits. With these benefits, organizational culture can be transformed positively, as explained by the social learning theory [69]. Social capital has a significant impact on employee performance; therefore, hotel managers should implement a system to improve their work environment by encouraging employees to abandon interdepartmental selfishness and cooperate. The behavior and role of leaders who are constantly changing the business environment must be regulated. Plans should be developed to change the roles of leaders and to foster cooperation and trust among organizational members. Results of this study reveal that leaders’ self-sacrificing leadership positively affects the formation of social capital for employees, improving their ability to perform tasks. Therefore, hotel CEOs must develop procedures for selecting and promoting self-sacrificing middle managers [10]. Additionally, hotels should empathize with their employees’ motivations and goals, and they should implement leadership education and development programs based on self-sacrificing leadership to help employees understand the clarity of their roles. Middle managers will benefit from these programs as they learn about the impact of self-sacrifice on employees and hotels. On the other hand, the culture of Korean companies is based on harmony and familism [70]. Accordingly, companies should not impose a pervasive culture of sacrifice on Korean companies, and managers should encourage self-sacrificing leadership on the premise that legitimate rights are guaranteed.
Due to the limitations of this study, a follow-up study should be conducted in the future. The first limitation is that this study only included hotel employees from food and beverage establishments with three or more stars. Thus, the hotel’s human resource management direction may differ depending on the hotel level. This means that depending on the hotel’s grade, differences in salary, welfare, working environment, working department, and so on may exist. Furthermore, this study was conducted regardless of the type of employee employment. The impact of sacrificial leadership can vary depending on whether the hotel staff member is a regular or a part-time employee. These limitations were overlooked in this study. Hence, future research must investigate the differences in the influence relationship between variables based on hotel rating and employment type. This study emphasized the importance of self-sacrifice leadership but did not address the motivations that lead to self-sacrifice leadership. Therefore, future studies must determine whether the motivation for causing self-sacrifice leadership is autonomous or heterogeneous [71] and derive implications for hotel human resource management and human resource development.

6. Conclusions

Hotels must adapt to changes in the rapidly changing hotel management environment to maintain competitiveness. To this end, employees’ voluntary or dedicated participation and performance of their duties are required. Accordingly, employees are becoming more interested in ineffective leadership that first considers the hotel’s safety. Then, they devote themselves to achieving their goals and improving their performance.
This study aimed to determine whether self-sacrificing leadership can positively affect hotel employees by verifying the causal relationship between self-sacrificing leadership, social capital, and job performance. The study’s findings show that self-sacrificing leadership positively affects the formation of significant social capital in the hotel industry, indicating the importance of leader’s self-sacrificing behavior in employees or organizations. Hotels will need to implement company-wide support and education policies, in addition to leadership, to improve employees’ perceptions and attitudes, such as reliability, honesty, and fairness, toward the organizations.
Research on self-sacrificing leadership in hotels is still in its early stages, and follow-up studies are expected to be promoted. This study, in particular, is likely to contribute to the development of theories by validating the causal relationship between the leader’s self-sacrificing leadership, social capital, and the job performance of hotel company employees.

Author Contributions

Study design, H.S.; statistical analysis, H.S.; writing—original draft preparation paper, J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Avolio, B.J.; Gardner, W.L. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2005, 16, 315–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yukl, G. Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 26, 66–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shin, S.J.; Zhou, J. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Acad. Manag. J. 2003, 46, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, A.C.; Cheng, B.S. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lin, W.; Ma, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, J.C.; Jiang, F. How is benevolent leadership linked to employee creativity? The mediating role of leader–member exchange and the moderating role of power distance orientation. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 152, 1099–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lowe, K.B.; Gardner, W.L. Ten years of the leadership quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. Leadersh. Q. 2000, 11, 459–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dinh, J.E.; Lord, R.G.; Gardner, W.L.; Meuser, J.D.; Liden, R.C.; Hu, J. Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 36–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Bass, B.M. Leadership: Good, better, best. Organ. Dyn. 1985, 13, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Conger, J.A. The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of Exceptional Leadership; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  10. De Cremer, D.; Mayer, D.M.; Van Dijke, M.; Schouten, B.C.; Bardes, M. When does self-sacrificial leadership motivate prosocial behavior? It depends on followers’ prevention focus. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 887–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Kim, M.H.; Chae, S.W.; Kim, Y.S.; Kim, M.S. Relationship of nursing informatics competency and self-leadership among hospital nurses. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. Admin. 2007, 13, 176–183. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhang, W.H. A Study on the Structural Relationship between Self-Sacrificing Leadership, Likeability about Superiors and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Master’s Thesis, Dongkook University, Seoul, South Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  13. Halverson, S.K.; Murphy, S.E.; Riggio, R.E. Charismatic leadership in crisis situations: A laboratory investigation of stress and crisis. Small Group Res. 2004, 35, 495–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Coleman, J.S. Commentary: Social institutions and social theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1990, 55, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tsai, W.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 464–476. [Google Scholar]
  17. Carmeli, A.; Tishler, A. The relationships between intangible organizational elements and organizational performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25, 1257–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Brooking, A. Intellectual Capital, Core Asset for the Third Millennium Enterprise; Thompson Publishing International Business Press: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  19. Watson, S.; Hewett, K. A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in organizations: Determinants of knowledge contribution and knowledge reuse. J. Manag. Stud. 2006, 43, 141–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yukl, G.; Michel, J.W. Proactive influence tactics and leader member exchange. Power Influ. Organ. 1177, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hughes, D.; Rodriguez, J.; Smith, E.P.; Johnson, D.J.; Stevenson, H.C.; Spicer, P. Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Dev. Psychol. 2006, 42, 747–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Avolio, B.J.; Bass, B.M. Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadersh. Q. 1995, 6, 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Conger, J.A.; Kanungo, R.N. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1987, 12, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Choi, Y. Self-Sacrificial Leadership: Mediating and Moderating Effects of People’s Sprituality. Leadersh. Rev. 2011, 2, 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  25. Van Knippenberg, D.; Van Knippenberg, B.; De Cremer, D.; Hogg, M.A. Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. Leadersh. Q. 2004, 15, 825–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Van Knippenberg, B.; Van Knippenberg, D. Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Sosik, J.J. The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: A model and preliminary field study. Leadersh. Q. 2005, 16, 221–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. De Cremer, D.; Van Knippenberg, D. Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 2004, 95, 140–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. De Cremer, D.; Van Knippenberg, D. Cooperation as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2005, 26, 355–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Janson, A. Extracting leadership knowledge from formative experiences. Leadership 2008, 4, 73–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Adler, P.S.; Kwon, S.W. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 17–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Coleman, J.S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, 95–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Putnam, R.D. Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS Political Sci. Politics 1995, 28, 664–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ostrom, E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J. Econ. Perspect. 2000, 14, 137–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Inkpen, A.C.; Tsang, E.W. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2005, 30, 146–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Van Deth, J.W. Measuring social capital: Orthodoxies and continuing controversies. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2003, 6, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cohen, D.; Prusak, L. In Good Company; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  38. McFadyen, M.A.; Cannella, A., Jr. A. Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 735–746. [Google Scholar]
  39. Campbell, J.P. Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem in Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jex, S.M.; Britt, T.W. Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  41. Allworth, E.; Hesketh, B. Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related and contextually relevant future performance. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 1999, 7, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Griffin, B.; Hesketh, B. Adaptable behaviours for successful work and career adjustment. Aust. J. Psychol. 2003, 55, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Borman, W.C.; Motowidlo, S.J. Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Hum. Perform. 1997, 10, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shoss, M.K.; Witt, L.A.; Vera, D. When does adaptive performance lead to higher task performance? J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 910–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Singh, N.; Krishnan, V.R. Self-sacrifice and transformational leadership: Mediating role of altruism. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2008, 29, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Matteson, J.A.; Irving, J.A. Servant versus self-sacrificial leadership: A behavioral comparison of two follow-oriented leadership theories. Int. J. Leadersh. Stud. 2006, 2, 36–51. [Google Scholar]
  47. Brown, T.; Williams, B.; McKenna, L.; Palermo, C.; McCall, L.; Roller, L.; Hewitt, L.; Molloy, L.; Baird, M.; Aldabah, L. Practice education learning environments: The mismatch between perceived and preferred expectations of undergraduate health science students. Nurse Educ. Today 2011, 31, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Li, J.; Galley, M.; Brockett, C.; Spithourakis, G.P.; Gao, J.; Dolan, B. A Persona-Based Neural Conversation Model. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1603.06155. [Google Scholar]
  49. Parzefall, M.R.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Understanding the antecedents, the outcomes and the mediating role of social capital: An employee perspective. Hum. Relat. 2012, 65, 447–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Leana III, C.R.; Van Buren, H.J. Organizational social capital and employment practices. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 538–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ekeh, P. Social Exchange Theory. The Two Traditions; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lazega, E.; Pattison, P.E. Multiplexity, generalized exchange and cooperation in organizations: A case study. Soc. Netw. 1999, 21, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lawler, E.J. An affect theory of social exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 2001, 107, 321–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Das, T.K.; Teng, B.S. Alliance constellations: A social exchange perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Whiting, S.W.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Pierce, J.R. Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Burton, J.P.; Sablynski, C.J.; Sekiguchi, T. Linking justice, performance, and citizenship via leader–member exchange. J. Bus. Psychol. 2008, 23, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kamdar, D.; Van Dyne, L. The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1286–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. De Cremer, D. Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2006, 17, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cheung, M.F.; Wong, C.S. Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee creativity. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2011, 32, 656–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gu, Q.; Tang, T.L.P.; Jiang, W. Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader–member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 126, 513–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Koera Hotel Association. Hotel operation status. 2020. Available online: http://www.hotelskorea.or.kr/datacenter/index_1.php?code=1 (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  62. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Choi, Y.; Mai-Dalton, R.R. On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. Leadersh. Q. 1998, 9, 475–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Son, S.Y.; Yun, S.H.; Choi, Y. Self-sacrificial leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors beneficial to the supervisor. Korea Bus. Rev. (KBR) 2015, 44, 959–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Charbonnier-Voirin, A.; El Akremi, A.; Vandenberghe, C. A multilevel model of transformational leadership and adaptive performance and the moderating role of climate for innovation. Group Organ. Manag. 2010, 35, 699–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  68. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bandura, A.; Walters, R.H. Social Learning Theory; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  70. Cho, Y.H.; Yoon, J. The origin and function of dynamic collectivism: An analysis of Korean corporate culture. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2001, 7, 70–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol. Psychol. Can. 2008, 49, 182–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 14 05509 g001 550
Figure 1. Study model.
Figure 1. Study model.
Sustainability 14 05509 g001
Sustainability 14 05509 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural equation model with parameter estimates. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Structural equation model with parameter estimates. *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 14 05509 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic factors of the participants.
Table 1. Demographic factors of the participants.
Demographic FactorsCategoryNumber of ParticipantsPercentage (%)
GenderMale28276.0
Female8924.0
Age20s12734.2
30s14238.3
40s5815.6
50s and older4411.9
EducationHigh school diploma or less5815.6
Associate degree17146.1
Bachelor’s degree (4-year university)10027.0
Graduate degree or higher4211.3
ExperienceLess than 1 year9425.3
Between 1 and 3 years10728.8
Between 4 and 7 years6517.5
Between 8 and 11 years5113.7
Over 11 years5414.7
DepartmentBOH (back of house)20053.9
FOH (front of house)17146.1
Total371100
Table
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Factor and VariableStandardized LoadingS.EC.RAVEComposite Construct Reliability
(CCR)		Cronbach’s α
Self-sacrificial leadershipSL10.685--0.5290.9100.825
SL20.6080.08110.584 ***
SL30.6270.08410.891 ***
SL40.6840.18011.795 ***
SL50.6290.07110.919 ***
SL60.5800.08110.142 ***
SL70.5270.0769.257 ***
SL80.5670.0649.925 ***
SL90.6580.07911.383 ***
Social capitalTrust0.844--0.8060.9250.810
Norm0.6910.12314.051 ***
Network0.7910.5616.638 ***
Job performanceTask performance0.770--0.7050.9000.827
Contextual performance0.8110.08314.942 ***
Adaptive Performance0.7990.07314.439 ***
χ2 = 228.667 (df = 87, p = 0.000), CMIN/DF = 2.628, RMR = 0.026, GFI = 0.926, AGFI = 0.898, NFI = 0.906, IFI = 0.940, TLI = 0.927, CFI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.066. *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity of the variables.
Table 3. Discriminant validity of the variables.
FactorSelf-Sacrificed LeadershipSocial CapitalJob Performance
Self-sacrificed leadership0.529 1)0.514 3)0.366
Social capital0.717 **2)0.8060.399
Job performance0.605 **0.632 **0.750
Mean3.573.703.35
S.D.0.5720.5190.634
** p < 0.01; Diagonal: 1) Average Variance Extracted (AVE); 2) Area below the diagonal: The correlation coefficient for the constructs (r); 3) Area above diagonal: The square of the correlation coefficient (r2).
Table
Table 4. Results of the structural equation model analysis.
Table 4. Results of the structural equation model analysis.
Process (Hypothesis)Betat-Valuep-ValueIndirect EffectDecision
Coefficientp
H1Self-sacrificial leadership -> Social capital0.83712.234 ***0.000 Accepted
H2Social capital -> Job performance0.4884.143 ***0.000 Accepted
H3Self-sacrificial leadership -> Job performance0.3092.6278 **0.007 Accepted
H4Self-sacrificial leadership -> Job performance (the mediating effect of social capital)0.3092.678 **0.0070.409 **0.004Accepted
χ2 = 228.667 (df = 87, p = 0.000), CMIN/DF = 2.628, RMR = 0.026, GFI = 0.926, AGFI = 0.898, NFI = 0.906, IFI = 0.940, TLI = 0.927, CFI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.066, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shin, J.; Shin, H. The Effect of Self-Sacrifice Leadership on Social Capital and Job Performance in Hotels. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095509

AMA Style

Shin J, Shin H. The Effect of Self-Sacrifice Leadership on Social Capital and Job Performance in Hotels. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095509

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shin, JaeWon, and HyoungChul Shin. 2022. "The Effect of Self-Sacrifice Leadership on Social Capital and Job Performance in Hotels" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095509

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop