Next Article in Journal
Designing Value Chains for Industry 4.0 and a Circular Economy: A Review of the Literature
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Deep Learning Approach on Career Self-Efficacy: Using Off-Campus Internships of Hospitality College Students as an Example
Previous Article in Journal
Innovative Approach to Assist Architecture Teachers in Choosing Practical Sessions
 
 
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 12
10.3390/su14127074
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 Personal Environment Suitability and Work Environment of Luxury Hotels on Psychological Capital and Innovation Behavior

by
Ki-Seoung Lee
1,
Yoon-Seo Kim
2 and
Hyoung-Chul Shin
2,*
1
Department of Food Cooking, Daejeon Institute of Science and Technology University, Daejeon 34630, Korea
2
Department of Foodservice and Culinary Management, Kyonggi University, Seoul 033746, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(12), 7074; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127074
Submission received: 5 May 2022 / Revised: 2 June 2022 / Accepted: 8 June 2022 / Published: 9 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hotel Employee Self-Efficacy and Sustainable Hospitality Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of personal environment suitability and the work environment of luxury hotels on psychological capital and innovation behavior. Seven hypotheses were proposed. First, the work environment will have a positive effect on psychological capital. Second, personal environment suitability will have a positive effect on psychological capital. Third, the work environment will have a positive impact on innovation behavior. Fourth, the suitability of one’s environment will have a positive impact on one’s innovation behavior. Fifth, psychological capital will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior. Sixth and seventh, work environment and personal environment suitability will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior through psychological capital. To achieve the purpose of this study, eligible respondents (n = 327; 214 male and 113 female) were recruited from four-star hotels or higher located in Seoul, Incheon, and Gyeonggi-do and then evaluated for an online survey method. Hypothesis verification was conducted through CFA and structural equation model analysis. As a result of the analysis, all hypotheses except Hypothesis 3 were adopted. Personal environmental suitability drives innovation behavior at the organizational level, but programs that recognize work environment fit are also needed. This study has an advantage in that psychological capital has a mediating role in the relationship between work environment, personal environment suitability, and innovation behavior. As a result, it is suggested that hotels need to understand the psychological state of their members and manage their responses and attitudes. This study also suggests that personal environment suitability leads to organizational-level innovation behavior, but programs for work environment suitability are also needed.

1. Introduction

Recently, the hotel industry sector has changed rapidly and has reached a high level of competitiveness [1]. Accordingly, the primary concern of managers is the employment and maintenance of highly skilled front-line employees in hotels. However, since most of the work is difficult meetings with customers, they have a high turnover rate. They are underpaid despite their hard work and high stress [2]. Therefore, in the hotel industry, the management method of human resources is an essential factor. These factors include compensation levels and benefits, promotion and promotion systems, working conditions, training and development, leadership, and social relationships. These factors are linked to motivation and job satisfaction, allowing highly motivated employees to concentrate on their work [3]. Hotel companies want to achieve competitive goals by successfully managing employees in the long run. Managers strive to develop employees through organizational career management to maintain and improve the company’s superior position through employees [4]. In this way, employee competency development in hotel companies is an essential factor in developing organizational competitiveness, as seen in strategic human resources management [5]. In addition, if the mutual exchange between hotel managers and employees continues, the organization’s performance is improved by actively participating in its service work and the organization [6]. Therefore, employee performance is one of the essential characteristics of striving to ensure the sustainability and innovation of the organization, along with the financial and environmental dimensions [7].
Meanwhile, the suitability of the personal environment cannot sufficiently explain human behavior or attitude by individual characteristics or situations themselves, and conformity or harmony with the environment should be considered [8]. As a result, the more consistent and similar the elements provided by the individual’s needs and environment are, the more positive and satisfied the individual is, and this perception of suitability influences the individual’s behavior and choice [9,10]. This series of events eventually leads to employee behavior, which is a set of activities that can contribute to improving the performance of a group or organization within an organization and is regarded as the concept that best encompasses individual-level innovation by introducing new and beneficial ideas [11,12,13,14]. Most of the prior studies on innovation focus on the organizational level. Many empirical studies on individual-level innovation behavior have not been conducted [11,15,16] but have recently attracted attention [17,18,19].
Meanwhile, recent efforts to broaden the concept of capital beyond the idea of human capital and social capital have been actively pursued in various academic fields, one of which is psychological capital [20]. Psychological capital is a complex concept that combines self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, and is a positive psychological development state of individual members of the organization. It is a concept that is distinct from the form of an individual. This changes from moment to moment because of mood, atmosphere, and state of mind, which can be developed through experience, education, and training [21]. According to Seligman [22], positive individual psychologies aid in improving individual and group performance, as well as individual mental and physical health. As the significance of positive organizational behavior was emphasized in these studies, it sparked increased interest [21,23,24,25,26]. However, because the majority of previous studies on the relationship between psychological capital and performance had limitations in influencing complex management performance of organizations and individuals [20], the need for concurrent research on organizations and individuals is highlighted.
Various support provided by hotel companies to increase fairness and employee efficiency will increase employees’ motivation and recognize that they are necessary for the organization, leading to the innovative behavior of positive psychology and contributing to the improvement of hotel companies’ performance. Likewise, the suitability of a smooth relationship between an organization, a boss, and a job can be a factor that determines the survival and success of a hotel company by producing good results. As a result, hotel employees’ quality is essential in the performance of the business, and personal relationships in the work environment will determine success or failure. Therefore, this study aims to understand what career-related factors and job-related psychological phenomena provided by hotel companies strengthen target performance for individuals and companies and how a positive psychological status promotes development for individuals and companies. Therefore, this study aims to determine the impact of personal environmental suitability and the work environment of luxury hotels on psychological capital and innovation behavior. This study is intended to provide implications for an effective method of deriving positive and innovative behavior from a hotel employee. In particular, it is meaningful to maximize hotel companies’ human management efficiency and provide efficient information in establishing strategies for management plans.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Work Environment

A series of relevant experiences and work activities aimed at individual and organizational goals are divided into a career management system to improve the fairness and efficiency of the organization relating to the personnel system of salary increase and promotion [27,28].
Employees become interested in what support and rewards are given for their additional efforts and performance, and the appropriate compensation structure of the organization’s personnel system motivates employees. The effort-reward imbalance model developed by Peter, Alfredsson, Knutsson, Siegrist, and Westerholm [29] is used to investigate fairness in this personnel system. Appropriate compensation should be provided for the effort put into the work. If the struggles and rewards are inconsistent, the balance in terms of effort compensation is disrupted, and each person suffers from stress. If appropriate compensation is made for the job, members of the organization will have rewarding and positive emotions about the job [30], but if the compensation imbalance is severe compared to the efforts perceived by each individual, it negatively affects psychological and mental health [31].
As the concept of lifetime employment and lifelong employment fades, it plays a new role in the career system as a helper and human resource development based on preferring a stable, lifelong job [32]. Career management in an organization provides a variety of career experiences to members to help them develop new skills, improve the organization’s performance, and satisfy their desire for career advancement. As a result of career development, it aims to meet the needs of individuals and organizations, such as promoting the development of human resources [33]. As a result, from the perspective of the organization, it is necessary to secure excellent external personnel or to utilize internal talent development through career management support at the organizational level [34].

2.2. Personal Environment Suitability

Personal environmental suitability refers to the similarity or consistency of individuals and environments. Depending on the viewpoint, it is described in detail by individuals and organizations, individuals and bosses, and individual duties [35]. Individual-organizational suitability is concerned with organizational values, goals, missions, and how individuals match [36]. Individual–company suitability represents the degree of suitability between the boss and subordinates in a two-person relationship between the individual and the working environment [37]. Individual–job suitability refers to the degree to which an individual’s ability and value match the job’s requirements or characteristics, as well as the degree of suitability [38]. Individuals at various levels of personal environmental suitability are subjected to job-related psychological phenomena [39].

2.3. Psychological Capital

Psychological capital, which is an important concept in positive organizational behavior, refers to the complex psychological capabilities of members by contributing to performance enhancement through active thinking and behavior in a given environment [40]. In other words, positive psychological capital influences the job patterns of organizational members. Positive emotions that persist over time become capital and, as a result, have a positive impact on organizational effectiveness [41]. As a criterion for positive organizational behavior, positive psychological capital is a critical component of optimism, hope, and self-efficacy [42] Optimism is the expectation of positive results despite realistic limitations or limitations on attribution theory [23]. Hope denotes a goal-oriented strategy and a positive attitude based on the interaction of the energy required to achieve the goal [43]. Self-efficacy is a behavioral process in which a person believes in one’s ability to produce positive outcomes through actions and influence environmental situations. One must be self-confident in a given job or role [44].

2.4. Innovation Behavior

Innovation behavior refers to a variety of processes in which individuals or groups present solutions based on previous experiences or new ideas that have not previously existed and produce models that can support opinions [45]. Exploration of opportunities and creative behaviors, as well as process development to use new knowledge, make changes, and improve performance, are examples of innovative work behaviors [46]. In other words, it is a series of actions required for the development, initiation, and implementation of ideas aimed at improving individual and corporate performance, as well as a series of activities aimed at recognizing problems and introducing new and valuable ideas [47]. The performance of a company’s management is an important factor in determining an organization’s survival and success through the innovative actions of its members. As a result, organizations require human resources to create creative new ideas [48].

2.5. Correlation among the Variables

The psychological factors experienced by members are linked to the work environment organized and provided by each organization. Positive emotions in the work environment disrupt people’s repertoire of instant apologies and actions, resulting in a slew of new ideas and actions to broaden and build a theory of positive emotions. Positive psychological capital was high among organizational members with high corporate fairness who perceived themselves as receiving appropriate compensation. Career satisfaction and emotional orientation for career roles as a result of achieving career goals produce psychological self-esteem and influence at work [49], and career planning is related to self-efficacy, increasing the possibility of career outcomes [49]. Career planning is related to self-efficacy, increasing the possibility of career outcomes [50], Career management factors such as career development, career evaluation, and career training for hotel company employees are presented [51]. They are interested in individual career management as a cost-effective method of developing high-quality employees [52]. Positive work-related resources, such as work participation, have a long-term impact on positive psychological capital and actively participate in daily work [53]. Employees spend a lot of time each day within the company’s work environment, so the work environment provided to the organization members affects their behavior, emotions, and quality of life. Furthermore, it can be stated that improving the culture of various organizations and improving performance, thereby increasing the internal capacity of human resources, is directly related to work productivity. As a result, the following hypothesis was developed in this study by assuming that the work environment’s personnel system and career management would influence positive psychological capital.
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The work environment will have a positive (+) effect on psychological capital.
The level of personal environmental suitability increased psychological capital’s hope, resilience, optimism, and self-efficacy, influencing work performance and satisfaction [16]. Recognizing that the organization and individual suitability are high based on similarities such as values and atmosphere between individuals and organizations, members identify themselves with the organization and faithfully complete their roles with a positive attitude [36]. Employees who have diverse job areas and work levels have a positive impact on their psychological capital in the relationship between the leader and the member exchange [54]. Servant leaders can improve individual–group suitability, person–supervisor suitability, and employees’ psychological capital effects by following the guidelines of LMX theory and social exchange theory [55]. Psychological capital takes thought and action while maintaining an individual’s positive psychological state in a given environment, and the causal logic between the two variables can be established. As a result, the following hypothesis was confirmed in this study by assuming that personal environmental suitability influences psychological capital.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Personal environment suitability will have a positive (+) effect on psychological capital.
Innovative tendencies emerge from within the organization [56], resulting in greater innovation in organizations that provide long-term economic support to employees [57]. Human resource management relies heavily on career management.
Employees of hotel companies who participate in work-related career management programs such as career development, career evaluation, and career training have a positive impact on high-quality service innovation behavior [51]. In other studies, the impact on human resource practices and job satisfaction was positively related to innovative behavior. Nonetheless, satisfaction with primary compensation was negatively associated with innovative behavior [58]. Existing studies have discussed most employees’ various work environments and the importance of innovative behavior [51,59,60,61,62]. The following hypothesis was developed by assuming that creating a working environment for employees working at a hotel company would have an effect by forming positive psychological capital in individuals.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
The work environment will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior.
Research on personal environmental suitability is an essential factor in explaining job types, starting from psychology and spreading to private companies and the public sector [16]. Personal environmental suitability corresponds to what each individual owns and provides in a work environment. The better the individual integrates into the organization, workplace, and colleagues, the better the company performs [63]. The impact of a personal environment that is conducive to employees’ innovative work behavior resulted in improved work performance for employees’ innovation, which motivated them to demonstrate innovative work behavior when they were highly compatible with the environment [64]. Individual suitability and innovative work behavior for the environment influenced individual performance positively [48]. Personal environmental suitability had a direct effect on innovative behavior in many other studies [35,38,65,66,67,68,69]. As a result, the following hypothesis was developed in this study by assuming that personal environmental suitability would influence innovation behavior.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Personal environment suitability will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior.
Optimistic individuals believe that their future is prosperous and friendly [70]. Individuals with higher levels of hope are more likely to pursue new, creative, and valuable ideas and solutions than those with lower levels of hope [71]. Front-line employees who have direct contact with customers require a high level of self-efficacy, and responding to the diverse needs of customers necessitates innovative and creative thinking [72]. Psychological capital, individual immersion, and work role performance were all positively related to high-level relationships with leaders [54]. Positive psychological capital resources and innovative performance were positively related to significant interest in creative processes and personal characteristics [73]. Positive emotions are associated with members who have a high level of positive psychological capital, influencing attitudes and behaviors related to organizational change [23,43,74]. As a result, positive psychological capital improves employee innovation performance while also demonstrating creativity and innovative behavior [62,75]. Thus, the following hypothesis was established in this study by assuming that the factors of positive psychological capital would affect the relationship between innovative behaviors.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Psychological capital will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior.
Support for various educational, environmental, and financial tasks contributes to the formation of employees’ self-esteem in a harmonious relationship between companies and employees, and employees increase voluntary behavior for companies [76]. Leadership style is appropriate for stimulating creativity and innovation because the mediating role of psychological capital reaches employee creativity through work-related flows, and true leaders are tolerant of ambiguity and open to experience and change [77]. Above all, psychological capital was presented as a mediating factor between personal environment suitability and creative and innovative behavior [69], and positive emotions played a mediating role in members’ attitudes and behaviors in organizational change situations [78]. Finally, the sixth and seventh hypotheses were tested to determine whether psychological capital played a mediating role in the effects of work environment and personal environment suitability on innovative behavior.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
The working environment will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior through psychological capital.
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
The suitability of the personal environment will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior through psychological capital.
As depicted in Figure 1, this research examines the effect of work environment and personal environment suitability on psychological capital and innovation behavior.

3. Materials & Methods

3.1. Ethical Statement

This study does not require Institution Review Board approval because there were no procedures that could cause psychological and social inconvenience to those surveyed.

3.2. Data Collection and Method

According to previous studies related to the working environment, in a study conducted on 50 public officials, respondents were randomly selected, and regression analysis was performed for hypothesis verification [79]. In another study, a survey was conducted on scholars from 200 schools in public higher education facilities using the convenience sampling method, and a multiple regression analysis was conducted to verify the hypothesis [80]. In a study on the working environment conducted on 472 single employees working in 12 hotels, a survey was conducted with the consent of the head of each hotel department, and structural equation analysis was performed using Mplus to verify the hypothesis [81]. This study conducted an online survey of employees working in exceptional second-class hotels’ food and beverage departments (four stars or more) in Seoul, Incheon, and Gyeonggi Province from 1 November to 31 November 2020. The questionnaire was distributed on social media. It was first conducted for hotel employees the first author had worked with, and then participants were recruited through a snow sampling method. A total of 327 copies were used for empirical analysis, excluding 40 copies of the questionnaire that were deemed unfit for use as data. The collected data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and AMOS 24.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). To begin, a frequency analysis was performed to better understand the demographic characteristics of respondents (gender, age, education, working period, and employment type). Furthermore, using Cronbach’s Alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the scales used in previous studies were validated for conceptual independence. CFA was performed to verify the conceptual independence used in the study. After that, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesis after confirming the direction and discriminant validity of the hypothesis using correlation analysis. The mediating effect of psychological capital was verified through bootstrap by applying the maximum likelihood method.

3.3. Measurement

Based on prior research on the work environment, personal environment suitability, psychological capital, and innovative behavior, the questionnaire was revised and supplemented. The detailed questionnaire is in Appendix A.
All questionnaires were graded using a 5-point Likert scale of 1. “Strongly disagree” through 5. “I wholeheartedly disagree.” The contents’ validity was ensured by confirming the questionnaire’s verification from three industry workers with 20 years or more of experience in luxury hotels. To measure the working environment, 2 dimensions (human resource [HR] system, career management) measured in 10 items (5 items each) were used [25,26]. To assess personal environmental synthesis, 3 dimensions (Personal-organizational suitability, Personal-supervisor suitability, and Personal-job suitability) were measured in 15 items (5 items each) [34]. Moreover, 3 dimensions (self-efficacy, hope, and optimism) were measured in 12 items (4 items each) to determine psychological capital [82,83,84].
Innovative behavior was represented as “I am quite trying to enhance my work,” “I frequently discuss issues and ways to enhance my work with my colleagues,” and “I always try to work in new and improved ways.” Three items, including Scott & Bruce, were translated and measured [85,86,87,88].

4. Results

4.1. Demographics of the Participants

Table 1 depicts the demographic characteristics of the sample. It was distributed as 65.4% for males and 34.6% for females. In the age group, 42.2% were in their 20s and 62.4% graduated from junior colleges. In terms of experience, 42.5% had less than five years, and 75.8% had the highest employment type.

4.2. Analysis of the Reliability and Validity

4.2.1. CFA

Table 2 displays the results of CFA for each scale used to assess the validity of the study’s structure. In this study, the work environment, personal environment suitability, and psychological capital, which are secondary factors, were measured as primary factors by averaging the measurement concept’s sub-variables. As a result of the suitability statistics, the results presented in Table 2 indicate work environment, personal environmental suitability, psychological capital, and innovative behavior in the data. The model was deemed to be acceptable: χ2 = 78.233 (df = 38, p = 0.000), CMIN/DF = 2.059, RMR = 0.012, GFI = 0.958, AGFI = 0.928, NFI = 0.975, CFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.057. Furthermore, Cronbach’s alpha demonstrates good levels at 0.858–0.931, with a standardized factor loading of 0.5 or higher and conceptual confidence of 0.7 or higher, exceeding the cutoff value [88].

4.2.2. Discriminant Validity

Both convergent and discriminant validity were successfully demonstrated. When the average variances extracted (AVEs) for the two constructs are greater than the square of the correlation coefficient for the said construct’s validity, it is stated that there is discriminant validity [89]. Table 3șs data show discriminant validity. A formularization of the relationship between “work environment suitability” and “psychological capital,” which has the highest correlation coefficient of any of the variables, reveals the correlation coefficient for work environment suitability and psychological capital to be 0.769, which means (0.769)2 = 0.591. Work environment suitability and psychological capital have AVEs of 0.914 and 0.819, respectively. The AVEs for both variables exceeded the square of the correlation coefficient, and the AVE for job insecurity exceeded 0.591. As a result, the results were shown to be discriminant.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

To test the hypotheses, SEM was used in this study with AMOS 24.0.
The model fit was determined to be acceptable based on the results of χ2 = 78.233 (df = 38, p = 0.000), CMIN/DF = 2.059, RMR = 0.012, GFI = 0.958, AGFI = 0.928, NFI = 0.975, CFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.057 [88]. The results of hypothesis testing are shown in Table 4 and Figure 2.
In the case of Hypothesis 1, the hypothesis that “the working environment will have a positive (+) effect on psychological capital” was adopted (β = 0.224, p < 0.01). In the case of Hypothesis 2, it was decided that “personal environmental suitability will have a positive (+) effect on psychological capital” (β = 0.664, p < 0.001). The hypothesis that the “work environment will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior” was rejected in the case of Hypothesis 3 (β = 0.094, p > 0.05). In the case of Hypothesis 4, it was decided that “personal environmental suitability will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior” ((β = 0.239, p < 0.05). In the case of Hypothesis 5, the hypothesis that “psychological capital will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior” was adopted (β = 0.723, p < 0.001). To verify the indirect effect, bootstrapping was performed with Percentile confidence intervals 90, Bias-correct confidence intervals 90, and maximum likelihood. Following the application of sample 500 of bootstrapping to test Hypotheses 6 and 7, it was discovered that the work environment had a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior via psychological capital (β = 0.162, p < 0.05). Furthermore, personal environmental suitability was found to have a positive (+) effect on innovative behavior via psychological capital (β = 0.480, p < 0.01).

5. Discussion

This research recognized that employees’ work environment and personal-environment suitability are relatively essential factors in the hotel industry, which is an aggregate of human resources, and was performed based on previous research that demonstrates that employees’ innovation behavior is a significant variable that can increase competitiveness. As a result, it was intended to identify the correlation between these variables and provide data related to human resource management by performing a psychological capital influence relationship. Furthermore, based on this, I attempted to propose effective personnel-related management.
This study’s analysis results are as follows. In the case of Hypothesis 1, the hypothesis that the “work environment will have a positive (+) effect on positive psychological capital” is adopted, supporting the results of previous studies [90]. When employees receive appropriate support and compensation for extra efforts and achievements, it acts as positive psychology in the workplace.
In the case of Hypothesis 2, the hypothesis that “personal environmental suitability will have a positive (+) effect on psychological capital” was used, and the results were consistent with previous studies [91]. Individual–environmental suitability is thought to have emerged as a positive organizational behavior when individuals’ values and environmental requirements coincide. In the case of Hypothesis 3, the hypothesis that “work environment will have a positive (+) effect on innovative behavior” was rejected, and it was different from the results of previous studies [92]. This means that no matter how good the company’s one-sided work environment and personnel system are, acting positively is difficult if the worker himself is dissatisfied. In the case of Hypothesis 4, the hypothesis that “personal environmental suitability will have a positive (+) effect on innovative behavior” was adopted, confirming previous research findings [93]. In the end, it is judged that the suitability of individual and environmental factors actively presents ideas and strives to develop new processes to solve problems or maintain a positive environment for the group to which they belong. In the case of Hypothesis 5, the hypothesis that “psychological capital will have a positive (+) effect on innovation behavior” was adopted, as evidenced by previous research findings [94,95]. A person’s positive psychological attitude can be said to induce active thinking and behavior in the organization.
As a result, the higher the level of developing psychological capital, the more likely it is that the essential innovative behavior of organizational success will be promoted. The validation of Hypotheses 6 and 7 confirms that the suitability of the work environment and personal environment influence innovation behavior via psychological capital.
The theoretical and practical implications of this study are proposed as follows. As a theoretical implication, this study investigated the effect of suitability for the work environment and personal environment on positive psychological capital and innovation behavior for hotel employees. In verifying the mediating effect of this study, theoretical exploration was conducted by differentiating psychological capital from existing studies by identifying that psychological capital had a positive influence on the relationship between work environment, personal environment suitability, and innovation behavior. Therefore, it can be said that the suitability of various career support and smooth relationships between organizations, bosses, and jobs affects the management performance of companies through the active psychological attitudes of hotel employees. These results show that the positive psychological state of each hotel employee affects hotel companies, indicating that the management of human services is the most important factor. In particular, due to the nature of the service industry, hotel employees’ actions play many roles in achieving corporate goals and improving performance at the contact point with customers. Therefore, human resources can be a strategic element and a key asset for the development of hotel companies.
As a practical implication, just as the working environment of hotel employees in this study does not affect innovative behavior, it can be said that hotel companies’ personnel systems and career management appear negatively to employees. The hotel industry is an industry with high human dependence and seeks to expect the effect of cost reduction through various forms of employment. However, as a result, it will increase job dissatisfaction, leading to problems such as job insecurity, low salary, and welfare, and increase the turnover rate, affecting the company’s management performance. Therefore, managers of hotel companies should design new policies on qualitative human management of employees to maximize the cost aspect and the ultimate management performance of the company. In addition, most employees always want to be treated fairly in personnel evaluation, promotion, and compensation for their efforts and outcomes, and this support and these rewards motivate employees [96,97]. Therefore, since employees value fairness in personnel decisions, hotel companies need to establish a fair personnel system to gain trust from employees by placing employees’ perception of justice as an essential goal in human resource management. On the other hand, hotel employees are interested in career management that can increase the possibility of employment in the future as the concept of lifelong work and lifetime employment gradually disappears, unlike in the past. Accordingly, hotel companies should develop and introduce various career programs that can manage the careers of employees while at the same time cultivating job performance skills and skills to secure excellent talent and improve innovation behavior. In other words, if policies for organized career development are prepared to eliminate anxiety about the future and focus on the performance of the current job, individuals’ voluntary self-development and future employment possibilities can be increased. Therefore, it is judged that the verification of the behavior of individual employees at present, when human resource management is essential, is suitable for the modern ideology that values individuals.
This study contains the following limitations and limits the progress of follow-up studies. To begin, the sample for this study was limited to only employees of hotels in the metropolitan area with exceptional grades of two or higher (hotels with four or higher stars). As this research is related to the “environment,” it was overlooked that the results would vary depending on the geographical location and the degree of hotel grade. As a result, geographic expansion and research on hotel employees at various stages are expected in future studies. Second, depending on the employee’s subjectivity, even the collective work environment provided by the hotel can be perceived differently. Furthermore, depending on the worker’s situation, the suitability of the personal environment may vary. As a result, we propose that an appropriate measurement tool be developed, and we expect to draw more meaningful conclusions from a study that complements the limitations of this study.

6. Conclusions

According to the findings of this study, psychological capital eventually leads to innovative behavior within organizations. The greater one’s psychological capital, which can inspire potential, vitality, and motivation, the better one’s innovative behavior generates ideas that help improve one’s work and performance. The higher the perception that self-efficacy, a belief in one’s ability to perform tasks, hope, a positive insight that one can accomplish goals, and optimism, a positive expectation to overcome failures, the better the results will be so far as innovative behavior is concerned. These outcomes can improve efficiency by strategically resolving them by prioritizing the psychology of the organization’s members based on the tasks at hand. Furthermore, given that the work environment influences innovative behavior via psychological capital, it is understandable that when psychological capital is formed first when members of the organization feel positive about their psychology, they engage in innovative behavior. As a result, managers should give suitable attention and encouragement rather than reprimand to inspire positive psychology. Furthermore, organizations and leaders should try to accurately indicate as much as possible the reasons and expectations for their job performance and assign tasks tailored to the competence of the worker. In other words, it is proposed that the organization should understand its members’ psychological states and manage their responses and attitudes, and that programs will be required to recognize the suitability of individuals, work environments, and personal environments at the organizational level.

Author Contributions

The study was designed and the statistical analysis was performed by H.-C.S.; K.-S.L. and Y.-S.K. wrote the paper. 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.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Measurement items.
Table A1. Measurement items.
Variables
Work Environment
HR systemI’m getting a fair reward for the effort I put into my work.
I am getting fair compensation compared to the performance of my work.
I’m getting a fair reward in light of the stress and tension I get in my job.
My organization fairly reflects personnel assessment on promotion.
My organization appropriately distributes it as a bonus when the profits of the organization increase.
Career managementMy organization is providing opportunities to improve my work-related knowledge and skills.
My organization helps me make plans for the development of individual employees.
My organization introduces mentors who help me develop my career.
My organization encourages me to take charge of the work to develop the skills of my employees.
My organization clearly presents members with a vision for career development.
Personal Environment Suitability
Personal organizational suitabilityI have a sense of attachment and belonging to the organization I belong to.
The goals that my organization and I pursue fit well.
Age individual personality works well with the characteristics of my organization.
My values include well with the importance of the organization.
The organization meets what I need.
Personal supervisor suitabilityMy boss and I get along well.
My boss and I have similar goals for work.
My boss and I have a similar way of handling business.
My ability fits well with the ability my boss demands.
My boss makes up for my shortcomings.
Personal job suitabilityI am clear about my job description and responsibilities.
I have a clear goal regarding my duties.
I am well aware of how my duties relate to the organization’s goals.
My job is suitable for utilizing my skills or knowledge.
My job is well suited to my aptitude.
Psychological Capital
Self-efficacyI am confident in analyzing long-term problems and finding solutions.
I can always set a goal and check the progress of the work in light of it.
I am confident in persuading colleagues and clients to solve problems at work.
I am convinced that I have superior ability and knowledge to other employees.
HopeI have a sense of morality.
I have a sense of humanity.
I have a service mind.
I have an enterprising spirit.
I have originality.
OptimismMy future is what I decide and carve-out
If I am in a difficult situation at work, I will develop various ways to solve the problem.
I can think of many ways to achieve my current goal.
I think I’m doing pretty well at this point.
Innovation Behavior
Innovation behaviorI come up with creative methods when I do my work.
I spread new ideas to my colleagues.
I try to secure the resources needed to implement new ideas.

References

  1. Ren, S.; Chadee, D. Influence of guanxi on hospitality career performance in China: Is more necessarily better? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 91, 102420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Park, S.; Johnson, K.R.; Chaudhuri, S. Promoting work engagement in the hotel sector: Review and analysis. Manag. Res. Rev. 2019, 42, 971–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Maiti, S. Job satisfaction of hospitality employees in budget hotels. Int. J. Sci. Res. Dev. 2017, 5, 348–351. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hernaus, T.; Pavlovic, D.; Klindzic, M. Organizational career management practices: The role of the relationship between HRM and trade unions. Empl. Relat. 2018, 41, 84–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hossain, M.S.; Kannan, S.N.; Raman Nair, S.K.K. Factors influencing sustainable competitive advantage in the hospitality industry. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2021, 22, 679–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kim, M.S.; Koo, D.W. Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance in hotel employees. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 25, 133–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Di Fabio, A.; Peiroó, J.M. Human Capital Sustainability Leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Kerse, G. The impact of job crafting on person-job fit: “I am compatible with my work because I can make changes in my work”. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Derg. 2018, 32, 941–958. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhou, H.; Han, X.; Zhang, J.; Sun, J.; Hu, L.; Hu, G.; Wu, S.; Zhao, P.; Jiang, F.; Liu, Y. Job Satisfaction and Associated Factors among Medical Staff in Tertiary Public Hospitals: Results from a National Cross-Sectional Survey in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Schaefer, J.A.; Moos, R.H. Effects of work stressors and work climate on long-term care staff’s job morale and functioning. Res. Nurs. Health 1996, 19, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Janssen, O. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2000, 73, 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lu, X.; Yu, H.; Shan, B. Relationship between Employee Mental Health and Job Performance: Mediation Role of Innovative Behavior and Work Engagement. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Park, M.; Kim, S. Effects of Personality Traits and Team Context on Individual Innovative Behavior (Exploitation and Exploration). Sustainability 2022, 14, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bani-Mustafa, A.; Toglaw, S.; Abidi, O.; Nimer, K. Do Individual Factors Affect the Relationship between Faculty Intrapreneurship and the Entrepreneurial Orientation of Their Organizations? Economies 2021, 9, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Scott, S.; Bruce, R.A. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 580–607. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nieto, M.J.; Santamaria, L.; Fernandez, Z. Understanding the innovation behavior of family firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 53, 382–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sameer, Y.M. Innovative behavior and psychological capital: Does positivity make any difference? J. Econ. Manag. 2018, 32, 75–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sung, W.; Kim, C. A study on the effect of change management on organizational Innovation: Focusing on the mediating effect of members’ innovative behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lei, Y.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Cheung, W. Information technology and service diversification: A cross-level study in different innovation environments. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Avey, J.B.; Nimnicht, J.L.; Graber Pigeon, N. Two field studies examining the association between positive psychological capital and employee performance. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2010, 31, 384–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Luthans, F.; Avolio, B.J.; Avey, J.B.; Norman, S.M. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 2007, 60, 541–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Seligman, M.E. Positive psychology: A personal history. Ann. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2019, 15, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Luthans, F. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 695–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Nelson, D.; Cooper, C.L. (Eds.) Positive Organizational Behavior: Accentuating the Positive at Work; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wright, T.A. Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 437–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wright, T.A.; Cropanzano, R. The happy/productive worker thesis revisited. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management; Martocchio, J., Ed.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2007; pp. 269–313. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bagdadli, S.; Gianecchini, M. Organizational career management practices and objective career success: A systematic review and framework. Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 2019, 29, 353–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bidwell, M.; De Stefano, F. Career management isn’t just the employee’s job. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2019, 60, 17–18. [Google Scholar]
  29. Peter, R.; Alfredsson, L.; Knutsson, A.; Siegrist, J.; Westerholm, P. Does a stressful psychosocial work environment mediate the effects of shift work on cardiovascular risk factors? Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1999, 25, 376–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Siegrist, J.; Starke, D.; Chandola, T.; Godin, I.; Marmot, M.; Niedhammer, I.; Peter, R. The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc. Sci. Med. 2004, 58, 1483–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kuper, H.; Singh-Manoux, A.; Siegrist, J.; Marmot, M. When reciprocity fails: Effort-reward imbalance in relation to coro-nary heart disease and health functioning within the Whitehall II study. Occup. Environ. Med. 2002, 59, 777–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Baruch, Y. Career development in organizations and beyond: Balancing traditional and contemporary viewpoints. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2006, 16, 125–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. De Vos, A.; Dewettinck, K.; Buyens, D. The professional career on the right track: A study on the interaction between career self-management and organizational career management in explaining employee outcomes. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2009, 18, 55–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cappelli, P. Stop over-engineering people management. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2020, 98, 55–63. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kristof-Brown, A.L.; Zimmerman, R.D.; Johnson, E.C. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of per-son-job, person-organization, person-group and person-supervisor fit. Pers. Psychol. 2005, 58, 281–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lauver, K.J.; Kristof-Brown, A. Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. J. Vocat. Behav. 2001, 59, 454–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Van Vianen, A.E.M. Person-organization fit: The match between newcomers’ and recruiters’ perceptions for organizational cultures. Pers. Psychol. 2000, 53, 113–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Saks, A.M.; Ashforth, B.E. Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends on the fit. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 646–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rugulies, R. What is a psychosocial work environment? Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2019, 45, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Lavelle, J.J.; Rupp, D.E.; Brockner, J. Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. J. Manag. 2007, 33, 841–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lyubomirsky, S.; King, L.; Diener, E. The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychol. Bull. 2005, 131, 803–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Luthans, F.; Youssef, C.M. Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organ. Dyn. 2004, 33, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Avey, J.B.; Wernsing, T.S.; Luthans, F. Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. J. Appl. Behav. Sci 2008, 44, 48–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Demir, S. The role of self-efficacy in job satisfaction, organizational commitment, motivation and job involvement. Eurasian J. Edu. Res. 2020, 20, 205–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Carmeli, A.; Meitar, R.; Weisberg, J. Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. Int. J. Manpow. 2006, 27, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. De Jong, J.P.; Den Hartog, D.N. Innovative work behavior: Measurement and validation. EIM Bus. Policy Res. 2008, 8, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  47. Afsar, B.F.; Badir, Y.F.; Bin Saeed, B. Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2014, 114, 1270–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mufti, M.Y.; Pudjiarti, E.S.; Darmanto, S. Analysis of second order person-environment fit on innovative work behavior and individual performance. Arthatama 2019, 3, 100–113. [Google Scholar]
  49. Aryee, S.; Debrah, Y.A. A cross-cultural application of a career planning model. J. Organ. Behav. 1993, 14, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Feldt, R.C.; Woelfel, C. Five-factor personality domains, self-efficacy, career-outcome expectations, and career indecision. Coll. Stud. J. 2009, 43, 429–438. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kong, H.; Cheung, C.; Qiu Zhang, H. Career management systems: What are China’s state-owned hotels practicing? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 22, 467–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wong, S.; Siu, V.; Tsang, N. The impact of demographic factors on Hong Kong hotel employees’ choice of job-related motivators. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 1999, 11, 230–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. De Waal, J.J.; Pienaar, J. Towards understanding causality between work engagement and psychological capital. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2013, 39, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chaurasia, S.; Shukla, A. Psychological capital, LMX, employee engagement & work role performance. Indian J. Ind. Relat. 2014, 50, 342–356. [Google Scholar]
  55. Safavi, H.P.; Bouzari, M. How can leaders enhance employees’ psychological capital? Mediation effect of person-group and person-supervisor fit. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 33, 100626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Romijn, H.; Albaladejo, M. Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1053–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sung, S.Y.; Choi, J.N. Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of training and development investments on learning and innovation in organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 393–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Karin, S.; Matthijs, M.; Nicole, T.; Sandra, G.; Claudia, G. How to support innovative behaviour? The role of LMX and satis-faction with HR practices. Technol. Investig. 2010, 1, 59–68. [Google Scholar]
  59. Avey, J.B.; Patera, J.L.; West, B.J. The implications of positive psychological capital on employee absenteeism. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2006, 13, 42–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Luthans, F.; Norman, S.M.; Avolio, B.J.; Avey, J.B. The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—Employee performance relationship. J. Organ. Behav. 2008, 29, 219–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Yuan, F.; Woodman, R.W. Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Jafri, M.H. Psychological capital and innovative behaviour: An empirical study on apparel fashion industry. J. Contemp. Manag. Res. 2012, 6, 42–52. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ahmad, K.Z.; Veerapandian, K.A.; Yu Ghee, W.Y. Person-environment fit: The missing link in the organisational culture-commitment relationship. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 6, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Afsar, B.; Badir, Y.; Khan, M.M. Person-job fit, person-organization fit and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of innovation trust. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2015, 26, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zdaniuk, B.; Levine, J.M. Group loyalty: Impact of members’ identification and contributions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 37, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Janssen, O.; Van Yperen, N.W. Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 368–384. [Google Scholar]
  67. Silverthorne, C. The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2004, 25, 592–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Choi, J.N. Person-environment fit and creative behavior: Differential impacts of supplies-values and demands-abilities versions of fit. Hum. Relat. 2004, 57, 531–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Afsar, B.; Badir, Y. Workplace spirituality, perceived organizational support and innovative work behavior: The mediating effects of person-organization fit. J. Workplace Learn. 2017, 29, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Perera, H.N.; McIlveen, P. The role of optimism and engagement coping in college adaptation: A career construction model. J. Vocat. Behav. 2014, 84, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Rego, A.; Sousa, F.; Marques, C.; Pina e Cunha, M.P. Hope and positive affect mediating the authentic leadership and creativity relationship. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, C.J.; Tsai, H.T.; Tsai, M.T. Linking transformational leadership and employee creativity in the hospitality industry: The influences of creative role identity, creative self-efficacy, and job complexity. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sweetman, D.; Luthans, F.; Avey, J.B.; Luthans, B.C. Relationship between positive psychological capital and creative performance. Rev. Can. Sci. Admin. 2011, 28, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Hsu, M.H.; Kuo, F.Y. The effect of organization-based self-esteem and deindividuation in protecting personal information privacy. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 42, 305–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Luthans, F.; Avolio, B.J.; Walumbwa, F.O.; Li, W. The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2005, 1, 249–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Ishak, N.A.; Alam, S.S. Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating impact of self-esteem. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2009, 4, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Zubair, A.; Kamal, A. Authentic leadership and creativity: Mediating role of work-related flow and psychological capital. J. Behav. Sci. 2015, 25, 150–171. [Google Scholar]
  78. Avey, J.B.; Luthans, F.; Youssef, C.M. The additive value of positive psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 430–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Taheri, R.H.; Miah, M.S.; Kamaruzzaman, M. Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. Res. 2020, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Muhammad, L.; Ishrat, R.; Afridi, J.R. The impact of working environment on employees job satisfaction: A case study of private schools in Peshawar city. Psychol. Edu. 2022, 59, 168–183. [Google Scholar]
  81. Pan, S.Y.; Li, Y. Family supportive and singles-friendly: How an equally supportive working environment impacts unmarried hotel employees. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 34, 759–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chiesa, R.; Fazi, L.; Guglielmi, D.; Mariani, M.G. Enhancing Substainability: Psychological Capital, Perceived Employability, and Job Insecurity in Different Work Contract Conditions. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Chang, E.C.; Maydeu-Olivares, A.; D’Zurilla, T.J. Opptimism and pessimism as partially independent constructs: Relationship to positive and negative affectivity and psychological well-being. Pers. Individ. Differ. 1997, 23, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chen, G.; Gully, S.M.; Eden, D. Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organ. Res. Methods 2001, 4, 62–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Akram, T.; Lei, S.; Haider, M.J.; Hussain, S.T. The impact of organizational justice on employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of knowledge sharing. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Amabile, T.M.; Conti, R.; Coon, H.; Lazenby, J.; Herron, M. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 1154–1184. [Google Scholar]
  87. Oldham, G.R.; Cummings, A. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 607–634. [Google Scholar]
  88. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  89. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and sta-tistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Choi, J. The mediating effect of positive psychological capital between autonomous work environment and self-directed behavior: Evidence from South Korea. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2020, 23, 46–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alias, N.E.; Abu, N.; Koe, W.L.; Marmaya, N.H.; Romaiha, R.O.N.R. Does psychological capital matter for the public sector employees? A survey of the impact of psychological capital on individual job performance in Malaysia. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci 2020, 10, 772–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gaspary, E.; Moura, G.L.D.; Wegner, D. How does the organisational structure influence a work environment for innovation? Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 2020, 24, 132–153. [Google Scholar]
  93. Jena, L.K.; Goyal, S. Emotional intelligence and employee innovation: Sequential mediating effect of person-group fit and adaptive performance. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2022, 72, 100729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Luthans, B.C.; Luthans, K.W.; Jensen, S.M. The impact of business school students’ psychological capital on academic performance. J. Educ. Bus. 2012, 87, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Purwanto, A.; Asbari, M.; Hartuti, H.; Setiana, Y.N.; Fahmi, K. Effect of psychological capital and authentic leadership on innovation work behavior. Int. J. Soc. Manag. Stud. 2021, 2, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  96. Pak, K.; Kooij, D.T.; De Lange, A.H.; Van Veldhoven, M.J. Human Resource Management and the ability, motivation and opportunity to continue working: A review of quantitative studies. Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 2019, 29, 336–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Keisu, B.I.; Öhman, A.; Enberg, B. Employee effort-reward balance and first-level manager transformational leadership within elderly care. Scan. J. Caring Sci. 2018, 32, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 14 07074 g001 550
Figure 1. Study model.
Figure 1. Study model.
Sustainability 14 07074 g001
Sustainability 14 07074 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural equation model with parameter estimates.;* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Nonsignificant paths are shown in dotted lines.
Figure 2. Structural equation model with parameter estimates.;* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Nonsignificant paths are shown in dotted lines.
Sustainability 14 07074 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic factors of the participants.
Table 1. Demographic factors of the participants.
Demographic FactorsCategoryNumber of ParticipantsPercentage (%)
GenderMale21465.4
Female11334.6
Age20s13842.2
30s12437.9
40s5416.5
50s and older113.4
EducationHigh school diploma or less216.4
Associate degree20462.4
Bachelor’s degree (4-year university)8626.3
Graduate degree or higher164.9
Working periodLess than 5 years13942.5
Between 6 and 10 years8225.1
Between 11 and 16 years5717.4
Between 15 and 20 years3711.3
20 years or more123.7
Employment typeFull-time employee24875.8
Non-regular employee7924.2
Total327100
Table
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Factor and VariableStandardized LoadingS.EC.RAverage Variances Extracted (AVE)Composite Construct Reliability
(CCR)		Cronbach’s α
Work environmentHR system0.8260.5417.862 ***0.8690.9300.8290.858
Career management0.912--0.834
Personal
environment
suitability		Personal-organizational suitability0.8880.03623.990 ***0.9140.9700.8720.931
Personal-supervisor suitability.0.9380.03727.206 ***0.883
Personal-job suitability0.894--0.912
Psychological capitalSelf-efficacy0.918--0.8190.9310.8870.890
Hope0.8760.04723.717 ***0.889
Optimism0.7820.05718.784 ***0.876
Innovation behaviorIB10.682--0.6070.902 0.832
IB20.7190.09811.231 ***
IB30.6080.0929.712 ***
χ2 = 78.233 (df = 38, p = 0.000), CMIN/DF = 2.059, RMR = 0.012, GFI = 0.958, AGFI = 0.928, NFI = 0.975, CFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.057. *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity of the variables.
Table 3. Discriminant validity of the variables.
FactorWork Environment
Suitability		Personal
Environment		Psychological
Capital		Innovation
Behavior
Work environment
suitability		0.869 (1)0.527 (3)0.4220.326
Personal
environment		0.726 ** (2)0.9140.5910.499
Psychological capital0.665 **0.769 **0.8190.538
Innovation behavior0.571 **0.707 **0.734 **0.781
Mean3.693.773.703.81
S.D.0.6350.6240.6960.740
** p < 0.01; Diagonal: (1) Average Variance Extracted (AVE); (2) Area below diagonal: The correlation coefficient for the constructs (r); (3) Area above diagonal: The square of the correlation coefficient (r2).
Table
Table 4. Results of structural equation model analysis.
Table 4. Results of structural equation model analysis.
Process (Hypothesis)Betat-Valuep-ValueIndirect EffectDecision
Coefficientp
H1WE → PC0.2242.922 **0.003 Accepted
H2PES → PC0.6648.641 ***0.000 Accepted
H3WE → IB0.0941.1530.249 Rejected
H4PES → IB0.2392.396 *0.017 Accepted
H5PC → IB0.7237.559 ***0.000 Accepted
H6WE → IB
(the mediating effect of PC)		0.0941.1530.2490.162 *0.35Accepted
H7PES → IB
(the mediating effect of PC)		0.2392.396 *0.0170.480 **0.004Accepted
χ2 = 78.233 (df = 38, p = 0.000), CMIN/DF = 2.059, RMR = 0.012, GFI = 0.958, AGFI = 0.928, NFI = 0.975, CFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.057. Work environment = WE, Personal environment suitability = PES, Psychological capital = PC, Innovation behavior= IB, * p < 0.05, ** 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

Lee, K.-S.; Kim, Y.-S.; Shin, H.-C. The Effect of Personal Environment Suitability and Work Environment of Luxury Hotels on Psychological Capital and Innovation Behavior. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127074

AMA Style

Lee K-S, Kim Y-S, Shin H-C. The Effect of Personal Environment Suitability and Work Environment of Luxury Hotels on Psychological Capital and Innovation Behavior. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127074

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Ki-Seoung, Yoon-Seo Kim, and Hyoung-Chul Shin. 2022. "The Effect of Personal Environment Suitability and Work Environment of Luxury Hotels on Psychological Capital and Innovation Behavior" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127074

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