Next Article in Journal
Safety Evaluation of Plain Concrete Lining Considering Deterioration and Aerodynamic Effects
Previous Article in Journal
A Conceptual Framework Proposal Regarding the Engagement of Hotels in the Modern Fight against Unsustainable Food Practices
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/su15097168
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Testing the Affective Events Theory in Hospitality Management: A Multi-Sample Approach

by
Ana Junça-Silva
1,* and
Eunice Lopes
2
1
Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL), Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal
2
TECHN&ART, Polytechnic Institute of Tomar (IPT), 2300-313 Tomar, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(9), 7168; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097168
Submission received: 23 March 2023 / Revised: 6 April 2023 / Accepted: 19 April 2023 / Published: 25 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Sustainability in Hospitality and Tourism Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Relying on the affective events theory, we argued that daily micro-events occurring in a hospitality context—daily hassles and uplifts—would influence hotel employees’ well-being and performance through affective reactions. Furthermore, we also expected that mindfulness would moderate these indirect relationships. Data were collected from employees who worked in hospitality working settings, and included both mindfulness practitioners (n = 182) and non-practitioners (n = 211). The findings evidenced that affective reactions mediated the path from daily micro-events and well-being and performance, in both samples. In addition, in the sample of non-mindfulness practitioners, mindfulness moderated the indirect relationship between daily micro-events and well-being through affective reactions, in such a way that the relationship became stronger for those who scored higher on mindfulness (versus those who scored lower). These findings were not significant for those who practiced mindfulness. Lastly, mindfulness did not moderate the relationship between daily micro-events and performance via affective reactions (for both samples). This study expands the affective events theory for the hospitality context and thus highlights the role of daily micro-events in stimulating employees’ performance and well-being. Furthermore, it shows how mindfulness as a trait may be relevant for employees who work in this context.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, workers seem to show lower levels of work-related well-being; OECD [1] identified an increase in workers’ dissatisfaction, which may justify the slower rates of motivation and, thereby, performance. This pushed researchers to expand on the knowledge about well-being predictors in the work domain [2,3]. For instance, diverse studies have demonstrated the relevance of situational influences for performance and well-being related outcomes [3]. One consistent predictor of both performance and well-being appears to be daily micro-events—daily hassles and uplifts. These events have been studied under the framework of the affective events theory (AET) [2]. Accordingly, the work context promotes conditions for the occurrence of daily-micro events, which are little things that somehow influence employees’ affective, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes [3]. Further, these events are affective because they make employees experience a wide range of affective reactions (e.g., anger or enthusiasm) that shape how they behave at work (for instance, influencing their performance) [4]. Hence, daily micro-events may influence well-being and performance as they create affective reactions in employees. Thereby, these affective reactions are mechanisms linking daily micro-events to well-being and performance.
Moreover, the AET also states that there are individual differences (e.g., personal characteristics) moderating how employees react to such micro-daily events [2]. Mindfulness has been shown to be a relevant boundary condition between individuals’ affective reactions and personal and work-related outcomes [5]. It has been defined as the individuals’ ability to be focused on the present moment, and be guided by a neutral acceptance of what occurs instead of ruminating or trying to change unchanged situations [5,6]. Hence, mindfulness may help employees to better regulate affective reactions to daily micro-events and, as such, influence their well-being and performance. Mindfulness can thus interact with affective reactions to shape attitudinal (well-being) and behavioral outcomes (performance) [3,6,7].
This study aims to expand the AET to the hospitality context by testing whether daily-micro events would influence affective reactions, and these, in turn, influence employees’ well-being and performance. Furthermore, relying on the literature focused on mindfulness [7], we argue that it may moderate the indirect relationships between daily micro-events and well-being and performance through affective reactions.
Indeed, the factor of prosperity and success in hospitality is the focus on people: both employees and guests. One of the main tasks of the management of an organization involved in the service sector is to meet the needs of customers and create a suitable environment within a hotel, in which employees become loyal to the company and oriented towards achieving organizational objectives. The vision of a knowledge-based organizational learning approach improves the capabilities of hotels [8,9].
Given the importance of both well-being and performance in hospitality contexts, this study adds knowledge that might be useful for managerial purposes, particularly those related with sustainable human resources management (S-HRM). First, it may contribute to explaining how and when situational influences, such as daily micro-events, impact employees’ well-being and performance. Further, understanding it will help managers to delineate strategies that can contain the negative effects of these micro-influences, and at the same time, create tools to enhance their beneficial effects. This is relevant for sustainable human resources management as it may contribute to higher levels of employees’ happiness—one of the goals of S-HRM [10]. Second, the findings may expand the affective events theory by demonstrating its applicability to hospitality settings and give insights towards managing employees in this working setting. Lastly, exploring the potential moderating role of mindfulness might clarify its role in buffering the detrimental effects of daily hassles and amplifying the positive effects of daily uplifts.
The following parts will describe and sustain the proposed model and hypotheses. The subsequent sections will discuss the method and procedure of data collection, as well as the main characteristics of both samples. Then, the test of hypotheses is presented followed by the discussion section.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

2.1. The Affective Events Theory

The work context is filled with conditions that create daily micro-events [2,11]. These daily micro-events appear to be frequent in nature and may shape employees’ daily lives by affecting their affective experiences and their resultant well-being and performance [11]. The AET highlights its role in employees’ daily routines and emphasizes that these micro-events must not be ignored even if they are almost unnoticed.
The AET explains the path that is created with daily-micro events [2]. For the authors, daily micro-events make employees affectively react to what happens in their work settings. Frequently, these affective reactions influence how individuals act and react in the workplace and towards their work (e.g., performance outcomes). Daily micro-events include all the tiny things that affect (positively or negatively) employees [12]. Hence, they may be negative—daily hassles (e.g., dealing with someone who is in a rotten mood)—that is, daily micro-events that somehow irritate or frustrate individuals [13,14,15]. On the opposite side, daily micro-events may also be positive—daily uplifts—that is, positive experiences that uplift an individual’s inner states (e.g., interacting with someone who is in a positive mood) [16,17,18,19].
Daily micro-events not only trigger diverse affective reactions, but also influence cognitions (i.e., well-being, life satisfaction) and behaviors (i.e., performance) [5,20]. Hence, we may say that daily micro-events are proximal predictors of affective reactions and distal predictors of well-being.

2.2. The Relationship between Daily Micro-Events, Affect, Well-Being and Performance

Well-being may be analyzed from a hedonic or eudemonic perspective. While the first one combines affective (affective experiences) and cognitive components (life satisfaction) and includes subjective well-being as the main concept, the eudemonic perspective is more focused on self-development and self-actualization as a way to achieve psychological well-being [21]. In this study, we will focus on subjective well-being, that is, the hedonic approach, as it is more linked to the work settings [21,22]. Subjective well-being includes individuals’ perceptions of how good/bad their life is—life satisfaction—and also emphasizes the role of affective daily experiences, in such a way that a happier individual is one who tends to experience more positive affective experiences when compared to negative ones. That is, there must exist a positive ratio of affective experiences, and thus, the positive experiences must outweigh the negative ones [22].
As such, relying on the AET and the empirical work on subjective well-being, we argue that daily micro-events will trigger employees’ affective reactions, and these in turn will influence their subjective well-being [23,24]. Thus, we defined the following hypothesis.
H1. 
Affective reactions mediate the relationship between daily micro-events and subjective well-being.
For organizations, it is important that employees’ performance levels remain high, as this leads to the success of the entire organization, and raises employee satisfaction levels. Performance is related to the set of actions and behaviors that employees take to accomplish relevant organizational goals. It is volatile to the influences of daily micro-events. For example, the micro-behaviors of leaders can trigger trust or mistrust and, at the same time, influence performance [25]. Daily micro-events influence performance due to the affective reactions triggered by such events.
Thus, positive affect at work is related to performance [24,26]. Positive affect leads to improvements in well-being, which in turn, improves creativity and flexibility, as it allows employees to better focus on the tasks to be performed [11]. In addition, receiving positive feedback triggers positive affect, such as happiness, which in turn, contributes to ameliorating job performance.
Positive affect helps employees to cope with daily hassles and enhances their proactivity and resilience. Moreover, positive affect makes the individual less prone to stressful situations and more willing to develop social relationships, which in turn, increases performance [27]. If employees experience more positive affect, they tend to be more productive and have a greater capacity to analyze new experiences and opportunities [16,25].
H2. 
Affective reactions mediate the relationship between daily micro-events and performance.

2.3. The Moderating Role of Mindfulness

Daily micro-events appear to be significant influences on employees’ affective states (e.g., enthusiasm or distress), attitudes (job satisfaction), and behaviors (performance) [14,15]. However, these influences appear to be conditional on personal factors (e.g., traits) [2]. That is, there are some characteristics that may amplify or attenuate the impact of daily micro-events on their subsequent reactions [16,17]. For example, mindful individuals appear to have more neutral or positive reactions to daily hassles when compared to mindless individuals [16,18,19].
Mindfulness has attracted scholars and practitioners as a way to improve employees’ well-being and quality of life (e.g., mindfulness-based interventions applied at work) [28,29]. For instance, hospitality institutions have recognized its importance as a way to develop their employees’ coping strategies and emotional regulation tools [30]. In fact, hospitality institutions increasingly realize the importance of human capital performance in their success, development, and market position. The attention in this sector happens because engaged employees are more likely to work [31]; however, as they do not dedicate as much time to the family domain, they end up experiencing work-family conflict [32].
According to Williams and Mark [33], mindfulness is the ability to be focused on what happens in the present moment, and accept it as it occurs, even if it is not as one would want it to be [34]. Mindfulness may be analyzed as a state or as a trait. When individuals train their mindfulness abilities, they may improve their state levels of mindfulness, which means that they may be mindful in some situations and less mindful in others. When we analyze trait mindfulness, it is related to the natural trend that one has to be immersed in the present moment (self-regulation of attention), have the ability to be non-judgmental, and display an acceptance of what occurs (orientation for daily experiences) [34].
Indeed, researchers have highlighted the role of mindfulness in diverse outcomes, including well-being and happiness [35]. Indeed, some studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of practicing mindfulness to better regulate emotions and distress in the work context [29,34]. Furthermore, mindfulness has also been shown to be a relevant boundary condition that shapes how individuals react to affective experiences [35]. Indeed, when employees are aware of what happens, that is, daily uplifts as well as daily hassles, mindful employees will effectively deal with such events due to their open-minded perspective, tolerance, and acceptance [36,37]. In contrast, mindless employees, when facing unexpected or negative daily micro-events, will tend to face more difficulties accepting it, and as such, their reactions and behaviors may be impaired. For instance, in a daily diary study, mindfulness has been found to moderate the path from daily micro-events to daily gratitude via affect [7]. Similarly, mindfulness was a boundary condition for the relationship between daily micro-events with pets and performance outcomes [10]. Furthermore, other studies have demonstrated the interaction of mindfulness and affect to predict performance, innovation, and learning [38,39]. Thus, we expect (Figure 1):
H3. 
The indirect relationship between daily micro-events and well-being through affective reactions is moderated by mindfulness, such that the indirect effect will be stronger for mindful individuals (versus mindless).
H4. 
The indirect relationship between daily micro-events and performance through affective reactions is moderated by mindfulness, such that the indirect effect will be stronger for mindful individuals (versus mindless).

2.4. The Present Study

To test the proposed moderated mediation model, we resorted to two different samples. The first sample includes individuals who do not practice mindfulness meditation at all, so they do not have any knowledge or ability regarding mindfulness practices. The second sample includes regular mindfulness practitioners—participants who regularly practice meditative mindfulness as a way to cope with daily hassles, demands, or stressful working conditions. We decided to include two samples to understand whether the moderating role of mindfulness would differ between those who regularly practice mindfulness and those who do not.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

3.1.1. Sample I

We contacted managers who worked at different hotels. These managers were chosen as they were part of the researchers’ professional network. The managers who agreed to participate sent an internal email to their human resources director, who sent the invitation to their employees. This invitation was sent by email and contained an explanation of the main research goals, as well as the confidential and anonymous nature of the data, and the link for the online survey. Overall, 300 participants started to answer the survey, but only 216 were recorded as valid responses (response rate = 72%). Of the total participants who answered, 74% were women, and their mean age was 29 years old (SD = 8.82). Most of them were graduated (57%), while the remaining had completed secondary school. Their mean organizational tenure was 4 years (SD = 6.73). Participants performed different functions, including as front officers (45%), barmen (40%), and managers (15%).

3.1.2. Sample II

We contacted mindfulness practitioners who worked in the hospitality area on LinkedIn, and we asked them to participate in a study of the benefits of mindfulness at work. If they agreed to participate in the study, we sent them the link to the survey, and we assured them of anonymity and confidentiality. We sent 250 invitations, of which 176 were valid responses (response rate = 70.4%). The majority of participants were women (70%), with a mean age of 38.32 years old (SD = 11.91) and a mean organizational tenure of 7.20 years (SD = 9). They were mostly graduated (81.2%) or had a high school diploma (18.8%). Overall, they were managers (28%), technicians (25%), front office workers (24%), and restaurant workers (23%).

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Daily Micro-Events

We used the 18-item Scale for Daily Hassles and Uplifts at Work [40]. It measured the frequency of work-related daily hassles (10 items, e.g., “Today, I had to deal with someone in a rotten mood”) and uplifts (eight items, e.g., “Today, I received positive feedback on my performance”) in the last 24 h. Participants used a 5-point Likert scale (1-never; 5-four times or more) (α = 0.79).

3.2.2. Mindfulness

To measure mindfulness, we used the Mindful, Attention, and Awareness Scale [41]. It includes 15 items (e.g., “I find it difficult to stay focused on what is happening in the present”) answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1—never; 7—always) (α = 0.86).

3.2.3. Affective Reactions

We used the 10-item Positive and Negative Affect Scale [42]. It includes five items that measure positive affective reactions (e.g., “Inspired”) and five to assess negative affective reactions (e.g., “Anger”). Participants used a 5-point Likert scale (1 “never”; 5 “always”). The Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.80 and 0.82, for the positive affective dimension and the negative affective one, respectively.

3.2.4. Performance

It was measured with 11 items of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire [43] (“I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time”). Participants used a 5-point Likert scale (1 “seldom”; 5 “always”) to answer (α = 0.86).

3.2.5. Well-Being

This was measured by the 8-item Flourishing Scale [44], assessing self-perceived success in areas such as relationships, self-esteem, purpose, and optimism (e.g., “At my work, people respect me”). Participants used a 5-point Likert scale to answer (1 “totally disagree”; 7 “totally agree”) (α = 0.88).

3.3. Data Analyses

First, we created a ratio for daily micro-events and divided the frequency of daily uplifts by daily hassles. This ratio helps to understand the proportionality of daily micro-events occurring on a given day and as such, is a reliable way to capture the situational influences that employees have. Furthermore, we made the same procedure for affective reactions; that is, we divided the score of positive affective reactions by the negative one.
Then, to test the proposed model, we used the macro-PROCESS on SPSS. To test the mediating models (H1 and H2), we used model 4 as it allows us to calculate not only the direct paths, but also the indirect ones. Furthermore, to test the moderated mediation hypotheses (H3 and H4), we used model 14 as it calculates the conditional indirect effect through confidence intervals (CI) [45].
As both the predictor and criterion variables were measured at the same time, we took some measures to avoid the issue of common method variance. First, Harman’s single factor test was used to assess the common method variance, and it was observed that the single factor accounted for only 19.80% variance, which was much below the standard value of 50%; thus, the common method variance issue was not severe for this study.
Further, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm the independence of the measures used in this study. For that, we used the software JASP version 0.14.1. In line with convention, we used a combination of fit indices—Comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)—to assess the adequacy of the model and afterwards compared the hypothesized model with three reasonable alternative measurement models. The CFI and TLI scores above 0.88 and the SRMR and RMSEA scores below 0.07 were assumed as a model with a good fit to the data.
We tested four alternative models. Model 1 was the hypothesized five-factor model comprising separate scales for daily micro-events, affect, well-being, performance, and mindfulness. Model 2 was a four-factor model where daily micro-events and affect were combined into a unique factor. Model 3 was a three-factor model where daily micro-events, affect, and well-being were combined into a single factor. Model 4 was a one-factor solution in which all the items were loaded onto a single factor. The findings showed that the hypothesized model (Model 1) provided a good fit for the data both for sample I (CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.08 and RMSEA = 0.06) and II (CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.06 and RMSEA = 0.05), and all other alternative models evidenced a poorer fit. These results, together with the Cronbach alpha reliability scores across all the measurement scales, evidenced the discriminant and convergent validity of the study; hence, we proceeded with the hypotheses testing.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities.

4.2. Hypotheses Testing

4.2.1. The Indirect Effect of Affective Reactions between Daily Micro-Events and Well-Being

  • Sample I
The results showed that daily micro-events were positively related to affective reactions (a; B = 0.07, p < 0.01) and affective reactions were positively related to well-being (b; B = 0.24, p < 0.01). Moreover, the indirect effect of daily micro-events on well-being through affective reactions was 0.02 (p < 0.01, 95%CI [0.01, 0.03]), indicating a significant indirect effect. Further, the total effect (c; B = 0.03 p < 0.01) was also significant. However, the relationship between daily micro-events and well-being (c’; B = 0.01, ns), after introducing affective reactions, was not significant, revealing a full indirect effect.
  • Sample II
The results showed that daily micro-events were positively associated with affective reactions (a; B = 0.58, p < 0.01), and these were positively linked to well-being (b; B = 0.35, p < 0.01). The indirect effect was significant (0.20, p < 0.01, 95%CI [0.13, 0.30]) as well as the total effect (c; B = 0.27 p < 0.01). However, the relationship between daily micro-events and well-being (c’; B = 0.07 ns), after introducing affective reactions, was no longer significant, revealing a full indirect effect.
Thus, H1 was supported for both samples.

4.2.2. The Indirect Effect of Affective Reactions between Daily Micro-Events and Performance

  • Sample I
The results showed that daily micro-events were positively related to affective reactions (a; B = 0.07, p < 0.01) and these to performance (b; B = 0.13, p < 0.01). Plus, the results showed a significant indirect effect (0.01, p < 0.05, 95%CI [0.01, 0.02]). The total effect (c; B = 0.03 p < 0.01) and the effect (c’; B = 0.02, p < 0.01) of daily micro-events on performance after affective reactions enter the model were also significant, revealing a partial indirect effect.
  • Sample II
The results demonstrated a positive relationship between daily micro-events and affective reactions (a; B = 0.58, p < 0.01) and between affective reactions and performance (b; B = 0.23, p < 0.01). Moreover, the indirect effect was significant (0.13, p < 0.01, 95%CI [0.07, 0.39]. Further, the total effect (c; B = 0.32 p < 0.01) and the effect (c’; B = 0.19, p < 0.01) of daily micro-events and performance after affective reactions enter the model were also significant, revealing a partial indirect effect.
Thus, H2 was supported for samples I and II.

4.2.3. The Moderated Mediation Effect of Mindfulness

To test these hypotheses (H3 and H4), we divided them into two steps. First, we tested the single moderation effect of mindfulness on the relationship between affective reactions and outcomes (i.e., well-being and performance). Then, we tested the full moderated mediation model (model 14).
  • Sample I
First, the results showed a significant interaction effect between mindfulness and affective reactions (B = 0.17, β = 0.06, ΔR2 = 0.03, p < 0.01). The simple slopes revealed that when the ratio of affective reactions increased, well-being was higher for mindful employees (+1 SD: B = 0.12, β = 0.05, p < 0.01, CI 95% [0.02, 0.21]).
Then, we tested the overall moderated mediation model. The results showed a significantly moderated mediation index (0.01 CI 95% [0.001, 0.03]). Specifically, the indirect effect was conditional upon two levels of the moderator (mindfulness; M: B = 0.01, β = 0.00, p < 0.01, CI95% [0.01, 0.02]; −1 SD: B = 0.02, β = 0.01, p < 0.01, CI95% [0.01, 0.04] (Table 2). The indirect effect was non-significant for mindful employees (+1 SD: B = 0.01, β = 0.01, ns, CI 95% [−0.00, 0.02]). Thus, the indirect effect of daily micro-events on well-being via affective reactions was stronger for mindless employees (Figure 2). It means that mindless employees are more vulnerable to daily micro-events and subsequent affective reactions to feel good. On the other hand, mindful employees are not so dependent on these situational influences, as their well-being was higher (regardless of the existence of a lower ratio of daily micro-events). Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported, but not as expected.
  • Sample II
The results revealed a non-significant interaction effect between mindfulness and affective reactions (B = 0.12, β = 0.07, ΔR2 = 0.01, p = 0.07). Thus, we did not continue with the analysis. Hence, we did not find support for the third hypothesis in sample II.
Hypothesis 4 expected that the indirect relationship between daily micro-events and performance via affective reactions would be moderated by mindfulness, such that the indirect effect would be stronger for mindful individuals (versus mindless).
  • Sample I
The single moderation analysis revealed that the interaction between mindfulness and affective reactions was not significant (B = −0.03, β = 0.05, ns). Thus, we did not keep up with the analysis. Hypothesis 4 was not supported for sample I.
  • Sample II
The single moderation analysis also revealed a non-significant interaction between mindfulness and affective reactions (B = 0.07, β = 0.06, ns). Thus, we did not test the full moderated mediation model. Hypothesis 4 was not supported for sample II.

5. Discussion

This research aims to expand the AET to the context of hospitality. For that, it tests how and when daily micro-events occurring in these working settings predict well-being and performance. Specifically, we explore the indirect effect of affective reactions as a mechanism connecting daily micro-events to well-being and performance. Furthermore, we explore mindfulness as a relevant boundary condition in these relationships. As an added value, we consider two different samples of workers: those who have experience in mindfulness practice and those who do not have any experience.
Overall, the findings show that affective reactions are a significant mechanism through which daily micro-events influence both well-being and performance in hospitality working settings. This is demonstrated for both samples (i.e., both practitioners and non-practitioners). Mindfulness moderates the indirect effect of daily micro-events on well-being via affective reactions, but only for those who do not have training or knowledge in mindfulness practice (sample I). This does not occur for those who regularly engage in mindfulness meditative practices. Furthermore, mindfulness does not moderate the indirect path regarding performance (in none of the samples).

5.1. Theoretical Implications

First, the findings demonstrate that daily micro-events have an affective nature once they trigger affective reactions in both samples. This is consistent with what the AET argues [2]. Indeed, daily micro-events are tiny things that occur frequently at work and tend to shape employees’ affective, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions to them [19,24]. Moreover, affective reactions are a relevant mechanism that links daily micro-events to personal (i.e., well-being) and organizational outcomes (i.e., performance) in hospitality settings [46]. As such, employees in this sector benefit from having a positive ratio of daily micro-events and a positive one in their affective experiences. The higher the ratio, the higher their well-being levels. The AET has been tested on several occupational areas, and the findings have been consistent. That is, the work environment creates conditions for these micro-events to occur, either in the form of daily hassles or in the form of daily uplifts [5]. For instance, some studies demonstrated the beneficial effects of daily uplifts on work engagement and job satisfaction via increases in positive emotions [11]. Furthermore, other studies have evidenced that daily hassles have a reversed effect [47,48]. Notwithstanding, research so far has not expanded it to hospitality working settings. Indeed, hospitality institutions increasingly realize the importance of human capital performance in their success, development, and market position. Attention in this sector happens because engaged employees are more likely to be productive [31] and willing to give more to their institution, and in the long run, become happier [32]. Hence, this study demonstrates the importance that daily micro-events have on hospitality employees’ well-being [5].
Second, our results also show the same mediating pattern for performance, that is, daily micro-events influence job performance via affect. Thus, a higher ratio of daily micro-events (more daily uplifts than daily hassles) improves affective reactions and in turn, boosts performance. This finding is in line with AET and also with recent studies about situational influences on performance. For example, Alam and Singh [49] argued that affective events, such as performance feedback, trigger affect, which influences overall performance. There is also evidence that daily micro-events provoke affective reactions that improve performance [11,16].
Theoretically, the broaden-and-build theory [50] helps to explain how positive emotional experiences lead to positive behaviors in work settings. The theory argues that when employees feel enthusiasm or joyful experiences (among other positive emotional experiences), they experience an enlargement of the patterns of thoughts and behaviors. This enlargement is also known as a broadening of cognitions and behaviors; hence, positive emotions broaden employees’ scope of cognitions and actions, and support the accumulation of personal resources (e.g., focus on the tasks) [51]. The resource accumulation that derives from experiencing positive affective reactions is, thereby, a suitable justification for positive behavior and explains why employees perform better in such experiences.
Third, the results partially support the moderated mediation effect of mindfulness with the sample that does not practice mindfulness. That is, the indirect effect of daily micro-events on well-being via affective reactions was stronger for mindless employees (when compared to mindful employees). In other words, those who score lower on their mindfulness trait appear to be more dependent on situational and affective factors to feel happier. In contrast, those who score higher on their mindfulness trait appear to be happier regardless of the experienced situations. However, this is only significant for the sample who does not practice mindfulness. For this sample, the indirect effect of daily micro-events on well-being via affect appears to be conditional on the levels of mindfulness, suggesting that mindless employees use affect as signals for feeling happier.
Mindfulness is a psychological process that helps employees to be focused on what happens in the present moment without judgment. One possible explanation may derive from the fact that mindless individuals pay less attention to daily micro-events, and only when affect is triggered do they use it for their own good (affect as information). Further, mindless employees appear to be more sensitive to situational experiences, and as such, are more volatile to those. In contrast, mindful employees do not need daily micro-events and do not use affect to feel better, as they may have created their own strategies (emotional regulation, reappraisal, acceptance) to feel regularly happy [36]. Hence, while mindful employees may be more aware of what happens, they may also be less sensitive to situational experiences, and as such, they can achieve a balanced level of well-being [30,36].
Nevertheless, mindfulness does not moderate the indirect effect of daily micro-events on performance through affective reactions. This demonstrates that the indirect effect is not conditional upon the levels of mindfulness. Despite the positive direct effect of mindfulness on performance, it did not interact with affective reactions to predict it. This is not consistent with the studies demonstrating that mindfulness is a condition that helps to amplify the beneficial effects of positive affective states on performance [29]. Indeed, mindfulness has been shown to amplify the influence of positive affect on performance as it helps individuals to create behavioral strategies to deal with negative emotions and savor positive ones [6,28]. For instance, in their daily diary study [7], the authors showed that mindfulness moderated the relationship between daily micro-events and gratitude via affect, such that it was stronger for mindfulness individuals, as they engaged in strategies that allowed for an improved savoring of the positive things that have happened to them. However, this study shows that mindfulness does not moderate the indirect path of daily micro-events on performance via affective reactions.
In conclusion, affect mediates the relationship between daily micro-events and well-being and performance. Moreover, mindfulness moderates the mediated relationship between daily micro-events and well-being via affective reactions for the non-practitioner sample; lower levels of mindfulness were positively related to well-being, but it does not moderate the indirect effect regarding performance. This study is considered to have applicability to the hospitality environment and the final conclusions are important as it focuses in particular on the role of mindfulness in hospitality environments.

5.2. Practical Implications

Managers may incorporate some conclusions for their daily managerial practice. First, it appears to be relevant to create conditions that stimulate the frequency of daily uplifts in hospitality settings. It could lead not only to improvements in employees’ well-being and performance, but could also serve to ameliorate the working climate. Furthermore, as daily hassles are also part of a working day, employees must have tools to better deal with them. As such, managers should promote training for their employees to better manage their emotions and how they deal with daily hassles. These strategies would also account for attaining sustainable related goals, such as creating a workforce that is happy and balanced. S-HRM aim to increase sustainability at different levels (e.g., economic, ecological, social, or organizational). When considering organizational goals, managers develop sustainable plans (e.g., mindfulness online training) to improve their employees’ happiness.
Finally, because mindful employees appear to be more consistent in their levels of well-being, maybe it should be interesting for managers to create moments for daily hassles to be shared, and act mindfully towards them. For instance, during breaks, managers could encourage their employees to practice mindfulness.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

There are some limitations to consider, and most of them are related to the sample. Each sample should include more participants, as both samples have a small sample size—both the mindfulness practitioner’s sample and the non-practitioner’s one. The majority of each sample was female. Hence, it may limit the generalization of the findings. Moreover, we only analyze one specific work setting: the hospitality context. Lastly, this study resorts to self-report measures and collected only once, which may lead to the potential common method bias.
Future studies should expand these findings with a larger sample and through a daily approach. Daily micro-events should be explored through the lens of dynamic approaches, as they present different patterns throughout the working day.

6. Conclusions

To sum up, the AET is a theoretical framework suitable for hospitality contexts. That is, daily micro-events impact well-being and performance via experienced affective reactions in these settings, across samples. However, mindfulness only moderates the indirect effect of daily micro-events on well-being via affect, but only for those who are not mindfulness practitioners. In particular, mindless employees achieve higher levels of well-being when there is an increase in the ratio of both daily micro-events and resultant affective reactions. That is, those who are not mindful appear to need more of the stimulus of situational factors and affective signals to feel good, whereas those who are mindful are less dependent on such influences, as they can achieve higher levels of well-being by themselves. Lastly, mindfulness does not moderate the indirect effect of daily micro-events on performance via affective reactions.

Author Contributions

A.J.-S.: Conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation funding acquisition; E.L.: investigation; writing—review and editing, visualization. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, grant UIDB/00315/2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of ISCTE—Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (34HR 05.10.2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. OECD. Health at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Weiss, H.M.; Cropanzano, R. Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work. 1996. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-98665-001 (accessed on 13 February 2023).
  3. Ana, J.-S.; Pombeira, C.; Caetano, A. Testing the affective events theory: The mediating role of affect and the moderating role of mindfulness. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2021, 35, 1075–1081. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ohly, S.; Schmitt, A. What makes us enthusiastic, angry, feeling at rest or worried? Development and validation of an affective work events taxonomy using concept mapping methodology. J. Bus. Psychol. 2015, 30, 15–35. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10869-013-9328-3 (accessed on 15 February 2023). [CrossRef]
  5. Hawkes, A.J.; Neale, C.M. Mindfulness beyond wellbeing: Emotion regulation and team-member exchange in the workplace. Aust. J. Psychol. 2020, 72, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rich, R.M.; Ogden, J.; Morison, L. A randomized controlled trial of an app-delivered mindfulness program among university employees: Effects on stress and work-related outcomes. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 2021, 14, 201–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Junça-Silva, A.; Mosteo, L.; Lopes, R.R. The role of mindfulness on the relationship between daily micro-events and daily gratitude: A within-person analysis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2023, 200, 111891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nieves, J.; Haller, S. Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liu, C.-H.S. Examining social capital, organizational learning and knowledge transfer in cultural and creative industries of practice. Tour. Manag. 2018, 64, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Junça-Silva, A. Should I pet or should I work? Human-animal interactions and (tele) work engagement: An exploration of the underlying within-level mechanisms. Pers. Rev. 2022. ahead of print. [Google Scholar]
  11. Donald, J.N.; Atkins, P.W.; Parker, P.D.; Christie, A.M.; Ryan, R.M. Daily stress and the benefits of mindfulness: Examining the daily and longitudinal relations between present-moment awareness and stress responses. J. Res. Personal. 2016, 65, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Junça Silva, A.; Neves, P.; Caetano, A. Procrastination is not only a “thief of time”, but also a thief of happiness: It buffers the beneficial effects of telework on well-being via daily micro-events of IT workers. Int. J. Manpow. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Junça-Silva, A.; Caetano, A.; Lopes, R.R. Daily uplifts, well-being and performance in organizational settings: The differential mediating roles of affect and work engagement. J. Happiness Stud. 2017, 18, 591–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Newman, D.B.; Nezlek, J.B. The Influence of Daily Events on Emotion Regulation and Well-Being in Daily Life. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2021, 48, 0146167220980882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Junça-Silva, A. The furr-recovery method: Interacting with furry Co-workers during work time is a micro-break that recovers workers’ regulatory resources and contributes to their performance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Arnold, K.A.; Dupré, K.E. Perceived organizational support, employee health and emotions. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 2012, 5, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Junça-Silva, A.; Rueff Lopes, R. Unfriendly customer behaviors and employees’ psychological capital: The role of health symptoms and positive humor events. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brutus, S.; Javadian, R.; Panaccio, A.J. Cycling, car, or public transit: A study of stress and mood upon arrival at work. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 2017, 10, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fisher, C.D. Happiness at work. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 384–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chong, S.; Huang, Y.; Chang, C.H.D. Supporting interdependent telework employees: A moderated-mediation model linking daily COVID-19 task setbacks to next-day work withdrawal. J. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 105, 1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 95, 542. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-2350-6_2 (accessed on 15 February 2023). [CrossRef]
  22. Jebb, A.T.; Morrison, M.; Tay, L.; Diener, E. Subjective well-being around the world: Trends and predictors across the life span. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 31, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. De Carlo, N.A.; Falco, A.; Pierro, A.; Dugas, M.; Kruglanski, A.W.; Higgins, E.T. Regulatory mode orientations and well-being in an organizational setting: The differential mediating roles of workaholism and work engagement. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 44, 725–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shao, Y.; Fang, Y.; Wang, M.; Chang CH, D.; Wang, L. Making daily decisions to work from home or to work in the office: The impacts of daily work-and COVID-related stressors on next-day work location. J. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 106, 825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mo, S.; Shi, J. Linking ethical leadership to employee burnout, workplace deviance and performance: Testing the mediating roles of trust in leader and surface acting. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 144, 293–303. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-015-2821-z (accessed on 20 February 2023). [CrossRef]
  26. Anderson, A.J.; Kaplan, S.A.; Vega, R.P. The impact of telework on emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being? Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2015, 24, 882–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Diener, E.; Pressman, S.D.; Hunter, J.; Delgadillo-Chase, D. If, why, and when subjective well-being influences health, and future needed research. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2017, 9, 133–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pirson, M.; Langer, E.J.; Bodner, T.; Zilcha-Mano, S. The Development and Validation of the Langer Mindfulness Scale-Enabling a Socio-Cognitive Perspective of Mindfulness in Organizational Contexts. Fordham University Schools of Business Research Paper. 2012. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2158921 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  29. Scheepers, R.A.; Emke, H.; Epstein, R.M.; Lombarts, K.M. The impact of mindfulness-based interventions on doctors’ well-being and performance: A systematic review. Med. Educ. 2020, 54, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Michalak, J.; Mander, J.; Heidenreich, T. Implementation and Dissemination of Mindfulness-Based Interventions. Mindfulness 2020, 11, 275–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bakker, A.B. An evidence-based model of work engagement. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 20, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Halbesleben, J.R.; Bowler, W.M. Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Williams JMark, G. Mindfulness, depression and modes of mind. Cogn. Ther. Res. 2008, 32, 721–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bishop, S.R.; Lau, M.; Shapiro, S.; Carlson, L.; Anderson, N.D.; Carmody, J.; Segal, Z.V.; Abbey, S.; Speca, M.; Velting, D.; et al. Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 2004, 11, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Langer, E.J. Mindfulness; Addison-Wesley/Addison Wesley Longman: Boston, MA, USA, 1989; Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-97542-000 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  36. Mellor, N.J.; Ingram, L.; Van Huizen, M.; Arnold, J.; Harding, A.H. Mindfulness training and employee well-being. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 2016, 9, 126–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mosteo, L.; Junça-Silva, A.; Lopes, R.R. Gratitude intersects with affect as a boundary condition for daily satisfaction: An affective dynamics perspective. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being, 2022; online version of record. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kersemaekers, W.; Rupprecht, S.; Wittmann, M.; Tamdjidi, C.; Falke, P.; Donders, R.; Kohls, N. A workplace mindfulness intervention may be associated with improved psychological well-being and productivity. A preliminary field study in a company setting. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Petchsawang, P.; McLean, G.N. Workplace spirituality, mindfulness meditation, and work engagement. J. Manag. Spiritual. Relig. 2017, 14, 216–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Junça-Silva, A.; Caetano, A.; Lopes, R.R. A working day in the life of employees: Development and validation of the scale for daily has- sles and uplifts at work. TPM Test. Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 27, 221–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brown, K.W.; Ryan, R.M. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Watson, D.; Clark, L.A.; Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Koopmans, L.; Bernaards, C.; Hildebrandt, V.; van Buuren, S.; Van der Beek, A.J.; de Vet, H.C. Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2013, 62, 6–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Diener, E.; Wirtz, D.; Tov, W.; Kim-Prieto, C.; Choi, D.W.; Oishi, S.; Biswas-Diener, R. New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 97, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hayes, A. Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Commun. Monogr. 2018, 85, 4–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sinha, E.S. The skills and career path of an effective project manager. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2001, 19, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Braukmann, J.; Schmitt, A.; Ďuranová, L.; Ohly, S. Identifying ICT-related affective events across life domains and examining their unique relationships with employee recovery. J. Bus. Psychol. 2018, 33, 529–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Drake, A.; Doré, B.P.; Falk, E.B.; Zurn, P.; Bassett, D.S.; Lydon-Staley, D.M. Daily stressor-related negative mood and its associations with flourishing and daily curiosity. J. Happiness Stud. 2022, 23, 423–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alam, M.; Singh, P. Performance feedback interviews as affective events: An exploration of the impact of emotion regulation of negative performance feedback on supervisor–employee dyads. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2021, 31, 100740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fredrickson, B.L. What good are positive emotions? Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2, 300–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Fredrickson, B.L. Positive emotions broaden and build. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013; Volume 47, pp. 1–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 07168 g001 550
Figure 1. Overview of the hypothesized moderated mediation model.
Figure 1. Overview of the hypothesized moderated mediation model.
Sustainability 15 07168 g001
Sustainability 15 07168 g002 550
Figure 2. Interaction between mindfulness and affective reactions on well-being.
Figure 2. Interaction between mindfulness and affective reactions on well-being.
Sustainability 15 07168 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and reliabilities.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and reliabilities.
M (SI, SII)SD (SI, SII)12345
1. Daily micro-events3.56, 1.585.12, 0.63-
2. Performance3.98, 3.900.52, 0.510.29 **, 0.40 **-
3. Affect2.05, 1.890.92, 0.790.42 **, 0.46 **0.32 **, 0.46 **-
4. Mindfulness2.50, 2.530.59, 0.58−0.24 **, −0.32 **−0.31 *, −0.37 **−0.35 **, −0.35 **-
5. Well-being3.91, 3.990.58, 0.580.26 **, 0.29 **0.57 **, 0.49 **0.41 **, 0.51 **−0.35 **, −0.26 **-
Note. SI = Sample I (n = 211) SII = Sample II (n = 182). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 2. Conditional indirect effects at the different levels of the moderator (Sample I).
Table 2. Conditional indirect effects at the different levels of the moderator (Sample I).
MindfulnessB(SE)LL CI 95%ULCI 95%
Well-being
−1 SD0.020.010.010.04
M0.010.010.010.02
+1 SD0.010.01−0.000.02
R20.26 **
Note. n = 211. Regression coefficients are non-standardized. Bootstrapped samples = 5000. LL: lower limit; UL: Upper limit; CI: confidence interval; SE: Standardized error. ** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Junça-Silva, A.; Lopes, E. Testing the Affective Events Theory in Hospitality Management: A Multi-Sample Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097168

AMA Style

Junça-Silva A, Lopes E. Testing the Affective Events Theory in Hospitality Management: A Multi-Sample Approach. Sustainability. 2023; 15(9):7168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097168

Chicago/Turabian Style

Junça-Silva, Ana, and Eunice Lopes. 2023. "Testing the Affective Events Theory in Hospitality Management: A Multi-Sample Approach" Sustainability 15, no. 9: 7168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097168

APA Style

Junça-Silva, A., & Lopes, E. (2023). Testing the Affective Events Theory in Hospitality Management: A Multi-Sample Approach. Sustainability, 15(9), 7168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097168

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