Do feelings matter? The effect of leader affective presence on employee proactive customer service performance

Abstract

Purpose Applying affect-as-information theory, this research analyzed the relationship of leader affective presence and employee proactive customer service performance (PCSP) in hospitality organizations. It further explored when and how leader affective presence influenced employee PCSP. Design/methodology/approach Taking a sample of 110 teams with 361 pairs of leaders and employees in Chinese hotels, a moderated mediation model was tested across individual and team levels using hierarchical linear modeling. Findings This study found that leader positive affective presence (LPAP) had a positive effect on employee PCSP, whereas leader negative affective presence (LNAP) had a negative effect on employee PCSP. Employee prosocial motivation mediated the relationship between leader affective presence and employee PCSP. The employee power distance value weakened the LNAP–employee prosocial motivation relationship, which subsequently mitigated the negative indirect effect of LNAP on employee PCSP through employee prosocial motivation. Research limitations/implications The sample was drawn from one hotel group in China, which may limit external validity. Practical implications Hospitality organizations should emphasize the affective traits of leaders in employee initiatives. Leader affective presence should be considered during recruitment and promotion. Management should pay more attention to employee emotional management and value alignment. Originality/value The findings provide deeper insight into the role of LPAP and LNAP in influencing employees’ PCSP. It sheds new light on the mechanisms and conditions through which leader affective presence might heighten or hinder employee PCSP.

Can “bad” stressors spark “good” behaviors in frontline employees? Incorporating motivation and emotion

“…Second, the proposed framework, linking motivation and hindrance stressors to emotions, offers a richer explanation of customer-contact boundary-spanning behaviors. Particularly, this framework advances research on frontline employee behaviors by going beyond conventional knowledge of job-related tension and negative emotions and how to mitigate such stressors (Adam, 2019; Kim et al , 2019), and by advocating positive motivations and managing emotions to trigger a more proactive stance in above-and-beyond performance (Chon and Zoltan, 2019; Jiang et al , 2020). Thus, this study extends and enriches the understanding of stressor-induced performance-related behavior from motivational and emotional standpoints, contributing to organizational behavior research in both general business contexts (Crawford et al , 2010; Hosie et al , 2019; Lu et al , 2016; Naseer et al , 2020; Stamper and Johlke, 2003) and hospitality settings (Kang and Jang, 2019; Min et al , 2015; Yousaf et al , 2020).…”

Impact of organizational mistreatment on employee performance in the hotel industry

“…Organizational stressors largely impact the employee performance of hotel employees (Kloutsiniotis and Mihail, 2020). According to Jiang et al (2020), employees facing stressors in organizations experience fatigue. Employees who experience loss of resources do not mobilize their resources effectively (Sarwar et al, 2020a(Sarwar et al, , 2020b, which may hamper the IJCHM 33,2 employees ability to make accurate decision (Fernet et al, 2019).…”

“…This study contributes to the literature by considering the behavioral outcome of organizational dehumanization, particularly employee performance. Recent studies in hotel management have considered leaders and employee performance (Jiang et al, 2020;Kaya and Karatepe, 2020). This study contributes in literature by investigating the mechanism and the boundary conditions of organizational and interpersonal stressors in the context of the Eastern culture.…”

Abusive Supervision, Affective Commitment, Customer Orientation, and Proactive Customer Service Performance: Evidence From Hotel Employees in China

“…It is also positively associated with self-efficacy at the individual level and initiative climate at the establishment level (Raub and Liao, 2012;Lau et al, 2017) and negatively affected by leadermember exchange differentiation (Cheng T. et al, 2020) and workplace mistreatment, such as workplace sexual harassment (Li et al, 2016). As far as the leadership style is concerned, some researchers have just explored it from the perspective of positive leadership, including participative leadership and transformational leadership (Jiang et al, 2020;Wu et al, 2020). In addition to positive leadership, in the service field, destructive leadership is also a common leadership style; in fact, destructive leadership is more likely to have a strong and lasting impact on employees' behavior than positive leadership (Baumeister et al, 2001).…”