Locus of Control vs. Employee Empowerment and the Relationship

with Hotel Managers' Job Satisfaction

John Salazar Carl Pfaffenberg

Leta Salazar

ABSTRACT. The researchers exvlwe the effects of locus of control and empowerment on hotel managers' job satisfaction. Sixty-eight par- ticipants at a hotel managers' meeting for a major southeastern hotel management company were surveyed. In addition to satisfaction and control queries, some demographic tags were identified, specifically gender and race. While locus of control was proven to be directly related to satisfaction, it was not a predictor. Partial support of two additional hypotheses was achieved. [Article copies available fora fee from Tlie Hcworth Doccrment Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docilelive~y@ haworthpress.com> Website: <lzttp://www.HaworthPress.com> O 2006 by Tlze Hnworth Piess, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Locus of control, empowerment, job satisfaction, hotel manager, industrial/organizational behavior

John Salazar, PhD, CHE, is Associate Professor of Hospitality Management and Di- rector of the Hilton I-Iead Institute for Tourism, University of South Carolina, 1 Univer- sity Boulevard, Bluffton, SC 29909.

Carl Plaffeenberg, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Hospitality Administration, Ste- phen F. Austin State University, Box 13014 SFA Station, Nacogdoches, TX 75962.

Leta Salazar, MS, is Adjunct Professor of Hospitality, Pellissippi State Technical Community College, 10915 Hardin Valley Road, Knoxville, TN 37933-0990.

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 5(1) 2006 Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JHFMT

O 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All reserved. doi: 10.1300/J171v05n01~01 1

2 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM

INTRODUCTION

Job satisfaction research is abundant in the hospitality discipline. Employee satisfaction with the organization, their supervisor, and work environment have been found to contribute to the employee's appraisal of the work situation and work related behaviors (Testa et al., 1998). Various studies have explored the relationship between job characteris- tics and employee satisfaction, and those studies often include both dis- posilion and situational effects on attitudinal positions.

Dispositional factors have been considered as having an influence on attitudinal positions within the workplace. Dispositional factors are in- dividual characteristics that include personality, education, gender, and family roles. Locus of control is often considered a dispositional factor that influences employee perceptions. It is considered a dispositional trait because it develops through learned behavior and the reinforce- ment of that behavior.'Therefore, the trait is inherent to an individual prior to being hired by an organization. However, situational characler- istics are also considered as having an effect on workplace perceptions. Situational traits include job characteristics, organizational characteris- tics, and promotion opportunity (Hackman and Odham, 1980). Re- searchers have asserted that empowerment strategies are situational tactics that managers utilize to positively affect employee motivation and satisfaction.

While both locus and empowerment practices have been theorized as having an influence on employee perceptions, limited research exists that explores both constructs and their concunent effects on employee satisfaction. More specifically, the research is non-existent in the hospi- tality discipline. This research explores the effects of locus and empow- erment on hotel managers' job satisfaction and compares the effects of both dispositional and situational traits on satisfaction.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Constl-uct of Locus of Corttrol

Locus of co~~tro l evolved from ~ulian Rotter's (1954) social learning theory of personality. It is related to learned behavior and the reinforce- ment of such behavior (Rotter, 1966). Bell and Staw (1989) considerlo- cus of control to be a dispositional (personality) trait. The construct refers to the extent of the belief of a person in terms of whether or not the

Salazal; Pfc~ffenberg, and Salazar 3

individual believes that actions taken can affect outcomes. If someone feels that (s)he is in control of what happens, then (s)he has an internal locus of control. Persons with a high degree of internal control are more confident and assertive, are active searchers for information that will help them to achieve their own objectives, and are attracted to situations that offer opportunities of achievement (Bush, 1988). In contrast, if someone feels that fate, luck, or chance affects what happens to him or her then (s)he has an external locus of control. Externally controlled persons see that reinforcement does not come from their own behaviors but from events that are beyond their capacity.

Many studies have been conducted regarding locus of control (Dailey, 1980; Kasperson, 1982; Knoop, 1981 ; and Martin, Marsh, Williamson, and Debus, 2003). Dailey's (1980) study of 281 scientists addressed the relationship, betwhen locus of control and task variability, task diffi- culty, and job performance. He found that persons with an internal locus of control were more satisfied, motivated and had a high level of partici- pation within their jobs. Kasperson (1 982) completed a study of hospi- tal employees, which revealed a high positive correlation between negative atlit~ides and external locus of control. This resulted in a low satisfaction level with the job. Those with positive attitudes are gener- ally more satisfied with outcomes because of the amount of control they have to make things happen. Knoop (1981) discovered a relationship between persons with an internal locus of control and how they looked at their jobs in terms of skill variety, task uniqueness and consequence, self-sufficiency, and feedback from the job. Lastly, Martin et al. (2003) recently found a positive relationship between locus of control and goal orientation among university students. Persons with an internal locus of control felt that they were given more opportunities to engage in posi- tive work outcomes.

An individual's locus of control can greatly impact work and life. Someone with an internal locus of control would see challenges as op- portunities for learning and professional growth. In contrast, someone with an external locus of control would ignore these challenges due to their sense that learning will not have an impact on himlher (Norvilitis, Szablicki, and Wilson, 2003). Findings of a study by Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1998) determined that locus of control is highly correlated with self-efficacy. They define self-efficacy as one's esti- mate of one's capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise general control over events in one's life.

4 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM

Empowerment is a concept within management circles that has be- come increasingly popular over the past 20 years. Its definition tends to vary depending on the situation in which it is used. Empowerment is a human resources term that involves a power transfer from higher levels of employees to lower levels of employees within an organiza- tion (Cunningham, Hayman, and Baldry, 1996). The theory of em- powerment is that employees when given the opportunity to enjoy more autonoiny in decision-making, will enjoy greater satisfaction with their jobs. This satisfaction provides catalytic assistance towards increased organizational loyalty, productivity and custo~ner satisfac- tion. If employees are loyal, productive, and happy with their jobs, the or- ganization benefits through greater customer satisfaction (Cunningham et al., 1996; and Cordery, 1995).

Within the literature, empowerment runs the gamut of autho~ity- from the ability to suggest items for incorporation up to and including the authority to execute the suggestions without approval from higher management (Yagil, 2002). However, the lack of distinguishii~g be- tween minor and major forms of empowerment may lead to manage- ment confusion andlor poor execution of empowerment strategies.

Spreitzer (1997) divided empowerment into two perspectives. The first perspective defines empowerment as having power in the organiza- tion and power to make decisions. This forin of empowerment can be achieved through delegation or sharing of power. This perspective is re- ferred to as the relational perspective. The second perspective on em- powerment is more psychological in nature and is viewecl as subjective. Spreitzer (1995) calls it the psychological perspective. The psychologi- cal perspective is co~nprised of four dimensions: (1) meaning, (2) com- petence, (3) self-determination, and (4) impact. These dimensions are not predictors or outcomes of empowerment but rather comprise its very essence (Spreitzer, 1997). Whetten and Cameron (1995) cited

I , Spreitzer's research as one of the best empirical studies of empower- I ment to date. They also offered one additional dimension to the model. i This fifth dimension was trust. A sense of trust allows an employee to

1 feel confident that they will be treated fairly and equitably. Ron Zemke and Dick Schaaf, in the Service Edge: 101 Companies

That Profitfrom Customer Care (Zemke and Schaaf, 1989), noted that empowerment is a common theme running through many, even most, of

I I their excellent service businesses, such as American Airlines, Marriott, I American Express, and Federal Express. It means turning the front line

Salazal; Pfclffenberg, and Salazar 5

loose-encouraging and rewarding employees to exercise initiative and imagination. Therefore, empowerment may be the reverse of doing things by the book (Bowen and Lawler, 1992).

According to Bowen and Lawler (1992), a benefit of empowerment is that employees will feel better about their jobs and themselves. Let- ting employees call the shots allows them to feel "ownership" of the job; they feel responsible for it and find the work meaningful. Bowen and Lawler (1992) continued to state that job design research shows when employees have a sense of control and are doing meaningful work they are more satisfied. This leads to lower turnover, less absenteeism, and fewer union organizing drives.

The management literature treats empowerment as a relational con- struct emphasizing social exchange theory. In this context, empower- ment is the process where a manager shares power with subordinates. This power is interpreted as the formal authority over organizational re- sources. However, more prevalent is the psychology literature where the notion of empowerment is viewed as a motivational construct focus- ing on intrinsic characteristics of people (Spreitzer, 1997). Power is viewed as enabling people to develop personal efficacy through creat- ing conditions for heightened motivation for task accomplishment (Geralis and Terziovski, 2003).

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the degree to which an individual feels positively or negatively about various aspects of the job (Schermerhorn, 1996). According to Loscocco and Roschelle (1991), the assumption of the definition is that people can balance their specific satisfactions and dis- satisfactions to arrive at a general degree of satisfaction with their job. They believe that specific individual and situational characteristics in- fluence job satisfaction. Individual characteristics include personality, education, gender, and family roles, while situational includes job char- acteristics, organizational characteristics, and promotion opportunity (Hackman and Odham, 1980).

Regardless of which characteristics influence job satisfaction, em- ployee satisfaction with the organization, their supervisor, and work en- vironment has been found to contribute to the employee's appraisal of the work situation and work related behaviors (Testa et al., 1998). Locke (1969) defined job satisfaction as the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one's job values. Job dissatisfaction is the unpleasurable

6 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM

emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job as frustxating or blocking the attainment of one's job values. Research by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) defined job satisfaction as the feelings a worker has about hislher job or job experiences in relation to previous experiences, current expectations, or available alternatives. They asserted that em- ployees are satisfied when they have positive feelings about their work. If employees feel negatively about their jobs, they can be classified as dissatisfied. Ugboro and Obengk's (2003) empirical studies of TQM or- ganizations supported the findings of Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969).

Additioilal research has indicated that those who are dissatisfied on the job are more likely to leave their current position than the satisfied employees (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Megliano, 1979). Further- more, organizational commitment is directly influenced by their level of overall job satisfaction-the higher the job satisfaction, the higher the or- ganizational commitment (Dubinsky and Skinner, 1984). LaLopa's (1997) research involving non-supervisory hospitality employees sup- ported this by indicating that satisfaction is the most important variable to consider when studying turnover intentions because it is generally re- garded as triggering the turnover process, ultimately leading to inten- tions to quit, and final quit or stay decisions.

Job satisfaction can be a leading contributor to the success of a ser- vice industry employer. It is axiomatic that satisfied einployees tend to lead to satisfied guests. Another benefit of job satisfaction is seduced turnover. Research has shown that satisfied employees are more likely to stay in the organization than those who are dissatisfied (Mobley et al., 1979; and Salazar and Hubbard, 2000). Therefore, by focusing on what contributes to job satisfaction, an ot-ginization can reduce turnover.

By evaluating job satisfaction an organization can possibly increase positive outcomes such as employee performance and satisfaction, and decrease absenteeism and turnover. Investigating the employee or em- ployee's value-perception can aid in managers building and creating work environments that help them achieve high levels of employee sat- isfaction. The intention of investigating einployee job satisfaction is a step toward creating a healthy psychoIogical contract for people at work (S chermerhorn, 1996).

Locus of Control, Empowerment, and Job Satisfaction

Locus of control is often considered as a dispositional factor that in- fluences einployee perceptions of work satisfaction. Whereas, empow- erment is a construct that is a psychological trait based on relational

Salazar, Pfuffenberg, and Salazar 7

exchanges between the organization and its employees. Therefore, lo- cus is considered a personality trait that can remain a stable employee characteristic, while empowerment strategies are situational factors that can be managed through organizational structure and policies. Those policies and procedures directly influence employee perceptions. How- ever, while both are often considered as having an influence on em- ployee satisfaction, motivation, and turnover intentions, limited studies exist that examine the concurrent relationships of locus of control and empowerment on employee satisfaction. More specifically, studies com- paring the dispositional employee characteristic (locus of control) with situational factors (employee perceptions of empowerment) and inves- tigating for the effects of the constructs on satisfaction of hospitality managers is non-existent. Therefore, the primary objective of this study examined the influence of both constructs on job satisfaction of hotel managers. As a result the following hypotheses were developed.

HI: The dispositional characteristic of locus of control will predict hotel manageis' job satisfaction when controlling for self-percep- tions of empowerment.

H2: The situational characteristic of empowerment will predict hotel managers' job satisfaction when controlling for locus of control.

H3: Both dispositional and situational characteristics will predict hotel managers' job satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY

For this study, survey research was utilized and data were collected using a directly administered questionnaire. An information letter was given to potential participants describing the study to be conducted. Subjects were attending a hotel managers' meeting held in the south- eastern United States. Hotel managers who voluntarily participated, completed the survey and mailed it back to the investigator.

Participants

Sixty-eight (n = 68) of 70 sumeys were completed and returned for a response rate of ninety-seven percent. The convenience sample was comprised of corporate managers, hotel general managers, and assistant

Suluzal; Pfuflenberg, and Salnzar 9

nation from .638 to .881, for competency from .683 to .765, for impact from .798 to .823 and for trust from .730 to .888. Thereliabilities ranged from .7838 (competence) to .8637 (trust).

Job Satisfaction. Two items were used to measure overall job satis- faction. The items were answered utilizing a seven-point Likert scale: 1 = very strongly disagree; 2 = strongly disagree; 3 = disagree; 4 = neither disagree nor agree; 5 = agree; 6 = strongly agree; and 7 = very strongly agree. The higher the rating the more satisfied the individual was in their job. The measurement items were adopted from previous hotel sat- isfaction surveys that were utilized for employee satisfaction investiga- tion by a major hotel corporation. Additionally, the items had been used in previous job satisfaction research (Salazar, 2000; Salazar and Hub- bard, 2000). The items were summed and divided by two in order to achieve a mean score for the overall job satisfaction construct.

Research Design

Data were analyzed utilizing the Statistical Program for Social Sci- ences (SPSS) version 11.0 (SPSS Inc., 2004) software. In order to in- vestigate for the relationships between hotel managers' locus of control and job satisfaction while controlling for self-perceptions of empower- ment, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted.

DATA ANALYSES

Descriptive Stutistics

The locus of control score for males had a range between 0 and 13, while the female score had a range between 0 and 11. As previously stated, the lower an individual's score, the more internal the locus of control, while the higher locus score represents an external locus of con- trol. The locus of control mean score for males was 3.52, while the fe- male mean score was 3.59. The locus of control range for Caucasian hotel managers was between 0 and 13, with a mean score of 3.61. Mi- nority managers had a range between 0 and I 1 and a mean score of 3.25. The locus score for all hotel managers (regardless of race and gender) had a range between 0 and 13 and a mean score of 3.55. Cronbach's alpha for locus of control was .6258.

Table I indicates the mean empowerment scores for Caucasians, minorities, males, females, and all managers. The standard deviations

10 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES INHOSPITALITY & TOURISM

for each construct are identified in the parentheses. Chronbach's alpha reliabilities ranged from .7838 (competence) to .8637 (trust).

Table 2 depicts the descriptive statistics for overall job satisfaction. The job satisfaction score for males had arange between 3 and 7, while the female score had a range between 2.5 and 7. The mean satisfaction score for males was 5.36, while the female mean score was 5.51. The job satisfaction range for Caucasian hotel managers was between 3 and 7, with a mean score of 5.59. Minority managers had a range between 3 and 6.5 and a mean score of 5. Job satisfaction of all hotel managers had a range between 2.5 and 7 and a mean score of 5.4. Cronbach's alpha for job satisfaction was .8883.

As previously stated, a hierarchical multiple regression was con- ducted to investigate HI, H2, and H3. For the locus of control scale a low score indicates internal tendencies, while higher scores indicate ex- ternal tendencies. However, for the empowerment and the overall job satisfaction scale, a low score indicates a lower degree of empowerment or dissatisfied, while a high score indicates higher degrees of empower- ment or satisfied. Therefore, the researchers investigated for an inverse relationship between locus and both empowerment and job satisfaction.

The analysis was used to detesmine the variables that are significant predictors of overall job satisfaction. Independent variables considered

TABLE 1. Mean scores for Empowerment Constructs i

I N Meaninofulness Comwetencj Sek hni2al BUS! Determination I Caucasians 53 6.29(.78) 5.90(.83) 5.74(.98) 4.92(1.16) 5.42(1.09)

Minorities 8 5.84(1.06) 5.62(.69) 5.87(.48) 4.81 (.78) 5.37(.77)

I Male 19 6.10(1.08) 5.76(.85) 5.78(.66) 4.88(1.18) 5.43(1.28).

Female 43 6.25(.74) 5.89(.80) 5.73(1.02) 4.89(1 .lo) 5.36(.99)

All Managers 67 6.20(.85) 5.89(.80) 5.76(.91) 4.91(1.10) 5.37(1.07)

TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics for Overall Job Satisfaction

N Mean. SD - Caucasians - 54 5.59 .98

Minorities 8 5.00 1.16

Male 19 5.36 1.30

Female 44 5.51 .97

All Managers 68 5.40 1.09

Snlazar, Pfaffenberg, and Sulnzur I 1

in the equation were locus of control and the individual empowerment constructs of meaningfulness, competency, self-determination, impact, and trust. All independent variables were entered into the model in or- der of theoretical importance: (a) locus of control, (b) meaningfulness, (c) competency, (d) self-determination, (e) impact, and ( f ) trust.

The Pearson correlation coefficients revealed that locus of control and all empowerment constructs significantly correlated with job satisfaction: locus (r = -.211, n = 67, p < .05); meaningfulness (r = ,575, n = 67, p < .05), competency (r = .261, n = 67,p < .05), self-determination (r = .367, n = 67,p < .05), impact (r= .514, n = 67,p < .05), and tn~st (r= .641, n=67,p < .05). The final regression model indicated that all the entered independent variables explained 52% of the variance in overall job satisfaction. How- ever, as shown in Table 3, only tr~lst and meaningfulness were significant predictors of satisfaction.

RESULTS I

Initial analyses of descriptive data indicated that the average mean lo- cus score for all hotel managers is 3.55. For comparison purposes corpo- rate business executives have an average mean score of 8.29, while elite career military officers score 8.29 as well (Whetten and Cameron, 2002). Though the scores varied according to race and gender, the locus score of all hotel ~nanagers indicated internal locus tendencies that greatly ex- ceeded the internal tendencies of business executives and military offi- cers. Therefore, the hotel managers can be considered as having perceived personal control over work situations and what occurs within their work environment, and should demonstrate efficacious behaviors.

The empowerment scores for each construct indicated that overall the hotel managers agreed that: (1) their jobs retained personal mean- ing; (2) they were competent in performing their duties; (3) they could practice self-determining behaviors; (4) their work had impact on the organization; and (5) they could trust their co-workers ancl supervisors.

TABLE 3. Regression for Predictors of Overall Job Satisfaction , i Variable R~ B SE Beta T Sig I Constant -.690 1.048 -.658 ,513

I Meaningfulness ,287 ,484 ,147 ,375 3.290 ,002

Trust ,084 ,450 ,139 .441 : . 3.249 ,002

Note: Dependent variable = Overall job satisfaction I j

12 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM

However, the scores varied by race and gender. Overall, the managers ranked the constructs in the following order: (1) meaningfulness; (2) com- petency; (3) self-determination; (4) trust; and (5) impact. Apparently most managers agreed that their jobs retained high degrees of personal mean- ing.

The hotel manager satisfaction score revealed that most managers were satisfied with their jobs. However, similar to the empower~nent constructs, satisfaction varied by race and gender.

Results of the Pearson correlation coefficients demonstrated that lo- cus of control, and all empowerment constructs significantly correlated with managers' job satisfaction. The coefficients indicated that trust, meaningfulness, and impact maintained the highest correlation with sat- isfaction. The hierarchical regression results revealed that all the inde- pendent variables entered into the equation explained 52% of overall satisfaction. However, the results in Table 3 demonstrated that only meaningfulness and trust significantly predicted satisfaction levels-the more meaningf~il the job and the higher degree of trust, the hotel managers will have higher satisfaction scores.

The hierarchical regression was utilized to control for the influence I locus would have on satisfaction and as a result, locus failed as a predic- 1 tive variable in the final model. Therefore, HI was not supported; H2 I I

was partially supported because only meaningfulness and trust pre- dicted satisfaction; and H3 was only partially supported due to locus failing to predict and only two constructs of empowerment were found to have significant influence on managers' job satisfaction.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ! I Locus research asserted that individuals with internal tendeilcies are

more satisfied and motivated in theirjobs. Conversely, externally driven persons would be less satisfied. Nonetheless, the dispositional locus trait was theorized to affect job satisfaction. The correlation results demonstrated that locus of control of hotel managers is related to satis- faction. However, in the hierarchical regression when controlling for all entered independent variables, locus failed as a predictor variable. Cumrnins (1989) and Witt (1990) studies had similar results that dem- onstrated that locus had moderate relationships.

Industrial psychologists and organizational behaviorists have de- bated the influence of a person's disposition on job satisfaction. Various researchers have argued the person versus situation debate (Judge et al.,

1998; Bell and Staw, 1989). They stated that personality theorists and social psychologists have been engaged in the debate over the relative influence of person versus situation in determining attitudes and behav- ior. Asserted is that in order to predict behavior, researchers should switch the emphasis away from traits and dispositions and instead look at the contingencies posed by the sit~~ation in which individualsfind themselves (Bell and Staw, 1989).

As a result we investigated for the relationship between both disposi- tional and situational characteristics and job satisfaction. Our study shows that situational factors are more influential toward developing at- titudes when conlpared to locus as a dispositional trait. The implications of the research demonstrate to hotel managers that while personality characteristics should be considered as an influence on attitudinal re- sponses, situational characteristics of empowerment exceed the influ- ence of.dispositiona1 factors.

Furthermore, because situational characteristics are influenced by work design and an organization's policies and practices, companies can have a greater impact on satisfaction by nurturing an empowering environ- ment. Pre-employment screening tools are often utilized to hire persons with appropriate dispositions that are aligned with organizational val- ues and cultures and the job itself. Companies hope that the appropriate al.ignment leads to a satisfied workforce. However, those same compa- nies may be as successful in creating a satisfied workforce should they create and maintain empowerment practice's and policies.

Limitations

While we considered locus as a dispositional trait we failed to con- sider the other dispositional factors that may influence satisfaction. As demonstrated in the descriptive statistics, mean scores for locus, the em- powerment constructs, and satisfaction varied according to race and gender. Failing to factor in those traits into our analyses ignores other characteris tics that can affect satisfaction.

In addition, the sample was coinprised of hotel managers predomi- nantly working in the southeastern US. Therefore, generalizing the re- sults to the entire hospitality industry is inappropriate. However, the results do contribute to the person versus situation debate and the locus and empowerment literature in the hospitality discipline.

Lastly, cited were the effects locus and empowerment have on turn- over intentions as well as job satisfaction. We neglected to investigate for that relationship between the two constructs and management turn-

14 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM

over intention and employee commitment. Therefore, we assumed that the more satisfied the managers are the lower the turnover intentions. As a result, further studies should be conducted that investigate for the effects of both locus and empowerment on turnover intentions and em- ployee commitment.

REFERENCES

Bell, N., and Staw, B. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: Therolcs of person- ality and personal control in organizations. In J. Ott (Ed.), Classic rendiilgs in orga- nizational behavior, (365-378). Florida: Harcourl Brace & Company.

Bowen, D. E., and Lawler ILI, E. E., (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how, and when. Sloaiz Managenzent Review, Spring, pp. 31-39.

Bush, J. ( 1 988). Job satisfaction, powerlessness, and locus of control. Western Journal of Nursing Research, Vol. 10, NO. 6, pp. 718-731.

Cordery, J. L. (1995). Work redesign: Rhetoric vs. reality. Asia Pacific Journal of Huinarl Resources, Vol 33, No. 2, pp. 3-19.

Cummins, R. (1989). Locus of control and social support: Clarifiers of the rclation- ship betwecn job stress and job satisfaction. Joiirnal of Applfed Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 772-786.

Cunningham, I., Hayman, 5 , and Baldry, C. (1996). Empowerment: The power to do what? Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 143-1 55.

Dailey, R. (1980). Relationship between locus of control, task characteristics, and work attitudes. Ps,ychological Reports, Vol. 47, pp. 855-861.

Dubinsky, A. J., and Skinner, S. J. (1984). Impact characteristics on retail salespeople's reactlolls to thcir jobs. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 60, pp. 35-62.

Geralis, M., and Terziovski, M. (2003). A quantitative analysis of the relationship be- tween empowerment practices and serv~ce quality outcomes. Total Quality Mun- agement & Busiizess Excellence, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 45-62.

Hackman, J., and Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing,

Hyatt, T. and Prawitt, D. (2001). Does congruence between audit structure and auditors' locus of control affectjob performance? The Accounting Review, Vol. 76, pp. 263-274.

Judge, T., Locke, E., Durham, C., ancl Klugcr, A. (1998). Dispositional effects on job satisfactions and life satisSaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 17-34.

Kasperson, C. (1982). Locus of control and job clissatisfaction. Psychological Reports, Vol. 50, pp. 823-826.

Knoop, R. ( 1 981). Locus of control as a moderator between job characteristics and job attitudes. Psychologzcal Reports, Vol. 48, pp. 519-525.

LaLopa, J. M. (1997). Comnlitment and turnover inresortjobs. Journal ofHospitalit)~ and Tourism Research, Vol. 21, pp. 1-26.

Locke, E. (1 969). What is job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Hunzan Per- fornzaizce, Vol. 4, pp. 309-336.

Salazar, Pfaffenberg, and Salnzar

Loscocco, K. A., and Roschelle, A. R. (1991). Influences on the quality of work and nonwork life: Two decades in review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 39, pp. 182-225.

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H.W., Williamson, A,, ancl Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicap- ping, defensive pessimism, and goal orientation A qualitative study of university students. Journal of Educational P.rychology, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 617-628.

Mobley, W., Griffeth, R., Hand, H., and Megliano, B. (1979). Review and conceptual anal- ysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86, pp. 493-522.

Norvilitis, J.M., Szablicki,P.B., and Wilson, S. D. (2003). Factors influencing levels of credit-card debt in college students. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, Vol. 33,

.NO. 5, pp. 935-947. Rotter, 'J. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of rein-

forcement. Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80, pp. 1-28. Salazar, J. and Hubbard, S. (2000). The relationship between empowerment and over-

all job satisfaction: A study of a southeastern resort. Praxis: The Jo~irrzal of Applied Hospitality Moljagement, Vol. 3, pp. 112-129.

Schermerholn, J. R. (1996). Essentials of management and organizntional behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., ancl I-Iulin, C. L. (1969). The measLireinent of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand-Mcnally.

Sparrowe, R. (1994). Enlpowerment in the hospitality industry: An exploration of ante- cedents and outcomes. Hospitalio Research Jourr~al, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 51-74.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowemlent in the workplace: Dimensions, mea- surement, anc1,validation. Acaclanzy of Manc~gement Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 1442-1465.'

Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a common ground in defining empowerment. Re- search in Organizotio~znl Change ant1 Developnlent, Vol. 10, pp. 31-62.

Testa, M. R., Skaruppa, C., and Pietrzak, D. (1998). Linking job satisfaction and cus- tomer satisfaction in the cruise indust~y: Implications for hospitality and travel or- ganizations. Journal ofHo.spitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 4- 14.

Ugboro, I. O., and Obeng, 0. (2000). Top management leadership, employee empow- erment, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction in TQM organizations: An em- pirical study. Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 5, pp. 247-272. . .

Whetten, D., and Cameron, K. (2002). Developing management skills, 5th edition. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Yagil, D. (2002). The relationship of customer satisfactipn and service workers per- ceived control. International Journnl of Service Industry Mc~nagement, Vol. 3, NO. 3-4, pp. 382-398.

Zemke,R. and Schaaf, D. (1989). The service edge: 101 companies that.profit from customer care. New York, NY: New American Library.

RECEIVED: March 2005 ACCEPTED: March 2005