Well-being among hotel managers: A study on the influence of job stressors and cognitive reappraisal

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to test a theoretical research model specifying how two emerging job stressors, i.e. centralized authority and reporting requirements, influence hotel managers’ well-being. A mediated model through reappraisal is hypothesized.

Design/methodology/approach

The model was tested on 600 Norwegian and Swedish hotel managers using a questionnaire survey (72 per cent response rate). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analyses, correlation and structural equation modeling, which included bootstrapping.

Findings

Job stressors were negatively related to well-being, whereas reappraisal had a positive influence on well-being. A positive relationship was found between reporting requirements and reappraisal, while the opposite appeared for centralized authority. A negative mediating role of reappraisal existed in the relationship between centralized authority and well-being, while there was a positive one in the relationship between reporting requirements and well-being.

Practical implications

The findings will have important implications for management practices, as they illuminate how job stressors reduce well-being on the one hand and how reappraisal positively influences well-being on the other. This knowledge indicates that reappraisal is important for well-being when faced with stressful environments. The findings illustrate the importance of controlling stress in the managerial environment, and for hotel managers to maintain the ability to reappraise.

Originality/value

The study advances the knowledge of the managerial role, as well as the importance of reappraisal and well-being. This is the first empirical study among hotel managers testing a research model that illustrates how job stressors and reappraisal influence well-being.

Full text

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Well-being among hotel managers: A study on the influence of job stressors and
cognitive reappraisal
Annie Haver, Espen Olsen, Kristin Akerjordet,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Annie Haver, Espen Olsen, Kristin Akerjordet, (2019) "Well-being among hotel managers: A study
on the influence of job stressors and cognitive reappraisal", International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2017-0737
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2017-0737
Downloaded on: 12 February 2019, At: 23:55 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 81 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:314473 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

Well-being among hotel managers
A study on the influence of job stressors and
cognitive reappraisal
Annie Haver
Norwegian School of Hotel Management, Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Stavanger, Norway and School of Psychology,
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Espen Olsen
Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences,
University of Stavanger, Norway, and
Kristin Akerjordet
Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences,
University of Stavanger, Norway and School of Psychology,
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –This study aims to test a theoretical research model specifying how two emerging job stressors,
i.e. centralized authority and reporting requirements, influence hotel managers’well-being. A mediated model
through reappraisal is hypothesized.
Design/methodology/approach –The model was tested on 600 Norwegian and Swedish hotel managers
using a questionnaire survey (72 per cent response rate). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics,
confirmatory factor analyses, correlation and structural equation modeling, which included bootstrapping.
Findings –Job stressors were negatively related to well-being, whereas reappraisal had a positive influence
on well-being. A positive relationship was found between reporting requirements and reappraisal, while the
opposite appeared for centralized authority. A negative mediating role of reappraisal existed in the
relationship between centralized authority and well-being, while there was a positive one in the relationship
between reporting requirements and well-being.
Practical implications –The findings will have important implications for management practices, as
they illuminate how job stressors reduce well-being onthe one hand and how reappraisal positively influences
well-being on the other. This knowledge indicates that reappraisal is important for well-being when faced
with stressful environments. The findings illustrate the importance of controlling stress in the managerial
environment, and for hotel managers to maintain the ability to reappraise.
Originality/value –The study advances the knowledge of the managerial role, as well as the importance
of reappraisal and well-being. This is the first empirical study among hotel managers testing a research model
that illustrates how jobstressors and reappraisal influence well-being.
Keywords Stress, Leadership, Hotel manager, Middle management, Job stressors,
Management development, Well-being, Health, Emotion regulation, Reappraisal
Paper type Research paper
Funding: The Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Stavanger provided support in the form
of a grant for the development of this article.
Well-being
among hotel
managers
Received 12 November2017
Revised 1 March 2018
12 June 2018
13 September 2018
30 November 2018
4 December 2018
Accepted 4 December2018
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-11-2017-0737
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

1. Introduction
Job stressors are common in today’s workplace, and the hospitality industry is no exception
(O’Neill and Davis, 2011). Research has revealed that in recent decades, stress on hotel
managers has increased more than stress on managers in other industries (Woods et al.,
1998;Johanson et al., 2011). Increased stress may be linked to the emergence of new
operational structures and the transition of contemporary hotels from independent
establishments to hotel chains (Bowen and Ford, 2004;Johanson et al., 2011;Burgess, 2012).
For hotel managers, such changes have been coupled with new job stressors such as the
centralization of decision-making processes (e.g. reduced autonomy) and the requirement to
report to headquarters about strategic operational issues and cost control (Haver et al.,2014;
Hodari and Sturman, 2014). As middle managers (i.e. below top managers and above first
level supervision in the hierarchy) hotel managers are considered to be important mediators
across organizational boundaries, but their role has not been sufficiently researched
(Wooldridge et al., 2008;Humphrey, 2012). Considering the middle manager’s pivotal role in
executing leadership duties, this is of major concern (Burgess, 2013), particularly when there
is increased expectation to serve the needs of increasingly individualistic customers (Crick
and Spencer, 2011;Kim et al., 2012). Such multiple demands can lead to role ambiguity
between customers, employees, managers and upper level leaders (Bowen and Ford, 2004;
Kim et al.,2009). Being able to maneuver efficiently between numerous roles and deal with
complex relationships therefore appears to be important and requires wise emotion
regulation (Crick and Spencer, 2011;Chu et al., 2012).
The ability to control and manage one’s emotions plays an important role in human life
(Gross, 2015). Previous research has shown that emotions are important for readying
behavioral responses (Frijda, 1988;Sieb, 2013), mental health, well-being and performance
(George, 2000;Tugade and Fredrickson, 2007). Emotion regulation refers to people’s efforts
to influence emotions in ways they think will increase their chances of being helpful rather
than harmful (Gross, 2015). Reappraisal is the reinterpretation of a stressful situation in a
more positive light, often linked to positive affect and cognitive and social outcomes
(English and John, 2013). Thus, the assumption is that understanding the benefits and costs
of different emotion regulation strategies could help leaders improve their own and
employees’well-being (Humphrey et al.,2008). However, knowing which emotion regulation
strategy would be effective when meeting job stressors is a challenging task, as many
factors must be taken into account (Sheppes and Gross, 2012).
Extensive research shows that job stressors can diminish workers’well-being and health
(Demerouti et al., 2001;Nahrgang et al.,2011)–factors that are prerequisites for positive job
attitudes and effective work performance (Sonnentag, 2015). The pathways leading from job
stressors to low well-being are nevertheless not fully understood and researchers have
recently begun to pay more attention to the ways in which employees manage the negative
emotions arising from stressful work conditions (Lawrence et al.,2011).
Despite a growing number of studies within emotional labor, there has been little
organizational research applying a psychological concept of cognitive emotion regulation.
Thus, few studies have sought to investigate how one of Gross’emotion regulation
strategies –cognitive reappraisal –relates to leaders’well-being (Liu et al.,2010;Bal and
Smit, 2012;Kafetsios et al., 2012). In fact, researchers recently pointed out that the
adaptiveness of such emotion regulation strategies is contingent on the context in which
emotion regulation occurs (Aldao et al., 2010;Gross, 2015). This view is also supported by
Tamir (2016), who claims that future emotion regulation research should shift attention from
focusing on questions about processes to questions about context. A unique feature of the
work context is that instrumental considerations often take primacy over hedonic
IJCHM
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

considerations in emotion regulation (Tamir, 2009). It is therefore reasonable to believe that
leaders are guided by instrumental motives (i.e. work goals, rewards), and will probably
select emotions that are useful, whether they are pleasant or not. For example, hotel
managers will regulate their emotions at work primarily to achieve their work goals, and
only secondarily to alleviate distress (Haver et al., 2014;Tamir, 2016).
Interestingly, a literature review revealed scarce knowledge about leaders’use of emotion
regulation strategies (Haver et al., 2013). Examining emotion regulation in the work context
among real life leaders may help us understand how contexts and different work
characteristics can influence leaders’well-being (Trougakos et al.,2011).
In this study, we explore how hotel managers address daily work demands and if they
remain healthy despite potential job-stressors. Thus, the aim of the current study is to
develop and test a theoretical model which links job stressors to hotel managers’well-being
through cognitive reappraisal (abbreviated to reappraisal). Moreover, we will focus on two
job stressors that are emerging in the service sector due to the increasing tendency of
organizations to operate as part of a chain: centralized authority and reporting requirements
(i.e. management duties). We expect these job stressors to be positively associated with hotel
managers’use of reappraisal, which then affects their well-being. More specifically, it is
expected that hotel managers’well-being is the result of job stressors and that reappraisal
will be activated in responseto these stressors (Gross, 2007).
Our work contributes to the leadership and emotions literature in four unique ways.
First, we extend the research on middle managers in centralized organizations, which has
been overlooked in the broader literature. Second, we contribute to theory and practice in
how hotel managers, regarded as middle managers, deal with emerging job stressors and
how they reappraise their work situations to increase well-being. Third, few organizational
studies haves applied Gross’concept of reappraisal, regarded as an effective method for
regulating negative emotions (Aldao et al., 2010;Webb et al., 2012). Finally, our work
contributes to important reflections on job stressors as contextual factors and how they
shape hotel managers’emotion regulation. This study will contribute to the leadership
literature by illustrating the need for top managers to recruit middle managers with
extensive emotional competencies. Moreover, it emphasizes the value of management
training and an emotionally supportive environment, enhancing a healthy organization.
2. Literature review, conceptual framework and hypotheses
2.1 Linking job stressors to well-being
Well-being is a growing area of research, yet the question of how it should be defined
remains unanswered (Dodge et al.,2012). We lean on the holistic view of well-being as an
umbrella concept containing both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, found to be important
when studying leaders and organizations (Sonnentag, 2015). Eudaimonic well-being
emphasizes personal growth (human potential, meaning, and self-realization), draws
profoundly on formulations of human development and existential challenges of life and is
defined as the degree to which a person is fully functioning (Ryan and Deci, 2001;Huta,
2013). In contrast, hedonic well-being focuses on life satisfaction (happiness), and defines
well-being as enjoyment and pleasure (Huta, 2013).
There is consensus in the occupational health literature that job stressors, defined as
aspects of the work situation that potentially trigger physiological and psychological strain
reactions, have a profound impact on workers’well-being (Sonnentag, 2015). This is
consistent with several theories of occupational stress (e.g. the job-demands-control-support
model) (Karasek and Theorell, 1990), and a large body of empirical evidence. For example,
meta-analyses found a strong positive association of job stressors with burnout (Crawford
Well-being
among hotel
managers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

et al., 2010;Nahrgang et al., 2011) and decreased job performance (Gilboa et al.,2008).
Moreover, when people are faced with a high level of job stressors, strain symptoms such as
fatigue and exhaustion have been shown to increase over time (Sonnentag, 2015).
For managers working in a hotel chain (or indeed in other industries), two typical job
stressors are the requirement to work under authorities (centralized authority) and the
requirement to constantly report on operational and financial issues in order to meet the goals
of the chain. First, hotel chains are characterized by a system of centralized authority, a
traditional organizational structure where decision-making authority lies with those highest in
the hierarchy (Galbraith, 2014). A system of centralized authority has several financial and
marketing advantages, but it also has negative side effects. It can hinder autonomy, creativity
and innovation because decision-making is in the hands of a few “at the top”rather than spread
out across the organization (Burgess, 2013;Galbraith, 2014;Elbanna, 2016). Hotel managers are
“merely”responsible for implementing decisions made by headquarters, whether they agree
with them or not. This means that hotel managers often have to adjust their behavior to the
organization’s role requirements and display rules (e.g. norms, values), which can cause strain
reactions and reduce longer-term well-being (Humphrey et al., 2008). Second, the current hotel
chain structure has also changed the scope of hotel managers’reporting requirements. Today it
is the chain executive who sets the standards, policies and procedures, and requires hotel
managers to report frequently to the headquarters by using internally standardized reporting
systems to optimize service quality and profitability (Hodari and Sturman, 2014). A qualitative
study revealed that hotel managers experienced reporting requirements from headquarters as a
potential job stressor, especially when implementing cost control, which hampered the
execution of their other leadership duties (Haver et al., 2014). Hotel managers found it
challenging to balance onerous cost-cutting processes imposed by headquarters. Having to
defend these internally was stressful because hotel managers knew they had to sell them to
their team as something positive. In this way, reporting requirements can have unintended
negative effects interfering with daily operations and restricting managers’autonomy, which
again elicits negative emotions (Burgess, 2013;Hodari and Sturman, 2014). It is well
documented that competing work roles can interfere with each other, resulting in role conflicts
and reduced well-being (Cleveland et al., 2007;Kusluvan et al., 2010;Bowling et al., 2015).
Based on the assumption that centralized authority and reporting requirements represent
job stressors because they constrain hotel managers’decision-making autonomy, we
derived the following:
H1. Centralized authority is negatively related to hotel managers’well-being.
H2. Reporting requirements are negatively related to hotel managers’well-being.
2.2 Reappraisal in response to job stressors
Job stressors may diminish long-term well-being by giving rise to frequent negative
emotions in the workplace (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996). Negative emotions can interfere
with work tasks and display rules requirements (e.g. social norms), thus creating the need to
regulate these negative emotions (Beal et al., 2005). Gross (1998) defines emotion regulation
as “the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have
them, and how they experience and express these emotions”(p. 224). Gross’concept of
emotion regulation refers to psychology, and thus to intrapersonal (i.e. self-focused)
processes: things that go on exclusively within one person (do not require a response from
another person). For example, how do I cognitively deal with job stressors? The model is one
IJCHM
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

of the most influential theories of emotion regulation (Arndt and Fujiwara, 2014), adopted
and used across different disciplines (Lawrence et al.,2011). In contrast, Hochschild’s (1983)
concept of emotion regulation, i.e. “emotional labor”refers to sociology, and thus to
interpersonal processes: relationships or actions that take place between two or more people
(require interaction with another person). For example, do I fake it when dealing with an
angry customer? (Martínez-Iñigo et al.,2007). People are motivated to regulate their
emotions to optimize performance in both intrapersonal and interpersonal contexts (Tamir,
2016). Gross (1998) suggests four steps relating to reappraisal: situation selection, situation
modification, attentional deployment, and cognitive change (e.g. cognitive reappraisal) –
together with a fifth response modulation (e.g. suppression). Reappraisal represents an
antecedent-focused strategy that intervenes before the emotional response tendency has
been fully generated. For example, the requirement by top management to cut costs is likely
to evoke a negative emotional reaction in hotel managers, as it makes daily operations more
challenging. Cost-cutting can lead to increased workload and frustration among employees,
and a reduction in service quality, which can negatively affect guests and in turn intensify
employees’stress. This is especially challenging for hotel managers (as middle managers)
because they are expected to follow the organization’s display rules and show support for
the cost cuts or organizational changes. Hotel managers may therefore reappraise by
reinterpreting the situation, for instance, by seeing it as an opportunity for the hotel to
become more competitive and save jobs in the long run. It is also reasonable that hotel
managers will try to evoke positive emotions among themselves and their employees. This
will likely help hotel managers to appear energetic and enthusiastic when selling cost-
cutting measures to employees (Haver et al.,2014). Likewise, centralized authority can also
be problematic and elicit negative emotions, but because the context (e.g. display rules) and
career development are important, hotel managers will try to behave proactively when
interacting with their superiors. This “change of emotional state”requires emotion
regulation through reappraisal.
In short, we expect that stressors such as reporting requirements and having to obey
authority activate reappraisal. Thus, we propose the following:
H3. Centralized authority is positively related to the use of reappraisal.
H4. Reporting requirements are positively related to the use of reappraisal.
2.3 Effects of reappraisal on well-being
Research outside the work domain has found that reappraisal promotes well-being (Aldao et al.,
2010;Tianqiang et al.,2014). One meta-analysis found the immediate benefits of reappraisal on
emotional outcomes (Webb et al., 2012), while another found that reappraisal was a healthy
strategy (Aldao et al., 2010). However, in work settings, reappraisal was associated with
positive affect (Liu et al., 2010;Chi and Liang, 2013), increased job satisfaction (Liu et al., 2010;
Kafetsios et al., 2012), creativity and decision making (Wu et al., 2017) and appeared to play an
important role in counteracting abusive supervision (Chi and Liang, 2013). These findings
suggest that reappraisal is an adaptive regulatory strategy for hotel managers when facing
negative emotions elicited by job stressors. We therefore propose the following:
H5. Use of reappraisal is positively related to hotel managers’well-being.
Well-being
among hotel
managers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

2.4 The mediating role of reappraisal
We expect reappraisal to play a mediating role between the two job-stressors of
centralized authority and reporting requirements and hotel managers’well-being.
Reappraisal is found to be closely connected to problem solving, creativity (Wu et al.,
2017), positive affect (Bal and Smit, 2012) and increased job satisfaction (Liu et al., 2010;
Kafetsios et al., 2012). Based on the context, hotel managers may draw on positive
emotions by labeling stressful events as opportunities rather than threats through
reappraisal (Garland et al., 2011). As previously mentioned, we assume that centralized
authority and reporting requirements often lead to negative emotional reactions,
necessitating the use of emotion regulation strategies, such as reappraisal. However, it is
reasonable to argue that the tendency to use reappraisal would suppress the harmful
effects of job stressors on well-being: thus, reappraisal would exemplify an adaptive
response to job stressors. Consequently, well-being would not only be the result of the job
stressors themselves, but also of the use of reappraisal activated in response to these
stressors. We thus propose:
H6. Reappraisal will play a mediating role in the relation between hotel managers’
centralized authority and well-being.
H7. Reappraisal will play a mediating role in the relation between hotel managers’
reporting requirement and well-being.
The final theoretical model is presented in Figure 1, which includes all hypotheses specified
in the current study.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Sample and procedures
A structured questionnaire was used to collect primary data from general managers and
department managers in one of the largest hotel chains in Scandinavia. The hotel chain
operates in six countries and comprises 200 hotels. The concept is based on different brands,
from luxury to budget.
Figure 1.
Theoretical
mediational
research model
Wellbeing
Reappraisal
H4
H5
Reporng
requrirement
Centralized
authority
H1
H2
H3
H6
H7
IJCHM
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

Prior to data collection, a pilot study was conducted, and the questionnaire (reporting
requirements) was discussed with academic and industrial experts (general managers). A
few questions were eliminated after the feedback process, and minor changes in the
formatting were made. For the purpose of the data collection, an information letter about the
research project and a link to an online self-report questionnaire were sent to 848
participants (Norway n= 491, Sweden n= 357). Email addresses were provided by the
headquarters. Confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed. In total, 600 participants
responded: 354 from Norway (aged 21 to 65 years, M= 39.3, SD = 8.65; 56 per cent women)
and 246 from Sweden (aged 23 to 64 years, M= 40.5, SD = 8.86; 63 per cent women). The
overall response rate was 71 per cent (72 per cent in Norway and 70 per cent in Sweden).
In the Swedish sample, 81 per cent were departmental managers and 19 per cent were
general managers; the corresponding numbers for the Norwegian sample were 82 and 18 per
cent, respectively. Participants worked on average 45 h (Norwegians) and 47 h (Swedes) per
week. In terms of hours used for reporting to headquarters, Norwegian managers reported
4.4 hours per week and Swedes reported 5.5 h per week.
3.2 Measures
Centralized authority is measured on a five-item scale (
a
= 0.84), adopted from the National
Leader Survey conducted by the Research Administrative Research Institute (AFF) (origin
authors: Aiken and Jerald, 1968) in 2002 among 2000 leaders in Norway. Participants were
asked to rate their agreement with statements regarding the amount to which decisions and
routines at their workplace were centralized (e.g. “Even small matters must be referred to
managers higher up in the chain”,“Employees are not encouraged to make their own
decisions”,“Very little happens in this chain unless it has been approved by a manager”), on
a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Reporting requirements are measured on a six-item scale (
a
= 0.87), derived from a
previous qualitative study of expert general managers, all of whom reported directly to a
hotel chain’s headquarter executive (Haver et al.,2014). Respondents were asked to rate the
degree to which their reporting (management duties) to headquarters affected their work (e.g.
“To what extent are you working under time pressure as a result of your reporting?”and “To
what extent does your reporting lead to conflicts between you and your superiors?”). The
response scale ranged from 1 (very little) to 5 (very much) (Appendix 1).
Reappraisal is measured by the six-item Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (
a
= 0.85)
(ERQ; Gross and John, 2003). Instructions were adjusted to the work setting, i.e. how the
managers generally regulated their emotions when encountering stressful situations at
work. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they regulated their emotions at
work via cognitive reappraisal (e.g. “When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy
or amusement) I change what I am thinking about”, and “When I want to feel less negative
emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change what I’m thinking about”. The response scale
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Well-being is measured on the seven-item (
a
= 0.82) Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental
Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) (Stewart-Brown et al.,2009), which is validated in Norwegian
and Swedish (Haver et al.,2015). SWEMWBS combines both hedonic and eudaimonic mental
well-being and aspects of psychological and subjective well-being (Stewart-Brown et al.,
2009). Sample items are “I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future”and “I’ve been dealing
with problems well”. The response scale ranged from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time).
Participants were instructed to consider their situation over the previous two weeks. All
measures were translated from English into Norwegian and Swedish, and then
Well-being
among hotel
managers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

independently back-translated by professionals to ensure language equivalence. After some
adjustment, the back-translations were approved by the original scale developers.
4. Analysis plan
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and general guidelines (Hair et al.,2014)wereusedto
establish cutoff criteria related to validity and reliability of constructs. Reliability of
constructs is investigated with the use of Composite Reliability (CR >0.7) and Cronbach’s
alpha (>0.7). Convergent validity is explored with average variance explained (AVE >0.5),
while discriminant validity is tested with Maximum Shared Variance (MSV <AVE) and a
criterion that the square root of AVE should be greaterthan inter-construct correlations.
Modifications of the measurement constructs will be considered based on these criteria, the
levels on the factor to item loadings, and the results from the CFA in general. Several indicators
are used to evaluate model fit(
Hair et al., 2014); Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA <0.08), Incremental fit index (IFI >0.9), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI >0.9). Chi
square is sensitive to sample size and is therefore not used (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004).
Structural equation modeling (SEM) and Maximum Likelihood Extraction will be
conducted to investigate the validity of the theoretical model and to test the hypotheses.
Additionally, bootstrap analyses will be estimated to test the indirect effects and the
mediating role of reappraisal (Hayes, 2013). Generally, bootstrapping is preferred before the
Sobel test when testing mediation (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). We will follow Hayes’(2013)
recommendation of 5000 bootstrapped resamples and additionally estimate 95 per cent bias-
corrected confidence intervals (CIs).
Generally, data are assessed at the individual level, which is considered adequate based
on the individual perceptions of the phenomenon studied. All assessments will be estimated
in AMOS 25.0, with the exception of descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha, which is
estimated in SPSS 25.0.
4.1 Measurement model
CFA and maximum likelihood extraction were performed to validate dimensions included in
the study. Initial testing indicated a factorial model that was marginally satisfactory when
tested on the sample of hotel managers (RMSEA = 0.069, IFI = 0.898, CFI = 0.898), but the
results indicated need for trimming due to a certain lack of convergent validity. Specifically,
AVE was below 0.5 for the dimension reappraisal (AVE = 0.48) and well-being (AVE =
0.47). Based on the initial testing of the measurement dimensions, three items were removed.
One item was removed from reappraisal and two items were removed from well-being. After
this adjustment, AVE was above 0.5. Additionally, CR was satisfactory and above 0.7
(Table II). Cronbach’s alpha on the sample ranged from 0.82 to 0.87, indicating robust
reliability. Further, MSV was less then AVE, and the square root of AVE was greater than
inter-construct correlations. Factor loadings ranged from 0.44 to 0.93. These results, in
Table I.
Descriptive statistics
Total sample
Constructs M SD
Centralized authority 2.03 0.86
Reporting requirements 2.45 0.88
Reappraisal 4.87 1.20
Well-being 4.18 0.61
Notes: M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; N= 600
IJCHM
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

combination with adequate model fit indices (RMSEA = 0.070, IFI = 0.913, CFI = 0.912),
indicated a satisfactory measurement model for the sample.
4.2 Structural model and test of hypotheses
The testing of the hypothetical structural model indicated that the model had a good fit
among hotel managers (RMSEA = 0.070, IFI = 0.913, CFI = 0.912). Most of the hypotheses
were supported (Figure 2). Centralized authority was negatively related to well-being, which
supported H1 (H1:
b
=0.20, p<0.001). Regarding H3, centralized authority was
negatively related to reappraisal (H3:
b
=0.11, p<0.05), which is the opposite of what
was expected based on H3. Moreover, reporting requirement was positively related to
reappraisal (H4:
b
= 0.11, p<0.05) and negatively related to well-being (H2:
b
=0.26, p
<0.001). Additionally, reappraisal was positively related to well-being (H5:
b
= 0.23, p<
0.001).
With 5000 bootstrap replications, results showed that both the indirect effects were
significant among hotel managers: (H6) centralized authority !reappraisal !well-being
(standardized indirect effect = 0.025; 95 per cent CI = 0.052, 0.004), (H7) reporting
requirements !reappraisal !well-being (standardized indirect effect = 0.027; 95 per cent
CI = 0.006, 0.056). Hence, with the exception of H3, which was negatively related to
reappraisal, the other hypotheses were supported.
Table II.
CFA Model –
reliability and
validity
Correlations
(Square root of AVE in diagonal/bold)
Constructs CR AVE MSV Alpha 1 2 3 4
1. Centralized authority 0.85 0.55 0.07 0.84 0.74
2. Reporting requirements 0.87 0.54 0.08 0.87 0.20 0.73
3. Reappraisal 0.86 0.55 0.05 0.85 0.08 0.09 0.74
4. Well-being 0.84 0.51 0.08 0.82 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.71
Notes: CR = composite reliability; Alpha = Cronbach’s alpha; MSV = maximum shared variance; AVE =
average variance explained
Figure 2.
Standardized
estimates and test of
structural relations
Wellbeing
Reappraisal
0.11*
0.23***
Reporng
requrirement
Centralized
authority
−0.20***
−0.26***
−0.11*
Notes: (N = 600).* < 0.05, ** < 0.01, *** < 0.001
Well-being
among hotel
managers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

5. Conclusion and implications
5.1 Conclusion
The objective of this study was to test a model incorporating perceptions of centralized
authority, reporting requirements, reappraisal and well-being among hotel managers.
Having managers that bounce back from adversity, thrive and feel well is important in all
organizations, and it is therefore essential to study mechanisms that have the potential to
explain variance related to their well-being. The results of this study suggest that reporting
requirements and centralized authority have an indirect effect on well-being. As expected,
we found a direct positive influence of reappraisal on well-being, and empirical support for
the weak influence from reporting requirement on reappraisal. Unexpectedly, we found a
weak negative influence from centralized authority on reappraisal. These results have
theoretical and practical implications related to understanding how job stressors and
reappraisal influence the managerial role, which is discussed in the following.
5.2 Theoretical implications
As previously emphasized, there is little knowledge about middle managers or the use of
emotion regulation strategies in the leadership domain. Looking at the results from the
structural modeling, one of the main tasks is to explain influence on well-being for hotel
managers. Our findings extend previous literature in several ways. First, we found a
negative relationship between hotel managers’job stressors and their well-being. This
confirms previous research claiming that job stressors have a profound impact on workers’
well-being (Lepine et al.,2005;Sonnentag, 2015). These findings might therefore be of
concern to organizations where power and decision-making authority lies among those
highest in the hierarchy (Galbraith, 2014). This may represent a potential threat for hotel
managers’well-being (Sonnentag, 2015). Second, reporting requirements and centralized
authority activate the use of reappraisal. We found a positive relationship betweenreporting
requirements and reappraisal, while the opposite pattern appeared for centralized authority,
indicating that reappraisal is less beneficial in situations with extensive control (Troy et al.,
2013). The results suggest that the hotel managers are able to adopt a positive approach,
noting that reporting requirements serve as an important guideline for decision-making and
goal-setting and highlighting leaders’responsibilities. The hotel chain in this study uses
performance bonuses and rewards, which can indeed influence hotel managers’choice of
emotion regulation (Tamir, 2009). However, hotel managers may appraise reporting
requirements as a positive challenge stressor (obstacles to overcome in order to learn and
achieve long-term goals), rather than merely as a hindrance stressor (Garland et al., 2011;
Geng et al.,2014). So while hotel managers may experience short-term strain, they also
experience a boost of motivation that increases their performance and longer-term sense of
well-being, thus reflecting an instrumental emotion regulation (Lepine et al.,2005;Haver
et al., 2014). However, an important aspect of reappraisal is to alter the emotional state.
When dealing with reporting requirements, it is also possible that no negative emotions
arise, or there may not be the time or need to engage and understand how to reappraise the
“specific situation”.
Concerning centralized authority, our findings suggest that when middle managers
encounter centralized authority, reappraisal decreases. This indicates that lower status in
the hierarchy affords less control, highlighting that the benefits of a particular emotion
regulation strategy is determined by interactions between individuals and their
environments (Troy et al., 2017). The hotel industry and other traditional organizations are
complex and hierarchical in structure, where top managers (i.e. senior managers) make most
strategic decisions. This means that middle managers not only have to accept the
IJCHM
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

organizational goals but also have to show engagement and commitment to the required
action imposed by top managers (Burgess,2012, 2013;Haveret al., 2014). Hotel managers
may therefore find it challenging to reappraise centralized authority as something positive
(Burgess, 2013;Brockman et al.,2017). Fear of reprisal might also play a pivotal role and
hotel managers may want to protect themselves by putting on an act of formality and
“waffling on”when communicating with their superiors (Burgess, 2013;Haver et al.,2014,).
A hotel manager may thus revert to using other emotion regulation strategies that are more
advantageous for the situation (Sheppes et al.,2011;Gross, 2015). This means that
reappraisal profoundly depends on the context in which they are used (Troy et al.,2017), as
well as other underlying mechanisms such as imbalance of power and individual differences
(i.e. emotional intelligence) when encountering centralized authority (Peña-Sarrionandia
et al.,2015). Third, reappraisal plays a weak but significant meditation role in the theoretical
model being tested, which leads to H6 and H7 being partially supported. As such, when
exposed to centralized authority, the use of reappraisal decreases, which again can be costly
for well-being. In contrast, when encountering reporting requirements, reappraisal operates
as a buffer on well-being. The latter findings correspond well with previous research,
suggesting that reappraisal is a very important construct in organizational life and
beneficial to hotel managers’health and effectiveness (Haver et al.,2013,2014).
Centralized authority and reporting requirements may be a necessity in many organizations,
but this study points to negative side-effects. In particular, centralized authority seems to be
harmful because it has the potential to reduce reappraisal and well-being. This is of concern
because middle managers are important mediators, acting as the “glue”that holds the
organization together (Burgess, 2013). We therefore suggest that top managers should focus on
building healthy organizations, allowing middle managers to reappraise and take part in strategic
decisions (Akerjordet et al.,2018). This has the potential to facilitate innovation and
entrepreneurial thinking, which are important success factors in contemporary leadership
(Burgess, 2013;Wu et al., 2017;Köseoglu et al., 2018). Moreover, leaders need to be aware of
contextual differences for the necessary emotion regulation, ease the reporting burden and
carefully design work processes in order to cater to a necessary and optimal level of reporting
requirements. Finally, our findings suggest that reappraisal has a substantial influence on hotel
managers’well-being, thus supporting previous literature (Webb et al.,2012;Haver et al., 2013).
Reappraisal is found to be goal-directed and engaged to minimize the difference between current
(unpleasant) and desired state (pleasant) (Niven, 2016). Research shows that cognitive reappraisal
in particular is positively related to positive emotions (Liu et al.,2010;English and John, 2013).
Contextually, it is therefore reasonable to assume that hotel managers are high on positive
emotions (Haver et al., 2014). Thus, reappraisal may help hotel managers to draw on positive
emotions by labeling stressful events as opportunities rather than threats, which may mean they
have the skills to bounce back from adversity (Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004). By so doing, they
may adapt to unexpected and changing circumstances without too much effort, for example, by
strategically shaping their emotions. Using different reappraisal strategies may create the
dynamics of an upward positive spiral, affecting hotel managers’resilience, which is an important
predictor for well-being (Tugade and Fredrickson, 2007). It is therefore important to consider job
stressors as contextual factors, along with individual differences shaping the hotel managers’use
of emotion regulation strategies (Haver et al.,2014). Against this backdrop, any form of emotion
regulation in organizations requires a holistic understanding of the contexts (Niven, 2016).
5.3 Practical implications
Top managers need to prioritize the well-being of middle managers, and not only that of the
employees, customers and owners (Kim and Koo, 2017). This is particularly important in
Well-being
among hotel
managers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

organizations with strict display rules (Hülsheger et al.,2015). These rules are determined by
authorities in organizations and can thus challenge the impact of leaders’autonomy and
strategic control of organizational politics and strategic planning effectiveness (Elbanna,
2016). As the context seems to be of significance, it may be useful to train leaders to become
mindful about the use of emotion regulation strategies that best fit the context to enhance
their well-being and job performance. This could strengthen leaders’use of emotion
regulation strategies by transforming emotional knowledge, particularly to assist leaders
who need training in reappraisal strategies when confronted with centralized authority.
Consequently, when dealing with centralized authority and intensive reporting
requirements, management training could encourage leaders to change their evaluation of
emotions that would further influence their choice of emotion regulation. Against this
backdrop, it is important to recruit leaders that are capable of creating an environment of
emotional support and coaching, for example, by senior leaders (Liang et al., 2017). This
requires recruitment of leaders with a high degree of emotional competencies such as
emotional intelligence. All in all, people-intensive organizations would therefore benefit from
investing in coaching programs, which has clear implications for training of leaders’
emotion regulation both in practical and educational settings.
5.4 Limitations and future directions
This study needs to be considered in light of its limitations. One limitation is the reliance on
cross-sectional, single source and self-reported data, which is subject to common method
bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). However, several methodological steps have been obtained to
reduce the likelihood of methodological bias and risk of Type I and Type II error.
Controlling for common method bias by obtaining predictor and criterion variables from
different sources is not recommended when variables capture an individual’s perception,
beliefs or feelings, as in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Furthermore, strict causal
inferences cannot be made. To meet these limitations, CFA and SEM were conducted. The
advantage of CFA and SEM is estimation of the full measurement and structural model for
measurement bias, and the complete estimation of the model including model fit.
Future research should investigate different reappraisal strategies in relation to other
types of job stressors and/or negative emotions as well as job resources, with the use of
different types of design and different contexts. Moreover, other types of mechanisms that
mediate the influence of stressors on well-being is an important research topic that may have
both interesting theoretical and practical implications, thus deserving research priority.
This study has surveyed cognitive reappraisal, one of many identified strategies that
people use to regulate their emotions (Parkinson and Totterdell, 1999). To improve our
understanding of which strategies constitute effective emotion regulation, a wider range of
emotion regulation strategies, i.e. emotional labor strategies should be included with a
particular focus on health-promoting leadership to build healthy organizations (Akerjordet
et al., 2018). It is reasonable to argue that Gross’(1998) and Hochschild’s (1983) emotion
regulation strategies and concepts have several similarities. However, investigating both
concepts qualitatively and quantitatively can enrich each other, so this approach may be a
way of bridging the two emotion regulation concepts. Future research would therefore benefit
from more qualitative study and objective measures from different sources, along with, for
example, multi-level and longitudinal designs. The present study was conducted in a
Scandinavian organizational context with relatively flat hierarchies and high well-being. It
would therefore be of particular interest to explore these findings qualitatively in Norway and
Sweden. We also believe that our findings are likely to generalize to other industries exposed
to centralized authority and reporting requirements, but this idea needs to be further tested.
IJCHM
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

References
Aiken, M. and Jerald, H. (1968), “Organizational interdependence and intraorganizational structure”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 912-931.
Akerjordet, K., Furunes, T. and Haver, A. (2018), “Health-promoting leadership: an integrative review
and future research agenda”,Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 74 No. 7, pp. 1505-1516.
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S. and Schweizer, S. (2010), “Emotion-regulation strategies across
psychopathology: a meta-analytic review”,Clinical Psychology Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 217-237.
Arndt, J.E. and Fujiwara, E. (2014), “Interactions between emotion regulation and mental health”,
Austin Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 1-8.
Bal, P.M. and Smit, P. (2012), “The older the better! Age-related differences in emotion regulation after
psychological contract breach”,Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 6-24.
Beal, D.J., Weiss, H.M., Barros, E. and MacDermid, S.M. (2005), “An episodic process model of affective
influences on performance”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1054-1068.
Bowen, J. and Ford, R.C. (2004), “What experts say about managing hospitality service delivery systems”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 394-401.
Bowling, N.A., Alarcon, G.M., Bragg, C.B. and Hartman, M.J. (2015), “A meta-analytic examination of the
potential correlates and consequences of workload”,Work and Stress, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 95-113.
Brockman, R., Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P. and Kashdan, T. (2017), “Emotion regulation strategies in daily
life: mindfulness, cognitive reappraisal and emotion suppression”,Cognitive Behaviour Therapy,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 91-113.
Burgess, C. (2012), “Multiple stakeholders and middle managers: the role of the hotel financial
controller”,Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 151-169.
Burgess, C. (2013), “Factors influencing middle managers’ability to contribute to corporate
entrepreneurship”,International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 32, pp. 193-201.
Chi, S.C.S. and Liang, S.G. (2013), “When do subordinates’emotion-regulation strategies matter?
Abusive supervision, subordinates’emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal”,The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 125-137.
Chu, K.H., Baker, M.A. and Murrmann, S.K. (2012), “When we are onstage, we smile: the effects of
emotional labor on employee work outcomes”,International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 906-915.
Cleveland, J.N., O’neill, J.W., Himelright, J.L., Harrison, M.M., Crouter, A.C. and Drago, R. (2007), “Work
and family issues in the hospitality industry: perspectives of entrants, managers, and spouses”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 275-298.
Crawford, E.R., Lepine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010), “Linking job demands and resources to employee
engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 834-848.
Crick, A.P. and Spencer, A. (2011), “Hospitality quality: new directions and new challenges”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 463-478.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources
model of burnout”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3,pp. 499-512.
Dodge, R., Daly, P.A., Huyton, J. and Sanders, D.L. (2012), “The challenge of defining wellbeing”,
International Journal of Wellbeing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 222-235.
Elbanna, S. (2016), “Managers’autonomy, strategic control, organizational politics and strategic
planning effectiveness: an empirical investigation into missing links in the hotel sector”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 52, pp. 210-220.
English, T. and John, O.P. (2013), “Understanding the social effects ofemotion regulation: themediating
role of authenticity for individual differences in suppression”,Emotion, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 314-329.
Well-being
among hotel
managers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

Frijda, N.H. (1988), “The laws of emotion”,The American Psychologist, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 349-358.
Galbraith, J.R. (2014), Designing Organizations: Strategy, structure, and Process at the Business Unit
and Enterprise Levels San Francisco, USA, Jossey-Bass.
Garland, E.L., Gaylord, S.A. and Fredrickson, B.L. (2011), “Positive reappraisal mediates the stress-
reductive effects of mindfulness: An upward spiral process”,Mindfulness, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 59-67.
Geng, Z., Liu, C., Liu, X. and Feng, J. (2014), “The effects of emotional labor on frontline employee creativity”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1046-1064.
George, M.J. (2000), “Emotions and leadership: the role of emotional intelligence”,Human Relations,
Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1027-1055.
Gilboa,S.,Shirom,A.,Fried,Y.andCooper,C.(2008),“A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job
performance: Examining main and moderating effects”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 227-271.
Gross, J.J. (1998), “The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review”,Review of General
Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 271-299.
Gross, J.J. (2007), Handbook of Emotion Regulation, The Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA.
Gross, J.J. (2015), “Emotion regulation: current status and future prospects”,Psychological Inquiry,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Gross, J.J. and John, O.P. (2003), “Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
implications for affect, relationships, and well-being”,Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 348-362.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2014), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson Education
Limited, Essex, England.
Haver, A., Akerjordet, K., Caputi, P., Furunes, T. and Magee, C. (2015), “Measuring mental well-being: a
validation of the short Warwick–Edinburgh mental well-being scale in norwegian and
swedish”,Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 43No. 7, pp. 721-727.
Haver, A., Akerjordet, K. and Furunes, T. (2013), “Emotion regulation and its implications for
leadership: an integrative review and future research agenda”,Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 287-303.
Haver, A., Akerjordet, K. and Furunes, T. (2014), “Wise emotion regulation and the power of resilience
in experienced hospitality leaders”,Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 152-169.
Hayes, A. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-
based Approach. Methodology in the Social Sciences,TheGuilfordPress,NewYork,NY,USA.
Hochschild, A.R. (1983), The Managed Heart. Commercialization of Human Feeling, University of CA
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Hodari, D. and Sturman, M.C. (2014), “Who’s in charge now? The decision autonomy of hotel general
managers”,Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 433-447.
Hülsheger, U.R., Lang, J.W.B., Schewe, A.F. and Zijlstra, F.R.H. (2015), “When regulating emotions at
work pays off: a diary and an intervention study on emotion regulation and customer tips in
service jobs”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 263-277.
Humphrey, R.H. (2012), “How do leaders use emotional labor?”,Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 740-744.
Humphrey, R.H., Pollack, M.J. and Hawver, T. (2008), “Leading with emotional labor”,Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 151-168.
Huta, V. (2013), “Eudaimonia”, in David, S.A., Boniwell, I. and Ayers, A.C. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook
of Happiness, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Johanson, M.M., Youn, H. and Woods, R.H. (2011), “A study of stress levels among hotel general
managers –a comparison between 1998 and 2008”,Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality
and Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 32-44.
IJCHM
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

Kafetsios, K., Nezlek, J.B. and Vassilakou, T. (2012), “Relationships between leaders’and subordinates’
emotion regulation and satisfaction and affect at work”,The Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 152 No. 4, pp. 436-457.
Karasek, R.A. and Theorell, T. (1990), Healthy Work: Stress, productivity and the Reconstruction of
Working Life, USA, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Kim, M.-S. and Koo, D.-W. (2017), “Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance
in hotel employees”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 12,
pp. 3044-3062.
Kim, B.P., Murrmann, S.K. and Lee, G. (2009), “Moderating effects of gender and organizational level
between role stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees”,International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 612-619.
Kim, T., Yoo, J.J.-E., Lee, G. and Kim, J. (2012), “Emotional intelligence and emotional labor acting
strategies among frontline hotel employees”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 1029-1046.
Köseoglu, M.A., Yazici, S. and Okumus, F. (2018),“Barriers to the implementation of strategic decisions:
evidence from hotels in a developing country”,Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 514-543.
Kusluvan, S., Kusluvan, Z., Ilhan, I. and Buyruk, L. (2010), “The human dimension: a review of human
resources management issues in the tourism and hospitality industry”,Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp.171-214.
Lawrence, S.A., Troth, A.C., Jordan, P.J. and Collins, A.L. (2011), “Areviewofemotionregulation
and development of a framework for emotion regulation in the workplace”, in Perrewé, P.L.
and Ganster, D.C. (Eds) The Role of Individual Differences in Occupational Stress and Well-
being (Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being), Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
Bingley, UK.
Lepine, J.A., Podsakoff, N.P. and Lepine, M.A. (2005), “A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-
hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors
and performance”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 764-775.
Liang, T.-L., Chang, H.-F., Lin, S.W. and Ko, M.H. (2017), “Transformational leadership and employee
voices in the hospitality industry”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 374-392.
Liu, Y., Prati, L.M., Perrewé, P.L. and Brymer, R.A. (2010), “Individual differences in emotion
regulation, emotional experiences at work, and work-related outcomes: a two-study
investigation”,Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1515-1538.
Martínez-Iñigo, D., Totterdell, P., Alcover, C.M. and Holman, D. (2007), “Emotional labour and
emotional exhaustion: interpersonal and intrapersonal mechanisms”,Work and Stress, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 30-47.
Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P. and Hofmann, D.A. (2011), “Safety at work: a Meta-analytic
investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety
outcomes”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 71-94.
Niven, K. (2016), “Why do people engage in interpersonal emotion regulation at work?”,Organizational
Psychology Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 305-323.
O’Neill, J.W. and Davis, K. (2011), “Work stress and well-being in the hotel industry”,International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 385-390.
Parkinson, B. and Totterdell, P. (1999), “Classifying affect regulation strategies”,Cognition and
Emotion, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 277-303.
Peña-Sarrionandia, A., Mikolajczak, M. and Gross, J.J. (2015), “Integrating emotion regulation and
emotional intelligence traditions: a meta-analysis”,Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 160,
pp. 1-27.
Well-being
among hotel
managers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”,Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”,Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Ryan, M.R. and Deci, L.E. (2001), “On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic
and eudaimonic well-being”,Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 141-166.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2004), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ.
Sheppes, G. and Gross, J.J. (2012), “Emotion regulation effectiveness: what works when”, in Tennen, H.
A. and Suls, J.M. (Eds) Handbook of psychology. Personality and Social Psychology, Wiley-
Blackwell, Indianapolis, USA.
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G. and Gross, J.J. (2011), “Emotion regulation choice”,Psychological
Science, Vol. 22 No. 11, pp. 1391-1396.
Sieb, R. (2013), “The emergence of emotions”,Activitas Nervosa Superior, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 115-145.
Sonnentag, S. (2015), “Dynamics of well-being”,Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 261-293.
Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J. and Weich, S. (2009), “Internal
construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): a rasch
analysis using data from the scottish health education population survey”,Health and Quality of
Life Outcomes, Vol. 7 No. 15,pp. 1-8.
Tamir, M. (2009), “What do people want to feel and why? Pleasure and utility”,Current Directions in
Psychological Science, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 101-105.
Tamir, M. (2016), “Why do people regulate their emotions? A taxonomy of motives in emotion
regulation”,Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 199-222.
Tianqiang, H.U., Dajun, Z., Jinliang, W., Mistry, R., Guangming, R.N. and Xinqiang, W. (2014),
“Relation between emotion regulation and mental health: a meta-analysis review”,Psychological
Reports, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 341-362.
Trougakos, J.P., Jackson, C.L. and Beal, D.J. (2011), “Service without a smile: comparing the
consequences of neutral and positive display rules”,Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol.96No.2,
pp. 350-362.
Troy, A.S., Ford, B.Q., Mcrae, K., Zarolia, P. and Mauss, I. (2017), “Change the things you can: emotion
regulation is more beneficial for people from lower than from higher socioeconomic status”,
Emotion, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 141-154.
Troy, A.S., Shallcross, A.J. and Mauss, I.B. (2013), “A person-by-Situation approach to emotion
regulation: cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, Depending on the context”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 2505-2514.
Tugade, M.M. and Fredrickson, B.L. (2004), “Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back
from negative emotional experiences”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 2,
pp. 320-333.
Tugade, M.M. and Fredrickson, B.L. (2007), “Regulation of positive emotions: emotion regulation
strategies that promote resilience”,Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 311-333.
Webb, T.L., Miles, E. and Sheeran, P. (2012), “Dealing with feeling: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness
of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation”,Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 138 No. 4, pp. 775-808.
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences atwork”,Research in Organizational
Behavior, No. 18, pp. 1-74.
IJCHM
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)

Woods, R.H., Sciarini, M. and Johanson, M.M. (1998), “Stress levels of hotel general managers”,The
Journal of Applied Hospitality Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 36-47.
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T. and Floyd, S.W. (2008), “The Middle management perspective on strategy
process: contributions, synthesis, and future research”,Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 1190-1221.
Wu, X., Guo, T., Tang, T., Shi, B. and Luo, J. (2017), “Role of creativity in the effectiveness of cognitive
reappraisal”,Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 1598, pp. 1-9.
About the authors
Haver Annie (PhD), Associate Professor at Norwegian School of Hotel Management, Faculty of Social
Sciences, University of Stavanger, Norway. She has 12 years’leadership experience in change
management, strategy development and organizational and conceptual development from various
industries including oil, information technology, publishing and hospitality industry. She has PhD in
Leadership. Annie Haver is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: annie.haver@uis.no
Espen Olsen, Post Doc. at Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Stavanger, Norway. He has managerial experience related to change management and
organizational development from various industries
Akerjordet Kristin (PhD) is a Professor of Leadership and Dean at Centre for Resilience in
Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences University of Stavanger, Norway.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Well-being
among hotel
managers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER At 23:55 12 February 2019 (PT)