Next Article in Journal
Design for Well-Being and Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework of the Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Reuse Platform in the Circular Economy
Next Article in Special Issue
Determinants of Attitude and the Intention to Stay of Employees in Low-Cost Carriers: Using Justice Theory
Previous Article in Journal
Conceptualising Collaborations beyond Industrial Boundaries: A Literature Review and a Theoretical Proposition to Understand Cross-Industrial Collaborations in the Circular Supply Network
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/su15118851
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Cultural Intelligence Facilitates Employee Voice in the Hospitality Industry

by
Lu Yuan
1,2,*,
Hyun Jeong Kim
2 and
Hyounae (Kelly) Min
3
1
School of Tourism Management, Wuhan Business University, Wuhan 430118, China
2
School of Hospitality Business Management, Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
3
The Collins College of Hospitality Management, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA 91768, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 8851; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118851
Submission received: 4 May 2023 / Revised: 25 May 2023 / Accepted: 28 May 2023 / Published: 31 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Service Marketing and Management for Sustainable Hospitality and Tourism in a New Era)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Drawing upon person-environment fit, specifically demands–abilities fit, this paper examines the impact of hospitality employees’ cultural intelligence (CQ) on their voice behavior and job satisfaction. Data were collected from domestic contact employees working for restaurants in three major cities in the United States. The results of the PLS-SEM model show that CQ has a positive effect on employees’ voice behavior through self-efficacy. Further, CQ has a positive effect on job satisfaction through a sequential mediation of self-efficacy and voice. This study contributes to the CQ and voice literature, utilizing CQ as a person’s ability to meet job requirements. This study also has important practical implications for hospitality practitioners who depend on employee voice for the success of organizations in today’s ever-changing global environment.

1. Introduction

Hospitality businesses have become mature and highly competitive [1]. Successful interactions between customers and frontline employees develop a competitive edge, influencing a company’s bottom line [2,3]. To fulfill service promises, coordinated teamwork within or between departments is often required in the hospitality industry [1]. Employee voice, which is an informal way of transferring and disseminating knowledge within the organization, can be essential because of the unpredictable and fast-moving nature of hospitality service [4]. The real-time progress is informed, and beneficial ideas are revealed through communication. This helps management to stay conscious of how service promises are carried out and how workflow is improved [5].
In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has upended everyone’s daily life [6]. Dramatic societal changes and accelerated technological advances have also thrown businesses into an increasingly volatile economic climate [6]. New business trends in a post-pandemic world arise, forcing hospitality companies to be more responsive and adaptive to the market than before [4]. In such cases, frontline employees as “part-time marketers” may play even more critical roles, as they uniquely gather information while interacting with customers [7]. Employee voice can provide support to the management’s strategic decision [5]. Through employees’ active engagement in developing and sharing insightful ideas with top management, hospitality organizations can navigate in the post-pandemic business environment in a more sustainable manner.
Because of the importance of employee voice, prior studies have inquired into the antecedents of voice. Transformational leadership [8], voice climate [9], and organizational formalization [10] were found to increase employees’ attachment to the organization, voice safety beliefs, and sense of control, which in turn promote voice behavior for better organizational performance. Individual or personal elements including personality traits (Big Five) [11] and emotional intelligence (EQ) [12] were also reported to affect employees’ willingness to speak up.
Cultural intelligence (CQ) refers to an individual’s capability to function effectively in culturally diverse settings [13,14]. While EQ has drawn attention from hospitality academics, articles on the effect of CQ on hospitality work outcomes have been few. This is partly due to CQ being a concept that was developed later than EQ. In addition, while EQ influences hospitality work outcomes in a broad and general way, it is perceived that the effect of CQ is prominent when employees are stationed abroad or are away from their home countries. Due to this reason, CQ effects have been primarily studied in other fields, such as international business, with expatriate workers whose successes truly depend on adaptability to other cultures, e.g., [15,16]. According to person-environment fit theory, the fit between individuals’ capability and job requirements facilitates individuals’ desired actions in organizations [17]. Hospitality employees frequently work with customers and colleagues from various cultural backgrounds, and ongoing communication is a must for smooth operation of the company. Could CQ then affect domestic hospitality employees’ work performance such as voice and further their satisfaction? If so, how extensively? These questions are worth investigating.
The aim of this study is to deepen our understanding of the relationships between CQ and hospitality work outcomes, specifically employee voice and satisfaction. This is crucial knowledge to ensure the sustainable success of hospitality organizations from the COVID-19 pandemic era onward. Moreover, this study explores not only direct but also indirect effects through self-efficacy—the mechanism triggering the links between CQ and the outcomes—using a sample of restaurant workers in the United States. In summary, the purposes of this study are threefold: (1) to examine the role of CQ in two outcomes, voice and job satisfaction (CQ → voice; CQ → satisfaction); (2) to explore self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism between CQ and employee voice (CQ → self-efficacy → voice); and (3) to explore the effect of CQ on job satisfaction through a sequential mediation of self-efficacy and voice (CQ → self-efficacy → voice → job satisfaction). The proposed research model is shown in Figure 1. This study contributes to the CQ and voice literature and provides managerial implications for hospitality practitioners to encourage their employees to speak up in an ever-changing global environment.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Person-Environment Fit and Demands-Abilities Fit

Person-environment (P-E) fit is defined as the extent of congruence between a person and the environment [17]. It is a fundamental, overarching theory, subsuming many other versions of fit—such as person-person fit, person-group fit, person-vocation fit, and so forth [18]. P-E fit has been identified as two types—needs-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit [19]. The former emphasizes individuals’ needs, desires or preferences met by resources (financial, physical, and psychological) as well as growth opportunities provided by the environment; the latter highlights that individuals’ knowledge, skills, and abilities are satisfactory and demanded by the environment [19]. The distinction between needs-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit shows the conceptualization of complementary fit under P-E fit [17].
This study focuses on the impact of individuals’ capability of CQ on employees’ voice behavior in a diverse, cultural work setting, i.e., hospitality workplace. Thus, demands-abilities fit is suitable to theoretically support the hypotheses of this study. When individuals consider themselves capable of fulfilling job tasks, their perception of demands-abilities fit enhances, which in turn increases work efficiency and other positive work outcomes [20]. Preferred attitudes and behaviors, such as organizational commitment [21] and organizational citizenship behavior [22], are some of the representative outcomes of demands-abilities fit that have been documented in the literature.

2.2. Cultural Intelligence

CQ addresses cross-cultural encounters between people from different races, ethnicities, or nationalities. The construct has four sub-facets—metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ [23]. Metacognitive CQ describes higher-order cognitive strategies that enable individuals to perceive and identify cultural differences [13]. During and after interactions with people from other cultures, individuals high in this mental capability consciously acquire and comprehend cultural distinctions [14]. They can adjust their thoughts to culturally different groups’ preferred ones [13].
Cognitive CQ signifies general knowledge about other cultures’ norms, traditions and practices that one learns from educational and personal experiences. It includes the ability to understand the value system within which different cultures manage their own economic, social, and legal issues [13]. Motivational CQ enables individuals to enjoy socializing with people from other cultural backgrounds despite the possible obstacles. Individuals high in motivational CQ vigorously pay attention to expand cultural learning and have confidence to effectively perform in cross-cultural settings [14].
Behavioral CQ is one’s ability to modify verbal and nonverbal actions to fit into multicultural situations. This facet complements the mental (metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ) and motivational aspects of CQ. Individuals high in behavioral CQ can perform situationally appropriate behaviors to communicate with people from other cultures (e.g., tones, gestures) [13]. In summary, because of these four facets, people with high CQ become aware of cultural differences and freely apply their cultural knowledge to their communication and behavior in multicultural situations [23].

2.3. Employee Voice

Employees often confront unsatisfactory events and gain opportunities to improve their own or organizational wellbeing at work [24]. Some remain silent while others speak up. When individuals voluntarily communicate their opinions and concerns about their work in an informal way, voice occurs [5]. Voice is one of the choices that individual employees make when they see some aspects of the organization malfunctioning [24]. Through voice behavior, employees seek an opportunity to provide information for the organization or themselves to function more effectively [25]. Due to the “discretionary” and “extra-role” attribute, voice is considered as a kind of organizational citizenship behavior going “the extra mile” for the company [25]. In other words, as employees become aware of problems or grow dissatisfied with their job, voice is the optional strategy that they consider to modify their work circumstances.
The first-hand and immediate market information is of particular importance for any businesses to succeed. Frontline employees in the service industry take up preferential positions to collect such information because they make the most frequent contacts with customers, directly delivering a service to them [26]. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations urgently wanted to identify customers’ potential, changing needs and locating operational flaws and problems to start over or survive in such an unprecedented time [27]. Employee voice can assist organizations with the idea regarding workflow efficiency and product innovation [28]. In addition, speaking up helps employees to acquire additional work resources that facilitate their productivity [29]. Because voice behavior implies good citizenship, voicers might gain a high rating of work performance and a better status in organizations [29].
However, voice behavior may not always result in desired outcomes. Although employees want to communicate beneficial information to the management, their intention to correct unsatisfactory work situations can incur some uncertainty, including upsetting power holders’ status quo [5] and resistance from fellow workers [28]. These unfavorable responses from others can compromise individuals’ willingness to initiate voice behavior.
Although generally encouraged by many organizations, voice is not a required responsibility. Whether to speak up or not totally depends on individual preference. Researchers have explored factors that can attenuate the barriers of speaking up and inspire employee engagement. Typically, voice antecedents include situational factors and individual factors. As for situational factors, organizational climate and leadership improve psychological safety and sense of job meaningfulness, which in turn promote employee voice [9,30,31]. As for individual factors, employees with a proactive personality or highly extraverted ones perceive voice as an opportunity to serve their interests and to achieve organizational goals [32,33]. Employees’ abilities, such as communication competency and EQ, facilitate the exchange of ideas, leading to voice behavior [34,35].

2.4. Cultural Intelligence, Voice, and Job Satisfaction

Values, beliefs, and opinions vary considerably in different cultures. Thus, individuals from distinct cultures hold different expectations while interpreting and responding to certain conditions. These expectations are advocated by rules and rituals or are inferred through verbal or non-verbal communications as well as through the pattern of behavior [36]. For example, collectivistic culture encourages relationships and cooperative behavior, while individualistic culture emphasizes one’s own ideas and personal goals [37]. Cultural expectations, to a substantial extent, are appraised as guidance for one’s judgments of what may or may not be acceptable [38]. In the workplace, particularly in hospitality, where cross-cultural encounters are common, cultures play a vital role in employees’ role expectations. In the absence of explicit job requirements, employees’ decisions on how to perform their roles are dependent on what is culturally expected [38].
Employee voice is a complicated phenomenon because diverse cultures create ambiguity about what is expected to be heard and how to communicate appropriately. The literature shows that employees from different countries or cultures tend to focus on different elements when speaking up. For example, nonverbal behavior is an important part of communication in high power-distance cultures; in comparison, the articulated message is more emphasized in low power-distance cultures [39]. As such, when individuals are engaged in voice behavior, the lack of understanding of other cultures may engender discomfort and errors while speaking up [40]. Individuals feel uncertainty about whether or not they can communicate effectively to produce desired changes because their voice may be misinterpreted as unsolicited interference, incurring even punishment [41].
Theoretically, CQ is a relevant capability for individual behavior in culturally diverse contexts. Although limited, management academics have begun to realize the important role of CQ in organizations, partly due to a large influx of foreign workers into today’s organizations. Jiang et al. demonstrated that the quality of leader-member exchange (LMX) facilitates migrant workers’ voice behavior [42]. Afsar et al. reported that non-national workers who have a high level of CQ feel more trust in superiors with transformational leadership, and this leadership style helps non-national workers express their ideas more freely [43].
However, exploration in this topical area is insufficient because the effect of CQ on voice may not be limited to migrant or expatriate workers who are unfamiliar with the local culture and/or are far away from home. As globalization is making society more culturally diverse [44], domestic workers meet people from other cultures or countries. After the COVID-19 pandemic, due to travel restrictions being loosened, there has been a dramatic surge in hospitality sales, and hospitality businesses have begun welcoming a significant number of travelers [45]. Because of customers from all over the US or globe, CQ is likely to be essential for hospitality employees to better communicate and interact with these diverse customers as well as co-workers. During interactions, culturally intelligent employees can behave appropriately and minimize the misunderstanding of other parties coming from different cultural backgrounds, developing a good rapport with them. Thus, employees with high levels of CQ would be less reluctant to exchange their ideas with others and provide suggestions to management. In summary, we put forth the first hypothesis that:
Hypothesis 1.
Hospitality employees’ CQ is positively related to voice.
Job satisfaction is a positive attitude or emotional state that employees may gain from their work or work aspects [46]. Based on demands-abilities fit theory [19], prior studies have shown that individuals who have better ability to meet the work requirements achieve greater job satisfaction [20]. As CQ enables employees to meet the demands of working in the intercultural work environment, CQ is expected to increase their job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2.
Hospitality employees’ CQ is positively related to job satisfaction.
In addition, if hospitality employees successfully achieve the desired results through their voice, changes in the status quo help solve dissatisfying situations and improve employee or organizational wellbeing [29]. Upward communication triggers employees’ sense of being valued by the management [29]. In other words, active employee voice is likely to improve job satisfaction when management listens to them. Putting together the links from CQ to voice (shown in H1) and from voice to satisfaction, we propose that:
Hypothesis 3.
Hospitality employees’ CQ is positively related to job satisfaction through voice. That is, voice mediates the positive relationship between hospitality employees’ CQ and job satisfaction.

2.5. The Mediation Role of Self-Efficacy

From a psychological perspective, self-efficacy indicates individuals’ belief in their ability to perform a certain behavior in a given situation [47]. Individuals with a high level of self-efficacy are inclined to take initiative, and individuals with a low level of self-efficacy have a tendency to withdraw [47]. Individuals’ self-efficacy has been described as one of the most prominent, common predictors of work outcomes in organizations, including proactive [48] and innovative behaviors [49]. It also determines employees’ expended efforts and persistence in the face of challenges [47].
The salient role of self-efficacy in voice has been reported in the literature, e.g., in [50]. Employees low in self-efficacy doubt their capability to fulfil a task and therefore are reluctant to speak out; in contrast, employees high in self-efficacy are confident in the validity of their opinions and therefore speak their voice more effectively [51]. Additionally, because of the intention to change the current situation, voice is perceived as a risky behavior [41]. Self-efficacy empowers individuals to bear the risk [52].
Culturally intelligent employees, while interacting with people from diverse cultures, realize the appropriateness of their communication and behavior, easily overcome cultural barriers, and smoothly adapt to a particular role expectation [53]. Thus, their high-level of CQ is likely to help them to fit the job demands in the multicultural work setting, which enhances their general self-efficacy. Based on the results of prior research on the link between self-efficacy and voice, and demands-abilities fit theory, we consider that CQ allows hospitality employees to excel in the workplace, increasing their confidence in what they are doing. This sense of confidence subsequently encourages hospitality employees to actively express their thoughts. Thus, we theorize that self-efficacy is an underlying mechanism through which the favorable effect of CQ on voice occurs.
Hypothesis 4.
Hospitality employees’ CQ is positively related to voice through self-efficacy. That is, hospitality employees’ self-efficacy mediates the relationship between CQ and voice.
Moreover, given H3 (CQ → voice → satisfaction) and the relationship just mentioned (CQ → self-efficacy → voice), we theorize a sequential mediation path from CQ to satisfaction via, first, self-efficacy and, then, voice (CQ → self-efficacy → voice → satisfaction) as follows:
Hypothesis 5.
Hospitality employees’ self-efficacy and voice sequentially mediate the relationship between CQ and job satisfaction.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data

We collected data from employees working for restaurants in three cities (Los Angeles, Honolulu, and Seattle) in the western United States. The participating restaurants are full-service restaurants where customers are seated and the wait staff take orders and bring food and drinks to the customers at tables. The type of restaurants ranged from casual dining to fine dining. Quick service restaurants were excluded from the sample. Given that the focus of this study is on CQ and voice, establishments providing employees with an opportunity to make longer interactions with a variety of diners and in a more complex work environment, including colleagues from other cultures, are deemed more appropriate. Restaurant owners or managers who approved the data collection are familiar with the authors’ hospitality programs or alumni of the programs. In the cover letter of the survey, we explained the purpose of the study and guaranteed respondents’ anonymity. The respondents who were born and raised or have lived in the US for an extensive time as a citizen (without any language barrier) were qualified for this study. After distributing 500 questionnaires, we collected 285 usable ones (response rate: 57%). Most of the respondents were either servers or bartenders. Of the 285 respondents, 53% (N = 151) were women and 41% (N = 118) were men. They ranged in age from 18 to 63 years with a mean of 29.2. On average, respondents worked for 4 years in the restaurant industry and 2.1 years at their current restaurant.

3.2. Measures

We adopted Ang et al.’s scale to assess CQ. It comprises four sub-dimensions of CQ: metacognitive (4 items) (e.g., “I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people of different cultural backgrounds”), cognitive (6 items) (e.g., “I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures”), motivational (5 items) (e.g., “I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures”), and behavioral (5 items) (e.g., “I change my nonverbal behavior when a cross-cultural situation requires it”) [13]. To assess voice, we utilized the scale (6 items) developed by [25]. Their scale focuses on voice as an extra-role behavior while in-role behaviors are expected or required behaviors. As this study concerns voluntary expressions that may promote the efficient operation of hospitality businesses (e.g., “I speak up in the group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures”), the extra-role attribute of voice suits better for the proposed model.
We assessed employees’ self-efficacy (10 items), as suggested by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (e.g., “I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events”) [54]. Job satisfaction was assessed with the scale (3 items) (e.g., “In general, I like working at my organization”) developed by Lawler et al. [55]. All measurement items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type response scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree. Lastly, we inquired into respondents’ demographic and job characteristics: gender, age, job position, and job tenure with the current employer, and industry tenure.

3.3. Statistical Analysis

The hypotheses were tested with partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Unlike covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) that aims to minimize the difference between the estimated theoretical covariance matrix and the observed sample, PLS-SEM focuses on maximizing explained variance in dependent variables, thereby increasing predictability of the model [56]. In addition, PLS-SEM is desired for this study because: (1) the sample size is relatively small and (2) the data show non-normal distribution, which is typical of most social science studies [56].

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Constructs

Before testing the hypotheses, we examined the descriptive statistics of study variables and correlations among them. Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, correlations, and coefficient alphas. The mean of CQ represents the average score of four sub-facets (as a higher-order construct). The mean values of CQ, self-efficacy, voice, and job satisfaction are 3.54, 4.00, 3.64, and 3.91, respectively. CQ has a positive correlation with self-efficacy (r = 0.42, p < 0.01), voice (r = 0.44, p < 0.01), and job satisfaction (r = 0.39, p < 0.01). Self-efficacy has a positive association with voice (r = 0.49, p < 0.01) and job satisfaction (r = 0.45, p < 0.01). Voice has a positive correlation with job satisfaction (r = 0.39, p < 0.01).

4.2. Measurement Model

CQ, self-efficacy, voice, and job satisfaction are latent constructs with reflective indicators. Factor loading values for each latent construct were assessed to establish convergent validity. All item loadings showed acceptable values ranging from 0.61 to 0.95 [57] (Table 2). Average variance extracted (AVE) is another barometer for convergent validity. It was shown to be greater than the recommended value of 0.5 for all latent constructs except for CQ. CQ is a second-order construct with four sub-facets. Although the AVE of CQ (0.45) is slightly below 0.5, this score is acceptable to support convergent validity [57].
To test the psychometric properties of these constructs, we evaluated reliability and validity values in the measurement model [56]. As for reliability, we checked Cronbach’s alpha as well as composite reliability. All latent constructs in the model demonstrated a value greater than the threshold of 0.7 [57,58], ensuring their internal consistency. In addition to convergent validity, discriminant validity was evaluated with the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). All latent constructs showed HTMT values of less than 0.85, confirming discriminant validity [59]. Reliability values and HTMT ratios are presented in Table 3.

4.3. Common Method Bias

This study used a self-administered survey and collected data at one point in time. This method may introduce systematic error variance, known as common method bias, in the cross-sectional research design [60], such as in this study. Min et al. recommended procedural remedy and statistical control for hospitality scholars to avoid the detrimental effect of common method bias [60]. During data collection, participants were guaranteed anonymity and informed of the use of their data solely for academic research purposes. This procedural remedy often mitigates the concerns about common method bias [60]. Moreover, following Kock’s logic, we adopted a full collinearity test to detect potential common method bias in a PLS-SEM model; when a variance inflation factor (VIF) shows a value greater than 3.3, common method bias is judged to exist [61]. Our results showed estimations of VIF ranging from 0.08 to 1.51, revealing that common method bias is not an issue in the proposed relationships.

4.4. Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing

We assessed the structural model after the measurement model. In SmartPLS 3, bootstrapping 2000 subsamples were applied to test the proposed hypotheses. Figure 2 shows the results of parameter estimates and corresponding significance levels. CQ appears to be a salient predictor of hospitality employees’ voice (β = 0.27, p < 0.01) and job satisfaction (β = 0.31, p < 0.01). Thus, H1 and H2 are supported. Next, we tested the significance of a series of indirect paths: (1) from CQ to job satisfaction via voice (CQ → voice → job satisfaction), (2) from CQ to employee voice via self-efficacy (CQ → self-efficacy → voice), and 3) a sequential mediation path (CQ → self-efficacy → voice → job satisfaction). Mediation tests confirmed that CQ has a significant, positive indirect effect on job satisfaction via voice (β = 0.08, p < 0.01) and a significant, positive indirect effect on voice via self-efficacy (β = 0.17, p < 0.01). The sequential mediation effect of CQ on job satisfaction through self-efficacy and then voice was also significant (β = 0.05, p < 0.01). In summary, CQ improves self-efficacy, which leads to a greater chance to voice and ultimately increases job satisfaction. H4, H5 and H6 are, therefore, supported.
Some scholars argue the usefulness of analyzing the effect of each sub-facet of CQ, e.g., [62]. In line with this view, we conducted additional analyses to see if there are any major differential effects of CQ sub-facets on three outcomes—self-efficacy, voice, and satisfaction (see the results of regression in Table 4). Of the four sub-facets, three (meta, cognitive, and motivational) were generally found to be related to these outcomes. In addition, note that the direct effect of CQ on voice remains significant even after the inclusion of the mediator, self-efficacy. This indicates a partial mediation rather than full [63]. All other indirect paths showed similar results, indicating partial mediations.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Contribution

Based on person-environment fit, specifically demands-abilities fit, this study demonstrates that domestic contact employees’ CQ helps to express work-related opinions and make employees feel happier about their jobs in a diverse work environment. This desirable function of CQ works directly, as well as indirectly, through improved employees’ self-efficacy. The results of this study make the following theoretical contributions. First, it contributes to the voice literature. Prior studies have examined the factors that can influence employees’ voice behavior and have suggested a few personal (e.g., Big Five) and environmental/situational factors, e.g., [31,32]. In recent years, thanks to the growing interest in CQ, a couple of studies have revealed a glimpse of the relationship between CQ and voice through a mediation process different from this study [42,43]. These prior studies targeted non-national employees working in other countries or migrant employees who had just moved to other countries without proper language skills; given their challenging position in a foreign land, it makes perfect sense that their leaders play critical roles in promoting their voice [42,43].
Limiting the sample to a particular group of people impairs the generalizability of extant research [64], because it is questionable whether or not the results may be applicable to a wide range of subjects. Unlike prior studies, we focused on domestic employees that are fully comfortable in their own countries and examined their qualifications for the job rather than the leaders’ role. The findings of this study add to the body of person-environment fit theory by conceptualizing CQ as a critical ability that contact employees should possess to be successful voicers in domestic work environments such as hospitality. This relationship occurs through increased self-efficacy. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to explore the relationship between CQ and self-efficacy, more specifically, self-efficacy as a (partial) mediating mechanism between CQ and voice.
Broadly speaking, this study notes CQ as another intelligence just like EO or IQ that may serve as a source of workers’ self-efficacy in today’s environments. Because of globalization necessitating encounters with guests from other parts of the world, not to mention an increasingly diverse workforce, CQ is expected to play a more and more important role in employee confidence to perform their job better. CQ sub-facets that are mental activities-related contribute to the increase in employees’ self-efficacy (motivational CQ) and voice (meta, cognitive, and motivational CQs) rather than behavioral CQ. These results seem to suggest that mental sensitivity to feel the cultural difference from their own and willingness to learn about other cultures are true drivers of employee self-efficacy and voice behavior, as opposed to merely mimicking cultural behaviors. In other words, only when employees can comprehend and enjoy other cultures in service encounters does their perception of being capable at work increase. Overall, the result of this study serves as added evidence to support long-lasting, versatile person-environment fit theory.

5.2. Managerial Implications

This study has several practical implications for hospitality operators. The practitioners should strive to increase the organizational level of CQ because hospitality employees often encounter customers from other cultures and countries and work with multicultural or diverse co-workers. The organization may acquire CQ by recruiting employees with high levels of CQ. Recruiters could ask job applicants questions pertaining to direct (e.g., international trips) or indirect (e.g., reference groups such as friends or family members) cultural experiences and then ask what actions they have taken or will take in a variety of cultural scenarios.
It may not always be feasible to find such qualified applicants. The recent study by Min et al. argues that CQ can be developed through education [64]. It will be wise for hospitality practitioners to provide regular cultural training to their contact employees to enhance their CQ. Some alternative options are available to improve employees’ cultural awareness and knowledge at minimal cost. For example, the organization can celebrate the major holidays of other countries (e.g., Lunar New Year, common to many Asian countries) through socials, or invite employees to collaborate with colleagues from other cultures on short-term group assignments or projects.
Although employee voice is recognized as a critical resource for a successful business [43], business owners or practitioners are often ignorant of how to advocate employee voice. Managers, perceived as the embodiment of the organization [65], should sincerely welcome and appreciate contact employees’ voice behavior. It may be great for superiors to share employee ideas adopted by the organization in the past. It sends an optimistic message to contact employees that their voice is least likely to be dismissed or neglected by their superiors.
In addition, any novel ideas should be frequently recognized—perhaps nominated for the “idea of the month” or the “idea of the year”—through internal company sites or newsletters. If possible, a small reward can be given to the employee who proposed the idea. It is also imperative to respond to employee opinions that are not accepted by the organization so that employees learn that the organization gives a fair amount of consideration to all of their suggestions. Just as hospitality practitioners tirelessly seek customer voice to improve the operation, employee voice should be taken just as seriously. The practitioners must keep in mind that self-efficacy is a key to encourage contact employees’ voice behavior. Employees’ self-efficacy is likely to increase through diligent, sincere responses. In conclusion, if hospitality companies wish to gain a competitive edge in a fast-changing global market, they must understand that the voice of employees with high levels of CQ deserves to be heard.

5.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Given that this study was conducted in casual or fine dining restaurants, it is recommended to validate the findings in other hospitality or service sectors. It will also be interesting to conduct comparative studies to reveal which intelligence plays a more substantial role in voice behavior (e.g., IQ vs. EQ vs. CQ) in a variety of hospitality or service sectors. IQ may serve as basic intelligence for all types of work performance, including voice behavior, whereas CQ or EQ may be required for career success in certain job environments such as hospitality. In addition, it is plausible to examine interactions between different kinds of intelligence. Cote et al. argue that EQ compensates for IQ [66]. They reveal that employees with low IQ are able to perform their tasks if they are emotionally intelligent. We predict similar results among employees with high CQ, especially in a multicultural work environment. CQ and IQ become compensatory; in other words, CQ becomes a stronger determinant of job performance as IQ decreases.
CQ enables people to perceive and understand cultures that are different from their own. Through interactions with customers of other ethnicities or from foreign countries, employees absorb new knowledge. This accumulated new knowledge may help them to see issues with fresh eyes. Employee voice can be promotive or prohibitive [52]. Promotive voice offers suggestions to improve work practices; prohibitive voice is intended to prevent harmful events from occurring. Researchers may want to examine the relationships between CQ and these two types of voice. It is predicted that a CQ that is more receptive to a new culture encourages promotive voice rather than prohibitive, possibly stimulating innovative thoughts, which is critical in an increasingly volatile economic climate we experience.

6. Concluding Remarks

This study provides compelling evidence of the positive influence of CQ on employees’ voice behavior and job satisfaction, with self-efficacy serving as a mediator between CQ and voice behavior. Drawing upon the theoretical framework of demands-abilities fit, this study makes a valuable contribution to the extant literature by highlighting CQ as an essential individual capability in the hospitality industry. This study generally underscores the importance of hospitality employees’ knowledge and understanding of other cultures and the necessity of cultivating employees’ CQ. Thanks to CQ, hospitality employees are likely to feel more confident in daily operations. The organization, filled with highly culturally intelligent employees, can create a more conducive work environment, furthering each and everyone’s work engagement and job satisfaction. It is our hope that hospitality practitioners make the best use of employee voice for their organizations’ sustainable success in today’s fast-changing business environment, particularly while going through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.Y. and H.J.K.; Formal analysis, L.Y. and H.M.; Methodology, L.Y., H.J.K. and H.M.; Resources, H.J.K. and H.M.; Software, L.Y. and H.M.; Writing—original draft, L.Y. and H.M.; Writing—review and editing, L.Y. and H.J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Hubei Provincial Higher Education Institution Teaching and Research Projects (project number: 2015423).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Washington State University (IRB#: 15807).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ma, E.; Hsiao, A.; Gao, J.; Vada, S. Inspiring good soldiers cross-culturally through the lens of the theory of planned behavior—Which works best, norms or behavioral control? J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kim, H.J. Hotel service providers’ emotional labor: The antecedents and effects on burnout. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2008, 27, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kim, H.J.; Shin, K.H.; Umbreit, W.T. Hotel job burnout: The role of personality characteristics. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2007, 26, 421–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. George, R. Characteristics of Tourism and Hospitality Marketing. In Marketing Tourism and Hospitality; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 33–61. [Google Scholar]
  5. Morrison, E.W. Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2011, 5, 373–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. He, H.; Harris, L. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 116, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Grönroos, C. Viewpoint: Service marketing research priorities. J. Serv. Mark. 2020, 34, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liang, T.L.; Chang, H.F.; Ko, M.H.; Lin, C.W. Transformational leadership and employee voices in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 374–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Morrison, E.W.; Wheeler-Smith, S.L.; Kamdar, D. Speaking up in groups: A cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fischer, R.; Ferreira, M.C.; Van Meurs, N.; Gok, K.; Jiang, D.-Y.; Fontaine, J.R.J.; Abubakar, A. Does organizational formalization facilitate voice and helping organizational citizenship behaviors? It depends on (national) uncertainty norms. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2019, 50, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. LePine, J.A.; Van Dyne, L. Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Srivastava, S.; Jain, A.K.; Sullivan, S. Employee silence and burnout in India: The mediating role of emotional intelligence. Pers. Rev. 2019, 48, 1045–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ang, S.; Van Dyne, L.; Koh, C.; Ng, K.Y.; Templer, K.J.; Tay, C.; Chandrasekar, N.A. Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and Decision Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2007, 3, 335–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Earley, P.C.; Ang, S. Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures; Stanford University Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liao, Y.K.; Wu, W.Y.; Dao, T.C.; Ngoc Luu, T.M. The influence of emotional intelligence and cultural adaptability on cross-cultural adjustment and performance with the mediating effect of cross-cultural competence: A study of expatriates in Taiwan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Templer. Personal attributes of expatriate managers, subordinate ethnocentrism, and expatriate success: A host-country perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2010, 21, 1754–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Muchinsky, P.M.; Monahan, C.J. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. J. Vocat. Behav. 1987, 31, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chuang, A.; Shen, C.T.; Judge, T.A. Development of a multidimensional instrument of person-environment fit: The perceived person-environment fit scale. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 2016, 65, 66–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Edwards, J.R. Person-Job Fit: A Conceptual Integration, Literature Review, and Methodological Critique; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  20. Tak, J. Relationships between various person-environment fit types and employee withdrawal behavior: A longitudinal study. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 78, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zellars, K.L.; Hochwarter, W.A.; Perrewe, P.L.; Miles, A.K.; Kiewitz, C. Beyond self-efficacy: Interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy. J. Manag. Issues 2001, 13, 483–499. [Google Scholar]
  22. Park, J.; Sohn, Y.W.; Ha, Y.J. South Korean salespersons’ calling, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of occupational self-efficacy. J. Career Assess. 2016, 24, 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ang, S.; Van Dyne, L. Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, Applications; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2008; pp. 3–15. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hirschman, A.O. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1970; Volume 25. [Google Scholar]
  25. Van Dyne, L.; LePine, J.A. Helping and Voice Extra-Role Behaviors: Evidence of Construct and Predictive Validity. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Coelho, F.; Augusto, M.; Lages, L.F. Contextual Factors and the Creativity of Frontline Employees: The Mediating Effects of Role Stress and Intrinsic Motivation. J. Retail. 2011, 87, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, J.J.; Han, H. Saving the hotel industry: Strategic response to the COVID-19 pandemic, hotel selection analysis, and customer retention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 102, 103163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rasheed, M.A.; Shahzad, K.; Nadeem, S. Transformational leadership and employee voice for product and process innovation in SMEs. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2021, 18, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ng, T.W.H.; Feldman, D.C. Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 216–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chen, S.-J.; Wang, M.-J.; Lee, S.-H. Transformational leadership and voice behaviors. Pers. Rev. 2018, 47, 694–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chiang, C.-F.; Chen, J.-A. How empowering leadership and a cooperative climate influence employees’ voice behavior and knowledge sharing in the hotel industry. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Toruism 2021, 22, 476–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tedone, A.M.; Bruk-Lee, V. Speaking up at work: Personality’s influence on employee voice behavior. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2022, 30, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xie, J.; Chu, X.; Zhang, J.; Huang, J. Proactive personality and voice behavior: The influence of voice self-efficacy and delegation. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2014, 42, 1191–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ellis, J.B.; Van Dyne, L.; Greenberg, J.; Edwards, M. Voice and silence as observer reactions to defensive voice: Predictions based on communication competence theory. In Voice and Silence in Organizations; Emerald Group: Bingley, UK, 2009; pp. 37–61. [Google Scholar]
  35. Xie, L.; Chang, C.-N.; Singh, S. Emotional intelligence, voice and flow: A team-level study of work teams. Team Perform. Manag. Int. J. 2021, 27, 524–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bonaccio, S.; O’Reilly, J.; O’Sullivan, S.L.; Chiocchio, F. Nonverbal behavior and communication in the workplace: A review and an agenda for research. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 1044–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Triandis, H.C. Culture and conflict. Int. J. Psychol. 2000, 35, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Triandis, H.C. Dimensions of cultural variation as parameters of organizational theories. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 1982, 12, 139–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ward, A.-K.; Ravlin, E.C.; Klaas, B.S.; Ployhart, R.E.; Buchan, N.R. When do high-context communicators speak up? Exploring contextual communication orientation and employee voice. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 101, 1498–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Ng, K.-Y.; Van Dyne, L.; Ang, S. Speaking out and speaking up in multicultural settings: A two-study examination of cultural intelligence and voice behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2019, 151, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sibunruang, H.; Kawai, N. The instrumental role of employee voice in achieving promotability: Social influence perspective. Pers. Rev. 2023, 52, 687–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jiang, Z.; Le, H.; Gollan, P.J. Cultural intelligence and voice behavior among migrant workers: The mediating role of leader–member exchange. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 1082–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Afsar, B.; Shahjehan, A.; Shah, S.I.; Wajid, A. The mediating role of transformational leadership in the relationship between cultural intelligence and employee voice behavior: A case of hotel employees. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2019, 69, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thapliyal, K.; Joshi, M. Cross-Cultural Management: Opportunities and Challenges. In Integrating New Technologies in International Business: Opportunities Challenges; Apple Academic Press: Palm Bay, FL, USA, 2022; pp. 31–53. [Google Scholar]
  45. Popa, I.; Lee, L.; Yu, H.; Madera, J.M. Losing talent due to COVID-19: The roles of anger and fear on industry turnover intentions. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 54, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Judge, T.A.; Bono, J.E. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits–self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability–with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bandura, A. Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy. Am. Psychol. 1986, 41, 1389–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Den Hartog, D.N.; Belschak, F.D. Work engagement and Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 107, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Teng, C.C.; Hu, C.M.; Chang, J.H. Triggering creative self-efficacy to increase employee innovation behavior in the hospitality workplace. J. Creat. Behav. 2020, 54, 912–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Eibl, B.; Lang, F.R.; Niessen, C. Employee voice at work: The role of employees’ gender, self-efficacy beliefs, and leadership. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2020, 29, 570–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Landau, J. To speak or not to speak: Predictors of voice propensity. J. Organ. Cult. Commun. Confl. 2009, 13, 35. [Google Scholar]
  52. Liang, J.; Farh, C.I.C.; Farh, J.-L. Psychological Antecedents of Promotive and Prohibitive Voice: A Two-Wave Examination. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Appelbaum, S.H.; Hare, A. Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and performance. J. Manag. Psychol. 1996, 11, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Schwarzer, R.; Jerusalem, M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal Control Beliefs; Weinman, J., Wright, S., Johnston, M., Eds.; NFER-NELSON: Windsor, ON, Canada, 1995; pp. 35–37. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lawler, E.; Cammann, C.; Nadler, D.; Jenkins, D. Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. J. Vocat. Behav. 1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cohen, J. Set correlation and contingency tables. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1988, 12, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Min, H.; Park, J.; Kim, H.J. Common method bias in hospitality research: A critical review of literature and an empirical study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 56, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. E-Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Min, H.; Kim, H.J.; Agrusa, J. Serving diverse customers: The impact of cultural intelligence on employee burnout, engagement, and job satisfaction. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2021, 47, 10963480211016031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Peterson, R.A.; Merunka, D.R. Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1035–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Park, J.; Kim, H.J. How and when does abusive supervision affect hospitality employees’ service sabotage? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 83, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Côté, S.; Miners, C.T.; Moon, S. Emotional intelligence and wise emotion regulation in the workplace. In Individual and Organizational Perspectives on Emotion Management and Display; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 08851 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed research model. Notes: MetaCQ, meta-cognitive CQ; CogCQ, cognitive CQ; MotiCQ, motivational CQ; BehCQ, behavioral CQ.
Figure 1. Proposed research model. Notes: MetaCQ, meta-cognitive CQ; CogCQ, cognitive CQ; MotiCQ, motivational CQ; BehCQ, behavioral CQ.
Sustainability 15 08851 g001
Sustainability 15 08851 g002 550
Figure 2. Parameter estimates of the research model. Notes: MetaCQ, meta-cognitive CQ; CogCQ, cognitive CQ; MotiCQ, motivational CQ; BehCQ, behavioral CQ. ** p < 0.01.
Figure 2. Parameter estimates of the research model. Notes: MetaCQ, meta-cognitive CQ; CogCQ, cognitive CQ; MotiCQ, motivational CQ; BehCQ, behavioral CQ. ** p < 0.01.
Sustainability 15 08851 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables.
MeanSD1234
1. CQ3.540.66(0.93)
2. Self-efficacy4.000.680.42 *(0.92)
3. Voice3.640.880.44 *0.49 **(0.93)
4. Job satisfaction3.910.940.39 *0.45 **0.39 **(0.82)
5. Gender1.220.630.080.14 *0.030.07
6. Industry tenure47.7863.790.02−0.020.18 **0.09
Notes: N = 285. CQ, cultural intelligence. Coefficient alphas are shown in parentheses along the diagonal. Gender: 1, male; 2, female. Industry tenure: Months working in the restaurant industry. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Measurement items and standardized factor loadings.
Table 2. Measurement items and standardized factor loadings.
LoadingsAverage
Variance
Extracted
(AVE)
Cultural intelligence (CQ) 0.45
Meta cognitive CQ
1. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds.0.73
2. I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me.0.72
3. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to cross-cultural interactions.0.77
4. I check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from different cultures.0.66
Cognitive CQ
1. I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures.0.73
2. I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages.0.69
3. I know the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures.0.81
4. I know the marriage systems of other cultures.0.80
5. I know the arts and crafts of other cultures.0.83
6. I know the rules for expressing nonverbal behaviors in other cultures.0.79
Motivational CQ
1. I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.0.71
2. I am confident that I can socialize with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me.0.77
3. I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me.0.79
4. I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me. 0.85
5. I am confident that I can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a different culture. 0.81
Behavioral CQ
1. I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it.0.81
2. I use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations.0.80
3. I vary the rate of my speaking when a cross-cultural situation requires it.0.85
4. I change my nonverbal behavior when a cross-cultural situation requires it.0.88
5. I alter my facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it.0.77
Self-efficacy 0.59
1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough. 0.81
2. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events. 0.63
3. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations. 0.61
4. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort. 0.81
5. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities. 0.84
6. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions. 0.79
7. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution. 0.77
8. I can usually handle whatever comes my way.0.79
9. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want. 0.81
10. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals. 0.78
Voice 0.74
1. I develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect my work group.0.85
2. I speak up and encourages others in my group to get involved in issues that affect my work group.0.86
3. I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in my work group even if my opinion is different and others in my group disagree with me.0.85
4. I keep well informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to my workgroup.0.86
5. I get involved in issues that affect the quality of work life here in my work group.0.87
6. I speak up in the group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.0.87
Job satisfaction 0.74
1. All in all, I am satisfied with my job.0.95
2. In general, I like working at my organization.0.94
3. In general, I don’t like my job.0.65
Note: All factor loading values are significant (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 3. Reliability and validity of the study variables.
Table 3. Reliability and validity of the study variables.
Latent Construct (s)Composite Reliabilityrho_A123
1. CQ0.930.93
2. Self-efficacy0.940.930.47
3. Voice0.950.930.480.53
4. Job satisfaction0.890.940.450.520.45
Note: The values under the diagonal show the HTMT ratio.
Table
Table 4. Effects of CQ sub-facets on self, efficacy, voice, and job satisfaction.
Table 4. Effects of CQ sub-facets on self, efficacy, voice, and job satisfaction.
CQ Sub-FacetsSelf-Efficacy
β		Voice
β		Job Satisfaction
β
MetaCQ0.080.09 †0.00
CogCQ0.060.22 **0.20 *
MotiCQ0.51 **0.28 **0.24 **
BehCQ0.02−0.050.04
F25.96 **19.41 **13.63 **
Total R20.270.220.16
Adjusted R20.260.210.15
Note: β, standardized beta coefficient; MetaCQ, meta-cognitive CQ; CogCQ, cognitive CQ; MotiCQ, motivational CQ; BehCQ, behavioral CQ. ** p < 0.01. * p < 0.05. † p < 0.10.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yuan, L.; Kim, H.J.; Min, H. How Cultural Intelligence Facilitates Employee Voice in the Hospitality Industry. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8851. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118851

AMA Style

Yuan L, Kim HJ, Min H. How Cultural Intelligence Facilitates Employee Voice in the Hospitality Industry. Sustainability. 2023; 15(11):8851. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118851

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yuan, Lu, Hyun Jeong Kim, and Hyounae (Kelly) Min. 2023. "How Cultural Intelligence Facilitates Employee Voice in the Hospitality Industry" Sustainability 15, no. 11: 8851. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118851

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop