Next Article in Journal
Multi-Scale Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Ecosystem Health in the Harbin–Changchun Urban Agglomeration, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Possessing 21st-Century Skills and Building Sustainable Careers: Early-Career Social Sciences Graduates’ Perspectives
Previous Article in Journal
Toxicity of a Common Glyphosate Metabolite to the Freshwater Planarian (Girardia tigrina)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/su16020840
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

How Does Sustainable Organizational Support Affect Job Burnout in the Hospitality Sector? The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital

by
Mohamed A. Moustafa
1,
Musaddag Elrayah
1,*,
Abdulaziz Aljoghaiman
1,
Ahmed M. Hasanein
1 and
Mona A. S. Ali
2
1
Department of Management, School of Business, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 400, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
2
Computer Science Department, College of Computer Science and Information Technology, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 400, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(2), 840; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020840
Submission received: 29 November 2023 / Revised: 15 January 2024 / Accepted: 16 January 2024 / Published: 18 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Occupational Psychology and Sustainable Career Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The hospitality industry is often regarded as a labor-intensive sector which is particularly susceptible to job burnout among employees, emphasizing its significant reliance on human resources for various service-oriented functions. This study explores the intricate dynamics between organizational support, job burnout, and psychological capital in the context of the hospitality sector. It aims to investigate how the level of support provided by organizations influences the occurrence of job burnout among employees in the hospitality industry, with a specific focus on the mediating role played by psychological capital. This research employs a theoretical framework to examine the relationships between these key variables and adopts structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze the data. The study encompassed data from a total sample of 385 employees, with a gender distribution indicating that the majority (64.1%, N = 247) were male, while 35.9% (N = 138) were female. The main results showed that psychological capital was significantly enhanced by organizational support (β = 0.714, t-value = 45.211). On the other hand, it was found that psychological capital (β = −0.092, t-value = 2.176) and organizational support (β = −0.477, t-value = 11.674) had a substantial negative impact on job burnout. The finding of this study showed that psychological capital mediates the relationship between job burnout and organizational support to some extent (β = −0.066, t-value = 2.134). The findings are anticipated to shed light on effective strategies for organizations to mitigate job burnout by fostering positive psychological capital through supportive organizational practices, ultimately enhancing the well-being and performance of employees in the demanding and dynamic field of hospitality. By unraveling the interplay of organizational support, psychological capital, and job burnout, this study contributes valuable insights to academia, sustainable occupational health, and practitioners in the hospitality sector.

1. Introduction

Today, psychological capital (PsyCap) receives extensive study from both scholars and professionals, and it is linked to people’s attitudes, behaviors, and effectiveness at many levels of examination [1]. PsyCap is delineated as an individual’s favorable psychological state, encompassing self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience [2,3]. The significant impact of the discipline of psychology on the state of well-being is widely acknowledged across diverse domains, encompassing interpersonal connections, learning, physical and mental health, athletic activities, military endeavors, professional engagements, and the human existence overall [4] A recent field of study called the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development considers how to maximize and replenish one’s resources to create fulfilling personal and professional experiences [5]. The issue of people’s sustainable well-being and healthy lives has been given special concern, especially in SDG3 [6,7]. The benefits of sustainable organizational support are numerous. It improves workers’ well-being and their attitude towards their company and job, and it produces positive behavioral results for the company. Retaining and re-engaging members, volunteers, and leaders is made easier by sustained organizational support, which also facilitates the completion of the following cycles of involvement [8]. The hospitality sector is one of the most important economic sectors, especially in Mediterranean countries like Egypt [9]. This sector faces many problems, including the management of people. Hotels and restaurants frequently have trouble finding and hiring motivated staff members [10]. For individuals and an organization as a whole to succeed, there must be sustainable organizational support.
PsyCap is described as the possession of self-assurance and efficacy to undertake and expend the necessary effort to succeed in difficult undertakings [11,12]. Additionally, it entails adopting a constructive mindset that attributes success to both the present and the future. Moreover, it involves persisting in the pursuit of goals and, if necessary, adapting one’s path toward those goals to achieve them, which is known as hope. Finally, even in the face of problems and adversity, this state of development enables individuals to endure and recover, surpassing their previous state to attain success, which is referred to as resilience [4].
PsyCap exerts a favorable impact on the performance of managers within manufacturing companies, particularly when synergized with the practices of knowledge sharing and commitment [13]. PsyCap demonstrates positive correlations with job innovation, working satisfaction, and subjective well-being while displaying negative correlations with stress, turnover, and burnout [14].
Burnout, also known as job burnout, is a personal response to interpersonal and emotional stress and is associated with occupational stress and work pressure [15]. Job burnout refers to a wide-ranging manifestation of both physical and psychological symptoms that stem from excessive work-related stress. Chronic fatigue, headaches, despair, and anxiety are some of the symptoms of burnout, which have an impact on one’s physical and mental well-being [16,17]. The aforementioned symptoms encompass emotional depletion, estrangement from oneself, and a decline in self-fulfillment. It is predominantly prevalent among individuals who establish close connections with their colleagues, and it ensues from the interplay between personal predispositions and surrounding circumstances [18]. Job support encompasses a wide range of job resources, including physical, psychological, social, and organizational components. These tools serve as methods for employees to fulfill their work objectives, alleviate workplace obligations, and encourage personal development and growth, knowledge acquisition, and professional advancement [19]. The performance of an organization is highly predicted by the intrinsic motivations of its personnel. Significant antecedents of intrinsic motives such as employers’ social responsibility, employment stability, and acknowledged motivations are very important parts of sustainable organizational support [20]. It has been discovered that sustainable organizational performance and perceived organizational support are positively correlated, with sustainable organizational reputation acting as a partial mediating factor in this relationship [21].
This study aims to address the question of how job burnout among employees in the hospitality business is impacted by sustained organizational support. In addition, this quantitative study aims to highlight the existing role played by PsyCap in shaping and modifying the relationship between organizational support and job burnout. The findings of this study are expected to contribute to the theoretical and practical gap in the existing literature by highlighting this role. Theoretically, very few studies have discussed the issue of sustainable organizational support and its relation to job burnout among employees in the hospitality sector, taking PsyCap as a mediator. Practically, sustainable organizational support might lead to improvements in an organization’s competitive advantage if managers apply the main principles related to this concept. Some businesses were able to set themselves apart because they proactively supported their employees. External goals will be necessary for extrinsic motivations to compel someone to engage in particular behaviors. This requires continuous support and development for employees. Many businesses make an effort to inspire their staff members to increase their output and performance [22].
The study is important because it focuses on the hospitality sector and shows high rates of job stress and job burnout. Employees in the hospitality sector showed high levels of stress and job burnout. Task characteristics and workload are the primary sources of stress that hotel employees experience at work [23]. As the importance of positive psychological resources becomes more widely recognized, organizations are attempting to support doctors’ physical and mental well-being by strengthening psychological resources [24]. Research has indicated that PsyCap is associated with POS and job engagement in staff and nurses [25] and that PsyCap is associated with professional identity in Chinese physicians [26]. Levels of burnout among managers in the food and beverage and front-office sectors have been observed to be higher compared to their counterparts in other middle management positions [27]. Employees possessing a greater degree of psychological capital are more prone to exhibiting a heightened level of engagement in their professional endeavors, thereby leading to a consequential upsurge in both productivity and contentment [28]. To synopsize, it can be stated that psychological capital bears significant importance as it exerts a positive impact on performance, well-being, adaptability, and resilience, as well as engagement. A statistically significant association exists between work engagement and PsyCap scores [29].
Based on the introduction above, this study aims to understand (1) how organizational support impacts PsyCap; (2) how organizational support impacts the level of job burnout; (3) how PsyCap relates to job burnout; (4) and how PysCap mediates the relationship between organizational support and job burnout.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Organizational Support and Job Burnout

Organizational support denotes the allocation of resources, direction, and aid bestowed by an organization upon its personnel to facilitate the attainment of their work-oriented aspirations and targets [30]. It encompasses diverse manifestations of assistance comprising training, guidance, the provision of essential instruments and technology, acknowledgment and incentives, adaptable work arrangements, and an affirming and encouraging work milieu. Organizational support assumes significance in terms of fostering employee contentment, well-being, drive, and comprehensive efficacy [31]. Previous research indicated that a perceived feeling of organizational support from individuals had a greater impact on organizational commitment and job search behavior than mentorship and supervisor support circumstances [32].
Organizational support pertains to the diverse array of resources, policies, and practices that a company bestows upon its employees to establish a work environment that is accommodating and encouraging. This provision can manifest in various ways, such as offering flexible work hours, granting access to training and development programs, providing competitive compensation and benefits, offering recognition and rewards, maintaining clear communication channels, and presenting opportunities for career advancement. The perception of support received from the organization has a positive impact on organizational commitment [33,34,35]. The contentment of employees constitutes a vital element for the overall success of an organization. When employees perceive that their organization supports them, they are more inclined to be content with their positions. This contentment arises from the belief that the organization places value on and has concern for their well-being and accomplishments. Perceived organizational support affects occupational commitment [36]. Organizational support can cultivate a constructive work environment, fostering a sense of trust, equity, and transparency, all of which are critical for employee satisfaction. The well-being of employees stands as another crucial facet of organizational support [37]. Well-being encompasses physical, mental, and emotional health, as well as the maintenance of a work–life balance. Organizations can enhance the general welfare of their employees by providing resources and initiatives that promote well-being. This can be achieved through the implementation of wellness programs, employee assistance programs, and the introduction of flexible work arrangements. Consequently, employees experience increased job satisfaction and decreases in stress and burnout [38,39]. Motivation represents a key driver of employee performance. When employees perceive that their organization provides support, they are more inclined to be motivated to give their best effort [40,41]. Organizational support can enhance motivation by affording employees opportunities for growth, recognition, and meaningful work. By fostering a work environment that inspires motivation, organizations can heighten employee engagement, commitment, and productivity [42]. Supportive organizations furnish the necessary resources, tools, and training that enable employees to effectively perform their job responsibilities. By investing in the success of their employees, organizations can amplify productivity and ultimately achieve superior business outcomes. Organizational support plays a pivotal role in promoting employee satisfaction, well-being, motivation, and overall productivity. It leads to decreased job burnout among employees as well as enhanced job satisfaction, diminishes turnover and absenteeism, and ultimately propels overall organizational success [43]. Burnout has been found to have a negative and substantial effect on organizational support, implying that high levels of organizational support are related to lower levels of burnout [44,45]. Receiving aid from external sources confers a favorable influence on individuals’ capability and self-assurance in effectively managing future adversities [46]. Organizational assistance holds the potential to assume a pivotal function in the prevention and control of employee burnout. The provision of adequate support by organizations facilitates an individual’s ability to manage stress, uphold equilibrium between personal and professional spheres, and experience a sense of worth and recognition [47]. Assistance from an organization has the potential to enhance its employees’ intrinsic sense of duty towards facilitating the institution’s attainment of its goals, as well as to foster their emotional attachment to the institution, thereby resulting in the improvement of their psychological well-being [25]. Organizational support increases psychological capital in the workplace [48,49]. According to research, organizational support explains a major proportion of changes in psychological capital. Psychological capital has been demonstrated to have a direct positive effect on job satisfaction and subjective happiness, and subjective happiness influences job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has a direct beneficial effect on subjective happiness, and job satisfaction influences subjective happiness. According to research, there is a link between organizational culture, organizational support, and positive psychology [49,50,51].
H1. 
Organizational support positively impacts psychological capital.
H2. 
Organizational support negatively impacts job burnout.

2.2. Psychological Capital and Job Burnout

Job burnout encapsulates a societal issue that has endured over an extended duration and encompasses various manifestations that are contingent upon factors such as temporal context, researcher perspective, cross-cultural disparities, and linguistic nuances [52]. Job burnout is a condition that arises due to a prolonged vulnerability to stress in the workplace. The organization and its employees are faced with a multitude of burdens as a result of this phenomenon. The importance of job burnout becomes clear when considering its association with various negative outcomes for the organization, such as absenteeism, as well as a range of health problems, including cardiovascular diseases and psychological disorders [53]. According to Freudenberger, the first sign of burnout appears when an employee puts in more effort and devotes more time to their task, yet their results appear to erode steadily [54]. The occurrence of burnout can be intensified by any discrepancy or imbalance that exists between the individual and six specific facets of the job. Conversely, when there is a higher level of compatibility between the individual and these domains, the likelihood of engagement increases [15,18]. Previous research discovered that teachers’ decisions to leave their employment were closely related to the three burnout dimensions, particularly emotional exhaustion. Job burnout is caused by a state of mental and physical weariness. Burnout, on the other hand, develops as a result of one’s work’s increasing negative tendencies and diminishing interest in coworkers [55]. Numerous factors contribute to the manifestation of job burnout, encompassing environmental, individual, and organizational elements. Organizational factors that may precipitate job burnout encompass the style of management, inflexible job regulations, an absence of job security, and limited prospects for advancement [15,56,57]. Studies found that psychological capital hurts burnout [58,59]. PsyCap’s four components have a significant impact on preventing job burnout and boosting physical and mental well-being. In a study of 305 flight attendants, for example, all four components were found to be adversely connected to emotional weariness and depersonalization and favorably related to personal accomplishment [60]. The conceptual model is showed in Figure 1.
H3. 
Psychological capital is negatively related to job burnout.
H4. 
Psychological capital mediates the relationship between organizational support and job burnout.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Measures and Scale Development

The survey in this study consisted of three sections. The first section outlined the study objectives and provided guidelines for completing the survey. The second section collected demographic information about the employees. The third section focused on specific questions related to the study, i.e., organizational support, psychological capital, and job burnout. The measurement of these scale items was conducted through a five-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from (1) indicating strongly disagree to (5) indicating strongly agree. The researchers measured the organizational support according scale developed by Eisenberger and Stinglhamber (1986) [31]. In addition, the psychological capital scale was adopted from Larson and Luthans (2006) [61], and the job burnout scale was adopted from Maslach et al. (1997) [62]; each scale consisted of five items with high internal consistency (α = 0.873, α = 0.828, and α = 0.858, respectively). The English version of the survey was initially developed and subsequently translated into the Arabic language by two proficient bilingual experts. Afterward, the Arabic version was reverse-translated into English by other professionals, and no discrepancies were identified when compared to the original English version. To enhance the quality of the survey, a thorough evaluation was conducted by four distinguished hospitality scholars with expertise in marketing and HRM. Additionally, a pilot test involving thirty participants was conducted to evaluate whether the survey was simple, clear, and consistent. To maintain the survey’s content validity, certain statements were modified in their wording and arrangement based on the responses from participants and scholars.

3.2. Study Sampling and Data Collection

The main aim of the current research is to examine the impact of organizational support on job burnout among frontline employees in Egyptian deluxe hotels, specifically in Greater Cairo. In addition, it investigates the potential role of psychological capital as an intermediary in the relationship between organizational support and job burnout. A convenient sampling technique was utilized to select participants based on availability and willingness to participate. Data collection took place from August to October 2023, resulting in a robust response rate of 93% with no missing data. The sample size of 389 valid responses adhered to Nunnally’s criteria [63] for maintaining a 1:10 item-to-sample ratio.
The study encompassed data from a total of 385 employees, with a gender distribution indicating that the majority (64.1%, N = 247) were male, while 35.9% (N = 138) were female. Moreover, a significant portion of the employees (65.3%, N = 251) fell within the age range of 25 to 40 years. Educational backgrounds revealed that more than two-thirds of the employees (65.4%, N = 252) were well educated, having completed university-level education, whereas 31.8% (N = 122) had pursued a diploma and obtained a two-year institute degree. The study analyzed data from 385 employees, with a gender breakdown of 63.2% male and 36.8% female. Moreover, a significant number of employees (65.3%) fell within the 25 to 40 age range. Concerning education, 65.4% had completed a university education, while 31.8% held a diploma or two-year institute degree. The front office department had the largest number of employees (45.3%, N = 174), which included receptionists, guest relations, and reservations. The food and beverage department also had a significant number of employees with positions such as captains, waiters/waitresses, and hosts/hostesses. The majority of employees (53.3%, N = 205) started working at the hotel within the last one to three years. Additionally, a substantial portion (22.7%, N = 87) were new hires who had joined the hotel just a few months ago, as depicted in Table 1.
The employees’ responses displayed a significant variation, with average scores ranging from 3.76 to 4.85. This wide range of scores indicates a diverse range of answers. The range of standard deviation (SD) values observed was between 0.821 and 1.35, indicating the degree to which the responses varied from the mean. The findings imply that the responses were not tightly grouped [64]. Furthermore, the skewness and kurtosis values of the statistical data fell within the acceptable range of −2 to +2, indicating a Gaussian distribution. This aligns with the criteria set by Nunnally [65]. The data in the study demonstrate conformity to a normal distribution, as evidenced by the aforementioned observation. Furthermore, an examination of all variance inflation factor (VIF) values about the measurement scale items in the study reveals that they were all below 5. This finding suggests the absence of any concerns related to multicollinearity, as illustrated in Table 2.

3.3. Data Analysis Methods

The analysis phase employed in the current study utilized Smart Partial Least Squares (Smart-PLS) software version 4, a nonparametric approach that is specifically designed to handle latent factors that cannot be directly observed [66]. Smart-PLS software version 4 was utilized for data analysis. Smart-PLS is widely recognized in the social sciences for its ability to generate reliable results, particularly when exploring relationships among multiple variables [67]. It is particularly well suited to studies that aim to predict dependent variables rather than confirm an existing conceptual model, as mentioned in [68]. The research analysis followed a two-phase process, as per Leguina’s recommendations [69]. During the initial stage, the primary objective was to validate the convergent and discriminant validity, whereas the subsequent phase was solely dedicated to examining the hypotheses proposed in the study.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

As per the recommendations put forth by Hair et al. [68] and Kline [70], we diligently followed a range of established criteria to assess the convergent and discriminant validity as well as the reliability of the conceptual research model. The evaluation of the aforementioned criteria involved the utilization of Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (C.R), and measures of both convergent and discriminant validity. In the assessment of convergent validity, various factors were taken into account, including the C.R, outer loadings, and average variance extracted (AVE). As illustrated in Table 2, all the scales employed demonstrated high C.R and AVE values, and the study constructs surpassed the recommended minimum thresholds (CR ≥ 0.7 and AVE ≥ 0.5), signifying strong internal consistency reliability. Furthermore, all outer loadings exceeded 0.708 and were statistically significant, aligning with the guidelines provided by Hair et al. [68]. This confirms that all variables used in this research exhibited robust convergent validity, as depicted in Table 2. To confirm the discriminant validity of the current study, several techniques were utilized. Initially, an analysis of cross-loadings was conducted, along with the application of the Fornell–Larcker criterion [71] and the examination of Heterotrait/Monotrait (HTMT) proportions. The presentation of the results from the aforementioned analyses can be observed in Table 3, wherein it is evident that the diagonal values of the AVE scores surpass the correlations among the variables. This finding suggests that the measures used in our study do not exhibit the expected conceptual associations with other measures, thus confirming their discriminant validity. Additionally, the HTMT ratios were below 0.90, which aligns with the criteria established by Leguina [69] (see Table 3). This outcome indicates that our study successfully established discriminant validity, as there are no significant overlaps among the constructs being investigated.

4.2. Study Hypotheses Testing

The GoF value obtained, with a magnitude of 0.68, signifies a significant level of goodness-of-fit, satisfying the criteria set forth by Wetzels et al. [67]. As per these criteria, the R2 value for the latent variables should exceed 0.10 for the model to be deemed to possess a favorable level of goodness-of-fit. In the current study, the R2 values for the psychological capital and job burnout variables were 0.609 and 0.636, respectively, surpassing the recommended minimum criteria; thus, the model is well aligned with the empirical data, as confirmed by the analysis. Furthermore, we assessed the Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR) score, which should be below 0.08, and the Normed Fit Index (NFI) score, A model is considered to have a good fit when its value is above 0.90 [68]. In the context of our study, it is noteworthy that both the SRMR value (0.042) and NFI value (0.951) surpassed the suggested thresholds, thereby presenting additional substantiation for the adequacy of the model in fitting the data.
Once the model’s suitability was confirmed, the study proceeded to test its research hypotheses using SmartPLS v.4. The process entailed the computation of path coefficients and t-values for the proposed hypotheses, as explicated in Table 4. In the context of this study, four hypotheses, including three direct and one indirect, were presented and analyzed as seen in Figure 2. The primary findings demonstrated a significant positive impact of organizational support on psychological capital (β = 0.714, t-value = 45.211). Conversely, significant negative influences of organizational support (β = −0.477, t-value = 11.674) and psychological capital (β = −0.092, t-value = 2.176) on job burnout were observed, thus confirming hypotheses H1, H2, and H3. Regarding the indirect hypothesis, the results indicated that psychological capital partially mediates between organizational support and job burnout (β = −0.066, t-value = 2.134), supporting H4.

5. Discussion

5.1. Summary of the Research Findings

This study aims to understand the critical issues that affect how OS affects JBO in the hospitality sector. This study investigates the main challenges and opportunities faced by the hospitality sector with a high rate of job burnout. This study, however, focuses on two elements of the relationships: (1) the direct connection between OS, JBO, and PsYCap and (2) the mediation consequence of PsYCap in the expected relationship between OS and JBO. The results of this study supported the conclusions of previous research showing a favorable correlation between OS and JBO [72].
According to our research findings, organizational support has a detrimental direct effect on psychological capital. This explains why sustainable support is crucial for people in the hospitality sector. This outcome was consistent with the conclusions of other researchers who found a connection between organizational support and psychological capital [73]. In addition, organizational support is an important factor that can contribute to the development of psychological capital [25]. Organizations that want to foster a positive and productive work environment should focus on providing high levels of organizational support to their employees.
Studies have shown that employees who feel supported by their organization are less likely to experience job burnout [74]. For example, a study found that employees who perceived higher levels of organizational support reported lower levels of emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and professional inefficacy. However, the research results indicate that organizational support has a significant negative impact on job burnout. These findings are consistent with other studies that suggest that the relationship between organizational support and job burnout may also be influenced by organizational factors. For example, organizations with high workloads, long hours, and little autonomy may be more likely to experience burnout, even if they provide high levels of organizational support [75].
The results of this investigation confirm that PsYCap has a negative influence on JBO. These outcomes come in line with different research that shows that PsYCap negatively influences employees. According to a recent study, PsYCap has an optimistic direct effect on JBO, meaning that higher levels of PsYCap are connected to less JBO [76]. Additionally, our finding shows a partial moderating role played by PsYCap in improving the relationship between OS and JBO. Moreover, this study’s findings agrees with previous studies [77]. Thus, to improve the relationship between OS and JBO, managers should foster work engagement among employees working in the hospitality sector.
Psychological capital acts as a protective factor against job burnout by enhancing coping mechanisms, promoting self-regulation, fostering work engagement, cultivating positive work attitudes, and encouraging healthy work habits. By investing in the development of psychological capital, organizations can empower their employees to effectively manage job stressors, maintain a positive outlook, and reduce the risk of burnout.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

This study has numerous noteworthy theoretical implications. First, the growing significance of sustainable organizational support within the literature on the hospitality sector has motivated researchers to explore the intricate mechanisms inherent in sustainable organizational support roles. In addition, the issue of the negative consequences of job burnout and its relation with sustainable organization is considered important, especially in the hospitality sector, which is faced with high levels of job burnout [78].
The direct impact of sustainable organizational support on PsyCap is an interesting topic in the current literature. Promoting a conducive environment and mitigating the stigmatization faced by individuals encountering workplace difficulties may potentially mitigate burnout and issues, such as counterproductive conduct, while also facilitating favorable behaviors within the hospitality industry [79].

5.3. Practical Implications

This research provides managers and decision makers in the hospitality sector with important findings. Managers in the hospitality sector can exert effort and resources to improve the sustainability of organizational support for their people. This will help sustain their productivity and performance and decrease job burnout and its consequences. In addition, the managers and supervisors in the hospitality sector should pay more attention to job burnout, which has been classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an “occupational phenomenon” [80]. The leaders in the hospitality sector also can develop and empower their leadership styles to help their organization perform better and reduce the levels of stress and job burnout [81].

6. Recommendation, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

6.1. Recommendations

Managers and decision makers in the hospitality sector should improve the level of their employees’ PsYCap regularly. In the hotel industry, where clients’ needs and the caliber of services are of the utmost significance, managers and decision makers must take proactive steps to continually improve their staff members’ PsyCap. The general well-being of employees can be enhanced by managers through the cultivation of positive psychological resources. Workers are more likely to be happier in their jobs overall, to have lower stress levels, and to feel confident in their abilities (self-efficacy), optimistic about the future (optimism), to have a sense of purpose and direction (hope), and to be able to overcome obstacles (resilience).
Furthermore, it is highly recommended that supervisors in hospitality sectors should devote greater attention to job burnout, a condition classified by the World Health Organization (WHO). This can be achieved by formulating and maintaining effective people-management policies aimed at enhancing overall employee satisfaction. An effective human resources policy may serve to enhance employees’ well-being and PsYCap. This recommendation is consistent with our findings, which confirm the negative impact of PsYCap on JBO.

6.2. Limitations

This study attempts to explore how OS affects job burnout, taking into consideration the moderating role of PsyCap. The number of people who participated in our survey can be increased in the future to understand these relationships in depth. In addition, we focused mainly on the direct impact of OS on job burnout. OS might have a different impact on other factors such as motivation, turnover rate, and absenteeism level in the hospitality sector. Our current model does not explore these important factors.

6.3. Future Research Directions

Future researchers can develop an advanced model that combines different factors which are expected to affect OS. These factors might include the turnover intention, absenteeism rate, accident rate, and motivation level. In addition, these studies can be performed in different sectors like banking, education, and industry. We expect different outcomes depending on the nature of the sector.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research was funded by [Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia] grant number [INST113]. And the APC was funded by [Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be provided upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education, Saudi Arabia, for funding this research work through the project INST113.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Newman, A.; Ucbasaran, D.; Zhu, F.; Hirst, G. Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, S120–S138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Luthans, F.; Youssef, C.M.; Avolio, B.J. Psychological Capital and Beyond; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Luthans, F.; Avey, J.B.; Avolio, B.J.; Peterson, S.J. The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2010, 21, 41–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Luthans, F.; Youssef-Morgan, C.M. Psychological capital: An evidence-based positive approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017, 4, 339–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Di Fabio, A. The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fernandez, R.M. SDG3 good health and well-being: Integration and connection with other SDGs. In Good Health and Well-Being; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 629–636. [Google Scholar]
  7. Resolution, G.A. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN Doc. A/RES/70/1 (25 September 2015); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. Crucke, S.; Kluijtmans, T.; Meyfroodt, K.; Desmidt, S. How does organizational sustainability foster public service motivation and job satisfaction? The mediating role of organizational support and societal impact potential. Public Manag. Rev. 2022, 24, 1155–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Thulemark, M.; Lundmark, M.; Heldt-Cassel, S. Tourism employment and creative in-migrants. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2014, 14, 403–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Camilleri, M.A.; Troise, C.; Morrison, A.M. Motivations and commitment to work in the hospitality industry: Investigating employee psychology and responsible organizational behaviors. Tour. Rev. 2024, 79, 85–103. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shan, Y.; Chin, T.; Mutsvene, N. The Varying Effects of Four Components of Employee Psychological Capital on Sustainable-Business-Model Innovation in the New Normal. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11787. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sesen, H.; Ertan, S.S. Perceived overqualification and job crafting: The moderating role of positive psychological capital. Pers. Rev. 2020, 49, 808–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jatiningsih, D.; Yadiati, W.; Sukmadilaga, C.; Rosdini, D. The role of psychology capital, knowledge sharing and commitment toward managers’ performance in manufacturing company. Decis. Sci. Lett. 2023, 12, 477–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yang, L. Causal Inference in Psychological Capital. PsyArXiv Prepr. 2022, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Maslach, C.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Leiter, M.P. Job burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 397–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mohren, D.C.; Swaen, G.M.; Kant, I.; van Amelsvoort, L.G.; Borm, P.J.; Galama, J.M. Common infections and the role of burnout in a Dutch working population. J. Psychosom. Res. 2003, 55, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lin, Q.-H.; Jiang, C.-Q.; Lam, T.H. The relationship between occupational stress, burnout, and turnover intention among managerial staff from a Sino-Japanese joint venture in Guangzhou, China. J. Occup. Health 2013, 55, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maslach, C.; Leiter, M.P. Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Camilleri, M.A. The employees’ state of mind during COVID-19: A self-determination theory perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hossin, M.A.; Hosain, M.S.; Frempong, M.F.; Adu-Yeboah, S.S.; Mustafi, M.A.A. What drives sustainable organizational performance? The roles of perceived organizational support and sustainable organizational reputation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Diamantidis, A.D.; Chatzoglou, P. Factors affecting employee performance: An empirical approach. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2018, 68, 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hu, H.-H.S.; Cheng, C.-W. Job stress, coping strategies, and burnout among hotel industry supervisors in Taiwan. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2010, 21, 1337–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, Y.; Chang, Y.; Fu, J.; Wang, L. Work-family conflict and burnout among Chinese female nurses: The mediating effect of psychological capital. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, X.; Liu, L.; Zou, F.; Hao, J.; Wu, H. Research Article Associations of Occupational Stressors, Perceived Organizational Support, and Psychological Capital with Work Engagement among Chinese Female Nurses. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 5284628. [Google Scholar]
  26. Qiu, T.; Liu, C.; Huang, H.; Yang, S.; Gu, Z.; Tian, F.; Wu, H. The mediating role of psychological capital on the association between workplace violence and professional identity among Chinese doctors: A cross-sectional study. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2019, 2019, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kuruüzüm, A.; Anafarta, N.; Irmak, S. Predictors of burnout among middle managers in the Turkish hospitality industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2008, 20, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, S.-L. The relationship of leader psychological capital and follower psychological capital, job engagement and job performance: A multilevel mediating perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 26, 2349–2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bonner, L. A survey of work engagement and psychological capital levels. Br. J. Nurs. 2016, 25, 865–871. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Rhoades, L.; Eisenberger, R. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Eisenberger, R.; Huntington, R.; Hutchison, S.; Sowa, D. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 71, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dawley, D.D.; Andrews, M.C.; Bucklew, N.S. Mentoring, supervisor support, and perceived organizational support: What matters most? Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2008, 29, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Artatanaya, I.; Supiatni, N.N.; Kencanawati, A.A.A.M.; Marhaeni, K.E.; Muderana, I.K. Effect of perceived organizational support to employee’s organizational commitment. Int. Res. J. Manag. IT Soc. Sci. 2023, 10, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Utomo, H.J.N.; Irwantoro, I.; Wasesa, S.; Purwati, T.; Sembiring, R.; Purwanto, A. Investigating The Role of Innovative Work Behavior, Organizational Trust, Perceived Organizational Support: An Empirical Study on SMEs Performance. J. Law Sustain. Dev. 2023, 11, e417. [Google Scholar]
  35. Underwood, R.A.; Wood, R.J.; Tomchek, A.D.; Celestin, M.D.; Culbertson, R.; Phillippi, S.; Broyles, S.T. Exploring Successful Implementation of Organizational Supports at the Worksite Environment: A Mixed Methods Approach. Health Promot. Pract. 2022, 23, 897–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wibowo, D.S. Perceived Organizational Support Dan Organizational Climate Dalam Membentuk Occupational Commitment. J. Psikohumanika 2022, 14, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Diao, L.; Wang, J.; Solan, D. The Influence of Organizational Support and Colleague Support on Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intention. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022, 25, A45. [Google Scholar]
  38. Desrumaux, P.; Princia Moughogha, I.; N’dong Nguema, W.; Bouterfas, N. Impact of Organizational Justice, Support, Resilience, and Need Satisfaction on French Social Workers’ Psychological Well-Being. J. Evid.-Based Soc. Work. 2023, 20, 934–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sen, H.T.; Yıldırım, A. The relationship between nurses’ perceived organizational, supervisor and co-worker support, psychological well-being and job performance. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2023, 73, 552–557. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sukma, M.I.; Sukaris, S.; Dewantoro, A.Q.; Baskoro, H. The Influence of Individual Characteristics, Work Motivation and Organizational Support on Employee Performance. Innov. Res. J. 2023, 4, 51–57. [Google Scholar]
  41. Taroreh, J.; Watung, S.; Kewo, C.L.; Rattu, F.M.L. Factors That Influence the Succes of Application of Technology in Learning: Teacher Work Motivation and Organizational Support. J. Educ. Technol. 2023, 7, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kasmari, K.; Erawati, D.E.; Hadi, T.P. The Effect Of Percepted Organizational Support, Motivation and Job Satisfaction on Employees’ organizational Commitment (Case Study at the Kendal Regency Education and Culture Office). Int. J. Manag. Econ. 2022, 1, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Altinoz, M.; Cop, S.; Cakiroglu, D.; Altinoz, O.T. The influence of organization support perceived in enterprises on burnout feeling: A field research. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 235, 427–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Prasetya, K.B.T.; Soetjipto, B.E. Burnout as Mediateer of The Influence of Organizational Support and Family Support on Job Stress at KSPPS Tunas Artha Mandiri. Econ. Bus. J. (ECBIS) 2023, 1, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, H.; Wang, J.; Zhang, R.; Lu, Q. The relationship between psychiatric nurses’ perceived organizational support and job burnout: Mediating role of psychological capital. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1099687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Underwood, P. Social support: The promise and the reality. In Handbook of Stress, Coping and Health: Implications for Nursing Research, Theory and Practice; Rice, V.H., Ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  47. Haslam, S.A.; Reicher, S. Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Boussekar, R.; Zaoui, S.; Bahouri, N. The Impact of Organizational Support on the Psychological Capital of the Employees of the Sonatrach Company of Biskra. Financ. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2022, 6, 408–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Vasconcelos, C.R.M.; de Oliveira, H.C.C.; El-Aouar, W.A. Organizational Culture, Organizational Support, and Positive Psychological Capital: Validation of a Theoretical Model. Int. J. Behav. Stud. Organ. 2022, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bilgetürk, M.; Baykal, E. How does perceived organizational support affect psychological capital? The mediating role of authentic leadership. Organizacija 2021, 54, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bramantya, A.; Muafi, M. The effect of perceived organizational support and psychological capital on work performance mediated by organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Van Rhenen, W. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2009, 30, 893–917. [Google Scholar]
  53. Cordes, C.L.; Dougherty, T.W. A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1993, 18, 621–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Freudenberger, H.J. Burn-out: The organizational menace. Train. Dev. J. 1977, 31, 26–27. [Google Scholar]
  55. Jackson, S.E.; Schwab, R.L.; Schuler, R.S. Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 71, 630. [Google Scholar]
  56. Suhartini, T.; Muafi, M.; Widodo, W.; Suprihanto, J. Generating sustainable organizational commitment of Indonesian Lecturers: The role of psychological contract through spiritual perspective. J. Law Sustain. Dev. 2023, 11, e748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Elrayah, M.; Mabkhot, H. Organizational Commitment and Employees Turnover Intention in Saudi Public Sector: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction and Work Environemnt. Int. J. Prof. Bus. Rev. 2023, 8, e03788. [Google Scholar]
  58. Demir, S. The Relationship between Psychological Capital and Stress, Anxiety, Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Job Involvement. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 2018, 75, 137–153. [Google Scholar]
  59. Liu, Y.; Aungsuroch, Y.; Gunawan, J.; Zeng, D. Job stress, psychological capital, perceived social support, and occupational burnout among hospital nurses. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2021, 53, 511–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Amornpipat, I. The relationship between positive psychological capital and job burnout: A study of Thai airways international flight attendants. Psychol. Res. 2019, 9, 189–196. [Google Scholar]
  61. Larson, M.; Luthans, F. Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work attitudes. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2006, 13, 75–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.; Leiter, M. Maslach Burnout Inventory; Scarecrow EducationI: Lanham, MD, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  63. Champion, D.F.; Westbrook, B.W. Maslach burnout inventory. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 1984, 17, 100–102. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S.; Ullman, J.B. Using Multivariate Statistics; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
  65. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric theory—25 years ago and now. Educ. Res. 1975, 4, 7–21. [Google Scholar]
  66. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; pp. 277–319. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wetzels, M.; Odekerken-Schröder, G.; Van Oppen, C. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q. 2009, 33, 177–195. [Google Scholar]
  68. Hair, J., Jr.; Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  69. Leguina, A. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  70. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  71. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  72. Wu, G.; Wu, Y.; Li, H.; Dan, C. Job burnout, work-family conflict and project performance for construction professionals: The moderating role of organizational support. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2869. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  73. Luthans, K.W.; Jensen, S.M. The linkage between psychological capital and commitment to organizational mission: A study of nurses. JONA J. Nurs. Adm. 2005, 35, 304–310. [Google Scholar]
  74. Charoensukmongkol, P.; Moqbel, M.; Gutierrez-Wirsching, S. The role of coworker and supervisor support on job burnout and job satisfaction. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2016, 13, 4–22. [Google Scholar]
  75. Allen, M.W.; Armstrong, D.J.; Reid, M.F.; Riemenschneider, C.K. Factors impacting the perceived organizational support of IT employees. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 556–563. [Google Scholar]
  76. Grover, S.L.; Teo, S.T.; Pick, D.; Roche, M.; Newton, C.J. Psychological capital as a personal resource in the JD-R model. Pers. Rev. 2018, 47, 968–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Aderibigbe, J.K.; Mjoli, T.Q. Psychological capital as a moderator in the relationship between occupational stress and organisational citizenship behaviour among Nigerian graduate employees. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 16, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ayachit, M.; Chitta, S. A systematic review of Burnout studies from the Hospitality literature. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2022, 31, 125–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kotera, Y.; Adhikari, P.; Sheffield, D. Mental health of UK hospitality workers: Shame, self-criticism and self-reassurance. Serv. Ind. J. 2021, 41, 1076–1096. [Google Scholar]
  80. World Health Organization. Burrn-Out an “Occupational Phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases. 2019. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-diseases (accessed on 15 October 2023).
  81. Boukis, A.; Koritos, C.; Daunt, K.L.; Papastathopoulos, A. Effects of customer incivility on frontline employees and the moderating role of supervisor leadership style. Tour. Manag. 2020, 77, 103997. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 00840 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
Sustainability 16 00840 g001
Sustainability 16 00840 g002
Figure 2. The final model.
Figure 2. The final model.
Sustainability 16 00840 g002
Table 1. Respondents’ demographic profile.
Table 1. Respondents’ demographic profile.
Frequency%
GenderMale24764.1
Female13835.9
AgeUnder 25 years11830.6
25–40 years25165.3
More than 40 years164.1
Educational levelUniversity education/high institute25265.4
Two-year institute12231.8
Secondary School112.8
DepartmentFront Office17445.3
Housekeeping7519.6
Food and beverage13535.1
Length of Employment with Current HotelLess than 1 year8722.7
From 1 year to less than 3 years20553.3
From 3 years to less than 5 years4812.4
More than 5 years4511.6
Table 2. Measurement model.
Table 2. Measurement model.
Constructs Variables
Loadings		αCRAVEVIF
Organizational Support (OS) 0.8730.9080.665
My hotel prioritizes the well-being of its employees.0.859 2.500
My hotel is available to provide support and assistance for any specific needs related to work.0.810 2.066
My hotel is willing to assist with any special requests or favors that may be needed in daily life.0.849 2.267
My hotel provides space for employees to work remotely during facing family issues.0.732 1.598
My hotel grants permission to work on a flexible schedule, subject to approval.0.823 1.960
Psychological Capital (PsyCap) 0.8280.8810.602
I feel self-confident in evaluating problem to attain a solution.0.832 2.095
I typically handle stressful situations at my workplace with composure and resilience.0.886 1.954
I typically navigate through challenges by employing various strategies to overcome them at the workplace.0.795 1.794
In the workplace, it is consistently observed that each predicament possesses a viable resolution.0.889 1.082
I am convinced that attaining success in one’s present profession will pave the way for future achievements.0.828 1.346
Job Burnout (JB) 0.9480.8430.843
My hotel restricts my participation in family activities.0.764 2.459
Limited participation in family activities due to work commitments.0.836 4.627
The time I allocate to my family often results in a lack of attention towards work activities that could contribute positively to my career.0.921 4.293
Balancing family responsibilities and work responsibilities can be challenging and often results in conflicts.0.892 3.983
Emotional exhaustion after work hinders my ability to actively engage with my family.0.778 3.682
N = 385. Source: developed by the authors.
Table 3. Discriminant validity measures of scales.
Table 3. Discriminant validity measures of scales.
Fornell-Larcker Criterion HTMT
123123
JB0.622
OS0.5430.816 0.729
PsyCap0.4320.7140.7760.6020.824
Table 4. Estimates of structural model.
Table 4. Estimates of structural model.
Hypothesized PathPath CoefficientT-StatisticsResult
Direct Paths
H1OS → PsyCap0.714 ***45.211Accepted
H2PsyCap → JB−0.092 *2.176Accepted
H3OS → JB−0.477 ***11.674Accepted
Indirect Paths
H4OS → PsyCap → JB−0.066 *2.134Partial
Note: * p < 0.05, and *** p < 0.001.
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

Moustafa, M.A.; Elrayah, M.; Aljoghaiman, A.; Hasanein, A.M.; Ali, M.A.S. How Does Sustainable Organizational Support Affect Job Burnout in the Hospitality Sector? The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital. Sustainability 2024, 16, 840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020840

AMA Style

Moustafa MA, Elrayah M, Aljoghaiman A, Hasanein AM, Ali MAS. How Does Sustainable Organizational Support Affect Job Burnout in the Hospitality Sector? The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital. Sustainability. 2024; 16(2):840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020840

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moustafa, Mohamed A., Musaddag Elrayah, Abdulaziz Aljoghaiman, Ahmed M. Hasanein, and Mona A. S. Ali. 2024. "How Does Sustainable Organizational Support Affect Job Burnout in the Hospitality Sector? The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital" Sustainability 16, no. 2: 840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020840

APA Style

Moustafa, M. A., Elrayah, M., Aljoghaiman, A., Hasanein, A. M., & Ali, M. A. S. (2024). How Does Sustainable Organizational Support Affect Job Burnout in the Hospitality Sector? The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital. Sustainability, 16(2), 840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020840

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