Next Article in Journal
From Sustainable Agriculture to Sustainable Agrifood Systems: A Comparative Review of Alternative Models
Next Article in Special Issue
Latent Class Analysis of Environmental Behavior and Psychological Well-Being: Insights into Sustainable Well-Being Practices
Previous Article in Journal
Digitally Driven Urban Governance: Framework and Evaluation in China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Green Organizational Climate’s Promotion of Managers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: Evidence from the Portuguese Hospitality Context
 
 
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 22
10.3390/su16229674
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

The Generation-Based Effects of the Fear of COVID-19 on Deluxe Hotel Employees’ Responses

by
Hyosun Jung
1,*,
Yu Hyun Hwang
2,
Yoon Sik Jung
2 and
Hye Hyun Yoon
2
1
Center of Converging Humanities, KyungHee University, Seoul 02447, Republic of Korea
2
College of Hotel & Tourism Management, KyungHee University, Seoul 02447, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(22), 9674; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229674
Submission received: 23 September 2024 / Revised: 2 November 2024 / Accepted: 5 November 2024 / Published: 6 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Insights in Organizational Well-Being and Sustainable Behavior)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Purpose: While the COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges to many organizations, overcoming it has also provided an opportunity to refocus organizational sustainability. This study examined the relationship between the perceived fear of COVID-19 among deluxe hotel employees and their ages, psychological well-being, and turnover intent. It also tested the moderating effect of these employees’ sense of calling on the aforementioned relationship. Design/methodology/approach: The collected data were analyzed using Analysis MOment Structure (AMOS) and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The five hypotheses were validated using structural equation modeling and multi-group analysis. Findings: The results showed that the fear of COVID-19 was strong among young employees (Beta = −0.160) and that employees’ psychological well-being (Beta = −0.299) diminished as this fear grew. Psychological well-being negatively influenced turnover intent (Beta = −0.234). Finally, the fear of COVID-19 exerted a minimal effect on the psychological well-being of employees with a strong sense of calling.

1. Introduction

Diverse public health measures aimed at preventing the worsening of the pandemic caused by the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have considerably changed people’s lifestyles, inevitably affecting both their personal and social lives [1,2]. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on national economic growth, worsening the economy and reducing employment and social welfare, surpassing the impact of the economic crisis of the past decade [3]. The emergence of the pandemic has led to a state of urgency and complexity such that the world must adapt to new circumstances, and workers have experienced fear of exposure to the virus, as the risk of contagion has always been potential [4]. The COVID-19 pandemic was expected to disrupt the hospitality industry, and a new endemic disease was anticipated to arise in different forms in each country [5]. The pandemic has been a significant source of uncertainty, causing much anxiety [6] and a rapid increase in fears and concerns about viruses [7]. Fear refers to a responsive emotion that mobilizes energy against potential threats. Fear is also a natural response that is activated during stressful times, such as epidemics or outbreaks, and may be associated with a degree of behavioral change in daily life [8]. This emotion is important because people cannot adjust to organizational life when they fail to adequately control fear against threats [9]. This will be especially important for the hotel industry, where talent with knowledge, skills, and abilities has a significant impact on performance [10], and it can suffer significant talent losses due to negative emotions or events [11].
Even before COVID-19, the modern work environment was faced with uncertainty due to technological change, economic fluctuations, and political instability, which increased employee anxiety [12]. A vast amount of evidence has supported the close correlation between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health problems, such as stress, burnout, depression, and anxiety [13,14,15,16].
However, previous studies have focused mostly on generalized anxiety and depression symptoms [17] and research on the ripple effects of the psychological impact of COVID-19 remains nascent. In fact, the hospitality industry, including the hotel business, is described as one of the industries most vulnerable to coronavirus infections [18,19]. Research focusing on the hotel industry has only been narrowly established, despite the significance of employees’ depression and psychological pain. Employees’ competitiveness and career sustainability in service-oriented organizations are important topics that continue to elicit interest from researchers investigating relevant factors [20]. Since common values and callings are formed among people who make up each generation [21], it is very necessary to understand various behaviors that occur due to the generational gap in the hotel industry that manages employees of various generations [22].
Correspondingly, a meaningful endeavor is to ensure employees’ career sustainability by exploring the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the hospitality industry. It is important to understand how employees in this industry are psychologically affected by fear and anxiety and to identify solutions to these problems. Moreover, investigating the negative effects of COVID-19 is critical for predicting how the hospitality industry will recover and respond in the future. Therefore, this study delved into the effects of the fear of COVID-19 on deluxe hotel employees’ psychological well-being and turnover intent. It also clarified the role of generations as an antecedent variable and the moderating effect of employees’ calling in relation to it.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

2.1. The Relationship Between Employee Generations and Fear of COVID-19

As COVID-19 spread rapidly around the globe, people experienced a collective feeling of loss [23]. One of the earliest emotional responses that individuals experienced because of the coronavirus was fear [24], which may have resulted in maladjusted behavior [25]. The COVID-19 outbreak may have further exacerbated stress and anxiety among deluxe hotel employees, who were already perceived as having greater stress levels than those in other industries due to long antisocial working hours and frequent interactions with customers [26]. Frontline employees in the deluxe hotel industry have experienced fear of contracting COVID-19 during the pandemic [27], suggesting that this may ultimately lead to mental health issues among hotel employees [28]. A generation refers to a group of individuals of similar age who share social experiences within the same period [21]. People of the same generation tend to perceive and interpret historical events based on their developmental stages [29]. Hence, the level of anxiety perceived as a result of the coronavirus pandemic is expected to differ by age and generation. Several studies have examined the generation gap in relation to the fear of COVID-19. For example, Lingelbach et al. [30] reported that young people harbored serious concerns about the coronavirus and suffered from severe depression. The authors also stated that mental well-being decreased considerably among the young population. These findings are consistent with the study by Jain and Jha [31], who argued that age plays a significant role in the psychological effects of infectious diseases and observed that people in their 20s felt the strongest anxiety and stress among all age groups. Adding to these insights, Choi et al. [32] indicated that elderly individuals’ and men’s perceived psychological well-being in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic changed to a lower degree compared to that of young people and women. Furthermore, Lin et al. [33] stated that young and middle-aged individuals exhibited a greater fear of COVID-19 than the elderly population, and Quadros et al. [34] contended that fear of the disease differed by age, with certain senior citizens at a lower risk of developing coronavirus-related fears than other age groups. Harari et al. [35] also said that Generation Z’s recovery from COVID-19 has been slower than Generation X’s and that this is because they grew up in a relatively peaceful and comfortable environment, so their recovery from fear is also lower. Cerda and García [36] and Yanez et al. [37] indicated that age was inversely associated with fear of COVID-19, despite older people being at higher risk of death. Kopuz et al. [38] suggested that the negative impact of fear of COVID-19 became stronger with age, suggesting that older people are more fearful of COVID-19. Based on these results, the younger generation can be assumed to have had a stronger perceived fear of COVID-19 than other age groups. Accordingly, the present study formulated the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1.
As the age of employees increases, their fear of COVID-19 will also increase.

2.2. The Relationship Between Fear of COVID-19 and Psychological Well-Being

Ryff [39] coined the term “psychological well-being,” which measures quality of life based on how well an individual functions as a member of society. This concept was derived from the idea of the realization of an individual’s true potential and pursuit of perfection. Although it is not directly connected to happiness, psychological well-being can be defined as a byproduct of an improved life [40]. Many people experienced fear and anxiety because of COVID-19, which is a highly contagious, potentially fatal disease [41]. A number of studies have investigated the connection between fear of COVID-19 and psychological well-being. Jakhar and Kharya [42] found that physical distancing negatively affected mental well-being, making people feel agitated, nervous, and lonely. Labrague and Los Santos [43] argued that the fear of COVID-19 increased psychological pain and reduced well-being. Kayis et al. [24] stated that a strong fear of COVID-19 negatively affected individuals’ emotions and behaviors, ultimately diminishing psychological well-being. Alimoradi et al. [44] observed that the aforementioned fear was closely related to diverse factors affecting psychological health, while Çağış and Yildirim [45] asserted that this fear depleted psychological capital and consequently diminished job satisfaction. Khudaykulov et al. [46] stated that the fear and depression caused by the COVID-19 pandemic decreased psychological well-being through its effect on anxiety. Lathabhavan [47] found that the diminished psychological well-being caused by the fear of COVID-19 further eroded satisfaction with life. Similar results were found by Swanzy [48] and Tekir [49], with the specific findings being that the fear of COVID-19 negatively affected psychological well-being and, consequently, performance and that the first two variables had a strong negative correlation. Hidaka et al. [50] found that the level of anxiety was significantly increased due to fear of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Quigley et al. [51] indicated that fear of COVID-19 had a very negative impact on psychological well-being. A study by Kopuz et al. [38] also suggested that fear of COVID-19 lowered psychological well-being. Although not specific to COVID-19, one study reported that fear among people living in a region exposed to contagious diseases adversely affected individual well-being [52]. There is also substantial empirical evidence that fear during the COVID-19 pandemic was linked to psychological tension and depression in subsequent periods [53,54]. This fear prevented people from recognizing their strengths or dulled individuals’ feelings of efficient work and usefulness in society.
Hypothesis 2.
Employees’ fear of COVID-19 negatively influences their psychological well-being.

2.3. The Relationship Between Fear of COVID-19 and Turnover Intent

Turnover intent refers to the intention to leave one’s current job by abandoning qualifications as an organizational member [55]. It is an antecedent that can effectively predict employees’ propensity to change jobs and can be regarded as a warning signal of actual resignation [56]. Among studies related to turnover intent and the fear of COVID-19, the one conducted by Labrague and Los Santos [43] indicated that the latter increased the former among members of an organization, and their willingness to leave an organization declined once the fear of COVID-19 was resolved. Abd-Ellatif et al. [57] observed that fear and anxiety over the pandemic diminished job satisfaction and argued that fear is an important predictor of the realization of turnover intent. Teng et al. [58] showed that the perceived fear of the coronavirus among hotel workers in China unfavorably affected their health, which in turn increased their turnover intent. In particular, their findings suggest that such fear can manifest in negative behaviors—a typical occurrence in Eastern cultures, where people have a strong propensity to avoid uncertainty [59]. The same link between the fear of COVID-19 and turnover intent was found among restaurant workers by Chen and Qi [60], who advised restaurants to take action to ameliorate employee anxiety and reduce job stress. Meanwhile, Zampetakis [61] argued that the aforementioned fear increased individuals’ motivation to search for new jobs and workplaces. In a similar vein, Liu et al. [62] and Uludag et al. [63] discovered that a high recognition of the risk presented by COVID-19 and the fear of it exacerbated conflicts between work and family life and increased people’s intention to change jobs. Park et al. [64] and Mehra et al. [65] reported that fear of COVID-19 increases the intention to change jobs. In consideration of the fact that traumatic stress stemming from the experience of COVID-19 has a considerable impact on depression and turnover intent, the current work established the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3.
Employees’ fear of COVID-19 positively influences their turnover intent.

2.4. The Relationship Between Psychological Well-Being and Turnover Intent

Harris and Cameron [66] reported a close correlation between employees’ psychological well-being and their engagement and identification with their jobs. The authors also uncovered that turnover intent increases when psychological well-being diminishes. Fredrickson [67] proposed the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions and argued that favorable feelings are expanded. Siu et al. [68] stated that the positive psychological well-being that a person experiences in an organization affords the individual a greater sense of satisfaction with their job, making them less likely to quit. Emberland and Rundmo [69] argued that the psychological well-being perceived in an organization, including pleasure and satisfaction, is a significant factor that reduces turnover intent. According to Amin and Akbar [70], employees’ turnover intent weakens when they feel that their needs have been satisfied through the organizational improvement of their psychological well-being. Kundi et al. [71] mentioned that promoting employees’ psychological well-being can be beneficial to an organization and that members who experience a high level of psychological well-being tend to form an attachment to their employer, which in turn reduces their turnover intent. Ntow et al. [72] uncovered that psychosocial risks are highly useful in predicting turnover intent and that the considerable psychological well-being that employees experience in an organization particularly reduces such intent. These insights were reinforced by Westerberg et al. [73], who reported that the possibility that people will apply for other jobs increases when they are denied emotional and psychological well-being by an organization. Brokmeier et al. [74] argued that the well-being of employees is a significant attribute of a healthy working environment and that such well-being is critical because it can reduce turnover intent. In line with the discussion above, the researchers hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 4.
Employees’ psychological well-being negatively influences turnover intent.

2.5. Moderating Effects of Employees’ Calling

Calling can be defined as a transcendent power or directive that people feel regarding their jobs [75]. Employees with a strong sense of calling can contribute to tremendous work value and achieve satisfaction by stimulating their inner motivation [76]. Such individuals are predisposed to discover their higher purpose by investing considerable personal resources, such as time, energy, and interest, in their work [77]. As explained by Duffy et al. [78], living a life by following one’s calling helps an individual foster desirable attitudes and psychological conditions, such as a belief that they are leading a meaningful life. Cardador et al. [79] stated that a sense of calling can increase organizational attachment and reduce turnover intent. Hirschi [80] examined the relationship between calling and work engagement and found that a sense of calling among employed adults had significant power in predicting job engagement. Zhang et al. [81] indicated that employees with a great sense of calling felt strong passion, pride, and identity in their job domains, and they readily faced difficulties and made sacrifices, no matter how burdensome their work environment was [82]. According to Xie et al. [83], calling can increase job engagement because it accords profound meaning and purpose to one’s own work. Because individuals with a clear purpose and sense of self generally competently weather a storm [84], they can be expected to have wisely overcome the difficult organizational situations caused by the coronavirus. People with a strong sense of calling attach special meaning to their jobs and have a strong will to solve problems in a positive way; thus, they are likely to take action that is beneficial to their organizations [85]. The current study regarded a sense of calling, or the close connection to one’s job, as a potential mitigator of the detrimental effects of the fear of COVID-19 on positive work attitudes. Accordingly, the researchers put forward the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5a.
The negative effects of the fear of COVID-19 on psychological well-being diminish when employees have a strong sense of calling.
Hypothesis 5b.
The negative effects of fear of COVID-19 on turnover intent diminish when employees have a strong sense of calling.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

This study chose deluxe hotels located in Seoul, South Korea, as the case companies. These establishments provide all-round services and have a capacity of more than 200 rooms and 10 restaurants. Seoul is currently home to 22 deluxe hotels, of which 10 chose to administer self-reported questionnaires to 500 employees, collectively. The samples were determined by comparing the size of the groups. Assuming that there are an average of 500 employees in the F&B departments of 22 deluxe hotels in Seoul and that there are approximately 12,000 F&B employees, the number of subjects in the experiment was calculated to be 400, with a margin of error of 5%. To evenly distribute the sample across the hotels, quota sampling was used, with 50 questionnaires distributed to each of the 10 hotels. A preliminary survey was conducted a month before the final questionnaire was administered to identify and revise ambiguous questions. The survey proper was disseminated from November to December 2021. Hotels whose human resource managers gave the researchers permission were chosen as participants, but because the researchers were unable to obtain consent from every prospective respondent, convenience sampling was carried out. Given the sensitivity of the research topic and to ensure the anonymity of the participants and the confidentiality of their data, the completed questionnaires were sealed in an envelope, and the retrieved data were safely stored. Out of the 500 distributed questionnaires, 413 were returned, of which 297 (a valid response rate of 59.4%) were included in the coding for analysis.

3.2. Instrument Development

The survey questions were created using the reverse translation method. Three researchers who were fluent in English and Korean checked for problems with the questions by first translating the original English versions into Korean and then translating them back into English, following the method proposed by Brislin [86]. The questionnaire used in this study consisted of five parts. The first section asked the respondents to evaluate their fear of COVID-19, which was treated as the independent variable. With guidance from Ahorsu et al. [87], fear was measured using nine questions asking how strongly the subjects agreed or disagreed with corresponding statements using a seven-point Likert scale. The second to fourth sections of the questionnaire revolved around psychological well-being, calling, and turnover intent, respectively. Psychological well-being was measured using four questions devised by Ryff [39]. Psychological well-being is a concept that refers to the health and happiness of an individual in terms of emotional, mental, and social aspects [40]. In general, two approaches were used to measure psychological well-being [88]: an extensive approach, which links well-being to factors such as an experience of positive emotion or overall satisfaction, and a method that accounts for the importance of purpose in well-being. In this study, well-being was measured using the first approach. Calling is thinking of one’s job as a vocation and believing that professional behavior creates a better world [75]. To measure the moderating variable, calling, six questions composed by Duffy et al. [89] and Kang et al. [90] were used.
The dependent variable, turnover intent to change jobs, refers to the intention or willingness to leave the current organization [55]. Turnover intent was measured using the four questions proposed by Li et al. [91]. The current work used turnover intent instead of the actual turnover rate because the survey was administered to employees who were working at the time [92]. The research model is as shown in Figure 1. Finally, the fifth section of the questionnaire gathered demographic information on the respondents (gender, age, education level, and tenure).

3.3. Data Analysis

The collected data were analyzed using the Analysis Moment Structure (AMOS, Version 24) and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 22). The normal distribution of the measured items was checked. The Harmon test and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed that there was no problem stemming from common method variance (CMV). The reliability and validity of the measurement items were tested using reliability analysis, CFA, composite construct reliability (CCR), and average variance extracted (AVE). Correlation analyses were conducted to ascertain whether the directions of the measurement items coincided with the hypotheses. The five hypotheses were validated using structural equation modeling (SEM) and multi-group analysis (MGA).

4. Results

4.1. Samples

The demographic characteristics of the respondents were as follows: 69.7% were male, and 33.3% were female (Table 1). Regarding generation and age, 32.7% of the participants belonged to Generation Z, 39.4% belonged to Generation Y, and 27.9% belonged to Generation X. More than half (56.9%) were graduates of university. The lengths of service tendered by the participants were relatively evenly distributed, with 34.0% having worked for less than five years, 33.3% having worked from six to nine years, and 32.7% having worked for over 10 years.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 summarizes the mean values and standard deviations of the items related to the constructs used in this work (i.e., fear of COVID-19, psychological well-being, turnover intent, and calling). Fear of COVID-19 had a mean score between 4.51 and 4.89 (on the seven-point scale), with participants choosing “When watching news and stories about COVID-19 on social media, I become nervous or anxious” (4.89 ± 1.08) as the statement with which they most strongly agreed. These results are consistent with those of previous studies, such as those carried out by Labrague and Los Santos [43], who reported a coronavirus fear index higher than the average. In a similar vein, Ahmed et al. [93] showed that 83.9% of their respondents felt anxious out of fear caused by the coronavirus, and Wang et al. [94] indicated that many respondents experienced depression exceeding a moderate level. The item “I like most parts of my personality” (3.68 ± 0.71) acquired the highest mean score among the four items related to psychological well-being. With respect to turnover intent (four items), the following statement: “I will quit my job at my current organization in one year or less” (4.78 ± 1.08) scored the highest mean by far. The mean scores for calling, as the moderating variable, ranged from 3.25 to 3.61, with the highest (3.46 ± 0.76) obtained for the statement “I am working in the job to which I feel called”.

4.3. Measurement Model

Prior to the main analysis, the existence of CMV was checked using two methods. First, the present research carried out Harman’s one-factor test, which focuses on whether a single factor can explain a major share of the variance and has been used as a means of verifying CMV across various studies. An exploratory factor analysis was also conducted, and the explanatory power of the first single factor (32.973%) failed to account for over half of the total explanatory power (69.492%). These findings confirmed that there was no serious bias because none of the constructs explained the majority of the covariance. Second, the goodness of fit of the single-factor model was tested via CFA, and the results showed that the single-factor model was inappropriate for the data (χ2 = 2749.473, df = 230, NFI = 0.429, CFI = 0.448, RMR = 0.181). These findings imply that CMV was not a major problem in this study [95]. In addition, prior to conducting CFA, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was conducted, and the KMO test value was found to be 0.5 or higher, confirming that there was no problem in conducting CFA.
Table 3 shows the outcomes of the validity and reliability analyses of the constructs. All constructs satisfied the criteria, with their standardized coefficients exceeding 0.7, their Cronbach’s alpha values and CCR over 0.8, and their AVEs greater than 0.5 [96,97]. The goodness of fit of the model was also satisfactory [98,99], with χ2 = 642.137, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.862, GFI = 0.838, NFI = 0.867, TLI = 0.897, CFI = 0.909, IFI = 0.909, RMSEA = 0.079, and RMR = 0.047. Table 4 shows the correlation analysis outcomes of the constructs, which reflected consistency with the directions of the hypotheses. Furthermore, the AVE of each construct was larger than the square of the coefficients, confirming the validity of the constructs.

4.4. Structural Equation Modeling

The relationship related to the hypotheses was tested using SEM (Table 5, Figure 2). The variance inflation factor (VIF) test was conducted to ensure that the causal relationship analysis was not biased due to multicollinearity, and the critical threshold was less than 10 [100]. Although deleting some measurement variables using the modification index could improve the model fit, the same variables used in CFA were applied to the structural equation model without deleting them.
The final structural model showed an appropriate level of goodness of fit (χ2 = 430.539, df = 132, χ2/df = 3.262, GFI = 0.860, NFI = 0.881, CFI = 0.914, RMR = 0.048, and RMSEA = 0.087). The fear of COVID-19 diminished with generations (β = −0.160, t = −2.678, p < 0.01); hence, Hypothesis 1 was accepted. Hypothesis 2 posits that fear of COVID-19 negatively affects employees’ psychological well-being. In this study, anxiety stemming from the coronavirus reduced employees’ psychological well-being (β = −0.299, t = −4.573, p < 0.001); thus, Hypothesis 2 was also accepted. Hypothesis 3 posits that fear of COVID-19 positively affects employees’ turnover intent. However, no significant impact on turnover intent was observed in this study (β = 0.005, t = 0.078, p > 0.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was rejected. Hypothesis 4 states that employees’ psychological well-being negatively affects turnover intent. In this study, psychological well-being minimized such intent (β = −0.234, t = −3.356, p < 0.001), thus lending support to Hypothesis 4.

4.5. Moderating Effects of Employees’ Calling

Hypothesis 5 proposes that the effects of fear of COVID-19 on psychological well-being and turnover intent are moderated by employees’ calling. Before analyzing the moderating effect, the measurement invariance in the employee calling groups, which were divided based on the mean, was verified (Table 6). Hence, the criterion of metric invariance was satisfied [101,102]. This result confirmed that the measurement invariance of the moderating variable, which was divided into high and low, did not cause any problems [103]. To examine the moderating effect, constrained and unconstrained models were compared to determine significance on the grounds of the difference in degrees of freedom (Table 7). The comparison showed that the effects of the fear of COVID-19 on psychological well-being were much stronger in the group with a low sense of calling (β = −0.349, t = −3.466, p < 0.001) than in the group with a high sense of calling (β = −0.134, t = −1.512, p > 0.05). Hence, Hypothesis 5a was accepted. This result is partially consistent with previous studies that have argued that people with a strong sense of calling tend to solve problems in a positive manner when they encounter difficult circumstances. In the present research, however, the positive impact of the fear of COVID-19 on turnover intent was not moderated by employees’ calling. Hence, Hypothesis 5b was rejected.

5. Discussion and Implications

5.1. Conclusions

This study examined the relationship between the anxiety employees felt within unpredictable environments because of the coronavirus and their age, psychological well-being, and turnover intent. It also verified the moderating role of employees’ sense of calling in the influential relationship between fear of COVID-19 and psychological well-being and turnover intent. The results are summarized as follows. First, the fear of COVID-19 decreased with an increase in employee age, consistent with the literature [30,34]. Second, employees’ psychological well-being diminished when the fear of COVID-19 increased, and the coronavirus caused a negative mental state—findings that are also consistent with previous studies [24,43]. Third, turnover intent decreased when employees had higher levels of psychological well-being, indicating that low psychological well-being is linked to high turnover intent [71,73]. Finally, the negative effects of the fear of COVID-19 on psychological well-being were strong among employees with a weak sense of calling. This finding implies that a strong sense of calling regarding one’s job diminishes the adverse influence of COVID-19.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

The study presents the following theoretical implications. This research is meaningful because it focused on the hotel industry, which has suffered the most extensive damage from the global crisis, and it examined the anxiety that members of organizations experienced because of the coronavirus in a timely manner. Thus far, only a few studies have probed anxiety over COVID-19 with deluxe hotel employees as targets. By testing the relationship between age, fear of COVID-19, psychological well-being, and turnover intent, this study provides a theoretical basis underpinning the correlation between fear, psychological reaction, and behavior. This work also exhibits value as pioneering research on deluxe hotel employees. Therefore, the results of this study can provide a theoretical opportunity to explore the validity of how important it is to manage employees’ psychological fears. It is believed that this will provide an academic opportunity that can contribute to further research. It is also the first empirical study to demonstrate that differences in age can cause varying levels of anxiety over the coronavirus. Correspondingly, the results are expected to contribute substantially to the literature on the hospitality industry. The study also distinguishes itself from previous research by choosing a new moderating variable, shedding light on the moderating effect of employees’ sense of calling and emphasizing the necessity of expanding theories from the existing literature that investigated the negative effects of the fear of COVID-19.

5.3. Practical Implications

The benefits of this study extend to practical implications in mitigating the effects of the fear of COVID-19. First, this study confirmed that such fear decreased psychological well-being, which in turn increased turnover intent, and that the level of anxiety could predict psychological well-being and turnover intent. Because the fear of COVID-19 can decrease employees’ work performance and increase psychological pain and intent to leave an organization, employers should implement measures to reduce the fear that employees feel. In particular, given the nature of the hospitality industry, workers experience considerable stress from long work hours, inflexible work schedules, and the need to provide emotional labor [104]. Efforts at the organizational level will be required to prevent extreme anxiety from developing into negative psychological reactions, such as stress, depression, and insecurity. In other words, it suggests that in order to increase employee engagement and prevent the loss of high-quality talent, it is necessary to create a stable organizational climate where employees can work in an environment where they feel less fear. Specifically, creating a positive organizational atmosphere and work environment will enhance employees’ psychological well-being and prevent the exit of talented human resources. The preparation of constructive equipment that can minimize the negative impact of the fear of COVID-19 on an organization is necessary. Furthermore, organizations and managers should prioritize the mental and psychological health of employees and let them know that their organizations are closely monitoring their welfare. Managers in organizations should strive to build close personal networks with their employees to address their fears. They should also make sure that members of the organization do not feel that their managers are avoiding these issues and that they are willing to address them. Second, the fear of COVID-19 was greater among young employees—a piece of information that is expected to be useful should organizations establish counseling programs catering to younger-generation employees who are vulnerable to such fear or prepare specific programs that support after-hour leisure activities. Psychological support that can reduce the ambiguous sense of fear is also necessary, together with accurate and unambiguous communication, considering that uncertainty tends to increase anxiety. In particular, as the younger generation tends to actively seek information, keeping the most up-to-date and accurate coronavirus-related information and delivering it will minimize disease-related anxiety and negative emotions. Third, this study uncovered that a strong sense of calling could reduce the unfavorable effects of the fear of COVID-19 on psychological well-being. Considering that a sense of calling regarding one’s job induces positive organizational performance, even in exceptional, unpredictable situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations should formulate plans to reinforce employees’ sense of calling. Since the calling of employees is strengthened through intrinsic motivation [105], it would be necessary to find ways to increase this motivation. It would also be meaningful to provide authority that can increase positive voluntary behavior or to plan programs that can help employees find meaning in their work. For example, organizations and managers can provide mentoring or job-related education programs that help employees recognize the meaningfulness of their jobs. Efforts should also be made to increase employees’ sense of calling by building close relationships with them and positively addressing the anxiety stemming from COVID-19.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

Similar to any other work, this study has certain limitations. To begin with, this research is a cross-sectional study based on a one-time survey. A necessary task is to perform a longitudinal study that compares perceived anxiety about the coronavirus in a time series. Future studies should also consider cultural differences, as Korea’s collectivistic culture may have influenced the results of this study [106].
Additionally, because this study chose deluxe hotel employees in South Korea as the sample, its generalizability is limited. Data were also collected using a self-report method, which means that respondents could have used subjective opinions or judgments as bases in determining what a desirable answer would be. More objective measurement tools and estimations will be necessary in future studies. Moreover, only the respondents’ sense of calling was regarded as a moderating variable in this study, but other psychological variables can reduce the negative impact of fear caused by COVID-19. In addition, this study did not measure psychological well-being multidimensionally; future research needs to consider more specific elements of well-being. Finally, this study chose turnover intent as the dependent variable, but researchers can use additional variables to assess employees’ behaviors and organizational performance.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, because although it was a human study, it was observational, and the research design did not involve ethical issues.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Chan, D.K.; Zhang, C.Q.; Weman-Josefsson, K. Why people failed to adhere to COVID 19 preventive behaviors? Perspectives from an integrated behavior change model. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2021, 42, 375–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, J.; Xie, C.; Morrison, A.M. The effect of corporate social responsibility on hotel employee safety behavior during COVID-19: The moderation of belief restoration and negative emotions. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 46, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Galindo-Martín, M.Á.; Castaño-Martínez, M.S.; Méndez-Picazo, M.T. Effects of the Pandemic Crisis on Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 137, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Galanti, T.; Guidetti, G.; Mazzei, E.; Zappalà, S.; Toscano, F. Work from Home during the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Impact on Employees’ Remote Work Productivity, Engagement and Stress. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2021, 63, e426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Baum, T.; Hai, N.T.T. Hospitality, tourism, human rights and the impact of COVID-19. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 2397–2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Metin, A.; Erbicer, E.S.; Sen, S.; Cetinkaya, A. Gender and COVID-19 related fear and anxiety: A meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 310, 384–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Asmundson, G.J.G.; Taylor, S. Coronaphobia: Fear and the 2019-nCoV outbreak. J. Anxiety Disord. 2020, 70, 102196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Harper, C.A.; Satchell, L.P.; Fido, D.; Latzman, R.D. Functional fear predicts public health compliance in the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2020, 19, 1875–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mertens, G.; Gerritsen, L.; Duijndam, S.; Salemink, E.; Engelhard, I.M. Fear of the coronavirus (COVID-19): Predictors in an online study conducted in March 2020. J. Anxiety Disord. 2020, 74, 102258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Baum, T. Does the hospitality industry need or deserve talent? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 3823–3837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yu, H.; Lee, L.; Popa, I.; Madera, J.M. Should I leave this industry? The role of stress and negative emotions in response to an industry negative work event. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jung, H.S.; Jung, Y.S.; Yoon, H.H. COVID-19: The effects of job insecurity on the job engagement and turnover intent of deluxe hotel employees and the moderating role of generational characteristics. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dávila Morán, R.C.; Sánchez Soto, J.M.; López Gómez, H.E.; Espinoza Camus, F.C.; Palomino Quispe, J.F.; Castro Llaja, L.; Díaz Tavera, Z.R.; Ramirez Wong, J.M. Work Stress as a Consequence of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ditchburn, G.; Koh, R.E. Workplace pressure, employee stress, mental well-being and resilience in response to COVID-19 in Singapore. In Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2024; Volume 12, pp. 441–457. [Google Scholar]
  15. Feng, L.S.; Dong, Z.J.; Yan, R.Y.; Wu, X.Q.; Zhang, L.; Ma, J.; Zeng, Y. Psychological distress in the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic: Preliminary development of an assessment scale. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 291, 113202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, Y.; Wang, J.; Luo, C.; Hu, S.; Lin, X.; Anderson, A.E.; Bruera, E.; Yang, X.; Wei, S.; Qian, Y. A comparison of burnout frequency among oncology physicians and nurses working on the front lines and usual wards during the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan China. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2020, 60, e60–e65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, C.; Ye, M.; Fu, Y.; Yang, M.; Luo, F.; Yuan, J.; Tao, Q. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on teenagers in China. J. Adolesc. Health 2020, 67, 747–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hugo, N. The strength of the industry during the coronavirus pandemic. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 45, 931–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Peng, M.Y.P.; Khalid, A.; Usman, M.; Khan, M.A.S.; Ali, M. Fear of COVID-19 and hotel frontline employees’ sense of work alienation: Intervening and interactional analysis. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2024, 48, 821–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hussain, K.; Abbas, Z.; Gulzar, S.; Jibril, A.B.; Hussain, A. Examining the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ psychological wellbeing and turnover intention: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1818998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ryder, N.B. The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1965, 30, 843–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Goh, E.; Baum, T. Job perceptions of Generation Z hotel employees towards working in COVID-19 quarantine hotels: The role of meaningful work. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 1688–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tandon, R. The bitter lessons of COVID-19: Acknowledging and working through many points of tension. Asian J. Psychiatry 2021, 55, 102545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kayis, A.R.; Satici, B.; Deniz, M.E.; Satici, S.A.; Griffiths, M.D. Fear of COVID-19, loneliness, smartphone addiction, and mental wellbeing among the Turkish general population: A serial mediation model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2021, 41, 2484–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lum, L.H.W.; Tambyah, P.A. Outbreak of COVID-19: An urgent need for good science to silence our fears? Singap. Med. J. 2020, 61, 55–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Haldorai, K.; Kim, W.G.; Pillai, S.G.; Park, T.E.; Balasubramanian, K. Factors affecting hotel employees’ attrition and turnover: Application of pull-push-mooring framework. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 83, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Haldorai, K.; Kim, W.G.; Agmapisarn, C.; Li, J. Fear of COVID-19 and employee mental health in quarantine hotels: The role of self-compassion and psychological resilience at work. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 111, 103491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Karatepe, O.M.; Saydam, M.B.; Okumus, F. COVID-19, mental health problems, and their detrimental effects on hotel employees’ propensity to be late for work, absenteeism, and life satisfaction. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 934–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Duncan, L.E.; Agronick, G.S. The intersection of life stage and social events: Personality and life outcomes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 69, 558–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lingelbach, K.; Piechnik, D.; Gado, S.; Janssen, D.; Eichler, M.; Hentschel, L.; Knopf, D.; Schuler, M.; Sernatinger, D.; Peissner, M. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological well-being and mental health based on a German online survey. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 655083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jain, S.; Jha, S. Is age just a number: Exploring fear, anxiety, and coping in individuals during COVID-19. Ind. Psychiatry J. 2020, 29, 293–297. [Google Scholar]
  32. Choi, I.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, N.H.; Choi, E.; Choi, J.; Suk, H.W.; Na, J. How COVID-19 affected mental well-being: An 11-week trajectories of daily well-being of Koreans amidst COVID-19 by age, gender and region. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Lin, C.Y.; Hou, W.L.; Mamun, M.A.; Aparecido da Silva, J.; Broche-Pérez, Y.; Ullah, I.; Pakpour, A.H. Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) across countries: Measurement invariance issues. Nurs. Open 2021, 8, 1892–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Quadros, S.; Garg, S.; Ranjan, R.; Vijayasarathi, G.; Mamun, M.A. Fear of COVID 19 infection across different cohorts: A scoping review. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 708430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Harari, T.T.; Sela, Y.; Bareket-Bojmel, L. Gen Z during the COVID-19 crisis: A comparative analysis of the differences between Gen Z and Gen X in resilience, values and attitudes. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 42, 24223–24232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cerda, A.A.; García, L.Y. Factors explaining the fear of being infected with COVID-19. Health Expect. 2022, 25, 506–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yanez, N.D.; Weiss, N.S.; Romand, J.A. COVID-19 mortality risk for older men and women. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kopuz, K.; Ekmen, E.; Duruel, M.; Koçak, O. The association of COVID-19 fear, age, economic anxiety with life satisfaction in Syrian refugees: The moderated mediation model. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 2024, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ryff, C.D. Happiness is everything, or it? explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 1069–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ryff, C.D.; Singer, B. Interpersonal flourishing: A positive health agenda for the new millennium. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 4, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Duong, C.D. The impact of fear and anxiety of COVID-19 on life satisfaction: Psychological distress and sleep disturbance as mediators. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 178, 110869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jakhar, J.; Kharya, P. Social distancing and promoting psychological wellbeing during COVID-10 pandemic. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2020, 67, 816–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Labrague, L.J.; Los Santos, J.A.A. Fear of COVID-19, psychological distress, work satisfaction and turnover intention among frontline nurses. J. Nurs. Manag. 2021, 29, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Alimoradi, Z.; Ohayon, M.M.; Griffiths, M.D.; Lin, C.Y.; Pakpour, A.H. Fear of COVID-19 and its association with mental health-related factors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BJPsych Open 2022, 8, e73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Çağış, Z.G.; Yildirim, M. Understanding the effect of fear of COVID-19 on COVID-19 burnout and job satisfaction: A mediation model of psychological capital. Psychol. Health Med. 2023, 28, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Khudaykulov, A.; Changjun, Z.; Obrenovic, B.; Godinic, D.; Alsharif, H.Z.H.; Jakhongirov, I. The fear of COVID-19 and job insecurity impact on depression and anxiety: An empirical study in China in the COVID-19 pandemic aftermath. Curr. Psychol. 2024, 43, 8471–8484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lathabhavan, R. COVID-19 and mental health concerns among business owners: A cross-sectional study from India. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2023, 21, 3810–3820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Swanzy, E.K. COVID-19 fear and performance of workers: A moderated mediation role of organizational support and mental wellbeing. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2022, 12, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tekir, Ö. The relationship between fear of COVID-19, psychological well-being and life satisfaction in nursing students: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0264970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Hidaka, Y.; Sasaki, N.; Imamura, K.; Tsuno, K.; Kuroda, R.; Kawakami, N. Changes in fears and worries related to COVID-19 during the pandemic among current employees in Japan: A 5-month longitudinal study. Public Health 2021, 198, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Quigley, M.; Whiteford, S.; Cameron, G.; Zuj, D.V.; Dymond, S. Longitudinal assessment of COVID-19 fear and psychological wellbeing in the United Kingdom. J. Health Psychol. 2022, 28, 726–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kwon, H.M.; Kim, T.H.; Choi, M.R.; Kim, B.J.; Kim, H.W.; Song, O.S.; Eun, H.J. The effects of MERS event on the psychosocial wellbeing of healthcare workers and the public with the mediating effect of resilience. Korean J. Psychosom. Med. 2017, 25, 111–119. [Google Scholar]
  53. Blanuša, J.; Barzut, V.; Knežević, J. Intolerance of uncertainty and fear of COVID-19 moderating role in relationship between job insecurity and work-related distress in the Republic of Serbia. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 647972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Godinic, D.; Obrenovic, B.; Khudaykulov, A. Effects of economic uncertainty on mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic context: Social identity disturbance, job uncertainty and psychological well-being model. Int. J. Innov. Econ. Dev. 2020, 6, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J. Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. J. Appl. Psychol. 1984, 59, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Brown, S.P.; Peterson, P.A. Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. J. Mark. Res. 1993, 30, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Abd-Ellatif, E.E.; Anwar, M.M.; AIJifri, A.A.; El Dalatony, M.M. Fear of COVID-19 and its impact on job satisfaction and turnover intention among Egyptian physicians. Saf. Health Work 2021, 12, 490–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Teng, Y.M.; Wu, K.S.; Xu, D. The association between fear of coronavirus disease 2019, mental health, and turnover intention among quarantine hotel employees in China. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 668774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. The Culture Factor. Available online: https://www.theculturefactor.com (accessed on 15 September 2024).
  60. Chen, H.; Qi, R. Restaurant frontline employees’ turnover intentions: Three-way interactions between job stress, fear of COVID-19, and resilience. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 2535–2558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zampetakis, L.A. Employees’ fear at work, job crafting, and work engagement on a daily basis: The case for fear of COVID-19. Appl. Psychol. 2023, 72, 535–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, X.; Yuan, S.J.; Ji, T.T.; Song, Y.L. Relationship between risk perception of COVID-19 and job withdrawal among Chinese nurses: The effect of work–family conflict and job autonomy. J. Nurs. Manag. 2022, 30, 1931–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Uludag, O.; Olufunmi, Z.O.; Lasisi, T.T.; Eluwole, K.K. Women in travel and tourism: Does fear of COVID-19 affect Women’s turnover intentions? Kybernetes 2023, 52, 2230–2253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Park, E.; You, C.H.; Joung, H.; Kwon, Y.D. Effect of COVID-19 response work experience on turnover intention among employees of dedicated COVID-19 hospitals in Seoul. Hum. Resour. Health 2024, 22, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Mehra, M.; Vasu, N.; Joshi, P.; Tiwani, S.K. Job turnover intention, social support and fear of COVID-19 among frontline nurses in hospital setting: An exploratory survey. Clin. Epidemiol. Glob. Health 2024, 26, 101524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Harris, G.E.; Cameron, J.E. Multiple dimensions of organizational identification and commitment as predictors of turnover intentions and psychological well-being. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 2005, 37, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fredrickson, B.L. What good are positive emotions? Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2, 300–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Siu, O.L.; Cheung, F.; Lui, S. Linking positive emotions to work well-being and turnover intention among Hong Kong polices officers: The role of psychological capital. J. Happiness Stud. 2015, 16, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Emberland, J.S.; Rundmo, T. Implications of job insecurity perceptions and job insecurity responses for psychological well-being, turnover intentions and reported risk behavior. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 452–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Amin, Z.; Akbar, K.P. Analysis of psychological well-being and turnover intentions of hotel employees: An empirical study. Int. J. Innov. Appl. Stud. 2013, 3, 662–671. [Google Scholar]
  71. Kundi, Y.M.; Aboramadan, M.; Elhamalawi, E.M.I.; Shahid, S. Employee psychological well-being and job performance: Exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2021, 29, 736–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ntow, M.A.O.; Abraham, D.K.; Bonsu, N.O.; Zungbey, O.D.D.; Sokro, E. Psychosocial risk and turnover intention: The moderating effect of psychological wellbeing. In Advances in Safety Management and Human Performance, Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual Conferences on Safety Management and Human Factors, and Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, and Performance, Virtual, 16–20 July 2020; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 76–83. [Google Scholar]
  73. Westerberg, K.; Pienaar, J.; Nordin, M.; Romeo, M.; Yepes-Baldo, M. Organizational change and commitment: Effects on well-being, turnover intent and quality of care in Spanish and Swedish eldercare. Econ. Ind. Democr. 2021, 42, 899–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Brokmeier, L.; Bosle, C.; Fischer, J.E.; Herr, R.M. Associations between work characteristics, engaged well-being at work, and job attitudes: Findings from a longitudinal German study. Saf. Health Work 2022, 13, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Duffy, R.D.; Dik, B.J.; Steger, M.F. Calling and work-related outcomes: Career commitment as a mediator. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 78, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Han, M.C.; Hwang, P.C. Who will survive workplace ostracism? career calling among hotel employees. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 49, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sharma, D.; Ghosh, K.; Mishra, M.; Anand, S. You stay home, but we can’t: Invisible ‘dirty’ work as calling amid COVID-19 pandemic. J. Vocat. Behav. 2022, 132, 103667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Duffy, R.D.; Douglass, R.P.; Gensmer, N.P.; England, J.W.; Kim, H.J. An initial examination of the work as calling theory. J. Couns. Psychol. 2019, 66, 328–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Cardador, M.T.; Dane, E.; Pratt, M.G. Linking calling orientations to organizational attachment via organizational instrumentality. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 79, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hirschi, A. Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. J. Couns. Psychol. 2012, 59, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhang, C.; Wei, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, Z. Mediation and moderation of calling and academic satisfaction, life satisfaction in normal students: The role of life meaning. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2013, 29, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
  82. Ziedelis, A. Perceived calling and work engagement among nurses. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2019, 41, 816–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Xie, B.; Xia, M.; Xin, X.; Zhou, W. Linking calling to work engagement and subjective career success: The perspective of career construction theory. J. Vocat. Behav. 2016, 94, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hall, D.T.; Chandler, D.E. Psychological success: When the career is a calling. J. Organ. Behav. 2005, 26, 155–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Nielsen, J.D.; Thompson, J.A.; Wadsworth, L.L.; Vallett, J.D. The moderating role of calling in the work–family interface: Buffering and substitution effects on employee satisfaction. J. Organ. Behav. 2020, 41, 622–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Brislin, R.W. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology; Triandis, H.C., Berry, J.W., Eds.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 1980; Volume 2, pp. 389–444. [Google Scholar]
  87. Ahorsu, D.K.; Lin, C.Y.; Imani, V.; Saffari, M.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pakpour, A.H. The fear of COVID-19 scale: Development and initial validation. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2020, 20, 1537–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Robertson, I.T.; Cooper, C.L. Full engagement: The integration of employee engagement and psychological well-being. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2010, 31, 324–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Duffy, R.D.; Bott, E.M.; Allan, B.A.; Torrey, C.L.; Dik, B.J. Perceiving a calling, living a calling, and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple mediator model. J. Couns. Psychol. 2012, 59, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kang, H.J.; Cain, L.; Busser, J.A. The impact of living a calling on job outcomes. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 95, 102916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Li, J.; Kim, W.G.; Zhao, X. Multilevel model of management support and casino employee turnover intention. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bluedorn, A.C. A unified model of turnover from organizations. Hum. Relat. 1982, 35, 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ahmed, M.A.; Jouhar, R.; Ahmed, N.; Adnan, S.; Aftabm, M.; Zafar, M.S.; Khurshid, Z. Fear and practice modifications among dentists to combat novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wang, C.; Pan, R.; Wan, X.; Tan, Y.; Xu, L.; Ho, C.S. Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bagozzi, R.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structure equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. 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]
  99. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  100. Cohen, J.; Cohen, P. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  101. 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]
  102. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 588–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hsiao, Y.Y.; Lai, M.H.C. The impact of partial measurement invariance on testing moderation for single and mult-level data. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Maslakçı, A.; Sürücü, L.; Sesen, H. Moderator role of subjective well-being in the impact of COVID-19 fear on hotel employees’ intention to leave. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 2022, 21, 57–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Dik, B.J.; Duffy, R.D. Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. Couns. Psychol. 2009, 37, 424–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Song, S.; Choi, Y. Differences in the COVID-19 Pandemic Response between South Korea and the United States: A Comparative Analysis of Culture and Policies. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 2022, 58, 196–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 09674 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 16 09674 g001
Sustainability 16 09674 g002
Figure 2. Structural parameter estimates.
Figure 2. Structural parameter estimates.
Sustainability 16 09674 g002
Table 1. Profile of the sample (n = 297).
Table 1. Profile of the sample (n = 297).
CharacteristicNPercentage
Gender
 Male20769.7
 Female9033.3
Generation
 X generation8327.9
 Y generation11739.4
 Z generation9732.7
Education level
 Community college degree (2 years)8528.6
 University degree (4 years)16956.9
 Graduate university degree (2 years)4314.5
Job tenure
 –3 yrs5719.2
 4–5 yrs4414.8
 6–9 yrs9933.3
 10– yrs9732.7
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables.
ItemsMean ± SD
Fear of COVID-19
FC1 I am most afraid of COVID-194.63 ± 1.14
FC2 It make me uncomfortable to think about COVID-194.67 ± 1.08
FC3 I worry a lot about COVID-194.61 ± 1.16
FC4 COVID-19 is an unpredictable disease4.70 ± 1.12
FC5 My hands become clammy when I think about COVID-194.85 ± 1.09
FC6 I am afraid of losing my life because of COVID-194.51 ± 1.09
FC7 When watching news and stories about COVID-19 on social media, I become nervous or anxious4.89 ± 1.08
FC8 I cannot sleep because I am worrying about getting COVID-194.54 ± 0.98
FC9 My heart races or palpitates when I think about getting COVID-194.61 ± 1.01
Psychological well-being
PW1 I like most parts of my personality3.68 ± 0.71
PW2 When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out so far3.56 ± 0.70
PW3 Some people wander aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them3.43 ± 0.76
PW4 In general, I fell I am in charge of the situation in which I live3.56 ± 0.77
Turnover intent
TI1 I will quit my job at my current organization in 1 yr. or less4.78 ± 1.08
TI2 I sometimes feel compelled to quit my job in my current workplace2.85 ± 1.08
TI3 I will quit my company of the given condition gets even a little worse than now2.89 ± 1.14
TI4 I will currently seriously considering leaving my current job to work at another company3.10 ± 1.12
Employees’ calling
EC1 I am consistently living out my calling3.45 ± 0.85
EC2 I have regular opportunities to live out my calling3.61 ± 0.75
EC3 I am working in the job to which I feel called3.46 ± 0.76
EC4 I am currently engaging in activities that align with my calling3.25 ± 0.99
EC5 I am living out my calling right now in my job3.36 ± 0.81
EC6 I am currently working in a job that closely aligns with my calling3.43 ± 0.76
Note: (1) SD = standard deviation; (2) FC = fear of COVID-19; PW = psychological well-being; TI = turnover intent; EC = employees’ calling.
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis.
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis.
ConstructStandardized Estimatet-ValueCorrected Item-Total CorrelationCCR
Cronbach’s Alpha
Fear of COVID-19 as exogenous 0.930
 FC10.757Fixed0.7200.940
 FC20.89216.577 ***0.849
 FC30.87916.290 ***0.830
 FC40.79514.442 ***0.762
 FC50.77514.036 ***0.761
 FC60.80014.551 ***0.774
 FC70.72212.922 ***0.714
 FC80.81714.919 ***0.796
 FC90.72212.919 ***0.721
Psychological well-being as mediator 0.913
 PW10.801Fixed0.7100.855
 PW20.82614.645 ***0.732
 PW30.76013.424 ***0.697
 PW40.70412.302 ***0.656
Turnover intent as endogenous 0.870
 TI10.700Fixed0.6770.890
 TI20.89514.1980.810
 TI30.91014.3510.817
 TI40.76512.3430.737
Employees’ calling as moderator 0.921
 EC10.730Fixed0.7010.887
 EC20.72011.943 ***0.673
 EC30.76512.707 ***0.706
 EC40.73912.271 ***0.699
 EC50.79213.161 ***0.732
 EC60.79813.262 ***0.729
Note: CCR = composite construct reliability; Standardized Estimate = β-value; χ2 = 642.137 df = 224) p < 0.001; χ2/df = 2.862; Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.838; Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.867; Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.897; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.909; Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = 0.909; Root Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.079; Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) = 0.047; *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Correlation analysis and discriminant validity tests.
Table 4. Correlation analysis and discriminant validity tests.
Construct12345AVEMean ± SD
1. Generations10.0250.0010.0020.001--
2. Fear of COVID-19−0.159 **10.0710.0620.0050.6354.67 ± 0.89
3. Psychological well-being0.089−0.267 **10.2560.0350.5983.56 ± 0.62
4. Employees’ calling0.043−0.249 **0.506 **10.1550.5743.43 ± 0.66
5. Turnover intent−0.0100.068−0.189 **−0.394 **10.6763.01 ± 0.96
Note: AVE = average variance extracted; ** indicates significance at p < 0.01; italic type indicates squared correlations; SD = standard deviation. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Table 5. Structural parameter estimates.
Table 5. Structural parameter estimates.
Hypothesized Path
(Stated as Alternative Hypothesis)		Standardized
Coefficients		t-ValueResults
H1(-) Employees’ generations → Fear of COVID-19−0.160−2.678 **Supported
H2(-) Fear of COVID-19 → Psychological well-being−0.299−4.573 ***Supported
H3(-) Fear of COVID-19 → Turnover intent0.0050.078Not supported
H4(-) Psychological well-being → Turnover intent−0.234−3.356 ***Supported
Goodness-of-fit statisticsχ2(132) = 430.539 (p < 0.001)
χ2/df = 3.262
GFI = 0.860
NFI = 0.881
CFI = 0.914
RMR = 0.048
RMSEA = 0.087
Note: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 6. Model fit indices.
Table 6. Model fit indices.
Employees’ Calling Groupχ2dfχ2/dfCFIRMSEARMRAIC
Metric invariance model608.7372482.4550.8900.0700.081724.737
Note: AIC = Akaike Information Criterion.
Table 7. Moderating effects of employees’ calling.
Table 7. Moderating effects of employees’ calling.
High Calling
(N = 166)		Low Calling
(N = 131)		Unconstrained
Model
Chi-Square
(df = 234)		Constrained
Model
Chi-Square
(df = 235)		∆χ2
(df = 1)
Standardized
Coefficients		 t-Value Standardized
Coefficients 		t-Value
H5a Fear of COVID-19
→ Psychological well-being		−0.134−1.512 ns−0.349−3.466 ***581.027585.1424.115 *
H5b Fear of COVID-19
→ Turnover intent		0.0520.613 ns−0.052−0.552 ns581.027581.7000.673 ns
Note: χ2/df = 2.483; GFI = 0.822; NFI = 0.837; CFI = 0.894; RMSEA = 0.071; RMR = 0.062; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001; ns = not significant.
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

Jung, H.; Hwang, Y.H.; Jung, Y.S.; Yoon, H.H. The Generation-Based Effects of the Fear of COVID-19 on Deluxe Hotel Employees’ Responses. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229674

AMA Style

Jung H, Hwang YH, Jung YS, Yoon HH. The Generation-Based Effects of the Fear of COVID-19 on Deluxe Hotel Employees’ Responses. Sustainability. 2024; 16(22):9674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229674

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jung, Hyosun, Yu Hyun Hwang, Yoon Sik Jung, and Hye Hyun Yoon. 2024. "The Generation-Based Effects of the Fear of COVID-19 on Deluxe Hotel Employees’ Responses" Sustainability 16, no. 22: 9674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229674

APA Style

Jung, H., Hwang, Y. H., Jung, Y. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2024). The Generation-Based Effects of the Fear of COVID-19 on Deluxe Hotel Employees’ Responses. Sustainability, 16(22), 9674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229674

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