MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944966038 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v10n3p1

Leaders’ Emotional Intelligence and Employee Retention: Mediation of Job Satisfaction in the Hospitality Industry

2019· article· en· W2944966038 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adel Ali Yassin Alzyoud, Umair Ahmed, Mahmoud AlZgool, Munwar Hussain Pahi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMediationEmployee retentionEmotional intelligenceJob satisfactionHospitalityHospitality industryEmotional contagionSocial psychologyApplied psychologyMarketingBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study has catered to one of the major issues faced by organizations across the globe, employee retention. Therein, the study attempted to examine the relationship of leaders’ emotional intelligence with employee retention. In parallel, the study also tested to underline if job satisfaction could mediate this relationship. Through targeting non-managerial employees working in the four- and five-star hotels in Jordan, the present study sampled 380 employees from the 56 hotels. Through using structural equation modelling approach via Smart PLS 2.0 M3, the present study found significant relationship between leaders’ emotional intelligence and employee retention hence suggesting that leaders’ emotional awareness and management of employees whilst enriching their emotional expression and skills can significantly help boost employee retention. Accordingly, the study also reported significant mediation of job satisfaction in the relationship between leaders’ emotional intelligence and employee retention. The study has reported that leaders’ emotional intelligence can induce sense of belongingness leading to enhance job satisfaction which further results in harnessing employee retention. The study forwards notable implications for practice and scope for future studies in light of the findings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207