The model fit was not quite satisfactory with χ^2 just below the 0.05 threshold and
RMSEA just above the desired threshold of < 0.06 (χ^2 = 16.170; d.f. = 8; sig =
0.040; RMSEA = 0.069 (0.118; 0.014; pclose = 0.221); CFI = 0.984; SRMR =
0.0319; CN (0.05) = 204). Nevertheless, the other fit measures are satisfactory
and the RMSEA value 0.069 falls within the <0.08 threshold that is deemed
‘reasonable’ by Browne and Cudeck (1989, 1993).
An investigation of the standardised residual covariance matrix did not reveal any
issues – accordingly, the model is cautiously accepted. The Job Satisfaction →
Job Performance standardised effect size is 0.368 which can be classified as
‘medium strength’ according to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines on interpreting effect
sizes. The model is illustrated in Figure 8 - 5.
Figure 8-5 Job Satisfaction predicting Job Performance
Job satisfaction is the focus of much attention in the organisational psychology
and organisational behaviour fields (Huelsman 2007) and this research has
identified a number of hospitality studies that have included job satisfaction as a
variable (see Section 5.3).
An early hospitality study to include both leadership and job satisfaction was
undertaken by Borchgrevink and Boster (1994) who examined the correlations
between job satisfaction and a number of hospitality organisational and employee
characteristics, including leader-member relations. Borchgrevink and Boster
noted (1994: 90) that leadership is one of many potential determinants of job
satisfaction and suggested that researchers with an interest in job satisfaction
might examine the (general-context) works of Herzberg (1959), Ivancevich
(1976) and Lawler (1967) for additional correlated variables.