Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
The Effects of Workplace Loneliness on Work Engagement and
Organizational Commitment: Moderating Roles of
Leader-Member Exchange and Coworker Exchange
Hyo Sun Jung 1, Min Kyung Song 2and Hye Hyun Yoon 2,*
Citation: Jung, H.S.; Song, M.K.;
Yoon, H.H. The Effects of Workplace
Loneliness on Work Engagement and
Organizational Commitment:
Moderating Roles of Leader-Member
Exchange and Coworker Exchange.
Sustainability 2021,13, 948.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020948
Received: 10 December 2020
Accepted: 13 January 2021
Published: 18 January 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Center for Converging Humanities Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea; chefcook@khu.ac.kr
2Department of Culinary Arts and Food Service Management, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea;
smk1717@khu.ac.kr
*Correspondence: hhyun@khu.ac.kr
Abstract:
This study aims to examine the effect of workplace loneliness on work engagement and
organizational commitment and the moderating role of social relationships between an employee and
his or her superior and coworkers in such mechanisms. Workplace loneliness decreased employees’
engagement with their jobs and, as such, decreased engagement had a positive relationship with
organizational commitment. Also, the negative influence of workplace loneliness on work engage-
ment was found to be moderated by coworker exchange, and employees’ maintenance of positive
social exchange relationships with their coworkers was verified to be a major factor for relieving the
negative influence of workplace loneliness.
Keywords:
workplace loneliness; work engagement; organizational commitment; leader-member
exchange; coworker exchange; deluxe hotel
1. Introduction
Workplace loneliness does harm to an organization as well as its employees [
1
]. In an
organization, employees perform their jobs amid diverse and complex interpersonal rela-
tionships, and if they fail to bear such relationships in a basic social dimension, they will be
apt to feel loneliness [
2
]. Even though workplace loneliness is an important issue prevalent
within an organization, it has drawn little attention in the area of human resources man-
agement. Workplace loneliness is an essentially unique emotion that employees experience
within their workplace, and increased competition within the workplace makes it more and
more difficult for them to establish genuine social relationships [
3
]. Social relationships are
very important in human life [
4
], and individuals spend most of their time in their work-
places [
5
], but there has been restricted research that has investigated workplace loneliness
and negative performance. Rokach [
6
] noted that a lonely (solitary) employee experiences
pain due to little respect from his or her coworkers or superiors and, as a result, thinks that
he or she has been left alone and makes a relatively negative evaluation of himself or her-
self. In addition, Lam and Lau [
7
] observed that those who feel lonely in their workplaces
have low social skills, have a low level of perception about social risks, and concentrate
more on negative social information than positive social information [
8
] and, therefore,
are very likely to perceive threats rather than opportunities. In research performed thus
far, loneliness was mentioned mostly in a clinical or individual dimension [
9
]. Moreover,
a focus was made on the nature of the phenomenon of loneliness itself and an approach
to it in terms of organizational climate was disregarded. In particular, whereas ordinary
loneliness accompanies a wider range of relationships, including diverse interpersonal
relationships in ordinary life, workplace loneliness is based on work situations, is not a
psychological feeling or state, may be easily affected by work situations, and, therefore,
is all the more important [
10
]. Thus far, however, research on workplace loneliness has
Sustainability 2021,13, 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020948 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 2 of 14
been very scarce, and, in this respect, the researcher judged that relevant research should
be further developed.
In particular, in order to obtain a sustainable development with a competitive edge,
deluxe hotels need to attract and maintain high quality employees in the present situation
where competition grows fierce [
11
,
12
]. Typical problems inherent in the hotel industry
include long work hours, irregular and inflexible work schedule, and weekend duties [
13
].
Furthermore, a hotel job pays poorly, involves a narrow range of duties, and requires
intensive emotional labor [
14
,
15
]. For this reason, policies are needed that improve hotel
employees’ social relationships and mitigate their feeling of loneliness at the workplace.
Therefore, an interesting working environment can be a good method used by an organi-
zation to attract and maintain employees [
16
,
17
], and this study will provide meaningful
suggestions by verifying the influence of a climate of loneliness in an organization. Hence,
obtaining knowledge about the causes and outcomes of workplace loneliness will be an
important issue for both workers and researchers. From a viewpoint of workplace flexibil-
ity, efforts to promote hotel employees’ social relationship and manage their feelings of
loneliness can facilitate sustainable growth of the hotel industry.
In consideration of the facts that people currently spend more time in their workplaces
than in any other domain of life and that workplace loneliness has a negative effect on
job performance, this study aims to examine the effect of workplace loneliness on work
engagement and organizational commitment and the moderating role of social relationships
between an employee and his or her superior and coworkers in such mechanisms (
Figure 1
).
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15
by work situations, and, therefore, is all the more important [10]. Thus far, however, re-
search on workplace loneliness has been very scarce, and, in this respect, the researcher
judged that relevant research should be further developed.
In particular, in order to obtain a sustainable development with a competitive edge,
deluxe hotels need to attract and maintain high quality employees in the present situation
where competition grows fierce [11,12]. Typical problems inherent in the hotel industry
include long work hours, irregular and inflexible work schedule, and weekend duties [13].
Furthermore, a hotel job pays poorly, involves a narrow range of duties, and requires in-
tensive emotional labor [14,15]. For this reason, policies are needed that improve hotel
employees’ social relationships and mitigate their feeling of loneliness at the workplace.
Therefore, an interesting working environment can be a good method used by an organi-
zation to attract and maintain employees [16,17], and this study will provide meaningful
suggestions by verifying the influence of a climate of loneliness in an organization. Hence,
obtaining knowledge about the causes and outcomes of workplace loneliness will be an
important issue for both workers and researchers. From a viewpoint of workplace flexi-
bility, efforts to promote hotel employees’ social relationship and manage their feelings of
loneliness can facilitate sustainable growth of the hotel industry.
In consideration of the facts that people currently spend more time in their work-
places than in any other domain of life and that workplace loneliness has a negative effect
on job performance, this study aims to examine the effect of workplace loneliness on work
engagement and organizational commitment and the moderating role of social relation-
ships between an employee and his or her superior and coworkers in such mechanisms
(Figure 1).
Figure 1. A proposed model of workplace loneliness, work engagement, organizational commitment, leader-member
exchange (LMX), and coworker exchange (CWX).
2. Literature Review and Conceptual Model
2.1. Workplace Loneliness, Work Engagement, Organizational Commitment, Leader-Member
Exchange (LMX), and Coworker Exchange (CWX)
Figure 1.
A proposed model of workplace loneliness, work engagement, organizational commitment, leader-member
exchange (LMX), and coworker exchange (CWX).
2. Literature Review and Conceptual Model
2.1. Workplace Loneliness, Work Engagement, Organizational Commitment, Leader-Member
Exchange (LMX), and Coworker Exchange (CWX)
Ernst and Cacioppo [
18
] observed that workplace loneliness was a feeling experienced
by employees when their social desires were not satisfied, and Wright et al. [
10
] noted
that workplace loneliness was pain occurring due to a lack of interpersonal relationships
of good quality among members in a work environment. In addition, Russell, et al. [
19
]
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 3 of 14
asserted that workplace loneliness was employees’ subjective perception about what was
insufficient in their social relationships. Most research on workplace loneliness emphasizes
that it affects individual and organizational performance very negatively [
2
,
20
,
21
]. Work
engagement refers to a mental state of employees that is energetic, devoted, and full
of vitality when participating in their jobs [
22
] and when they have high engagement,
employees feel all the more happy and spend relatively more time in the organization [
23
].
In addition, organizational commitment means an employee accepts the organization’s
goals and values and makes considerable efforts to achieve them [
24
]. It is also the extent
to which an individual identifies with a specific organization and commits to it [
25
]. LMX
(leader-member exchange) and CWX (coworker exchange), used as moderating variables in
this study are concepts based on social exchange theory. LMX is a very important theoretical
basis for explaining the relationship between a superior and his or her subordinates in an
organization [
26
]. When a positive pattern of exchange in relationships is formed between
a superior and his or her subordinates, employees develop very positive attitudes toward
their jobs [
27
]. Furthermore, CWX shows the quality of relationships formed as a result of
interaction with coworkers by an employee as a member of an organization [28].
2.2. Relationship between Workplace Loneliness and Work Engagement
Research on workplace loneliness and employee engagement is very scarce. As
the only relevant research thus far, Öge et al. [
29
] noted that workplace loneliness and
engagement had a negative relationship and when an employee did not feel loneliness
any longer, they became more positive about his or her job and felt engaged to the extent
that he or she lost count of time. In addition, although they did not research employees,
Zhang et al. [
30
] asserted that loneliness reduced social participation, and Park et al. [
31
]
also noted that social participation decreased loneliness; in other words, there is a negative
correlation between participation and loneliness. When burnout is defined as exhausted
participation in daily work by a generalized theory on engagement [
32
], Gerstein et al. [
33
]
explained that an employee felt lonely when he or she had the severest burnout, and
Fernet et al. [
34
] asserted that loneliness perceived by an employee in an organization had
a very close relationship with burnout. In the same vein, happiness is a positive, emotional
response to work, and workers’ sense of happiness weakens because of loneliness they
feel at workplace [
35
]. Garg and Anand [
36
] said that workers’ emotional commitment is
lowered when they feel lonely at the workplace. Therefore, based on the existing empirical
evidence from previous studies, we propose that workplace loneliness reduces employee
engagement. The following hypothesis is posited:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Workplace loneliness is negatively associated with employee engagement.
2.3. Relationship between Work Engagement and Organizational Commitment
Previous studies have suggested that employee engagement can be an attitudinal fac-
tor that enhances commitment within an organization. A study of different organizations
verified that a highly engaged employee is very important for achieving useful business
performance [
37
–
39
]. Albdour and Altarawneh [
40
] asserted that when an employee had
high job performance capabilities and work engagement, they came to have normative
and emotional engagement with the organization, and Hanaysha [
41
] identified that work
participation affected employees’ level of engagement. Mills and Fullagar [
42
] suggested
that employee engagement plays a significant role in increasing occupational commitment.
Kim et al. [
43
] observed that work engagement focused on the relationship between an
employee and his or her tasks and that commitment emphasized the relationship between
an employee and organization, adding that the two had a very positive relationship. In
addition, Walden et al. [
44
] asserted that when an employee came to have engagement
with their job, commitment to the organization increased as well. Cao et al. [
45
] also noted
that when an employee experienced engagement and a high level of commitment to an
organization, he or she developed strong faith in the organization’s goals and values and
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 4 of 14
made considerable efforts and willingly accepted sacrifices for the organization. Conse-
quently, positive psychological conditions of employees, such as their engagement, can
increase their commitment to organizations. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posited:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Employee engagement is positively associated with their commitment.
2.4. Relationship between Workplace Loneliness and Organizational Commitment
Wright [
2
] noted that in the case that an organization’s employees did not feel intimacy
and the need for social relationships, their organizational commitment and the possibility
for them to find satisfactory relationships decreased, adding that organizational loneliness
had a negative correlation with organizational commitment. In addition, Yilmaz [
46
] found
that loneliness perceived by an employee in an organization was an important factor
for determining his or her organizational commitment, and psychological support was
necessary in order to increase commitment when he or she felt lonely. Erdil and Erto-
sun [
20
] explained that the loneliness that an employee felt in an organization negatively
affected organizational commitment, and Ayazlar and Güzel [
47
] also observed that when
an employee had no friends to share opinions with and no social relationships, he or she
came to negatively predict organizational commitment. In other words, the existence of
a social companion in an employee’s workplace was an important factor for inducing
their commitment to the organization. Erkan and Mithat [
48
] argued that the loneliness an
employee perceived in an organization was a considerable predictor of they will toward
the organization and negatively affected organizational commitment. Promsri [
49
] said
that the loneliness an employee experienced in an organization and work engagement and
commitment to the organization had a negative correlation, and Ozcelik and Barsade [
4
]
suggested that an employee felt a sense of alienation due to loneliness in their workplace,
which, in turn, decreased emotional commitment. From a similar perspective, Morri-
son [
50
] noted that whether or not there was a companion in an employee’s workplace
did not directly affect organizational commitment, but it had an indirect influence through
job satisfaction. Ellingwood [
51
] asserted that when there were more opportunities for
friendship in an employee’s workplace, they more actively participated in and became
more committed to the organization. Garg and Anand [
36
] argued that individuals and
organizations interact closely, and emotionally committed employees identify themselves
with the organization by actively participating in organizational activities and through their
will of pursuit. Loneliness can be seen as a state that lacks such close interactions, and thus,
shows a negative correlation with employees’ organizational commitment. Heinrich and
Gullone [
52
] demonstrated that loneliness affected individuals’ emotional and cognitive
attitude, and their immersion. Lawler [
53
] suggested that employees’ positive emotion
that derives from interactions with other people significantly stimulates their positive
immersion in other individuals or organizations, but a negative emotion has negative
impact on immersion. That is, individuals who feel lonely at workplace focus more on
negative information than on positive information, and this leads to the lack of social
interactions or immersion with the organization [
54
]. Therefore, the following hypothesis
is posited:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Workplace loneliness is negatively associated with employees’ commitment.
2.5. Moderating Effects of LMX and CWX
Social exchange theory proposes that the quality of relationships between an employee
and his or her superior and coworkers [
28
,
55
,
56
] affects job attitude and organizational
performance. An employee’s coworkers and superior constitute a very important part of
the social environment of the workplace [
57
]. In particular, support from a supervisor or
coworkers is an essential job resource for relieving negative experiences in an organiza-
tion [
58
] and is a motivating force that makes an employee engage with their job [
59
]. As
part of research that dealt with workplace loneliness and exchange relationships with a
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 5 of 14
superior and coworkers, Gable and Berkman [
60
] noted that a lonely employee mostly
disregarded or ended meaningful relationships in the workplace and tended to evade the
process of maintaining positive relationships. In addition, followers who prefer loneli-
ness make negative evaluations of other persons, are reluctant to communicate with their
leaders, and fear risks in social exchanges [
61
]. Furthermore, Wright et al. [
10
] asserted
that loneliness depended on an inability to form interpersonal relationships that led an
employee to be obsessed with social opportunities.
Lam and Lau [
7
] suggested that workplace loneliness had a negative relationship
with LMX and organizational member exchange (OMX) and mentioned that the higher the
LMX, the lower the negative effect of workplace loneliness on organizational citizenship
behaviors became; in other words, LMX had an important moderating role. They also
asserted that a lonely employee negatively judged and distrusted his or her leader. Chen
et al. [
21
] observed that a lonely employee was lacking in capabilities to become a member
of a group and did not make efforts to improve such a condition, adding that LMX
increased as workplace loneliness decreased. Anand and Mishra [
1
] found that the stronger
an employee’s exchange relationship with their superior, the lower the negative effect of
workplace loneliness on emotional exhaustion became, and asserted that the relationship
between loneliness and emotional exhaustion was very strong in an employee with a
low level of LMX. Therefore, a lonely employee who does not trust his or her leader and
coworkers much is likely to have a negative opinion about the leader’s roles and intentions,
compared to an employee who is not lonely. In other words, such a negative psychological
process is highly likely to be offset by a strong social exchange relationship. Based on such
previous research, it can be inferred that an employee’s positive relationship with his or
her coworkers and superior may relieve the negative influence of workplace loneliness.
Even though workplace loneliness decreases an employee’s engagement and commitment,
the negative influence of loneliness may be minimized if he or she maintains positive
exchanges or relationships with their superior and coworkers. The following hypotheses
are therefore proposed:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
LMX moderates the effects of workplace loneliness on engagement and
organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
CWX moderates the effects of workplace loneliness on engagement and
organizational commitment.
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Sample and Data Collection
Data for use in this study were collected in 2018 from employees working for the
food and beverage departments of deluxe hotels located in Seoul. A deluxe hotel was
defined as a five-star hotel with at least 200 rooms. A total of 10 hotels, whose human
resources personnel had approved of the survey, were selected. Because it was realisti-
cally impossible to obtain consent from all employees, convenience sampling was used.
Furthermore, employees voluntarily participated in the survey. They were anonymously
surveyed and made aware that the answers would be confidentially managed. A total
of 400 questionnaires were distributed to 10 deluxe hotels by the researcher. The size
of the sample was determined in proportion to the population. The average number of
employees in 22 deluxe hotels located in Seoul was 500, and the appropriate size of the
sample was judged to be 400, given a percentage error of 5%. A total of 311 questionnaires
were collected. Among them, 292 questionnaires were used for the final analysis. The
employees were 42.8% male and 57.2% female. 50.0% of the employees were between 30
and 39 years. Most had a university degree (57.5%), and 84.2% had been with a deluxe
hotel for less than 10 years. Also, their job positions were back of house (54.1%) and front
of house (45.9%).
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 6 of 14
3.2. Instrument Development
The questionnaire consisted of six parts. The first part contained questions about the
participants’ demographic information (e.g., gender, age, education level, tenure). The
second part requested employees to rate their overall recognition of workplace loneliness.
To measure employees’ perceptions of workplace loneliness, this study adapted Wright
et al.’s [
10
] multi-item scales. The conflict management climate was measured through
12 items using a 7-point scale: “How much do you agree or disagree with these statements?”
(1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree). The third and fourth parts focused on employee
engagement and commitment. Employee engagement was measured with 5 items using
a 7–point scale based on those developed by Schaufeli et al. [
22
,
23
]. Also, organizational
commitment was measured by five items developed by Allen and Meyer [
62
] and Mayer
and Schoorman [
24
]. The fifth and sixth parts focused on LMX and CWX. LMX was
measured using five items developed by Borchgrevink and Boster [
63
,
64
]. Respondents’
CWX was evaluated using five items developed by Sherony and Green [
28
]. As Brislin [
65
]
specified, the questionnaire written in English was translated into Korean through reverse
translation by a research worker fluent in both languages.
3.3. Data Analysis
The researcher employed the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and
the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) programs for the analysis of the study data.
The SPSS program was used for demographic analysis, reliability analysis, and correlation
analysis of the measurement items. In order to examine the validity of the measurement
items, the researcher employed the AMOS program. The hypotheses were verified using
a two-step approach. The validity of the measurement items was identified through
confirmatory factor analysis, assessment of composite construct reliability (CCR), and
calculation of average variance extracted (AVE). The hypotheses were identified through
structural equation modeling and multi-group analysis. In addition, in order to verify the
mediating effect of engagement, the researcher employed bootstrapping and the Aroian
version of the Sobel test.
4. Results
4.1. Measurement Model
The researcher identified convergent validity, discriminant validity, and nominal
validity in order to verify the validity of the measurement items. Table 1shows the result
of confirmatory factor analysis on the theorized five-factor model (workplace loneliness,
work engagement, organizational commitment, LMX, and CWX). The analysis showed
that the study model had an excellent fit (
χ2
= 856.650; df = 454;
χ2
/df = 1.887; GFI = 0.821;
NFI = 0.905; CFI = 0.957; RMSEA = 0.058). The researcher reviewed factor loading (0.7 or
higher), AVE (0.5 or higher), and CCR (0.7 or higher) in order to verify convergent validity,
and all were found to satisfy their appropriate standards [
66
,
67
]. In addition, the square
root (correlation) of each of the measurement items was smaller than the AVE, and the AVE
was greater than the average shared variance (ASV) and maximum shared variance (MSV),
whereby discriminant validity was verified (Table 2).
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis.
Construct Standardized
Estimate t-Value Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
CCR aCronbach’s
Alpha
Workplace loneliness 0.963
WL1I often feel abandoned by co-workers
when I am under pressure at work.0.905 fixed *** 0.897 0.982
WL2I often feel alienated from my co-workers 0.911 24.113 *** 0.903
WL
3
I feel myself withdrawing from the people
I work with 0.918 24.594 *** 0.908
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 7 of 14
Table 1. Cont.
Construct Standardized
Estimate t-Value Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
CCR aCronbach’s
Alpha
WL4I often feel emotionally distant from the
people I work with 0.906 23.733 *** 0.897
WL5I often feel isolated when I am with my
co-workers 0.908 23.879 *** 0.899
WL6I experience a general sense of emptiness
when I am at work 0.894 22.888 *** 0.886
WL7I have social companionship/fellowship
at work 0.899 23.255 *** 0.893
WL
8
I feel included in the social aspects of work
0.896 23.008 *** 0.888
WL9There is someone at work I can talk to
about my day to day work problems if I need to
0.886 22.334 *** 0.876
WL10 There is no one at work I can share
personal thoughts with if I want to 0.925 25.191 *** 0.916
WL
11
I have someone at work I can spend time
with on my breaks if I want to 0.927 25.368 *** 0.919
WL12 I feel part of a group of friends at work 0.922 24.912 *** 0.913
Work engagement 0.936
WE1I really “throw” myself into my job 0.814 fixed 0.842 0.949
WE2At my work, I feel bursting with energy 0.967 20.456 *** 0.892
WE3I am proud on the work that I do 0.777 14.486 *** 0.814
WE4I get carried away when I am working 0.854 16.571 *** 0.862
WE5I am highly engaged in this job 0.968 20.483 *** 0.887
Organizational commitment 0.925
OC1Working at my organization has a great
deal of personal meaning to me 0.907 fixed 0.876 0.953
OC2I find that my values and the
organization’s values are very similar 0.909 23.391 *** 0.878
OC3I care about the fate of this organization 0.886 21.893 *** 0.865
OC4 I am proud to tell others I work at
my organization 0.885 21.832 *** 0.860
OC5 I feel a strong sense of belonging to
my organization 0.890 22.127 *** 0.868
Leader-member exchange 0.917
LMX1 My working relationship with my
supervisor is better than average 0.804 fixed 0.758 0.907
LMX2I feel close to my supervisor 0.802 14.162 *** 0.762
LMX3 My supervisor and I see things the
same way 0.799 14.096 *** 0.753
LMX4 I speak often with my supervisor about
job-related issues 0.843 15.126 *** 0.787
LMX5 My supervisor and I speak with each
other about issues not related to work 0.820 14.577 *** 0.771
Coworker exchange 0.923
CWX1 My coworker understands my job needs
0.846 fixed 0.810 0.930
CWX2 I feel close to my coworkers 0.849 16.966 *** 0.808
CWX3 My coworker would personally use
his/her power to help me solve my
work problems
0.844 16.792 *** 0.806
CWX4My working relationship with
coworkers is extremely effective 0.870 17.695 *** 0.832
CWX5I always know how satisfied my
coworker is with what I do 0.853 17.100 *** 0.818
Note:
a
CCR = composite construct reliability; Standardized estimate =
β
-value;
χ2
= 856.650 (df = 454) p< 0.001;
χ2
/df = 1.887; goodness of
fit index (GFI) = 0.821; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.905; Tucker Lewis index (TLI) = 0.953; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.957; incremental fit
index (IFI) = 0.957; root square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058; root mean square residual (RMR) = 0.059; *** p< 0.001.
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 8 of 14
Table 2. Correlation analysis and discriminant validity tests.
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 AVE Mean ±SD
1. Workplace loneliness 1 0.076 0.069 0.168 0.087 0.815 3.71 ±1.34
2. Work engagement −0.276 1 0.461 0.288 0.259 0.773 4.61 ±0.97
3. Organizational commitment −0.263 0.679 1 0.233 0.129 0.801 4.14 ±1.17
4. Leader-member exchange −0.410 0.537 0.483 1 0.252 0.661 3.33 ±0.80
5. Coworker exchange −0.296 0.509 0.360 0.502 1 0.726 3.63 ±0.93
Note: AVE = Average variance extracted; Grey shaded types are significant at p< 0.01; Italic type are presented in squared correlation;
SD = standard deviation.
4.2. Structural Equation Modeling
The hypotheses of this study were analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Table 3
shows the result of the analysis with structural equation modeling and represents
standardized path coefficients and t-values of all relationships. The model’s fit was rela-
tively good (
χ2
= 527.359; df = 206; p< 0.001; GFI = 0.835; NFI = 0.930; CFI = 0.956; RMSEA
= 0.079). Hypothesis 1, which stated that an employee’s workplace loneliness negatively
affects work engagement (
β
=
−
0.284; t=
−
4.543; p< 0.001), was supported. This result is
consistent with that of Öge et al. [
29
]; when an employee feels lonely in an organization,
the possibility of him or her doing work engagement in organization decreases. In addition,
Hypothesis 2, which stated that an employee’s engagement positively affects organiza-
tional commitment (
β
= 0.653; t= 11.698; p< 0.001) was also supported. Such a result was
consistent with those of others already verified; multiple studies [
42
,
44
,
45
] report the result
that an employee’s organizational commitment was increased by their work engagement.
Nonetheless, the negative relationship between an employee’s workplace loneliness and
organizational commitment was rejected (
β
=
−
0.085; t=
−
1.657; p> 0.05). This study
did not identify a direct causal relationship between an employee’s loneliness and orga-
nizational commitment, which was in contrast with the results of previously performed
multiple studies [4,20,48], but consistent with the result of research by Chan and Qiu [68],
where workplace loneliness had no correlation with organizational commitment. Although
a direct relationship between workplace loneliness and organizational commitment was
not clarified, an indirect relationship between workplace loneliness and organizational
commitment was expected from the mediating role of engagement, given Hypotheses 1
and 2. In order to verify this, the researcher made an evaluation of such a relationship based
on the method by Baron and Kenny [
69
] and found that workplace loneliness negatively
affected organizational commitment through engagement (
β
=
−
0.158; p< 0.05). The Sobel
test also showed the importance of engagement, supporting its mediating effect (Z-score
=
−
5.263, p< 0.05) [
70
]. Therefore, an employee’s engagement completely mediated the
negative relationship between workplace loneliness and organizational commitment.
Tables 4and 5show the result of the verification of whether LMX and CWX, as social
exchange relationships, play a moderating role in the influential relationship between
workplace loneliness and engagement and commitment. The researcher performed analysis
by differentiating the subjects into a group with high LMX and CWX and another one
with low LMX and CWX, based on their average values, and verifying the moderating
effect with the difference in the degrees of freedom between the unconstrained model
and the metric invariance model. According to the analysis result, LMX did not have a
significant moderating effect on the influence of workplace loneliness on engagement and
commitment. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was rejected.
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 9 of 14
Table 3. Structural estimates model.
Hypothesized Path (Stated as Alternative Hypothesis) Standardized Coefficients t-Value Results
H1(−) Workplace loneliness →work engagement −0.284 −4.543 *** Supported
H2(+) Work engagement →organizational commitment 0.653 11.698 *** Supported
H3(
−
) Workplace loneliness
→
organizational commitment
−0.085 −1.657 Not supported
Goodness-of-fit statistics χ2(206) = 527.359 (p< 0.001)
χ2/df = 2.560
GFI = 0.835
NFI = 0.930
CFI = 0.956
RMR = 0.066
RMSEA = 0.079
Note: (1) GFI = goodness of fit index; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMR = root mean-square residual; RMSEA = root
mean square error of approximation; *** p< 0.001. (2) Mediating role of work engagement. Indirect effect: Workplace loneliness
→
work
engagement
→
organizational commitment. Point estimate:
−
0.158 (
p
< 0.05); bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI:
−
0.233(LL);
−
0.093(UL)
Aroian version of the Sobel test: Z = −5.263 (p< 0.05).
Table 4. Moderating effects of employees’ leader-member exchange (LMX).
High-LMX (N= 148) Low-LMX (N= 144) Unconstrained
Model
Chi-Square
(df = 412)
Constrained
Model
Chi-Square
(df = 413)
∆χ2
(df = 1)
Standardized
Coefficients t-Value Standardized
Coefficients t-Value
Workplace
loneliness →work
engagement
−0.111 −1.207 ns −0.208 −2.307 * 783.293 783.861 0.568 ns
Workplace
loneliness →
organizational
commitment
−0.052 −0.747 ns −0.087 −1.040 ns 783.293 783.392 0.099 ns
Note: χ2/df = 1.901; GFI = 0.783; NFI = 0.891; TLI = 0.938; CFI = 0.945; IFI = 0.945; RMSEA = 0.060; * p< 0.05, ns Not significant.
Table 5. Moderating effects of employees’ coworker exchange (CWX).
High-CWX (N= 154) Low-CWX (N= 138) Unconstrained
Model
Chi-Square
(df = 412)
Constrained
Model
Chi-Square
(df = 413)
∆χ2
(df = 1)
Standardized
Coefficients t-Value Standardized
Coefficients t-Value
Workplace
loneliness →work
engagement
−0.158 −2.064 * −0.441 −3.978 ** 781.272 785.319 4.047 *
Workplace
loneliness →
organizational
commitment
−0.037 −0.593 ns −0.107 −1.022 ns 781.272 782.390 2.118 ns
Note:
χ2/
df = 1.896; GFI = 0.786; NFI = 0.895; TLI = 0.940; CFI = 0.947; IFI = 0.947; RMSEA = 0.060; * p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01,
ns
Not significant.
Nonetheless, CWX had a significant moderating effect on the influence of workplace
loneliness on work engagement. The negative influence of organizational loneliness on
work engagement was significantly greater in a group with low CWX than in a group
with high CWX. In other words, when an employee’s positive interaction with his or her
coworkers is insufficient, the negative relationship between workplace loneliness and work
engagement becomes stronger. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was partially supported. This
was a result similar to that of the research by Lam and Lau [
7
], where an employee’s close
social exchange relationships with their team members decreased the negative effect of
workplace loneliness.
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 10 of 14
5. Discussion and Implications
This study dealt with workplace loneliness, a very important but underestimated
phenomenon thus far. Our research supports the position that workplace loneliness is
harmful to both employees and their organizations. To this end, this study investigated
the link between workplace loneliness, engagement, and commitment and looked at the
moderating role of exchange relationships between an employee and his or her superior
and coworkers in such causal relationships. The evidence derived from the result of tests
performed on data collected from employees at deluxe hotels in Seoul using the study
model supported all proposed hypotheses, excluding Hypotheses 3 and 4. According to
the result of this study, workplace loneliness decreased employees’ engagement with their
jobs and, as such, decreased engagement had a positive relationship with organizational
commitment. Such a study result shows that, as we proposed, workplace loneliness has a
considerable negative influence on work engagement. In addition, the negative influence
of workplace loneliness on work engagement was found to be moderated by CWX, and
employees’ maintenance of positive social exchange relationships with their coworkers was
verified to be a major factor for relieving the negative influence of workplace loneliness. In
other words, the relationship between workplace loneliness and engagement was relatively
weaker in employees with high CWX.
This study contributes to the existing literature in different ways. First, this study
verified the organic causal relationships between hotel employees’ workplace loneliness
and work engagement and organizational commitment. Thus far, there has been no empiri-
cal research on such relationships in hotel employees. Therefore, this study is judged as
contributing to increasing existing knowledge on workplace loneliness because it employed
the variable of loneliness, rarely studied in the area of workplaces, as an independent vari-
able. Second, although discussion on workplace loneliness is on the increase compared to
in the past, there is almost no empirical research on the outcomes of workplace loneliness.
Thus far, loneliness among individuals has been perceived as important, and its negative
influence has been emphasized in areas like psychology and sociology, but research on
loneliness in the job environment has been relatively underestimated. From the perspective
of change-oriented behaviors, this study examined the outcomes of workplace loneliness,
thereby identifying engagement and commitment as resulting variables related with loneli-
ness, which is consistent with the view that workplace loneliness triggers a few negative
results. Therefore, this study stressed loneliness as an important element for explaining an
employee’s engagement and commitment, and it will contribute to the human resource
management-related literature. Third, this study explored the mediating role of social
exchange relationships on workplace loneliness from the perspective of social exchange
theory. In detail, this study discovered a process mechanism that may moderate the effect
of CWX on workplace loneliness and engagement. In addition, this study identified en-
gagement as a medium that connects workplace loneliness and commitment. This result
will provide meaningful academic suggestions in that it identified that loneliness indirectly
affects commitment through engagement, and workplace loneliness may be moderated by
an employee’s positive relationship with coworkers as social exchange relationships.
This study’s practical suggestions are as follows: It is important for every company to
understand an employee’s demands and maintain his or her job satisfaction at a high level,
but in the hotel industry, human resources are particularly important, and, in this respect,
maintaining a competitive advantage in a hotel is crucial. In particular, for the sustainable
development of the hotel business, retaining and retaining excellent employees will be
very meaningful in improving performance. Furthermore, loneliness perceived by hotel
employees may do great harm to organizational efficiency because such loneliness is closely
related with the essence of their job. Hence, the results of this study provide many useful
implications for the management of employees. In particular, it was verified that controlling
loneliness was important to an organization. Moreover, the importance of an employee’s
exchange relationships with coworkers in the formation of the link between loneliness and
engagement was re-verified. Then, what can be done to minimize employees’ experience of
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 11 of 14
loneliness? Diverse activity and training programs aimed at improving social relationships
need to be provided on an organizational level. So that employees can have organic social
relationships with their coworkers, places for social and emotional exchange should be
provided, and such places should be developed further to benefit the organization on a long-
term basis. Such activities involve club activities, the mentor/mentee system for voluntary
exchange between an employee and his or her superior and seniors, and provision of
other opportunities for them to grow socially. In addition, it is important to encourage
employees to participate in team activities and to satisfy their social needs by providing
social connections, so that they can form meaningful relationships in the workplace. In
addition, another meaningful policy is to provide opportunities for employees to socialize
outside their workplace. Furthermore, by forming an organizational climate of helping
each other, an organization will be able to alleviate its employees’ loneliness. It should also
take appropriate measures to satisfy psychological desires of those under affected social
relationships. In particular, an organization’s practices and climate are very closely related
with organizational performance, and it is important for an employee to clearly perceive
his or her organization’s environmental characteristics and climate. Because such practices
form employees’ perceptions of their organizational atmosphere and affect their collective
behaviors and organizational performance, an organization should have its employees
know that it is making efforts to prevent their loneliness on an organizational level, thereby
inducing them to positively perceive their organizational climate [71].
There are a few limitations that readers should keep in mind with regard to the results
of this study. Such limitations will present the direction of future research. The sample
selected in this study provides beneficial characteristics and advantages, making clear the
focus of the study, but, on the contrary, such unique characteristics of the sample make
it difficult to generalize the study results. If the study model is tested in a more general
setting than the current one, more generalized universal results will be obtained. Further,
additional research in other work environments will be conducive to better identifying and
making clear the relationship between the study variables. In addition, the measurement
items of this study were measured under the self-reporting method, and, therefore, the
subjects were able to respond in the way they thought desirable and able to make judgments
based on their subjective views. Future research should complement this study through
evaluation using more objective measurement tools. This study employed organizational
commitment as a final dependent variable, but future research should use additional
variables in order to evaluate organizational performance. In addition, more research is
necessary to investigate the relationship between diverse independent variables that can
affect workplace loneliness and dependent variables.
Author Contributions:
The authors contributed equally to this work. All the authors contributed to
the conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing of the original draft, and
review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This work was supported by a grant from Kyung Hee University in 2016 (KHU-20160686).
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:
Data sharing not applicable. The data are not publicly available due to
participants privacy.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 12 of 14
References
1.
Anand, P.; Mishra, S.K. Proximal and distal causes of workplace loneliness: An exploratory study. Acad. Manag. Proc.
2018
,1.
[CrossRef]
2. Wright, S.L. Organizational climate, social support and loneliness in the workplace. Res. Emot. Organ. 2005,1, 123–142.
3.
Peng, J.; Chen, Y.; Xia, Y.; Ran, Y. Workplace loneliness, leader-member exchange and creativity: The cross-level moderating role
of leader compassion. Pers. Individ. Diff. 2017,104, 510–515. [CrossRef]
4.
Ozcelik, H.; Barsade, S.G. No employee an island: Workplace loneliness and job performance. Acad. Manag. J.
2018
,61, 2343–2366.
[CrossRef]
5.
Kim, H.; Qu, H. Effects of employees’ social exchange and the mediating role of customer orientation in the restaurant industry.
Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020,89, 102577. [CrossRef]
6. Rokach, A. Leadership and loneliness. Int. J. Leadersh. Chang. 2014,2, 48–58.
7.
Lam, L.W.; Lau, D.C. Feeling lonely at work: Investigating the consequences of unsatisfactory workplace relationships. Int. J.
Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012,23, 4265–4282. [CrossRef]
8. Cacioppo, J.T.; Hawkley, L.C. Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2009,13, 447–454. [CrossRef]
9.
Zhou, Z.; Yan, J.; Wang, P.; Zeng, Y.; Fang, Y. Loneliness and the risk of dementia among older Chinese adults: Gender differences.
Aging Ment. Health 2018,22, 519–525. [CrossRef]
10.
Wright, S.L.; Burt, C.D.B.; Strongman, K.T. Loneliness in the workplace: Construct definition and scale development. J. Psychol.
2006,35, 59–68.
11.
Tsaur, S.H.; Hsu, F.S.; Lin, H. Workplace fun and work engagement in tourism and hospitality: The role of psychological capital.
Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019,81, 131–140. [CrossRef]
12.
Park, J.D.; Min, H. Turnover intention in the hospitality industry: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.
2020
,90, 102599.
[CrossRef]
13.
Karatepe, O.M.; Uludag, O. Affectivity, conflicts in the work–family interface, and hotel employee outcomes. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.
2008,27, 30–41. [CrossRef]
14.
Baum, T.; Cheung, C.; Kong, H.; Kralj, A.; Mooney, S.; Thanh, H.N.T.; Ramachandran, S.; Ruzic, M.D.; Siow, M.L. Sustainability
and the tourism and hospitality workforce: A thematic analysis. Sustainability 2016,8, 809. [CrossRef]
15. Ladkin, A. Exploring tourism labor. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011,38, 1135–1155. [CrossRef]
16.
Chan, S.C.K. Does workplace fun matter? Developing a useable typology of workplace fun in a qualitative study. Int. J. Tour.
Hosp. Manag. 2010,29, 720–728. [CrossRef]
17.
Haldorai, K.; Kim, W.G.; Chang, H.; Li, J. Workplace spirituality as a mediator between ethical climate and workplace deviant
behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020,86, 102373. [CrossRef]
18.
Ernst, J.M.; Cacioppo, J.T. Lonely hearts: Psychological perspectives on loneliness. J. Appl. Prev. Psychol.
1999
,8, 1–22. [CrossRef]
19.
Russell, D.; Cutrona, C.E.; Rose, J.; Yurko, K. Social and emotional loneliness: An examination of Weiss’s typology of loneliness.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1984,46, 1313–1321. [CrossRef]
20.
Erdil, O.; Ertosun, Ö.G. The relationship between social climate and loneliness in the workplace and effects on employee
well-being. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011,24, 505–525. [CrossRef]
21.
Chen, Y.; Wen, Z.; Peng, J.; Liu, X. Leader-follower congruence in loneliness, LMX and turnover intention. J. Manag. Psychol.
2016
,
31, 864–879. [CrossRef]
22.
Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; Gonzalez-Roma, V.; Bakker, A.B. Burnout and engagement in university students. J. Cross Cult.
Psychol. 2002,33, 464–481. [CrossRef]
23.
Schaufeli, B.W.; Bakker, A.B.; Salanova, M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Edu. Psychol. Meas.
2006,66, 701–716. [CrossRef]
24.
Mayer, R.C.; Schoorman, F.D. Predicting participation and production outcomes through a two-dimensional model of organiza-
tional commitment. Acad. Manag. 1992,35, 671–684.
25.
Mowday, R.T.; Steers, R.M.; Porter, L.W. The measurement of organizational commitment. J. Vocat. Behav.
1979
,14, 224–247.
[CrossRef]
26.
Graen, G.B.; Uhl–Bien, M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of
leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leaders. Q. 1995,6, 219–247. [CrossRef]
27.
Dansereau, F., Jr.; Graen, G.; Haga, W.J. A vertical dyad linkage approach within formal organization: A longitudinal investigation
of the role making process. Org. Behav. Hum. Perf. 1975,13, 46–78. [CrossRef]
28. Sherony, K.M.; Green, S.G. Coworker exchange: Relationship between coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitude.
J. Appl. Psychol. 2002,87, 542–548. [CrossRef]
29.
Öge, E.; Çetin, M.; Top, S. The effects of paternalistic leadership on workplace loneliness, work family conflict and work
engagement among air traffic controllers in Turkey. J. Air Trans. Manag. 2018,66, 25–35. [CrossRef]
30.
Zhang, W.; Ma, L.L.; Tang, F.; Dong, X.Q. Social engagement and sense of loneliness and hopelessness: Findings from the PINE
study. Gerontol. Geriatr. Med. 2018,4, 1–8. [CrossRef]
31.
Park, N.S.; Lee, B.S.; Chiriboga, D.A.; Chung, S. Loneliness as a mediator in the relationship between social engagement and
depressive symptoms: Age differences among community-dwelling Korean adults. Health Soc. Care
2018
,27, 706–716. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 13 of 14
32. Maslach, C.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Leiter, M.P. Job burnout. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2001,52, 397–422. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33.
Gerstein, L.; Topp, C.G.; Correll, G. The role of the environment and person when predicting burnout among correctional
personnel. Crim. Just. Behav. 1987,14, 352–369. [CrossRef]
34.
Fernet, C.; Torrès, O.; Austin, S.; St-Pierre, J. The psychological costs of owning and managing an SME: Linking job stressors,
occupational loneliness, entrepreneurial orientation, and burnout. Burn. Res. 2016,3, 45–53. [CrossRef]
35. Zhou, X. A review of researches workplace loneliness. Psychology 2018,9, 1005–1022. [CrossRef]
36.
Garg, N.; Anand, P. Knowledge hiding, conscientiousness, loneliness and affective commitment: A moderated mediation model.
Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2020,34, 1417–1437. [CrossRef]
37. Siddhanta, A.; Roy, D. Employee engagement: Engaging the 21st century workforce. Asian J. Manag. Res. 2010,3, 170–189.
38.
Ortiz, D.A.C.; Lau, W.K.; Qin, H. Quantitative analysis of impacts of employee engagement on continuance and normative
commitment. Int. J. Serv. Stand. 2013,8, 315–331. [CrossRef]
39. Lee, J.; Ok, C. Hotel employee work engagement and its consequences. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2015,25, 133–166. [CrossRef]
40.
Albdour, A.A.; Altarawneh, I.I. Employee engagement and organizational commitment: Evidence from Jordan. Int. J. Bus.
2014
,
19, 192–212.
41.
Hanaysha, J. Testing the effects of employee engagement, work environment, and organizational learning on organizational
commitment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016,229, 289–297. [CrossRef]
42.
Mills, M.J.; Fullagar, C.J. Engagement within occupational trainees: Individual difference predictors ad commitment outcome.
J. Vocat. Behav. 2017,98, 35–45. [CrossRef]
43.
Kim, W.; Kim, J.; Woo, H. The relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment: Proposing research
agendas through a review empirical literature. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2017,16, 350–376. [CrossRef]
44.
Walden, J.; Jung, E.H.; Westerman, C.Y.K. Employee communication, job engagement, and organizational commitment: A study
of members of the millennial generation. J. Pub. Relat. Res. 2017,29, 73–89. [CrossRef]
45.
Cao, Y.; Liu, J.; Liu, K.; Yang, M.; Liu, Y. The mediating role of organizational commitment between calling and work engagement
of nurses: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 2019,6, 309–314. [CrossRef]
46.
Yilmaz, E. Organizational commitment and loneliness and life satisfaction levels of school principals. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J.
2008
,
36, 1085–1096. [CrossRef]
47.
Ayazlar, G.; Güzel, B. The effect of loneliness in the workplace on organizational commitment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
2014
,131,
319–325. [CrossRef]
48.
Erkan, T.; Mithat, K. Relationship between supervisors loneliness at work and their organizational commitment. Int. Online J.
Edu. Sci. 2015,7, 172–189.
49.
Promsri, C. The influence of employees’ organizational commitment on workplace loneliness. Soc. Sci. Humanit. J.
2018
,2,
432–437.
50.
Morrison, R. Informal relationships in the workplace: Associations with job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover
intentions. N. Z. J. Psychol. 2004,33, 114–128.
51.
Ellingwood, S. The Collective Advantage, Contrary to Popular Belief, Workplace Friendships Boost Profit. Gallup Manag. J.
2001
.
Available online: http://gmj.gallup.com (accessed on 1 March 2013).
52.
Heinrich, L.M.; Gullone, E. The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review. Clin. Psychol. Rev.
2016
,26, 695–718.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
53.
Lawler, E.J. The Affect Theory of Social Exchange. In Contemporary Social Psychological Theories; Burke, P.J., Ed.; Stanford University
Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2006; pp. 244–267.
54.
Cacioppo, J.T.; Hawkley, L.C.; Ernst, J.M.; Burleson, M.; Berntson, G.G.; Nouriani, B.; Spiegel, D. Loneliness within a nomological
net: An evolutionary perspective. J. Res. Pers. 2006,40, 1054–1085. [CrossRef]
55.
Wikaningrum, T. Coworker exchange, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes: A study of coworker dyads. Int. J. Bus.
2007,9, 187–215.
56.
Takeuchi, R.; Yun, S.; Wong, K.F.E. Social influence of a coworker: A test of the effect of employee and coworker exchange
ideologies on employees’ exchange qualities. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proc. 2011,115, 226–237. [CrossRef]
57.
Chiaburu, D.; Harrison, D.A. Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of lateral social influences on
perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008,93, 1082–1103. [CrossRef]
58.
Chang, C.H.; Ferris, D.L.; Johnson, R.E.; Rosen, C.C.; Tan, J.A. Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation. J. Manag.
2012
,38,
81–128.
59.
Ariani, D.W. Relationship with supervisor and co-workers, psychological condition and employee engagement in the workplace.
J. Bus. Manag. 2015,4, 34–47. [CrossRef]
60.
Gable, S.L.; Berkman, E.T. Making connections and avoiding loneliness: Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. In
Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation; Elliott, A.J., Ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; Chapter 12; pp.
201–224.
61.
Feng, C.; Wang, L.; Li, T.; Xu, P. Connectome-based individualized prediction of loneliness. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.
2019
,14,
353–365. [CrossRef]
62.
Allen, N.J.; Meyer, J.P. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization.
J. Occup. Psychol. 1990,63, 1–18. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 948 14 of 14
63.
Borchgrevink, C.P.; Boster, F.J. Leader-member exchange: A test of the measurement model. Hosp. Res. J.
1994
,17, 75–100.
[CrossRef]
64.
Borchgrevink, C.P.; Boster, F.J. Leader-member exchange development: A hospitality antecedent investigation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.
1997,16, 241–259. [CrossRef]
65.
Brislin, R.W. Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Materials. In Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology; Methodol-
ogy; Triandis, H.C., Berry, J.W., Eds.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 1980; Volume 2, pp. 137–164.
66.
Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981,18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
67. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
68.
Chan, S.H.; Qiu, H. Loneliness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of migrant workers: Empirical evidence from
China. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011,22, 1109–1127. [CrossRef]
69.
Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986,51, 1173–1182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70.
Sobel, M.E. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol. Meth.
1982
,13, 290–312.
[CrossRef]
71.
Lin, Y.T.; Liu, N.C. High performance work systems and organizational service performance: The roles of different organizational
climates. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016,55, 118–128. [CrossRef]
