the pennsylvania state university - lucy song,...

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE

SCHOOL OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT

THE IMPACT OF A NUTRITIOUS CAFETERIA ON EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES

LUCY J. SONG

Spring 2014

A thesis

submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements

for baccalaureate degrees in Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Management and

Nutritional Sciences

with honors in Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Management

Reviewed and approved* by the following:

Larry Martinez

Assistant Professor of Hospitality Management

Thesis Supervisor

Breffni Noone

Associate Professor of Hospitality Management

Honors Adviser

* Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College.

i

ABSTRACT

In the past few decades, workplace health promotion has become increasingly popular

because it has been shown to have benefits not only for employee health, but also for

organizations by decreasing health care and turnover costs and increasing positive employee

attitudes and behaviors. Health promotion programs include a variety of different interventions

that range from environmental modifications in the employee cafeteria and fitness facility to

providing health education, counseling and other services to employees. A randomized survey of

200 college students and working adults revealed that participants who evaluated a healthy

employee cafeteria reported higher job satisfaction, person-organization fit, perceived

organizational support, energy levels, and lower turnover intention than participants who

evaluated an unhealthy employee cafeterias. Based on these results, organizations can consider

offering a healthy cafeteria as a method of boosting positive employee attitudes and lowering

employee turnover.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. v

Chapter 1 Introduction and Literature Review ........................................................................ 1

Chapter 2 Pilot Study ............................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 3 Methods ................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 4 Results ..................................................................................................................... 16

Chapter 5 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 21

Appendix A Participant Surveys ..................................................................................... 23 Appendix B Survey Key ................................................................................................. 28 References ........................................................................................................................ 30

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Means and standard errors for Job Satisfaction ........................................................ 17

Figure 2: Means and standard errors for Energy ...................................................................... 17

Figure 3: Means and standard errors for PO Fit ....................................................................... 18

Figure 4: Means and standard errors for POS .......................................................................... 18

Figure 5: Means and standard errors for Turnover Intention ................................................... 19

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and inter-correlations among study

constructs ......................................................................................................................... 16

Table 2: Results of UNIANOVA tests on study constructs ..................................................... 19

Table 3: Results of a MANOVA analysis using all five dependent variables ......................... 20

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Larry Martinez, for being

incredibly helpful and supportive through the process of writing this thesis. He always made

himself available to help me and made great suggestions to improve my ideas. This thesis would

not have been possible without him. I would also like to thank Dr. Andy Mowen for teaching me

all about how to develop a thesis topic in his RPTM 530 (Research Methods) class.

Another person I would like to thank is my honors adviser, Dr. Breffni Noone, for her

continual guidance and advice in shaping my academic path. Dr. Albert Bartlett has also been a

source of encouragement throughout my time as an HRIM student.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Chunshan Song and Lu Sun, for always

supporting me and believing in me.

1

Chapter 1

Introduction and Literature Review

What is Workplace Health Promotion?

Workplace health promotion consists of the various programs and efforts that employers

make to care for the physical and psychosocial wellbeing of their employees. These programs

serve to prevent health problems on three levels. Primary intervention involves helping healthy

individuals to remain healthy by encouraging lifestyle changes to avoid developing health

problems. Secondary intervention targets people who are more prone to certain diseases and uses

screening and other monitoring procedures to track the development of health problems. Finally,

tertiary intervention—or disease management—involves helping people who have already

developed illnesses to recover (Goetzel, 2008).

Benefits of Workplace Health Promotion

In the past few decades, workplace health promotion has become increasingly popular

because it has been shown to have benefits not only to employee health, but also for the

organization by decreasing health care and turnover costs and increasing productivity, employee

morale, and company loyalty (Goetzel, 2008). Though it used to be viewed as a nice perk

affordable by a successful company, evidence has shown that it can have tremendous return on

investment for companies of all sizes. For example, H-E-B Company has found that their health

promotion program yields return on investment of 6 to 1. Moreover, a 2009 study by Dr. Ronald

Loeppke and colleagues of 50,000 employees in 10 companies showed that costs due to lost

2

productivity were 2.3 times higher than the medical and pharmacy costs that employers paid for

employee benefits. This statistic also further illustrates the importance of measuring not only

absenteeism, but also presenteeism—when people are present at work but don’t perform well due

to stress, fatigue, or health conditions (Berry, 2010). Health promotion programs have also been

shown to decrease absenteeism. A large study conducted in 1990 of 29,315 blue collar workers

showed that having a health promotion program decreased absenteeism by 10.4% in the first year

and 14% in the second year of having the program.

Another benefit of health promotion programs in the workplace is that it increases

employee morale. Studies have shown that increased pride in the organization is positively

correlated to job satisfaction and more positive employee behaviors. The cumulative effect of

positive behavior among employees in turn causes more workplace pride and satisfaction, which

continues the cycle of increasing positive employee behavior (Arnett, 2002).

Employee health programs are also an important component of hospitality. Hospitality is

all about taking good care of guests and ensuring that they have an enriching experience. In the

workplace, employees are considered internal customers, and this idea has significant

implications in the hospitality industry because only when employees are well taken care of can

they in turn provide pleasant experiences to external guests. This concept is known as internal

marketing, and research has shown that it can decrease turnover, increase job satisfaction, and

increase service quality (Taylor, 1997). Employees that have a positive opinion of their

workplace are more likely to provide exceptional service to guests. (Arnett, 2002). Thus, taking

good care of employees is not only the right thing to do, but is also a sound business decision.

3

Components of a Good Health Promotion Program

At the core of health promotion programs is the drive to increase employee wellbeing,

but much controversy surrounds the question of whether or not to develop such programs. Some

employers feel that health promotion at the workplace interferes with the personal lifestyle

choices of employees and is not aligned with the company mission. Others are reluctant to begin

such programs due to delayed or lost return on investment. Health promotion programs are costly

to implement and companies often do not experience a positive return on investment for at least

one year and more likely two to three years (Serxner, 2009).

Regardless of the motive, it is important to note that not all health promotion programs

experience the aforementioned benefits to the company and employee. There is a wide array of

options that health promotion program developers can explore in designing these programs. In

each industry, there are employees of varying ages, genders, backgrounds, and attitudes toward

health. It would be unwise to assume that all employees will respond the same way to a particular

health promotion initiative. In fact, employee responses to health promotion programs can be

very complex and diverse depending on the needs of each individual person (Zoller, 2004). As a

result, it is important to customize health programs to the target employee groups rather than

assume a homogenous workforce across companies and geographical areas. Moreover, not all

employees willingly embrace health promotion initiatives. Just as some people highly value

eating a healthy diet and exercising, others simply do not value taking care of their health as

much.

In order to have an effective health promotion program, employees must see the value of

these programs in the context of their lifestyles. This can be facilitated by fostering an internal

culture of concern for personal health in the company (Harden, 1999). Health promotion

programs will not be effective if employees are not willing to participate in them. Thus, it is

important to obtain employee input in program development and doing so will help employees to

4

take ownership of the program and also increase its long-term sustainability. Harden (1998)

suggests that it is important for top management to be visible and enthusiastic in their support of

the program. There should also be involvement of employees at all levels of planning, and

implementation, and these employees will also serve as internal proponents in promoting the

program. Finally, interventions should be tailored to the specific needs of the employees. Other

studies echo these concepts by demonstrating that workplace health promotion programs are more

effective when both internal and external influences are addressed. Programs that focus solely on

individual behavior are less likely to yield results than programs that address both individual

behavior and the workplace environment for promoting health (Shain, 2004). Furthermore, it has

been found that programs that address holistic wellness affect job satisfaction more than

programs that only address physical health (Connolly, 2003).

Examples of Health Promotion Programs

Health promotion programs can vary in a number of ways. Some are very intensive and

address both psychosocial and physical wellness in multi-initiative programs. Others can be as

simple as using monetary incentives to encourage healthy behavior such as going to the doctor for

a physical exam. Some companies utilize programs that focus on environmental modifications

such as offering nutritious food in employee cafeterias or a fitness center with various fitness

classes to employees. It is thought that providing access to healthy foods will increase

consumption of these foods by employees (Blank, 2007). An increasing trend in health promotion

programs is to offer onsite medical care. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Institute, for

example, operates its own full-service health care center for employees and their families. By

having its own practice, SAS is able to offer free health care to its employees and actually saves

$1.50 for each dollar it would have spent on external health care (Berry, 2012).

5

Problem of Turnover

As previously stated, one of the biggest benefits of health promotion programs is they

reduce employee turnover. Traditionally, the hotel industry has always experienced an

abnormally high turnover rate compared to other industries. In fact, the term “turnover culture”

has been coined to describe this phenomenon. This culture is characterized by a general

acceptance of turnover as a normal phenomenon in the workplace and is detrimental to the

fulfillment of organizational objectives since employees are not as committed (Iverson, 2007).

Having such a culture suggests the lack of proper management techniques and organizational

support systems in place to retain happy employees, and the presence of a turnover culture is a

key factor in determining an employee’s intention to leave the company (Deery, 1999).

Having high turnover rates is a problem because employee turnover is strongly associated

with decreased hotel profits, especially at larger properties (Simons, 2001). Retaining highly

educated employees is a challenge for hotel organizations and the turnover of these employees

lead to higher staffing costs because it takes time and labor—thus money—to train new

employees. Moreover, potential profits that would have been earned if tasks were not delayed to

allow for training are lost. In fact, lost productivity usually accounts for 50 percent of turnover

expense (Walsh, 2007). Other intangible, but significant consequences include the erosion of the

company knowledge base and decrease in organizational competencies (Blomme, 2010). It is

difficult for a company to grow if experienced managers keep leaving and are replaced with

newer, less experienced ones that do not have the expertise of managing within the company’s

unique culture. For line level employees, the process of transitioning to new supervisors and

managers can also be stressful and cause conflict if managing styles are different. Occupational

stress is one important factor that causes employee turnover (Blomme, 2010), so turnover of

managers can also lead to turnover of line level employees.

6

In an effort to understand the causes of turnover, one study found that workplace

flexibility and organizational support are inversely related to turnover intention (Blomme, 2010).

In other words, employees desire to work for a company that will give them flexibility on the job

as well as support their well-being and socioemotional needs. They want to know that their

employers care about their personal wellbeing and the wellbeing of their families, and when

employers can demonstrate that they do, employees develop positive feelings toward their

employer and thus, company loyalty increases (Blomme, 2010). For example, a Burger King

franchisee found that its number one most promising demographic for new employees was young

mothers, and the top concern of these young mothers was childcare. In response, this Burger King

franchisee decided to offer free childcare services to its employees and as a result, experienced

much lower turnover than Burger Kings that did not offer these services (Bonn, 1992).

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate one type of health promotion program—the

environmental modification of offering a nutritious cafeteria— and measure its effects on the

following employee job attitudes: turnover intention, organizational commitment, job satisfaction,

stress, perceived organizational support (POS), energy, and person-organization fit (PO Fit).

According to Tett & Meyer’s (1993) meta-analysis, turnover intention, organizational

commitment, and job satisfaction all strongly predict turnover. Of these three, turnover intention

is most strongly correlated, followed by organizational commitment. Job satisfaction is negatively

correlated with turnover to a lesser degree. Another study also asserts that there is a significant

and consistent relationship between job satisfaction and turnover, but that it is not particularly

strong because there are other factors that mediate this relationship (Mobley, 1977). Some of

these other factors include the following variables being studied.

7

There is significant evidence indicating that POS is negatively correlated with both

turnover intention and actual turnover (Allen, 2003). This relationship is also mediated by job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. Similarly, job satisfaction also mediates the

relationship between stress and turnover, such that stress leads to absenteeism and is positively

correlated with turnover (Gupta, 1979). From these examples, it is evident that the relationships

between these employee job attitudes are often interrelated and complex. Thus, it is important to

study them as a group rather than individually because studying a single variable may not

completely explain its relationship with turnover. Allen (2003) also suggests that the results

indicate that there is an inherent relationship between how employees perceive the human

resource (HR) practices of their company and their intentions to withdraw or quit. This does not

necessarily indicate that HR practices such as implementing a health promotion program have a

direct effect on employee turnover intention, but rather that such HR practices help employees to

feel more support and care from their organizations, which in turn increase their positive feelings

for the company and encourage them to remain with the organization. As such, it has been shown

that POS is positively correlated with job satisfaction, positive mood, affective organizational

commitment, and lessened withdrawal behavior such as turnover (Rhoades, 2002).

In this study, “Energy” is defined as bursting with energy, feeling strong and vigorous,

and being excited to go to work. Pelled’s (1999) study defines positive affect (PA) in a similar

manner as “active, elated, and enthusiastic”. This study found that PA was significantly and

negatively correlated with absenteeism, and that negative affect (NA) was significantly and

positively correlated with absenteeism and turnover. From these results, it can be inferred that

energy levels will also be negatively related to turnover.

The last variable being studied is PO Fit. Independent of age, gender, or tenure, PO Fit

has been shown to be positively correlated with normative organizational commitment and job

8

satisfaction and negatively correlated with turnover intention. In fact, high PO Fit at time of hire

has been associated with both PA and decreased turnover intention one year later. It is also

predictive of actual turnover, which increases in employees with lower PO Fit (O’Reilly, 1991).

There is an ample amount of literature on the effects of employee health promotion

programs in other industries, but there is very little literature available on their effects in

industries with traditionally higher turnover rates, such as the hospitality industry. In the case of

Rosen Hotels & Resorts, the presence of its extensive onsite medical program has greatly

corresponded with reduced turnover, but it is unclear if such results would be present across

different types of employee health programs (Berry, 2007).

In an effort to understand the effect of health promotion programs on turnover intention,

this study will investigate one aspect of workplace wellness programs: a nutritious employee

cafeteria. This is important for hospitality companies to understand because currently, many

young and talented managers are leaving the industry within just one to two years of graduation

and companies want to be able to attract and retain their highly educated workforce (Walsh,

2007). Furthermore, research shows that turnover is closely related to recruitment and retention

and that having desirable employee programs helps to retain employees (Bonn, 1992).

Hypotheses

H1: Healthy food will be rated higher than the Control condition with respect to job satisfaction

(H1a), energy (H1b), organizational commitment (H1c), POS (H1d), PO Fit (H1e) and lower with

respect to turnover intentions (H1f) and stress (H1g).

H2: Healthy food will be rated higher than the Unhealthy condition with respect to job

satisfaction (H2a), energy (H2b), organizational commitment (H2c), POS (H2d), PO Fit (H2e)

and lower with respect to turnover intentions (H2f) and stress (H2g).

9

H3: Unhealthy food will be rated lower than the Control condition with respect to job satisfaction

(H3a), energy (H3b), organizational commitment (H3c), POS (H3d), PO Fit (H3e) and higher

with respect to turnover intentions (H3f) and stress (H3g).

10

Chapter 2

Pilot Study

Methods and Participants

Participants were recruited via a popular social networking site. There were a total of 93

individuals that participated in this research. Of these, 4 were removed because they were missing

substantial amounts of data (more than 10 percent) or were under the age of 18. This resulted in a

final sample size of 89. Of these participants, 24 (27%) were male and 65 (73%) were female.

The average age of participants was 22.0 years (SD = 2.00).

Participants were directed to an online study where they were shown the four pictures of

food that were used in the main study surveys (see Appendix A). The foods depicted were pizza,

fish and chips, a plate of chickpeas over rice, and a salad bar. The purpose of this pilot study was

to determine whether each picture was perceived as healthy or unhealthy in order to ensure that

they stimulated the proper responses in participants in the main study. Participants were shown all

four pictures in a random order and rated each picture with respect to nine items created for the

purpose of this study on a 7-point Likert-type scale. These items were combined into a

“healthiness” composite by taking the average of the items. Alpha reliabilities for all composite

scores across all picture manipulations were > .79.

The nine items used to assess participant perception of the healthiness of foods depicted

were:

1. This food looks healthy

2. I would want to eat this food

3. Eating this food would prevent chronic diseases

4. Eating this food would help me maintain a healthy weight

5. This food looks unhealthy (reverse-coded)

6. Eating this food would make me feel energetic

11

7. Eating this food would increase my quality of life

8. I would not want to eat this food (reverse-coded)

9. Eating this food would make me feel sick (reverse-coded)

Results

A repeated measures ANOVA of the individual picture manipulations revealed that there

was an overall significant difference between the four pictures, F(3, 264) = 240.75, p < .001, η2 =

.73. Individual comparisons revealed that the Pizza (M = 2.68, SD = 1.01) and Fish & Chips (M =

2.56, SD = 0.91) pictures did not receive significantly different ratings of healthiness, pbonferroni >

.05. However, the Salad (M = 5.97, SD = .95) was rated as being significantly healthier than the

Chickpeas (M = 4.59, SD = 1.14), pbonferroni < .001.

Although there was a significant difference in the healthiness ratings between the Salad

and the Chickpeas dishes, it was determined that the manipulation of healthiness was achieved

because both of those dishes were rated higher than the midpoint on the healthiness scale and they

were both rated as being significantly more healthy than the Pizza and the Fish and Chips dishes.

When combined into Unhealthy (Pizza and Fish & Chips) Healthy (Chickpeas and Salad)

composites, a repeated measures ANOVA revealed that there was a significant difference in

healthiness ratings between the Healthy and Unhealthy conditions, F(1, 88) = 458.56, p < .001, η2

= .84. Specifically, there was a significant difference such that the Healthy condition (M = 5.28,

SD = 0.73) was rated higher in healthiness than the Unhealthy condition (M = 2.62, SD = 0.84),

pbonferroni < .001.

Thus, it was determined that the healthiness manipulations were successful, with both the

Salad and Chickpeas treated as Healthy, and the Pizza and Fish and Chips treated as Unhealthy,

in further testing.

12

Chapter 3

Methods

Participants

There were a total of 307 individuals that participated in this research. Of these, 107 were

removed because they were missing substantial amounts of data (more than 10 percent) or were

under the age of 18. This resulted in a final sample size of 200. Of these, 124 (62%) were female

and 76 (38%) were male. Of the participants, 146 (73%) identified as Caucasian, 36 (18%)

identified as Asian or Pacific Islander, 2 (1%) identified as Black or African American, 7 (4%)

identified as Hispanic, 6 (3%) identified as Mixed Race, and 3 (2%) identified as “Other”. The

average age was 22.34 years (SD = 3.69).

Materials

Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with each of the items used in this

study using a Likert-type scale from 1 to 7 where 1 = agree not at all and 7 = agree very strongly,

unless otherwise noted. For a list of these items, see Appendix B.

Job satisfaction was measured using three items from Spector’s (1997) scale. The items

include “I like doing things at work,” “I feel a sense of pride in doing my job,” and “My job is

enjoyable.” Reliability for this scale was α = .89

Turnover intention was measured using three items from Cammann, Fishman, Jenkins,

and Kelsch’s (1979) scale. The items include “All in all, I am satisfied with my job” (reverse

coded), “I often think about quitting,” and “I will probably look for a new job in the next year.”

Reliability for this scale was α = .63

13

Energy was measured using three items from Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and

Bakker’s (2002) scale. The items include “At my work, I feel bursting with energy,” “At my job,

I feel strong and vigorous,” and “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.”

Reliability for this scale was α = .83

Stress was measured using four items from Motowildo, Packard, and Manning’s (1986)

scale. The items include “I feel a great deal of stress because of my job,” “My job is extremely

stressful,” “Very few stressful things happen to me at work,” (reverse coded), and “I almost never

feel stressed at work” (reverse coded). Reliability for this scale was α = .56. Due to its low

reliability, this construct was not included in subsequent analyses.

Affective organizational commitment was measured using three items from Allen and

Meyer’s (1990) scale. The items include “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career

within this job,” “I think that I could easily become as attached to another job as I am to this one”

(reverse coded), and “I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my job” (reverse coded).

Reliability for this scale was α = .25. Due to its low reliability, this construct was not included in

subsequent analyses.

Continuance organizational commitment was measured using three items Allen and

Meyer’s (1990) scale. The items include “I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job

without having another one lined up” (reverse-coded), “I feel that I have too few options to

consider leaving this job,” and “One of the major reasons I continue to work for this job is that

leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice — another job may not match the overall

benefits I have here.” Reliability for this scale was α = .55. Due to its low reliability, this

construct was not included in subsequent analyses.

Normative organizational commitment was measured using four items from Allen and

Meyer’s (1990) scale. The items include “I think that people these days move from job to job too

often,” “Jumping from job to job does not seem at all unethical to me” (reverse-coded), “One of

14

the major reasons I continue to work for this job is that I believe that loyalty is important and

therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain,” and “If I got another offer for a better job

elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my job.” Reliability for this scale was α = .52.

Due to its low reliability, this construct was not included in subsequent analyses.

PO Fit was measured using three items from Cable and Judge’s (1996) scale. The items

include “My personal values match or fit the organization’s and the other employees in the

organization,” “The values and personality of the organization reflect your own values and

personality,” and “My values match those of the other employees in the organization.” Reliability

for this scale was α = .75

POS was measured using three items from Rhoades and Eisenberger’s (2002) scale. The

items include “My organization really cares about my well-being,” “My organization strongly

considers my goals and values,” and “My organization shows very little concern for me”

(reverse-coded). Reliability for this scale was α = .73

Procedure

Participants were recruited via a popular social networking website. Participation in this

research was a voluntary activity and participants that consented were directed to an online

survey via a hyperlink on the social networking event page. Participants were randomly assigned

to one of three conditions (Healthy, Unhealthy, or Control). The survey for each condition had a

different description and pictures of a company (see Appendix A). In the Control condition, the

survey provided generic information about a company and displayed photographs of the interior

and exterior of the supposed organization. For the Healthy and Unhealthy conditions, the surveys

included the same information as the Control survey plus additional descriptions and pictures of

the employee cafeteria. The Healthy survey provided a description of an employee cafeteria that

offered healthy entrées plus the food pictures that participants perceived as healthy in the pilot

15

study. Likewise, the Unhealthy survey had a description of an employee cafeteria that offered

unhealthy entrées plus the food pictures that participants perceived as unhealthy in the pilot study.

After reading the description and viewing the photos of their assigned condition, participants

were asked to complete the survey as if they were an employee of the company they were just

shown. All participants completed the exact same survey regardless of the condition they were

assigned. This survey assessed their levels of job satisfaction, turnover intention, energy, stress,

affective organizational commitment, continuance organizational commitment, normative

organizational commitment, PO Fit, and POS. The items for each study construct were randomly

scattered throughout the survey. Finally, participants were thanked for their time.

16

Chapter 4

Results

Table 1 lists the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and zero-order correlation

coefficients for each job attitude across all conditions. Scales with low reliability (< .60) were

excluded.

Table 1: Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and inter-correlations among study constructs

The results of one-way ANOVAs revealed that there were significant differences

between groups with respect to job satisfaction, energy, PO Fit, POS, and turnover intention (see

Table 2). There was a significant difference across conditions with respect to job satisfaction,

F(2, 197) = 9.51, p < .001, η2 = .09. Specifically, there was a significant difference between the

Unhealthy (M = 3.68, SD = 1.15) and both the Healthy condition (M = 4.33, SD = 1.09), pbonferroni

< .01 and the Control condition (M = 4.46, SD = 1.08), pbonferroni < .001. There was no difference

between the Healthy condition and the Control condition (see Figure 1).

17

Figure 1: Means and standard errors for Job Satisfaction

There was a significant difference across conditions with respect to energy, F(2, 197) =

5.76, p < .01, η2 = .06. Specifically, there was a significant difference between the Unhealthy (M

= 2.76, SD = 1.05) and both the Healthy condition (M = 3.31, SD = 1.22), pbonferroni < .01 and the

Control condition (M = 3.34, SD = 1.09), pbonferroni < .01. There was no difference between the

Healthy condition and the Control condition (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Means and standard errors for Energy

There was a significant difference across conditions with respect to PO Fit, F(2, 197) =

7.89, p < .01, η2 = .07. Specifically, there was a significant difference between the Unhealthy (M

= 3.06, SD = 0.98) and both the Healthy condition (M = 3.75, SD = 1.12), pbonferroni < .001 and the

18

Control condition (M = 3.61, SD = 1.08), pbonferroni < .01. There was no difference between the

Healthy condition and the Control condition (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Means and standard errors for PO Fit

There was a significant difference across conditions with respect to POS, F(2, 197) =

11.70, p < .001, η2 = .11. There were significant differences between all three conditions. There

was a significant difference between the Healthy (M = 4.31, SD = 1.14) and the Unhealthy

conditions (M = 3.36, SD = 1.09), pbonferroni < .001, the Healthy and Control conditions (M = 3.80,

SD = 1.20), pbonferroni < .05, and the Unhealthy and Control conditions, pbonferroni < .05 (see Figure

4).

Figure 4: Means and standard errors for POS

19

There was a significant difference across conditions with respect to turnover intention, F(2, 197)

= 11.89, p < .001, η2 = .11. Specifically, there was a significant difference between the Unhealthy

(M = 3.98, SD = 1.15) and both the Healthy condition (M = 3.17, SD = 1.02), pbonferroni < .001 and

the Control condition (M = 3.21, SD = 1.07), pbonferroni < .001. There was no difference between

the Healthy condition and the Control condition (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Means and standard errors for Turnover Intention

Table 2: Results of UNIANOVA tests on study constructs

Because the job attitudes were highly correlated, a one-way MANOVA was conducted to

test the effect of condition on job attitudes. The results suggest that there was an overall effect of

condition on job attitudes, F(10, 388) = 4.27, p < .001, η2 = .10. The individual effects of

20

condition in the MANOVA replicated those reported in the ANOVAs and are summarized in

Table 3.

Table 3: Results of a MANOVA analysis using all five dependent variables

21

Chapter 5

Discussion

Summary of Results

In summary, the following employee job attitudes studied yielded significant results: job

satisfaction, energy, PO Fit, POS, and turnover intention. The three types of organizational

commitment and stress were not analyzed due to low alpha reliability results. Hypothesis 2 was

supported because the Healthy condition was rated more positively than the Unhealthy condition

with respect to higher job satisfaction (H2a), energy (H2b), POS (H2d), PO Fit (H2e) and more

negatively with respect to turnover intentions (H2f). Hypothesis 3 was also supported because the

Unhealthy condition was rated more negatively than the Control condition with respect to job

satisfaction (H3a), energy (H3b), POS (H3d), PO Fit (H3e) and more positively with respect to

turnover intentions (H3f).

However, Hypothesis 1 was only partially supported. The Healthy condition had higher

ratings than the Control condition with respect to POS (H1d), but did not differ significantly from

the Control condition for any of the other variables studied. A possible explanation is that the

Control condition was not appropriately designed because it lacked any mention of food and thus,

there is no way to determine what kind of cafeteria participants were envisioning, if at all. A

Control condition that depicted neutral foods that are regarded as neither healthy nor unhealthy

may have been more appropriate.

22

Implications of Study

Regardless of whether or not the Healthy condition is significantly different from the

Control condition, results still indicate that the healthiness of an employee cafeteria does have an

effect on employee job attitudes. This relationship is that a healthy cafeteria yields higher levels

of positive employee attitudes (job satisfaction, energy, PO Fit, POS) and lower levels of negative

employee attitudes (turnover intention) than an unhealthy cafeteria. As discussed in the Literature

Review, these variables are all predictive of employee turnover, and thus, offering an employee

cafeteria with nutritious options may be one possible method of decreasing employee turnover.

Since high turnover is costly in both the financial and organizational culture sense, it is very

important for companies to find ways to decrease their turnover rates.

Moreover, the results of this study are likely conservative estimates since they were

gathered using merely stimuli of four pictures and a short description. Studies using a stronger

manipulation should yield even greater findings. This research lays the groundwork for continued

investigation of the effects of a nutritious cafeteria on employee outcomes. Future studies can

consider doing cross sectional studies or long-term interventions of healthy vs. unhealthy

employee cafeterias and their relationships with job attitudes and actual turnover. In these studies,

it will also be possible to quantify return on investment for the company by comparing costs of

offering a nutritious cafeteria with the financial savings of decreased withdrawal behaviors such

as turnover and absenteeism.

23

Appendix A

Participant Surveys

Control Manipulation

Instructions:

Please read and view the following information and pictures. Imagine that you are an employee at

this facility and answer the following questions according to how you would respond if you were

employed at this company.

You have been working at the EFG Corporation for some time now. The company usually has

good management, but sometimes you disagree with executive decisions and get frustrated at

work. You also enjoy being with your coworkers, even though sometimes you get in small

disagreements.

24

Healthy Manipulation

Instructions:






work. The employee cafeteria typically offers a salad bar, grilled chicken, fresh fruits and

vegetables, and other low-fat entrées. You also enjoy being with your coworkers, even though

sometimes you get in small disagreements.

25

Unhealthy Manipulation

Instructions:






work. The employee cafeteria typically offers hamburgers, pizza, French Fries, fried fish patties,

and other common entrées. You also enjoy being with your coworkers, even though sometimes

you get in small disagreements.

26

(The following are the survey questions that followed Control, Healthy, and Unhealthy

manipulations. The specific order of questions was randomized on the actual participant survey.)

Survey Page 1

Please choose the response that best describes you.

Likert Scale:

1 = Agree not at all

2 = Slightly agree

3 = Somewhat agree

4 = Moderately agree

5 = Agree

6 = Strongly agree

7 = Very strongly agree

1. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless

2. I like doing the things I do at work

3. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job

4. My job is enjoyable

5. All in all, I am satisfied with my job.

6. I often think about quitting.

7. I will probably look for a new job in the next year.

8. At my work, I feel bursting with energy

9. At my Job, I feel strong and vigorous

10. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work

11. At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well

Survey Page 2


Likert Scale:


2 = Slightly agree

3 = Somewhat agree


5 = Agree

6 = Strongly agree


1. I feel a great deal of stress because of my job

2. Very few stressful things happen to me at work

3. My job is extremely stressful

4. I almost never feel stressed at work

5. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career within this job.

6. I think that I could easily become as attached to another job as I am to this one.

7. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my job.

8. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up.

9. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this job.

27

10. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this job is that leaving would require

considerable personal sacrifice — another job may not match the overall benefits I have here.

Survey Page 3


Likert Scale:


2 = Slightly agree

3 = Somewhat agree


5 = Agree

6 = Strongly agree


1. I think that people these days move from job to job too often.

2. Jumping from job to job does not seem at all unethical to me.

3. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this job is that I believe that loyalty is

important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.

4. If got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my job.

5. My personal values match or fit the organization’s and the other employees in the

organization

6. The values and personality of the organization reflect your own values and personality

7. My values match those of the other employees in the organization

8. My organization really cares about my well-being.

9. My organization strongly considers my goals and values.

10. My organization shows very little concern for me.

28

Appendix B

Survey Key

Job Satisfaction

1. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. (Reverse-coded)

2. I like doing the things I do at work.

3. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.

4. My job is enjoyable.

Turnover Intention

1. All in all, I am satisfied with my job. (Reverse-coded)

2. I often think about quitting.

3. I will probably look for a new job in the next year.

Energy/Worker Engagement

1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.

2. At my Job, I feel strong and vigorous.

3. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.

4. At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well.

Stress

1. I feel a great deal of stress because of my job.

2. Very few stressful things happen to me at work. (Reverse-coded)

3. My job is extremely stressful.

4. I almost never feel stressed at work. (Reverse-coded)

Org Commitment—Affective

1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career within this job.

2. I think that I could easily become as attached to another job as I am to this one.

(Reverse-coded)

3. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my job. (Reverse-coded)

Org Commitment—Continuance

1. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one

lined up. (Reverse-coded)

2. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this job.

29

3. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this job is that leaving would require

considerable personal sacrifice — another job may not match the overall benefits I

have here.

Org Commitment—Normative

1. I think that people these days move from job to job too often.

2. Jumping from job to job does not seem at all unethical to me. (Reverse-coded)

3. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this job is that I believe that loyalty

is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.

4. If got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my

job.

Person/Organization Fit

1. My personal values match or fit the organization’s and the other employees in the

organization.

2. The values and personality of the organization reflect your own values and

personality.

3. My values match those of the other employees in the organization.

Perceived Organizational Support

1. My organization really cares about my well-being.

2. My organization strongly considers my goals and values.

3. My organization shows very little concern for me. (Reverse-coded)

30

References

Adbel-Moty, K. (2010). Creating a wellness program for hotel front desk employees. UNLV

Theses/Dissertations/Professional Papers/Capstones, Paper 427.

Allen, D., Shore, L., & Griffeth, R. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and

supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management,

29, 99-118.

Arnett, D., Laverie, D., & McLane, C. (2002). Using job satisfaction and pride as internal

marketing tools. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 87-96.

Berry, L. (2007). "Do-it-yourself" employee health care. Sloan MIT Management Review, 53, 15-

16.

Bertera, R. (1990). The effects of workplace health promotion on absenteeism and employment

costs in a large industrial population. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 1101-

1105.

Blake, H., Zhou, D., & Batt, M. E. (2013). Five-year workplace wellness intervention in the NHS.

Perspectives in Public Health , 133, 262-271.

Blanck, H., Yaroch, A., Atienza, A., Yi, S., Zhang, J., & Masse, L. (2007). Factors influencing

lunchtime food choices among working Americans. Health Education & Behavior, 36,

289-301.

Blomme, R. J., Rheede, A. V., & Tromp, D. M. (2010). Work-family conflict as a cause for

turnover intentions in the hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10,

269-285.

31

Bonn, M. A. (1992). Reducing turnover in the hospitality industry: An overview of recruitment,

selection, and retention. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 11, 47-63.

Connolly, K., & Myers, J. (2003). Wellness and mattering: The role of holistic factors in job

satisfaction. Journal of Employment Counseling, 40, 152-160.

Deery, M. A., & Shaw, R. N. (1999). An investigation of the relationship between employee

turnover and organizational culture. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 23,

387-400.

Goetzel, R., & Ozminkowski, R. (2008). The health and cost and benefits of worksite health

promotion programs. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 303-23.

Gupta, N., & Beehr, T. A. (1979). Job stress and employee behaviors. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 23, 373-387.

Harden, A., Peersman, G., Oliver, S., Mauthner, M., & Oakley, A. (1998). A systematic review of

the effectiveness of health promotion interventions in the workplace. Occupational

Medicine, 40, 540-548.

Iverson, R. D., & Deery, M. (1997). Turnover culture in the hospitality industry. Human

Resource Management Journal, 7, 71-82.

Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and

employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.

O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A

profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of

Management Journal, 34, 487-516.

32

Pelled, L. H. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the relationship between mood and

employee withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 25, 875-895.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the

literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.

Sanchez, D., & King-Toler, E. (2007). Addressing disparities consultation and outreach strategies

for university settings. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59, 286-

295.

Serxner, S., Gold, D., & Meraz, A. (2009). Do employee health management programs work?

American Journal of Health Promotion, 23, 1-8.

Shain, M., & Kramer, D. M. (2004). Health promotion in the workplace: Framing the concept;

reviewing the evidence. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61, 643-

648.

Simons, T., & Hinkin, T. (2001). The effect of employee turnover on hotel profits. Cornell Hotel

and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42, 65-69.

Taylor, S., & Cosenza, R. (1997). Internal marketing can reduce employee turnover. Supervision,

58, 3-5.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover

intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel

Psychology, 46, 259-293.

Vickers, M. (2006). Towards employee wellness: Rethinking bullying paradoxes and masks.

Journal of Employee Rights and Responsibilities, 18, 267-281.

33

Walsh, K. (2007). Developing in-house careers and retaining management talent. Cornell Hotel

and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48, 163-182.

Zoller, H. (2004). Manufacturing health: Employee perspectives on problematic outcomes in a

workplace health promotion initiative. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 278-301.

34 Academic Vita

Lucy J. Song

EDUCATION

The Pennsylvania State University— Schreyer Honors College

B.S. Candidate: Nutritional Sciences

B.S. Candidate: Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Management Minors in International Studies and Japanese Language

University Park, PA Expected Graduation:

May 2014

WORK EXPERIENCE

LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE

CRU (Christian Fellowship), Conference Team Leader Jan 2012- Dec 2012

Planned and led a week-long spring break conference for 55 students and a weekend retreat for 170 students

Managed teams of 10 and 30 student leaders

Responsible for logistics of $25,000 in funds and travel/housing arrangements

Penn State Dance MaraTHON (Student-run Pediatric Cancer Philanthropy) Aug 2009 – May 2012

Merchandise 2012 Captain: Operated THON Merchandise stores

Supply Logistics 2011 Captain: Cold-called companies and secured donations

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND LANGUAGE SKILLS

Study Abroad at CIEE Seville Study Center: Seville, Spain Summer 2011

Study Abroad at IES Abroad Tokyo Center: Tokyo, Japan Summer 2010

Fluent in Mandarin Chinese

Proficient in Spanish and Japanese

HONORS AWARDS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society Jan 2014

College of HHD 2014 Alumni Recognition for Student Excellence Award Dec 2013

ServSafe Certification Nov 2011

ARAMARK at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Nutrition Services Intern Philadelphia, PA

Supervised total of 70 employees in hospital kitchen serving 600 meals a day

Jun 2013- Aug 2013

Assisted nursing administration with trial of new feeding pump, performed data analysis, and presented information to administrators

Reorganized formula storeroom of over 200 products

The Penn Stater Conference Center Hotel, Conference Planning Intern State College, PA

Analyzed client needs to determine setup of room, AV, and food & beverage Jan 2012- Aug 2012

Designed Banquet Event Orders, meeting room diagrams, and oversaw events

Planned 32 meeting and banquet events ranging up to 70 guests

Learned Daylight Advanced Catering and Meeting Matrix systems

Scored an average rating of 96% on MeetingScope Post-Event Surveys

The Tavern Restaurant, Key Shift and Server State College, PA

Delivered meals, aided servers, and trained 4 new employees as key shift Dec 2010 – Dec 2012

Promoted to server after demonstrating ample skill and knowledge

the pennsylvania state university - lucy song,...

Documents