In this section, the researcher presents the findings based on the proposed hypotheses in this study. Here, the results of regression analysis to test hypothesis were explained and discussed.
Result of Hypothesis Testing
This section discusses the result of regression analysis in order to verify the three hypotheses of this study. The hierarchical regression is applied to examine the moderating effects of mindfulness and perceived organizational support on the relationship between emotional labor, surface and deep acting and counterproductive work behavior.
Hypothesis 1a proposed that emotional labor surface acting is positively related to counterproductive work behavior while Hypothesis 1b proposed that emotional labor deep acting is negatively related to counterproductive work behavior. The summaries of the hierarchical regression analysis for Hypothesis 1a and 1b are shown in Table 4.1 and 4.2. In Table 4.1, step 1 includes entering the control variable: education level. In the second step, the independent variable, emotional labor deep acting was entered with the dependent variable which is counterproductive work behavior. The results of the analysis showed that emotional labor deep acting was negatively correlated with counterproductive work behavior (β = - .123, p<. 001). In Table 4.2, the process was repeated for emotional labor surface acting, the results were positively correlated to counterproductive work behavior (β = .182, p< .01). After analysis of the results, it can be interpreted that the results supported both Hypotheses 1a and 1b.
42 Table 4.1.
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Emotional Labor Deep Acting to Counterproductive Work Behavior (H1b)
Emotional Labor Deep Acting -.123***
Constant
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Emotional Labor Surface Acting to Counterproductive Work Behavior (H1a)
Emotional Labor Surface Acting .182**
Constant
Hypothesis 2 proposed that mindfulness is able to moderate the effect of emotional labor (Deep and Surface Acting) on counterproductive work behavior by weakening the relationship.
The summaries of the hierarchical regression analysis for hypothesis 2 were separated into the four different dimensions of mindfulness. These dimensions being mindfulness attention (MA), mindfulness awareness (MAW), mindfulness present focus (MPF) and mindfulness acceptance (MAC), the results are presented in Table 4.3 to Table 4.10. In Tables 4.3 to Table 4.6, Emotional
43
Labor Deep acting was examined with the four dimensions of mindfulness. For Table 4.3, the control variable was entered into Model 1. In Model 2, emotional labor deep acting and mindfulness attention were entered and finally in Model 3, the interaction between emotional labor deep acting and mindfulness attention was entered. The results displayed that there is a significantly positive correlation between emotional labor deep acting and mindfulness attention (β = .012, p< .05). For Table 4.4 the control variable was entered into Model 1. In Model 2, deep acting and mindfulness present focus were entered and finally in Model 3, the interaction between emotional labor deep acting and mindfulness present focus was entered. The results displayed that there was a significantly positive correlation between emotional labor deep acting and mindfulness present focus (β = .049, p< .05). For Table 4.5 the control variable was entered into Model 1. In Model 2, deep acting and mindfulness acceptance were entered and finally in Model 3, the interaction between emotional labor deep acting and mindfulness acceptance was entered. The results displayed that there was not a significant correlation between emotional labor deep acting and mindfulness acceptance (β = .072, p< .001). For Table 4.6 the control variable was entered into Model 1. In Model 2, deep acting and mindfulness awareness were entered and finally in Model 3, the interaction between emotional labor deep acting and mindfulness awareness was entered. The results displayed that there was a significantly positive correlation between emotional labor deep acting and mindfulness awareness (β = .008, p< .01). The results show that four out of four dimensions of mindfulness did not weaken the relationship with deep acting and counterproductive work behavior.
In Tables 4.7 to Table 4.10 Surface acting was examined with the four dimensions of mindfulness. For Table 4.7 the control variable was entered into Model 1. In Model 2, surface acting and mindfulness attention were entered and finally in Model 3, the interaction between emotional labor surface acting and mindfulness attention was entered. The results displayed that there is a significant negative correlation between emotional labor surface acting and mindfulness attention (β = -.069, p< .001). For Table 4.8, the control variable was entered into Model 1. In Model 2, surface acting and mindfulness present focus were entered and finally in Model 3, the interaction between emotional labor surface acting and mindfulness present focus was entered.
The results displayed that there was a significant negative correlation between emotional labor surface acting and mindfulness present focus (β = -.080, p< .001). For Table 4.9, the control variable was entered into Model 1. In Model 2, surface acting and mindfulness acceptance were
44
entered and finally in Model 3, the interaction between emotional labor surface acting and mindfulness acceptance was entered. The results displayed that there significantly negative correlation between emotional labor surface acting and mindfulness acceptance (β = -.074, p<
.001). For Table 4.10, the control variable was entered into Model 1. In Model 2, surface acting and mindfulness awareness were entered and finally in Model 3, the interaction between emotional labor surface acting and mindfulness awareness was entered. The results displayed that there was a significant negative correlation between emotional labor surface acting and mindfulness awareness (β = -.057, p< .001). The results show that four (4) out of four (4) dimensions of mindfulness had a significantly negative correlation with surface acting. These results were further examined using the two-way standardized interaction plot which can be seen in Figures 4.1 to 4.4.
Table 4.3.
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness Attention on Deep Acting (H2e)
Emotional Labor Deep Acting -.095*** -.142***
Mindfulness Attention .010* -.046***
Step 3
45 Table 4.4.
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness Present Focus on Deep Acting (H2f)
Emotional Labor Deep Acting -.098*** -.279***
Mindfulness Present Focus .050* -.176***
Step 3
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness Acceptance on Deep Acting (H2h)
Emotional Labor Deep Acting -.071*** -.403***
Mindfulness Acceptance -.114*** -.460***
Step 3
46 Table 4.6.
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness Awareness on Deep Acting (H2g)
Emotional Labor Deep Acting -.085*** -.123***
Mindfulness Awareness -.061*** -.104***
Step 3
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness Attention on Surface Acting(H2a)
Emotional Labor Surface Acting .148 .432
Mindfulness Attention -.085*** .144
Step 3
47 Table 4.8.
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness Present Focus on Surface Acting (H2b)
Emotional Labor Surface Acting .145 .446
Mindfulness Present Focus -.022*** .244
Step 3
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness Acceptance on Surface Acting (H2c)
Emotional Labor Surface Acting .137 .484
Mindfulness Acceptance -.128*** .134
Step 3
Note. N=200. Dependent variable = Counterproductive Work Behavior; *p < .05. **p < .01.
***p < .001.
48 Table 4.10.
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Mindfulness Awareness on Surface Acting (H2d)
Emotional Labor Surface Acting .143 .399
Mindfulness Awareness -.087*** .093
Step 3
Note. N=200. Dependent variable = Counterproductive Work Behavior; *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p
< .001.
Hypothesis 3 proposed that perceived organizational support is able to moderate the effect of emotional labor on counterproductive work behavior by weakening the relationship. This hypothesis examined both deep acting and surface acting. The summaries of the hierarchical regression analysis for Hypothesis 3 is presented in Table 4.11 (Deep Acting) and Table 4.12 (Surface Acting). In Table 4.11, first, the controlled variable was placed in Model 1. Secondly, emotional labor deep acting and perceived organizational support were entered in Model 2 and finally the interaction terms of deep acting and perceived organizational support (POS) were placed in Model 3. In Table 4.12, the same steps were followed but deep acting is replaced with surface acting. The results in Table 4.11 did not support Hypothesis 3. Specifically, Model 3 showed that the interaction term did not result in a significant relationship for emotional labor deep acting along with perceived organizational support and counterproductive work behavior (β= .021, p< .05). The results in Table 4.12 supports hypothesis 3. Specifically, Model 3 showed that the interaction resulted in a significant negative relationship for emotional labor surface acting along with perceived organizational support and counterproductive work behavior (β= -.057, p< .001).
In order to examine the effect of these moderators in detail, the interaction effect was plotted in figure 4.5. to test slope differences.
49 Table 4.11.
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support on Deep Acting (N=200) (H3b)
Variables Counterproductive Work Behavior
Emotional Labor Deep Acting -.103*** -.173***
Perceived Organization Support -.198*** -.296***
Step 3
Emotional Labor Deep Acting x POS .021*
Constant
F 3.099*** 13.152*** 9.958***
R² .015* .168 .170
Adj. R² .010** .155 .153
∆R² .015* .152 .002**
Note. N=200. Dependent variable = Counterproductive Work Behavior; *p < .05. **p < .01.
***p < .001.
Table 4.12.
Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support on Surface Acting (N=200) (H3a)
Variables Counterproductive Work Behavior
Emotional Labor Surface Acting .163 .084
Perceived Organization Support -.161*** .022*
Step 3
Emotional Labor Surface Acting x POS -.057***
Constant
F 3.099*** 25.074*** 20.508***
R² .015* .277 .296
Adj. R² .010** .266 .282
∆R² .015* .262 .019*
Note. N=200. Dependent variable = Counterproductive Work Behavior; *p <.05. **p <.01. ***p
<.001.
50
Figure 4.1. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of mindfulness attention on surface acting
Figure 4.2. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of mindfulness present focus on surface acting
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Low ELSA High ELSA
CWB Low MA
High MA
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Low ELSA High ELSA
CWB Low MPF
High MPF
51
Figure 4.3. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of mindfulness awareness on surface acting
Figure 4.4. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of mindfulness acceptance on surface acting
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Low ELSA High ELSA
CWB Low MAW
High MAW
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Low ELSA High ELSA
CWB Low MAC
High MAC
52
Figure 4.5. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of perceived organizational support on surface acting
Discussion
This study explored the effects of emotional labor on counterproductive work behavior and the moderating effects of mindfulness and perceived organizational support on the relationship on Belizean employees. In this section, the results of all hypotheses above are discussed in depth with the possible explanations and implications. A summary of the hypothesis testing results in shown in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13.
Hypotheses Testing Results Summary
Hypotheses Results
H1a Emotional Labor Surface Acting is positively related to CWB Supported H1b Emotional Labor Deep Acting is negatively related to CWB Supported H2a Mindfulness Attention moderates the effect of emotional labor Surface
Acting on CWB
Supported H2b Mindfulness Present Focus moderates the effect of emotional labor
Surface Acting on CWB
Supported H2c Mindfulness Acceptance moderates the effect of emotional labor
Surface Acting on CWB
53 Table 4.13 (Continued)
Hypotheses Results
H2d Mindfulness Awareness moderates the effect of emotional labor Surface Acting on CWB
Supported H2e Mindfulness Attention moderates the effect of emotional labor Deep
Acting on CWB
Not Supported H2f Mindfulness Present Focus moderates the effect of emotional labor
Deep Acting on CWB
Not Supported H2g Mindfulness Acceptance moderates the effect of emotional labor Deep
Acting on CWB
Not Supported H2h Mindfulness Awareness moderates the effect of emotional labor Deep
Acting on CWB
Not Supported H3a Perceived Organizational Support moderates the effect of Emotional Labor
Surface Acting on CWB
Supported H3b Perceived Organizational Support moderates the effect of Emotional Labor
Deep Acting on CWB
Not Supported
Emotional Labor and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Emotional job demands that call for the use of surface acting within the workplace can cause a lot of stress on an employee. The need to suppress their actual feelings and maintain a level of professional “acting” during difficult interactions with customers tends to put a strain on said employee. The more an employee is expressing surface acting in their work routine and concealing their true negative emotions, the more stress the employee is experiencing which leads to acting counterproductively as a form of resource replenishment. The results are in line with research conducted by Bechtoldt et al. (2007), who suggested that there is a positive relationship between emotional labor surface acting and counterproductive work behavior. The authors also agreed that the emotional dissonance caused by surface acting allows the employee to get a sense of immediate gratification that compensates for negative emotions they may be experiencing because of customer interactions. Also, in line with results of other research papers, this study confirmed the theory that surface acting is significantly related to counterproductive work behavior, even within the context of Belize, a developing country. More specifically, this paper found that deep acting has a negative relationship with counterproductive work behavior. It can be interpreted that when an employee experiences genuine emotion, there is a lower chance of acting counterproductively.
54
Mindfulness and Perceived Organizational Support as Moderators
This study showed that both mindfulness and perceived organizational support have moderating effects on the relationship between emotional labor surface acting and counterproductive work behavior. Mindfulness creates a sense of calmness within the employee that helps to prevent them from reacting negatively based on their emotions. It allows the employee the opportunity to be aware and present in the moment without judging their emotions or thoughts.
Naturally, humans all have the potential to be mindful but for some, that potential has to be unleashed in order for it to take effect. Sometimes employees are less mindful because they lack the necessary skills and knowledge required to initiate the personal practice within themselves. It is believed that by inspiring employees to attend training sessions for development of this skill, the supervisors assist them to prepare for possible job demands that they may encounter when dealing with customers. Whereas emotional labor deep acting was not supported for the four mindfulness dimensions. This researcher interpreted these results were insignificant because when an employee is experiencing deep acting, that employee may choose to be focusing on the past or future because that makes them happy and hopeful of the things that have happened or will happen for them in their lives. The second dimension, mindfulness acceptance, in accordance with emotional labor deep acting results were insignificant and this was interpreted by the researcher as a dimension that an employee that is genuinely feeling happy emotions has already accepted the things that they cannot change in life and have found a sense of peace within themselves.
Perceived organizational support had a moderating effect on the relationship between emotional labor surface acting and counterproductive work behavior. When the employees believe that the organization is encouraging them, mentors them and is providing the necessary rewards where applicable then a bond of trust is formed way beyond the normal supervisor-subordinate relationship. Whereas it did not have a significant moderating relationship with emotional labor deep acting. In accordance with results of other researchers, there was an insignificant relationship between the moderating effect of perceived organizational support between emotional labor deep acting and counterproductive work behavior (Bernd & Schuler, 2004; Lartey, Amponsah-Tawiah,
& Osafo, 2019). It found that there were inconsistencies between literature involving emotional labor and different aspects of job attitudes. This research also adds to the inconsistencies and that can be attributed to the various approaches within this study.
55