Erkutlu, H.Chafra, J.2018-04-122018-04-1220160143-7739http://hdl.handle.net/11693/36528Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between benevolent leadership (BL) and psychological well-being (PWB) as well as to test the moderating roles of psychological safety (PS) and psychological contract breach (PCB) on that relationship. Design/methodology/approach: – Data encompasses 1,009 employees from 23 five-star hotels in Turkey. The moderating roles of PS and PCB on the BL and PWB relationship were tested using the moderated hierarchical regression analysis. Findings: – The moderated hierarchical regression analysis results reveal that there was a significant positive relationship between BL and employee PWB. In addition, the positive relationship between BL and well-being was stronger when PS was higher than when it was lower. On the contrary, high-PCB weakened the positive relationship between BL and PWB. Practical implications: – This study showed that both PS and BL enhance well-being. Managers could promote PS by breaking down the barriers preventing effective communication and discussion. Moreover, the results of this study indicated that the state of the psychological contract is a significant predictor of employees’ well-being. Organizational practices and policies, especially human resource practices, should be carefully designed and implemented as to prevent PCB, an important source of employee dissatisfaction and distrust. Originality/value: – The study provides new insights into the influence that BL may have on PWB and the moderating roles of PS and contract breach in the link between BL and employee well-being. The paper also offers a practical assistance to employees in the hospitality industry and their leaders interested in building trust and enhancing well-being.Benevolent leadershipPsychological contract breachPsychological safetyPsychological well-beingBenevolent leadership and psychological well-being: the moderating effects of psychological safety and psychological contract breachArticle10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-01291472-5347