High-performance work systems and employees’ outcomes in challenging contexts: the role of hindrance stressors

ABSTRACT

This study aims to analyze the role of hindrance stressors in the relationship between high-performance work systems (HPWS) and employees’ outcomes in challenging contexts. Thus, this paper studies the role of stressors in a situation of uncertainty, such as the one derived from the pandemic, and examines the mechanisms through which HPWS can improve employees’ satisfaction and reduce turnover intentions. Data were collected from 202 hotel employees on the island of Gran Canaria in 2021, and research hypotheses were tested with PLS-SEM. The study revealed that reducing hindrance stressors is an important mechanism through which HPWS improve job satisfaction and decrease turnover intentions. These findings emphasize the relevance of developing HPWS to cope with challenging situations, revert the Great Resignation and recover the tourism sector by valuing its workforce.

摘要

本研究旨在分析阻碍性压力源在高绩效工作系统(HPWS)与员工在具有挑战性的环境中的结果之间的关系中的作用. 因此,本文研究了压力源在不确定性情况下的作用,例如由疫情引起的压力源,并考察了HPWS可以提高员工满意度和减少离职意向的机制. 2021年,数据收集自大加那利岛202名酒店员工,并用PLS-SEM对研究假设进行了检验. 研究表明,减少阻碍性压力源是HPWS提高工作满意度和降低离职意愿的重要机制. 这些发现强调了发展HPWS的相关性,以应对具有挑战性的情况,恢复大辞职,并通过评估其劳动力来恢复旅游业.

KEYWORDS:

• High-performance work systems
• hindrance stressors
• job satisfaction
• turnover intention
• hospitality management
• Great resignation

Introduction

“More than 40 million people left their jobs last year, many in retail and hospitality. It was called the Great Resignation. But people weren’t leaving work altogether. They still had to make money. What workers realized, though, is that they could find better ways to earn a living. Higher pay. Stable hours. Flexibility. They expected more from their employers” (Goldberg, 2022: The New York Times).

The extract before is a clear example of how a stressful context such as the one derived from the pandemic has affected the hospitality sector because many employees have quit their jobs resulting in the so-called “Great Resignation.” This phenomenon has developed among employees for different reasons, including feeling undervalued and dissatisfied with their jobs, lack of job opportunities and lack of connection to organizational values (Formica & Sfodera, 2022; Zenger & Folkman, 2022). It reflects the low levels of job satisfaction with the poor conditions that they have traditionally faced, but that has been worsened by this challenging context (Gössling et al., 2021). Additionally, between 100 and 120 million jobs directly linked to the tourism industry were put at risk due to the virus (UNWTO, 2021), resulting in salary and working hour reductions, as well as layoffs or furloughs (S. E. Kang et al., 2021; Nemteanu et al., 2021).

The Great Resignation concerns hospitality and tourism organizations’ managers, given employees’ relevant role in their interactions with customers, which highly depends on their attitudes and behaviors (Baum & Hai, 2020). Moreover, the pandemic created a challenging environment in the Human Resources Management (HRM) field, and research is encouraged because employees expect more from their employers, and these expectations may be fulfilled through proper HRM practices. Concretely, our focus here is placed on high-performance work systems (HPWS), which are systems of HRM practices that aim to select, recruit, train, promote and compensate staff (Boon et al., 2019; Combs et al., 2006; Sun et al., 2007). Literature acknowledges the importance of these systems to enhance organizational performance via employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes improvement (Boon et al., 2019; Ogbonnaya & Messersmith, 2019; Paauwe, 2009; Rabiul et al., 2022). However, the mechanisms by which HPWS influence organizational performance are still a black box, highlighting the need for further research in this area (García-Lillo et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2018).

According to De Reuver et al. (2021), the literature has ignored the possibility that the relationship between HPWS and employee outcomes depends on the job demands faced. The Great Resignation suggests that these employees’ outcomes have been compromised due to the stressful context generated during the pandemic. The challenging context derived from the pandemic was characterized by hindrance stressors such as ambiguity, uncertainty, job insecurity and increased workloads (Abbas et al., 2021; Azizi et al., 2021; Collings et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021). It represented an inflexion point for many workers who reevaluated their situation within the hospitality industry and decided to withdraw due to their low levels of job satisfaction (Formica & Sfodera, 2022; Liu-Lastres et al., 2023). Extant literature suggests that hindrance stressors negatively affect employee attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Haar, 2006; Oppenauer & Van De Voorde, 2018). In this sense, recent research suggests that stress-relief organizational strategies, such as HRM practices (Collings et al., 2021), addressing employees’ needs in the post-pandemic scenario may be the solution to the Great Resignation (Liu-Lastres et al., 2023). Based on the Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), we propose that HPWS improve employees’ outcomes because when they feel that the organization values them, they will pay back with good attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, taking into account the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), we propose that HPWS improve employees’ outcomes in a challenging situation because they provide resources to cope with the demands faced, contributing to create a positive environment that influences workers attitudes and behaviors.

Considering previous arguments, we analyze the effects of HPWS on employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intention considering the mediating role of hindrance stressors. To achieve this objective, we surveyed 202 frontline employees of hotels located on the island of Gran Canaria in 2021. Our results reveal the role of HPWS on increasing job satisfaction and reducing turnover intention because it prevents the effect of hindrance stressors on employee’s outcomes. These findings provide HRM specialists with guidance on how to counter the talent loss resulting from the Great Resignation. In this sense, the contribution of the present paper is two-fold. First, it contributes to the literature by highlighting that the development of HPWS can offer a positive work environment, increasing employees’ job satisfaction and reducing their turnover intention. Second, by considering hindrance stressors as mediators, this study has analyzed not only how stressful situations influence employees’ outcomes but also how HPWS can act as an organizational resource to prevent the impacts of stress on employees’ satisfaction and turnover intention. Therefore, it has shown the relevance of HPWS in coping with challenging situations and recovering the tourism sector by valuing its workforce. Thus, it is stated that tourism organizations should “shift the attention from the “doing” to the “being” (Formica & Sfodera, 2022, p. 905) and focus on employees’ outcomes to cope with Great Resignation.

This paper is organized as follows. Firstly, the theoretical framework with the overarching theories that led to the research hypotheses is presented. The methodology is described in the third section, followed by the results. Finally, the study’s discussions are presented with the theoretical and practical implications, as well as future research lines and conclusions.

Theoretical framework and hypothesis development

High-performance work systems and social exchange theory

Social Exchange Theory (SET) is a well-established and widely applied framework that provides a lens through which important topics in organizational behavior can be analyzed (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). According to the reciprocity rule of SET (Blau, 1964), when organizations prioritize the well-being of their employees, they will pay back with good attitudes and behaviors. SET include three key components which provide a framework for understanding the dynamics of social exchange: an initiating action, a relationship between parties, and reciprocating responses (Cropanzano et al., 2017). Thus, when individuals receive an initiating action, they reciprocate with their behavior, which can be positive or negative. Following Cropanzano et al. (2017), in an organizational context, reciprocity relationships can be explained in three steps: (1) the actor (employer) provides benefits to the target (employee); (2) a social exchange relationship is developed; and (3) employee reciprocates by providing benefits to the employer.

According to Boxall (2012), the HPWS notions of ability and motivation encompass attitudes and behaviors, which can be analyzed from various theoretical perspectives, such as SET. Thus, HPWS may be regarded as organizational positive initiating actions that employees will reciprocate with good behaviors, so they may have an important effect on employees’ outcomes, therefore, aligning with the main principles of SET (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2017). This implies that when employees perceive that their employers are investing in and caring about them through the implementation of HPWS, they are more likely to reciprocate with positive attitudes (Huertas-Valdivia et al., 2021; O. M. Karatepe & Olugbade, 2016). Following Qi et al. (2021), HPWS can improve employees’ skills and performance and feel them a sense of partnership, conveying that the organization values them.

High-performance work systems and job demands-resources theory

Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Theory emerged in the literature to explain employee burnout (Demerouti et al., 2001), but over the years, it has evolved into a theoretical framework to analyze employee well-being and its influence on performance. The JD-R Theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2017) argues that the processes through which job stress is generated are determined by an interaction between the employee and the work environment, according to two job characteristics: demands and resources. Following these authors, job demands include work elements which require an employee’s effort, such as high work pressure or an unfavorable physical environment. These demands can have different effects depending on how they are perceived, so distinguishing between hindrance and challenge demands is important. Challenge demands refer to those perceived as opportunities for growth or learning (e.g., ambitious deadlines, new projects, etc.). In contrast, hindrance demands include those that employees can perceive as barriers to their goals or well-being (e.g., conflicts with colleagues, excessive administrative tasks, etc.).

JD-R model can be used in the framework of HRM, as it considers that the resources developed by organizations can be remuneration, career opportunities, job security, participation in decision making or role clarity (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Integrating JD-R theory and HPWS can articulate a framework to analyze the relationship between the factors that influence employees’ outcomes and organizational performance (Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, 2020a). If HPWS provide employees with resources such as training or autonomy, they can reduce the negative impact of work demands (Dorta-Afonso et al., 2023) because they will help employees to manage their workload and cope with stress. Therefore, HPWS provides employees with the necessary resources to perform their tasks and cope with stress by conditioning the work environment (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). For example, if the situation is characterized by extreme levels of uncertainty concerning the loss of one’s job, the firm can counter this uncertainty with HPWS, which implies job security and adequate incentive systems. Thus, following Agarwal (2021), HRM increases employees’ resources to cope with new challenges.

Hypothesis development

The effect of HPWS on employees’ outcomes

Job satisfaction refers to the workers’ emotional state regarding the degree to which they like their role inside their workplace (Locke, 1969). This concept has become a relevant research topic, as employees’ attitudes can affect their performance, service quality, and organizational outcomes (García-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Kong et al., 2018). According to the reciprocity rule of SET, HPWS positively influences job satisfaction because if employees feel that the organization shows commitment toward their welfare, they will become more satisfied with their work (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Analyzing the literature on the relationship between HPWS and job satisfaction, previous research has found relevant results. Some authors (e.g., Alafeshat & Tanova, 2019; Fabi et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2018) found that HPWS lead to higher job satisfaction due to improving employees’ perceptions of the organization. García-Chas et al. (2016) found a positive relationship between HPWS and satisfaction. Specifically, in the tourism industry, Alafeshat and Tanova (2019) found that in the airline sector, HPWS improved employee satisfaction. In the hotel sector, Dorta-Afonso et al. (2021) have provided evidence of the positive effects of HPWS, supporting that they improve workers’ job satisfaction. Consequently, it is reasonable to propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1:

HPWS increase employees’ job satisfaction.

Turnover intention is defined as “the conscious and deliberate willfulness to leave the organization” (Tett & Meyer, 1993, p. 262). This concept is relevant in organizational management because low levels of employees’ turnover intentions imply higher firms’ sustainability (Alafeshat & Tanova, 2019; Martin et al., 2021). Specifically, attracting and retaining skilled employees in hospitality is key due to the continuous interaction between workers and customers that prompts tourist satisfaction and, in turn, improve organizational performance (Chi & Gursoy, 2009; O. Karatepe, 2015).

Following Basnyat and Lao (2020), the literature has shown that the lack of some HRM practices (e.g., hiring, compensations, …) can influence employees’ turnover intention and are important for employee retention. However, it is also relevant to enhance the effectiveness and proactivity of the human resources (HR) department in managing these practices to reduce the employees’ intention to leave. Following the SET argument, employees may be less likely to leave their jobs when effective HPWS are implemented. Thus, organizations that develop HPWS offer competitive salaries, feedback, development opportunities and a positive work environment, so employees perceive a more favorable working relationship that will reduce their turnover intention (Alfes et al., 2013; O. Karatepe, 2013; Teoh et al., 2016). Thus, HPWS can improve work engagement and reduce employees’ turnover intention, positively influencing their productivity (Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, 2020b). When employees perceive HPWS positively, they feel more engaged in their jobs, perform their tasks better, and wish to stay at the company (Afsar et al., 2018; Fabi et al., 2014; O. Karatepe, 2013). Thus, the following hypothesis is formally submitted:

Hypothesis 2:

HPWS reduce employees’ turnover intention.

Previous studies stated that work attitudes could be considered as precursors of employees’ turnover, whereby job satisfaction could be viewed as an antecedent of turnover (Guchait & Cho, 2010; Manolopoulos et al., 2022), and employees with a high level of satisfaction have higher intentions to stay in the organization (Bufquin et al., 2017; DiPietro et al., 2020). Authors such as Fabi et al. (2014) state that increased investment in HPWS can improve employees’ job satisfaction and reduce turnover intention. In this sense, companies developing and applying HPWS will be more likely to have satisfied staff and retain qualified employees. H. T. Chen and Wang (2019) found that the higher the job satisfaction, the lower the turnover intention, so they argue that satisfaction is a key antecedent to employee retention. Furthermore, García-Chas et al. (2014) claim that the effect of HPWS on employee turnover intention is not direct but is mediated by job satisfaction. Thus, the development of HPWS will generate positive attitudes in employees, and these attitudes will have the effect of decreasing their intention to leave the organization. Employees who perceive that organizations implement HPWS, will feel valued and more satisfied. Also, they will not want to leave the organization if they feel satisfied and rewarded. Based on this argument, the following hypothesis is therefore proposed:

Hypothesis 3:

Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between HPWS and employees’ turnover intention.

The mediating effect of hindrance stressors between HPWS and employees’ outcomes

The factors that generate job stress can be categorized as “challenge stressors” or “hindrance stressors.” According to Cavanaugh et al. (2000), challenge stressors include the demands that must be overcome to learn and achieve goals, such as responsibility or time pressure. On the other hand, according to the same author, hindrance stressors include demands such as role ambiguity or concern for job security. Lepine et al. (2005) claim that challenge stressors generate positive emotions and problem-solving skills, while hindrance stressors lead to negative behaviors and passive attitudes, which tend to cause employee frustration. In the tourism sector, employees must cope with numerous stressful situations. However, the negative features associated with hospitality and tourism positions have been amplified by the uncertain context resulting from the pandemic (Baum et al., 2020). Following Yu et al. (2021), hotel employees experienced stress during pandemics due to factors such as the risk of infection, psychological anxiety, and increased workloads. These high-stress levels after the COVID-19 pandemic have led to the Great Resignation. Thus, this phenomenon is most likely caused by the increased amount of hindrance stressors that have caused a discrepancy for employees between the situation they faced and their desired states within companies.

Regarding the negative effects of stress on employees’ outcomes, hindrance stressors can influence employees’ outcomes, like their intention to leave the organization and their job satisfaction. In the tourism sector, J. Kang and Jang (2019) state that hotel staff perceive hindrance stressors like ambiguity and role conflict, which influence turnover intention. Other authors, such as Babakus et al. (2017), found that hindrance stressors were positively related to the intention to quit of frontline hotel employees. In addition, an imbalance between job demands and resources can lead to job stress and negative emotions, including decreased job satisfaction (Irawanto et al., 2021). After analyzing a sample of employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, these authors showed that stress had a negative effect on job satisfaction. Moreover, in the case of frontline employees, such as tourism workers, the emotional demands derived from their work can influence their well-being and job satisfaction (Reh et al., 2021).

Organizations can develop self-regulating systems to reduce discrepancies between the perceived environment and internal standards that lead to increased stress levels (Edwards, 1998), such as HPWS. Following JD-R Theory explained before, job stress depends on the interaction between employees and the work environment because job characteristics can be demands or resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In this sense, Conway et al. (2016) suggest that HRM practices act as a resource to counteract the job demands or appraisal systems. Concerning stressful situations, HPWS can provide employees with the resources to cope with stress in difficult situations (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).

Based on the above considerations, we argue that stressful situations can reduce satisfaction and trigger employees’ turnover intention (Chung et al., 2017). However, HPWS act as a resource that can prevent the negative effect of stress. This argument justifies the relevance of analyzing the mediating effect of hindrance stressors between HPWS and employees’ outcomes.

Consequently, the following hypotheses are submitted:

Hypothesis 4:

The relationship between HPWS and employees’ job satisfaction is mediated by hindrance stressors.

Hypothesis 5:

The relationship between HPWS and employees’ turnover intentions is mediated by hindrance stressors.

Method

Sample and procedure

To achieve our research objectives, we carried out an empirical study through a survey delivered to hotel employees on the island of Gran Canaria, a destination in the Canary Islands (Spain). The hospitality sector represents a key role in the economy of the Canary Islands (35% of the Gross Domestic Product and 40.4% of employment) (Exceltur, 2019), being relevant to analyzing which factors can improve firm’s and employee’s performance. The challenging context in which our research took place was characterized by a sharp decrease in terms of arrivals (i.e., ten million fewer tourists) in a destination dependent on foreign demand (Promotur, 2021). Besides, according to ISTAC (2022), many hotels were closed (i.e., 166 to 69). Furthermore, more than 50,000 workers were affected by the implementation of temporary layoffs and furloughs. As a result, employees working in early 2021 (during our data collection) were experiencing high workloads and stress levels as they had to carry out demanding tasks with fewer colleagues.

Before data collection, we conducted a pretest to detect and correct grammatical errors and potential misunderstandings of the items. Data collection took place early in 2021 when the hospitality and tourism employees returned to their job positions, and the tourism activity was progressively being reactivated. Since many hotels were locked down due to the pandemic, we first identified those that were open and focused on three- and four-star hotels because, according to ISTAC (2019), they are the most common on the island (26.4% and 39.7%, respectively). Regarding data collection, twenty establishments were selected, and employees were offered the option to fill in the survey using a paper-pen questionnaire or an electronic version. Finally, 202 valid responses were considered for analysis (convenience sampling process).

Concerning sample employees’ profiles, males accounted for 33.2%, and 66.8% were women. Age was assessed with six categories: 6.4% of staff were less than 25 years old, 22.3% were between 25 and 34 years old, 24.3% between 34 and 44, 28.2% between 45 and 54, 14.4% were between 55 and 65, and the remaining 0.5% were over 65 years old. Most of the employees have completed vocational training (33.7%) and secondary education (25.2%) or university degrees (25.2%), while 10.4% had primary education and only 5% of them had no studies. Concerning hotels where they worked, it was mostly three and four-star hotels (39.7% and 47.2%, respectively). Finally, employees belong to different hotel departments: reception (25.1%), management (12.6%), food and beverages (23.1%), housekeeping (36.2%) and others (3.0%) (see Table 1).

Table 1. Sample profile.

Variables		% of participants
Gender	Male	33.2%
	Female	66.8%
Age	Less than 25-years-old	6.4%
	25–34 years old	22.3%
	34–44 years old	24.3%
	45–54 years old	28.2%
	55–65 years old	14.4%
	Over 65 years old	0.5%
Education	No studies	5%
	Primary Education	10.4%
	Secondary Education	25.2%
	Vocational Training	33.7%
	University	25.2%
Hotel category	Two Stars	3.5%
	Three Stars	39.7%
	Four Stars	47.2%
	Five Stars	9.6%
Department	Reception	25.1%
	Administration	12.6%
	Food and Beverage	23.1%
	Housekeeping	36.2%
	Others	3%

Common method variance

Our data were collected from the same source at the same time (employees’ perceptions through a one-wave survey); therefore, we followed recommendations to control for common method variance (CMV) (Kock, 2015; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Concerning procedural remedies, we separated independent and dependent variables and used different response formats (i.e., avoiding participants’ tendency to use their prior responses to answer items). In addition, we used validated instruments with items written in a clear manner avoiding complex syntax (e.g., avoiding misunderstanding of the items), and assured participants for their confidential and anonymous responses and that there were no right or wrong answers (i.e., avoiding social desirability bias). As for statistical procedures the full collinearity test revealed that all variance inflation factors (VIF) were lower than 3.3 (Kock, 2015). Consequently, CMV was not problematic in this research.

Measures

The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section included scales for HPWS, hindrance stressors, job satisfaction, turnover intentions and other related variables, and the second one captured demographic information. This research is part of a broader research project that aims to analyze different work-related phenomena in the hospitality industry. Items were adopted from previous research and recognized in the literature. Three specialized professors in Human Resources Management and Organizational Behavior discussed the inclusion of items in the questionnaire, which reassured content validity. Because the scales were formulated in English, items had to be translated into Spanish, and the research team carried out a back translation procedure as recommended by the literature (Brislin, 1970). Items are available in the Appendix.

HPWS

We used 20 items from Kloutsiniotis and Mihail (2020a), who obtained them from validated scales (Delery & Doty, 1996; Sun et al., 2007; Zacharatos et al., 2005). Participants had to rate to what extent they agreed with several statements about the HRM practices carried out in their companies on a five-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree). An example of the items was “In my hotel a great effort is taken to select the right person.

Hindrance stressors

We used 5 items from Cavanaugh et al. (2000). Participants had to respond to how much several work-related items cause them stress on a 5-point Likert scale (1= produces no stress; 5= produces a great deal of stress). An example of the items was “the lack of job security I have.”

Job satisfaction

We adopted items generally used to measure job satisfaction in the literature (García-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Suazo, 2009). An example of the items used was, “In general, I like my job.” Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale, with “1” for “totally disagree” and “5” for “totally agree.”

Turnover intentions

It was measured with 4 items adopted from previous research (Chi & Gursoy, 2009; O. M. Karatepe et al., 2006). Responses to scale-based questions were measured on a five-point Likert scale. An example of the items included was “I often think about leaving this hotel.”

Control variables

We controlled for gender, age, education, department of participants and the hotel category in which participants worked, in line with previous studies (Dorta-Afonso et al., 2021; O. M. Karatepe & Vatankhah, 2014; Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, 2020c).

Results

We applied the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method to test our hypotheses, using Smart PLS software (C. Ringle et al., 2015; C. M. Ringle et al., 2020). We chose PLS-SEM because it is a robust data analysis method for smaller samples (Hair et al., 2019) and appropriate for assessing complex models with multiple mediators (Sarstedt et al., 2016). Concretely, PLS-SEM is an appropriate technique for analyzing the relationship between latent variables. In addition, PLS-SEM does not make any assumptions about data distribution. Besides, PLS-SEM is appropriate for reflective-formative constructs such as HPWS and has been used in similar research on the topic (Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, 2020a). Also, we conducted an a priori test with the recommended specifications (effect size = 0.15; power = 0.80) with the G*Power software (Faul et al., 2007), including eight predictors and suggested that we needed a minimum sample size of 109, thus our sample exceeded the minimum acceptable to perform our analysis.

Assessment of the measurement model

Because HPWS is a reflective-formative second-order construct, we followed the two-step approach (Wright et al., 2012). We first validated the first-order model in which all the constructs are reflective following the specified recommendations of the literature to assure internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the model. We observed (see Table 2) that all the items loading were higher than 0.708 (Hair et al., 2016), the composite reliability (CR) of the constructs was higher than 0.7 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), the rho_A was also higher than 0.7 (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015) and that the AVE of each construct exceeded the cutoff point of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2016).

Table 2. First order model: reliability and convergent validity.

Constructs	Items	Loadings	CR	α	rho_A	AVE
HPWS	Recruitment and selection (REC)
	REC1	0.922***	0.951	0.931	0.933	0.829
	REC2	0.869***
	REC3	0.912***
	REC4	0.936***
	Training and development (TRA)
	TRA1	0.928***	0.940	0.905	0.911	0.840
	TRA2	0.910***
	TRA3	0.911***
	Employment security (SEC)
	SEC1	0.875***	0.851	0.760	0.863	0.657
	SEC2	0.824***
	SEC3	0.726***
	Performance appraisal (PER)
	PER1	0.891***	0.940	0.904	0.908	0.839
	PER2	0.931***
	PER3	0.925***
	Incentives and rewards (INC)
	INC1	0.906***	0.891	0.755	0.759	0.803
	INC2	0.886***
	Participation in decision-making (DEC)
	DEC1	0.922***	0.916	0.817	0.817	0.845
	DEC2	0.916***
	Job design (DES)
	DES1	0.909***	0.946	0.915	0.920	0.855
	DES2	0.934***
	DES3	0.930***
HINDRANCE STRESSORS (STR)	STR1	0.709***	0.889	0.843	0.868	0.617
	STR2	0.850***
	STR3	0.888***
	STR4	0.755***
	STR5	0.709***
JOB SATISFACTION (SAT)	SAT1	0.918***	0.930	0.890	0.922	0.816
	SAT2	0.902***
	SAT3	0.895***
TURNOVER INTENTIONS (TI)	TI1	0.869***	0.907	0.864	0.899	0.709
	TI2	0.751***
	TI3	0.840***
	TI4	0.900***

Bootstrapping based on n = 10,000 subsamples; *** = p < 0.001.

Table 3 shows results concerning discriminant validity. The heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratios were lower than 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015). Correlations among constructs were lower than the square root of the AVE. Consequently, we confirmed the discriminant validity of the model.

Table 3. First-order model: discriminant validity.

	STR	SAT	TI	DEC	INC	DES	PER	REC	SEC	TRA
STR	0.786	0.442	0.453	0.529	0.290	0.497	0.603	0.603	0.539	0.502
SAT	−0.400	0.904	0.319	0.335	0.156	0.379	0.429	0.425	0.387	0.373
TI	0.404	−0.305	0.842	0.192	0.113	0.371	0.286	0.286	0.297	0.215
DEC	−0.450	0.289	−0.166	0.919	0.697	0.657	0.754	0.702	0.819	0.657
INC	−0.237	0.137	−0.090	0.548	0.896	0.504	0.638	0.452	0.561	0.629
DES	−0.451	0.358	−0.340	0.566	0.411	0.925	0.813	0.608	0.707	0.588
PER	−0.540	0.395	−0.262	0.646	0.528	0.741	0.916	0.694	0.808	0.711
REC	−0.544	0.396	−0.272	0.612	0.381	0.564	0.640	0.910	0.770	0.778
SEC	−0.485	0.360	−0.280	0.653	0.421	0.639	0.711	0.673	0.811	0.749
TRA	−0.447	0.346	−0.192	0.564	0.520	0.535	0.645	0.716	0.629	0.917

Elements above the diagonal (in italics) correspond to HTMT values. Elements below the diagonal are the correlations between constructs. The diagonal in bold refer to the square root of the AVE.

In order to validate the second-order model, we followed the two-step approach (Wright et al., 2012). Accordingly, we used the latent scores of the first-order constructs (i.e., each HRM practice) as formative items constituting the second-order construct (i.e., HPWS). Thus, HPWS was modeled as a second-order construct of 7 items. In addition, we observed that items from the second-order construct were significant, and in case they were not significant, they were maintained when individual loadings were higher than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2019). Table 4 shows the validation of the second-order model.

Table 4. Second-order model: validation.

Constructs	Dimensions	Loadings	Weights	VIF
HPWS	DEC	0.674	0.027^ns	2.343
	INC	0.346	−0.217*	1.680
	DES	0.807	0.236*	2.375
	PER	0.872	0.391**	3.361
	REC	0.880	0.449**	2.678
	SEC	0.808	0.124^ns	2.686
	TRA	0.722	0.042^ns	2.620

Bootstrapping based on n = 10,000 subsamples; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ^nsnon-significant.

Assessment of the structural model

To test the hypotheses, we analyzed the relationship between HPWS and employees’ outcomes, including hindrance stressors as a mediator in the model. To do so, we observed the total effects of HPWS on employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intention and how this effect takes place both directly and indirectly through hindrance stressors.

Our first hypothesis posited that HPWS would increase hotel employees’ job satisfaction. As shown in Table 5, HPWS exerted a total positive effect on employees’ job satisfaction (β = 0.527, p < 0.001). Concretely, this effect took place both directly (β = 0.391, p < 0.001) and indirectly through hindrance stressors (see Figure 1 and Table 6). Consequently, hypothesis 1 is supported.

Figure 1. Paths coefficients among study constructs.

Table 5. Total effects among study variables.

Relationship	Coefficient (β)	SE	t-Value	p-Value	CI
					5%	95%
1. H1: HPWS -> SAT	0.527	0.067	7.864	0.000	0.423	0.643
2. STR -> TI	0.336	0.091	3.712	0.000	0.177	0.474
3. H2: HPWS -> TI	−0.375	0.075	5.033	0.000	−0.515	−0.270

Bootstrapping based on n = 10,000 subsamples; CI: confidence intervals; CI are statistically significant when they do not include zero. HPWS: high-performance work systems; STR: hindrance stressors; SAT: job satisfaction; TI: turnover intentions. Participants’ age, gender, education department and hotel category were controlled.

Table 6. Indirect effects among study variables.

Effects on TI	Coefficient (β)	SE	t-Value	p-Value	CI
					5%	95%
Total indirect effects on TI of:
1. HPWS	−0.249	0.067	3.747	0.000	−0.359	−0.138
Unique indirect effects on TI:
1. H3: HPWS -> SAT -> TI	−0.047	0.034	1.374	0.085	−0.107	0.004
2. H5: HPWS -> STR -> TI	−0.186	0.056	3.294	0.000	−0.277	−0.092
3. HPWS -> STR-> SAT -> TI	−0.016	0.014	1.189	0.117	−0.041	0.002
4. STR -> SAT -> TI	0.027	0.022	1.227	0.110	−0.003	0.067
Effects on SAT
Unique indirect effects on SAT:
1. H4: HPWS -> STR -> SAT	0.136	0.055	2.493	0.006	0.044	0.223

Bootstrapping based on n = 10,000 subsamples; CI: confidence intervals; CI are statistically significant when they do not include zero. HPWS: high-performance work systems; STR: hindrance stressors; SAT: job satisfaction; TI: turnover intentions. Participants’ age, gender, education department and hotel category were controlled.

Our second hypothesis submitted that HPWS would reduce hotel employees’ turnover intentions. As can be seen in Table 5, HPWS exerted a total negative effect (β=-0.375, p < 0.001) on turnover intentions, therefore supporting hypothesis 2. The third hypothesis predicted that job satisfaction would mediate between HPWS and turnover intentions. As shown in Table 6, HPWS indirectly reduced turnover intentions through job satisfaction (β=-0.047, p < 0.1). We considered this enough evidence to provide support to hypothesis 3.

The last hypotheses submitted that hindrance stressors would mediate between HPWS and both job satisfaction (H4) and turnover intentions (H5). An analysis of the indirect effects taking place between the study variables revealed relevant insights from the data (see Table 6). First, HPWS exerted a significant indirect effect on job satisfaction through hindrance stressors (β = 0.136, p < 0.01), thus confirming hypothesis 4. And second, the indirect effect of HPWS on turnover intention through hindrance stressors was also significant (β=-0.186, p < 0.001), thus confirming hypothesis 5.

Concerning our control variables, only the participant’s age tended toward significance on employees’ job satisfaction (β = 0.110, p < 0.08) and turnover intentions (β=-0.100, p < 0.08). This fact suggests that older workers are more satisfied with their jobs and less willing to quit. An analysis of the R² of job satisfaction (R² = 0.275), hindrance stressors (R² = 0.362), and turnover intentions (R² = 0.206) suggest that our model had a moderate explanatory power. Lastly, because all Q² values were higher than 0, we confirmed the predictive relevance of the research model (Hair et al., 2017). Figure 1 shows the results of the structural relationships.

Discussion and conclusions

Discussion

Due to the circumstances that originated the pandemic, employees in the tourism sector experienced high levels of stress because of job insecurity (Abbas et al., 2021). Thus, pandemic-related layoffs increased employees’ stress levels, negatively affecting their well-being (Tu et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021) and resulting in the so-called Great Resignation. In recent years, the hotel industry has undergone one of the most significant crises (Bufquin et al., 2021), highlighting the need to move toward the conceptualization of HRM practices to align with new contexts (Collings et al., 2021). As a result, now it is time for organizations to develop practices that are fit for uncertain environments, although the study of HRM under uncertainty is scarce (Agarwal, 2021). This study analyses the effect of HPWS on employees’ satisfaction and turnover intention, as well as the preventing role they play by reducing hindrance stressors. Therefore, this paper studies the role of HPWS on employee outcomes, considering the stress that workers in the tourism sector have been coping with in the last few years.

Hypotheses 1 and 2 have been supported, showing the relevance of HPWS in increasing employee satisfaction and reducing turnover intention. Therefore, our findings align with previous studies claiming a positive relationship between HPWS, job satisfaction (García-Chas et al., 2014; Kong et al., 2018) and turnover intentions (Afsar et al., 2018; Alfes et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2012). Thus, it is stated that in challenging contexts, hotel HR departments can play an important role in ensuring that employees do not feel dissatisfied or have the desire to leave their job positions. Furthermore, Hypothesis 3 has been confirmed, so this study provides evidence regarding the relationship between job satisfaction and employees’ turnover intention in line with previous studies (DiPietro et al., 2020; Fabi et al., 2014), showing that job satisfaction is an antecedent of turnover (H. T. Chen & Wang, 2019; Manolopoulos et al., 2022) and those employees with a high level of satisfaction will not want to leave their company. Thus, if hotels develop and implement HPWS, employees will feel satisfied, and because of that, they will not want to leave the organization.

Regarding hypotheses 4 and 5, this paper has included hindrance stressors as a mediating variable between HPWS and employees’ outcomes. Our research model has been developed with the aim of considering the high-stress levels faced by workers because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in the Great Resignation (Tu et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021). Thus, the main objective of this study is to show the role played by HPWS in preventing the negative effects of stress on employees’ outcomes. Hypothesis 4 and 5 have been supported, revealing HPWS as crucial in challenging situations. Consistent with our expectations, HPWS act as a resource for employees as their impact on employees’ outcomes takes place via hindrance stressors reduction. These findings represent a step forward for the tourism industry, as it shows that when hotels invest in their HR departments, they will be able to prevent the effects of the Great Resignation that is currently affecting the hospitality industry (Cheng, 2022). Furthermore, following Formica and Sfodera’s (2022) work, some of the most important current issues faced by hospitality managers include building trust, organizational commitment, and employee well-being. The findings of this article show that hotels can improve some of these challenges if their HRM practices reduce hindrance stressors and support their employees. Therefore, it reveals the key role of HR departments in managing the consequences of the pandemic crisis and stress levels.

Theoretical implications

This study makes several theoretical contributions. First, our results state that HPWS can play a key role in employees’ outcomes and support the reciprocity rule of SET (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), as when organizations value their employees (implementing HPWS, for example), they will display positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. In doing so, we also support the mutual gains perspective on the relationship between HPWS and outcomes (Ogbonnaya & Messersmith, 2019; Van De Voorde et al., 2012). That is, HPWS create a win-win situation for both organizations and employees. Therefore, the improvement in organizational performance is achieved by improving employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Second, our work contributes to unlocking the black box of mediating mechanisms through which HPWS influence outcomes, answering several calls of the literature (Jackson et al., 2014; O. Karatepe, 2015; Kloutsiniotis & Mihail, 2020c) and understanding the relevance of employees’ outcomes and perceptions in HRM research (Jiang & Messersmith, 2018). To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies incorporating hindrance stressors as a mediating variable between HPWS and employees’ outcomes in the tourism sector. This becomes even more relevant, bearing in mind that our research has been conducted in times of COVID-19, where workers have been subjected to high levels of uncertainty and job insecurity in the tourism sector (Abbas et al., 2021; S. E. Kang et al., 2021). Thus, the presence of hindrance stressors can lead to reduced satisfaction and increased employees’ turnover intention. However, HPWS can prevent the negative effect of these stressors by giving employees the resources to manage stressful situations. This argument supports the JD-R (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) theory and considers that HPWS can provide employees with the necessary resources to perform their tasks and manage tensions (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; De Reuver et al., 2021).

Finally, this paper makes an important contribution to the HRM literature by providing evidence of how HPWS can reduce the tension and uncertainty created by COVID-19 challenges on employees’ job expectations, which significantly affect on hotels’ performance (Collings et al., 2021). Consequently, we contribute to the HPWS literature by adding further evidence of their positive effect on employees’ outcomes (e.g., Connolly et al., 2007; O. M. Karatepe & Olugbade, 2016) and make those findings generalizable to challenging situations.

Practical implications

This research highlights some findings that can be useful and offer valuable information for managers and hoteliers. It is recommended that hotel managers invest in developing HPWS because these practices can increase job satisfaction by creating a positive work environment where satisfied employees would be more productive and provide better service (Kong et al., 2018). Besides, HPWS can help managers avoid negative and passive attitudes among workers (T. J. Chen & Wu, 2017; Pearsall et al., 2009), as well as reduce turnover intentions.

Special attention should be paid to hindrance stressors in uncertain situations, which proved significant for employees’ outcomes. Our results revealed that in stressful contexts, employees who perceive that HPWS reduce their stress will be satisfied and will not leave the organization. Therefore, HRM efforts should develop a positive work environment through HPWS, where employees would be more attached to their work and more satisfied. The hospitality sector is characterized by poor working conditions, low salaries, and a lack of safety, and it has been one of the industries most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the results of this study have important practical implications for tourism managers and show the need to develop actions that improve employees’ well-being and reduce stress and turnover intentions in order to prevent the Great Resignation.

Moreover, one of the common challenges in the hotel industry is high employee turnover. This article provides hotel managers with a deeper understanding of how HPWS can influence employee retention. By implementing effective HRM strategies, managers can foster employee satisfaction, thereby reducing turnover intention. Thus, this paper states that managers who develop HPWS in challenging situations, will show employees they have organizational support and resources to cope with stress. Moreover, after the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus is on how companies value the well-being of their employees, as the new generations are not willing to work in poor working conditions. In this sense, the development of HPWS can positively impact hotels’ reputations. Satisfied and engaged employees tend to provide better customer service, which in turn can increase guest satisfaction and loyalty (Chi & Gursoy, 2009). Hotel managers can leverage the article’s findings to promote their employee-centered approach and differentiate themselves in the market.

Limitations and future research

Finally, some of the study’s limitations should be considered when interpreting the results and for future research. First, although considering employees’ perceptions to measure the model variables have great value, future studies could complement this information with the opinion of other key informants, such as HR managers, in order to check the experienced HRM practices with the intended HRM policies. Second, it should be remembered that the fieldwork took place during an economic recovery. The employees were returning to their jobs after the temporary layoffs caused by the pandemic, which may have influenced their responses. Therefore, it would be interesting to find out in future studies whether these results are similar in another period when tourism companies are no longer so affected by the economic crisis resulting from the pandemic. Besides, it should be noted that the sample size is limited, and replication of our research design with greater samples would contribute to the generalizability of our findings. Lastly, it would be interesting to consider other variables that help unlock the black box of mediating mechanisms through which HPWS influence employees’ outcomes. To this concern, it should be noted that we used a general measure of hindrance stressors well established in the literature (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). However, specific hindrance stressors and demands, such as role ambiguity, could be incorporated into future studies. In this sense, it is imperative to highlight that although this study used a quantitative approach to investigate the relationships among our study constructs and make inferences about the whole population under study, future research could consider qualitative approaches to answer other research questions of a more explorative nature. We recommend conducting in-depth interviews with employees to characterize faced stressors as hindrance or challenge in times of uncertainty.

Conclusions

This paper has analyzed the relationship between employees’ perceptions of HPWS and their outcomes, as well as the mediating role of hindrance stressors in this relationship. The main objective of this paper was to study the role of HPWS in the stressful context derived from the pandemic, characterized by low levels of employees’ job satisfaction and high levels of turnover. Concretely, we aimed to examine the mechanisms through which HPWS can act as an organizational resource to cope with this stress by reducing the discrepancies between employees’ perceived state and desired state, reverting the Great Resignation faced in the hospitality industry.

The study revealed that HPWS influence job satisfaction and turnover intention, increasing the first and reducing the second. Moreover, the main finding of this study states that HPWS play a key role in preventing the effect of hindrance stressors on employees’ outcomes. Therefore, this work emphasizes the importance of developing HPWS in stressful situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic because it can prevent its negative effects.

Acknowledgments

Work co-funding by the Canary Agency for Research, Innovation and Information Society of the Regional Ministry of Economy, Knowledge and Employment and by the European Social Fund (ESF), Integrated Operational Program of the Canary Islands 2014-2020, Axis 3 Priority Theme 74 (85%)

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the the Canary Agency for Research, Innovation and Information Society of the Regional Ministry of Economy.

Appendix

Study variables and items with means, standard deviations skew and kurtosis

Table

Study variables and items		Mean	SD	Skew	Kurtosis
HPWS
	1. Great effort is taken to select the right person	3.27	1.39	−0.23	−1.19
	2. Long-term employee potential is emphasized	3.09	1.36	−0.18	−1.20
	3. Considerable importance is placed on the staffing process	3.04	1.36	0.00	−1.21
	4. Very extensive efforts are made in selection	3.08	1.37	−0.04	−1.15
	5. Extensive training programs are provided for individual in customer contact or front-line jobs	2.79	1.47	0.24	−1.34
	6. Employees in customer contact jobs will normally go through training programs every few years	2.81	1.39	0.20	−1.21
	7. Formal training programs are offered to employees in order to increase their promotability in this organization	2.63	1.45	0.33	−1.24
	8. Employees in this job can expect to stay in the hotel for as long as they wish	2.69	1.40	0.20	−1.29
	9. It is very difficult to dismiss an employee in this job	2.72	1.38	0.18	−1.13
	10. Job security is almost guaranteed to employees in this job	3.46	1.47	−0.42	−1.24
	11. Performance is more often measured with objective quantifiable results	3.11	1.46	−0.21	−1.29
	12. Performance appraisals are based on objective quantifiable results	3.16	1.43	−0.20	−1.24
	13. Employee appraisals emphasize long term and group-based achievement	3.14	1.37	−0.21	−1.16
	14. Individuals in this job receive bonuses based on the profit of the organization	2.10	1.39	0.94	−0.51
	15. Close tie or matching of pay to individual/group performance	2.30	1.40	0.68	−0.79
	16. Employees in this job are allowed to make any decisions	2.77	1.44	0.12	−1.31
	17. Employees in this job are often asked by their supervisor to participate in decisions	2.78	1.42	0.08	−1.33
	18. The duties of this job are clearly defined	3.48	1.41	−0.42	−1.09
	19. This job has an up-to-date job description	3.32	1.44	−0.32	−1.23
	20. The job description for this job contains all of the duties performed by individual employees	3.30	1.43	−0.33	−1.15
Hindrance Stressors
	1. The degree to which politics rather than performance affects organizational decisions	3.07	1.42	−0.17	−1.24
	2. The inability to clearly understand what is expected of me on the job	2.45	1.43	0.50	−1.08
	3. The amount of red tape I need to go through to get my job done	2.61	1.41	0.38	−1.10
	4. The lack of job security I have	2.09	1.38	0.93	−0.54
	5. The degree to which my career seems “stalled”	2.72	1.48	0.24	−1.32
Job satisfaction
	1. All in all, I am satisfied with my job	3.73	1.28	−0.75	−0.52
	2. In general, I like my job	3.98	1.29	−1.10	0.02
	3. In general, I like working here	3.74	1.32	−0.78	−0.54
Turnover intentions
	1. I often think about leaving this hotel	2.20	1.39	0.85	−0.56
	2. It would not take much to make me leave this hotel	2.36	1.37	0.59	−0.86
	3. I will probably be looking for another job soon	2.21	1.51	0.87	−0.79
	4. As soon as I can find another job I am going to leave	2.18	1.47	0.94	−0.60