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

Figures & data

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%

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. 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.

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.

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.

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