HT

OF

a

KHHPRW

1

dtiGfpcsuaoiaeFniehr2

i

0h

International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132–140

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / i jhosman

igh-performance work practices and hotel employee performance:he mediation of work engagement

sman M. Karatepe ∗

aculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Via Mersin 10, Turkey

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:igh-performance work practicesotel employeeserformance outcomes

a b s t r a c t

This study proposes and tests a research model that investigates whether work engagement functionsas a mediator of the effects of high-performance work practices (HPWPs) on job performance and extra-role customer service. These relationships were assessed through LISREL 8.30 using structural equation

omaniaork engagement

modeling (SEM). Data were obtained from full-time frontline hotel employees and their managers in thePoiana Brasov region in Romania. The results suggest that work engagement acts as a full mediator of theeffects of HPWPs on job performance and extra-role customer service. Specifically, HPWPs, as manifestedby frontline employees’ appraisal of training, empowerment, and rewards, enhance work engagement.Such HPWPs in turn trigger job performance and extra-role customer service. Implications of the resultsare discussed and avenues for future research are offered.

. Introduction

The recognition that frontline employees play a pivotal role inelivery of service quality, successful service recovery, and reten-ion of satisfied and loyal customers in the hospitality industrys prevalent among researchers and practitioners (e.g., Chi andursoy, 2009; Chiang and Birtch, 2008; Guchait et al., 2012). There-

ore, retention of frontline employees who can have high qualityerformance in the workplace is as important to business suc-ess as customer loyalty and profitability. The presence of HPWPsends powerful signals to employees that the organization paystmost attention to human capital for improving service capacitynd productivity (Tang and Tang, 2012). Internal career/promotionpportunities, teamwork, employment security, staffing selectiv-ty, work-family balance, training, empowerment, and rewards aremong the indicators of HPWPs (e.g., Cho et al., 2006; Kusluvant al., 2010; Murphy and Murrmann, 2009; Tang and Tang, 2012).rontline employees working in environments where there are aumber of HPWPs may have high levels of energy and feel ded-

cated and may be happily immersed in their work. Retention ofngaged employees is critical, because they are likely to displayigh quality performance in the workplace and fulfill their formalole requirements for business success (cf. Bakker and Demerouti,

008; DiPietro and Pizam, 2008; Slåtten and Mehmetoglu, 2011).

As a motivational construct, work engagement refers to “a pos-tive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by

∗ Tel.: +90 392 630 1116; fax: +90 392 365 1584.E-mail address: osman.karatepe@emu.edu.tr

278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.05.003

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).Vigor, dedication, and absorption are the three dimensions of workengagement. In Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) study, vigor is defined as“high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, thewillingness to invest efforts in one’s work, and persistence even inthe face of difficulties”, while dedication refers to “a sense of signifi-cance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge” (p. 74). Finally,absorption refers to “being fully concentrated and deeply engrossedin one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficul-ties with detaching oneself from work” (p. 75). As stated by Bakker(2011), engaged employees are more likely to work harder throughelevated levels of discretionary efforts when compared to thosewho are disengaged. However, it should be noted that employeescannot always be engaged in their work; they need some time andopportunities for recovery (Bakker, 2011). Otherwise, employeeswho are always engaged in their work cannot devote their scarceresources (e.g., time) to family domain and experience work-familyconflict (Halbesleben et al., 2009).

Overall, it is important to understand how HPWPs influenceemployees’ motivation to display elevated levels of performance inthe workplace. By doing so, it would be possible to analyze the blackbox stage between HPWPs and performance outcomes in strate-gic human resource management research (Boselie et al., 2005;Takeuchi et al., 2007; Tang and Tang, 2012). Social exchange theory(SET) provides useful guidelines for explaining the aforemen-tioned relationships. Specifically, employees receiving economicand socioemotional resources from the organization tend to feelobliged to repay the organization through work engagement

and better performance (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Saks,2006).

Hospi

1

tmcier

eisIsAsvvmltrthbc2htBKse

dmioCae

ssrisk

fievohtaf

2

2

a

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of

.1. Purpose

Using SET as the theoretical framework, this study proposes andests a research model that investigates whether work engagement

ediates the effects of HPWPs on job performance and extra-roleustomer service. Training, empowerment, and rewards are thendicators of HPWPs examined in the present study. Data gath-red from the hotel industry in Romania were used to assess theseelationships.

This study makes several contributions to the existing knowl-dge base in the following ways. First, although there are variousndicators of HPWPs, training, empowerment, and rewards are con-idered as the indicators of HPWPs predicting work engagement.n other words, HPWPs are manifested through management’simultaneous emphasis on training, empowerment, and rewards.s discussed by Takeuchi et al. (2007), training and empowermentignal that employees are regarded as strategic partners for the sur-ival and success of the organization and are recognized of theiralue to the organization. The presence of appropriate rewardsotivates employees to deal with customer requests and prob-

ems effectively (Babakus et al., 2003). A careful examination ofhe current literature suggests that training, empowerment, andewards are in Pfeffer’s (1994) well-known list of effective prac-ices for managing people and have been reported in the top sixuman resource practices (Boselie et al., 2005). Such HPWPs haveeen shown among the most important indicators of managementommitment to service quality (Ashill et al., 2008; Babakus et al.,003; Kim et al., 2009). Training, empowerment and/or rewardsave also been considered to be the useful managerial implica-ions for business practice in the hospitality industry (Chiang andirtch, 2011; Henry et al., 2004; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2009;aratepe and Uludag, 2007; Kusluvan et al., 2010). Therefore, thistudy investigates the effects of HPWPs, as manifested by training,mpowerment, and rewards, on work engagement.

Second, in a recent meta-analytic study, Christian et al. (2011)iscuss that little is known about work engagement as a deter-inant of performance outcomes. They also discuss that there

s a need for examining work engagement that may simultane-usly lead to in-role and extra-role performances. Consistent withhristian et al.’s (2011) suggestion, this study tests job performancend extra-role customer service as performance outcomes of workngagement.

Third, empirical research pertaining to the antecedents and con-equences of work engagement in frontline service jobs is stillcarce (Karatepe, 2011; Slåtten and Mehmetoglu, 2011). With thisealization, work engagement is treated as a full mediator of thempacts of HPWPs on job performance and extra-role customerervice for addressing the aforementioned voids in the existingnowledge base.

By analyzing the black box stage between HPWPs and per-ormance outcomes, the findings of this study may prove usefulnsights pertaining to the management of HPWPs and retention ofngaged employees with heightened performance in frontline ser-ice jobs. The next section of the article consists of the descriptionf SET as the theoretical framework. This is followed by researchypotheses developed based on SET and empirical evidence, andhe research model. Then, discussions of the method and resultsre given. The article concludes with implications for managers anduture research.

. Theoretical framework, hypotheses, and research model

.1. SET

SET states that relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal,nd mutual commitments if the parties (e.g., managers/supervisors

tality Management 32 (2013) 132–140 133

and employees) abide by certain ‘rules’ of exchange (Cropanzanoand Mitchell, 2005). Economic and social exchange relationshipsare the two types of these relationships in the workplace. Eco-nomic relationships are tangible and appear to be more short term,while social exchange relationships are related to “close personalattachment and open-ended obligations” (Cropanzano et al., 2003,p. 161). When the organization takes care of employees, there aresocial exchange relationships that give rise to positive job or orga-nizational outcomes (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Employeeswho obtain economic and socioemotional resources in the work-place tend to feel obligated to repay the organization via variousways.

Work engagement and positive job outcomes are among theways for employees to repay the benefits given by the organiza-tion (Karatepe, 2011; Saks, 2006). That is, employees devote theircognitive, emotional, and physical resources to work roles by hav-ing high levels of energy, being enthusiastic about their work, andbeing fully engrossed in their work. When employees have HPWPsthat are manifested by training, empowerment, and rewards, theyrepay the organization via their level of work engagement. It seemsthat if employees believe that the availability of HPWPs emergesfrom management’s commitment to service excellence that is con-sistent with the organizational mission, they are more engaged intheir work and contribute more to service delivery process. In addi-tion, HPWPs improve the quality of the social exchanges betweenthe employer and employees (Takeuchi et al., 2007; Tang and Tang,2012). In short, the presence of HPWPs creates a work environ-ment where engaged employees seem to have more trusting andhigh quality relationships with their employer and report betterperformance outcomes.

2.2. HPWPs and work engagement

Training, empowerment, and rewards are the indicators ofHPWPs used in this study. Such indicators are important in frontlineservice jobs and are crucial to organizational success in the hospital-ity industry. As stated before, training, empowerment, and rewardsare among the most important indicators of HPWPs (Boselie et al.,2005; Pfeffer, 1994). They have also been shown to be among themost critical indicators of management commitment to servicequality (e.g., Kim et al., 2009).

Frontline employees should acquire technical and interpersonalskills to have solid knowledge about service delivery process anddeal with customer requests and complaints. The lack of ongo-ing and effective training programs in hospitality firms leads toa pool of employees who do not have the requisite skills or arenot willing to respond to customer requests and problems. Asanother indicator of HPWPs, empowerment refers to “the free-dom and ability to make decisions and commitments” (Forrester,2000, p. 67). Empowered frontline employees can fulfill their duties,use their creative personal judgment, and provide quick and fairresponses to the complaining customers (Guchait et al., 2012; Yavaset al., 2010). However, empowering employees without trainingprograms would not produce the intended outcomes or trainingemployees without empowerment for effective complaint man-agement would be useless. Training and empowerment shouldbe accompanied by rewards, because trained and empoweredemployees should obtain adequate rewards for serving customersand dealing with disgruntled customers successfully (Kim et al.,2009; Yavas et al., 2010).

Combs et al. (2006) argue that HPWPs such as training, empow-erment, and rewards enhance employees’ knowledge, skills, and

abilities and motivate them to reach high levels of productivity.When these HPWPs are used in a coordinated way, they reinforceand support each other (Combs et al., 2006). Such an assertionis also supported by internal fit. According to internal fit, “their

1 Hospi

cpoieecirf

Hbe

2

ctrdo1wtseewqew

crtfbiaforactm

tpwtt

teAm(h

He

34 O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of

ollective effect will be greater than the sum of their individualarts” (Wall and Wood, 2005, p. 431). As a result, the joint presencef training, empowerment, and rewards would create synergyn the organization (Wall and Wood, 2005), trigger employeengagement (Hughes and Rog, 2008), and lead to retention ofmployees in the hospitality industry (Henry et al., 2004). As SETontends, employees who find that the organization really investsn human resources through training, empowerment, and rewardsepay the organization via their work engagement. Therefore, theollowing hypotheses are proposed:

1. Frontline employees’ perceptions of HPWPs (as manifestedy training, empowerment, and rewards) are related to their workngagement.

.3. Work engagement and performance outcomes

Job performance and extra-role customer service are the tworitical performance outcomes of work engagement examined inhis study. There are at least two reasons for investigating theseelationships. First, job performance is defined as “the level of pro-uctivity of an individual employee, relative to his or her peers,n several job-related behaviors and outcomes” (Babin and Boles,998, p. 82). Employees in frontline service jobs are expected to dealith customer requests and problems in a responsive and cour-

eous manner, because service quality perceptions and customeratisfaction largely depend on frontline employees’ service deliv-ry behaviors (Bettencourt et al., 2005). When engaged frontlinemployees are more vigilant and centered on their tasks, they dealith customer requests and problems successfully and have high

uality performance. This makes sense, because engaged employ-es devote their cognitive, emotional, and physical resources toork roles.

Extra-role customer service refers to “discretionary behaviors ofontact employees in serving customers that extend beyond formalole requirements” (Bettencourt and Brown, 1997, p. 41). Hospi-ality firms are also in need of frontline employees who wouldrequently go out the way to help customers. This is important,ecause frontline employees should serve customers in challeng-

ng service encounters and show proactive behaviors to be able todapt to specific situations (De Jong and De Ruyter, 2004). There-ore, engagement can be considered as an important determinantf frontline employees’ willingness to go beyond their formal roleequirements for satisfying customers, because engaged employeesre more willing to exert efforts to go the extra mile in facilitatingustomer needs (Moliner et al., 2008). Consequently, it is importanto uncover the relationship of work engagement with job perfor-

ance and extra-role customer service.Second, as highlighted by Christian et al. (2011), it is important

o assess whether work engagement simultaneously leads to joberformance and extra-role customer service. Such an assessmentould enable us to understand whether engaged employees tend

o prioritize their in-role or extra-role tasks or pay equal attentiono their in-role or extra-role tasks.

Consistent with the precepts of SET, engaged employees appearo have more trusting and high quality relationships with theirmployer and thus demonstrate positive behaviors (Saks, 2006).

lthough limited, empirical evidence suggests that work engage-ent leads to better in-role and/or extra-role performances

Christian et al., 2011; Karatepe, 2011). Therefore, the followingypotheses are proposed:

2. Work engagement is positively related to frontline employ-es’ (a) job performance and (b) extra-role customer service.

tality Management 32 (2013) 132–140

2.4. Work engagement as a full mediator

As a motivational construct, work engagement plays a media-tor role between HPWPs and performance outcomes. SET presentsa viable theoretical framework for these relationships (Takeuchiet al., 2007). Specifically, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) state,“Social exchange relationships evolve when employers take careof employees, which thereby engenders beneficial consequences”(p. 882). Accordingly, it appears that when the organizationtakes care of employees through the simultaneous implementa-tion of training, empowerment, and rewards, employees are moreengaged in their work, leading to better performance outcomesin the workplace. In other words, employees receiving variousresources/benefits from the organization would be more likely tofeel obliged to repay the organization through greater work engage-ment, and in turn, display job performance and extra-role customerservice (Karatepe, 2011; Saks, 2006).

According to the strategic human resource managementperspective, employee performance and organizational or firm per-formance are influenced by a set of HPWPs (e.g., Huselid et al.,1997). However, HPWPs should motivate employees to performtheir jobs effectively (Huselid, 1995). Employees who participate intraining programs containing the use of empowerment and obtainappropriate levels of pay and related rewards are motivated toaccomplish their work goals. Such employees are engaged in theirwork, and in turn, deliver quality services, deal with customerproblems successfully, and willingly go out of their way for satisfy-ing customers. Consequently, HPWPs that are manifested throughmanagement’s simultaneous emphasis on training, empowerment,and rewards would motivate frontline employees to provide qual-ity services, offer successful complaint resolution, and demonstrateextra-role performance (cf. Babakus et al., 2003; Yavas et al., 2010).Consistent with the precepts of SET and strategic human resourcemanagement perspective, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H3. Work engagement fully mediates the effects of HPWPs (asmanifested by training, empowerment, and rewards) on (a) jobperformance and (b) extra-role customer service.

2.5. Research model

The research model that includes the hypothesized relation-ships is presented in Fig. 1. According to the model, the indicatorsof HPWPs are training, empowerment, and rewards. The modelproposes that frontline employees’ perceptions of HPWPs are pos-itively related to their work engagement. The model also suggeststhat work engagement functions as a full mediator of the effects ofHPWPs on job performance and extra-role customer service.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and procedure

In this empirical study data were gathered from a sample of full-time frontline hotel employees and their managers in the PoianaBrasov region which is one of the most important winter touristdestinations in Romania. These frontline employees (e.g., front deskagents, wait staff, bell attendants, guest relations representatives,bartenders, door attendants) had intense face-to-face or voice-to-voice interactions with customers.

Most organizations in Romania are devoid of qualified man-power and human resource expertise (cf. Ineson and Berechet,

2011). According to Ciulu and Dragan (2011), low pay and inad-equate training programs are among the critical problems in thehospitality industry in Romania, because they seem to be respon-sible for poor services and high employee turnover. Insufficient

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132–140 135

High-performance

work practices

Training

Empowerment

Rewards

Work engagement

H3(a)-H3(b)

Job performance

Extra-role

customer service

H1

H2(a)

H2(b)

searc

tdUimez

Phsaame

terrsetmrMequaafit

blhw

Fig. 1. Re

raining programs, coupled with the lack of service standards, hin-er efficient and effective customer service (cf. Carmen, 2011).nder these circumstances, it is obvious that the hospitality

ndustry in Romania needs modern human resource managementethods that are associated with HPWPs for retaining a pool of

ngaged employees with high quality performance in the organi-ation.

There were 7 four-star hotels and only 1 five-star hotel in theoiana Brasov region at the time of this study. Management of theseotels was contacted using a letter indicating the purpose of thetudy and permission for data collection. Although management ofll hotels agreed to participate in this study, the researcher was notllowed to directly contact frontline employees. Therefore, hotelanagers distributed the questionnaires to their frontline employ-

es.The first page of each questionnaire consisted of informa-

ion about the assurance of anonymity and confidentiality. Themployee questionnaire contained the training, empowerment,ewards, and work engagement measures as well as items aboutespondents’ profile. The researcher prepared a master list con-isting of the name of each frontline employee in the hotel. Eachmployee in this master list had an identification number. An iden-ification number was also written on each questionnaire. The

anager questionnaire included the job performance and extra-ole customer service measures and had an identification number.anagers assessed each frontline employee’s job performance and

xtra-role customer service under their supervision. The manageruestionnaires were matched with the employee questionnairessing the identification number. Each frontline employee and man-ger self-administered the questionnaire, sealed it in an envelope,nd placed it in a special box in order to keep anonymity and con-dentiality. Then, the researcher collected the questionnaires fromhis box.

Using data from a single source is prone to common method

ias. In their recent review, Line and Runyan (2012) report that

ess than 10% of the studies in the hospitality marketing literatureave obtained data from multiple sources. Therefore, consistentith the suggestions made by Podsakoff et al. (2003), this study

h model.

collected data from managers to evaluate frontline employees’ jobperformance and extra-role customer service for reducing the riskof common method bias to the magnitudes of the relationshipsamong the study variables.

123 questionnaires were distributed to frontline employees. Thenumber of employee questionnaires distributed and collected canbe seen in Table A.1 in Appendix A. By the cut-off date for datacollection, 114 questionnaires were returned. However, 4 ques-tionnaires were eliminated, because there was missing informationin each of these questionnaires. Usable 110 questionnaires wereretrieved for a response rate of 89.4%. Strong management supportand cooperation made the solid response rate possible. It is alsoworthy to note that the response rate in this study is not neces-sarily unusual and is comparable to the response rates obtained insome prior studies (e.g., Boles et al., 2003; Karatepe and Tekinkus,2006). In addition, the researcher obtained 110 questionnaires frommanagers that were matched with the employee questionnaires.

Nine percent of the respondents were between the ages of38–47, while the overwhelming majority of the respondents (76%)were younger than 38. The rest were older than 47.58% of therespondents were male. 6% of the respondents had primary schooleducation, while one-half of the respondents had secondary andhigh school education. The rest had college education or beyond.66% of the respondents had tenures of 5 years or less. The rest hadbeen with their hotel for more than 5 years.

3.2. Measures

All perceptual constructs were measured using multiple itemsfrom different studies in the extant literature. Specifically, train-ing was measured with six items and rewards with five itemsfrom Boshoff and Allen (2000). Five items adapted from Hayes(1994) were used to measure empowerment. The shortened ver-sion of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (nine items) was used

to operationalize work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Vigor,dedication, and absorption each consisted of three items. Fiveitems adapted from Babin and Boles (1998) were used to opera-tionalize job performance. Five items from Bettencourt and Brown

1 Hospi

(vppRtim

iat(itEtmmqd

3

ttwtdL

eelammcowtienda

ofiSmticTb

4

Tsae

that all hypotheses are supported and the research model is viable.

36 O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of

1997) were also employed to measure extra-role customer ser-ice. Responses to items in training, empowerment, rewards, joberformance, and extra-role customer service were rated on five-oint scales ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).esponse options for items in work engagement (vigor, dedica-ion, absorption) ranged from 6 (always) to 0 (never). Higher scoresndicated higher levels of each construct (e.g., training, job perfor-

ance).All items were originally prepared in English and then translated

nto Romanian using the back-translation method (Parameswarannd Yaprak, 1987). Specifically, the employee and manager ques-ionnaires were prepared in English. Then, two bilingual individualsfluent in both Romanian and English) participated independentlyn the translation process. Finally, the researcher further checkedhe two versions of the employee and manager questionnaires innglish for any inconsistencies. The employee questionnaire wasested with a pilot sample of ten frontline hotel employees. The

anager questionnaire was tested using a pilot sample of fiveanagers. No changes were made in the employee and manager

uestionnaires, because frontline employees and their managersid not have any difficulty understanding items.

.3. Data analysis

This study employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEMhrough LISREL 8.30 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996). Specifically, inhe current study a two-step approach containing CFA and SEMas employed (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In the first step,

he measurement model was assessed in terms of convergent andiscriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell andarcker, 1981).

The second step was associated with a comparison of two mod-ls. It should be noted that HPWPs (as manifested by training,mpowerment, and rewards) were represented as a second-orderatent variable. In addition, average item scores of vigor, dedication,nd absorption were calculated as the indicators of work engage-ent (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The fully and partially mediatedodels were compared based on the �2 difference test. Specifi-

ally, the partially mediated model consisted of the direct effectsf HPWPs on job performance and extra-role customer service asell as their indirect effects on job performance and extra-role cus-

omer service through work engagement. The fully mediated modelncluded the indirect effects of HPWPs on job performance andxtra-role customer service via work engagement. Having no sig-ificant difference in fit suggests that the partially mediated modeloes not improve fit. Then, the results in the fully mediated modelre used for assessing the relationships.

The hypothesized relationships were tested using SEM. Theverall �2 measure, CFI [comparative fit index], IFI [incrementalt index], RMSEA [root mean square error of approximation], andRMR [standardized root mean square residual] were used to assessodel fit. Although the sample size of this study is small, it appears

o be consistent with the majority of suggestions regarding the min-mum sample size of 100 for SEM (Hair et al., 2010). The internalonsistency reliability was assessed using the cut-off value of .70.he mediation effects were assessed using the guidelines providedy Baron and Kenny (1986).

. Results

Measurement results are reported in Table B.1 in Appendix B.

able 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations oftudy constructs. In light of the results reported in Table 1, all directssociations were significant. Such results met the conditions formploying a mediation analysis.

tality Management 32 (2013) 132–140

The fully mediated model was compared with the partiallymodel based on the �2 difference test (p < .01) (Chen et al., 2005).The �2 difference test for the fully (�2 = 290.40, df = 182) andpartially (�2 = 288.06, df = 180) mediated models showed a non-significant difference in fit (��2 = 2.34, �df = 2). The fully mediatedmodel appeared to provide a better fit to the data than did thepartially mediated model. The fully mediated model fit the dataadequately based on a number of fit statistics: (�2 = 290.40, df = 182;�2/df = 1.60; CFI = .93; IFI = .94; RMSEA = .074; SRMR = .076). Theresults of SEM for the fully mediated model are presented inFig. 2.

The results of SEM indicated that all estimates were signifi-cant. The indicators of HPWPs were reliable. Specifically, rewards(�31 = .84, t = 7.71) appeared to be the most reliable indicator, fol-lowed by training (�11 = .79, t = 7.27) and empowerment (�21 = .58,t = 5.65). The results demonstrated that HPWPs significantly andpositively influenced work engagement (�41 = .82, t = 8.30). There-fore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. According to the results ofSEM, work engagement exerted a significant positive effect on jobperformance (ˇ54 = .44, t = 4.23) and extra-role customer service(ˇ64 = .57, t = 5.08). Hence, Hypotheses 2(a) and (b) were supported.

The results regarding the indirect effects were significant basedon Sobel test. Specifically, the results in Fig. 2 showed thatthe indirect effect of HPWPs (standardized indirect effect = .36,t = 3.93) on job performance through work engagement wassignificant and positive. Hence, Hypothesis 3(a) received empir-ical support. The results also indicated that the indirect effectof HPWPs (standardized indirect effect = .47, t = 4.58) on extra-role customer service via work engagement was significant andpositive. Therefore, Hypothesis 3(b) was supported. The resultsaccounted for 55% of the variance in HPWPs, 66% in work engage-ment, 20% in job performance, and 32% in extra-role customerservice.

5. Discussion

5.1. Strengths of the study

This study proposed and tested a research model that investi-gated work engagement as a mediator variable in the relationshipbetween HPWPs and performance outcomes. The strengths of thestudy are given below.

First, this study examined the relationship between HPWPs andwork engagement. HPWPs have been conceptualized and mea-sured as a second-order latent variable that is manifested bytraining, empowerment, and rewards. This is significant, becausetraining, empowerment, and rewards are among the effectivehuman resource practices (Pfeffer, 1994), are in the top six humanresource practices (Boselie et al., 2005), and have been regardedamong the most important indicators of management commit-ment to service quality (e.g., Kim et al., 2009). These HPWPs havealso been considered to be the critical implications for hospitalitymanagers for business practice (Kusluvan et al., 2010).

Second, this study responds to Christian et al.’s (2011) researchcall by testing work engagement that may simultaneously result injob performance and extra-role customer service. Third, the presentstudy adds to the existing knowledge base by testing work engage-ment as a full mediator between HPWPs and performance outcomesusing data gathered in frontline service jobs in the hospitalityindustry (e.g., Karatepe, 2011). Finally, the results from SEM suggest

While causality cannot be determined due to the cross-sectionalnature of the study, the previously mentioned HPWPs have beendemonstrated to influence work engagement that in turn leads tohigh levels of job performance and extra-role customer service.

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132–140 137

Table 1Means, standard deviations, and correlations of study variables.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Training 3.07 .85 1.0002. Empowerment 2.93 1.04 .518 1.0003. Rewards 3.24 .94 .578 .434 1.0004. Vigor 3.18 1.16 .524 .435 .644 1.0005. Dedication 3.39 1.12 .553 .406 .576 .790 1.0006. Absorption 3.36 1.14 .502 .272 .432 .666 .701 1.0005. Job performance 3.38 .88 .284 .407 .370 .361 .324 .338 1.000

37

N item s

5

aopbiMntntotj

a

6. Extra-role customer service 3.28 .89 .421 .4

ote: Composite scores for each construct were calculated by averaging respective

.2. Assessment of findings

The results suggest that the indicators of HPWPs are reli-ble. Specifically, rewards seem to be the most reliable indicatorf HPWPs, followed by training and empowerment. This studyrovides empirical evidence that suggests a positive relationshipetween HPWPs and work engagement. This is consistent with

nternal fit (Wall and Wood, 2005) and SET (Cropanzano anditchell, 2005). It seems that the presence of rewards mecha-

ism in the workplace sends powerful signals to employees thatheir efforts are appreciated, recognized and rewarded in the orga-ization. Training programs that focus on improving employees’ask-related and behavioral skills and teaching employees the use

f empowerment in challenging service encounters are also impor-ant signals concerning management commitment’s to HPWPs. Theoint presence of such HPWPs creates synergy in the workplace.

CFI = comparative fit in

pproximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

Fig. 2. Structural m

.411 .465 .417 .418 .682 1.000

cores. Correlations are significant at the .01 level.

Under these circumstances, employees feel obliged to respond tothe organization through work engagement.

The results also suggest that work engagement simultaneouslyleads to job performance and extra-role customer service. AsSET contends, employees who are engaged in their work arelikely to have more trusting and high quality relationships withtheir employer (Karatepe, 2011; Saks, 2006). Such employeesin turn carry out their tasks effectively and go the extra-mile indealing with customer problems and facilitating customer needs.According to the results of SEM, work engagement appears tohave a stronger relationship with extra-role customer service thanwith job performance. This finding suggests that employees tendto prioritize extra-role tasks for responding to customer requests

and problems promptly. The results pertaining to the relationshipbetween work engagement and performance outcomes are notonly consonant with limited empirical evidence in the relevant

.47,

dex; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of

odel results.

1 Hospi

lsT

tbpepaepf

5

reccm

mtfmmtiattpaamitp

einsscdom

5

thodiiaecs2o

Appendix A.

Table A.1The number of employee questionnaires distributed and collected.

Distributed Collected

Hotel (I) (5-star) 25 25Hotel (II) (4-star) 20 20Hotel (III) (4-star) 20 20Hotel (IV) (4-star) 20 20Hotel (V) (4-star) 10 10Hotel (VI) (4-star) 10 6Hotel (VII) (4-star) 6 3Hotel (VIII) (4-star) 12 10

38 O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of

iterature (Christian et al., 2011; Karatepe, 2011), but also con-istent with the precepts of SET (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005;akeuchi et al., 2007).

According to strategic human resource management perspec-ive, HPWPs should motivate employees to demonstrate positiveehavioral outcomes (Huselid, 1995). The results of this studyrovide support for this claim. As a motivational construct, workngagement plays a full mediator role between HPWPs anderformance outcomes. Specifically, the availability of HPWPs,s manifested by training, empowerment, and rewards, makesmployees stay engaged in their work. Such employees in turn dis-lay high quality job performance and willingly go out of their wayor satisfying customers.

.3. Management implications

The results of this study delineate several useful implicationsegarding the management of HPWPs and retention of engagedmployees in the workplace. Work engagement is a long-term andontinuous process. Therefore, managers need to understand theritical role of social exchange for work engagement and its perfor-ance outcomes (Saks, 2006).Managers should provide employees with training, empower-

ent, and rewards that would make them feel obliged to respond tohe organization via elevated levels of work engagement and per-ormance outcomes. Specifically, management of the hotels should

ake sure that appropriate reward policies are in place. Manage-ent of the hotels should also ensure that they have continuous

raining programs for improving employees’ technical and behav-oral skills and provide them with the adequate responsibility anduthority for managing customer requests and delivering effec-ive service recoveries. The presence of continuous and effectiveraining and empowerment practices, coupled with employees’erceptions of fairness in rewards, would enable managers to retainpool of engaged employees who can deal with customer requestsnd complaints effectively and go beyond their formal role require-ents for satisfying customers. As stated by Bakker et al. (2008), it is

mportant to retain engaged employees in the workplace, becausehey often have positive emotions and better psychological andhysical health than disengaged employees.

On the other hand, it should be noted that the acceptance ofmpowerment by frontline employees is not a sure thing, becauset may result in stress (Yavas et al., 2010). With this realization, a sig-ificant implication for managers is the need for training employeesuccessfully to accept responsibility and authority in challengingervice encounters. On a closing note, the aforementioned impli-ations would also be useful for hospitality managers in Romaniaue to the fact that there is a lack of qualified manpower in mostrganizations that are devoid of contemporary human resourceanagement practices.

.4. Limitations and avenues for future research

There are several limitations to the present study. First,his study used cross-sectional data for evaluating the researchypotheses. This practice does not permit firm conclusions in termsf causality. Although the hypothesized relationships have beeneveloped based on SET and empirical evidence, in future stud-

es using longitudinal data for testing the relationships reportedn this study would be beneficial. Second, training, empowerment,nd rewards were selected as the indicators of HPWPs. How-ver, there are also other indicators of HPWPs such as internal

areer/promotion opportunities, teamwork, employment security,taffing selectivity, and work-family balance (e.g., Boselie et al.,005; Kusluvan et al., 2010; Tang and Tang, 2012). The inclusionf other relevant HPWPs in the research model would shed further

tality Management 32 (2013) 132–140

light on their relationships with work engagement and perfor-mance outcomes.

Third, job performance and extra-role customer service wereused as the performance outcomes in this study. There are alsoother important performance outcomes in frontline service jobs.One of them is creative performance. Creative performance refersto the amount of new ideas generated and novel behaviors dis-played by employees in carrying out job-related tasks (Wang andNetemeyer, 2004). In future studies incorporating creative perfor-mance into the research model would provide a better picture ofthe mediating role of work engagement in the relationship betweenHPWPs and relevant performance outcomes. Fourth, in future stud-ies using cross-national samples would be beneficial for evaluatingthe applicability of the research model to other countries (e.g.,Nigeria, Turkey, China).

Fifth, hotel managers did not permit the researcher to directlycontact frontline employees for data collection. Therefore, hotelmanagers coordinated the data collection. The researcher used aspecial box for questionnaires to ensure anonymity and confiden-tiality. Despite such a precaution, in future studies gathering datadirectly from frontline employees would be more useful. Finally,replication studies with large sample sizes in different hospital-ity and tourism settings in Romania and other Eastern Europeancountries would allow for broadening the database in this researchstream.

6. Conclusion

The current study proposed and tested a research model thatexamined work engagement as a mediator between HPWPs andperformance outcomes. The results showed that the availability ofHPWPS, as manifested by training, empowerment, and rewards, ledto work engagement. Work engagement in turn enhanced employ-ees’ job performance and extra-role customer service. In technicalterms, work engagement fully mediated the effects of HPWPs onjob performance and extra-role customer service. Under these cir-cumstances, hotel managers should invest in these HPWPs to retaina pool of engaged employees that can demonstrate high qualityperformance in the workplace.

In today’s global competitive market environment, a richer anddeeper understanding of various HPWPs that may be linked towork engagement and employee performance outcomes will con-tinue to be important. In closing, it is hoped that the results ofthis study can inspire other researchers to focus on the mediatingrole of work engagement in the relationship between HPWPs andvarious performance outcomes using data obtained from multiplesources.

Total 123 114

Note: 4 Questionnaires from the Hotel (VIII) (4-star) were eliminated because ofmissing information. Therefore, the total number of usable questionnaires was 110.

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospi

Table B.1Confirmatory factor analysis results.

Scale items Standardizedloading

t-Values

TrainingI receive continued training to provide good

service.79 9.69

I received extensive customer service trainingbefore I came into contact with customers

– –

I receive training on how to serve customersbetter

.89 11.73

I receive training on how to deal withcomplaining customers

.89 11.79

I receive training on dealing with customerproblems

.88 11.52

I was trained to deal with customer complaints – –

EmpowermentI am empowered to solve customer problems – –I am encouraged to handle customer problems

by myself– –

I do not have to get management’s approvalbefore I handle customer problems

.87 11.42

I am allowed to do almost anything to solvecustomer problems

.92 12.49

I have control over how I solve customerproblems

.96 13.53

RewardsIf I improve the level of service I offer

customers, I will be rewarded.79 9.76

The rewards I receive are based on customerevaluations of service

.86 11.28

I am rewarded for serving customers well .87 11.42I am rewarded for dealing effectively with

customer problems.95 13.32

I am rewarded for satisfying complainingcustomers

.90 12.03

VigorAt my work, I feel bursting with energy .88 11.32At my job I feel strong and vigorous .88 11.35When I get up in the morning, I feel like going

to work– –

DedicationI am enthusiastic about my job .92 12.29My job inspires me .87 11.26I am proud of the work that I do .71 8.39

AbsorptionI feel happy when I am working intensely .76 8.32I am immersed in my work – –I get carried away when I am working .67 7.29

Job performanceThis employee is a top performer – –This employee is in the top 10% of frontline

employees here– –

This employee gets along better withcustomers than do others

.83 10.17

This employee knows more about servicesdelivered to customers than others

.87 10.86

This employee knows what his/her customersexpect better than others

.71 8.17

Extra-role customer serviceThis employee voluntarily assists customers

even if it means going beyond jobrequirements

– –

This employee helps customers with problemsbeyond what is expected or required

.70 7.96

This employee often goes above and beyondthe call of duty when serving customers

– –

This employee willingly goes out of his/herway to make a customer satisfied

.87 10.98

This employee frequently goes out the way tohelp a customer

.86 10.82

Model fit statistics: �2 = 354.65; df = 247; �2/df = 1.44; CFI = .94; IFI = .94;RMSEA = .063; SRMR = .052

Note: All loadings are significant at the .01 level. CFI = comparative fit index;IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation;SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.(–) Dropped during confirmatory factor analysis.

tality Management 32 (2013) 132–140 139

Appendix B.

B.1. Measurement results

Several items were dropped during CFA due to correlationmeasurement error. Specifically, two items each from training,empowerment, job performance, and extra-role customer serviceand one item each from vigor and absorption were removed fromfurther analysis. After scale purification, the proposed measure-ment model fit the data well according to the following modelfit statistics (�2 = 354.65, df = 247; �2/df = 1.44; CFI = .94; IFI = .94;RMSEA = .063; SRMR = .052).

As depicted in Table B.1, the magnitudes of the standardizedloadings ranged from .67 to .96, and all t-values were significant.The average variance extracted by each underlying latent variablewas above .50 and was as follows: training .75; empowerment .85;rewards .77; vigor .77; dedication .70; absorption .52; job per-formance .66; and extra-role customer service .66. None of theshared variances was larger than the average variance extractedby each construct. The internal consistency reliabilities were asfollows: training .92; empowerment .94; rewards .94; vigor .87;dedication .87; absorption .68; job performance .84; and extra-rolecustomer service .85. The internal consistency reliability for absorp-tion was slightly below .70. However, the internal consistencyreliability for work engagement (vigor, dedication, absorption) was.92. Collectively, these results demonstrated that the measureswere reliable and there was evidence of convergent and discrim-inant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell and Larcker,1981).

Though data were obtained from frontline employee–managerdyads for reducing the potential threat of common method bias,a formal test of Harman’s single-factor test was also employedfor employee and manager data separately. The six-factor model(training, empowerment, rewards, vigor, dedication, absorption)was compared with the single-factor model using the �2 differ-ence test (p < .01). The result for a single-factor model was a �2

value of 1169.96 (df = 152). The results indicated that the six-factor model (�2 = 205.05, df = 137) was superior to the single-factormodel based on the �2 difference test (��2

15 = 964.91). The two-factor model (job performance, extra-role customer service) wascompared with the single-factor model. The results demonstratedthat the two-factor model fit (�2 = 16.71, df = 8) was better than thesingle-factor model (�2 = 57.40, df = 9) based on the �2 differencetest (��2

1 = 40.69).

References

Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: areview and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),411–423.

Ashill, N.J., Rod, M., Carruthers, J., 2008. The effect of management commitment toservice quality on frontline employees’ job attitudes, turnover intentions andservice recovery performance in a new public management context. Journal ofStrategic Marketing 16 (5), 437–462.

Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M., Avci, T., 2003. The effect of management com-mitment to service quality on employees’ affective and performance outcomes.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (3), 272–286.

Babin, B., Boles, J.S., 1998. Employee behavior in a service environment: a model andtest of potential differences between men and women. Journal of Marketing 62(2), 77–91.

Bakker, A.B., 2011. An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Direc-tions in Psychological Science 20 (4), 265–269.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of work engagement. CareerDevelopment International 13 (3), 209–223.

Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., Taris, T.W., 2008. Work engagement: an

emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress 22 (3),187–200.

Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considera-tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173–1182.

1 Hospi

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

F

F

G

H

H

H

H

H

H

(8), 805–812.

40 O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of

ettencourt, L.A., Brown, S.W., 1997. Contact employees: relationships amongworkplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors. Journal ofRetailing 73 (1), 39–61.

ettencourt, L.A., Brown, S.W., MacKenzie, S.B., 2005. Customer-oriented boundary-spanning behaviors: test of a social exchange model of antecedents. Journal ofRetailing 81 (2), 141–157.

oles, J.D., Wood, J.A., Johnson, J., 2003. Interrelationships of role conflict, role ambi-guity, and work-family conflict with different facets of job satisfaction and themoderating effects of gender. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management28 (2), 99–113.

oselie, P., Dietz, G., Boon, C., 2005. Commonalities and contradictions in HRM andperformance research. Human Resource Management Journal 15 (3), 67–94.

oshoff, C., Allen, J., 2000. The influence of selected antecedents on frontline staff’sperceptions of service recovery performance. International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management 11 (1), 63–90.

armen, S., 2011. Tourism and its influence upon macro-environment in Romania.Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica 13 (1), 142–154.

hen, Z.X., Aryee, S., Lee, C., 2005. Test of a mediation model of perceived organiza-tional support. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (3), 457–470.

hi, C.G., Gursoy, D., 2009. Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and finan-cial performance: an empirical examination. International Journal of HospitalityManagement 28 (2), 245–253.

hiang, F.F.T., Birtch, T.A., 2008. Achieving task and extra-task-related behaviors:a case of gender and position differences in the perceived role of rewards inthe hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (4),491–503.

hiang, F.F.T., Birtch, T.A., 2011. Reward climate and its impact on service qualityorientation and employee attitudes. International Journal of Hospitality Man-agement 30 (1), 3–9.

ho, S., Woods, R.H., (Shawn) Jang, S., Erdem, M., 2006. Measuring the impactof human resource management practices on hospitality firms’ performances.International Journal of Hospitality Management 25 (2), 262–277.

hristian, M.S., Garza, A.S., Slaughter, J.E., 2011. Work engagement: a quantitativereview and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. PersonnelPsychology 64 (1), 89–136.

iulu, R., Dragan, L., 2011. Hospitality industry’s competition in terms of attractingand retaining valuable HR in Eastern Europe – the case of Romania. Journal ofTourism 11, 55–63.

ombs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., Ketchen, D., 2006. How much do high-performance workpractices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational perfor-mance. Personnel Psychology 59 (3), 501–528.

ropanzano, R., Mitchell, M.S., 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinaryreview. Journal of Management 31 (6), 874–900.

ropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E., Byrne, Z.S., 2003. The relationship of emotionalexhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenshipbehaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (1), 160–169.

e Jong, A., De Ruyter, K., 2004. Adaptive versus proactive behavior in service recov-ery: the role of self-managing teams. Decision Sciences 35 (3), 457–491.

iPietro, R.B., Pizam, A., 2008. Employee alienation in the quick service restaurantindustry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 32 (1), 22–39.

orrester, R., 2000. Empowerment: rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of Manage-ment Executive 14 (3), 67–80.

ornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1), 39–50.

uchait, P., Kim, M.G., Namasivayam, K., 2012. Error management at different orga-nizational levels – frontline, manager, and company. International Journal ofHospitality Management 31 (1), 12–22.

air Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis:A Global Perspective, 7th ed. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

albesleben, J.R.B., Harvey, J., Bolino, M.C., 2009. Too engaged? A conservation ofresources view of the relationship between work engagement and work inter-ference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (6), 1452–1465.

ayes, B.E., 1994. How to measure empowerment. Quality Progress 27 (February),41–46.

enry, B., Butcher, W., Browne, Y., Hinds, M., Jayawardena, C., 2004. Future humanresource challenges in the Caribbean hospitality industry. International Journalof Contemporary Hospitality Management 16 (7), 419–423.

ughes, J.C., Rog, E., 2008. Talent management: a strategy for improving employee

recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations. Inter-national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (7), 743–757.

uselid, M.A., 1995. The impact of human resource management practices onturnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Man-agement Journal 38 (3), 635–672.

tality Management 32 (2013) 132–140

Huselid, M.A., Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S., 1997. Technical and strategic humanresource management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance.Academy of Management Journal 40 (1), 171–188.

Ineson, E.M., Berechet, G., 2011. Employee loyalty in hotels: Romanian expe-riences. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism 10 (2),129–149.

Joreskog, K., Sorbom, D., 1996. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Scientific SoftwareInternational, Inc., Chicago.

Karatepe, O.M., 2011. Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes: evi-dence from Nigeria. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 20 (8),855–878.

Karatepe, O.M., Olugbade, O.A., 2009. The effects of job and personal resources onhotel employees’ work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Man-agement 28 (4), 504–512.

Karatepe, O.M., Tekinkus, M., 2006. The effects of work-family conflict, emotionalexhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of front-line employees.International Journal of Bank Marketing 24 (3), 173–193.

Karatepe, O.M., Uludag, O., 2007. Conflict, exhaustion, and motivation: a study offrontline employees in Northern Cyprus hotels. International Journal of Hospi-tality Management 26 (3), 645–665.

Kim, H.J., Tavitiyaman, P., Kim, W.G., 2009. The effect of management commitmentto service on employee service behaviors: the mediating role of job satisfaction.Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 33 (3), 369–390.

Kusluvan, S., Kusluvan, Z., Ilhan, Z., Buyruk, L., 2010. The human dimension: a reviewof human resources management issues in the tourism and hospitality industry.Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (2), 171–214.

Line, N.D., Runyan, R.C., 2012. Hospitality marketing research: recent trends andfuture directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2),477–488.

Moliner, C., Martínez-Tur, V., Romos, J., Cropanzano, R., 2008. Organizationaljustice and extrarole customer service: the mediating role of well-beingat work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17 (3),327–348.

Murphy, K.S., Murrmann, S., 2009. The research design used to develop a high perfor-mance management system construct for US restaurant managers. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 547–555.

Parameswaran, R., Yaprak, A., 1987. A cross-national comparison of con-sumer research measures. Journal of International Business Studies 18 (1),35–49.

Pfeffer, J., 1994. Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power ofthe Work Force. HBS Press, Boston.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common methodbiases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.

Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journalof Managerial Psychology 21 (7), 600–619.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., Salanova, M., 2006. The measurement of work engage-ment with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educational andPsychological Measurement 66 (4), 701–716.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzáles-Romá, V., Bakker, A.B., 2002. The measure-ment of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analyticapproach. Journal of Happiness Studies 3 (1), 71–92.

Slåtten, T., Mehmetoglu, M., 2011. Antecedents and effects of engaged frontlineemployees: a study from the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality 21(1), 88–107.

Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D.P., Wang, H., Takeuchi, K., 2007. An empirical examination ofthe mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and theperformance of Japanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4),1069–1083.

Tang, T.-W., Tang, Y.-Y., 2012. Promoting service-oriented organizational citizenshipbehaviors in hotels: the role of high-performance human resource practices andorganizational social climates. International Journal of Hospitality Management31 (3), 885–895.

Wall, T.D., Wood, S.J., 2005. The romance of human resource management andbusiness performance, and the case for big science. Human Relations 58 (4),429–462.

Wang, G., Netemeyer, R.G., 2004. Salesperson creative performance: conceptualiza-tion, measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Business Research 57

Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M., Babakus, E., 2010. Relative efficacy of organizationalsupport and personality traits in predicting service recovery and job perfor-mances: a study of frontline employees in Turkey. Tourism Review 65 (3),70–83.