International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132140

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance:

The mediation of work engagement
Osman M. Karatepe
Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Via Mersin 10, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords:
High-performance work practices
Hotel employees
Performance outcomes
Romania
Work engagement

a b s t r a c t
This study proposes and tests a research model that investigates whether work engagement functions
as a mediator of the effects of high-performance work practices (HPWPs) on job performance and extrarole customer service. These relationships were assessed through LISREL 8.30 using structural equation
modeling (SEM). Data were obtained from full-time frontline hotel employees and their managers in the
Poiana Brasov region in Romania. The results suggest that work engagement acts as a full mediator of the
effects of HPWPs on job performance and extra-role customer service. Specically, HPWPs, as manifested
by 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 results
are discussed and avenues for future research are offered.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The recognition that frontline employees play a pivotal role in
delivery of service quality, successful service recovery, and retention of satised and loyal customers in the hospitality industry
is prevalent among researchers and practitioners (e.g., Chi and
Gursoy, 2009; Chiang and Birtch, 2008; Guchait et al., 2012). Therefore, retention of frontline employees who can have high quality
performance in the workplace is as important to business success as customer loyalty and protability. The presence of HPWPs
sends powerful signals to employees that the organization pays
utmost attention to human capital for improving service capacity
and productivity (Tang and Tang, 2012). Internal career/promotion
opportunities, teamwork, employment security, stafng selectivity, work-family balance, training, empowerment, and rewards are
among the indicators of HPWPs (e.g., Cho et al., 2006; Kusluvan
et al., 2010; Murphy and Murrmann, 2009; Tang and Tang, 2012).
Frontline employees working in environments where there are a
number of HPWPs may have high levels of energy and feel dedicated and may be happily immersed in their work. Retention of
engaged employees is critical, because they are likely to display
high quality performance in the workplace and fulll their formal
role requirements for business success (cf. Bakker and Demerouti,
2008; DiPietro and Pizam, 2008; Sltten and Mehmetoglu, 2011).
As a motivational construct, work engagement refers to a positive, fullling, 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
0278-4319/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.05.003

vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).

Vigor, dedication, and absorption are the three dimensions of work
engagement. In Schaufeli et al.s (2002) study, vigor is dened as
high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the
willingness to invest efforts in ones work, and persistence even in
the face of difculties, while dedication refers to a sense of signicance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge (p. 74). Finally,
absorption refers to being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed
in ones work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difculties with detaching oneself from work (p. 75). As stated by Bakker
(2011), engaged employees are more likely to work harder through
elevated levels of discretionary efforts when compared to those
who are disengaged. However, it should be noted that employees
cannot always be engaged in their work; they need some time and
opportunities for recovery (Bakker, 2011). Otherwise, employees
who are always engaged in their work cannot devote their scarce
resources (e.g., time) to family domain and experience work-family
conict (Halbesleben et al., 2009).
Overall, it is important to understand how HPWPs inuence
employees motivation to display elevated levels of performance in
the workplace. By doing so, it would be possible to analyze the black
box stage between HPWPs and performance outcomes in strategic 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 aforementioned relationships. Specically, employees receiving economic
and socioemotional resources from the organization tend to feel
obliged to repay the organization through work engagement
and better performance (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Saks,
2006).

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132140

1.1. Purpose
Using SET as the theoretical framework, this study proposes and
tests a research model that investigates whether work engagement
mediates the effects of HPWPs on job performance and extra-role
customer service. Training, empowerment, and rewards are the
indicators of HPWPs examined in the present study. Data gathered from the hotel industry in Romania were used to assess these
relationships.
This study makes several contributions to the existing knowledge base in the following ways. First, although there are various
indicators of HPWPs, training, empowerment, and rewards are considered as the indicators of HPWPs predicting work engagement.
In other words, HPWPs are manifested through managements
simultaneous emphasis on training, empowerment, and rewards.
As discussed by Takeuchi et al. (2007), training and empowerment
signal that employees are regarded as strategic partners for the survival and success of the organization and are recognized of their
value to the organization. The presence of appropriate rewards
motivates employees to deal with customer requests and problems effectively (Babakus et al., 2003). A careful examination of
the current literature suggests that training, empowerment, and
rewards are in Pfeffers (1994) well-known list of effective practices for managing people and have been reported in the top six
human resource practices (Boselie et al., 2005). Such HPWPs have
been shown among the most important indicators of management
commitment to service quality (Ashill et al., 2008; Babakus et al.,
2003; Kim et al., 2009). Training, empowerment and/or rewards
have also been considered to be the useful managerial implications for business practice in the hospitality industry (Chiang and
Birtch, 2011; Henry et al., 2004; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2009;
Karatepe and Uludag, 2007; Kusluvan et al., 2010). Therefore, this
study investigates the effects of HPWPs, as manifested by training,
empowerment, and rewards, on work engagement.
Second, in a recent meta-analytic study, Christian et al. (2011)
discuss that little is known about work engagement as a determinant of performance outcomes. They also discuss that there
is a need for examining work engagement that may simultaneously lead to in-role and extra-role performances. Consistent with
Christian et al.s (2011) suggestion, this study tests job performance
and extra-role customer service as performance outcomes of work
engagement.
Third, empirical research pertaining to the antecedents and consequences of work engagement in frontline service jobs is still
scarce (Karatepe, 2011; Sltten and Mehmetoglu, 2011). With this
realization, work engagement is treated as a full mediator of the
impacts of HPWPs on job performance and extra-role customer
service for addressing the aforementioned voids in the existing
knowledge base.
By analyzing the black box stage between HPWPs and performance outcomes, the ndings of this study may prove useful
insights pertaining to the management of HPWPs and retention of
engaged employees with heightened performance in frontline service jobs. The next section of the article consists of the description
of SET as the theoretical framework. This is followed by research
hypotheses developed based on SET and empirical evidence, and
the research model. Then, discussions of the method and results
are given. The article concludes with implications for managers and
future research.
2. Theoretical framework, hypotheses, and research model
2.1. SET
SET states that relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal,
and mutual commitments if the parties (e.g., managers/supervisors

133

and employees) abide by certain rules of exchange (Cropanzano

and Mitchell, 2005). Economic and social exchange relationships
are the two types of these relationships in the workplace. Economic relationships are tangible and appear to be more short term,
while social exchange relationships are related to close personal
attachment and open-ended obligations (Cropanzano et al., 2003,
p. 161). When the organization takes care of employees, there are
social exchange relationships that give rise to positive job or organizational outcomes (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Employees
who obtain economic and socioemotional resources in the workplace tend to feel obligated to repay the organization via various
ways.
Work engagement and positive job outcomes are among the
ways for employees to repay the benets given by the organization (Karatepe, 2011; Saks, 2006). That is, employees devote their
cognitive, emotional, and physical resources to work roles by having high levels of energy, being enthusiastic about their work, and
being fully engrossed in their work. When employees have HPWPs
that are manifested by training, empowerment, and rewards, they
repay the organization via their level of work engagement. It seems
that if employees believe that the availability of HPWPs emerges
from managements commitment to service excellence that is consistent with the organizational mission, they are more engaged in
their work and contribute more to service delivery process. In addition, HPWPs improve the quality of the social exchanges between
the employer and employees (Takeuchi et al., 2007; Tang and Tang,
2012). In short, the presence of HPWPs creates a work environment where engaged employees seem to have more trusting and
high quality relationships with their employer and report better
performance outcomes.
2.2. HPWPs and work engagement
Training, empowerment, and rewards are the indicators of
HPWPs used in this study. Such indicators are important in frontline
service jobs and are crucial to organizational success in the hospitality industry. As stated before, training, empowerment, and rewards
are among the most important indicators of HPWPs (Boselie et al.,
2005; Pfeffer, 1994). They have also been shown to be among the
most critical indicators of management commitment to service
quality (e.g., Kim et al., 2009).
Frontline employees should acquire technical and interpersonal
skills to have solid knowledge about service delivery process and
deal with customer requests and complaints. The lack of ongoing and effective training programs in hospitality rms leads to
a pool of employees who do not have the requisite skills or are
not willing to respond to customer requests and problems. As
another indicator of HPWPs, empowerment refers to the freedom and ability to make decisions and commitments (Forrester,
2000, p. 67). Empowered frontline employees can fulll their duties,
use their creative personal judgment, and provide quick and fair
responses to the complaining customers (Guchait et al., 2012; Yavas
et al., 2010). However, empowering employees without training
programs would not produce the intended outcomes or training
employees without empowerment for effective complaint management would be useless. Training and empowerment should
be accompanied by rewards, because trained and empowered
employees should obtain adequate rewards for serving customers
and dealing with disgruntled customers successfully (Kim et al.,
2009; Yavas et al., 2010).
Combs et al. (2006) argue that HPWPs such as training, empowerment, 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 reinforce
and support each other (Combs et al., 2006). Such an assertion
is also supported by internal t. According to internal t, their

134

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132140

collective effect will be greater than the sum of their individual

parts (Wall and Wood, 2005, p. 431). As a result, the joint presence
of training, empowerment, and rewards would create synergy
in the organization (Wall and Wood, 2005), trigger employee
engagement (Hughes and Rog, 2008), and lead to retention of
employees in the hospitality industry (Henry et al., 2004). As SET
contends, employees who nd that the organization really invests
in human resources through training, empowerment, and rewards
repay the organization via their work engagement. Therefore, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. Frontline employees perceptions of HPWPs (as manifested
by training, empowerment, and rewards) are related to their work
engagement.

2.3. Work engagement and performance outcomes

Job performance and extra-role customer service are the two
critical performance outcomes of work engagement examined in
this study. There are at least two reasons for investigating these
relationships. First, job performance is dened as the level of productivity of an individual employee, relative to his or her peers,
on several job-related behaviors and outcomes (Babin and Boles,
1998, p. 82). Employees in frontline service jobs are expected to deal
with customer requests and problems in a responsive and courteous manner, because service quality perceptions and customer
satisfaction largely depend on frontline employees service delivery behaviors (Bettencourt et al., 2005). When engaged frontline
employees are more vigilant and centered on their tasks, they deal
with customer requests and problems successfully and have high
quality performance. This makes sense, because engaged employees devote their cognitive, emotional, and physical resources to
work roles.
Extra-role customer service refers to discretionary behaviors of
contact employees in serving customers that extend beyond formal
role requirements (Bettencourt and Brown, 1997, p. 41). Hospitality rms are also in need of frontline employees who would
frequently go out the way to help customers. This is important,
because frontline employees should serve customers in challenging service encounters and show proactive behaviors to be able to
adapt to specic situations (De Jong and De Ruyter, 2004). Therefore, engagement can be considered as an important determinant
of frontline employees willingness to go beyond their formal role
requirements for satisfying customers, because engaged employees
are more willing to exert efforts to go the extra mile in facilitating
customer needs (Moliner et al., 2008). Consequently, it is important
to uncover the relationship of work engagement with job performance and extra-role customer service.
Second, as highlighted by Christian et al. (2011), it is important
to assess whether work engagement simultaneously leads to job
performance and extra-role customer service. Such an assessment
would enable us to understand whether engaged employees tend
to prioritize their in-role or extra-role tasks or pay equal attention
to their in-role or extra-role tasks.
Consistent with the precepts of SET, engaged employees appear
to have more trusting and high quality relationships with their
employer and thus demonstrate positive behaviors (Saks, 2006).
Although limited, empirical evidence suggests that work engagement leads to better in-role and/or extra-role performances
(Christian et al., 2011; Karatepe, 2011). Therefore, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H2. Work engagement is positively related to frontline employees (a) job performance and (b) extra-role customer service.

2.4. Work engagement as a full mediator

As a motivational construct, work engagement plays a mediator role between HPWPs and performance outcomes. SET presents
a viable theoretical framework for these relationships (Takeuchi
et al., 2007). Specically, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) state,
Social exchange relationships evolve when employers take care
of employees, which thereby engenders benecial consequences
(p. 882). Accordingly, it appears that when the organization
takes care of employees through the simultaneous implementation of training, empowerment, and rewards, employees are more
engaged in their work, leading to better performance outcomes
in the workplace. In other words, employees receiving various
resources/benets from the organization would be more likely to
feel obliged to repay the organization through greater work engagement, and in turn, display job performance and extra-role customer
service (Karatepe, 2011; Saks, 2006).
According to the strategic human resource management
perspective, employee performance and organizational or rm performance are inuenced by a set of HPWPs (e.g., Huselid et al.,
1997). However, HPWPs should motivate employees to perform
their jobs effectively (Huselid, 1995). Employees who participate in
training programs containing the use of empowerment and obtain
appropriate levels of pay and related rewards are motivated to
accomplish their work goals. Such employees are engaged in their
work, and in turn, deliver quality services, deal with customer
problems successfully, and willingly go out of their way for satisfying customers. Consequently, HPWPs that are manifested through
managements simultaneous emphasis on training, empowerment,
and rewards would motivate frontline employees to provide quality services, offer successful complaint resolution, and demonstrate
extra-role performance (cf. Babakus et al., 2003; Yavas et al., 2010).
Consistent with the precepts of SET and strategic human resource
management perspective, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3. Work engagement fully mediates the effects of HPWPs (as
manifested by training, empowerment, and rewards) on (a) job
performance and (b) extra-role customer service.
2.5. Research model
The research model that includes the hypothesized relationships is presented in Fig. 1. According to the model, the indicators
of HPWPs are training, empowerment, and rewards. The model
proposes that frontline employees perceptions of HPWPs are positively related to their work engagement. The model also suggests
that work engagement functions as a full mediator of the effects of
HPWPs 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 fulltime frontline hotel employees and their managers in the Poiana
Brasov region which is one of the most important winter tourist
destinations in Romania. These frontline employees (e.g., front desk
agents, wait staff, bell attendants, guest relations representatives,
bartenders, door attendants) had intense face-to-face or voice-tovoice interactions with customers.
Most organizations in Romania are devoid of qualied manpower and human resource expertise (cf. Ineson and Berechet,
2011). According to Ciulu and Dragan (2011), low pay and inadequate training programs are among the critical problems in the
hospitality industry in Romania, because they seem to be responsible for poor services and high employee turnover. Insufcient

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132140

Training

135

Job performance

H2(a)

H1
Empowerment

High-performance
work practices

Work engagement
H3(a)-H3(b)

H2(b)
Extra-role
customer service

Rewards

Fig. 1. Research model.

training programs, coupled with the lack of service standards, hinder efcient and effective customer service (cf. Carmen, 2011).
Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the hospitality
industry in Romania needs modern human resource management
methods that are associated with HPWPs for retaining a pool of
engaged employees with high quality performance in the organization.
There were 7 four-star hotels and only 1 ve-star hotel in the
Poiana Brasov region at the time of this study. Management of these
hotels was contacted using a letter indicating the purpose of the
study and permission for data collection. Although management of
all hotels agreed to participate in this study, the researcher was not
allowed to directly contact frontline employees. Therefore, hotel
managers distributed the questionnaires to their frontline employees.
The rst page of each questionnaire consisted of information about the assurance of anonymity and condentiality. The
employee questionnaire contained the training, empowerment,
rewards, and work engagement measures as well as items about
respondents prole. The researcher prepared a master list consisting of the name of each frontline employee in the hotel. Each
employee in this master list had an identication number. An identication number was also written on each questionnaire. The
manager questionnaire included the job performance and extrarole customer service measures and had an identication number.
Managers assessed each frontline employees job performance and
extra-role customer service under their supervision. The manager
questionnaires were matched with the employee questionnaires
using the identication number. Each frontline employee and manager self-administered the questionnaire, sealed it in an envelope,
and placed it in a special box in order to keep anonymity and condentiality. Then, the researcher collected the questionnaires from
this box.
Using data from a single source is prone to common method
bias. In their recent review, Line and Runyan (2012) report that
less than 10% of the studies in the hospitality marketing literature
have obtained data from multiple sources. Therefore, consistent
with the suggestions made by Podsakoff et al. (2003), this study

collected data from managers to evaluate frontline employees job

performance and extra-role customer service for reducing the risk
of common method bias to the magnitudes of the relationships
among the study variables.
123 questionnaires were distributed to frontline employees. The
number of employee questionnaires distributed and collected can
be seen in Table A.1 in Appendix A. By the cut-off date for data
collection, 114 questionnaires were returned. However, 4 questionnaires were eliminated, because there was missing information
in each of these questionnaires. Usable 110 questionnaires were
retrieved for a response rate of 89.4%. Strong management support
and cooperation made the solid response rate possible. It is also
worthy to note that the response rate in this study is not necessarily unusual and is comparable to the response rates obtained in
some prior studies (e.g., Boles et al., 2003; Karatepe and Tekinkus,
2006). In addition, the researcher obtained 110 questionnaires from
managers that were matched with the employee questionnaires.
Nine percent of the respondents were between the ages of
3847, while the overwhelming majority of the respondents (76%)
were younger than 38. The rest were older than 47.58% of the
respondents were male. 6% of the respondents had primary school
education, while one-half of the respondents had secondary and
high school education. The rest had college education or beyond.
66% of the respondents had tenures of 5 years or less. The rest had
been with their hotel for more than 5 years.
3.2. Measures
All perceptual constructs were measured using multiple items
from different studies in the extant literature. Specically, training was measured with six items and rewards with ve items
from Boshoff and Allen (2000). Five items adapted from Hayes
(1994) were used to measure empowerment. The shortened version 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. Five
items adapted from Babin and Boles (1998) were used to operationalize job performance. Five items from Bettencourt and Brown

136

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132140

(1997) were also employed to measure extra-role customer service. Responses to items in training, empowerment, rewards, job
performance, and extra-role customer service were rated on vepoint scales ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).
Response options for items in work engagement (vigor, dedication, absorption) ranged from 6 (always) to 0 (never). Higher scores
indicated higher levels of each construct (e.g., training, job performance).
All items were originally prepared in English and then translated
into Romanian using the back-translation method (Parameswaran
and Yaprak, 1987). Specically, the employee and manager questionnaires were prepared in English. Then, two bilingual individuals
(uent in both Romanian and English) participated independently
in the translation process. Finally, the researcher further checked
the two versions of the employee and manager questionnaires in
English for any inconsistencies. The employee questionnaire was
tested with a pilot sample of ten frontline hotel employees. The
manager questionnaire was tested using a pilot sample of ve
managers. No changes were made in the employee and manager
questionnaires, because frontline employees and their managers
did not have any difculty understanding items.
3.3. Data analysis
This study employed conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM
through LISREL 8.30 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996). Specically, in
the current study a two-step approach containing CFA and SEM
was employed (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In the rst step,
the measurement model was assessed in terms of convergent and
discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell and
Larcker, 1981).
The second step was associated with a comparison of two models. It should be noted that HPWPs (as manifested by training,
empowerment, and rewards) were represented as a second-order
latent variable. In addition, average item scores of vigor, dedication,
and absorption were calculated as the indicators of work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The fully and partially mediated
models were compared based on the 2 difference test. Specically, the partially mediated model consisted of the direct effects
of HPWPs on job performance and extra-role customer service as
well as their indirect effects on job performance and extra-role customer service through work engagement. The fully mediated model
included the indirect effects of HPWPs on job performance and
extra-role customer service via work engagement. Having no signicant difference in t suggests that the partially mediated model
does not improve t. Then, the results in the fully mediated model
are used for assessing the relationships.
The hypothesized relationships were tested using SEM. The
overall 2 measure, CFI [comparative t index], IFI [incremental
t index], RMSEA [root mean square error of approximation], and
SRMR [standardized root mean square residual] were used to assess
model t. Although the sample size of this study is small, it appears
to be consistent with the majority of suggestions regarding the minimum sample size of 100 for SEM (Hair et al., 2010). The internal
consistency reliability was assessed using the cut-off value of .70.
The mediation effects were assessed using the guidelines provided
by Baron and Kenny (1986).
4. Results
Measurement results are reported in Table B.1 in Appendix B.
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations of
study constructs. In light of the results reported in Table 1, all direct
associations were signicant. Such results met the conditions for
employing a mediation analysis.

The fully mediated model was compared with the partially

model based on the 2 difference test (p < .01) (Chen et al., 2005).
The 2 difference test for the fully (2 = 290.40, df = 182) and
partially (2 = 288.06, df = 180) mediated models showed a nonsignicant difference in t (2 = 2.34, df = 2). The fully mediated
model appeared to provide a better t to the data than did the
partially mediated model. The fully mediated model t the data
adequately based on a number of t statistics: (2 = 290.40, df = 182;
2 /df = 1.60; CFI = .93; IFI = .94; RMSEA = .074; SRMR = .076). The
results of SEM for the fully mediated model are presented in
Fig. 2.
The results of SEM indicated that all estimates were signicant. The indicators of HPWPs were reliable. Specically, rewards
( 31 = .84, t = 7.71) appeared to be the most reliable indicator, followed by training ( 11 = .79, t = 7.27) and empowerment ( 21 = .58,
t = 5.65). The results demonstrated that HPWPs signicantly and
positively inuenced work engagement ( 41 = .82, t = 8.30). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. According to the results of
SEM, work engagement exerted a signicant positive effect on job
performance (54 = .44, t = 4.23) and extra-role customer service
(64 = .57, t = 5.08). Hence, Hypotheses 2(a) and (b) were supported.
The results regarding the indirect effects were signicant based
on Sobel test. Specically, the results in Fig. 2 showed that
the indirect effect of HPWPs (standardized indirect effect = .36,
t = 3.93) on job performance through work engagement was
signicant and positive. Hence, Hypothesis 3(a) received empirical support. The results also indicated that the indirect effect
of HPWPs (standardized indirect effect = .47, t = 4.58) on extrarole customer service via work engagement was signicant and
positive. Therefore, Hypothesis 3(b) was supported. The results
accounted for 55% of the variance in HPWPs, 66% in work engagement, 20% in job performance, and 32% in extra-role customer
service.

5. Discussion
5.1. Strengths of the study
This study proposed and tested a research model that investigated work engagement as a mediator variable in the relationship
between HPWPs and performance outcomes. The strengths of the
study are given below.
First, this study examined the relationship between HPWPs and
work engagement. HPWPs have been conceptualized and measured as a second-order latent variable that is manifested by
training, empowerment, and rewards. This is signicant, because
training, empowerment, and rewards are among the effective
human resource practices (Pfeffer, 1994), are in the top six human
resource practices (Boselie et al., 2005), and have been regarded
among the most important indicators of management commitment to service quality (e.g., Kim et al., 2009). These HPWPs have
also been considered to be the critical implications for hospitality
managers for business practice (Kusluvan et al., 2010).
Second, this study responds to Christian et al.s (2011) research
call by testing work engagement that may simultaneously result in
job performance and extra-role customer service. Third, the present
study adds to the existing knowledge base by testing work engagement as a full mediator between HPWPs and performance outcomes
using data gathered in frontline service jobs in the hospitality
industry (e.g., Karatepe, 2011). Finally, the results from SEM suggest
that all hypotheses are supported and the research model is viable.
While causality cannot be determined due to the cross-sectional
nature of the study, the previously mentioned HPWPs have been
demonstrated to inuence work engagement that in turn leads to
high levels of job performance and extra-role customer service.

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132140

137

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

Mean

SD

1. Training
2. Empowerment
3. Rewards
4. Vigor
5. Dedication
6. Absorption
5. Job performance
6. Extra-role customer service

3.07
2.93
3.24
3.18
3.39
3.36
3.38
3.28

.85
1.04
.94
1.16
1.12
1.14
.88
.89

1.000
.518
.578
.524
.553
.502
.284
.421

1.000
.434
.435
.406
.272
.407
.437

1.000
.644
.576
.432
.370
.411

1.000
.790
.666
.361
.465

1.000
.701
.324
.417

1.000
.338
.418

1.000
.682

1.000

Note: Composite scores for each construct were calculated by averaging respective item scores. Correlations are signicant at the .01 level.

5.2. Assessment of ndings

The results suggest that the indicators of HPWPs are reliable. Specically, rewards seem to be the most reliable indicator
of HPWPs, followed by training and empowerment. This study
provides empirical evidence that suggests a positive relationship
between HPWPs and work engagement. This is consistent with
internal t (Wall and Wood, 2005) and SET (Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2005). It seems that the presence of rewards mechanism in the workplace sends powerful signals to employees that
their efforts are appreciated, recognized and rewarded in the organization. Training programs that focus on improving employees
task-related and behavioral skills and teaching employees the use
of empowerment in challenging service encounters are also important signals concerning management commitments to HPWPs. The
joint presence of such HPWPs creates synergy in the workplace.

Under these circumstances, employees feel obliged to respond to

the organization through work engagement.
The results also suggest that work engagement simultaneously
leads to job performance and extra-role customer service. As
SET contends, employees who are engaged in their work are
likely to have more trusting and high quality relationships with
their employer (Karatepe, 2011; Saks, 2006). Such employees
in turn carry out their tasks effectively and go the extra-mile in
dealing with customer problems and facilitating customer needs.
According to the results of SEM, work engagement appears to
have a stronger relationship with extra-role customer service than
with job performance. This nding suggests that employees tend
to prioritize extra-role tasks for responding to customer requests
and problems promptly. The results pertaining to the relationship
between work engagement and performance outcomes are not
only consonant with limited empirical evidence in the relevant

.47,

CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.
Fig. 2. Structural model results.

138

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132140

literature (Christian et al., 2011; Karatepe, 2011), but also consistent with the precepts of SET (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005;
Takeuchi et al., 2007).
According to strategic human resource management perspective, HPWPs should motivate employees to demonstrate positive
behavioral outcomes (Huselid, 1995). The results of this study
provide support for this claim. As a motivational construct, work
engagement plays a full mediator role between HPWPs and
performance outcomes. Specically, the availability of HPWPs,
as manifested by training, empowerment, and rewards, makes
employees stay engaged in their work. Such employees in turn display high quality job performance and willingly go out of their way
for satisfying customers.
5.3. Management implications
The results of this study delineate several useful implications
regarding the management of HPWPs and retention of engaged
employees in the workplace. Work engagement is a long-term and
continuous process. Therefore, managers need to understand the
critical role of social exchange for work engagement and its performance outcomes (Saks, 2006).
Managers should provide employees with training, empowerment, and rewards that would make them feel obliged to respond to
the organization via elevated levels of work engagement and performance outcomes. Specically, management of the hotels should
make sure that appropriate reward policies are in place. Management of the hotels should also ensure that they have continuous
training programs for improving employees technical and behavioral skills and provide them with the adequate responsibility and
authority for managing customer requests and delivering effective service recoveries. The presence of continuous and effective
training and empowerment practices, coupled with employees
perceptions of fairness in rewards, would enable managers to retain
a pool of engaged employees who can deal with customer requests
and complaints effectively and go beyond their formal role requirements for satisfying customers. As stated by Bakker et al. (2008), it is
important to retain engaged employees in the workplace, because
they often have positive emotions and better psychological and
physical health than disengaged employees.
On the other hand, it should be noted that the acceptance of
empowerment by frontline employees is not a sure thing, because
it may result in stress (Yavas et al., 2010). With this realization, a signicant implication for managers is the need for training employees
successfully to accept responsibility and authority in challenging
service encounters. On a closing note, the aforementioned implications would also be useful for hospitality managers in Romania
due to the fact that there is a lack of qualied manpower in most
organizations that are devoid of contemporary human resource
management practices.

light on their relationships with work engagement and performance outcomes.

Third, job performance and extra-role customer service were
used as the performance outcomes in this study. There are also
other important performance outcomes in frontline service jobs.
One of them is creative performance. Creative performance refers
to the amount of new ideas generated and novel behaviors displayed by employees in carrying out job-related tasks (Wang and
Netemeyer, 2004). In future studies incorporating creative performance into the research model would provide a better picture of
the mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between
HPWPs and relevant performance outcomes. Fourth, in future studies using cross-national samples would be benecial for evaluating
the applicability of the research model to other countries (e.g.,
Nigeria, Turkey, China).
Fifth, hotel managers did not permit the researcher to directly
contact frontline employees for data collection. Therefore, hotel
managers coordinated the data collection. The researcher used a
special box for questionnaires to ensure anonymity and condentiality. Despite such a precaution, in future studies gathering data
directly from frontline employees would be more useful. Finally,
replication studies with large sample sizes in different hospitality and tourism settings in Romania and other Eastern European
countries would allow for broadening the database in this research
stream.
6. Conclusion
The current study proposed and tested a research model that
examined work engagement as a mediator between HPWPs and
performance outcomes. The results showed that the availability of
HPWPS, as manifested by training, empowerment, and rewards, led
to work engagement. Work engagement in turn enhanced employees job performance and extra-role customer service. In technical
terms, work engagement fully mediated the effects of HPWPs on
job performance and extra-role customer service. Under these circumstances, hotel managers should invest in these HPWPs to retain
a pool of engaged employees that can demonstrate high quality
performance in the workplace.
In todays global competitive market environment, a richer and
deeper understanding of various HPWPs that may be linked to
work engagement and employee performance outcomes will continue to be important. In closing, it is hoped that the results of
this study can inspire other researchers to focus on the mediating
role of work engagement in the relationship between HPWPs and
various performance outcomes using data obtained from multiple
sources.
Appendix A.

5.4. Limitations and avenues for future research

There are several limitations to the present study. First,
this study used cross-sectional data for evaluating the research
hypotheses. This practice does not permit rm conclusions in terms
of causality. Although the hypothesized relationships have been
developed based on SET and empirical evidence, in future studies using longitudinal data for testing the relationships reported
in this study would be benecial. Second, training, empowerment,
and rewards were selected as the indicators of HPWPs. However, there are also other indicators of HPWPs such as internal
career/promotion opportunities, teamwork, employment security,
stafng selectivity, and work-family balance (e.g., Boselie et al.,
2005; Kusluvan et al., 2010; Tang and Tang, 2012). The inclusion
of other relevant HPWPs in the research model would shed further

Table A.1
The number of employee questionnaires distributed and collected.
Distributed
Hotel (I) (5-star)
Hotel (II) (4-star)
Hotel (III) (4-star)
Hotel (IV) (4-star)
Hotel (V) (4-star)
Hotel (VI) (4-star)
Hotel (VII) (4-star)
Hotel (VIII) (4-star)
Total

Collected

25
20
20
20
10
10
6
12

25
20
20
20
10
6
3
10

123

114

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

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132140

Table B.1
Conrmatory factor analysis results.
Scale items
Training
I receive continued training to provide good
service
I received extensive customer service training
before I came into contact with customers
I receive training on how to serve customers
better
I receive training on how to deal with
complaining customers
I receive training on dealing with customer
problems
I was trained to deal with customer complaints
Empowerment
I am empowered to solve customer problems
I am encouraged to handle customer problems
by myself
I do not have to get managements approval
before I handle customer problems
I am allowed to do almost anything to solve
customer problems
I have control over how I solve customer
problems
Rewards
If I improve the level of service I offer
customers, I will be rewarded
The rewards I receive are based on customer
evaluations of service
I am rewarded for serving customers well
I am rewarded for dealing effectively with
customer problems
I am rewarded for satisfying complaining
customers
Vigor
At my work, I feel bursting with energy
At my job I feel strong and vigorous
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going
to work
Dedication
I am enthusiastic about my job
My job inspires me
I am proud of the work that I do
Absorption
I feel happy when I am working intensely
I am immersed in my work
I get carried away when I am working

139

Appendix B.
Standardized
loading
.79

t-Values

9.69

.89

11.73

.89

11.79

.88

11.52

.87

11.42

.92

12.49

.96

13.53

.79

9.76

.86

11.28

.87
.95

11.42
13.32

.90

12.03

.88
.88

11.32
11.35

.92
.87
.71

12.29
11.26
8.39

.76

8.32

7.29

.67

Job performance
This employee is a top performer

This employee is in the top 10% of frontline

employees here
This employee gets along better with
.83
10.17
customers than do others
This employee knows more about services
.87
10.86
delivered to customers than others
This employee knows what his/her customers
.71
8.17
expect better than others
Extra-role customer service
This employee voluntarily assists customers

even if it means going beyond job

requirements
This employee helps customers with problems
.70
7.96
beyond what is expected or required
This employee often goes above and beyond

the call of duty when serving customers

This employee willingly goes out of his/her
.87
10.98
way to make a customer satised
This employee frequently goes out the way to
.86
10.82
help a customer
Model t statistics: 2 = 354.65; df = 247; 2 /df = 1.44; CFI = .94; IFI = .94;
RMSEA = .063; SRMR = .052
Note: All loadings are signicant at the .01 level. CFI = comparative t index;
IFI = incremental t index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation;
SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.
() Dropped during conrmatory factor analysis.

B.1. Measurement results

Several items were dropped during CFA due to correlation
measurement error. Specically, two items each from training,
empowerment, job performance, and extra-role customer service
and one item each from vigor and absorption were removed from
further analysis. After scale purication, the proposed measurement model t the data well according to the following model
t 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 standardized
loadings ranged from .67 to .96, and all t-values were signicant.
The average variance extracted by each underlying latent variable
was above .50 and was as follows: training .75; empowerment .85;
rewards .77; vigor .77; dedication .70; absorption .52; job performance .66; and extra-role customer service .66. None of the
shared variances was larger than the average variance extracted
by each construct. The internal consistency reliabilities were as
follows: training .92; empowerment .94; rewards .94; vigor .87;
dedication .87; absorption .68; job performance .84; and extra-role
customer service .85. The internal consistency reliability for absorption was slightly below .70. However, the internal consistency
reliability for work engagement (vigor, dedication, absorption) was
.92. Collectively, these results demonstrated that the measures
were reliable and there was evidence of convergent and discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell and Larcker,
1981).
Though data were obtained from frontline employeemanager
dyads for reducing the potential threat of common method bias,
a formal test of Harmans single-factor test was also employed
for 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 difference test (p < .01). The result for a single-factor model was a 2
value of 1169.96 (df = 152). The results indicated that the sixfactor model (2 = 205.05, df = 137) was superior to the single-factor
model based on the 2 difference test (215 = 964.91). The twofactor model (job performance, extra-role customer service) was
compared with the single-factor model. The results demonstrated
that the two-factor model t (2 = 16.71, df = 8) was better than the
single-factor model (2 = 57.40, df = 9) based on the 2 difference
test (2 1 = 40.69).

References
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),
411423.
Ashill, N.J., Rod, M., Carruthers, J., 2008. The effect of management commitment to
service quality on frontline employees job attitudes, turnover intentions and
service recovery performance in a new public management context. Journal of
Strategic Marketing 16 (5), 437462.
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M., Avci, T., 2003. The effect of management commitment to service quality on employees affective and performance outcomes.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (3), 272286.
Babin, B., Boles, J.S., 1998. Employee behavior in a service environment: a model and
test of potential differences between men and women. Journal of Marketing 62
(2), 7791.
Bakker, A.B., 2011. An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20 (4), 265269.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development International 13 (3), 209223.
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),
187200.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 11731182.

140

O.M. Karatepe / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 132140

Bettencourt, L.A., Brown, S.W., 1997. Contact employees: relationships among

workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors. Journal of
Retailing 73 (1), 3961.
Bettencourt, L.A., Brown, S.W., MacKenzie, S.B., 2005. Customer-oriented boundaryspanning behaviors: test of a social exchange model of antecedents. Journal of
Retailing 81 (2), 141157.
Boles, J.D., Wood, J.A., Johnson, J., 2003. Interrelationships of role conict, role ambiguity, and work-family conict with different facets of job satisfaction and the
moderating effects of gender. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management
28 (2), 99113.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., Boon, C., 2005. Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and
performance research. Human Resource Management Journal 15 (3), 6794.
Boshoff, C., Allen, J., 2000. The inuence of selected antecedents on frontline staffs
perceptions of service recovery performance. International Journal of Service
Industry Management 11 (1), 6390.
Carmen, S., 2011. Tourism and its inuence upon macro-environment in Romania.
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica 13 (1), 142154.
Chen, Z.X., Aryee, S., Lee, C., 2005. Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (3), 457470.
Chi, C.G., Gursoy, D., 2009. Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and nancial performance: an empirical examination. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 28 (2), 245253.
Chiang, 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 in
the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (4),
491503.
Chiang, F.F.T., Birtch, T.A., 2011. Reward climate and its impact on service quality
orientation and employee attitudes. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (1), 39.
Cho, S., Woods, R.H., (Shawn) Jang, S., Erdem, M., 2006. Measuring the impact
of human resource management practices on hospitality rms performances.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 25 (2), 262277.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., Slaughter, J.E., 2011. Work engagement: a quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
Psychology 64 (1), 89136.
Ciulu, R., Dragan, L., 2011. Hospitality industrys competition in terms of attracting
and retaining valuable HR in Eastern Europe the case of Romania. Journal of
Tourism 11, 5563.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., Ketchen, D., 2006. How much do high-performance work
practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology 59 (3), 501528.
Cropanzano, R., Mitchell, M.S., 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management 31 (6), 874900.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E., Byrne, Z.S., 2003. The relationship of emotional
exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (1), 160169.
De Jong, A., De Ruyter, K., 2004. Adaptive versus proactive behavior in service recovery: the role of self-managing teams. Decision Sciences 35 (3), 457491.
DiPietro, R.B., Pizam, A., 2008. Employee alienation in the quick service restaurant
industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 32 (1), 2239.
Forrester, R., 2000. Empowerment: rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of Management Executive 14 (3), 6780.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1), 3950.
Guchait, P., Kim, M.G., Namasivayam, K., 2012. Error management at different organizational levels frontline, manager, and company. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 31 (1), 1222.
Hair 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.
Halbesleben, J.R.B., Harvey, J., Bolino, M.C., 2009. Too engaged? A conservation of
resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (6), 14521465.
Hayes, B.E., 1994. How to measure empowerment. Quality Progress 27 (February),
4146.
Henry, B., Butcher, W., Browne, Y., Hinds, M., Jayawardena, C., 2004. Future human
resource challenges in the Caribbean hospitality industry. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management 16 (7), 419423.
Hughes, J.C., Rog, E., 2008. Talent management: a strategy for improving employee
recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (7), 743757.
Huselid, M.A., 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on
turnover, productivity, and corporate nancial performance. Academy of Management Journal 38 (3), 635672.

Huselid, M.A., Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S., 1997. Technical and strategic human
resource management effectiveness as determinants of rm performance.
Academy of Management Journal 40 (1), 171188.
Ineson, E.M., Berechet, G., 2011. Employee loyalty in hotels: Romanian experiences. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism 10 (2),
129149.
Joreskog, K., Sorbom, D., 1996. LISREL 8: Users Reference Guide. Scientic Software
International, Inc., Chicago.
Karatepe, O.M., 2011. Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes: evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 20 (8),
855878.
Karatepe, O.M., Olugbade, O.A., 2009. The effects of job and personal resources on
hotel employees work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 504512.
Karatepe, O.M., Tekinkus, M., 2006. The effects of work-family conict, emotional
exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of front-line employees.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 24 (3), 173193.
Karatepe, O.M., Uludag, O., 2007. Conict, exhaustion, and motivation: a study of
frontline employees in Northern Cyprus hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 26 (3), 645665.
Kim, H.J., Tavitiyaman, P., Kim, W.G., 2009. The effect of management commitment
to service on employee service behaviors: the mediating role of job satisfaction.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 33 (3), 369390.
Kusluvan, S., Kusluvan, Z., Ilhan, Z., Buyruk, L., 2010. The human dimension: a review
of human resources management issues in the tourism and hospitality industry.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (2), 171214.
Line, N.D., Runyan, R.C., 2012. Hospitality marketing research: recent trends and
future directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2),
477488.
Moliner, C., Martnez-Tur, V., Romos, J., Cropanzano, R., 2008. Organizational
justice and extrarole customer service: the mediating role of well-being
at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17 (3),
327348.
Murphy, K.S., Murrmann, S., 2009. The research design used to develop a high performance management system construct for US restaurant managers. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 547555.
Parameswaran, R., Yaprak, A., 1987. A cross-national comparison of consumer research measures. Journal of International Business Studies 18 (1),
3549.
Pfeffer, J., 1994. Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of
the Work Force. HBS Press, Boston.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879903.
Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal
of Managerial Psychology 21 (7), 600619.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., Salanova, M., 2006. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 66 (4), 701716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzles-Rom, V., Bakker, A.B., 2002. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample conrmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 3 (1), 7192.
Sltten, T., Mehmetoglu, M., 2011. Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline
employees: a study from the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality 21
(1), 88107.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D.P., Wang, H., Takeuchi, K., 2007. An empirical examination of
the mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the
performance of Japanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4),
10691083.
Tang, T.-W., Tang, Y.-Y., 2012. Promoting service-oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors in hotels: the role of high-performance human resource practices and
organizational social climates. International Journal of Hospitality Management
31 (3), 885895.
Wall, T.D., Wood, S.J., 2005. The romance of human resource management and
business performance, and the case for big science. Human Relations 58 (4),
429462.
Wang, G., Netemeyer, R.G., 2004. Salesperson creative performance: conceptualization, measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Business Research 57
(8), 805812.
Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M., Babakus, E., 2010. Relative efcacy of organizational
support and personality traits in predicting service recovery and job performances: a study of frontline employees in Turkey. Tourism Review 65 (3),
7083.