High Performance Work Systems for Service Quality: Boundary Conditions and Influence Processes

Abstract

Drawing on agency theory and the resource‐based view, this study examines the moderating effect of hotel ownership structure on the relationship between high‐performance work systems for service quality (HPWS‐SQs) and service performance as well as the curvilinear relationship between hotel service performance and hotel profitability. Results from surveys and archival data of 126 hotels showed that when hotels were owned and operated by brands, HPWS‐SQs had a positive effect on service performance. Moderated mediation analyses showed that service performance as a mediator accounted for the moderating effect of ownership and management structure on the relationship between HPWS‐SQs and hotel profitability. In addition, service performance demonstrated an inverted U‐shaped relationship with hotel profitability. These findings advanced the understanding of the boundary conditions and influence processes of HPWS‐SQs on financial performance in service settings. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

High-Performance Work System, Work Well-Being, and Employee Creativity: Cross-Level Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership

“…At present, there are two competing perspectives about the impacts of a high-performance work system on employee work well-being—the unitarist perspective and the pluralist perspective. The unitarist perspective is aimed at “win–win”(employer and employee); this perspective tends to think that the organization’s goals are consistent with the interests of employees, and it overlooks or downplays the conflict of interest between employers and employees [18], especially when the organization implements a high-performance work system to enhance employees’ abilities, motivation, and opportunities to perform, employees are more likely to attribute the intention of a high-performance work system as caring about and developing employees to better contribute the organizational goals [59]. For example, Boxall and Macky (2014) [60] found that human resource practices such as autonomy, information sharing, compensation, and training development can influence (improve or reduce) employee work well-being through improving employee job satisfaction or reducing work-life balance satisfaction.…”

“…Further, Huang et al [61] pointed out that employees can acquire and maintain work-related resources from a high-performance work system, and that they are therefore more likely to perceive higher degree of well-being, job satisfaction, and better performance. Conversely, the pluralistic perspective does not consider organizational goals to be consistent with employee interests [62], especially when organizations pursue short-term benefits or employers seek personal interests at the expense of employee benefits [59]. Therefore, the perspective of pluralistic believes that human resource practice has a negative impact on employee work well-being.…”

A multilevel examination of skills‐oriented human resource management and perceived skill utilization during recession: Implications for the well‐being of all workers

“…Although there is considerable evidence that progressive HRM improves employee and organizational outcomes, the question of whether these effects are sustained across work settings remains unanswered. Set against the best‐practice versus best‐fit debates distinguishing, respectively, universal effects from contingency‐based views of the appropriate form of HRM adoption (Schuler & Jackson, ), there is an increasingly more vocal call for understanding the boundary conditions of HRM's efficacy (e.g., Hong, Jiang, Liao, & Sturman, ; Snape & Redman, ). Evidence shows that HRM adoption does indeed differ by contingencies; for example, product/service segment (Batt, ) or sector (Pina & Tether, ).…”

Unraveling the role of governance mechanisms in online ratings: The case of Spanish chain-affiliated hotels

“…It joins a growing set of papers which emphasize that we should not be satisfied with just knowing the determinants of the choice of governance mechanism, but should assess the relevance of that choice for firm's performance (Fadairo & Lanchimba, 2014;Madanoglu & Karadag, 2016;Song et al, 2013). Specifically, focusing on the hotel industry, a mechanism of governance may influence its performance (e.g., online ratings) by shaping the incentives of hotel agents to achieve coordination (complying with the hotel business format) and to exert efforts to offer a better service (e.g., Hong et al, 2017;Michael, 2000). However, only a few related studies have tried to find evidence on the effects of the mechanism of governance on online ratings in the hotel sector (Hong et al, 2017;Lawrence & Perrigot, 2015) and their results are far from conclusive.…”