BusVII

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whrh20

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism

ISSN: 1533-2845 (Print) 1533-2853 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

How do changes in human resource management practices influence employee engagement? A longitudinal study in a hotel chain in the Philippines

Alfred Presbitero

To cite this article: Alfred Presbitero (2017) How do changes in human resource management practices influence employee engagement? A longitudinal study in a hotel chain in the Philippines, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 16:1, 56-70, DOI: 10.1080/15332845.2016.1202061

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2016.1202061

Published online: 09 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1475

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

How do changes in human resource management practices influence employee engagement? A longitudinal study in a hotel chain in the Philippines

Alfred Presbitero

Deakin Business School, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT Drawing from social exchange theory, this study investigates how changes in human resource management practices influence and affect employee engagement in a hotel chain. Changes in human resource management practices were identified, and corresponding changes in the level of employee engagement were observed. One hundred forty-five employees from a hotel chain in the Philippines participated in a longitudinal study. Results show that improvements in human resource management practices, particularly in the areas of reward management and training and development, yielded positive and significant change in the level of employee engagement. Implications for human resource management, particularly in the hospitality and tourism context, are discussed.

KEYWORDS Employee engagement; hotel; human resource management practices; longitudinal study

Introduction

Engagement has received a considerable amount of attention in the literature. Kahn (1990) was one of the first to coin the term “engagement,” which he referred to as how people “use varying degrees of their selves, physically, cognitively and emotionally in work role performance” (p. 692). Over the years, studies on engage- ment have proliferated in the organizational domain focusing attention on engage- ment among employees or “employee engagement.” Rothbard (2001) defined employee engagement as a psychological presence and has two critical dimensions: attention and absorption. Attention pertains to “cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a role,” while absorption refers to “being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of one’s focus on a role” (Rothbard, 2001, p. 656). Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) further explained employee engagement as an “individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work” (p. 417). Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzales-Roma, and Bakker (2002) focused on the positive aspects of employee engagement and explained that

CONTACT Alfred Presbitero [email protected] Deakin Business School, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, 3125 Melbourne, Australia. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 2017, VOL. 16, NO. 1, 56–70 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2016.1202061

it is “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74).

Employee engagement has been studied in various industries and contexts. Recently, employee engagement has been studied in the context of hospitality and tourism (Rigg, Sydnor, Nicely, & Day, 2014). This study offers significant insights into the role of employee engagement, as well as the demographics and organiza- tional characteristics that influence employee engagement. However, there are other factors that influence employee engagement in the hospitality and tourism context that are worthy of further investigation. To date, very little is known in terms of how employee engagement changes over time. Knowing how to increase employee engagement is critical to ensure desirable outcomes such as job satisfac- tion, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior (Saks, 2006), which are all necessary in the hospitality and tourism industry.

The primary purpose of this study is to uncover and understand the dynamics of employee engagement, particularly how it changes over time. Employee engage- ment is critical in almost all organizations, particularly in service-oriented organi- zations like hotels. Determining what contributes to having high levels of employee engagement is important. This study investigates human resource man- agement (HRM) practices, taking an in-depth look into two HRM practices: (1) reward management and (2) training and development. This study seeks to deter- mine how changes and improvements in reward management practice and train- ing and development practice lead to changes in levels of employee engagement.

Research objectives

This study aims to address the following research objectives: 1. Investigate changes in levels of employee engagement in a hotel chain over

time. 2. Determine how improvements in HRM practices, particularly in the areas of

reward management and training and development, influence and impact levels of employee engagement in a hotel chain over time.

Literature review

Employee engagement in the hospitality and tourism industry

Employee engagement has been studied in the literature alongside the constructs of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. While these constructs are interrelated, they are distinct from one another. Saks (2006) clarified these distinctions by explaining that organizational commitment refers to a person’s attitude and attachment toward his or her organization, while engagement is not an attitude, but rather the extent to which an individual is attentive, focused, and absorbed in performing the roles assigned to him or her. He also clarified that organizational citizenship behavior pertains to informal helping behaviors outside

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 57

one’s role (or extra-role), while employee engagement focuses on an individual’s formal performance in one’s role (or in-role).

Employee engagement can be influenced by different factors. Kahn (1990) showed that employee engagement is determined by psychological conditions such as meaningfulness, safety, and availability. When an employee sees meaning in what he does, the likelihood of being engaged is higher. Similarly, when an employee feels that he is psychologically safe, he tends to exhibit higher levels of employee engagement. The same can be said for psychological availability. When an individual feels that he is truly present and absorbed in the moment, he tends to be more engaged. Research has also pointed to job characteristics, perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support, reward and recognition, procedural justice, and distributive justice as antecedents of employee engagement (e.g., Saks, 2006).

Employee engagement has also been studied in the context of hospitality and tourism. Rigg et al. (2014) pointed to demographic characteristics such as gender, age, marital status, and educational level as antecedents of employee engagement. In addition, they pointed to organizational characteristics such as length of service, department, and guest contact that influence employee engagement in the hotel industry. Karatepe and Olugbade (2009) also found that job and personal resources such as supervisor support, trait competitiveness, and self-efficacy have effects on engagement of hotel employees. Lee (2012) also elaborated the role of employee evaluations of self (i.e., core self-evaluations) and perceptions of organizational environment (i.e., psychological climate) on employee engagement in the hotel sector. These studies on employee engagement highlight how critical and impor- tant this construct is for the hospitality and tourism industry.

Improvements in HRM practices and influence on employee engagement: Drawing from social exchange theory (SET)

HRM practices are considered to be important for the hospitality industry (Boella & Goss-Turner, 2013). In the hotel industry, HRM practices are important—not only for large hotels, but also for small and medium-sized hotels (Cetinel, Yolal, & Emeksiz, 2008). HRM practices involve “human resource deployments and activi- ties intended to enable an organization to achieve its goals” (Wright & McMahan, 1992, p. 298). HRM practices are found to play a significant role in driving organi- zational performance (e.g., Hoque, 2000). HRM practices are also found to posi- tively impact customer-oriented behaviors as well as organizational commitment and job satisfaction among employees (e.g., Browning, 2006).

Rewards management practice and employee engagement

Armstrong and Murlis (2007) defined reward management as the “formulation and implementation of strategies and policies that aim to reward people fairly, equitably and consistently in accordance with their value to the organization”

58 A. PRESBITERO

(p. 3). The primary goal of reward management is to reward individuals for their contribution and the value that they create for a team or an organization. Reward management is also a way to motivate people and gain their commitment and engagement (Armstrong & Murlis, 2007). Kahn (1990) argued that engagement varies depending on people’s perception of the benefit and reward they receive from performing their in-roles. Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) explained that when employees receive a fair and equitable reward, they tend to exhibit higher levels of engagement. Saks (2006) also highlighted reward as an antecedent of employee engagement drawing from the SET. SET basically asserts that relation- ships evolve over time into loyal and mutual commitments, provided that the parties involved abide by the “rules” of the interaction (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). SET highlights the importance of reciprocal interdependence, and this can be generated through a series of mutually satisfying interactions and exchanges. In organizations, this reciprocal interdependence can be demonstrated in the exchanges between employee and employer. When an employee works hard and adds value to the organization, then the employer can be generous and can reward accordingly. The reward can then motivate the employee to work even harder in the future and devote more of his or her cognitive, emotional, and physical resour- ces, adding more value and contribution to the organization, and the mutually satisfying exchanges continue. This type of two-way relationship and mutual exchange between employer and employee is indicative of engagement, according to Robinson, Perryman, and Hayday (2004). Employee engagement as an outcome of reward can be manifested in terms of bringing oneself more fully and by putting and investing more resources (cognitive, emotional, physical) into one’s in-role. The relationship between reward and employee engagement is also studied in the hospitality and tourism context. For example, Davies, Taylor, and Savery (2001) found that remuneration and reward are related to improvement in employee engagement and commitment. Similarly, Cho, Woods, Hang, and Erdem (2006) found that incentive and reward plans are significantly related to engagement as well as intention to stay among employees in the hospitality industry. Given these theoretical anchors, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 1: Improvements in reward management practice will be positively and significantly related to high levels of employee engagement.

Training and development practice and employee engagement

Training and development primarily pertains to a systematic approach to learning to improve individual, team, and organizational effectiveness (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) explained that training is the systematic approach that influences individuals’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes leading to effectiveness, while development is the systematic effort that affects individuals’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes leading to personal growth or prospects of future jobs. Instituting provi- sions for training and development in the hospitality and tourism sector can have

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 59

positive outcomes, such as employee engagement. Several studies in the hospitality and tourism context have shown that the presence of training and development programs are related to employee engagement. For example, Davies et al. (2001) found that training is related to high levels of commitment and engagement among hospitality employees. Kinicki, Carson, and Bohlander (1992) also found that train- ing increases engagement and commitment toward the organization. Haynes and Fryer (2000) also demonstrated the positive relationship between training and employee satisfaction and engagement in the hospitality industry. The SET can also be used to explain the relationship between the practice of training and development and employee engagement. As discussed earlier, SET basically posits mutual interde- pendence, and this can be observed between the employee–employer relationship. When the employer puts emphasis and invests on employee development, employ- ees will take this positively. When employees have an appreciation of the invest- ments provided by the employer, they tend to put in more effort and more resources to ensure that they are meeting the expectations of their work. Once the employer sees the dedication, more investments in terms of training and develop- ment can be provided, and the cycle of mutual exchange continues. Given these theoretical anchors, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 2: Improvements in training and development practice will be posi- tively and significantly related to high levels of employee engagement.

Methodology

Research context and design

This study was conducted in a hotel chain in the Philippines. Through the profes- sional network of the researcher, the chief executive officer of the hotel chain was approached. An initial meeting was set to discuss the aims and objectives of the research project as well as the target respondents and research design. After the approval from the chief executive officer, meetings were consequently held with the head of the human resources department of the hotel chain. These meetings discussed the administrative details of running the study, including the sampling methodology as well as the administration of the survey instrument.

The hotel chain had a total of 532 employees at the time of data collection. The hotel chain operates mainly in Manila, the capital of the Philippines, with three hotels located in different districts in Manila. The hotel chain also operates outside Manila, having four hotels located in other cities in the Philippines. The hotel chain changed significantly over a 1-year period in their reward management prac- tices by having a more systematic approach to providing rewards to performing employees. In addition, the hotel chain developed a more comprehensive training and development program for their employees.

This study used a longitudinal survey method to investigate how changes in HRM practices, particularly in reward management and training and development, influence and impact employee engagement. Longitudinal survey data were

60 A. PRESBITERO

collected twice. For the first survey data, collection was done before the implemen- tation of the changes in HRM practice, while the second survey data collection was done a year later (after the implementation of the changes in HRM practices). An online survey was developed and setup for easy dissemination to the respondents. Qualtrics electronic survey software was utilized to manage the survey administra- tion and collection. A survey link was generated and was forwarded to the head of the human resource (HR) department for dissemination to the prospective respondents. Respondents were informed that participation in the study was voluntary and they could opt out any time in the research process. Respondents were also told that data would be collected twice, and they would be given an iden- tifier or a codename to allow matching of data. No personal information would be obtained to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of the survey responses.

Samples

With the help of the HR department of the hotel, a total of 250 employees were ini- tially contacted for the first round of online survey. They were all from the three hotels located in Manila. They included staff members from a variety of functional areas such as housekeeping (38), maintenance (39), front desk (30), food and beverage (46), and general administration (55). Also included were hotel supervi- sors (27) and department heads (15). Sixty-five percent were full-time/monthly paid, while 35% were part-time/hourly paid. Employees in other hotel chains out- side Manila were not included in this study, as the roll out and implementation of the HRM interventions first took place in the hotel chains in Manila. The online survey was administered for 2 weeks with constant reminders to those who have might not have completed the survey. After two weeks, a total of 210 online sur- veys were submitted (84% response rate). After 12 months, the second round of the survey was administered. With the help of the HR department, the list of respondents from the first round of survey was inspected and checked. After inspection, it was found out that only 188 respondents were still employed with the company after a year. The second round of online survey was sent to the 188 remaining employees. Similar to the first round, the online survey was adminis- tered for two weeks and constant reminders were sent. After two weeks, 162 online surveys were submitted (86% response rate). The individual results of the first round of survey were matched accordingly with the individual results of the second round of survey to allow analysis. Data were inspected to determine responses with high levels of missing data. Seventeen responses were removed and 145 data sets were utilized for data analysis.

Measures

The survey instrument developed was in English, as this is the main language used in business and service organizations in the Philippines (Bernardo, 2004). All items in the instrument asked the respondents to indicate their level of agreement by

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 61

choosing from a 5-point Likert scale where 1 represented strongly disagree and 5 represented strongly agree.

Reward management practice

This was assessed using four items adapted from Langford (2009). Slight modifica- tions were made to reflect the hotel context of the study. Items were: “In this hotel the reward management practice is fair,” “In this hotel employees are rewarded equitably based on performance,” “In this hotel reward management practice is consistent,” and “In this hotel there is effective reward system for employees.”

Training and development practice

This was assessed using three items adapted from Langford (2009). Slight modifi- cations were made to reflect the hotel context of the study. Items were: “In this hotel there is commitment to ongoing training and development of employees,” “In this hotel employees receive adequate training,” and “In this hotel there are many opportunities to learn and grow professionally and personally.”

Employee engagement

This was assessed using four items adapted from Langford (2009). Slight modifica- tions were made to reflect the hotel context of the study. Items were: “I am enthusi- astic about my job in this hotel,” “I am willing to put in extra effort in my job in this hotel,” “I am immersed in my work in this hotel,” and “I am emotionally attached with my work in this hotel.”

The survey instrument also asked demographic questions such as age, gender, employment status (full time or part time, monthly paid or hourly paid), and ten- ure (years of working experience with the company).

Results

Results of the demographic analysis show that 60% of the respondents were females and 40% were males. Forty-five percent were below 30 years old, 43% were 30 to 45 years old, and 12% were more than 45 years old. Sixty-five percent were full-time/ monthly paid, while 35% were part-time/hourly paid. In terms of tenure, 24% had been with the company for less than 1 year, 55% had been with the company for 1–3 years, and 21% had been with the company for more than 3 years.

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study var- iables. The Cronbach alpha of the scales ranged from 0.71 to 0.82, suggesting inter- nal reliability and consistency. Table 2 further shows the means of each item at Time 1 and Time 2. The variable means for Time 1 are 2.01 (reward management practice), 1.78 (training and development practice), and 1.87 (employee engage- ment). The variable means for Time 2 are 4.43 (reward management practice), 4.23 (training and development practice), and 4.33 (employee engagement).

62 A. PRESBITERO

Using structural equation modeling (AMOS), a test of measurement model, was conducted to assess fit indices. The test included all the items in the study. Results show that the model fit indices for a three-factor model were acceptable (Time 1: Comparative fit index (CFI) D 0.99; Standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) D 0.04; Time 2: CFI D 0.98, SRMR D 0.06). CFI and SRMR in both stud- ies exceeded the recommended value of greater than 0.96 and less than 0.1 (Ben- tler, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999). The results signify the distinctiveness of the three factors (reward management, training and development, employee engagement) in both Time 1 and Time 2.

Changes in Time 1 and Time 2 were measured as residual scores that were included in the structural equation model. These change scores were obtained by regressing Time 2 scores on the corresponding Time 1 scores, as recommended by Smith and Beaton (2008). The differences between the scores are the standardized residual scores used in the analyses. Positive residual scores signify an increase, while negative residual scores signify a decrease. Cronbach and Furby (1970) explained that using residual scores as indicators of change has the advantage of not inflating errors that might be encountered when using difference scores, partic- ularly in longitudinal studies.

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

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time 1 Reward management 2.01 0.81 (0.78) Time 1 Training & development 1.78 0.72 0.23 (0.80) Time 1 Employee engagement 1.87 0.69 17� 33� (0.82) Time 2 Reward management 4.43 0.32 0.67� 0.22 0.44 (0.71) Time 2 Training & development 4.23 0.44 0.33 0.43� 0.33 0.54 (0.72) Time 2 Employee engagement 4.33 0.71 0.55� 0.32� 0.54� 0.38� 0.45� (0.79)

�p < 0.05, ��p < 0.01.

Table 2. Means of items at Time 1 and Time 2.

Means

Variables Time 1 Time 2

Reward Management Practice 2.01 4.43 In this hotel, the reward management practice is fair. 2.02 4.49 In this hotel, employees are rewarded equitably based

on performance. 2.22 4.45

In this hotel, reward management practice is consistent. 1.78 4.40 In this hotel, there is effective reward system for employees. 2.05 4.38 Training and Development Practice 1.78 4.23 In this hotel, there is commitment to ongoing training and

development of employees. 1.87 4.33

In this hotel, employees receive adequate training. 1.67 4.20 In this hotel, there are many opportunities to learn and grow

professionally and personally. 1.79 4.15

Employee Engagement 1.87 4.33 I am enthusiastic about my job in this hotel. 1.79 4.30 I am willing to put in extra effort in my job in this hotel. 1.89 4.21 I am immersed in my work in this hotel. 1.79 4.44 I am emotionally attached with my work in this hotel. 1.99 4.36

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 63

Results of the structural equation modeling are shown in Figure 1. The results of the model generally indicate that it is very consistent with the data (x2 D 19.18, p < 0.05; CFI D 0.98; SRMR D 0.06). The CFI and SRMS both exceeded the rec- ommended cutoff points. The covariances were all significant at a D 0.05.

It was hypothesized that changes in reward management practice would be pos- itively and significantly related to changes in employee engagement (Hypothesis 1). This hypothesis asserts that any change in reward management practice would impact employee engagement, such that improvements in reward management practice would lead to higher levels of employee engagement. The result of the path analysis shows support to this hypothesis (b D 0.27, p < 0.05). This result sig- nifies that when there are improvements in the reward management practice, and when employees see for themselves these improvements, employee engagement increases. High levels of reported improvements in reward management practice demonstrated higher levels of employee engagement.

Similarly, it was hypothesized that changes in training and development practice would be positively and significantly related to changes in employee engagement (Hypothesis 2). This hypothesis highlights that any change in the practice of train- ing and development in an organization would impact employee engagement, such that improvements in training and development practice (more programs available for staff members) would lead to higher levels of employee engagement. Results of the path analysis also show that this hypothesis is supported (b D 0.45, p < 0.05). This result suggests that improvements in the training and development practice, when clearly seen and felt by employees. would have the corresponding increase in employee engagement. In other words, high levels of reported improve- ment in the area of training and development in an organization lead to high levels of employee engagement.

Discussion

This study offers significant insights into how HRM practices, particularly reward management practice and training and development practice, in the hotel industry influence and impact change in employee engagement. Employee engagement has

Figure 1. Structural equation modeling results.

64 A. PRESBITERO

been studied in the recent years, and clarifications have been made regarding the construct. Employee engagement has been viewed as an organizational member’s level of absorption and dedication in one’s in-role. In addition, employee engage- ment depicts the vigor and attention that an employee has toward his or her work. Employee engagement is also characterized to be composed of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components that yield and lead to desirable outcomes. Some stud- ies have asserted that employee engagement can lead to organizational commit- ment and organizational citizenship behavior.

Employee engagement is critical in almost all organizations, including those in the hospitality and tourism sector. As discussed earlier, employee engagement has many desirable outcomes for staff members in the hotel industry. When hotel employees are engaged, they tend to exhibit high levels of absorption, allowing them to focus and direct their attention, time, and energy to fulfill and deliver the tasks assigned to them. In addition, when hotel employees are engaged, they have a positive disposition toward their work, allowing them to be efficacious and effi- cient in performing the tasks assigned to them.

Employee engagement can be influenced by different organizational factors. In this study, the focused was on HRM practices, particularly reward management practice and training and development practice. Results have shown that positive changes in reward management practice are positively and significantly related to high levels of employee engagement. In other words, employees reporting high lev- els of improvements in reward management practice also reported high levels of employee engagement. This suggests that when the hotel as an organization is per- ceived to institute changes that improve the allocation and distribution of reward, employees tend to have higher levels of engagement. When employees perceive that rewards are fairly given and there is a mechanism that facilitates effective rewards allocation, employees tend to have higher levels of engagement. The possi- ble reason for such a result is that rewards can be a source of motivation. Rewards, when properly and effectively given, can drive motivation of employees, allowing them to put in extra effort and work harder. In addition, rewards can serve as rein- forcement for excellent performance, which can lead to constant striving and put- ting in more effort in future work performance. The result validates earlier studies showing that rewards, recognition, and related practices are critical antecedents of employee engagement (e.g., Saks, 2006). The result is also consistent with studies done in the hospitality context indicating that high-performance work practices in hotels (including the practice of reward management) have significant influence on employee engagement (e.g., Karatepe, 2013). Similarly, the result concurs with previous findings showing that the perceptions of role benefit, including the rewards that frontliners in the hospitality industry obtain, are significantly related to the level of employee engagement (Slatten & Mehmetoglu, 2011).

The same findings were found in relation to changes in training and devel- opment practice. This study found that positive changes in the training and development practice yielded a positive and significant influence on employee

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 65

engagement. High levels of reported improvements in training and develop- ment practice demonstrated high levels of employee engagement. This suggests that when a hotel is perceived to invest resources toward the development and training of employees, employee engagement tends to be higher. The possible reason for this is that employees might feel their importance because the orga- nization is investing in them, and, in return, they exhibit and demonstrate a greater level of dedication and absorption toward the fulfilment of the tasks assigned to them. The result found in this study is consistent with previous findings showing how practices related to talent development and manage- ment can have implications for engagement within hospitality organizations (e.g., Hughes & Rog, 2008). The result also confirms previous studies demon- strating that job resources, including supervisors’ support in terms of the developmental needs of hotel employees, are found to have an effect on engagement (e.g., Karatepe & Olugbade, 2009). Recent findings demonstrating how talent development practices serve as drivers of commitment and engage- ment (Chami-Malaeb, 2013) also validate the results of this study.

Conclusion and implications

This study offers significant insights into the relationship between HRM practices and employee engagement in the context of a hotel chain. HRM practices that are responsive to the needs of the employees, making them feel valued and making them feel as integral members of the organization, can generate positive results— both at the organizational and individual level. In this study, it was demonstrated that improving HRM practices, particularly those relating to reward management and training and development, can increase the level of engagement among hotel employees. Social exchange mechanisms are triggered when employees feel that they are valued and are taken care of by their organization, resulting in high levels of dedication, vigor, and absorption toward work. Having high levels of employee engagement is critical in the hospitality and tourism industry, as it can drive individual performance which then contributes to the overall organizational performance.

This study offers some practical implications particularly for HRM practice. First, this study highlights the importance of HRM practices and how they relate to employee engagement. HRM practices are typically improved in indus- tries such as hospitality and tourism. However, the effectiveness of these improvements and changes are often not measured. Doing post-implementation evaluation is important to see whether the change intervention has worked or not. In addition, the post-implementation evaluation can signify whether modi- fications have to be made in future implementation. Second, in some cases, effectiveness of changes in HRM practices is measured, but not rigorously linked and related, to individual level outcomes such as employee engagement. This study which establishes the link between improvements in HRM practices

66 A. PRESBITERO

and high levels of employee engagement provides relevant insights that an organization’s constant striving to have superior HRM practices could result in positive employee outcomes. The continuous commitment of the organization to provide the best HRM systems can trigger a stronger sense of involvement, attachment, and dedication toward the organization. Practitioners should be guided by the tenets of linkage research whereby data collected from employees, for example, during and after a change initiative, are conscientiously and rigor- ously linked to relevant individual level outcomes. Third, improvements in HRM practices have to be communicated well across the organization. It is not enough to institute positive changes in HRM practices (e.g., giving more incen- tives or providing more opportunities for career growth and development). These positive changes have to be articulated properly and communicated well across the different levels in the organization. Everyone in the organization has to be informed about the changes happening in the organization. For example, email communications have to be constantly sent to update employees of the latest changes and improvements with regard to HR practices. For those who do not have access to emails (i.e., housekeeping personnel), notice boards can be set up where all the correspondence and memoranda related to HR practice improvements are posted and explained. Meetings and other informal gather- ings can also be organized to communicate the changes happening within the organization. These are also good avenues for dialogue and open communica- tion. These meetings and gatherings should include not only the full-time employees but also the part-time employees. Employees at all levels, regardless of their job classifications and positions, have to be wellaware of the organiza- tional changes. Also, employees based in different locations have to be informed as well; hence, a more aggressive stance in terms of communicating organiza- tional changes has to be taken so that impact at the individual level can be expected. This is particularly relevant for hotels operating in multiple locations. Members of the top management team also have to be in the frontline and need to be bold in communicating the changes taking place in the organization. The responsibility does not rest solely on the HR head, but also should be shared with all the members of the management team. All members of the top management team need to take a proactive stance in ensuring that employees in their respective departments and sections are well aware and informed of the latest developments in terms of managing and developing HR. All possible channels of communication have to be used to update everyone that systems and processes (e.g., HRM systems and practices) are being improved and enhanced. Cascading to the lowest level in the organization through team meet- ings and similar activities would guarantee that no one is left unaware of improvements in HR practices that affect their work and jobs. Doing such ini- tiatives would lead to greater appreciation of the top management team’s efforts, which then would have an impact on the way the employees interact, engage, and commit themselves with the company.

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 67

Limitations and future research

While the study offers significant results, particularly on how changes in HRM practices impact employee engagement over time, there are some limitations in this study that can inform and guide future research works. First, this study utilized data that were based on perceptions and not actual and objective measures of reward management practice, training and development practice, and employee engagement. Future research can utilize objective measures to fully ascertain the impact of changes in HRM practices on employee engage- ment. Second, the focus of the study is HRM practices, particularly rewards management and training and development. There are other HRM practices and factors (organizational or individual) that may have contributed to the positive and significant change in employee engagement, and these are beyond the scope of this study. Hence, caution has to be made when making asser- tions about the generalizability and applicability of findings in other organiza- tions or in other contexts. Third, this study did not look deeply into the type and extent of changes made in reward management practice and training and development practice. The study assumed that changes were made based on the reports given by the key informants (i.e., CEO and HR head). Future stud- ies can investigate directly and extensively the kind and type of HRM changes that were instituted. This may include looking into how employees were con- sulted or how the HRM interventions were rolled out. Doing so could provide some insights into how employees’ participation in instituting and rolling out changes in HRM practices can influence their levels of engagement. Fourth, the study did not compare results across different hotel locations due to uneven distribution of respondents. In future studies, it may be interesting to determine how results would differ across hotel locations. Doing so can pro- vide significant insights into organizational and demographic factors that may impact employee engagement. Finally, this study focused on employee engage- ment as an outcome. In future studies, distal outcomes of employee engage- ment, such as organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, or task performance, can be investigated. Doing so would extend the nomo- logical network of employee engagement, adding to our understanding of how employee engagement can be translated into more observable and overt behav- iors toward, particularly in the hospitality and tourism industry.

References

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.

Armstrong, M., & Murlis, H. (2007). Reward management: A handbook of remuneration strat- egy and practice. London, UK: Kogan Page Publishers.

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angles, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.

68 A. PRESBITERO

Bernardo, A. B. (2004). McKinley’s questionable bequest: Over 100 years of English in Philippine education. World Englishes, 23(1), 17–31.

Boella, M., & Goss-Turner, S. (2013). Human resource management in the hospitality industry: A guide to best practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Browning, V. (2006). The relationship between HRM practices and service behaviour in South African service organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(7), 321–338.

Cetinel, F., Yolal, M., & Emeksiz, M. (2008). Human resources management in small and medium-sized hotels in Turkey. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 8(1), 43–63.

Chami-Malaeb, R. (2013). Talent and leadership development practices as drivers of intention to stay in Lebanese organisations: The mediating role of affective commitment. The Interna- tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(21), 4046–4062.

Cho, S., Woods, R. H., Hang, S. C., & Erdem, M. (2006). Measuring the impact of human resource management practices on hospitality firms’ performances. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(2), 262–277.

Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, J. (1970). How should we measure change—or should we? Psychologi- cal Bulletin, 74, 26–37.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.

Davies, D., Taylor, R., & Savery, L. (2001). The role of appraisal, remuneration and training in improving staff relations in western Australian accommodation industry: A comparative study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25(7), 366–373.

Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 229–272.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.

Haynes, P., & Fryer, G. (2000). Human resources, service quality and performance: A case study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(4), 240–248.

Hoque, K. (2000). Human resource management in the hotel sector: Strategy, innovation and performance. London, UK: Routledge.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisci- plinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

Hughes, J. C., & Rog, E. (2008). Talent management: A strategy for improving employee recruit- ment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 743–757.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

Karatepe, O. M. (2013). High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: The mediation of work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 132–140.

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), 504– 512.

Kinicki, A. J., Carson, K. P., & Bohlander, G. W. (1992). Relationship between an organization’s actual human resource efforts and employee attitudes. Group and Organization Manage- ment, 17(2), 135–152.

JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 69

Langford, P. H. (2009). Measuring organizational climate and employee engagement: Evidence for a 7P’s model of work practices and outcomes. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(4), 185–198.

Lee, J. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement: Empirical study of hotel employees and managers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Kansas State University, Kan- sas, USA.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.

Rigg, J., Sydnor, S., Nnicely, A., & Day, J. (2014). Employee engagement in Jamaican hotels: Do demographic and organizational characteristics matter? Journal of Human Resources in Hos- pitality & Tourism, 13(1), 1–16.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement. Brighton, UK: Institute of Employment Studies.

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and fam- ily roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Mana- gerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzales-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

Slatten, T., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline employees: A study from the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 21(1), 88–107.

Smith, P., & Beaton, D. (2008). Measuring change in psychosocial working conditions: Method- ological issues to consider when data are collected at baseline and one follow-up time point. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 65, 288–296.

Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295–320.

70 A. PRESBITERO