Do High-Performance-Work-Practices (HPWPs) really work?

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2610360/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Do High-Performance-Work-Practices (HPWPs) really work?

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2610360/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose:

High-performance-work-practices (HPWPs) are popular managerial strategies, in which employees are invited to participate in decision-making-process and contribute to the policy implementation, aiming to maximize employee potential. HPWPs sound ideal but their importance to employee engagement and performance in the service industry is still unclear.

Method:

To further understand the importance and influence of HPWPs, the current project adopts the AMO Model to review the knowledge gaps and develop research questions. Research data are collected from hotels in Nigeria, an emerging but little-known sector in the service industry. Employee’s experiences of HPWPs are collected through semi-structured interviews and then thematically analyzed.

Findings:

Engaged employees are keen to support the implementation of HPWPs, recognizing their imperativeness and behaving conscientiously in delivering hotel services. Managers’ positive attitudes (i.e., appreciation of employees’ effort & managers’ trust in employees’ capability) both facilitate the efficacy of HPWPs, leading to higher levels of engagement and more service-oriented citizenship behavior (S-OCB). However, when the level of employee engagement is low and managers’ positive attitudes are absent, HPWPs barely work.

Originality:

Unlike prior studies which link HPWPs to performance directly, we have proposed an alternative rationale to clarify the HPWPs-performance relationship. Specifically, research findings have helped clarify how HPWPs affect S-OCB by explaining the role of employee engagement and managers’ positive attitude as the underlying mechanism,

Practical implications:

Our research findings have clarified two important factors (i.e., employee engagement & managers’ positive attitudes) during the implementation of HPWPs, hence bringing new insights into the “HPWPs-Employee engagement” literature. Suggestions for implementing HPWPs in the service industry are also discussed.

Employee Engagement

Hotel

HPWPs

Performance

S-OCB

Employee Engagement (EE) has been seen to be one critical human resource construct and an indispensable part of every organization that has become a more strategic approach to achieving competitive advantage, ensuring efficiency of work, and driving a sustainable organizational performance (Eldor & Vigoda-Gadot, 2016). To improve employee engagement, the organization constantly looks for the best managerial practices, such as strategic management, systematic management and AI-driven management (Arefin, Shamsul, Shariful et al., 2020; Chang, 2020). Although different in nature, the aforementioned practices are all designed to enhance employee engagement, which in turn creates better working conditions for maximizing performance (Li, Rees & Branine, 2019). Similarly, the manager often adopts different combinations of managerial practices, aiming to improve employee engagement, performance and organizational outcomes. Gradually, these practices have formed the foundation of “High-Performance-Work-Practices (WPHPs)”, which benefit both employees and their organizations (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995).

HPWPs sound ideal but their efficacy is still unclear; particularly, scholars are keen to understand the relationship between HPWPs and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), because OCB is the most renowned performance indicator, contributing to the organizational dynamics and overall performance (Nguyen et al., 2016; Organ, 1988). Some scholars claim that HPWPs may not necessarily enhance OCB, as organizational policies, employee difference and performance measurement parameters all affect the outcomes of HPWPs (Chang et al., 2016; Karatepe & Vatankhah, 2015). The expression of OCB has been associated with HPWP’s, which involves helping, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue and self-development. This construct may vary across employees (managerial vs. non-managerial roles), job embeddedness (fully- vs. barely-enmeshed at work), and climate (teamwork- vs. competition-oriented) (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Morrison, 1994; Nguyen et al., 2016). Moreover, HPWPs seem capable of stimulating OCB, but the underlying mechanism is still unclear (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Pereira & Gomes, 2012).

Researching High-Performance-Work-Practices (HPWPs) is necessary and important for several reasons: first, the workforce is changing, with a growing number of Millennials and Gen Z employees entering the workforce. These employees place a greater emphasis on work-life balance, job satisfaction, and opportunities for growth and development. Researching HPWPs can help organizations understand how they can create a supportive work environment that meets the needs and expectations of this new generation of employees. Second, the business landscape is constantly evolving, and organizations must adapt to remain competitive. Researching HPWPs can help organizations understand how they can implement practices that support organizational performance and competitiveness in today's dynamic business environment. Third, researching HPWPs can help identify emerging trends and best practices in the field, which can inform organizational decision-making and support continuous improvement. Moreover, researching HPWPs provides evidence-based insights into the impact of these practices on organizational performance and employee well-being, which can inform organizational decision-making and support evidence-based management.

With the recent economic uncertainty in the Nigerian economy due to the high dependence on oil, the hospitality industry has become a niche to study as it contributes immensely to the country’s economy (Worldwide Hospitality and Terrorism Themes (WHATT), 2016). According to the National Bureau of Statistics [NBS] (2015), the Nigerian hospitality and tourism industry which includes hotels, restaurants etc., directly contributed ₦1.56 billion to the national economy. Undoubtedly, the growth of the hospitality industry specifically the hotel sector in Nigeria would have been faster and the quality of services better if the industry had access to a larger pool of motivated and engaged employees (Ibid, 2016).

In a study carried out within the hotel sector in Nigeria by Adedipe and Adeleke’s in 2016, employees reported poor levels of employee engagement, which influenced their capability to perform well within the industry. Adedipe and Adeleke (2016) claim that the sustainability of the hotel investment in Nigeria relies heavily on management committing to the development of its employees. This approach should be embraced in the organizations’ human resource and corporate strategy (Ibid, 2016). These realisations have helped justify the relevance to investigate and understand employees’ and employers’ perception of HPWPs, as well as strategies needed to engage employees.

Overall, while mainstream scholars see the importance of HPWPs, these scholars point out the sporadic and ambiguous outcome identified following studies around HPWPs specifically about the relationship between HPWPs and S-OCB (Jensen et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2014). Jensen et al. (2013) highlighted some scholars perspective which illuminates the challenges between the “rhetoric versus reality’ of HPWPs. This suggests that while HPWPs creates an advantage for the organization, it could result in heightened pressure. They believe that the implementation of these practices could address some of the deleterious consequences for employees (Jensen et al., 2013). Another concern raised around the importance of HPWPs on OCB was whether the same impact is applicable to S-OCB (Mahmood et al., 2019; Stephen et al., 2020). Scholars have investigated the drivers of OCB in the education- and public-sectors (e.g., Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Nguyen et al., 2016), but whether the same drivers are transferrable to the service-sector is unclear either. To respond to these knowledge gaps, we have therefore proposed a new research and our goals are threefold. First, we aim to clarify the effectiveness of HPWPs in the service industry. Next, we aim to understand how HPWPs affect S-OCB by explaining the underlying mechanism. Finally, based on the research findings, we are keen to advance the knowledge in the ‘HPWPs-SOCB’ relationship, hence bringing new insights into the literature of HPWPs.

Inspired by prior studies, we are keen to investigate the relationship between HPWPs and OCB in the service industry, with the following reasons: i). the service industry values the cultures of ‘customer-first and service-first’, but the function of service-oriented OCB lacks empirical investigation, which does not contribute to the amalgamation of OCB literature (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Odiaka & Chang, 2019). For the sake of clarity, we call service-oriented OCB as S-OCB from now; ii). HPWPs have been widely applied into management across industries; yet, not many scholars are keen to investigate the ‘HPWPs-SOCB’ relationship in the service industry (see exception in: Lee & Ok, 2016); iii). the growth of service industry is crucial to the national economy. Take the hospitality sector in Nigeria for example, it contributes 1.56 billion dollars to the national economy, i.e., the second biggest contribution to the Nigeria’s GDP (Whatt, 2016); and, finally, iv). despite of its economic significance, the service industry in Nigeria suffers from un-engaged employees (Karatepe & Vatankhah, 2015), and unskillful management practices (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2016). To sum up, there is a need to conduct a new research to explore the ‘HPWPs-SOCB’ relationship in the service industry, because research findings will help advance the knowledge of HPWPs and benefit managerial practitioners.

This article now turns to introduce the research rationale through literature review. Following the literature, we formulate research questions and elaborate research method. The interview-data are thematically-analyzed and, subsequently, discussed. Finally, the contribution and value of this study for theory and practice are provided, as well as an overview of the study’s limitations and suggestions for future research.

Literature Review

The construct of HPWPs

In the 1990s, managers revised their managerial practices from a ‘control-based personnel management’ to more ‘commitment-based managerial practices’, aiming to improve the employee engagement and performance; and gradually, these managerial practices have formed the foundation of high-performance-work-practices (HPWPs; Arthur, 1994). HPWPs can be seen as an amalgamation of different managerial policies, in which employees are invited to participate in decision-making-process and contribute to the policy implementation, hence maximizing employee potential (Huselid, 1995). Following the same logic, many managerial strategies have burgeoned, such as High-Performance Human Resource Practice (HPHRP; Sun et al., 2007), High Performance Work Environment (HPWE; Weinberg et al., 2013), High Performance Work Systems (HPWS; Karatepe & Vatankhah, 2015) and High Involvement Work Systems (HIWS; Stephen et al., 2020). Although different in nature, all strategies share the same concept of HPWPs, aiming to facilitate employee engagement and organizational outcomes (Boxall, 2012). To further understand the construct of HPWPs, the current research draws sights from theoretical- and empirical-studies. Details follow:

To begin with, we introduce the AMO model (Appelbaum et al., 2000) to the discussion. The model comprises three components, including: Ability, Motivation and Opportunity, and the joint effect of three components stimulates performance. Specifically, three components are unique in their respective ways: i). ability refers to the recruitment policies that ensure employees are qualified and capable of doing their jobs. It also refers to the management practices that employees are well trained or equipped with right skill-sets to carry out their jobs; ii). motivation refers to the job-motive, indicating that employees could be motivated with either an extrinsic, intrinsic or trust factor; and, iii). opportunity refers to the environment, indicating that the organization shall provide employees sufficient opportunities to participate. According to the AMO model, employees will reach the optimum performance when they have right skill-sets, possess adequate motivation, and work in a welcome-to-participate environment. The AMO model also explains how employees could be motivated through managerial practices, maximizing their performance and well-beings.

Next, we review the construct of HPWPs via the combination of AMO model and managerial studies. In terms of ability (1st component of AMO), scholars highlight the significance of trainings to the employee development and performance; for instance, employee trainings facilitate better relationships and learning atmosphere at work (Alatailat et al., 2019). During the trainings, through the use of a systematic and planned instruction activities (e.g., cross-departmental trainings), employees develop their confidence in learning and acquire new job knowledge (Kroon et al., 2013). Yen et al. (2016) also claim that cross-departmental trainings not only support career development, but also enable employees to establish goals; for instance, cross-trained employees can expand their exposure to task and enhance their ability to perform better. Namely, through the implementation of trainings (one practice of HPWPs; Boxall, 2012), employees can develop their job-ability, acquiring knowledge and new skills.

In terms of motivation (2nd component of AMO), we introduce ‘internal mobility’ to the discussion, with the rationale below: i). Good organizations shall offer internal mobility to the employee, such as vertical mobility (e.g., promotion opportunities) and horizontal mobility (e.g., job re-assignment opportunities), because internal mobility allows employees to manage their career orientation and broaden their career paths; and when the career orientation is self-manageable, employees become more motivated (Bamberger & Meshoulam, 2000); and, ii). In respect to the ‘employee-organization relationship’, employees need internal mobility to satisfy their personal needs and career ambition (Sun et al., 2007). Basically, prior studies agree the importance of internal mobility and, through the provision of internal mobility (a practice of HPWPs; Appelbaum et al., 2000), employees can develop stronger motivation in their jobs, satisfying their needs and ambition.

In terms of opportunity (3rd component of AMO), scholars address the necessity of empowerment to the job commitment and performance. Empowerment is defined as freedom, opportunity and ability to make decisions and commitments, and empowered employees benefit from high autonomy and better wellbeing (Forrester, 2000). Empowerment enables employees to make creative judgment and fulfil their duties, providing quick and fair responses to customers’ request (Guchait et al., 2012). Thus, through the implementation of empowerment (a practice of HPWPs; Arefin et al., 2020), employees become capable of executing tasks in their own ways, gaining more control at work.

Therefore, HPWPs have a strong relationship with the concepts of AMO in organizational behavior and management. First of all, Ability: HPWPs are designed to help employees develop the skills and knowledge they need to perform their jobs effectively. This includes providing employees with opportunities for training and development, as well as the necessary resources and support to do their jobs well. Secondly, Motivation: HPWPs are also designed to increase employee motivation by creating a supportive work environment that values employee contributions and provides opportunities for growth and development. This can include performance-based rewards, opportunities for employee involvement and empowerment, and a positive organizational culture that fosters a sense of commitment and engagement among employees. Thirdly, Opportunity: HPWPs provide employees with the opportunity to perform to their full potential by giving them the necessary resources, support, and incentives to do so. This includes access to training and development opportunities, opportunities for advancement and career development, and a supportive work environment that values employee contributions and fosters a sense of commitment and engagement. In summary, HPWPs can help to create a supportive work environment that enhances employee ability, motivation, and opportunity, which in turn can lead to improved organizational performance.

Overall, the reviewed literatures have clarified the construct and functions of HPWPs. Based on the discussion of AMO model and relevant studies, we have understood that HPWPs involve different bundles of managerial strategies and create supportive working conditions, which in turn facilitate employee engagement. As HPWPs share the components A, M and O, we can therefore infer that the AMO model conceptualizes HPWPs.

The efficacy of HPWPs

Earlier literature review has analyzed the construct of HPWPs, explaining the potential effect of HPWPs on employee engagement (EE) and performance. To continue this line of research and understand the efficacy of HPWPs, we add S-OCB to the discussion below. We first discuss whether HPWPs are capable of facilitating EE and then discuss how HPWPs may improve S-OCB. Details follow.

HPWPs and employee engagement

Employee engagement (EE) explains why employees feel committed to their work and where such commitment comes from (Kahn, 1990). Arefin et al. (2020) define EE as a fulfilling and motivating construct that is highly influenced by physical, affective and cognitive energy that leads to a high level of job and organizational performance. EE broadens the understanding of work and organization (Ibid, 2016).

Given the growing interest in Employee Engagement (EE) and the multiple definitions associated with the concept, there has been quite a few studies that focus on the context of employee engagement. EE is seen by Kahn and Arefin et al. as the psychological presence at work. Kahn’s definition and conceptualisation were perceived within two contexts. The first focused on the employees’ job role and the other focuses on the role as a member of the organization (Malinen et al., 2013). Saks, (2006) giving credence to the work of Kahn suggests that job and organizational engagement are distinct but with different antecedents and consequences. For example, employees understanding of procedural justice were predictive of organizational engagement and not job engagement (Malinen et al., 2013). In similar vein, organizational engagement showed stronger prognostic utility than job engagement towards organizational outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior (Saks, 2006). Saks (2006, p. 34) added, “Employee engagement covers equally job engagement and organization engagement”. Saks’ study is significant since his work tackles the fears associated with engagement as a ‘mere catchphrase’, rather than a serious concept. Saks’ study offered a convincing debate that encouraged scholarly research, thus removing barriers to academic works on engagement (Ibid, 2006).

With the prevalence of engaged employees, business organizations outperform their rivalries and gain competitive advantages (Chang et al., 2021; Eldor & Vigoda-Gadot, 2016), and managers favor the managerial strategies that can stimulate EE (Robinson et al., 2004). Coincidently, managers apply managerial strategies to increase EE, which is linked to the implementation of HPWPs. For example, managers often apply HPWPs to their practices, such as teamwork facilitation (Alatailat et al., 2019), decision-making enhancement (Kroon et al., 2013), development of employee well-beings and citizenship behaviors (Saridakis et al., 2017). That is, through the combinations of different managerial strategies, HPWPs create supportive working conditions, which in turn facilitate higher levels of employee engagement and therefore S-OCB.

The HPWPs-EE relationship can be further explained by the social exchange theory (SET; Blau, 1964). According to SET, the relationship between two parties shall sustain when the cost-benefit balance is reached, in which the concept of reciprocity explains why two parties continue to contribute to the mutual relationship, and benefit from the same relationship. Based on SET, the interactions between HPWPs and EE may evolve overtime into mutual-trust, loyalty and commitment, given that HPWPs and EE stick to the rules of exchange (Cropanzano & Mictchell, 2005; Itegboje & Chang, 2021). Following the same logic, when employees receive supports and resources from their organizations (e.g., outcomes of the HPWPs), they feel obligated to repay the gesture (Ibid, 2005). This phenomenon aligns with Robinson et al.’s (2004) interpretation of engagement as a two-way relationship, re-affirming the HPWPs-EE relationship.

A substantial amount of research has been conducted and published by academics, consultants and practitioners on what drives engagement (Eldor & Vigoda-Gadot 2016). According to authors in this field, every organization is characterised by its own unique dynamics, structure, and culture. Therefore, the solution to what strategy to adopt to ensure employee engagement varies for each organization, employee group, individual and the job itself. Thus, it is imperative for organizations to conduct research that incorporates designs and analysis of driver or levers of engagement (Robinson et al., 2004). Following this logic, this research was guided by a Human Resource Management strategy called High Performance Work Practices (HPWPs) that was put in place by Arthur (1994), and Huselid (1995), which serves to improve EE and stimulate S-OCB.

HPWPs, EE and S-OCB. Based on the literature review, we have learnt that HPWPs may facilitate employee’s ability, motivation, and opportunity to perform, which not only strengthens the management system, but may also enhances employee engagement. Based on the AMO model (Applebaum et al., 2000), if employees work in a HPWPs-prevailing environment, they may have higher levels of EE, leading to S-OCB; in contrast, if the environment lacks HPWPs, employees may have lower levels of EE, leading to less S-OCB. Specifically, we are intrigued to know how HPWPs might be linked to EE and S-OCB, and prior studies seem to offer preliminary information.

To begin with, Jiang, Hu and Baer (2012) indicate that people become more engaged in their job duties when they feel valued by the organization. Similarly, employees may work diligently in exchange of organizational recognition, such as developing new ideas in tasks and problem-solving (Alfes et al., 2013; Dhar & Dhar, 2021). Next, employees have been seen to continually participate in a give-and-take relationship with their employer, whereby one party gives a socio-emotional resource that is desired by the other in exchange for what the other party desires (Fletcher, 2015). As a result of this reciprocity, the organization may adopt a flexible work arrangement where employees decide ‘how’ and ‘when’ they work, giving the individual the ability to balance work and life (Lambert et al., 2008). During the implementation of HPWPs, moreover, the presence of training, internal mobility and empowerment (as per the discussion of AMO model) gives employees the ability, motivation and opportunity to perform tasks. This realization influences employee engagement, which subsequently stimulates more positive performance behavior, such as service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (S-OCB).

S-OCB stems from citizenship-behavior, which is a prominent performance behavior, contributing to the organizational dynamics, energy and overall performance; for instance, employees with such behavior are more committed to their jobs and follow organizational rules (Organ, 1988). Specifically, the emergence of S-OCB is related to three factors. First, extant studies tend to view citizenship-behavior from a universal perspective leaving out its contextual nature. Yet, citizenship-behavior often grows in a context and its discretionary behaviors may change depending on organizational cultures, group values and job characteristics (Nguyen et al., 2016). Citizenship-behavior may vary across employees, ranks of positions and job incumbents (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Morrison, 1994). Second, the understanding of S-OCB for employees who serve customers is vital (Odiaka, & Chang, 2019). Different from citizenship-behavior which focuses on the general prosocial- and proactive-behaviors, S-OCB focuses on the discretionary behaviors of employees who have contact with customers in the service-oriented context that go beyond formal job requirements (Bettencourt & Brown, 1997). Third, scholars explain S-OCB through three unique perspectives (Bettencourt et al., 2001): i). loyalty. S-OCB is displayed when employees actively advocate for the organization; ii). participation. S-OCB is displayed when employees take the initiatives to improve their services; and, iii). service delivery. S-OCB is displayed when employees behave conscientiously in delivering services. Interestingly, despite of its uniqueness and importance, S-OCB does not draw much academic attention in the service industry (see exception in: Odiaka, & Chang, 2019). The majority of existing studies still focuses on generic forms of OCB, paying little attention to S-OCB in the service industry (Krishnan et al., 2017). Our viewpoint is: conducting more S-OCB studies in the service industry is necessary, as research findings will advance the knowledge of S-OCB and offer practical insights to the personnel management policies.

Additionally, with the recent economic uncertainty in the Nigerian economy due to the high dependence on oil, the hospitality industry has become a niche to study as it contributes immensely to the country’s economy (Worldwide Hospitality and Terrorism Themes (WHATT), 2016). According to the National Bureau of Statistics [NBS] (2015), the Nigerian hospitality and tourism industry which includes hotels, restaurants etc., directly contributed ₦1.56 billion to the national economy. Undoubtedly, the growth of the hospitality industry specifically the hotel sector in Nigeria would have been faster and the quality of services better if the industry had access to a larger pool of motivated and engaged employees (Ibid, 2016).

To sum up, we have adopted literatures to analyze the construct of HPWPs, discussing the potential effect of HPWPs on EE and S-OCB. Earlier analyses have enriched the understanding of HPWPs, but the efficacy of HPWPs is still unclear. Scholars have highlighted the significance of S-OCB in the service industry, but how HPWPs affect S-OCB is unclear either. Therefore, we propose a new research to respond to these knowledge gaps. It is our hope that research findings will clarify the efficacy of HPWPs, bringing new insights into the employee engagement literature, particularly in the service industry.

Hospitality is a prominent sector in the service industry (Guchait et al., 2012) and thus selected for research. In a study carried out within the hotel sector in Nigeria by Adedipe and Adeleke’s in 2016, employees reported poor levels of employee engagement, which influenced their capability to perform well within the industry (Adedipe & Adeleke, 2016). They noted that by offering poor conditions of service, management (human resource managers and employers) too may have contributed to the adversarial employment relationship characterised by negative service attitudes among employees. They believe the sustainability of the hotel investment in Nigeria relies heavily on management committing to the development of its employees. This approach should be embraced in the organizations’ human resource and corporate strategy (Ibid, 2016). These realizations have helped justify the relevance to investigate and understand employees’ and employers’ perception of human resource practices (such as HPWPs), as well as strategies needed to engage employees.

To implement the research, we approached hotel managers in Abuja, Nigeria. Abuja is a well-known tourist destination and service-oriented businesses are prevailing (hence suitable to our research purpose). After receiving the hotel consent, we commenced the project in accordance with the guidelines from a university ethics committee. Stepwise, we first probed whether hotels were implementing HPWPs and only HPWPs-operated hotels were selected for data collection. We then introduced the research aims to the hotel employees and managers. Participation was voluntary but encouraged with book vouchers as incentives. Participation-consent, ID-anonymity, and data-confidentiality principles were all practiced.

To enhance the ecological validity of data collection, we recruited different types of frontline employees, such as receptionists, canteen staff and porters. While considering the selection of research samples was based on the quality outcome and exploring the role of HPWPs as a factor in those outcomes, the rationale for the frontline employees stemmed from the daily and frequent interaction with customers (see similar design in: Karatepe & Olugbade, 2016). As the frontline employees had ample opportunity in serving customers, measuring their experience of S-OCB became more meaningful. Managers of the frontline employees were also interviewed, because they played a vital role in implementing HPWPs.

We adopted a qualitative stance through semi-structured interviews, in which both frontline employees and their managers were interviewed. The main reason for this research approach was to enable the researcher to find the best and most effective and suitable way to understand how employee job engagement strengthens the relationship between HPWPs and employee creative performance. Interviewees were recruited from three types of hotels (local-, national- and 5 star-hotels), comprising mixed jobs, educations and tenures (See Table I for details). The need to study both an international and a local hotel in order to collect rich in-depth information informed the selection of these hotels. These three hotels are spread across three big cities in Nigeria and are rated from 4–5 star and contribute immensely to the economy of Nigeria. With the selection of these three hotels the researcher was able to gain broad and in-depth understanding of how employee engagement strengthens the relationship between HPWPs and employee outcomes in Nigerian hotel

To ensure the quality of data collection, we adopted a case-study approach to seek for the information (e.g. answers, cues) towards the knowledge gaps. During the interviews, we implemented a ‘social construction of reality’ approach, where a single-case was utilized to facilitate the discussion between interviewees and interviewers, leading to deeper and more meaningful information (Yin, 2014).

We adopted thematic analysis to analyze the interview data, including the application of 6-phase technique (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We first identified preliminary codes from the interview transcripts (see Table II), which were later refined and converted into themes. To improve the rigor of data analysis, we used AMO model as the background model (see similar strategy in: Podsakoff et al., 2000), as it fitted to our research purpose well. We then added newly-emerged themes into the background model, explaining the position of themes and relevant relationships between themes. For the sake of clarity, we crafted Fig. 1 to summarize the outcomes of analyses. Details follow:

To begin with, we found that interviewees generally had positive experiences about the concept of HPWPs through the lens of the AMO model. Examples included: HPWPs helped individuals carry out jobs, facilitated working morale and created job opportunities. Congruent with our expectation, both employees and managers recognized the significance of HPWPs. Next, interviewees highlighted the importance of EE to an engaging environment. Although HPWPs had an ability to stimulate employee engagement (as explained by the AMO model), employees claimed two particular factors (themes), which affected their levels of engagement. These were: manager’s appreciation of employees (e.g., Managers appreciate my efforts, so I feel worthy and recognized), and manager’s trust in employees (e.g., Manager trusts my value, capability and contribution, so I work diligently). Namely, although managers implemented HPWPs to improve employees’ ability, motivation and opportunity at work, their attitude towards employees also mattered. When managers showed positive attitudes towards subordinates, such as appreciating subordinates’ effort and showing trust, subordinates felt more engaged at work (e.g., my hotel values my skill sets. I feel I’m important member of the hotel. My hotel needs me. I feel I belong to the big family, I mean the hotel organization).

Interestingly, in the eyes of employees, S-OCB was an outcome of EE. Employees claimed that hotel managers should give employees the opportunity, resource and support, motivating employees to put in extra work. Managers should design, strategize and implement sensible HR practices that advance employee’s ability, encouraging employee’s willingness to exert effort and opportunities to express their talents in work tasks. And, managers should invest optimally in employees, ensuring employees possess the right skillset, knowledge, motivation and opportunity needed for better performance. To sum up, employees were willing to demonstrate S-OCB, but they argued that managers should value employees first, providing employees with sufficient support and resource. When employees felt supported and valued by their managers, they would show higher levels of engagement, which in turn led to more S-OCB. In contrast, when managers did not value employees, providing insufficient support, or not recognizing employees’ contribution, employees would show lower levels of engagement, which in turn led to less S-OCB.

During the implementation of HPWPs, hotel employees claimed that the organization (inc. senior managers, stake holders, governing bodies) should pay more attention to the remuneration and trainings, which employees interpreted as signs of organizational trust and appreciation. Sample remarks included: I don’t think I’d give all in as I do not feel well valued. If I am well valued by the hotel, I’d put in loads of efforts in my work. And, when the organization properly introduces career advancement and progression, be rest assured I will be pleased… feeling valued… I am happy to go the extra mile… The remarks from interviewees may sound sporadic; however, their remarks jointly shared two important messages. First, organizational recognition (e.g., values, appreciation and remuneration) was vital to the employees, which in turn led to S-OCB. Second, when employees showed S-OCB, managers should ensure the continuous implementation of HPWPs. This is because: HPWPs played an important role in supporting employees, such as trainings, internal mobility and empowerment (as predicted by the AMO model and discovered in interviews). Our observation is: HPWPs should not be treated as one-off managerial practice. Through the continuous implementation of HPWPs, managers could support their employees and improve the engagement, facilitating more S-OCB. Sample remarks included: managers should ensure no ‘belated pay’, as it sucks. And, late payment does affect engagement and performance.

The current research examined the efficacy of HPWPs in the service industry (hotel sector more specifically). Drawing on the AMO model, we investigated how hotel employees experienced HPWPs, analyzing the effect of HPWPs on EE and S-OCB. Research findings not only explained the mechanism underlying the ‘HPWPs-EE-SOCB’ relationship, but also clarified the roles of managers in facilitating employee engagement. These valuable discoveries have brought new insights into the “HPWPs-Employee engagement” literatures. Theoretical- and managerial-implications of research findings are discussed follow.

Theoretical Implications

Research findings first verified the importance of having engaged employees, as engagement was found vital in stimulating S-OCB. Following the data analysis, we have learnt that hotel employees were motivated by the ability and opportunity (stemmed from HPWPs), which in turn led to more engagement. Engaged employees also showed their desire to ‘engage in’ extra work (a sign of S-OCB). These new findings are different from previous studies of HPWPs, which were conducted in education and public sectors (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Nguyen et al., 2016), technology and manufacturing sectors (Mahmood et al., 2019; Stephen et al., 2020). That is, HPWPs also work in the hotel sector, a service-oriented industry. These findings have advanced the knowledge of HPWPs in the service industry, which is an emerging but little-known area.

Next, we can infer from interview data that manager’s positive attitude (e.g., trust in employees’ capability & appreciation of employees’ efforts) is crucial. Research findings revealed that, with manager’s appreciation and trust in mind, employees felt that they were valued and recognized by the organization, which in turn increased their levels of engagement. These findings could be further discussed by two perspectives: First, the AMO model (Appelbaum et al., 2000) predicted the relationship between HPWPs and employee engagement, i.e., HPWPs has an ability to facilitate engagement (see details in literature review), and our research offered empirical evidence to support the concerned relationship.

Second, in addition to the HPWPs, manager’s appreciation and trust also increased EE. This phenomenon could be interpreted by the relational-contract (Rousseau, 1990), which describes a situation where employees expect a long-lasting relational process with their managers and the organization. That is, employee will be more committed to their jobs (a form of engagement; Kahn, 1990), if they perceive trust and appreciation from their managers. From a different but relevant perspective, when perceiving managers’ positive attitude, employees are more likely to show “job-crafting” behavior, such as re-adjusting the ways they tackle the jobs, or re-evaluating the nature of jobs, so they can deal with challenging jobs more effectively (Tim et al., 2022).

Coincidently, our research findings also revealed that, when managers showed positive attitude towards employees (e.g., trust in employees’ capability at work), employees often returned with more commitment and engaging behavior. In contrast, if employees perceived limited trust or no appreciation from managers, they kept their engagement to the minimum and showed no career expectation. To our knowledge, our finding was the first in its kind, explaining the role of managers’ attitude in the implementation of HPWPs at hotels, hence bringing new knowledge to the “HPWPs-EE” literature.

Prior studies have explored the function of HPWPs (e.g., Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Pereira & Gomes, 2012) and called more research on S-OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000). To continue this line of research, we focused on the service industry (such as hotels in the current research), and thus gained a good opportunity to observe how HPWPs influenced S-OCB. Research findings showed that HPWPs developed employees’ skills, motivated them and allowed them to participate in decision-making, which in turn led to more engagement; and, engaged employees showed more S-OCB. Different from prior studies which linked HPWPs to OCB directly (e.g., Lambert et al., 2008; Nguyen et al., 2016), our findings suggested to place ‘employee engagement’ between HPWPs and S-OCB (as presented in Fig. 1). This suggestion is innovative in nature, adding an alternative explanation to the mechanism underlying the “HPWPs-SOCB” relationship.

More importantly, based on one of the gaps identified in recent literature, which, was to provide support for the relationship between HPWPs, EE and S-OCB outside the American-European mainstream, the current research provided an interesting context for the study because it represents an emerging market among West African countries (Nwosu & Ward, 2016). With the increased interest in the development and implementation of new and/or old HRM practices around firms in West African countries as seen by Nwosu and Ward (2016), this research analysed the use of HPWPs within the context of Nigeria’s service industry, paying close attention to employee engagement as the mechanism underlying the relationship between HPWPs and S-OCB. In doing so, the research stressed the importance of EE, as well as employees’ efforts and contributions to the success and development of an organization. The findings from this research thereby extended prior research and explained that employees and HR managers within the hotels in Nigeria believe employee job engagement is vital and important in strengthening the relationship between HPWPs and employee performance within Nigeria. Simply put, to facilitate the efficacy of HPWPs, managers and employees each play a role.

Practical Implications

According to the research findings, employees would be more engaged, if they perceived that the organization provided a system of well-designed management practices (such as HPWPs). With this idea in mind, we advise managers to design and implement HPWPs that help advance the skills and knowledge of employees. When employees have right knowledge and skill-sets, they are more likely to exert effort and express their talents in work tasks (Boxall, 2012). Similarly, organizations that value the management of human resources not only gain competitive advantage, but also create an engaged environment that positively influences S-OCB (Bae & Lawler, 2000). Our viewpoint is: by investing in employees through HPWPs, the benefits will amount from the returned contribution, thereby leading to better organizational performance as a whole.

From a managerial perspective, HPWPs can increase organizational performance by creating conditions where employees became highly engaged (Odiaka & Chang, 2019), and our research findings have highlighted HPWPs as management strategies critical in today’s uncertain market environment; specifically, our research findings revealed that, with manager’s trust and appreciation in mind, employees felt valued and then worked diligently, showing more S-OCB. Following this logic, we suggest managers to consider different engagement strategies, such as cohesion facilitation strategies (Karatepe & Vatankhah, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2016), teamwork and leadership trainings (Pereira et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2019), and AI-driven management strategies (Chang, 2020). Although different in nature, the aforementioned strategies are all designed to create a more supportive working environment, which in turn improves EE.

Limitation And Suggestion

Our research findings are the results of a single-case study and hence suffer from limited generalizability. Adopting an interpretivist single-case approach implies that, data collected may produce snapshots of perspectives at a given time, so perspectives may change (Podsakoff et al., 2012). To alleviate the impact of our research design, we recruit employees from different departments and ranks of position, and we believe the findings still convey detailed-and-objective information to explain the ‘HPWPs-EE-SOCB’ relationship. We suggest future studies to adopt different research designs, analyzing the function of HPWPs in full spectrum.

We have presented our research findings in Fig. 1, explaining the mechanism underlying the concerned relationships. Yet, without empirical testing, the applicability of our research findings remains unknown. Future studies may adopt a quantitative approach to examine the applicability of our Fig. 1. Moreover, we have adopted AMO model to elucidate the construct of HPWPs, analyzing the mechanism underlying the ‘HPWPs-EE-SOCB’ relationship. Although research findings have supported the concerned relationship, we should not assume that AMO model is the only theoretical framework to explain the effectiveness of HPWPs. Future research may inspect the efficacy of HPWPs through different theories, using different contexts, advancing the knowledge of HPWPs, employee engagement and overall performance.

Classification: Empirical Research (Qualitative design)

Declaration: The manuscript is original and is not under consideration or published elsewhere. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request after publication. The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article. Some parts of the manuscript were discussed in the institutional workshop (2022), but the full-text of manuscript has not been published. The research reported was conducted in accordance with the Institutional Research Ethics Guideline, and the dataset was newly collected and never being used for publication.

Acknowledgements: Author would like to express his sincere gratitude to two colleagues Professors Chris Rowley and Phil Scarf who have offered valuable comments to an earlier version of this paper. The insight provided by colleagues and their constructive criticism has greatly improved the paper.

Adedipe, C.O. & Adeleke, B.O. (2016) Human capital development in the Nigerian hospitality industry. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 8 (2):195-206.
Alatailat, M., Elrehail, H., & Emeagwali, O.L. (2019). High performance work practices, organizational performance and strategic thinking. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27 (3): 370-395.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing competitive advantage: The effects of high-performance-work-systems on plant performance and company outcomes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Truss, C. & Soane, E. (2013). The link between perceived HRM practices, engagement and employee behavior: a moderated mediation model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (2): 330-351.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A.L. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. London: ILR Press.
Arefin., M .D., Shamsul, M .D., Shariful, A .M .D., Rakibul, I. & Munmun R. (2020). High- performance work systems and job engagement: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Cogent Business & Management, 6 (1): 1-17.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), 670-687.
Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 502-517.
Bamberger, P., & Meshoulam, I. (2000). Human resource strategy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bettencourt, L.A., & Brown, S.W. (1997). Contact employees: relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service. Behaviors Journal Retail, 73 (1): 39-61.
Bettencourt, L.A., Gwinner, K.P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1): 29-41.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life, New York: Wiley.
Boxall, P. (2012). High-performance-work-systems: what, why, how and for whom? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50 (2): 169-186.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2): 77-101.
Chang, K. (2020). Artificial intelligence in personnel management: The development of APM Model. The Bottom Line, 33 (4): 377-388.
Chang, K., Max, S., & Celse, J. (2021). Employees' lying behavior and the role of self-awareness. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. DOI: 10.1108/IJOA-12-2020-2513
Chang, K., Nguyen, B., Cheng, K.T., Kuo, C.C., & Lee, I.L. (2016). HR practice, organizational commitment & citizenship behavior. Employee Relations, 38 (6): 907-926.
Choi, J. H. (2014). Who should be the respondent? Comparing predictive powers between managers' and employees' responses in measuring high-performance work systems practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25 (19): 2667-2680.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behavior: Reciprocity or “It’s my job”? Journal of Management Studies, 41 (1): 85-106.
Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M .S., (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6): 874-900.
Dhar, N., & Dhar, R.L. (2021). The role of high performance HR practices as an antecedent to organizational innovation: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 43 (1): 279-295.
Eldor, L., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2016). The nature of employee engagement: rethinking the employee-organization relationship. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28 (3): 526-552.
Fletcher, L. (2015). Can perceptions of flexible work arrangements boost engagement and desirable employee behavior? CIPD Applied Research Conference 2015 Retrieved from https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/can-perceptions-of-flexible-work-arrangements-booste- engagement_2015_tcm18-15590.pdf.
Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of Management Executive, 14 (3): 67-80.
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): 12-22.
Hefferman, M., & Dundon, T. (2016). Cross-level effects of high-performance-work-systems (HPWS) and employee well-being: the mediating effect of organizational justice. Human Resource Management Journal, 26 (2): 211-231.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of HRM practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal. 38 (3): 635- 672.
Itegboje, J., & Chang, K. (2021). Agency workers and their equivocal roles: Wandering employees. Labor History, 62 (2): 115-133.
Jensen, J.M., Patel, P.C. and Messersmith, J.G. (2013) High-Performance Work Systems and Job Control Consequences for Anxiety, Role Overload, and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Management, 39 (6): 1699-1724.
Jiang, K., Hu, J. & Baer, J. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (6):1264-1294.
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 692-724.
Karatepe, O.M., & Olugbade, O.A. (2016). The mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between HPWPs and job outcomes of employees in Nigeria. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28 (10): 2350-2371.
Karatepe, O.M., & Vatankhah, S. (2015). High-performance-work-practices, career satisfaction, and service recovery performance: a study of flight attendants. Tourism Review, 70 (1): 56-71.
Kehoe, R.R., & Wright, P.M. (2013). The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39 (2): 336-391.
Krishnan, T. R., Liew, S.A., & Koon, V. (2017). The effect of HRM practices in service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): Case of telecommunications and internet service providers in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 13 (1): 1911-2025.
Kroon, B., Van De Voorde, K., & Timmers, J. (2013). HPWPs in small firms: A resource-poverty and strategic decision-making perspective. Small Business Economics, 41(1): 71-91.
Lambert, A.D., Marler, J.H., & Gueutal, H.G. (2008) Individual differences: Factors affecting utilization of flexible work arrangements. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73 (1): 107-117.
Lee, J.J., & Ok, C.M. (2016). Hotel employee work engagement and its consequences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 25 (2): 133-166.
Lepak, D.P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E.E. (2006). A conceptual review of human resource management systems in strategic HRM research. In: Martocchio, J .J. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 25. JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 217-271.
Li, S., Rees, C.J., & Branine, M. (2019). Employees’ perceptions of HRM practices and employee outcomes. Employee Relations, 41(6): 1419-1433.
Mahmood, A., Naseer, M .A., Talat, U., Shuai, C., & Hyatt, J . C. (2019). Specific HR practices and employee commitment. Employee Relations, 41(3): 420-435.
Malinen, S., Sarah, W. & Peter C. (2013). What Drives Organizational Engagement? Evidence-based HRM. A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship 1(1): 96 - 108. Web.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6): 1543-1567.
National Bureau of Statistics [NBS]. (2015). Review of the Nigerian accommodation and services sector. Retrieved 25 May, 2016, from National Bureau of Statistics, www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/pages/ download/26.
Nguyen, B., Chang, K., Rowley, C. & Japutra, A. (2016). Organizational citizenship behavior, identification, psychological contract and leadership frames: the example of primary school teachers in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8 (3): 260-80.
Nwosu, B. & Ward, T. (2016). The way forward: human capital development in the hotel industry in Nigeria. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 8(2): 235-240.
Odiaka, K., & Chang, K. (2019). HPWPs (High-performance-work-practices) and its role on promoting the employee performance in the Nigerian Hotel Industry. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 19 (6): 23-36.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Pereira, C.M.M., & Gomes, J.F.S. (2012). The strength of human resource practices and transformational leadership: impact on organizational performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23 (20): 4301-4318.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63: 539-569.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26 (3): 513-563.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement. Institute for Employment Studies, Report 408. Brighton. Retrieved from https://www.employment- studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/408.pdf
Rousseau, D.M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11 (15): 389-400.
Saks, A .M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 21 (7), 600-619.
Saridakis, G., Lai, Y. & Cooper C, L., (2017). Exploring the relationship between HRM and firm performance. Human Resource Management Review 27 (1): 87-96.
Shen, W., Chang, K., Cheng, K.T., & Kim, K.Y. (2019). What to do and what works? Exploring how work groups cope with understaffing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24 (3): 346-358.
Stephen, W., Daniels, K. & Ogbonnaya C. (2020). Use of work-non work supports and employee well-being: The mediating roles of job demands, job control, supportive management and work-non work conflict. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31 (14): 1793-1824.
Sun, L., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3): 558-577.
Tims, M., Twemlow, M., & Fong, C. Y. M. (2022). A state-of-the-art overview of job-crafting research: current trends and future research directions. Career Development International. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2021-0216
Tomazevic, N., Seljak, J. & Aristovnik, A. (2015). TQM in public administration organizations: An application of data envelopment analysis in the police service. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 1-17. doi:10.1080/14783363.2015.1007861
Weinberg, D.B., Avgar, A.C., Sugrue, N.M., & Cooney-Miner, D. (2013). The importance of a high-performance work environment in hospitals. Health Services Research, 48 (1): 319- 332.
World Bank (2017). Nigeria Population Growth Rate. Retrieved May, 2017 from http://data.worldbank/indicator/SP.POP.GROW.
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes (WHATT) (2016)."Editorial", Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 8 (2): 114-116.
Wright, P., & Kehoe, R. (2008). Human resource practices and organizational commitment: a deeper understanding. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46 (1): 6-20.
Yen, Y.F., Wang, H.K., & Kao, W. (2016). High-performance work practices and organizational performance in small firms: The role of guanxi. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 27 (5-6): 628-646.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Zhang, M., Di Fan, D. & Zhu, C. J. (2014). High-performance work systems, corporate social performance and employee outcomes: Exploring the missing links. Journal of Business Ethics, 120 (3): 423-35.

TABLE I: Profiles of the interviewees (N = 34)

ID	Hotel	Job	Educational level	Tenure^†
01	Local	Manager (M1)	HND/BSc	18.0
02	Local	Manager (M2)	HND/BSc	2.0
03	Local	Manager (M3)	HND/BSc	6.0
04	National	Manager (M4)	BSc	33.0
05	5-Star	Manager (M5)	BSc/MSc	21.0
06	Local	Reception (R1)	HND/BSc	10.0
07	Local	Food & Beverage (F1)	NCE/HND	12.0
08	Local	Sales & Marketing (S1)	Degree	0.8
09	Local	Waitress (W1)	HND/BSc	11.0
10	Local	Executive House Keeping (E1)	HND/BSc	30.0
11	Local	Security (S2)	SS2 (Secondary)	0.8
12	Local	Gardening (G1)	SS2 (Secondary)	4.0
13	Local	Accounts (A1)	HND/BSc	6.0
14	Local	Maintenance (M1)	HND/BSc	6.0
15	National	Front office (F2)	BSc	1.0
16	National	House Keeping (H1)	NCE/HND	6.0
17	National	Accounts (A2)	MSc	2.0
18	National	Accounts (A3)	BSc	5.0
19	National	Personnel/Porters (P1)	HND	5.0
20	National	IT and maintenance (I1)	MSc	0.8
21	National	Kitchen (K1)	BSc	12.0
22	National	Kitchen (K2)	BSc	10.0
23	National	Food and Beverage (F3)	BSc	6.0
24	National	Security (S3)	O levels	15.0
25	5-Star	Front office (F4)	BSc	0.2
26	5-Star	Front office (F5)	BSc	1.0
27	5-Star	House Keeping (H2)	NCE/HND	1.0
28	5-Star	Accounts (A4)	BSc	8.0
29	5-Star	Accounts (A5)	BSc	10.0
30	5-Star	Personnel/Porters (P2)	O levels	2.0
31	5-Star	Sales and purchasing (S4)	BSc	8.0
32	5-Star	Kitchen (K3)	BSc	10.0
33	5-Star	Food and Beverage (F6)	BSc	6.0
34	5-Star	Security (S5)	O levels	20.0

Note.^†. Overall tenure in the hospitality industry.

TABLE II: Samples of analytic procedure

Preliminary codes

Interview transcripts

Emerging themes

(subject to further revision)

Opportunity and constraints of HPWPs

Trainings to develop abilities of staff were introduced like communication skills, accommodation skills, technical skills such as tiling, electrification, plumbing, catering….

A monthly package of N10, 000 (about US$ 25) given to the most outstanding employee, continuous free feeding of staff and words of encouragement from managers /supervisors are some of the motivational strategies adopted.

I create staff interaction with prominent men and women in the society.

I invite the hotel owners and the State Government to speak to our employees and sponsor studies for the higher institutions of learning. Other hotels don’t have such opportunities… to be brutally honest this works on some employees but not all.

Opportunity & Trainings

Motivation & Engagement

Opportunity

Opportunity, Training & Motivation

Mechanism of HPWPs-EE-SOCB

Engagement focuses on the ability to properly manage employees.

In fact, making sure that these employees don’t experience belated pay is very essential for their engagement.

Ability & Empowerment

Motivation & Engagement

Experiences of HPWPs

If you introduce career advancement and progression properly, be rest assured I will feel very happy and valued… Trust me I will put in a lot of effort in this work.

If I am satisfied with the management/organization/job……. I will think of what I can do to contribute, but if I am unsatisfied, I would not share knowledge.

I don’t think I will contribute at all if I do not think I am well valued. Performance has to do with my own personal effort…

Motivation, Opportunity

& Internal Mobility

Engagement & Motivation

Motivation & Engagement

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Do High-Performance-Work-Practices (HPWPs) really work?

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Purpose:

Method:

Findings:

Originality:

Practical implications:

Figures

Introduction

Method

Findings

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Limitation And Suggestion

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1