Anatolia

An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rana20

A text mining analysis of online reviews of Indian

hotel employees

Vinay Chittiprolu , Swati Singh , Raja Shekhar Bellamkonda & Sita Vanka

To cite this article: Vinay Chittiprolu , Swati Singh , Raja Shekhar Bellamkonda & Sita Vanka
(2020): A text mining analysis of online reviews of Indian hotel employees, Anatolia, DOI:
10.1080/13032917.2020.1856157

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1856157

Published online: 12 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 77

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rana20
ANATOLIA
https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1856157

A text mining analysis of online reviews of Indian hotel

employees
Vinay Chittiprolu, Swati Singh , Raja Shekhar Bellamkonda and Sita Vanka
School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Based on the premise of Market-focused Human Resource Management we Received 27 April 2020
propose that organizations should attend to employee voice. To this end, Accepted 23 November 2020
online reviews have emerged as a significant source of key information. We KEYWORDS
performed our analysis on (n = 2751) Glassdoor reviews of 22 hotel chains in Employee satisfaction; work
India. We employed text mining tools to identify determinants of employee culture; India; hotel chains;
motivation and dissatisfaction. Organizational culture, career growth oppor­ Glassdoor; analytics
tunities, and flexibility-motivated employees. Poor work–life balance, office
politics, and high attrition rate de-incentivized employees. Further, the
regression analysis of numerical ratings revealed that compensation and
work–life balance are hygiene factors; career opportunities and cultural
values emerged as dominant predictors of overall employee satisfaction.
Practical, policy, and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

Introduction
The hospitality industry is the fastest growing industry in the world. This growth, however, is
marred by high employee turnover intention and skill shortage. Technology has infused a silver
lining in its activities as hospitality landscape has witnessed rapid changes with the advent of the
internet, cloud computing, smart hospitality (Buhalis & Leung, 2018), and social media (Ladkin &
Buhalis, 2016). Further, uncertain, and sudden situations like COVID-19 have resulted in complex­
ity, requiring solutions of a different order. Technology innovations that increase productivity and
efficiency with a reduction in human resource cost are sure to influence “work” and ways of working
in the hospitality sector (Ahmad & Scott, 2019). Recent work by Baum et al. (2019) suggests that
working conditions in the hospitality industry have remained precarious historically and it is
expected to remain unchanged in the future, given several paradoxes in the tourism industry.
One such paradox refers to the employees, who are the co-creator of hospitality experience, are
devalued by the employers (Baum et al., 2019). This indicates a sub-optimal work scenario causing
high attrition. The employee attrition rate in the hospitality sector is among the highest across all
sectors, and in some countries, it is even more than 50% (Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2018). High
turnover is expensive to firms. Loss of outgoing-trained employees is coupled with the cost involved
in recruitment, selection, training, and onboarding of incoming employees, that can be as high as
90% to 200% of the annual salary (Allen et al., 2010). Further, high turnover is a marker an evidence
employee dissatisfaction, and low motivation. To this end, it becomes crucial to understand the
reasons behind motivation and dissatisfaction of employees (i.e. what do employees complain
about) in the hospitality industry. Literature reinforces this view, with a significant strand of

CONTACT Swati Singh swatisingh2620@gmail.com Senior Research Fellow, School of Management Studies, University
of Hyderabad, Prof. CR Rao Road, Gachibowli, Telangana, India, 500046
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 V. CHITTIPROLU ET AL.

research having focused on employee satisfaction/dissatisfaction and the factors influencing turn
over in the hospitality industry for quite long (Huang & Rundle-Thiele, 2014).
Most of the studies in the past, however, have relied on primary data collected using the survey
method. Research, however, indicates that the external validity of survey-based studies is compro­
mised due to sampling bias and attenuation bias (Fowler, 2013). On the other hand, an emerging
source of data is the digital platform, where employees post reviews about the organizations e.g.
Indeed & Glassdoor. Reviews on digital platforms have been extensively used in hospitality research
mainly with consumer reviews (Mellinas et al., 2019). A limited number of studies has explored
employee reviews in hospitality and tourism research e.g. (Stamolampros et al., 2020, 2019). Studies
which have used employee reviews have largely studied differences in job satisfaction among
different group of employees (Lee & Kang, 2017), value proposition, and firm performance, thus
indicating a dearth of studies which have used employee reviews to study the drivers of motivation
and determinants of employee dissatisfaction to derive insights for managers. We argue that user-
generated content by internal customers (employees) can be a valuable source of information, as it
provides unsupervised information, which is not possible in a questionnaire-based survey method.
We also agree that the research on employee satisfaction, motivation, and dissatisfaction is not new.
Scholars, however, have largely followed a survey or interview method which suffer from certain
limitations. We posit that the use of employee reviews may help in alleviating some limitations of
research methods, e.g., forced-choice response, finite questions, social desirability, and
generalization.
Researchers have called for more online employee review-based research from different contexts
(Stamolampros et al., 2019). We posit that Asia Pacific region can be focussed to carry out such
research as it varies distinctly from advanced economies (Enright & Newton, 2004) and plays
a crucial role in the expansion of global tourism. Further, as India is a dominant tourism player in
the Asia Pacific region (World Economic Forum, 2019), we set up our study in the Indian context.
This study is attempted with the backdrop of limited employee review-based research in the
hospitality sector and its importance to the organizations. The study aims at identifying the factors
that make employees happy and motivated and what dissatisfies them based on employee reviews.
Apart from the textual reviews, an attempt was made to include the analysis of numerical ratings
provided by employees in the study. Numerical ratings in employee reviews are used to investigate
the dominant factors influencing overall employee satisfaction. Glassdoor ratings include as many
as five dimensions of job attributes for which employees provide numerical ratings along with the
overall rating. The overall rating depicts overall satisfaction, and rating on specific job attributes
(e.g. Work-life balance, senior leadership, etc.) depicts employee’s satisfaction towards that attri­
bute. Based on these ratings, the predictive analysis was done to analyse which factors (attributes)
employees’ value most.

Review of literature & theory

Tourism and hospitality industry in India
Tourism & hospitality industry is one of the largest service industries in India. It is also one of the
top contributors to the GDP of India (Sanjeev & Birdie, 2019). It has the potential to grow at a rate
of 6.9% to touch around 500 USD Billion, contributing almost 10% of the GDP (Indian Brand
Equity Foundation, 2018). Growth in this sector is fuelled by the diverse portfolio of tourism
products e.g. adventure tourism, medical tourism, heritage tourism, luxury tourism, eco-tourism,
pilgrimage tourism, and rural tourism (D’Lima et al., 2018). Further, the easing of regulatory
framework like the introduction of tax benefits, reforms in direct investment, and simplification
of visa procedure have also provided the impetus to the hospitality and tourism industry in India
(Indian Brand Equity Foundation, 2018). Simply put, this sector is expected to grow and become
a leading contributor to the Indian economy.
 ANATOLIA 3

While the growth prospects portray a bright future for tourism in India, challenges; however,
linked to this sector cannot be ignored. The growth in this sector is plagued by several factors
including lack of proper infrastructure, issues relating to tourist safety, seasonality, high attrition
rate, and workforce issues like unavailability of the skilled workforce among others (Nukhu &
Singh, 2020).

Workforce issues in hospitality and tourism

Employees play a pivotal role in the service industry. Hospitality and tourism sectors are no
exception to this fact. Employees co-create compelling service experience for the customers making
it unique. Hence, it is vital that employees are engaged, satisfied, and motivated. Major factors that
contribute to employee motivation are organizational support, fairness, and organizational culture
(Kim et al., 2005). Extant literature also reveals that (dis)satisfaction is also linked to social
interaction at the workplace. The role of the relationship with supervisors and co-workers have
been studied in this connection, and studies report that job satisfaction of employee is significantly
influenced by the relationship with co-workers and supervisors.
Further, factors outside the work i.e. nonwork factors e.g. competing work and nonwork roles
also play a vital role in employee satisfaction. The understanding of work vis-a-vis non-work roles
become crucial within the hospitality and tourism context, where employees work for extended
hours, and overtime is common (Blomme et al., 2013). In India domestic migrants form a large
proportion of the workforce in tourism sector whose requirements differ from those of local
workforce, e.g. a long holiday to visit a native place or requirement of food and stay facility to be
provided by the employer. Hence, understanding workforce issues becomes vital to address the
distinct need for different categories of employees.
Another important factor that influences employee dissatisfaction is the high rate of attrition.
A high attrition results in long working hours of existing employees resulting in dissatisfaction.
Furthermore, due to complexities related to the minimum wage rate in the hospitality and tourism
sector in India, usually, employees do not get paid for overtime (Jauhari, 2012).
Work conditions in the hospitality sector are characterized by extended working hours, mono­
tonous and repetitive jobs, demanding customers and supervisors, inflexible work conditions across
the world including India (Jauhari, 2012). Together these factors lead to stressful work conditions
for the employees, causing work, and non-work imbalance, emotional stress, burnout, and loss of
employee motivation and satisfaction (McNamara et al., 2011). As employee motivation and
satisfaction are linked to customer satisfaction (Yee et al., 2008) and firm performance, scholars
have attempted to understand the determinants of employee happiness, motivation, and satisfac­
tion. Most scholars, however, have employed conventional research methods like survey, in-depth
interview and mixed-method (Stamolampros et al., 2019) Online reviews have not been explored
much. Online reviews present a unique opportunity to gather unsupervised information which can
enhance understanding about employee positive and negative work attitudes.

Online employee survey as data source for academic research

Digital platforms like Glassdoor and Indeed have transformed the way job seekers apply for jobs
and evaluate their prospective employers. Job seekers use employee reviews of these platforms as
a primary source of information about employers. The power of online reviews, however, extends
beyond the scope of finding jobs (Karabarbounis & Pinto, 2018). Many organization leverage it to
gather insights about employee voice and make internal improvements. Lately, academic scholars
have also embraced online reviews as a credible data source to garner information and answer
focused research questions (Pitt et al., 2018). Further, as these platforms collect information about
different dimensions of work e.g. salary, management, work–life balance, and career growth, etc.,
they offer a wealth of information about employee’s thoughts, views, opinion, and perception about
4 V. CHITTIPROLU ET AL.

the organization. Hence, it is advantageous to use the abundance of information provided by

employees on these online platforms to gather important employee insights.

Theory – market-focused human resource management

This study is based on the theoretical underpinnings of Market-focused Human Resource
Management in the service organizations (Bowen, 1996). This concept emphasizes that employees
should be viewed as internal customers to achieve two key outcomes. First, service organizations
must aim at developing a satisfied workforce. Second, it must focus on the development of
a motivated workforce. It is vital for service organizations like hospitality to ensure that the basic
requirements/needs of internal customers are met as that of external customers. Further, service
organizations must go beyond creating “satisfied employees” and must ensure that employees are
happy and motivated to perform their service. This becomes crucial as in services (unlike manu­
facturing) employees co-create service experience with consumers. Organizations have always
looked for methods to unearth the employee voice. It is here that mining employee voice from
online reviews can be useful. Employee reviews may reveal crucial insights which are often hidden
in other methods due to social desirability (e.g. interviews), limited questions, and restrictive
measures (e.g. survey research instruments).

Methodology
Hotel chains are included as form the sample in the study. A hotel chain is an enterprise that owns,
operates, and manages several hotels (Ivanova & Ivanov, 2015). Hotel chains, across the world, are
usually the top employment providers employing almost half of the workforce in this sector
(Richard, 2017); Hence, including them in the study will enhance the understanding of workforce
issues in the hospitality and tourism sector.
Glassdoor, an online review platform of collecting employee reviews, was selected. Past studies
have included Glassdoor reviews to study corporate culture, employer branding, and wage posting,
among others (Karabarbounis & Pinto, 2018). Further, reviews on Glassdoor are considered
representative and reliable. Scholars have reported that Glassdoor data do not follow the
U-shaped distribution which means that they are not biased (Stamolampros et al., 2019). In
addition, Glassdoor has devised a mechanism to ascertain the authenticity of the reviewers to
minimize the concern about unrepresentative employee reviews (Huang et al., 2015). Further,
research evidence that the Glassdoor also screens user-submitted content, use algorithms to detect
fraud and gaming to ensure the representativeness and reliability of the data (Landers et al., 2019).
Based on the Horwath HTL report (Horwath, 2018) top 20 hotel chains in India were included in
the study. Further, to increase representativeness, two top management hotel chains in India (Soni,
2019) were also included. Employee reviews of these hotel chains on Glassdoor were gathered. In
totality, 22 hotel chains present in India which comprised Indian, as well as international chains,
were included in the study (please see appendix 1). This improved representativeness and ensured
the generalizability of results. Employee reviews submitted on the platform for the period between
January 2017 to September 2019 were gathered. Employees reviewed their organizations on
Glassdoor majorly under three heads, i.e., Pros, Cons, and Feedback to the management. Thus,
these were the three categories under which responses were collected and analysed.
Online employee reviews are textual data. Hence, text mining was used for data analysis to
extract meaningful and useful insights. Firstly, the data sets were loaded into R software. As the
reviews were collected on the three categories, viz., Pros, Cons, and Feedback to the management,
three data sets were used for further processing. The data sets were converted into a corpus with the
help of V corpus function through tm package. The corpus was then subjected to pre-processing.
The text pre-processing was carried out using tm package in R (Xu & Li, 2016). Sentiment
dictionary was used to identify and remove those texts which were used by employees instead of
 ANATOLIA 5

empty texts (e.g. nothing to say, no comments, no feedback, etc.). This resulted in uneven textual
corpora of pros, cons, and feedback to the management. Further, the pre-processing workflow was
followed to each category text. After this step, final text corpus for each category was,
NPros = 1155 (positive), NCons = 1003 (Negative) and NFeedback = 593(Feedback to Management).
After text pre-processing, the data set was converted into Term Document Matrix (TDM) to
visualize the frequently repeated terms. Wordcloud2 package for data visualization was used to
visualize repeated words. Text polarity was analysed using Qualitative discourse analysis (Qdap)
package. Further, Ngram analysis was carried out for feature extraction. This analysis helped in
drawing meaningful information from the frequency of two or more associated words, for example,
bigram for two words and trigram for three words. Ngram function was used to carry out bigram
and trigram analysis. Igraph package was used for the visualization of bigrams and trigrams.

Results & discussion

Exploratory data analysis
Analysis of mean words, minimum words, maximum words, and average polarity (shown in Table
1) were performed. Table −1 depicts that total words in the con’s category is highest (19271) and
least in the feedback to the management category (8392). Additionally, the mean word of cons
(19.338) was the highest among all three categories. This suggests that the reviews under the con’s
category were longer as compared to the other two categories. It was also found that the average
polarity was also the highest (−0.5663) for the con’s category. Polarity depicts the sentiments
associated with the entity (i.e. positive or negative). A high level of negative polarity score depicts
highly negative sentiment towards the entity. In this case, the highest negative polarity was for cons.
The negative average polarity of feedback to management (−0.1305) depicts that the reviews under
this category had a greater number of negative sentiment references. In the case of pros, the average
polarity score was 0.5588, depicting a greater number of positive sentiment references.

Ngram analysis
Ngram analysis was performed to examine the correlation among the terms to draw meaningful
results. Bigram and trigram analysis of each category helped in the classification and identification
of factors related to it. Result of Ngrams analysis of each category is provided in the appendix. Based
on that, the most important factors under each category i.e. pros, cons, and feedback to manage­
ment were identified. The analysis of the factors under each category provides interesting insights
about factors relating to employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

What motivates hotel employees?

Determinants of employee motivation were identified under pros text corpora as it relates to the
positive references. Five determinants were found under this corpora i) environment and culture, ii)
learning and career opportunity, iii) flexibility and work–life balance, iv) HR policies and v) benefits
(please see Table 2).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Number of Total Average Mean Min Max Average
Type reviews words polarity (nwords) (nwords) (nwords) Rating
Pros 1155(41.98%) 16,477 0.559 14.539 3 202 3.864
Cons 1003(36.4%) 19,271 −0.566 19.338 3 364 3.700
Feedback 593(21.55%) 8392 −0.131 14.120 1 118 3.560
Total 2751 44,140 0.321 16 1 364 3.73
6 V. CHITTIPROLU ET AL.

Table 2. Factors identified under Pros, cons, and feedback : – the voice of the employee.
Total
Determinant Factors (N) Rank
Pros (Positives)/Determinants of employee satisfaction
Work environment/ Friendly environment (35), Employee friendly (15), Friendly Staff (17), friendly people (9), 111 1
Culture Environment freedom (4), leadership team (4), amazing people (5), employee centric (3),
helpful senior (3), employee care (4) helpful environment (4), helpful colleague (2),
mutual respect (2),supportive management (4)
Learning & Career Growth opportunity (22), Fast growth (16), Career growth (12), Learning curve (17), 85 2
Opportunities Learning experience (12), Online training (2), Train staff (2), International exposure (2)
Flexibility & Work life Life balance (40), Company Flexible (12), Flexible time (11), Work Shifts (5), personal life 79 3
Balance (5), Exposure flexibility (2), Switch role (2), Balance flexible (1), Cab flexible (1), Deadline
flexible (1)
HR policies Leave provision (16), HR Policy (17), Pay Scale (10), Incentive structure (6), Timely Salary (5) 67 4
Health Insurance (4), Flat Hierarchy (2), Tax savings (3), Internal movement (2),internal
transfer (2),
Benefits Free food (10), Employee benefit (9), Free cab/Shuttle (9), Extra Curriculars (4) 32 5
Cons (Negative)/Determinants of employee dissatisfaction
Poor Work-life Life balance (82), work-life balance (15), Personal life (9) 106 1
balance
Low salary & Low salary (15), pay scale (17), salary increment (7), Variable pay (6), salary structure (5), 69 2
incentives salary compare (5), employee salary (2), incentive structure (8), low pay (4)
Office politics & Bad management (5), internal politics (5), office politics (5), poor management (7), senior 63 3
Management issues management (9), upper management (8), bad manger (6), bad company (3), bad
culture(3), false promise(3), management issue (3), micro management (6), top level (3),
pressure bias (2)
Job Insecurity Insecure job (17), Fire policy (5), cost cut (7), attrition rate (5), cost control (3), cost pressure 46 4
(3), employee quit (2), Hire-fire (2), people leave (2),
Limited Career slow growth (10), career growth (8), growth opportunity (4), career path (2), career 34 5
opportunities progression (2), job pressure (2), menial task (2), personal development (2), lack training
(2)
Feedback to Management/Determinants of employee recommendations
Care for employees Employee care (21), Employee engagement (3), employee friendly (3), motivate employees 36 1
(4), care employee (2), deserve employee (2), respect employees (1)
Hiring & Attrition Hire people (11), attrition rate (3), entry level (3), ground level (3), level staff (3), bulk hire 33 2
(3), hire manager (3), employee leave (3), firing system (2),hire-fire (2)
Security & Growth Work shifts (6), career growth (4), Job security (3), pay scale (3), low salary (2), salary 24 3
structure (2), staff training (2), training module (2)

(Factors identified under Pros, Cons, and Feedback: – Voice of employee)

Major factors under work environment and culture were friendly environment, supportive
supervisor, mutual respect, and helpful seniors. This needs to be understood within the work
context of the hospitality industry which is characterized by long working hours, extended work
shifts, limited leaves, and demanding customers. In such contexts, employees seek support from
organizations to perform. Hence, the emergence of friendly work culture as a key determinant of
employee satisfaction is apparent.
Major factors under the learning and career opportunity category were growth opportunities,
training, online training, and career growth. These evidences that employees give importance to
organizational learning and development opportunities. Additionally, interesting insights emerged
with respect to flexibility as a determinant of employee satisfaction. Major factors under this
determinant were work-life balance, work-shifts, flexible time, and personal life. In tough work
conditions of tourism and hospitality, this determinant becomes vital, as most of the time employ­
ees work in a demanding situation, where flexibility is often denied (McNamara et al., 2011).
Furthermore, HR policies and benefits also emerged as the determinant of employee satisfaction.
Interestingly, under the benefits, factors like free food, free cab, and free shuttle emerged promi­
nently. This should be understood within the employment context of tourism and hospitality
industry in India, where domestic migrants are a large proportion of the workforce. Hence, they
expect employers to provide facilities like free food, stay, and travel.
 ANATOLIA 7

What do hotel employees’ complaint about?

Employees usually complain about the issues of dissatisfaction and concerns. References under cons
and feedback to management were found to reflect employee dissatisfaction and concerns, respec­
tively. References under the con’s corpora were found to be negative and thus included as the
determinants of employee dissatisfaction depicting employee complaints. Major determinants
under employee dissatisfaction were i) poor work–life balance ii) low salary iii) office politics and
management issues iv) Job insecurity v) limited career opportunities. The emergence of poor work–
life balance as a determinant of employee dissatisfaction signifies the competing demands of work
and non-work domain for employees in the tourism and hospitality sector. Demanding work
conditions in this sector often results in work interfering the family domain, resulting in poor
work–life balance (Mohanty & Mohanty, 2014). Organizations should understand and address this
issue as it has an adverse impact on the physical, psychological, and emotional wellbeing of
employees (Hemingway et al., 2014).
Strikingly, office politics and management issues also emerged as a determinant of employee
dissatisfaction. Major factors that emerged under this determinant were false promises, office
politics, bad managers, micro-management, and bias. Office politics discourage employees (Dhar,
2011). This, however, should be understood in the work context of the sector, where employees
(especially frontline employees) work under the philosophy that customers are always right. Under
such contexts, managers usually pressurize employees to serve and entertain customers, alongside if
employees see office politics, bias, and micro-management of issues, as it may result in negative
work outcomes. Such a scenario may result in sub-optimal work conditions which may trigger
voluntary drop out of employees. Furthermore, this finding should also be seen with respect to the
concurrent research findings on employee attrition (Raşcă & Deaconu, 2008) that suggests that
employees do not leave companies, they usually leave bosses. Hence, the organizational focus to
address the issues related to bad management, micro-management, bias, and office politics to
ensure that it does not act as a disincentive to the employees.
Further, feedback to management was also considered as a factor related to the employee
complaints and concerns because this text corpora also had a negative average polarity (−0.1305)
that signifies negative sentiment references. It was observed that while giving feedback to the
management, employees recorded the negative things. Simply put, under the feedback to the
management category, employees expressed the factors that concerned them. The major factors
that emerged under this category were – i) care for employees, ii) hiring and attrition, and iii)
security and growth. The factors under feedback to management indicate that employees showed
their concerns over attrition rate, job security, and care for employees. Under this category, an
interesting result was observed with respect to the concern of employees on the attrition rate.
Employees suggested management to hire more people. Alongside, findings related to “job security”
were also interesting, which can also be viewed in association with a high attrition rate. In short,
“high attrition rate” emerged as a significant factor causing concern among the employees in the
hotel and tourism industry.

Regression analysis: Factors influencing overall employee satisfaction

Employee reviews have two components-textual components and numerical rating. The analysis
presented in the above sections included the textual component of the employee reviews. Numerical
ratings were used for the regression analysis. Glassdoor ratings include as many as five dimensions
of the job for which employees provide numerical ratings along with the overall rating. These
dimensions are work–life balance, cultural values, career opportunities, compensation benefits, and
senior leadership. The overall rating depicts the level of overall satisfaction, and the rating on
specific job attributes (e.g. work–life balance, senior leadership, etc.) depicts the level of employee’s
satisfaction towards that attribute. Employees can provide the ratings 1 to 5 (with five depicting the
8 V. CHITTIPROLU ET AL.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of numerical ratings of job attributes.

Work/Life Balance Cultural Values Career Opportunities Compensation and Benefits Senior Leadership
Ratings Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
1 1.660 1.103 1.642 1.123 1.585 0.955 1.585 1.171 1.387 0.857
2 1.705 1.054 2.197 1.236 2.393 1.084 2.393 1.116 1.803 0.853
3 2.518 1.132 2.982 1.085 3.159 0.925 3.159 0.984 2.700 1.025
4 3.287 1.068 3.921 0.956 3.910 0.775 3.910 0.866 3.556 0.965
5 4.093 1.053 4.622 0.728 4.643 0.728 4.643 0.874 4.382 0.896
Total 3.25 1.39 3.74 1.37 3.78 1.28 3.78 1.22 3.45 1.38

highest level of satisfaction). Following previous studies (Jung & Suh, 2019) regression analysis was
used. Further, employees can also provide demographic details like employee status, work experi­
ence, age, gender, etc. For this study, employee status and work experience were controlled to avoid
confounding effects. Details for other demographic variables e.g. age, gender was not available for
all reviews, hence, were not included in the study.
In the first step, the mean and standard deviation of numerical ratings pertaining to each
attribute was analysed, the results of which are shown in Table 3. In the next step regression
analysis was performed. The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 4. Table 4 depicts
two models, Model 1 and Model 2. Model 1 is the baseline model with the control variables. Model
2. includes ratings for job attributes and controls. Results showed that high coefficient values were
observed for career opportunities (β = 0.38948***, p < 0.001) and cultural values (β = 0.19773***,
p < 0.001). The lower coefficient was observed for compensation and benefits (β = 0.08096**,
p < 0.01), and work–life balance (β = 0.10372***, p < 0.01).
Results require careful interpretation to avoid misconception. The low coefficient values of
compensation & benefits and work–life balance do not indicate that these factors are less important
for employee satisfaction. Rather, these present an evidence of hygiene factor as discussed in the
two-factor theory of motivation (Herzberg, 1965). This result can be understood better in the light
of the two-factor model, which states that factors that determine satisfaction are distinct from those
that determine dissatisfaction. A low coefficient value for compensation and benefits and work–life
balance with respect to overall employee satisfaction indicate that these are the basic needs of
employees. The presence of job attributes that fulfil such needs do not lead to satisfaction, but their
absence causes dissatisfaction. On the other hand, the results of career opportunities and cultural
values indicate that the presence of these attributes increases overall employee satisfaction signifi­
cantly. The findings demonstrate that the factors causing employee motivation and employee
dissatisfaction are distinct and thus addressing employee dissatisfaction does not guarantee
employee motivation (Herzberg, 1965). Revisiting HR policies and practices with informed

Table 4. Regression results.

Model 1 Model 2
Constant 3.441*** 0.288***
Experience 0.128*** 0.038***
Status 0.326*** 0.051
Work life Balance 0.104***
Cultural Values 0.198***
Career Opportunities 0.389***
Compensation and Benefits 0.081**
Senior Leadership 0.181***
R square 0.061 0.723
Adjusted R square 0.059 0.721
F statistic 34.31 on 2 and 1055 DF, p-value: 3.679e-15 391.2 on 7 and 1050 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
Model 1 depicts regression results with control variables.
Model 2 depicts regression results with independent variables and control variables
Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction (measured with overall rating)
Significance: -*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
 ANATOLIA 9

knowledge of motivators and hygiene factors outlined in this study can help organizations in the
hospitality and tourism industry combat high turnover and increase employee satisfaction.

Implications and conclusion

Managerial implications
The study has important managerial implications. The findings of the textual analysis revealed that
employees recorded longer reviews about the negative aspects (Nmean Cons). In the digital era,
employees voice their views on social media akin to consumers and their views, which influence the
perceptions of stakeholders (e.g. consumers, potential employees, etc.). Hence, it is vital to treat
employees as internal consumers as stressed in the concept of Market-focused Human Resource
Management (Bowen, 1996). Organizations should view employee reviews as employee voice. It can
be used to address hidden issues. In the present era, where Neglecting employee voice can be
damaging to the organization (Singh & Vanka, 2019) and hence, online reviews present avenues to
attend to employee voice.
Further, “Feedback to management” on Glassdoor carries vital managerial implications, as in
this section employees directly provide unsupervised feedback to the management. Further, results
depicted that employees look for organizational support for career development, and organizational
support can enhance employee satisfaction significantly. Organizations can provide direct (e.g., self-
administered) and indirect (e.g., computer and/or Web assisted) assessment to help employees
recognize new learning and development opportunities (Tracey & Swart, 2020). The study indicates
that without creating a growth-oriented supportive work culture it is difficult to enhance employee
satisfaction.

Policy implications
The study has important policy implications amidst the growing evidence of employment para­
doxes in the tourism and hospitality sector (Baum et al., 2019). Scholars highlight paradoxes that
exist in the hospitality sector – the devaluation of the tourism workforce, devolving of HRM
function as tourism operation, and disregard of the centrality of workers in this sector (Baum
et al., 2019). These paradoxes highlight the implications of suboptimal work conditions for
organizations as well as society. It can thus be argued that there is a need to look outwards to the
society and understand the multiple policy implications of the findings of this study as well.
The hospitality industry is one of fastest-growing industries in the world. It is also one of the top
employment providers (Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2018). As a key contributor to GDP, it is vital to
view labour issues in this sector beyond the managerial problem lens to seek contextual under­
standing for policy implications. The findings highlight that employees in this sector work under
precarious situation characterized by overwork, low salary, job insecurity, hire-fire policy, and lack
of growth opportunities. While these issues appear to be job-related, it is notable that most of these
issues are also linked to the inadequate government regulations – policy for minimum wage,
payment for overwork etc. Government intervention in terms of regulation of wages, payment
for overwork, benefits for healthcare education among others are required to address workforce
issues in the hospitality sector.

Theoretical implications
The study contributes to the growing literature of human resource management in the hospitality
and tourism industry. The findings of this study enhance the present understanding of the factors
causing satisfaction and dissatisfaction among tourism and hospitality employees through a novel
process of online review analysis. The analysis reveals that online employee reviews are a reliable
10 V. CHITTIPROLU ET AL.

data source, which can help unravel important employee insights. Additionally, using employee
reviews as a source of data may provide greater insight about the determinants of employee
motivation/dissatisfaction, in the light of the argument that employee satisfaction is
a multidimensional construct with restricted applicability of measurement scales (Matzler &
Renzl, 2007). The results are in line with the growing literature on the confluence of online
employee reviews and employee voice (Jung & Suh, 2019), which acknowledged the role of online
review platforms for employees to voice their concerns.

Conclusion, limitation & future research

This study set out to investigate the determinants of employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the
hospitality and tourism industry. The study attempted to leverage the wisdom of employee reviews
posted on Glassdoor to collect employee insights. Although the study attempted a novel methodology
and carried significant findings, it is not free from limitations. The scope of the study was limited in
terms of the sample – only chain hotels were included. Further, the different levels of employees were
not considered for employee reviews. In view of the limited information available about the employ­
ment level, which was not enough to draw a meaningful conclusion, it was consciously ignored.
Despite its limitations, the study certainly adds to the understanding of the determinants of
employee satisfaction (dissatisfaction) in the hospitality and tourism sector. It opens newer avenues
for future research, for example, including the level of employment in the data set can add valuable
insights. Future research can also be carried out on the determinants of employee satisfaction
among the different type of hotels – budget, luxury, resorts, etc. A cross–country study can also be
carried out to unravel cultural differences, which may bring valuable information for international
chain hotels. This study has contributed to the understanding of employee satisfaction in the
hospitality industry, which will ignite, and interest researchers, managers, and scholars.

Disclosure statement
No, potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Vinay Chittiprolu is research scholar in tourism area at the School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad,
India. His research interest includes leisure tourism, heritage tourism and influence of digitalization on hospitality
and tourism industry.
Swati Singh is research scholar in HR & OB area at the School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad,
India. Her research interest includes Sustainable careers, Sustainable HRM and Employee voice.
Raja Shekhar Bellamkonda is currently Pro Vice- Chancellor of the University of Hyderabad, India. His primary
areas of interest include Service Quality, Quantitative Techniques, Operations Management, Industrial &
Organisational Psychology and Research Methodology.
Sita Vanka is currently a Professor and Former Dean, at the School of Management Studies, University of
Hyderabad. Her current research includes Sustainable HRM, Family Business Management, Sustainable Career
Management.

ORCID
Swati Singh http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8694-4488
 ANATOLIA 11

References
Ahmad, R., & Scott, N. (2019). Technology innovations towards reducing hospitality human resource costs in
Langkawi, Malaysia. Tourism Review, 74(3), 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-03-2018-0038
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with
evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48–64. doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.2.48
Baum, T., Solnet, D., Robinson, R., & Mooney, S. K. (2019). Tourism employment paradoxes, 1946-2095:
A perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 252–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-2019-0188
Blomme, R. J., Sok, J., & Tromp, D. M. (2013). The influence of organizational culture on negative work-home
interference among highly educated employees in the hospitality industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality & Tourism, 14(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2013.749384
Bowen, D. E. (1996). Market-focused HRM in service organizations: Satisfying internal and external customers.
Journal of Market-Focused Management, 1(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129602
Buhalis, D., & Leung, R. (2018). Smart hospitality—Interconnectivity and interoperability towards an ecosystem.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 71, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.11.011
Bureau of Labour Statistics. (2018), Employment Projections: 2018-2028. Bureau of Labour Statistics. Retrieved
February 8, 2020, from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm
D’Lima, C., Everingham, Y., Diedrich, A., Mustika, P. L., Hamann, M., & Marsh, H. (2018). Using multiple indicators
to evaluate the sustainability of dolphin-based wildlife tourism in rural India. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26
(10), 1687–1707. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1503671
Dhar, R. L. (2011). Living with organizational politics: An exploration of employees’ behavior. Work: Journal of
Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 40(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2011-1216
Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2004). Tourism destination competitiveness: A quantitative approach. Tourism
Management, 25(6), 777–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.06.008
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2013). Survey Research Methods. Sage.
Hemingway, A., Hartwell, H., & Ladkin, A. (2014). Workplace Health & Wellbeing: Considering the Tourism
Workforce. In: 3rd international tourism conference. Tourism & innovation: Re-inventing, revolutionizing, trans­
forming, 9-11 November 2014. Montego Bay, Jamaica. https://hbr.org/2008/07/putting-the-service-profit-chain-
to-work
Herzberg, F. (1965). The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Personnel Psychology, 18(4), 393–402.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1965.tb00294.x
Horwath HTL. (2018). Asia Pacific chains & hotels report 2018. Horwath HTL. Retrieved February 10, 2020, from
https://corporate.cms-horwathhtl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/01/2018_ASIA-PACIFIC_CHAINS-
REPORT-1.pdf
Huang, M., Li, P., Meschke, F., & Guthrie, J. P. (2015). Family firms, employee satisfaction, and corporate
performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 34(C), 108–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.08.002
Huang, Y. T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2014). The moderating effect of cultural congruence on the internal marketing
practice and employee satisfaction relationship: An empirical examination of Australian and Taiwanese born
tourism employees. Tourism Management, 42(C), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.005
Indian Brand Equity Foundation. (2018). Indian tourism and hospitality industry analysis, IBEF, New Delhi.
Retrieved 29 February, 2020, from https://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-tourism-and-hospitality-industry-
analysis-presentation
Ivanova, M., & Ivanov, S. (2015). The nature of hotel chains: An integrative framework. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 16(2), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2015.1023639
Jauhari, V. (2012). Strategic growth challenges for the Indian hotel industry. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism
Themes, 4(2), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554211211217307
Jung, Y., & Suh, Y. (2019). Mining the voice of employees: A text mining approach to identifying and analyzing job
satisfaction factors from online employee reviews. Decision Support Systems, 123, 113074. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.dss.2019.113074
Karabarbounis, M., & Pinto, S. (2018). What can we learn from online wage postings? Evidence from Glassdoor.
Economic Quarterly, 4(4), 173–189. https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/richmondfedorg/publications/
research/economic_quarterly/2018/q4/karabarbounis.pdf
Kim, W. G., Leong, J. K., & Lee, Y. K. (2005). Effect of service orientation on job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and intention of leaving in a casual dining chain restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 24(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.05.004
Ladkin, A., & Buhalis, D. (2016). Online and social media recruitment: Hospitality employer and prospective
employee considerations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(2), 327–345.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0218
Landers, R. N., Brusso, R. C., & Auer, E. M. (2019). Crowdsourcing job satisfaction data: Examining the construct
validity of Glassdoor. Com Ratings. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 5(3), 6. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/
pad/vol5/iss3/6/
12 V. CHITTIPROLU ET AL.

Lee, J., & Kang, J. (2017). A study on job satisfaction factors in retention and turnover groups using dominance analysis
and LDA topic modeling with employee reviews on Glassdoor.com. ICIS 2017. Retrieved 2 January, 2020, from
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Study-on-Job-Satisfaction-Factors-in-Retention-on-Lee-Kang
/8685c89fe1e13cbede31ec58eb810c3be4174381
Matzler, K., & Renzl, B. (2007). Assessing asymmetric effects in the formation of employee satisfaction. Tourism
Management, 28(4), 1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.009
McNamara, M., Bohle, P., & Quinlan, M. (2011). Precarious employment, working hours, work-life conflict and
health in hotel work. Applied Ergonomics, 42(2), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.06.013
Mellinas, J. P., Nicolau, J. L., & Park, S. (2019). Inconsistent behavior in online consumer reviews: The effects of
hotel attribute ratings on location. Tourism Management, 71, 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.
10.034
Mohanty, K., & Mohanty, S. (2014). An empirical study on the employee perception on work-life balance in hotel
industry with special reference to Odisha. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 2(2), 65–81. https://
doi.org/10.15640/jthm.v2n2a5
Nukhu, R., & Singh, S. (2020). Perceived Sustainability of seasonal employees on destination and work—a study in
the tourism industry. In S. Vanka, M. B. Rao, S. Singh, & P. M. Rao (Eds.), In sustainable human resource
management (pp. 213–225). Springer.
Pitt, C. S., Botha, E., Ferreira, J. J., & Kietzmann, J. (2018). Employee brand engagement on social media:
Managing optimism and commonality. Business Horizons, 61(4), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.
2018.04.001
Raşcă, I.-L., & Deaconu, A. (2008). The importance of loyalty of highly performing employees for organizational
performance. Management & Marketing, 3(2), 49–55. http://www.managementmarketing.ro/pdf/articole/101.pdf
Richard, B. (2017). Hotel chains: Survival strategies for a dynamic future. Journal of Tourism Futures, 3(1), 56–65.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-06-2016-0018
Sanjeev, G. M., & Birdie, A. K. (2019). The tourism and hospitality industry in India: Emerging issues for the next
decade. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 11(4), 355–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-05-2019-
0030
Singh, S., & Vanka, S. (2019). Voice matters: Why HR should listen to employee voice? Strategic HR Review, 18(6),
268–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-04-2019-0026
Soni, S. (2019, May 26). OYO’s meteoric rise in budget hospitality might see early check-out of smaller rivals from
market, Financial Express. Retrieved 8 January, 2020, from https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/sme/oyos-
meteoric-rise-in-online-hotel-booking-might-see-early-check-out-of-smaller-rivals-from-market/1589427/
Stamolampros, P., Korfiatis, N., Chalvatzis, K., & Buhalis, D. (2019). Job satisfaction and employee turnover
determinants in high contact services: Insights from employees’ online reviews. Tourism Management, 75,
130–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.030
Stamolampros, P., Korfiatis, N., Chalvatzis, K., & Buhalis, D. (2020). Harnessing the “wisdom of employees” from
online reviews. Annals of Tourism Research, 80(C), 102694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.02.012
Tracey, B., & Swart, M. P. (2020). Training and development research in tourism and hospitality: A perspective paper.
Tourism Review, 71(5), 256–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2019-0206
World Economic Forum. (2019). the travel & tourism competitiveness report 2019 travel and tourism at a tipping
point. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 29 February, 2020, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TTCR_
2019.pdf
Xu, X., & Li, Y. (2016). The antecedents of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction toward various types of hotels:
A text mining approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2016.03.003
Yee, R. W., Yeung, A. C., & Cheng, T. E. (2008). The impact of employee satisfaction on quality and profitability in
high-contact service industries. Journal of Operations Management, 26(5), 651–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.
2008.01.001
 ANATOLIA 13

Appendix
(1) List of hotel chains

1 Taj Hotels & Palaces 12 Radisson Hotel Group

2 ITC Hotels 13 Accor
3 Lemon Tree Hotels 14 Hyatt
4 Oberoi Hotels & Resorts 15 Louvre Hotels Group
5 Royal Orchid Hotels 16 IHG
6 Leela Palaces Hotels Resorts 17 Wyndham
7 CHPL Hotels & Resorts 18 Hilton
8 Lalit Suri Hospitality Group 19 Choice Hotels
9 Clarks Inn Group 20 Best Western
10 Keys Hotels 21 Oyo
11 Marriott International 22 Treebo hotels

(2) Bigram Analysis

(i) Bigram Cons
(ii) Bigram Pros
(iii) Bigram Feedback to management

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
a
1 .848 .719 .717 .690

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1281.818 5 256.364 537.770 .000b
Residual 501.505 1052 .477
Total 1783.323 1057

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) .323 .074 4.347 .000

wlb .114 .021 .122 5.367 .000
culture.values .208 .025 .219 8.204 .000
career.opp .388 .026 .381 15.003 .000
com.ben .079 .025 .074 3.164 .002
sen.manag .181 .026 .192 6.969 .000

Variables Entered/Removeda
emp.status Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method
0 1 sen.manag, com.ben, wlb, career.opp, culture.valuesb . Enter
1 1 sen.manag, wlb, com.ben, career.opp, culture.valuesb . Enter
14 V. CHITTIPROLU ET AL.

Model Summary
emp.status Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
0 1 .852a .727 .723 .741
1 1 .840b .706 .703 .656

ANOVAa
emp.status Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
0 1 Regression 597.462 5 119.492 217.341 .000b
Residual 224.865 409 .550
Total 822.328 414
1 1 Regression 657.449 5 131.490 305.519 .000c
Residual 274.153 637 .430
Total 931.602 642

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

emp.status Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

0 1 (Constant) .273 .115 2.379 .018

wlb .099 .037 .101 2.676 .008
culture.values .211 .043 .221 4.954 .000
career.opp .400 .042 .389 9.406 .000
com.ben .052 .042 .047 1.235 .218
sen.manag .214 .041 .225 5.256 .000
1 1 (Constant) .378 .099 3.834 .000
wlb .127 .026 .142 4.924 .000
culture.values .208 .032 .220 6.562 .000
career.opp .379 .033 .377 11.542 .000
com.ben .105 .031 .102 3.398 .001
sen.manag .141 .034 .152 4.108 .000