The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1755-425X.htm

JSMA
12,3 Impact of job satisfaction and job
stress on employees’ life in
Mumbai’s hospitality sector
330 An empirical study using SEM
Received 22 January 2019
Revised 8 March 2019
Indrajit Goswami
19 March 2019 Human Resources, N.L. Dalmia Institute of Management Studies and Research,
24 March 2019 Mumbai, India, and
Accepted 24 March 2019
Nigel Raylyn Dsilva
Management and Emerging Technologies,
N.L. Dalmia Institute of Management Studies and Research, Mumbai, India

Abstract
Purpose – Employee stress and job satisfaction are significant issues in the hospitality industry. Moreover,
employee stress has cost implications on the stakeholders, i.e. employers and employees alike. There is
inadequate empirical evidence that could shed light on job stress and burnout issues of hotel employees with
reference to India. Also, the nature and level of hospitality employee stress is not fully understood. Thus, the
purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of job satisfaction and job stress on the life of employees in the
hospitality sector in Mumbai.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from a total of 510 respondents (23 for inductive and
487 for the deductive study) from six five-star category hotels in Mumbai. It utilizes a sequential
mixed-method approach to measures the study variables through phenomenography and then validates their
causal relationship through partial least squares structural equation modeling using Smart PLS-SEM.
Findings – In the inductive analysis it was found that “work related” factors such as unsafe working
conditions, work load, relationship on the job were the most prominent sources of stress for the respondents.
In the deductive analysis the causal relationship between job satisfaction, job stress and stress impact verified
through Smart PLS-SEM turned out to be significant. It could be inferred from the results that job satisfaction
negatively influences job stress and job impact. Similarly, job stress positively influenced stress impact
among the hotel employees.
Research limitations/implications – The results of the current study should be interpreted with caution.
First, the current study only includes self-reporting stress levels. Direct observation was not feasible, since it is
subjected to the researchers’ bias. The sample in this study did not include employees of limited-service hotels.
As limited-service hotels may have different requirements, challenges and culture for employees than
full-service or five stared hotels, thus the findings of the study may not be generalized to limited service hotels.
Practical implications – The study has dual implications. First, similar research interventions through the
mixed-method approach must study the causal relationship between job satisfaction, job stress and stress
impact by effectively exploring the participants “lived experience.” Second, employers must validate
customer feedback to evaluate employee job performance.
Originality/value – This is the first study to explore interrelationships between the three important
variables, namely, employees’ job satisfaction, job stress and its impact on the life of employees in
the hospitality industry using the sequential mixed-method approach. The study findings open new avenues
for future research using structural equation modeling, thus representing an important contribution of
the present study.
Keywords Structural equation modelling, Job stress, Job satisfaction, Hospitality sector,
Deductive method, Inductive method
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Strategy and

Management Introduction
Vol. 12 No. 3, 2019
pp. 330-346
There are organizations, where employees receive greater attention from their internal
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1755-425X
stakeholders, i.e. owners and management, when compared to their external stakeholders
DOI 10.1108/JSMA-01-2019-0012 such as customers. The inherent assumption in these companies is that employee satisfaction
enhances customer happiness, and it is an important determinant of business success. An empirical
The success story of South West Airlines underscores the company’s philosophy of study using
“employees first customers next” as the most reliable business proposition (Rao, 2016, p. 25). SEM
Similarly, based on the inductive reasoning it may be inferred that employees working in the
hospitality sector, especially in the graded accommodation establishments, are likely to be
happy and satisfied. For instance, in the five star hotels which fall under the graded
accommodation establishments category, customers’ happiness is considered and measured 331
as one of the important variables that determine their performance and credibility (Dsere and
Relebohile, 2015). Since customers’ feedback plays an important role in the performance
assessment, employees in the hotel industry always remain under pressure. Furthermore,
most of the times they have to compromise with their own work and family life balance.
The hotel industry works round the clock and during the peak business season it has to
hire casual or temporary staff. However, it is pertinent to note that the regular employees
are responsible for the core areas, such as customer care, including room service, catering
food and beverages, etc. The customers’ expectations coupled with employers’
performance demand make their job very stressful and challenging (Dsere and
Relebohile, 2015). Such intense customer focus may have a direct impact on the employees’
work-life balance and consequently a silent regressive impact on the individual as well as
organizational effectiveness.
There is inadequate empirical evidence which could shed enough light on job stress and
burn out issues of hotel employees. The present study neither corroborates nor rejects the
findings from previous studies. The study utilizes the mixed method approach to examine
the impact of job satisfaction and job stress on life of employees in the hospitality sector in
Mumbai. Initially a qualitative approach has been utilized to understand the way hotel
employees narrate their lived experiences, both on duty as well in their families.
Subsequently, through deductive method the causal relationship between research variables
was tested with the aid of structural equation modeling.

Review of literature
Demographic factors and job satisfaction
It is well known in the research domain that demographic factors such as age, gender,
marital status, etc., play an important role as independent variables in defining the concepts
and for construction of theories on job satisfaction and job stress. Several of the earlier
studies have argued that such demographic variables have impacted employees’ job
satisfaction (Abdulla et al., 2011; Zeffane et al., 2008; Ellickson and Logsdon, 2001; Davis,
1992; Zeffane, 1994). However, observations differ and there is hardly any unanimity in the
current literature with regards to relationships between demographic variables and other
dependant variables such as, job satisfaction and job stress. While, in their study in five-star
hotels, Kara et al. (2012) have found significant gender differences in job satisfaction of
employees, Hashemi et al. (2015) found no significant difference between gender of hotel
employees in Iran and their job satisfaction.
A similar study in 2012 was conducted by Ravichandra and Dalvi on the IT and
manufacturing sectors in India. The authors did not find any significant differences
between employees’ age groups, gender, marital status, years of working experience
and their level of job satisfaction. In an earlier study, Brush et al. (1987) conducted
meta-analysis of more than 10,000 individuals from 21 organizations and found that the
correlation between education and job satisfaction ranged from negative to positive. Al
Ajmi (2001) found that managers with post-graduate degrees were more satisfied with
their jobs than those with lower levels of education. However, Metle (2001, 2003) reported
contradictory findings where employees with higher education were less satisfied with
their jobs than the less educated ones. As discussed above, the past evidences do not
JSMA indicate any consistent pattern in the nature of the relationships between demographic
12,3 factors and job satisfaction among individuals across industries in different countries,
including the hospitality sector.

Demographic factors and job stress

In some of the earlier studies, Pradhan and Khattri (2001) and Triveni and Aminabhari
332 (2002) found association between gender and occupational stress among doctors, lawyers
and teachers. Virk et al. (2001) and Bhatia and Kumar (2005) also found strong association
between age and job stress, respectively, among teachers and employees of manufacturing
sectors. Anitha Devi (2007) noticed lower level of job stress among older women in different
professions and Park (2007) concluded that levels of income and education are associated
with level of stress. He found that low personal incomes and low levels of education were
also associated with higher stress. For instance, shift, part-time, and non-white collar
workers were more likely to have high-stress jobs. The employees with such jobs perceived
their work to be physically demanding and less satisfying. Osmany and Khan (2003) found
unmarried working women have higher level of job stress than their married counterparts.
The authors found that unmarried working women reported high stress at work place due
to political pressure and for married women, it was due to poor peer relation.
Further, in two different studies in India, Aminabhari and Kamble (2004) found impact of
job stress was lesser among middle-aged technical professionals, and Chand and Monga
(2007) noticed that higher education level helps in minimizing impact of stress on life and
work of academicians. In another study, Sharma et al. (2010) found female lawyers
experienced significantly greater stress than the males. It could be inferred that working
women lawyers have more stress and burnout because of stereotyping discrimination, social
isolation and work home conflict. Further, they feel more stressed and experience burnout
because of lack of influence and promotional opportunities and inequality ending with low
job satisfaction when compared to males.
It is evident from the above review that levels of job stress depend on different
demographic factors, and apparently the pattern of dependency is not similar across
different occupations or professions. Do the aforesaid patterns bear similarity with
employees in the hotel industry, especially with those working in five-star hotels?
The literature does not provide any significant evidence in this regard and this warrants
further research inquiry.

Job satisfaction, job stress and other factors

Oneybu and Omotayo (2017) found that pay, promotion, reward system, job security, favorable
working environment, co-worker support, working conditions and recognition turned out to be
influential factors that positively affect job satisfaction of hotel employees in Nigeria.
The authors agreed that apart from demographic factors, organizational or work-related
factors too have an impact on employees’ job satisfaction (Abdulla et al., 2011; Ozturk and
Hancer, 2011). Some of the studies claim that unlike demographic factors, work-related factors
are better predictors of job satisfaction (Abdulla et al., 2011; Carlan, 2007; Ellickson and
Logsdon, 2001). Ozturk and Hancer (2011) found that employee satisfaction is closely
associated with length of service and work experience (Oshagbemi, 2003).
Individuals with longer working experience have higher respect for their jobs and are more
satisfied than those with comparatively lesser experience (Bilgic, 1998). Role ambiguity was
found to be negatively related to job satisfaction (Kemery et al., 1985). Similarly in another
study among branch managers of private sector commercial banks in Pakistan, Malik et al.
(2010) revealed that role overload and role conflict directly and negatively influenced
employees’ job satisfaction. A study in China found association between education, skills and
job satisfaction (Kong et al., 2018) among employees in Macao Casino hotels. The study found
that employees’ mediocre interpersonal skills were the most important determinant of job An empirical
satisfaction and performance (Gu et al., 2009). Gallardo et al. (2010) in their study in Spain and study using
Portugal found that while employees of those two countries differed in their levels of job SEM
satisfaction, they largely agreed on the impact of the level of wages on their satisfaction.
Hence, it is important to note that job satisfaction is determined by multiple factors that may
considerably differ across industry sectors and countries.
In their study, Pandey and Tripathy (2001) identified role conflict, role ambiguity and 333
group pressure as the major sources of job stress of teaching professionals in India.
In another Indian study job stress was found to be comparatively lower among
government college teachers, when compared to their colleagues in private colleges in
Patiala (Lehal and Singh, 2005). Similarly, in their study George and Zakkariya (2015)
found that employees of private and public sector banks significantly differed in terms of
their job satisfaction and job stress. In other attempts, leadership style (coercive
leadership) was responsible for employees’ job stress (Panchanatham et al., 2006). In
another study on law professionals, Bhattacharya and Guha (2006) found busy work
schedule, odd duty hours and poor collegial relationship as the main sources of job stress.
Further, according to the findings of Chand and Monga (2007) study, academicians with
higher job involvement experience lower job stress.
The findings of a couple of empirical studies in the hotel industry from India, Germany,
USA and the Middle East seem to point toward a diverse nature of factors that predict job
satisfaction. In a study in Pune, Peshave and Gujarathi (2013) found that longer working
hours and low salaries were the major factors that affected worker attrition rates. Rothfelder
et al. (2012) conducted a study in the German hospitality industry and found that
transformational leadership positively affect employee job satisfaction. Similarly, Su Jin
et al. (2017) found that in the US hotel industry, managers’ emotional intelligence level and
support have a significant impact on employees’ job satisfaction. In five-star hotels in Dubai,
Salem (2015) found a significant negative correlation between transformational leadership
and job stress and job burnout. The aforesaid findings seem to be in conflict with the trends
in the literature. Perhaps this could be attributed to cultural and diversity issues. Also, the
correlation was found to be higher among “guest contact employees” when compared to
“non-guest contact employees.” Further, in the four and five-star category hotels in
Kusadasi, three other work related factors such as role ambiguity, role conflict and role
overload were found to have negative association with job performance. It is important to
note that role ambiguity creates more stress than role conflict or overload (Yilmaz, 2015).
A study with 544 respondents from luxury hotels in China revealed that job stress increased
with an increase in occupational burnout (Kang et al., 2016). Yet another study in China
revealed that hotel employees often experience job stress due to being bullied or
discriminated at their workplaces (Ariza-Montes et al., 2017).
The evidence from the above literature clearly indicates that when compared with
demographic factors such as age and gender, organizational and work related factors are
found to be better predictors of job satisfaction and job stress. However, there is no concrete
evidence to understand the relative strength of organizational and work related factors in
determining the level of satisfaction and stress among employees in different industries,
including the hotel industry in India. It is also pertinent to note that generally organizational
culture impacts on job satisfaction and job stress (Dsere and Relebohile, 2015). Therefore,
further research interventions are required in order to assess the relative strength of the
different components of organizational culture, especially in the Indian hotel industry.

Relationship between job satisfaction and job stress

While a study on executives of commercial banks in Malaysia revealed the existence of
significant positive correlation between job stress and job satisfaction (Ayupp and Nguok, 2011),
JSMA another study in the Indian textile industry found significant negative correlation between job
12,3 stress and job satisfaction (Bhanu and Paramanandam, 2017). In similar attempts in India, Singh
and Dubey (2011) found negative correlation between job stress and job satisfaction, and
Sharma et al. (2010) identified job stress as a significant predictor of job satisfaction among
lawyers in Himachal Pradesh. Further, the results of a study in Tehran and Mashhad by
Masihabadi et al. (2015) seem to be quite conflicting. The study shows a negative correlation
334 between job stress and job satisfaction, but surprisingly a non-negative correlation was reported
between job stress and job performance.
In the hospitality sector, the employees also experience moderate to high levels of job stress
and burn out symptoms (Ahmad et al., 2014). There are empirical studies which confirm that
employees’ job satisfaction and job stress (Kysilka and Csaba, 2015; Yilmaz, 2015; Kang et al.,
2016) negatively affect their job performance, significantly leading to employee attrition
( Jimmieson et al., 2004; Kysilka and Csaba, 2015), burnout (Rajesh, 2016) and decrease in
customer orientation in Chinese hotels (Kang et al., 2016).
While the literature from the non-hospitality sector indicates the existence of both, negative
and positive correlation between job satisfaction and job stress, there is hardly any related
empirical evidence available from hospitality sector in India. Also in general there is no evidence
on the possibility of a triangular relationship between job satisfaction, job stress and stress
impact in the hotel industry especially in India. The evidence retrieved through the literature
review are not adequate either to establish specific research gaps or to formulate research
propositions for deductive analysis. Hence, there is a need for adoption of mixed method
research, where the researchers need to build some propositions through an appropriate
exploratory approach, and then to follow a suitable deductive method to reach a conclusion.
The present study is expected not only to address the above research gaps, but also to add a
new dimension through the mixed method approach for knowledge creation in the domain.

Research approach
First, the researchers’ goal was to draw insights about hotel employees’ job satisfaction and
job stress, through their own narratives. For this purpose, 23 respondents were selected
conveniently, which included only those who were willing to participate and devote quality
time with the researchers to undergo the interview process. The respondents who
participated in this phase of study were mostly from middle level management positions
(N ¼ 23, n ¼ 16) and seven (n ¼ 7) were junior level executives. The demographic profile
of the sample (N ¼ 23) is presented in Table I. Since most of the respondents wanted to
express their opinions and experiences through open and frank conversations, the
researchers decided to utilize open-ended questions to explore their views on different
potential factors responsible for their job satisfaction and job stress. The interviews were
conducted either at the respondents’ homes or at a convenient place outside their job
locations. The goal was to understand the pattern of similarity and differences in their
experiences on the two variables, i.e. job satisfaction and job stress. The preliminary
findings reveal that the majority (57 percent) of respondents have higher levels of stress and
a larger majority (87 percent) have expressed suffering from ill health due to the impact of
job stress. The narratives which appeared similar were grouped together in order to identify
the corresponding factors related to the variables (see Tables II and III).
The corresponding factors of each variable have been used in final questionnaire
designed for the next part of research, i.e. deductive approach. The following are the
propositions built through the observations and narratives discussed above:
(1) employees’ perception about their level of stress may vary according to their age,
gender, nature of work and years of experience;
(2) a more satisfied employee on the job may have lesser levels stress;
 Frequency Percentage
An empirical
study using
Gender SEM
Male 11 48
Female 12 52
Age
20–26 4 17 335
27–33 19 83
Marital status
Married 10 43
Unmarried 13 57
Working experience
4–5 yrs 7 30
6–7 yrs 6 26 Table I.
7–9 yrs 10 44 Demographic profile
Note: Sample size ¼ 23 of respondents

(3) the level of stress of employees and its impact may vary according to their age,
gender, nature of job and years of job experience; and
(4) there may exist a causal relationship between respondents’ job satisfaction, job
stress and impact of stress on their life.
To test the above propositions of the study the following section discusses the research
design, i.e. sampling procedure, tools and techniques.

Sampling, tools and techniques

A sample of 487 hotel employees across different levels was selected through random sampling
from a population of approximately 798 employees from six five-star hotels in Mumbai. The
details regarding the name of hotels were kept confidential to comply with the research ethics
and to protect their business interests. A questionnaire was mandatory for the deductive
analysis and was designed with appropriate tested scales and distributed through personal
visits to the selected hotels and by sending soft copies through e-mail. The response rate was
76 percent which meant that from 487 respondents only 371 duly filled-in questionnaires were
returned, out of which 24 questionnaires were not filled completely and were excluded from
processing. Hence, the effective sample size for the study was 347 respondents.
The questionnaire was designed to understand respondents’ demographic background,
their reasons for joining and continuing in their present jobs. The level of job satisfaction
was measured using a five-point Likert type scale. Similarly, a five-point Likert type scale
was used to measure job stress, the sources of stress; and the impact of stress on
respondents. The factors retrieved from the narratives above (Tables I and II) were included
in the tool designed (the questionnaire and scales) for testing and final use. The primary
data were analyzed with the aid of SPSS Software Version-25.0 by using descriptive
statistics, χ2 test, z-test, Friedman’s rank test and correlation tests. In addition, Smart PLS
software was used for partial least square (PLS) algorithm test (structural equation
modeling) to assess path coefficient and discriminant validity between job satisfaction, job
stress and impact of stress.

Reliability analysis
Cronbach’s α reliability method was applied to check reliability of all items in the
questionnaire. Reliability test was applied using SPSS-25.0 and the reliability measures
JSMA The conversation narratives Frequency Corresponding factors
12,3
1. “Satisfaction on job does not depend only on Similar or nearest Welfare facility
what we do on job and how we do, but it is narratives used by
determined by how we are taken care of by 14 employees
the management and what type of welfare
measures are given to us”
336 2. “We are not happy because we never Used by
get welfare facilities like employees of 7 employees
other industries”
3. “Sometimes we expect some monetary 11 employees Loan facility
assistance as loan with low interest from
management, but it’s not adequate”
4. “We get inadequate monetary benefits 5 employees Monetary benefits
for the work we do”
5. “My friends working in other hotels get 3 employees
better monetary benefits than me”
6. “We are sometimes scared about, if an 9 employees Accident insurance
accident happens inside hotel. We are not
sure if we have any accident insurance”
7. “Our family members are not given due 16 employees Personal-family care/privilege
attention by the employers. Even during
festive times we don’t get any special
privilege from our employers. We feel bad
and it impacts our relationships in family”
8. “It’s sometimes monotonous to do the 12 employees Career development
same job for so many years. We hardly get
an opportunity to have some career
development options”
9. “I never see my seniors or management are 8 employees
serious about our career progression in
the same hotel we work. There is deprivation
and discrimination”
10. There have been instances where a 6 employees Hence, along with the above
few employees linked provident fund, prominent variables, the following are
ESI benefits and pension schemes to their also considered to be included for
‘job satisfaction measurement
Table II.
Job satisfaction: Provident fund
narratives used by ESI benefits
the employees and Pension
factors retrieved Note: Sample size ¼ 23

were given in Table III. The initial reliability coefficient value was found as 0.791 for job
satisfaction (QWL) questionnaire. The insignificant items were deleted based on
item-total statistics to improve the measurement model. The remaining items were again
tested for items reliability. The reliability coefficient value was found as 0.857. Similarly
for job stress the initial reliability coefficient value was 0.863. The insignificant items
were screened out to improve the measurement model. The remaining items were again
tested for items reliability. The reliability coefficient value was 0.947. Similarly for stress
impact the initial reliability coefficient value was 0.950. The insignificant items were
screened out to improve the measurement model. The remaining items were again tested
for items reliability. The reliability coefficient value was found to be 0.971. As the
reliability score is higher compared to the initial reliability test further analysis was
conducted to verify the structural model.
 Corresponding
An empirical
The conversation narratives Frequency factors study using
SEM
1. “We are not considered as human beings but robots. Similar or nearest Work load
Unjustified work load […] it’s against human dignity […] narratives used by 19
at times we feel to give up […] but can’t do” employees
2. “[…] .sometimes we feel insecure even on job […] .as Used by 7 employees Unsafe working
women we feel little tensed, scared, especially during (all women) conditions 337
late night duties […] it’s difficult to express our concern
openly here […]”
3. “Our relationships at work are very formal and artificial, 17 employees Relationships on job
we feel programmed, except a few most of the colleagues
are selfish. We hardly find anything substantial from our
job relationships, especially with the senior executives.
Sometimes even colleagues talk nonsense and stupid”
4. “It appears to be our responsibility to get the message 9 employees Ineffective
from official oral communications, the seniors never take communication
care of their responsibility as communicator. Even often
it’s embarrassing if ask them to repeat. We experience
irritation and we too have responsibility but it’s a mutual
trust and mutual respect which determine the quality of
communication”
5. “Many times it is usual that seniors are biased in 14 employees Favoritism
allocation of duties and resources. There is favoritism in
scheduling work shifts. Some of us have vested interests
in doing so. There is discrimination in allocation of duties
among married and unmarried women. Gender
discrimination is rampant […]”
6. “We are not happy the way performance review is done. 9 employees Inadequate
The frequent visitors sometimes play biased role. recognition
Unfortunately customers’ feedback is very important in
our performance evaluation. There is no check and Table III.
balance system to evaluate customers’ feedback. Many Job stress: narratives
times we are not adequately (or appropriately) recognized used by the employees
for our contribution (and performance)” and factors retrieved

Results and discussions

Descriptive analysis
The descriptive analysis revealed that the majority of the respondents (72.9 percent) were
under 30 years of age and the ratio of male to female staff was 7:3. Most of the respondents
found status of the job, the hotel’s image and reputation, comfort, growth opportunity,
working environment and creativity on the job as the major reasons that motivated them to
join the industry. However, only 41.8 percent respondents were satisfied with their jobs and
about 39 percent were neutral in their responses. The analysis revealed that the majority
(57 percent) of the respondents have higher levels of stress when compared to the other part
of the sample. Moreover, their stress levels differed significantly according to their age,
gender and nature of work. It was found that “work related” factors such as unsafe working
conditions, work load, relationship on the job were the most prominent sources of stress for
the respondents. The second most important source of stress was organizational factors,
such as ineffective communication, favoritism, inadequate recognition of performance. The
initial findings suggested that the majority (87 percent) of respondents had higher levels of
stress that impact their performance. It is pertinent to note that the two most prominent
implications of stress impact were visible through guests’ negative behavior and employee
turnover, respectively.
JSMA The χ2 value (37.543) at 0.01 level of significance infers that there exists a statistically
12,3 significant association between the age of the respondents and their level of stress. The χ2
value (28.600) indicates that there is an association between gender of the respondents and
their level of stress at 0.01 level of significance. It is pertinent to note that the z-test value
(3.333) also shows that there is a significant difference in the level of stress among male
and female employees at 0.01 level of significance. The mean value reported that female
338 employees (322.2) had higher stress levels when compared to their male counterparts
(299.5). Hence, it is evident that significant differences exist in the level of stress among
male and female employees. There is also evidence of an association between the
respondents’ nature of work and their level of stress. The χ2 value turned out to be (38.540)
at 0.01 level of significance. A significant association was found between respondents’
years of experience and their level of stress. The χ2 value was found to be (27.343) at 0.05
level of significance.
The coefficient of correlation value (−0.306) indicates that there is a significant inverse
relationship between job satisfaction and level of stress at 0.01 level of significance.
The coefficient of correlation value (0.628) shows that there is a significant positive
relationship between level of stress and its impact on the life of the employee at 0.01 level of
significance. This implies that the respondents’ level of stress has a positive correlation with
impact on their life. Interestingly, the z-test value (1.552) showed that there was no
significant difference in the impact of stress among male and female employees at 0.05 level
of significance. Hence it could be inferred that male and female employees do not
significantly differ in terms of impact of stress on their life.
The χ2 value (32.831) shows that there is a significant association between age of the
respondents and impact of stress on their life at 0.01 level of significance. Therefore, unlike
gender the respondents differ significantly in terms of impact of stress on their age. The χ2
value (39.567) shows that there is a significant association between nature of job and impact
of stress on their life at 0.01 level of significance. Therefore, nature of job is associated with
impact of stress on life of the respondents. The χ2 value (26.995) indicates that there is a
significant association between years of experience and impact of stress on their life at 0.05
level of significance. It is pertinent to note that years of job experience cannot be ignored as
it is associated with impact of employees’ stress on their life.

Conceptual framework using Smart PLS

The conceptual framework between job satisfaction, job stress and stress impact was
verified by Smart PLS software in order to formulate the propositions and for further
statistical testing. The reliability test was conducted to verify the items and scale reliability
used in the study to go for further analysis using smart PLS. The three constructs of the
study that are conceptually related to each other are shown in Figure 1.

Job Stress
Satisfaction Impact

Figure 1.
Conceptual Job Stress
frame work
Model assumptions An empirical
The specification of directionalities of presumed causal effects is represented in most study using
structural equation models described in the literature. Directionality specifications concern SEM
both structural and measurement models. Briefly “Structural Models” in SEM represent
hypotheses or propositions about presumed direct or indirect causal effects among variables
measured either simultaneously (cross-sectional design) or at different points in time
(longitudinal design). For instance, in the current study job satisfaction and job stress both 339
directly and indirectly impact stress in the employees’ life. Moreover, there are more
assumptions in a typical application of SEM when compared with standard statistical
techniques. These assumptions concern the model, inferences about the directionality of
effects in structural models or measurement models, and the data. Further, standard
statistical techniques may not be able to accurately capture such directionality effects.

Measurement model
Measurement model evaluates the relation between manifest variable (observed items) and
exogenous/endogenous latent variable by analyzing the factor loading on each constructs
(Hulland, 1999). The structural model verifies the relationship between exogenous latent
variable and endogenous latent variable by analyzing path coefficients between them.
Higher path coefficients and resultant R2 values reported is the indicator of better model
predictive ability. The study used Smart PLS to estimate the measurement model and
structural model simultaneously (Ringle et al., 2005). The proposed model as shown in
Figure 2 has three latent construct, namely, job satisfaction, job stress and stress impact. It
is pertinent to note that Tenenhaus et al. (2005) introduce three criteria to determine the
overall quality of the model. Specifically, a path model can be assessed at three levels: the
quality of the measurement model; the quality of the structural model; and each structural
regression equation used in the structural model.

Exhausted
0.768

Unfriendly
0.818

Adamant
0.890

Prompt
Ser...
0.854

PF Free
Service
0.818
0.688
Personal
care Argument
0.838
0.899

0.851
Career dev 0.000 Misbehavior
0.826 0.840
–0.258
Monetary 0.787 Drink
0.837
JOB SATISFACTION 0.359 0.849
Reduce
stress Influence
0.838

STRESS IMPACT Mishandling

0.867
–0.319

Comments
0.465 0.841

Schedules
0.873

Authority
JOB STRESS 0.850

Atmosphere
0.817
0.102
Recognition
0.799

0.792 0.796 0.760 0.762

0.827 0.789 Freedom

Figure 2.
0.819

0.795 0.826 0.798 0.740 0.735 0.749

Final path model
Excecise Work Medical Physical Health Decision m... Incentives Communic... Partiality Recognition Punishment Work Condi... Maintenance
JSMA Quality of the measurement model
12,3 The quality of the measurement model was tested by assessing the individual item and
scale reliability followed by convergent and discriminate validity of constructs’ measures.
Initially the relationships were displayed between the constructs of job satisfaction, job
stress and stress impact. The PLS algorithm was applied and the resultant relationships,
coefficients and values of loading were calculated. The factor loading below 0.7 were
340 removed from the initial path model. A final path model was determined after removing
the items which had the loading below 0.7. The final path model is given in Figure 2.
A negative path coefficient was reported between job satisfaction and job stress (−0.741).
Similarly, a negative path coefficient was reported between job satisfaction and stress
impact (−0.258) and the path coefficient was found to be positive between job stress and
stress impact (0.465).

Reliability
Individual factor’s reliability was assessed by examining the loadings of associated factors
on their respective latent constructs in PLS modeling (Hulland, 1999). Reliability of each
variable was assessed through Fornell and David’s (1981) measure of composite reliability
in addition to Cronbach’s (1951) α. This measure is preferred over Cronbach’s α because it
offers a better estimation of variance shared by the respective indicator. In this study
composite factor reliability coefficient of the constructs ranged from 0.898 to 0.974 as shown
in Table IV, which met the standard of 0.70 as suggested by Fornell and David (1981).
The factor loading, Cronbach α, composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE)
values calculated by PLS algorithms were tabulated in Tables V.

Convergent validity
Convergent validity refers to the degree of agreement in two or more measures of same
construct (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). Fornell and David (1981) indicated that convergent
validity is not established because variance extracted values are less than 0.5. The results
reported in Table V indicated that the variance extracted from the items ranged from 0.615
to 0.701. It is inferred that the scale used for job satisfaction, job stress and stress impact
possess convergent validity and thus the structural path for the same is validated.

Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity is adequate when the constructs have an AVE loading greater than
0.5. This implies that at least 50 percent of measurement variance was captured by the
construct (Chin, 1998). In addition, discriminant validity was also confirmed as the diagonal

S. No. Scales Composite reliability

Table IV. 1 Job satisfaction 0.898465

Scales, composite 2 Job stress 0.954018
reliability 3 Stress impact 0.974022

Latent variables Cronbach’s α Composite reliability AVE

Table V.
Cronbach’s α, Job satisfaction 0.857 0.898465 0.640
composite reliability Job stress 0.947 0.954018 0.615
and AVE Stress impact 0.971 0.974022 0.701
elements were higher than the off-diagonal values in the corresponding rows and columns. An empirical
The diagonal elements are the square root of the AVE score for each construct (i.e. job study using
satisfaction, job stress and stress impact). SEM
The diagonal values shown in Table VI are higher than the off-diagonal values in the
corresponding rows and columns. The results indicate that the constructs of job satisfaction,
job stress and stress impact possess discriminant validity. It is inferred that the standard
scales of job satisfaction, job stress and stress impact constructs are different from each 341
other and thus the structural path for the same is validated.

Structural equation modeling analysis

The proposition was validated by computing the path coefficient (β) and coefficient of
determination R2. The coefficient of determination R2 measures the construct’s percentage
variation that is explained by the model. The R2 between job satisfaction and job stress was
−0.319. These results suggested that negative variance of 31.9 percent in job stress was
explained by job satisfaction in the measurement model. It could be inferred that if there is
100 percent increase in job satisfaction, a 31.9 percent decrease on job stress will be
observed. Similarly, R2 between job satisfaction and stress impact was reported as −0.258.
The results suggested that the negative variance of 25.8 percent in stress impact was
explained by job satisfaction in the measurement model. It could be inferred that if there is
100 percent increase in the job satisfaction, then a 25.8 percent decrease on stress impact will
be observed. Similarly, R2 between job stress and job impact was reported as 0.465. It
suggested that positive variance of 46.5 percent in stress impact was explained by job stress
in the measurement model. It could also be inferred that if there is 100 percent increase in the
job stress, then a 46.5 percent increase on stress impact will be observed. The statistical
significance of path coefficient (β) between these latent constructs is measured by t-statistics
reported in bootstrapping (Figure 3) (Table VII).
The relationship between job satisfaction, job stress and stress impact assumes
significant because path coefficient between these three latent constructs are significant.
The values are t ¼ 3.367 for job satisfaction → job stress; t ¼ 2.476 for job
satisfaction → stress impact and t ¼ 6.105 for job stress → stress impact. The table value is
significant if it is greater than 1.96 at 5 percent level of significance (α ¼ 0.05). Since t value
is greater than 1.96 it indicates that the proposed path between job satisfaction, job stress
and stress impact of employees is significant. It could be inferred that job satisfaction
negatively influences job stress and job impact. Similarly, job stress positively influences
stress impact among the employee.
The model has three latent construct, namely, job satisfaction, job stress and stress
impact. As discussed before reliability test was conducted to verify the items and scale
reliability used in the study. The reliability coefficient value was found as 0.857 for job
satisfaction, 0.947 for job stress and 0.971 for stress impact. A final path model was
determined after removing the items which had the loading below 0.7. The relationship
between job satisfaction, job stress and stress impact was significant because path
coefficient between these three latent constructs are significant as t ¼ 3.367 for job
satisfaction → job stress; t ¼ 2.476 for job satisfaction → stress impact and t ¼ 6.105 for

Job satisfaction Job stress Stress impact

Table VI.
Job satisfaction 0.80 Discriminant validity
Job stress −0.319 0.784 results (Fornell-
Stress impact −0.406 0.546 0.837 Larcker Criterion)
JSMA 16.570
Exhausted

12,3 18.300
Unfriendly

Adamant
35.382

Prompt Ser...
25.111

PF Free Service
19.500
7.341
Personal
342 care
14.162 24.084
Argument

Career dev 17.968

Misbehavior
16.688 26.741
2.476
Monetary 14.676 26.308 Drink
JOB SATISFACTION
32.042
Reduce
stress Influence
27.155

STRESS IMPACT Mishandling

31.411
3.369
Comments
6.105 23.867

Schedules
31.877

Authority
JOB STRESS 28.231

Atmosphere
22.243

Recognition
19.940
Figure 3. 16.335 21.878 13.923 13.683 Freedom
25.157 17.071
Structural 20.217

equation model 15.856 22.657 16.913 11.079 10.530 14.471

Excecise Work Medical Physical Health Decision m... Incentives Communic... Partiality Recignition Punishment Work Condi... Maintenance

Original sample (O) t-statistics (|O/STERR|) Result

Table VII.
Path coefficient along Job satisfaction → job stress −0.319 3.367 ( p o0.05) Significant
with their bootstrap Job satisfaction → stress impact −0.258 2.476 ( p o0.05) Significant
values, t-values Job stress → stress impact 0.465 6.105 ( p o0.05) Significant

job stress → stress impact. Since t value is greater than 1.96 indicating that the proposed
path between job satisfaction, job stress and stress impact of employees is significant.
Hence, the proposition is validated.

Conclusion
The mixed-method research design was not a pre-decided research strategy for conducting
the above study. However, it was during the phase of review of literature that the authors
felt the need for a mixed-method intervention. The inductive analysis revealed that the
majority of the respondents (57 percent) had higher levels of stress. Moreover, their stress
levels differed significantly according to their age, gender and nature of work. It was found
that “work related” factors such as unsafe working conditions, work load, relationship on
the job were the most prominent sources of stress for the respondents. The second most
important source of stress was organizational factors, such as ineffective communication,
favoritism, inadequate recognition of performance. The findings suggested that the majority
of respondents (87 percent) had higher levels of stress impact on their performance.
In the deductive analysis the causal relationship between job satisfaction, job stress and
stress impact was verified by Smart PLS using structural equation modeling. The relationship
between job satisfaction, job stress and stress impact was significant because path coefficient
between these three latent constructs turned out to be significant. It could be inferred from the
results that job satisfaction negatively influences job stress and job impact. Similarly, job
stress positively influences stress impact among the employee. It is pertinent to note that the
two most prominent implications of stress impact were visible through the guests’ negative An empirical
behavior and employee turnover, respectively. Future researchers need to study the causal study using
relationship between job satisfaction, job stress, stress impact and any other related variables SEM
by effectively exploring the participants “lived experience.” Such research interventions using
the mixed-method approach are expected to open new avenues for future research, thus
representing an important contribution of the present study.
The results of the current study should be interpreted with caution. First, the current 343
study only includes self-reporting stress levels. Direct observation was not feasible, since it
is subjected to the researchers’ bias. The sample in this study did not include employees of
limited-service hotels. As limited-service hotels may have different requirements, challenges
and culture for employees than full-service or five stared hotels, thus the findings of the
study may not be generalized to limited service hotels. It may be noted that the geographic
scope of the study was limited to the city of Mumbai only. However, it could also be
extended to other Indian cities. Future research should examine job stress in the global
context and then make cross-cultural comparisons in the hospitality sector.

References
Abdulla, J., Djebarni, R. and Mellahi, K. (2011), “Determinants of job satisfaction in the UAE: a case
study of the Dubai police”, Personnel Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 126-146.
Ahmad, Albattat R., Som, M.P., Ahamad, Helalat and Abdullah, S. (2014), “Higher dissatisfaction
higher turnover in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 45-52.
Al Ajmi, R. (2001), “The effects of personal characteristics on job satisfaction: a study among male
managers in the Kuwait oil industry”, International Journal of Commerce and Management,
Vol. 11 Nos 3/4, pp. 91-110.
Aminabhari, V.A. and Kamble, S.V. (2004), “A study on work motivation and stress coping behaviour
of technical personnel at a railway workshop”, Journal of Community Guidance and Research,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 321-329.
Anitha Devi, S. (2007), “Occupational stress: a comparative study of women in different occupations”,
Prajnan, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 61-74.
Ariza-Montes, A., Juan, M., Arzona-Fuentes, R.L. and Heesup, H. (2017), “Incidence of workplace
bullying among hospitality employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1116-1132.
Ayupp, K. and Nguok, T.M. (2011), “A study of workplace stress and its relationship with job
satisfaction among officers in the Malaysian Banking Sector”, Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 403-417.
Bhanu, R. and Paramanandam, P. (2017), “Job stress and job satisfaction among the managerial
personnel of textile industry”, Sumedha Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 65-74.
Bhatia, P. and Kumar, A. (2005), “Occupational stress and burnout in industrial employees”, Indian
Psychological Review, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 191-198.
Bhattacharya, S. and Guha, N. (2006), “Stress and coping: a study on lady criminal lawyers of Kolkata
city”, Indian Psychological Review, Vol. 67, Special Issue, pp. 227-234.
Bilgic, R. (1998), “The relationship between job satisfaction and personal characteristics of Turkish
workers”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 549-561.
Brush, D., Motch, M. and Podyan, A. (1987), “Individual demographic differences and job satisfaction”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 139-155.
Carlan, P. (2007), “The search for job satisfaction: a survey of Alabama policing”, American Journal of
Criminal Justice, Vol. 32 Nos 1-2, pp. 74-86.
Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979), Reliability and Validity, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
JSMA Chand, P. and Monga, O.P. (2007), “Correlates of job stress and burnout”, Journal of Community
12,3 Guidance and Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 178-186.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least square approach to structural equation modelling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Psychology Press, New York,
NY, pp. 295-336.
Cronbach, Lee J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrica, Vol. 16
344 No. 3, pp. 297-334.
Davis, R. (1992), “Person-environment fit and job satisfaction”, in Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C. and Stone, E.F.
(Eds), Job Satisfaction, Lexington Books, New York, NY, pp. 69-880.
Dsere, K. and Relebohile, R. (2015), “Impact of organizational culture on job stress and burnout in
graded accommodation establishments in the Free State province, South Africa”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1198-1213.
Ellickson, M. and Logsdon, K. (2001), “Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government
employees”, State Local Government Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 173-184.
Fornell, C. and David, F.L. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Alzebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Gallardo, E., Sánchez-Cañizares, S.-M., López-Guzmán, T., Jesus, N. and Maria, M. (2010), “Employee
satisfaction in the Iberian hotel industry: the case of Andalusia (Spain) and the Algarve
(Portugal)”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Bradford, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 321-334.
George, E. and Zakkariya, K.A. (2015), “Job related stress and job satisfaction: a comparative
study among bank employees”, The Journal of Management Development, Bradford, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 316-329.
Gu, Z., Sen Siu, R. and Chi (2009), “Drivers of job satisfaction as related to work performance in Macao
casino hotels: an investigation based on employee survey”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 561-578.
Hashemi, S.M., Jusoh, J., Kiumargi, S. and Hashemi, F. (2015), “Determinant of employee job satisfaction
and role of male and female differences: an empirical study at hotel industry in Iran”, Journal of
Hospitality Application and Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-36.
Hulland, John (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of
four recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204.
Jimmieson, N.L., Terry, D.J. and Callan, V.J. (2004), “A longitudinal study of employee adaptation to
organizational change: the role change related information and change-related self-efficacy”,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 11-27.
Kang, J.-W., Heo, J.-H. and Kim, J.-H. (2016), “The followership of hotel employees and the
relationship between occupational burnout, job stress, and customer orientation: targeting
the hotel service providers at luxury hotels”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 345-358.
Kara, D., Uysal, M. and Magnini Vincent, P. (2012), “Gender differences on job satisfaction of the five
star hotel employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 24
No. 7, pp. 1047-1065.
Kemery, E.R., Bedeian, A.G., Mossholder, K.W. and Touliatos, J. (1985), “Outcomes of role stress:
a multi sample constructive replication”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 363-375.
Kong, H., Jiang, X., Chan, W. and Zhou, X. (2018), “Job satisfaction research in the field of hospitality
and tourism”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 2178-2194.
Kysilka, D. and Csaba, N. (2015), “Employee turnover in the hospitality industry”, JEL Classification
Code: 1MIL, Vol. J63, pp. 377-384.
Lehal, R. and Singh, S. (2005), “Organizational role stress among college teachers of Patiala district: a An empirical
comparative study of government and private colleges”, RIMT Journal of Strategic Management study using
and Information Technology, Vol. 2 Nos 1-2, pp. 33-39.
SEM
Malik, O.F., Waheed, A. and Malik, K.U.R. (2010), “The mediating effects of job satisfaction on role
stressors and affective commitment”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5
No. 11, pp. 223-235.
Masihabadi, A., Rajaei, A., Koloukhi, A.S. and Parsian, H. (2015), “Effects of stress on auditors’ 345
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance”, International Journal of
Organizational Leadership, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 303-314.
Metle, M.K. (2001), “Education, job satisfaction and gender in Kuwait”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 311-332.
Metle, M.K. (2003), “The impact of education on attitudes of female government employees”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 603-626.
Oneybu, C.M. and Omotayo, O.A.-R. (2017), “Employee job satisfaction and organizational
performance: an insight from selected hotels in Lagos Nigeria, Kuwait Chapter of the
Arabian”, Journal of Business Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 10, pp. 48-59.
Oshagbemi, T. (2003), “Personal correlates of job satisfaction: empirical evidence from UK
Universities”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 1210-1232.
Osmany, M. and Khan, W. (2003), “Organizational stress in working women”, Indian Psychological
Review, Vol. 61, Special Issue, pp. 2-6.
Ozturk, A.B. and Hancer, M. (2011), “The effect of demographics on job satisfaction: a study of hotel
managers in Turkey”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 189-201.
Panchanatham, P., Kumaraswamy, N.N. and Vanitha, L.B. (2006), “Stress management for problem
solving executives with coercive leadership style”, Journal of Indian Academic Applied
Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 32-36.
Pandey, R. and Tripathy, S. (2001), “Occupational stress and burnout in engineering teachers”,
Journal of Indian Academic Applied Psychology, Vol. 27 Nos 1-2, pp. 67-73.
Park, J. (2007), “Work stress and job performance”, Catalogue No. 75-001-XIE, Perspectives,
Statistics Canada.
Peshave, M.A. and Gujarathi, R. (2013), “A study of factors influencing increasing attrition rate
in hotels of Pune: its impact on the organization and measures undertaken by the 41 hotels to
curb the attrition rate”, Journal of Hospitality Application & Research, New Delhi, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 40-55.
Pradhan, M. and Khattri, P.R. (2001), “Intra-psychic and extra-psychic predictors of burnout in
doctors: gender differences”, Journal of Community Guidance and Research, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 129-136.
Rajesh, J. (2016), “The level of job stress and burnout across employees of six sectors in Indian
organizations”, Journal of Organization and Human Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 29-36.
Rao, V.S.P. (2016), Human Resource Management: Texts and Cases (3e), Excel, Delhi, pp. 25-30.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), “SmartPLS 2.0”, Hamburg, available at: www.smartpls.de
(accessed October 27, 2018).
Rothfelder, K., Ottenbacher, M.C. and Harrington, R.J. (2012), “The impact of transformational,
transactional and non-leadership styles on employee job satisfaction in the German hospitality
industry”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 201-214.
Salem, I.E.-B. (2015), “Transformational leadership: relationship to job stress and job burnout in
five-star hotels”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 240-253.
Singh, A.P. and Dubey, A.K. (2011), “Role of stress and locus of control in job satisfaction among
middle managers”, IUP Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 42-57.
JSMA Sharma, A., Verma, S., Verma, C. and Malhotra, D. (2010), “Stress and burnout as predictors of job
12,3 satisfaction amongst lawyers”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 348-359.
Su Jin, H., Kim, W.G. and Kang, S. (2017), “Effect of restaurant manager emotional intelligence and
support on front-of-house employees’ job satisfaction”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 2807-2825.
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito, Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modelling”,
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205.
346
Triveni, S. and Aminabhari, V.A. (2002), “Gender differences in occupational stress experience among
professionals and non-professionals”, Journal of Community Guidance and Research, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Virk, J., Chhabra, J. and Kumar, R. (2001), “Occupational stress and work motivation in relation to
age, job level and type- a behaviour”, Journal of Indian Academic Applied Psychology, Vol. 27
Nos 1-2, pp. 51-55.
Yilmaz, A. (2015), “The influence of self-esteem and role stress on job performance in hotel businesses”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Bradford, Vol. 27 No. 6,
pp. 1082-1099.
Zeffane, R. (1994), “Correlates of job satisfaction and their implications for work redesign”, Public
Personnel Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 61-75.
Zeffane, R., Ibrahim, M.E. and Al Mehairi, R. (2008), “Exploring the differential impact of job
satisfaction on employee attendance and conduct: the case of a utility company in the United
Arab Emirates”, Employee Relations, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 237-250.

Further reading
Gowrishankar, U. and Keerthi, K. (2010), “The impact of stress on low level employees of star hotels with
special reference to Chennai”, MPRA Paper No. 39172, Munich Personal Repec Archive, Munich.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Julia, N. and Javier, O. (2017), “Commitment based HR systems and organizational outcomes in
services”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 432-448.
Ravichandra, T. and Dalvi, C.S. (2012), “Job satisfaction and professional life stress of employees of IT
and manufacturing industries”, Journal of Global Economy, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 258-273.
Tsai, M., Cheng, C. and Chang, Y. (2010), “Drivers of hospitality industry employees’job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and job performance”, African Journal of Business Management,
Vol. 4 No. 18, pp. 4118-4134.
Zhao, X., Qu, H. and Liu, J. (2015), “An investigation in to the relationship between hospitality
employees’ work-family conflicts and their leisure intentions”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 408-421.

Corresponding author
Nigel Raylyn Dsilva can be contacted at: dsilva.nigel@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.