Management Science Letters 10 (2020) 3279–3290

Contents lists available at GrowingScience

Management Science Letters

homepage: www.GrowingScience.com/msl

Influence of work-related stress on employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty in hospitality
industry

Mai Ngoc Khuonga,b* and Ung Doan Thuy Linha,b

a
School of Business, International University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
b
Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
CHRONICLE ABSTRACT

Article history: This study aims to investigate the effects of job-related stressors and individual-related stressors on
Received: May 29, 2020 employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty in the context of Vietnam hospitality
Received in revised format: industry. Data were collected by surveying 595 employees including Hotel/Restaurant receptionist,
May 30 2020
low-level manager (shift/group leader, supervisor, etc.) and Middle level and high ranked manager
Accepted: June 3, 2020
Available online: (Chief/deputy chief of department, general manager, director, etc.) from medium to large Hotels
June 4, 2020 and Restaurants in Ho Chi Minh City. Besides, the collected data was analyzed by employing partial
Keywords: least squares (PLS) technique. The results show that individual-related stressors positively and
Work-related stress directly affect employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty while job-related
Job stress stressors have a positive direct effect on employee motivation but indirectly affect job satisfaction
Occupational stress and employee loyalty. This study provides critical contributions to the research field of the
Employee motivation Hospitality industry as well as suggests some important recommendations for improving employee
Job satisfaction motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty in the context of Vietnam Hospitality.
Employee loyalty
Hospitality
Vietnam © 2020 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada

1. Introduction

The conceptualizations of employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty have become popular to various
scholars in Hospitality management both practically and theoretically (Costen & Salazar, 2011; DiPietro, Kline & Nierop,
2014; Khalilzadeh, Giacomo, Jafari & Hamid, 2013) for the reason that employees are a fundamental element of the service
sector (Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman, 1988). Despite the fact that the impact of the physical environment, systems and
processes on the organizational success is undeniable, they are useless without the efficiency and capabilities of human
resources (Alqusayer, 2016). Moreover, the levels of motivation, satisfaction and loyalty of human resources are fundamental
concerns in the Hospitality industry. It was assured that customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction are affected by the degrees
of employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the labor-intensive industry (Defranco & Schmidgall, 2000). The main
objective of this research is to provide deeper insights and resources of the relationships between job stress and employee
motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty in the Vietnam Hospitality management, which contributes to managing
their human capital. Besides, the impact of employee motivation and job satisfaction on employee loyalty and the relationship
between employee motivation and job satisfaction are also explained in this paper. Moreover, this study also provides practical
implications to the managers in the Hospitality industry, contributing to developing better policies and practices to increase
employee satisfaction, motivation and loyalty for gaining better employee performance, leading to better customer service
and customer loyalty. Furthermore, theoretically, this research contributes further findings to the academic field, due to a lack
of research in the Hospitality context while Vietnam is on its way becoming one of the world’s attractive destinations.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mnkhuong@hcmiu.edu.vn (M. N. Khuong)

© 2020 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada

doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.6.010
3280

The remainder of this research describes the hospitality industry in Viet Nam in the next section. Next, the conceptual
framework is specified to determine to relationships between two main stressors (individual-related stressors and job-related
stressors) and employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty and hypotheses are proposed in section 3, which
then directly down to the research methodology in section 4. Section 5 analyses the collected data to validate the proposed
theoretical model. Then, the summary of the overall findings and contributions of the research is discussed in the next section.
Finally, the paper ends with the scope and limitations of this study in section 7.
2. Hospitality Industry in Viet Nam
The hospitality industry is a subgroup of the travel and tourism industry. As one of the world’s largest economic sectors,
Travel & Tourism creates jobs and accounts for a remarkable proportion of the world’s GDP (Vasquez, 2014). Viet Nam
was ranked among the fastest-growing travel destinations posted strong growth in South-East Asia with the number
of global visitors reached 15 million arrivals in 2018 (increasing in 19.9%) (UNWTO, 2019). Viet Nam is becoming an
attractive destination, attracting a strong flow of tourists every year and is one of the 10 countries with the highest growth rate
of international visitors from all corners of the world. According to experts in the Vietnam Report's survey and the Vietnam
National Administration of Tourism (VNAT), the tourism industry is expected to reach around 20 million foreign visitors and
earn $35 billion in annual revenues in 2020, which equates to 10% increase in GDP.
Due to the fact that the tourism and hospitality industries are labour-intensive, which means the technology could not be the
alternatives for solving most of the activities. Therefore, employment strongly influences the industry’s growth and plays a
crucial factor as an advantage in this competitive market. However, because of the nature of the service sector and the
emotional labor, higher risks of occupational stress are significant in the Hospitality industry. Besides, due to some significant
characteristics of tourism and hospitality sector concerning the high seasonality and the use of sub contraction as well as harsh
working hours, seasonal, part-time and temporary work, inducing the uncertainty, low job security and stability and limits the
capability of being long-standing employees of the company (Ariza-Montes, Arjona-Fuentes, Han & Law, 2018), which leads
to a high level in employee turnover rates.
Labor turnover refers to ‘the movement of people into and out of employment within an organization’ (Denvir & McMahon,
1992), which can be voluntary or involuntary. Organizations should consider employee’s job satisfaction as high job
satisfaction rates result in lower turnover rates, fewer accidents, higher level of customer’s satisfaction and better firm
performance (LAWLER III, & Porter, 1967; Petty, McGee & Cavender, 1984; Organ, 1988; Branham, 2005). On the other
hand, a shortage of demotivation and dissatisfaction will lead to lower productivity, work stress and conflicts in the workplace,
which is the main cause of worker’s turnover intention and disloyalty issue (Munir & Rahman, 2016).
3. Conceptual Model and Hypothesis Development

The hypotheses are developed for investigating the effects of work-related stressors (job-related stressors and individual-
related stressors) on employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty. Subsequently, the conceptual framework is
represented in figure 1 in the next sub-sections. For many decades, occupational stress has become a globally increasing
concern for all employees, employers and organizations in all fields. Work-related stress among workers can result in a
negative influence on their efficiency, productivity as well as an increase in turnover rates (Antonova, 2016). According to
Thakre & Shroff (2016), organizations are considered as a remarkable source of stress. It is for the reason that the high
requirements in the workloads or job demands and professional deadlines result in workplace pressure among workers.
Moreover, Luo, L. (1999) was of the view that many serious consequences that cause damages for both individuals and
organizations’ well-being are resulted from work-related stress. In general, the stress itself occurs when there is a transaction
between an individual and his/her environment that lead to a negative experience because of finding difficulty in dealing with
some aspects in the working environment. As a result, this process causes various psychological, physical, and behavioural
outcomes (Aldwin, 1994; Cox, 1978; Cummings & Cooper, 1979; Bonoma & Zaltsman, 1981; Quick & Quick, 1984). In
particular, an individual would experience stress when he/she is put in a situation that is unpredictable, uncontrollable,
unfamiliar or out of expectations (Michie, 2002). The process of stress comprises three main components concerning the
sources of stress (stressors), the individual differences (moderators/mediators) and work-related consequences (strain) (Lu et
al., 2003), as Figure 1 displays. Pološki & Bogdanić, (2007) noted that “Stressors (job-related and extra-organizational) are
objective events, stress is the subjective experience of the event, and strain is the poor response to stress.” According to the
Control theory of Spector (1998), workplace stress is typically resulted by various stressors, which derives from the individual,
the organization or extra-role (non-work) factors that directly affect a wide range of physiological and psychological work-
related outcomes (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Gaither, C. A. et al, 2008). Antonova (2016, p.13) stated that “…stressors
are the sources of stress that can be both internal and external." Likewise, predictors of job stress could depend on two main
parameters relating to objective (organizational), subjective (individual) antecedents. It is noted by Pološki & Bogdanić (2007)
that the sources of job stress can be classified into two main groups namely (1) job-related stressors including three main
subgroups – environment-specific, organization-specific, and job-specific stressors, and (2) individual-related stressors. This
study only focuses on time stress as the representative for individual-related stressors and job anxiety as the representative
for job-related stressors, which were the two main dimensions in the job stress scale of measurement in this research.
 M. N. Khuong and U. D. T. Linh / Management Science Letters 10 (2020) 3281

3.1 Job-related Stressors

In terms of environmental stressors, they comprise several social and technical influencing factors namely “technological
change, family demands and obligations, economic and financial conditions, race, caste, class, ethnic identity, relocation and
transfers” (Anbazhagan et al., 2013). Based on this conceptualization, environmental stressors have been classified into four
groups concerning “cataclysmic events, stressful life events, daily hassles, and ambient stressors” (Antonova, 2016, p.14). In
terms of organizational stressors, they include several factors namely policies, strategies, structure and design, processes
organization and working conditions, deriving from the organizations (Anbazhagan et al., 2013). Moreover, Cooper and Mar-
shall (2018) have classified work stressors into five main categories comprising “ones intrinsic to the job, role in the organi-
zation, career development, relationship at work, and organizational structure and climate” (Antonova, 2016, p.14). On the
aspect of job-specific stressors, they include several influencing factors occurring in their working environment namely work
overload, job demand and role conflicts relationship conflicts, time pressure, lack of support, etc. This subgroup is considered
as the main source that leads to a high level of job-related stressors among employees.
3.2 Individual-related Stressors
While job-related stressors are the sources of stress that result from the external environment, individual stressors, on the
other hand, are derived from the internal conditions. Role conflict and ambiguity, personality traits, life and career changes
are expected as examples of individual stressors (Anbazhagan et al., 2013). According to Pološki & Bogdanić, (2007), indi-
vidual-related stressors comprises individual characteristics or individual life circumstances.
3.2.1 Individual Characteristics
It is believed that our perception and judgement of all circumstances are influenced by the differences in individual charac-
teristics. They are responsible for how we experience stress events (primary appraisal) and how to cope with stressors (sec-
ondary appraisal) (Moran, 1998). The personality variables that are associated with stress should be mentioned as the locus
of control, self-esteem, type A behavior pattern, hardiness, and negative emotional attachment (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991;
Lind & Otte, 1994; Murphy, 1995) and demographic variables that are related to the relationship between individual job
stressors and health concerning gender, age, marital status, job tenure, job title, and hierarchical level (Dua, 1994; Lind &
Otte, 1994; Murphy, 1995). Among these factors, gender, age and hierarchical level were considered to have the most re-
markable influence on this relationship.
3.2.2 Individual Life Circumstances
Many previous researchers have considered work-home conflict as a major influencing factor to occupational stress and
burnout (Bacharach, Bamberger & Conley, 1991; Rayton & Yalabik, 2014). According to Clark (2000), work-family balance
refers to “the satisfaction and good functioning at both work and home with minimal role conflict”. However, this phenome-
non would not always be in an ideal state, but conflicts may happen sometimes when the demands for this do not satisfy those
for another. According to Buhali & Margaretha, (2013), work-home conflict is one of inter-role conflict which occurs when
the roles between work and family are not mutually adjusted reasonably in certain circumstances. It is noted by Gede, R.
(2018) that married women with dual-career tend to have an imbalance between the role at work as workers and the role in
the family as housewives. Most of them must deal with three types of conflict concerning the conflict in devoting optimal
time for work and family, strain from performing two important roles well at the same time and the pressure in balancing
suitable behaviours between work and family (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). According to the white paper by the Hospitality
Industry Pipeline (HIP) Coalition, the proportion of women workforce in the tourism and hospitality sectors is 70% (Baum
& Cheung, 2015). This remarkable number indicates that women have a strong impact on organizational performance in these
sectors. Therefore, helping employees to deal with work-home conflict problem is essential.
3.2 Work-related Stress and Employee Motivation
Employee motivation was defined by Robbins (1993) as “the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational
goals, conditioned by the person's ability to satisfy some individual need”. Moreover, motivation is explored to significantly
driven employee’s efforts (Cole, 2002). Consequently, according to Alqusayer (2016), motivation can be considered as a
procedure for satisfying individuals’ different expectations and needs. Several studies recognized motivation has significant
effects in terms of both the organization and the individual (Ganta, 2014; Latham & Pinder, 2005). On the aspect of organi-
zations, motivation results in challenging attitudes and optimism at work. Moreover, motivated employees can empower the
teams and highly contributed to teamwork activities, increasing organizational efficiency and productivity. On the other hand,
in terms of individuals, motivation benefits employees for reaching their objectives, which results in employee job satisfaction
and self-development among workers (Alqusayer, 2016). Although there are few studies were conducted to determine the
relationship between occupational stress and employee motivation for many decades, the association between job stress and
employee motivation have been reported. According to the study of Zeb (2015), employee motivation plays a mediating effect
on the relationship between work-related stress and employee performance. Moreover, motivation helps to encourage and
boost the employee’s willingness to accomplish the task with their best efforts. While Blake et al. (1996) asserted that
workplace stress provides a negative impact on employee’s job satisfaction and decreases employee motivation and morale,
3282

which leads to a negative influence on employee performance, low productivity, poor quality of work and an increase in job
turnover. Based on the literature reviewed above, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H1: Factor of Job-related stressors has a direct effect on Employee Motivation.
H2: Factor of Individual-related stressors has a direct effect on Employee Motivation.
3.2 Work-related Stress and Job Satisfaction
Bacharach, Bamberger & Conley (1991) was of the view that job satisfaction refers to how an individual’s expectation
matches the perceived reality of the job. Moreover, it is the combination of psychological, physiological and environmental
circumstances, which induces the feeling of truthful satisfaction to an individual’s job (Das Lahkar Bidisha & Dr. Barua
Mukulesh, 2013; Hoppock, 1935). While Feldman & Arnold (1983) defined job satisfaction as “the amount of overall positive
effect (or feelings) that individuals have towards their jobs”. From this standpoint, Davis & Newstrom, (1981) have contrib-
uted to previous findings that job satisfaction is the mixture of both positive and negative feelings that employees have toward
their jobs. As occupational stress and job satisfaction are the two popular conceptualizations in human resource management
researches, several previous studies were conducted to investigate their correlations. Various scholars noted that there are
significant interrelations among occupational stress, job satisfaction, and employee loyalty (Chandraiah, Agrawal, Marimuthu
& Manoharan, 2003, Kim, Murrmann, & Lee, 2009; Abdullah et al., 2009). According to Lu, Y., et al (2017), occupational
stress should be considered as one of the factors that strongly affect job satisfaction. Work-related stress in general and dif-
ferent types of job stressors, in particular, was investigated to have noteworthy negative influences on job satisfaction (House
& Rizzo, 1972; Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2009; Luthans, 2011). Besides, in prior studies conducted by Hollon &
Chesser (1976) and Miles & Petty (1975), an inverse relationship between workplace stress and job satisfaction was deter-
mined. Similarly, the investigations of Gede, R. (2018) and Chen & Kao (2011) met and reaffirmed to previous findings that
there is a significant negative influence between work-related stress and employee’s job satisfaction. Particularly, in the study
of pharmacists’ job stress by Gaither, C. A. et al (2008), it was proved that role ambiguity, role overload and work-related
stress have directly and negatively affected job satisfaction while organizational commitment had a positive effect on it.
Furthermore, it is proved that workplace stress significantly impacts job satisfaction through the mediators of emotional in-
telligence and oorganizational citizenship behavior, which means workers with a higher level of emotional intelligence and/or
higher level of oorganizational citizenship behavior have a lower possibility of feeling dissatisfied with their job when facing
with occupational stress (Peters, 2016). On the other hand, a positive effect has been shown in previous studies between
certain challenging stressors and job satisfaction (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Karatepe, Beirami, Bouzari & Safavi, 2014). Ac-
cording to the previous literature review discussed above, the following research hypotheses are presented as follows:
H3: Factor of Job-related stressors has a direct effect on Job Satisfaction.
H3.1: Factor of Job-related stressors has an indirect effect on Job Satisfaction.
H4: Factor of Individual-related stressors has a direct effect on Job Satisfaction.
H4.1: Factor of Individual-related stressors has an indirect effect on Job Satisfaction.
3.3 Work-related Stress and Employee Loyalty
The Loyalty Research Centre proposed The definition of employee loyalty was proposed by the Loyalty Research Centre as
the employee’s feeling of engagement to the success of the organization as well as their belief that working for that organiza-
tion is the best choice. Besides, the level of an individual’s loyalty is defined as the extent to which an employee feels involved
and committed to the company and motivated to perform beyond the expectations (Martensen & Grønholdt, 2006). According
to Yang (2008), employee turnover is a critical issue for various hotels, and to some practitioners, it is considered as a funda-
mental part of hospitality industry culture as a whole (or usually called “turnover culture”). Moreover, employee loyalty is
recognized as the precedence of turnover intention and behavior, according to Chen, Chen, Tsui & Chiang (2016). To be more
specific, high employee turnover rate is considered as one of the expressions of lack of loyalty among employees, deriving
from lack of job satisfaction, poor working conditions, low compensation and inadequate career development, low level of
self-fulfillment, better job alternatives, and work-home conflict (Carraher, 2011; Milman, 2003; Michaels & Spector, 1982;
Mowday, 1981; Wasmuth and Davis, 1983). Contrary to job satisfaction, although there is a lack of studies on the association
between employee loyalty and work-related stress, the effect of job stress on employee loyalty was proved. Bhatnagar (2012)
and Mohsin, Lengler & Aguzzoli (2015) argued that turnover intentions are strongly and negatively associated with employee
loyalty. According to the findings of previous studies, it was claimed that the level of stress that employees may obtain is
directly proportional to the possibility of employees’ leaving intension (Porter & Steers, 1973; Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling
& Boudreau, 2000; Bhatti, Shar, Shaikh & Nazar, 2010). Therefore, it can be considered that there has been a strong negative
correlation between employee loyalty and occupational stress.
H5: Factor of Job-related stressors has a direct effect on Employee Loyalty.
H5.1: Factor of Job-related stressors has an indirect effect on Employee Loyalty.
 M. N. Khuong and U. D. T. Linh / Management Science Letters 10 (2020) 3283

H6: Factor of Individual-related stressors has a direct effect on Employee Loyalty.

H6.1: Factor of Individual-related stressors has an indirect effect on Employee Loyalty.
3.4 Employee Motivation and Employee Loyalty

According to Chowdary (2014), motivation consists of three main factors concerning the work desire (the preference of one
work over another), the effort intensity (how much effort employees put in to complete the tasks), and permanence (how long
employees persist with certain behaviours). The author also stated that motivated employees would result in high quality of
performance, better output, as well as loyalty is expected, regardless of how difficult the circumstances are. Understanding
the importance of managing employee motivation to reinforce employee satisfaction and employee loyalty, the Hierarchy of
Needs model (Maslow, 1943), the ERG Theory (Alderfer, 1969), the Equity Theory (Adams, 1963), the Three Needs Theory
(McClelland, 1960), etc were proposed. Based on the previous related studies, the following hypothesis is suggested:
H7: Factor of Employee Motivation has a direct effect on Employee Loyalty.
H7.1: Factor of Employee Motivation has an indirect effect on Employee Loyalty.
3.5 Job Satisfaction and Employee Loyalty

Due to an increase in the ‘knowledge economy’, employee satisfaction and loyalty have become critical issues (Matzler et
al., 2003b; Renzl, 2003). According to the findings of previous empirical studies, it is claimed that employee satisfaction is a
powerful determinant of organizational commitment and loyalty (Mak & Sockel, 2001; Martensen & Gronholdt, 2006).
Moreover, inverse correlations between employee satisfaction and employee turnover (Tekleab, Takeuchi & Taylor, 2005;
Ward, 1988) as well as absenteeism (Muchinsky, 1977) were determined. In the meta-analysis of the antecedents and corre-
lates of employee turnover by Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner (2000), overall job satisfaction and other satisfaction aspects are
considered as forceful antecedence of employee turnover. Particularly, it can be argued that employee satisfaction positively
influences employee loyalty. In other words, the more employees feel satisfied with their jobs, the more loyal the employees
are to the organizations, resulting in a lower level of employee turnover. Likewise, many studies have shown that there is a
significantly positive relationship between job satisfaction and employee loyalty (Fisher, 2000; Petty, Brewer & Brown, 2005;
Jun & Shin, 2006; Jawahar, 2006; Wan, 2012; Noor & Jamil, 2014). Based on the results from the prior literature discussed
above, the following hypothesis for this research is proposed as follows:
H8: Factor of Job Satisfaction has a direct effect on Employee Loyalty.
3.6 Employee Motivation and Job Satisfaction

Previous studies have focused on investigating the correlation between employee motivation and job satisfaction. According
to Singh & Tiwari (2011), a positive relationship between employee motivation and job satisfaction was demonstrated. Similar
findings in other contexts were also revealed by Tella, Ayeni & Popoola (2007), Saleem, Mahmood & Mahmood (2010).
Based on the findings from the study conducted by Brown and Shepherd (1997), the author asserted that employee motivation
could significantly improve employee job satisfaction. Moreover, further research findings of Sabbagha, Martins & Ledimo
(2018) determined that employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee retention are interrelated. On the other hand, there
is no significant link between employee motivation and job satisfaction was found in the study of Nazir (2013) on employees
of a pharmacy chain in London. According to Chess (1994), certain motivational factors concerning salary, wages and con-
ditions of service; money; staff training; information availability; and communication are considered to be the antecedences
of job satisfaction. From this standpoint, Abo (2012) contributed to the previous findings that other motivational factors
should include achievement, recognition and the nature of work. These findings met and reaffirmed with the findings of
Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory. The author conducted research and proposed certain job factors that are consistently
associated with employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In Herzberg’s theory, work motivation is determined by two main
factors namely motivating factors (also called job satisfiers) including achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility,
advancement and growth that lead to satisfaction and hygiene factors (also called job dissatisfiers) are extrinsic job elements
of the work environment comprising supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relationships at work, salary and benefits,
job security. The author assured that a high level of hygiene factors are not likely to result in job satisfaction, but remains in
a neutral state, which is neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction. On the contrary, a high intensity of motivator factors neces-
sarily leads to a high level of job satisfaction. Therefore, the hypothesis can be proposed as follows:
H9: Factor of Employee Motivation has a direct effect on Job Satisfaction.
4. Research Methodology

4.1 Measure of Constructs

This study adopted a cross-sectional offline survey instrument, which includes two main parts namely the demographic pro-
file part, the key variables of the research framework part including Job Stress (Job-related Stressors and Individual-related
3284

Stressors), Employee Motivation, Job Satisfaction and Employee Loyalty. To ensure the validity of the content, the meas-
urement items for all variables were employed from previous studies and reassessed for this study. The items for job stress
were adapted from Parker’s Job Stress Scale (Parker & Decotiis, 1983). Besides, the scale items for employee motivation
were derived from (SHRM, 2015) and Shouksmith (1989), while job satisfaction scale was determined based on the research
Employee job satisfaction and engagement: Revitalizing a changing workforce, which is reported by the Society for Human
Resource Management (2016). Moreover, the items for employee loyalty were developed by extracting from 16 items, which
were used to measure service-oriented OCB and was proposed by Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch (1994). The contents then
were modified for being appropriate with the context in this study. Each of the items in these scales was measured based on
the Five-point Likert scale (SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Natural, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree).

H1
Employee
Job-related
Motivation
Stressors H7

H3 H5

H9
Employee
H2
H6 Loyalty

Individual-related
Stressors
Job
Satisfaction

Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework

4.2 Data Collection and Research Sample
The target population of this study consists of Hotel/Restaurant receptionist, low-level manager (shift/group leader, supervi-
sor, etc.), Middle level and high ranked manager (Chief/deputy chief of department, general manager, director, etc.) from
medium to large Hotels and Restaurants in Ho Chi Minh City. An offline self-administrative questionnaire was directly
delivered to employees and managers who work in Hotels and Restaurants from medium to large scale in Ho Chi Minh City
with directions and precise contents to increase the response rate. Out of 595 questionnaires were distributed, there is no
missing value is recorded and 595 elements were valid for later analysis, resulting in an effective response rate of 100%.
According to Comrey and Lee (1992) to attain high sampling validity and reliability, a minimum of 200 valid responses was
required to achieve 95% of confidence level and 5% of confidence interval. The result indicated that the proposed sample
size is believed to be sufficient to be the representatives of the population and are expected to serve the research purpose of
our study.

4.3 Analysis
This research adopted the partial least square (PLS-SEM), which is a statistical method that combines factor analysis, corre-
lation and regression analysis to analyze the collected data, using SmartPLS Version 3.0. This study employed this technique
for the reason that, firstly, PLS-SEM deals with a small sample size, which means the larger the sample size is, the higher
level of accuracy that the estimations may gain. More importantly, PLS-SEM is appropriate for sophisticated measurement
models and structural paths involving a multitude of variables and levels of constructs (Astrachan, Patel & Wanzenried,
2014). This research applied the two-step approach to the data analysis process. The first step is to analyze the measurement
model which determines the internal consistency reliability and construct validity before directing down to the second step,
which is analyzing structural model (or inner model) for determining the relationships among the underlying constructs within
the model (Hair et al., 2016).
 M. N. Khuong and U. D. T. Linh / Management Science Letters 10 (2020) 3285

5. Results

5.1 The Sample

The descriptive illustrated that about 51.9% of the respondents were female and male respondents account for 48.1%. The
age factor was divided into 6 categories. A total of 8 respondents (1.3%) was less than 18 years old, 149 (25%) respondents
were between 18 and 22 years of age, 325 (54.6%) respondents were between the age of 23 and 30, 97 (16.3%) respondents
were between 31 and 45 years of age, 14 (2.4%) respondents were between the age of 46 and 65, lastly, only 2 respondents
are accounting for 0.3% of people who are over 65 years old. Among 595 respondents, 286 respondents are accounting for
48.1% who are Hotel/Restaurant Receptionist, 215 (36.1%) are Low-level manager (shift/group leader, supervisor, etc.) and
the rest 94 (15.8%) are Middle level and high ranked manager (Chief/deputy chief of department, general manager, director,
etc.).

5.2 Measurement Model Results

Assessing the validity and reliability of the measurement model is the first step of the data analysis process. To meet the
intended target, each indicator needs to be checked. According to the rule of thumb in Hair et al., 2016, all the outer loadings
should above the threshold value of 0.70 to measure the individual item reliability and composite reliability (CR) should be
higher than 0.7 thresholds (0.60 to 0.70 is considered acceptable) to measure the construct internal consistency in PLS. Alt-
hough it is suggested that the threshold value of outer loadings should above 0.7 and any indicators with outer loadings
between 0.40 and 0.70 are considered for removal, the two items of individual-related stressors namely Jst2 and Jst3 should
be considered as acceptable because their values are relatively near to the threshold value, which is 0.651 and 0.680, respec-
tively. Overall, sixteen items were removed from the scale measurement. Particularly, four items from Individual-related
Stressors, two items from Job-related Stressors, five items from Employee Motivation and five items from Job Satisfaction
were eliminated from the scale. Twenty-two items for five constructs remained from the measurement scale. Construct va-
lidity is determined by convergent validity and discriminant validity. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is used to examine
convergent validity. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), AVE should be above 0.5. The range value of AVE varies
from 0.538 to 0.646, which is above the threshold value. All the values of Reliability and Convergent Validity are shown in
Table 1.
Table 1
Reliability and Convergent Validity
Constructs No. Items Factor Loadings Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Individual-related Stressors
4 0.651-0.836 0.823 0.54
(INREST)
Job-related stressors
3 0.748-0.883 0.845 0.646
(JOREST)
Employee Motivation
5 0.710-0.799 0.875 0.584
(MOTIVA)
Job Satisfaction
5 0.705-0.770 0.853 0.538
(EMJOSA)
Employee Loyalty
5 0.720-0.782 0.866 0.565
(EMLOY)

Discriminant validity is used to examine the degree of distinction among constructs. To evaluate discriminant validity, it is
useful to compare the Square Root of AVE of a construct with the correlation between that construct with other constructs.
The value of Square Roof of AVE for each construct should be higher than the correlation between constructs shown in table
2. Moreover, investigating indicator cross-loadings is another evaluation to examine discriminant validity. It is shown that
each item is considered to have higher loading on its latent variables rather than that of others (Hair et al., 2016).
Table 2
Discriminant Validity Coefficients
INREST JOREST MOTIVA EMJOSA EMLOY
INREST 0.735
JOREST 0.473 0.804
MOTIVA 0.260 0.227 0.764
EMJOSA 0.278 0.227 0.643 0.733
EMLOY 0.328 0.198 0.580 0.624 0.752
Diagonals (in bold) represent Square Root of AVE
5.3 Structural Model Assessment
The coefficients of determination (R2 value) and Predictive Relevance (Q2 Value) were employed as two tools for determining
the model fit. The coefficient of determination (R2 value) is defined as the extent to which the independent constructs predict
its dependent constructs, which is directly proportional to the level of predictive accuracy. The predictive accuracy of the
3286

model was determined through the proportion of variance. The research model accounts for 7.8%, 42.5% and 45,9% in
Employee Motivation, Job Satisfaction and Employee Loyalty, respectively. Besides evaluating R² values as a criterion
of predictive accuracy, predictive relevance (Q2 value) was proposed by Stone (1974) and Geisser (1974) as another
method to assess the goodness of fit. The Q2 coefficients represent a measure of how well the initially observed values
can be predicted by the path model (Do Nascimento & Da Silva Macedo, 2016). According to Chin (2010), the value of
Q2 >0 displays the predictive relevance of the model. The cross-validated redundancy (Q2 value) of all endogenous con-
structs in this study is considerably greater than 0 with the average value of 0.153, which was considerably higher than zero.
This indicates that there is a predictive relevance of the model exists to all the dependent variables in this research. The non-
parametric bootstrapping procedure was employed in data analysis with 2,000 samples to test the structural model; in other
words, evaluate the significant levels of path coefficient. Table 3 displays the structural model, which is the result of the PLS
analysis. All the paths including direct and indirect effects are significant except for H3 and H5. This means H1, H2, H3.1,
H4, H4.1, H5.1, H6, H6.1, H7, H7.1, H8, H9 were supported, while H3 and H5 were not supported. Moreover, the effect size
(f2) was assessed to measure the strength of the effect among the paths (Hair et al., 2016). A notable detail was that Employee
Motivation has a large effect on Job Satisfaction (f2=0.592) and Job Satisfaction has a medium effect on Employee Loyalty
(f2=0.173). While Individual-related Stressors have small effects on both Employee Motivation (f2=0.033) and Employee
Loyalty (f2=0.034). A small effect was also determined between Employee Motivation and Employee Loyalty (f2= 0.089).

Table 3
Path Coefficient and Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Relationship Path Coefficient P-value Decision
H1 INREST → MOTIVA 0.198 0.000 Supported
H2 INREST .→ EMJOSA 0.100 0.008 Supported
H3 INREST .→ EMLOY 0.156 0.000 Supported
H4 JOREST .→ MOTIVA 0.133 0.006 Supported
H5 JOREST .→ EMJOSA 0.042 0.301 Not Supported
H6 JOREST .→ EMLOY -0.032 0.377 Not Supported
H7 MOTIVA .→ EMJOSA 0.608 0.000 Supported
H8 MOTIVA .→ EMLOY 0.287 0.000 Supported
H9 EMJOSA .→ EMLOY 0.403 0.000 Supported

6. Discussion and Implications

It can be implied from the results that how employees face individual-related stressors are perceived to be significant to
employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty. Stress among workers fluctuates from low to high level. A high
level of occupational stress occurs in circumstances that employees’ jobs require a huge amount of time that they might have
less time to spend on their daily lives. Therefore, employees will regularly in a state of stress and anxiety as they have no
time to spend on other activities rather than work. To put it differently, an imbalance between works and lives would take
place which results in negative effects on employee motivation, job satisfaction and loyalty. As a result of effect size is
illustrated, individual-related stressors have small positive effects on employee motivation and loyalty, while a positive but
insignificant effect on job satisfaction is demonstrated. The findings of this research against the findings from the study of
Blake et al. (1996), that work-related stress has a considerable negative effect on employee motivation, job satisfaction and
employee loyalty. The conflict of the results could come from the fact that the Hospitality industry is a service sector
providing a harsh working hours environment, which requires employees to be available at all times. As a result, an imbalance
between work and life is an inevitable concern when working in the Hospitality industry. Despite the inappropriateness in
time distribution which causes stress among employees, it is perceived to be an unavoidable dilemma that stress at a low
level or in an acceptable constraint will increase employee motivation and loyalty. On the other hand, as employees are
perceived to feel satisfied with intrinsic and extrinsic factors rather than stress, a positive relationship but an insignificant
effect between individual-related stressors and job satisfaction is investigated. Contrary to the findings of individual-related
stressors, job-related stressors are examined to have no direct effects on job satisfaction and loyalty, except for employee
motivation. However, an indirect effect on job satisfaction through the mediating of employee motivation and an indirect
effect on loyalty through the mediating of employee motivation and job satisfaction are determined. A possible explanation
for this is that the Hospitality industry is a harsh working hours, seasonal, part-time and temporary work that employees
might take their effort into work for granted so that they would not be under high pressure during the working time. Besides,
stress due to work is considered to be normal and undeniable by employees in this industry. As discussed above, stress at
work at a low or acceptable constraint will cause insignificant or no direct effect on job satisfaction and loyalty, as shown in
the effect size. However, an indirect effect of job-related stressors on job satisfaction through the mediating of employee
motivation and an indirect effect on employee loyalty through the mediating of employee motivation and job satisfaction are
examined. On the other hand, a positive direct effect of job-related stressors on employee motivation is determined in this
study. It can be implied from the fact that stress could be perceived as a stimulator for obtaining the esteem needs, including
internal esteem needs related to self-esteem (self-respect and achievement) and external esteem needs (social status and
recognition from others), which is proposed in the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In other words, the more employees feeling
stress, the higher possibility that they feel motivated. Moreover, it is found that employee motivation and job satisfaction do
have a positive small and medium effect on employee loyalty, respectively. This influence is similar to the theory of Noor &
Jamil (2014). It might be likely for the reason that employees could be motivated because of the satisfying pay and benefits
 M. N. Khuong and U. D. T. Linh / Management Science Letters 10 (2020) 3287

of their job, pleasant working conditions, career opportunity development or the recognition of their managers. It is believed
that different people would be motivated differently. People can feel motivated with what the company provides does not
mean their demands are satisfied. For this reason, there still have a probability of employees leaving intension if dissatisfac-
tion occurs. A high level of job satisfaction among employees means that the more employees feel satisfied with their jobs,
the happier they feel when working in the company. As a result, this induces a lower possibility of employee turnover, which
leads to an increase in employee loyalty simultaneously.

Besides, a significant positive influence of employee motivation on job satisfaction is demonstrated from this research. This
implication resembles the previous studies of Singh & Tiwari (2011), Tella, Ayeni & Popoola (2007), Saleem, Mahmood &
Mahmood (2010). A large effect of employee motivation on job satisfaction is illustrated, as shown in the result of effect
size. A possible explanation for this is that employees mostly feel motivated with both the hygiene factor (salary and benefits
of their job, working conditions) as well as motivational factors (advancement and growth, the nature of the work itself and
the recognition from their managers). This explanation is based on the motivation theory of Herzberg’s theory that high
intensity of motivator factors undoubtedly leads to a high level of job satisfaction. This study broadened to further findings
of the effects of work-related stress on employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty. In previous studies, the
influences of job stress on these latent variables have been investigated by many scholars, but they have not been widely
studied in the Hospitality industry. Many past researchers adopted job stress as the independent variable and employee
motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty as dependent latent variables. However, this study is interested in analyzing
the specific effects of two main indicators of job stress concerning individual-related stressors and job-related stressors on
these three endogenous latent variables. Moreover, this research reaffirmed the relationships among employee motivation,
job satisfaction and employee loyalty. This study also contributed to the employee well-being research, demonstrating which
indicator has notable effects on employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty in the Hospitality industry.
Moreover, this study proposes several advantages that are contributed to the Hospitality industry, as being illustrated in the
previous section. Firstly, this research provides deeper insights into how employee motivation, level of job satisfaction and
loyalty are affected by individual-related stressors and job-related stressors. It can be concluded from the research that which
determinants have large, medium and small effects on employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty so that
managers can select which one is more important for improving employees’ well being. Moreover, these findings show that
besides individual-related stressors, employee loyalty is also directly and strongly affected by employee motivation and job
satisfaction. As a result, to improve employees’ well being, managers should have more strategies and actions for controlling
individual-related stressors and stimulating it in an acceptable limitation to gain an increase in employee motivation, job
satisfaction and employee loyalty as well as increase the level of loyalty of employees by motivating and enhancing the
degree of employee satisfaction in their jobs. More importantly, this study confirmed the finding from previous research that
there is a significant direct relationship between employee motivation and job satisfaction. From the study results, the more
motivated that employees feel, the higher level of job satisfaction is obtained. As a result, motivating employees is crucial
for achieving employee satisfaction at work, which leads to a higher level of employee loyalty. Consequently, to motivate
employees the Management should develop several actions and policies which focus on enhancing the feeling of being re-
spected and recognized and providing a high level of career opportunity development instead of only focusing on improving
monetary factors to increase employee satisfaction.

7. Limitations and Future Research

Although this study may have extended to a deeper understanding of work-related stress, employee motivation, job satisfac-
tion and employee loyalty within the Hospitality sector, a few limitations are vitally noticed. The data was collected from
several Hotel/Restaurant corporations in Ho Chi Minh City, as it is one of the cities popular for its development in the
Hospitality industry. Future research could be broadened to other Hospitality companies in other areas in Viet Nam to obtain
a more comprehensive understanding of the influences of occupational stress on employee motivation, job satisfaction and
employee loyalty. Due to the application of the quantitative approach only, a combination of qualitative and quantitative
research design is recommended for further inspection. On the one hand, this study aims to provide a supporting perception
of the knowledge base of existing studies on job stress in the Hospitality context. On the other hand, it extends to further
findings of the relationships among occupational stress, employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty in the
Hospitality industry, which is an under-researched industry. For more practical purposes, future research may consider en-
larging sample size to improve the reliability and validity of the effects of work-related stress on employee motivation, job
satisfaction and employee loyalty.

References
Abdullah, R., Karim, N., Patah, M., Zahari, H., Nair, G., & Jusoff, K. (2009). The linkage of employee satisfaction and loyalty in Hotel
industry in Klang Valley, Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(4), 152-160.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422.
Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 142-
175.
Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, Coping and Development: An Integrative Perspective. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Alqusayer, A. (2016). Drivers of Hotel Employee Motivation, Satisfaction and Engagement in Riyadh, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
3288

Anbazhagan, A., RAJAN, L. S., & Ravichandran, A. (2013). Work stress of hotel industry employees in Puducherry. Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing & Management Review ISSN, 2319, 2836.
Antonova, E. (2016). Occupational Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Employee Loyalty in Hospitality Industry: A Comparative Case Study of
Two Hotels in Russia: Master Thesis. Modul University.
Ariza-Montes, A., Arjona-Fuentes, J. M., Han, H., & Law, R. (2018). Work environment and well-being of different occupational groups
in hospitality: Job Demand–Control–Support model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 73, 1–11.
Astrachan, C. B., Patel, V. K., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for theory development in family
firm research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 116-128.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work‐home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role
stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal of organizational Behavior, 12(1), 39-53.
Baum, T., & Cheung, C. (2015). Women in tourism & hospitality: Unlocking the potential in the talent pool. Hospitality Industry white
paper. Hong Kong: Hospitality Industry Pipeline (HIP).
Bhatnagar, J. (2012). Management of innovation: Role of psychological empowerment, work engagement and turnover intention in the
Indian context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(5), 928-951.
Bhatti, N., Shar, A. H., Shaikh, F. M., & Nazar, M. S. (2010). Causes of stress in organization, a case study of Sukkur. International
Journal of Business and Management, 5(11), 3.
Blake, C. G., Saleh, S. D., & Whorms, H. H. (1996). Stress and satisfaction as a function of technology and supervision type. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(5), 64-73.
Bonoma, T.V., & Zaltsman, G. (1981). Psychology for Management. Boston: Kent Publishing Company.
Branham, L. (2005). Planning to become an employer of choice. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 24(3), 57-68.
Buhali, G. A., & Margaretha, M. (2013). Pengaruh work-family conflict terhadap komitmen organisasi: kepuasan kerja sebagai variabel
mediasi. Jurnal Manajemen Maranatha, 13(1).
Carraher, S. M. (2011). Turnover prediction using attitudes towards benefits, pay, and pay satisfaction among employees and entrepreneurs
in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Baltic Journal of management.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress
among US managers. Journal of applied psychology, 85(1), 65.
Chandraiah, K., Agrawal, S. C., Marimuthu, P., & Manoharan, N. (2003). Occupational stress and job satisfaction among managers. Indian
Journal of occupational and Environmental medicine, 7(2), 6-11.
Chen, C. F., & Kao, Y. L. (2011). The antecedents and consequences of job stress of flight attendants–Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 17(4), 253-255.
Chen, Y. C., Chen, H. I., Tsui, P. L., & Chiang, Y. C. (2016). Contributing Causes of Employee Loyalty of Service Personnel in Interna-
tional Hotels. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 9(1).
Chess, E. (1994). Measurement of motivational tools: Considering the medical representative of India. New Delhi: Monapa Books.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655-690). Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Chowdary, N. V. (2014). Cost of employee loyalty. Effective Executive, 17(4), 5-6. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1648030569?accountid=63189
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human relations, 53(6), 747-770.
Cole, G. A. (2002). Personnel and human resources management. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Comrey, L.A., & Lee, H.B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillside NJ Lawrence Eribaum Associate.
Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (2018). Occupational sources of stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental
ill health. In Managerial, Occupational and Organizational Stress Research (pp. 3-20). Routledge.
Costen, W. M., & Salazar, J. (2011). The impact of training and development on employee job satisfaction, loyalty, and intent to stay in
the lodging industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(3), 273-284.
Cox, T. (1978). Stress. Oxford, England: University Park.
Cummings, T. G., & Cooper, C. L. (1979). A Cybernetic Framework For Studying Occupational Stress. Human Relations, 32, 395–
418.
Davis, K., & Newstrom, J. W. (1981). Human behavior at work: Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Defranco, A. L., & Schmidgall, R. S. (2000). Satisfaction: Is money everything? Hospitality Review, 19(2), 1-12.
Denvir, F., & McMahon, A. (1992). Labour Turnover in London Hotels and the cost effectiveness of preventive measures. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 11 (2), 143-54.
DiPietro, R. B., Kline, S. F., & Nierop, T. (2014). Motivation and satisfaction of lodging employees: An exploratory study of Aruba.
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 13(3), 253-276.
Do Nascimento, J. C. H. B., & Da Silva Macedo, M. A. (2016). Structural Equation Models using Partial Least Squares: an Example of
the Application of SmartPLS® in Accounting Research. Revista de Educação e Pesquisa em Contabilidade, 10(3).
Dua, J. K. (1994). Job stressors and their effects on physical health, emotional health and job satisfaction in a university. Journal of Edu-
cational Administration, 32(1), 59-78.
Feldman, D.C. & Arnold, H.J. (1983). Managing Individual and Group Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fisher, C. D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: missing pieces of job satisfaction?. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 21(2), 185-202.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal
of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Gaither, C. A., Kahaleh, A. A., Doucette, W. R., Mott, D. A., Pederson, C. A., & Schommer, J. C. (2008). A modified model of pharmacists’
job stress: The role of organizational, extra-role, and individual factors on work-related outcomes. Research in Social and Adminis-
trative Pharmacy, 4(3), 231–243.
Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of management, 17(2), 235-271.
Ganta, V. C. (2014). Motivation in the workplace to improve the employee performance. International Journal of Engineering Technology,
2(6), 221- 230.
 M. N. Khuong and U. D. T. Linh / Management Science Letters 10 (2020) 3289

Gede, R. (2018). Managing Work Family Conflict and Work Stress through Job Satisfaction and Its Impact on Employee Perfor-
mance. Jurnal Teknik Industri, 20(2), 127-134.
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101-107.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of management review, 10(1), 76-
88.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator
tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of management, 26(3), 463-488.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Sage publications.
Hollon, C. J., & Chesser, R. J. (1976). The relationship of personal influence dissonance to job tension, satisfaction and involvement. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 19(2), 308-314.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.
House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational
behavior and human performance, 7(3), 467-505.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. Scott Foresman.
Jawahar, I. M. (2006). Correlates of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Labor research, 27(2), 213-236.
Jun, M., Cai, S., & Shin, H. (2006). TQM practice in maquiladora: Antecedents of employee satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of operations
management, 24(6), 791-812.
Karatepe, O. M., Beirami, E., Bouzari, M., & Safavi, H. P. (2014). Does work engagement mediate the effects of challenge stressors on
job outcomes? Evidence from the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 14-22.
Khalilzadeh, J., Giacomo, D. C., Jafari, J., & Hamid, Z. B. (2013). Methodological approaches to job satisfaction measurement in hospi-
tality firms. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(6), 865-882.
Kim, B. P., Murrmann, S. K., & Lee, G. (2009). Moderating effects of gender and organizational level between role stress and job satis-
faction among hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 612- 619.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56(1), 485- 516.
LAWLER III, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1967). The effect of performance on job satisfaction. Industrial relations: A journal of Economy and
Society, 7(1), 20-28.
Lind, S. L., & Otte, F. L. (1994). Management styles, mediating variables, and stress among HRD professionals. Human Resource Devel-
opment Quarterly, 5(4), 301-316.
Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S.-F., Zhou, Y. (2003). Work stress, control beliefs and well-being in Greater China – An exploration of sub-
cultural differences between the PRC and Taiwan. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(6), 479-510.
Lu, Y., Hu, X. M., Huang, X. L., Zhuang, X. D., Guo, P., Feng, L. F., ... & Hao, Y. T. (2017). The relationship between job satisfaction,
work stress, work–family conflict, and turnover intention among physicians in Guangdong, China: a cross-sectional study. BMJ
open, 7(5), e014894.
Luo, L. (1999). Work motivation, job stress and employees' well-being. Journal of applied management studies, 8, 61-72.
Luthans, F. (2011). Organizational Behavior: An Evidence–Based approach. New York: The McGrow-Hill Companies.
Mak, B. L., & Sockel, H. (2001). A confirmatory factor analysis of IS employee motivation and retention. Information & manage-
ment, 38(5), 265-276.
Martensen, A., & Grønholdt, L. (2006). Internal marketing: a study of employee loyalty, its determinants and consequences. Innovative
Marketing, 2(4), 92-116.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370.
Matzler, K. et al. (2003b) Werte mit und fu¨r die Mitarbeiter schaffen, in: K. Matzler et al. (Eds). Werte schaffen - Perspektiven einer
stakeholderorientierten Unternehmensfu¨hrung. Wiesbaden: Gabler, 305 –318.
McClelland, D. C. (1960). The Achieving Society (van Nostrand, New York).
Michaels, C.E., Spector, P.E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67, 53-59.
Michie, S. (2002). Causes and management of stress at work. Occupational and environmental medicine, 59(1), 67-72.
Miles, R. H., & Petty, M. M. (1975). Relationships between role clarity, need for clarity, and job tension and satisfaction for supervisory
and nonsupervisory roles. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 877-883.
Milman, A. (2003). Hourly employee retention in small and medium attractions: the central Florida example. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 22(1), 17-35.
Mohsin, A., Lengler, J., & Aguzzoli, R. (2015). Staff turnover in hotels: Exploring the quadratic and linear relationships. Tourism Man-
agement, 51, 35-48.
Moran, C. C. (1998). Stress and emergency work experience: a non‐linear relationship. Disaster Prevention and Management: An Inter-
national Journal, 7(1), 38-46.
Mowday, R. T. (1981). Viewing turnover from the perspective of those who remain: The relationship of job attitudes to attributions of the
causes of turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(1), 120.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1977). Employee absenteeism: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10(3), 316-340.
Munir, R. I. S., & Rahman, R. A. (2016). Determining dimensions of job satisfaction using factor analysis [Abstract]. Procedia Economics
and Finance, 37, 488-496.
Murphy, L. R. (1995). Managing job stress – An employee assistance/human resource management partnership. Personnel Review, 24(1),
41-50.
Nazir, K. (2013). Employee Motivation, Job Satisfaction & Productivity of Employees at Boots 2012 (Westfield Stratford City) (Doctoral
dissertation, Cardiff Metropolitan University).
Noor, A., & Jamil, S. (2014). Factor Effecting Employee's Satisfaction and Employee's Satisfaction Contribution towards Employee's
Loyalty in Public Sector Organizations of Pakistan. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 7(2), 434.
Or World Tourism Organization (2019). International Tourism Highlights (2019 Edition). UNWTO, Madrid. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.18111/9789284421152.
3290

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
Parker, D.F, & Decotiis, T.A. (1983). Organizational Determinants of Job Stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32(2),
160-177.
Peters, M. R. (2016). The impact of job stressors on job satisfaction as mediated by emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship
behavior. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Petty, G. C., Brewer, E. W., & Brown, B. (2005, February). Job satisfaction among employees of a youth development organization.
In Child and Youth Care Forum (Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 57-73). Kluwer Academic Publishers-Human Sciences Press.
Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual job satisfaction and
individual performance. Academy of management Review, 9(4), 712-721.
Pološki Vokić, N., & Bogdanić, A. (2007). Individual differences and occupational stress perceived: a Croatian survey. EFZG working
paper series, (05), 1-15.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological
Bulletin, 80(2), 151.
Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (1984). Organizational Stress and Preventive Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rayton, B. A., & Yalabik, Z. Y. (2014). Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job satisfaction. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 25(17), 2382-2400.
Renzl, B. (2003). Mitarbeiter als Wissensressource. In K. Matzler et al. (Eds), Werte schaffen - Perspektiven einer stakeholderorientierten
Unternehmensfu¨hrung, Wiesbaden: Gabler, 319-334.
Robbins, S. (1993). Organizational Behavior (6 ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Sabbagha, M. D. S., Martins, N., & Ledimo, O. (2018, May). Conceptual Model of Employee Motivation and job Satisfaction for Staff
Retention Practices in Foreign Exchange Banking Context. In ICMLG 2018 6th International Conference on Management Leadership
and Governance (p. 309). Academic Conferences and publishing limited.
Saleem, R., Mahmood, A., & Mahmood, A. (2010). Effect of work motivation on job satisfaction in mobile telecommunication service
organizations of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(11), 213.
Singh, S. K., & Tiwari, V. (2012). Relationship between motivation and job satisfaction of the white collar employees: A case study. Man-
agement insight, 7(2).
Society for Human Resource Management. (2016). Employee job satisfaction and engagement: Revitalizing a changing workforce.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross‐validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Meth-
odological), 36(2), 111-133.
Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange,
and employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Management journal, 48(1), 146-157.
Tella, A., Ayeni, C. O., & Popoola, S. O. (2007). Work motivation, job satisfaction, and organisational commitment of library personnel
in academic and research libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria. Library philosophy and practice, 9(2).
Thakre, N., & Shroff, N. (2016). Organizational Climate, Organizational Role Stress and Job Satisfaction among Employees. Journal of
Psychosocial Research, 11(2).
UNWTO, 2019. World Tourism Organization, Annual Report. UNWTO, Madrid. Retrieved from: https://www.e-un-
wto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421152 (Accessed 28 August 2019).
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802.
Vasquez, D. (2014). Employee retention for economic stabilization: A qualitative phenomenological study in the hospitality sector. Inter-
national Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, 3(1), 1-17.
Vietnam National Administration of Tourism (VNAT). TOURISM STATISTICS | INTERNATIONAL VISITORS. Retrieved from:
http://www.vietnamtourism.gov.vn/english/index.php/statistic/international.
Wan, H. L. (2012). Employee loyalty at the workplace: The impact of Japanese style of human resource management. International Journal
of Applied HRM, 3(1), 1-17.
Ward, E. A. (1988). Relation of job satisfaction and job knowledge and their effect on intention to turnover. Psychological Reports, 63(2),
611-615.
Wasmuth, W. J., & Davis, S. W. (1983). Managing employee turnover. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 23(4), 15-
22.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and
in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617.
Zeb, A. (2015). The Impact of Job Stress on Employee's Performance: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Employees Motivation. City
University Research Journal, 5(1).
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. The
Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 35-48.

© 2020 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada. This is an open access article distrib-
uted under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).