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

Article history: Received: May 29, 2020 Received in revised format:


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.
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.

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).

Conceptual Model and Hypothesis Development
The hypotheses are developed for investigating the effects of work-related stressors (job-related stressors and individualrelated 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 workrelated 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.

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 Marshall (2018) have classified work stressors into five main categories comprising "ones intrinsic to the job, role in the organization, 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.

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), individual-related stressors comprises individual characteristics or individual life circumstances.

Individual Characteristics
It is believed that our perception and judgement of all circumstances are influenced by the differences in individual characteristics. They are responsible for how we experience stress events (primary appraisal) and how to cope with stressors (secondary 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 remarkable influence on this relationship.

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 phenomenon 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.

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 organizations, 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, 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. 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 contributed 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, 2009Abdullah 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 different 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 determined. 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 intelligence 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). According to the previous literature review discussed above, the following research hypotheses are presented as follows:

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 organization 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 fundamental 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.

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.

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 correlates 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.

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 conditions 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 necessarily 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.

Measure of Constructs
This study adopted a cross-sectional offline survey instrument, which includes two main parts namely the demographic profile part, the key variables of the research framework part including Job Stress (Job-related Stressors and Individual-related Stressors), Employee Motivation, Job Satisfaction and Employee Loyalty. To ensure the validity of the content, the measurement 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).

Data Collection and Research Sample
The target population of this study consists of Hotel/Restaurant receptionist, low-level manager (shift/group leader, supervisor, 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.

Analysis
This research adopted the partial least square (PLS-SEM), which is a statistical method that combines factor analysis, correlation 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

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.

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. Although 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, respectively. 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 validity 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. 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).

Structural Model Assessment
The coefficients of determination (R 2 value) and Predictive Relevance (Q 2 Value) were employed as two tools for determining the model fit. The coefficient of determination (R 2 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 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 (Q 2 value) was proposed by Stone (1974) and Geisser (1974) as another method to assess the goodness of fit. The Q 2 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 Q 2 >0 displays the predictive relevance of the model. The cross-validated redundancy (Q 2 value) of all endogenous constructs 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 nonparametric 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 (f 2 ) 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 (f 2 =0.592) and Job Satisfaction has a medium effect on Employee Loyalty (f 2 =0.173). While Individual-related Stressors have small effects on both Employee Motivation (f 2 =0.033) and Employee Loyalty (f 2 =0.034). A small effect was also determined between Employee Motivation and Employee Loyalty (f 2 = 0.089).

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 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 dissatisfaction 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 respected and recognized and providing a high level of career opportunity development instead of only focusing on improving monetary factors to increase employee satisfaction.

Limitations and Future Research
Although this study may have extended to a deeper understanding of work-related stress, employee motivation, job satisfaction 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 enlarging sample size to improve the reliability and validity of the effects of work-related stress on employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty.