Comparing working conditions and job satisfaction in hospitality workers across Europe

1 COMPARING WORKING CONDITIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION IN HOSPITALITY WORKERS ACROSS EUROPE Abstract Job satisfaction is important in the tourism sector since workers’ satisfaction is key to providing high-quality service, which is very important in determining organizational success. The working conditions that influence job satisfaction depend to a large extent on the institutional context, which shows similarities in some European countries. This research aims to compare working conditions and job satisfaction among European country blocks that have similar institutional characteristics. Unlike previous studies, this research adopts a comprehensive approach by considering institutional and organizational factors in the analysis of employees’ perceptions of job satisfaction. The sample is made up of 1633 workers in 16 European countries. The results demonstrate the existence of three different models of working conditions in Europe leading to differing levels of job satisfaction in tourism. These models do not correspond to the clusters identified by the previous literature, which adopts an institutional perspective. Keywords: Hospitality sector, working conditions, job satisfaction, Europe, institutional context. 2 1. Introduction Satisfaction at work is one of the most studied topics in the management literature (Dixit and Dean, 2018; Jung and Takeuchi, 2018; Lee and Chelladurai, 2018). Job satisfaction not only affects the productivity and performance of workers, it also influences how a company’s goals are achieved in terms of improving customer satisfaction, perceived service quality, customer loyalty and satisfaction, and brand image (O'Donoghue and Tsui, 2013). This is especially relevant in the service industry since an adequate quality of service involves employee attitudes and behaviors that affect customers’ experiences and expectations (Oliver, 1980). Our research focuses on the tourism sector due to the strong position this sector has in the European economy. According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization, the tourism sector comprises the third largest economic activity in the European Union (EU), accounting for about 10% of its gross domestic product and ranking as the fourth sector in terms of exports. Tourism also contributes employment in the EU equivalent to 9.7% of total employment (World Tourism Organization, 2018). Despite its importance for the European economy, the tourism sector is characterized by underpaid jobs and high work-related stress (Jovanović et al., 2019; Lillo-Bañuls et al., 2018). This is due to the characteristics of jobs in this sector, where limited career opportunities and broad work schedules exist (Hofmann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2017; Stamolampros et al., 2019). Job satisfaction is the result of different factors, among which working conditions play an important role. As shown in the literature, working conditions such as salary, promotional possibilities, job security, and the working climate highly affect job satisfaction (Dalkrani and Dimitriadis, 2018). At the same time, working conditions are determined by different factors, among which the institutional context becomes especially relevant (Boon et al., 2009). The literature defines the institutional environment as the set of directives, rules, laws, norms, and legal standards that determine the normative structure for economic and social development (Acemoglu and Johnson, 2005; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 1987). The institutional context is determined by different factors such as economic conditions, unemployment rate, the national level of income inequality, and the degree of unionization (Pichler and Wallace, 2008). However, the influence that the institutional context has on working conditions among countries classified as similar in terms of their 3 institutional setting can be heterogeneous because, although the institutional context establishes the framework in which working conditions are developed, these conditions highly depend on employment practices implemented by organizations. Job satisfaction is a concept that has been measured both nationally and internationally (Lee and Chelladurai, 2018) in different sectors such as in banking and the public or hospitality sector (Ariza-Montes et al., 2018; Kong et al., 2018). Most of these studies were conducted without taking into account the institutional context. Economic conditions, unemployment rate, and national level of inequality of a national territory, among other institutional factors, generate similar working conditions among countries in terms of salaries, working hours, job security, and flexibility (Posada-Kubissa, 2018; Tangian, 2008). Working conditions are particularly context‐sensitive due to their strong linkage to the industrial relations system of a country, unemployment rate, etc. (Van Dierendonck et al., 2016). Despite the existence of a supranational government in the EU, the institutional context differs across countries, and therefore working conditions and employee satisfaction are also different across Europe. Previous studies have classified countries according to their institutional context and identify different models of human resource management in Europe (e.g., Brewster and Tregaskis, 2003; Ignjatović and Svetlik, 2003; Nikandrou et al., 2005). It is interesting to complement these studies that present an institutional focus with a perspective centered on organizational practices and employees´ perceptions. For employment practices to create value for companies and society, they must generate job satisfaction. Due to the importance of job satisfaction at individual, organizational, and societal levels, including employees´ perception of their job satisfaction, the analysis becomes crucial. A deep understanding of the differences in job satisfaction across Europe could set the basis for a deeper discussion and formulation of novel hypotheses regarding the influence of institutional factors on working conditions. This understanding could lead companies and policy-makers to propose policies for improving working conditions in order to enhance job satisfaction and social welfare. Although some studies that compare job satisfaction across European countries can be found in the literature (e.g., Eskildsen et al., 2004; Millán et al., 2013; Pichler and Wallace, 4 2008), comparisons are made across national territories without considering the homogeneity that may exist among European countries. According to the literature, these countries can be grouped by blocks according to the similarities in their approach to the welfare state—which impacts, among its main facets, working conditions. The welfare state model of each country is determined, among other aspects, by public policies, labor regulation, and organizational practices—fundamentally, human resources management practices. Hence, the literature establishes blocks of countries based on their similarities in their institutional setting and their prevailing organizational human resources management models (e.g., Albareda et al., 2007; Brookes and Barfoot, 2005; Filella, 1991; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985; Tangian, 2008). The underlying premise is that there is some convergence toward homogeneity of these characteristics of countries within the same cluster and differences with respect to the rest of the blocks. Studies that analyze whether this convergence leads to homogeneity in workers´ perception of labor conditions and job satisfaction across Europe are rare. This study tries to contribute to this end by exploring working condition models in Europe from an organizational perspective and considering workers´ perceptions. This might allow identification of possible deviations between the institutionally established regulations at the national or supranational level and the patterns of interaction of the workers and organizations in the labor market. This can help us understand which models lead to higher levels of job satisfaction and whether there is convergence in this aspect in the European context. The research seeks: (i) to analyze the different models of working conditions— what likely leads to differences in perceived job satisfaction—that exist in Europe; and (ii) to explore whether these models differ among the clusters of countries based on institutional characteristics identified in the previous literature. From these objectives, the following research question is derived: Does the clustering of European countries according to institutional characteristics correctly reflect the differences in labor conditions and subsequently job satisfaction across Europe? This article is divided into six sections. First, a review of the relevant literature is presented in the second section. Next, the methodology of the research and the results are explained in the third and fourth sections. Finally, a discussion of the results and the conclusions, which includes the limitations and suggestions for future research, are detailed in the fifth 5 and sixth sections. 2. Literature review 2.1. Job satisfaction and working conditions in the tourism sector Job satisfaction is an essential aspect for firms to gain a competitive advantage in all sectors, given the central role that employees play in business success (Kramar, 2014). However, despite the importance of job satisfaction, there is no general agreement regarding its definition. Different authors have contributed to its clarification. Among the most-cited definitions is the one given by Spector (1997), who emphasizes that job satisfaction refers to the way employees feel about their job and depends on different factors. Mahdieh and Sotoudehnama (2018) affirm that job satisfaction depends on factors such as personal, organizational, managerial, academic, professional, and economic variables. Goetz et al., (2016) underline four factors as determinants of job satisfaction: professional development, interpersonal relations, economic expectations, and working conditions. There are principally two methodologies for assessing job satisfaction: the integral measurement of a single factor and the comprehensive multidimensional measurement. The difference between the two methods lies in the fact that while the former relies on a single item to measure job satisfaction, the latter employs several factors. Most research on job satisfaction at the national level adopts a multidimensional measurement approach. For instance, the descriptive work index (JDI) developed by Locke et al., (1964) includes different dimensions of the job such as promotion, payment, and relationships with managers and colleagues. Spector (1997) created a Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) that contains nine dimensions: salary, promotions, additional benefits, incentives, superiors, colleagues, operating environment, intrinsic work characteristics, and communication. Parent-Thirion et al. (2016) developed their Job Quality Index (JQI) from seven variables (earnings, prospect, social environment, physical environment, work intensity, skills and discretion, and work time quality) that are related to the multidimensional nature of work. The JQI has been considered for the present investigation because it is comprehensive in coverage, transparent in method, and widely employed in the research on job satisfaction and the quality of work in the European context (e.g., Erro-Garcés and Ferreira, 2019; 6 Punzo et al., 2018; Soriano et al., 2018). It is the basis for the development of the sixth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) which, according to Grimshaw et al. (2017), yields solid and reliable information. In 2000, the EU launched the European Employment Strategy with the aim of creating more (quantity) and better (quality) jobs (Ariza-Montes et al., 2019). EWCS asks workers about the intrinsic characteristics of their jobs: salary, hours, participation, organization, and security, among others. The EWCS has been used in previous studies in which the impact of working conditions on satisfaction is analyzed, but using different perspectives such as new technologies (Castellacci and Viñas- Bardolet, 2019), gender issues (Brinck et al., 2019; Gómez-Baya et al., 2018), and workers’ age (Berdé and Rigó, 2019; Okay-Somerville et al., 2019). The tourism sector is characterized by high levels of seasonality, which leads to labor practices that do not favor workers’ commitment and permanence in the company in the long term (Hofmann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2017). The characteristics of the job positions in the tourism sector are related to higher levels of job dissatisfaction compared to other industries, which explains why more than half of the workers in the tourism sector are dissatisfied and consider moving to other sectors (Stamolampros et al., 2019). Factors explaining the low levels of job satisfaction observed in the tourism sector are related to characteristics of job positions and to the lack of professionalization of the human resources management in this industry (Jovanović et al., 2019; Lillo-Bañuls et al., 2018; Zopiatis et al., 2014). On the one hand, the characteristics that make this sector present low levels of job satisfaction compared to other sectors are related to low salaries (earnings), long working hours (work intensity), low job security, and the scarcity of promotional possibilities (prospects) (Zopiatis et al., 2014). The low work time quality of the jobs in the tourism sector is associated with the continuous relationship with customers, shift work, unsocial hours, and night work (Lillo-Bañuls et al., 2018). This, together with the scarcity of occupational health and safety practices that favor an adequate physical environment, make employees working in this sector experience difficulties maintaining a work-life balance and a healthy lifestyle that would prevent stress and not lead to low levels of job satisfaction (Hofmann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2017). This stress is increased by the lack of perceived organizational support and autonomy that characterize jobs in the tourism industry (Loi et al., 2014; Tongchaiprasit and Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2016). The low levels of 7 employee recognition, centralization in decision-making, and presentism that characterize this industry are associated with a lack of professionalization of human resources in the tourism industry (Nickson, 2013). The degree to which employees perceive social support from their superiors (the quality of the social environment at work) and are provided with autonomy to perform their job (skills and discretion) highly determine employees’ level of satisfaction and work engagement since the social support of managers and supervisors influence workers´ perception of justice at the workplace (Jovanović et al., 2019). To obtain a comprehensive view of job satisfaction and its antecedents in the tourism sector, different dimensions must be considered. This study combines different factors that determine the quality of work (earnings, prospect, social environment, physical environment, work intensity, skills and discretion, and work time quality) to provide a holistic view of working condition that allows the comparison of the quality of work and the level of job satisfaction across Europe by relying on the employee’s own perspective. 2.2. Influence of the institutional context in job satisfaction The EU´s regulations favor workers’ mobility within Europe. Labor mobility is the result of different levels of national unemployment rates, salary level, flexibility, etc. (Fahri and Werning, 2014). Taking into account that the quality of employment varies across European countries, factors that strongly explain workers  mobility and differences in job satisfaction depending on the country can be observed, as indicated in the literature (e.g., Leineweber et al., 2016; Salpigktidis et al., 2016; Thite et al., 2012). These differences can be explained by the distinct institutional settings of each territory (Salvatori, 2010). As derived from the premises of institutional theory, coercive pressures—especially national regulations—highly determine human resource management practices, so they might lead to differences in working conditions across countries (Western, 1998). The different labor legislations across European territories, despite European countries sharing a supranational government, influence working conditions and job satisfaction (Brewster and Hegewisch, 2017). According to institutional theory, in addition to the coercive pressures exerted by legislation in a country, there are normative pressures, which are related to the appropriate and desirable norms of behavior for both organizations and individuals that predominate in a country (Acemoglu et al. 2005; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 1987). These 8 pressures also vary across territories and can be determinant in working conditions. Countries that present similar institutional contexts—that show similar coercive and normative pressures—might present differences in terms of employee job satisfaction. This could be the case in countries such as Denmark and Norway, which present both institutional and cultural similarities but significantly differ in their working conditions (Bech et al., 2017). Reviewing the literature, it can be observed that previous research has made efforts to identify blocks of European countries according to their institutional context (e.g., Albareda et al., 2007; Brookes and Barfoot, 2005; Filella, 1991; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985; Tangian, 2008). One of the most commonly used classifications identifies four clusters of countries in Europe: Anglo-Saxon (Ireland and the United Kingdom), Central European (Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland), Latin (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain) and Nordic (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) (Filella, 1991; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985). Numerous aspects of institutional context determine working conditions. Pichler and Wallace (2008) emphasize the key role played by four institutional factors in working conditions: economic conditions, unemployment rate, the national level of inequality, and the degree of unionization. Economic conditions of a territory highly impact the labor market in terms of job rewards in both extrinsic (average wage level, working hours, etc.) and intrinsic terms (meaningful, high-skilled jobs, etc.). The national unemployment rate and the national level of inequality also influence working conditions and job satisfaction. High levels of unemployment hinder job mobility regardless of a workers’ level of satisfaction. Employees, even those who are dissatisfied, will remain in their jobs because of the lack of opportunities in the labor market. The scarcity of job opportunities and the excess of job demand might lead employers to offer poorer conditions in terms of salary, working hours, etc. Socio-economic inequality is also a determinant of job dissatisfaction if employees perceive that similar jobs lead to great differences in economic outcomes. The degree of unionization in a country seems to be highly determinant of the average wage level and other conditions of work that influence the welfare of employees. In highly unionized countries, employees are more likely to find better jobs in terms of salary, working hours, etc. Accordingly, working conditions are generally better in countries that 9 present a solid economic situation, a low unemployment rate, and a high level of unionization. This is the case for companies in the Nordic cluster, which have good working conditions in comparison with the rest of European companies (Eskildsen et al., 2004). This can be explained by the high level of trade union intervention in those countries, where labor reforms encourage workers’ representatives to negotiate working conditions with trade unions. As indicated in the literature, another institutional characteristic that determines working conditions is the country level of regulation (Gialis et al., 2017; Keune and Jepsen, 2007). The level of regulation is closely related to the level of flexibility in the labor market and to the degree of job security (Posada-Kubissa, 2018). Labor flexibility is negatively associated with job satisfaction and employees´ physical and psychological health since flexibility is associated with low levels of job security (Carr and Chung, 2014; Probst et al., 2017). Flexibilization comes from deregulation; job security pursues the maintenance of social advantages through a compensatory system. Both depend on the country and are not only affected by economic conditions, but by collective agreements, and by the agents involved: governments, employers, and trade unions (Tangian, 2007). In this line, Sapir et al. (2004) identified four different social systems within Europe according to the level of flexibility of each country. Gil-Alana et al. (2019) affirm that a robust social security system is associated with low levels of inequality. From the aforementioned two premises are derived: (i) that the institutional context strongly influences working conditions and that these become a determinant factor in job satisfaction (Williams and Hall, 2000); and (ii) that since institutional pressures are similar in each country block—Anglo-Saxon, Central European, Latin, and Nordic—similar working conditions within each cluster (intra-group similarities) and differences across clusters are expected (inter-groups differences). This is because, among other aspects, government regulations determine an organization’s freedom of action regarding employees’ minimum wages, training and development investments, working hours, etc. (Vaiman and Brewster, 2015). Although the influence of the institutional context on working conditions is expected, companies’ freedom of action within the framework of labor regulations is also expected to 16 Table 2. Inter-groups differences in job satisfaction. Mann-Whitney test. P-value (Effect size). Variable Ang -Nor Ang -Cen Ang -Lat Nor -Cen Nor -Lat Cen-Lat Job satisfaction 0.083 (0.092) 0.501 (0.026) 0.000 (0.155) 0.121 (0.060) 0.006 (0.089) 0.000 (0.175) When analyzing the intra-block differences, within the Nordic cluster, Denmark and Finland do not present any unsatisfied employees. About 90% of employees present high and medium-high levels of satisfaction in Austria and Switzerland (within the Central European cluster), the latter not presenting any unsatisfied employees (see Table 3). Table 3. Intra-group differences in job satisfaction. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. P-value (Effect size). Country Very satisfied Satisfied Not very satisfied Not at all satisfied Intra-group comp p-value (E.S.) United Kingdom 34 % 49.5 % 13.4 % 3.1 % 0.4161 (0.061) Ireland 40.2 % 45.1 % 12.2 % 2.4 % Denmark 21.9 % 71.9 % 6.3 % 0 % 0.003 (0.079) Finland 28.6 % 50 % 21.4 % 0 % Norway 38.5 % 55.8 % 3.8 % 1.9 % Sweden 13 % 61,1 % 16.7 % 9.3 % Austria 44.7 % 47.4 % 3.9 % 3.9 % 0.001 (0.038) Belgium 22.7 % 61.3 % 10 % 6 % Germany 23.8 % 63.5 % 11.1 % 1.6 % Netherlands 34.5 % 52.7 % 9.1 % 3.6 % Switzerland 40.7 % 50.5 % 8.8 % 0 % France 21.1 % 61.1 % 15.8 % 2.1 % 0.277 (0.007) Greece 13 % 64.9 % 19.1 % 3.1 % Italy 18.4 % 62.2 % 14.3 % 5.1 % Portugal 15.5 % 72.6 % 10.7 % 1.2 % Spain 19.5 % 53 % 21.8 % 5.7 % 1 Mann-Whitney test (two countries). 17 The analysis of intra-group differences shows that these differences are significant; therefore, a lack of homogeneity in job satisfaction among countries in the same block is observed, mainly in the Central European and Nordic blocks, in which the effect size is medium. Accordingly, differences in the degree of job satisfaction among countries within the same block are found, indicating high intra-group heterogeneity. The differences in working conditions among the blocks of countries identified in the literature—based on their institutional characteristics—were also studied. The results show that the Latin cluster presents significant differences with respect to the rest of the blocks in all the analyzed variables (except the social environment variable), with some effects of medium size. The results show the absence of significant differences between the Anglo- Saxon cluster and the Central European block in all the variables studied. The same is observed when comparing the former with the Nordic group, except in the labor expectations and the physical environment variables, although with a small effect. The differences between the Nordic and the Central European blocks are reduced since, in addition to finding differences in the previous variables, significant differences are also observed in the skills needed to develop the work, although with a small effect (see Table 4). Hence, there is a high homogeneity in the working conditions across country blocks that present different institutional settings. 18 Table 4. Inter-group differences in working conditions. T-Student-test. P-value (Effect size). Variables Ang -Nor Ang -Cen Ang -Lat Nor -Cen Nor -Lat Cen-Lat Earnings 0.062 (0.211) 0.192 (0.124) 0.022 (0.279) 0.328 (0.090) 0.000 (0.591) 0.000 (0.425) Prospects 0.015 (0.256) 0.327 (0.089) 0.000 (0.373) 0.042 (0.188) 0.000 (0.630) 0.000 (0.475) Social environment 0.737 (0.037) 0.436 (0.071) 0.370 (0.084) 0.694 (0.035) 0.142 (0.124) 0.009 (0.158) Physical environment 0.001 (0.339) 0.651 (0.039) 0.001 (0.276) 0.000 (0.393) 0.649 (0.038) 0.000 (0.323) Intensity 0.129 (0.160) 0.978 (0.003) 0.000 (0.338) 0.056 (0.166) 0.012 (0.193) 0.000 (0.350) Skills and discretions 0.193 (0.137) 0.069 (0.158) 0.000 (0.303) 0.001 (0.296) 0.000 (0.439) 0.010 (0.148) Work time quality 0.609 (0.054) 0.168 (0.120) 0.020 (0.192) 0.437 (0.068) 0.003 (0.250) 0.000 (0.316) Ang: Anglo-Saxon; Cen: Central European; Lat: Latin; Nor: Nordic. Comparing the working conditions of the countries within each cluster, Ireland and the United Kingdom (Anglo-Saxon block) show a great homogeneity in all variables except salaries—workers in the tourism sector in the United Kingdom receive higher salaries than in Ireland. However, differences among countries of the same block are significant if we analyze the rest of the blocks, as can be extracted from the results of the intra-group ANOVA test (see Table 5). Among the Nordic countries, significant differences are observed in the prospects, physical environment, work intensity, and skills and discretion variables. The differences found among the countries of Central Europe are also significant. A high disparity in wages across countries within this block can be observed, motivated by the high average salary in Switzerland, followed by the significant differences in job prospects, in the social environment, and in the skills required for the jobs. Hence, the results indicate the existence of a high degree of heterogeneity in the working conditions of countries within the same block. 19 Table 5. Intra-group differences in working conditions. ANOVA and T-Student tests. P- value (Effect size). Variables Anglo-Saxon Nordic Central European Latin Earnings 0.0431 (0.336) 0.355 (0.020) 0.000 (0.182) 0.000 (0.114) Prospects 0.1481 (0.217) 0.044 (0.045) 0.009 (0.027) 0.000 (0.087) Social environment 0.0621 (0.296) 0.750 (0.007) 0.029 (0.023) 0.000 (0.041) Physical environment 0.0681 (0.274) 0.033 (0.048) 0.731 (0.004) 0.000 (0.093) Intensity 0.1371 (0.223) 0.019 (0.055) 0.634 (0.005) 0.000 (0.082) Skills and discretion 0.9191 (0.015) 0.008 (0.065) 0.002 (0.065) 0.000 (0.032) Work time quality 0.4121 (0.123) 0.094 (0.036) 0.575 (0.006) 0.000 (0.042) 1 p-value of t-Student test (two countries). Based on the previous results which show differences in working conditions among the countries of the same block and scarce differences among blocks established according to their institutional characteristics (with the exception of the Latin cluster), we propose the creation of a classification of countries according to the similarity in their working conditions in the tourism sector, specifically from the seven JQI dimensions (earnings, prospects, social environment, physical environment, work intensity, skill and discretion, and work time quality). To create this new clustering, a two-step cluster analysis was performed (see Table 6). 20 Table 6. Proposed country blocks according to their working conditions in the tourism sector. Group Countries Group 1 Austria – Belgium – Germany – Italy – Ireland– Netherlands – Norway – Portugal – Switzerland – United Kingdom Group 2 Denmark – Finland – France – Sweden Group 3 Greece – Spain Variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Work intensity Physical environment Work time quality Prospects Skills and discretion Social environment Earnings The results of the cluster analysis show that, on the one hand, there are countries such as Greece and Spain (group 3) that show worse working conditions and, consequently, lower levels of job satisfaction in comparison with the rest of the countries. At the other extreme are Denmark, Finland, France, and Sweden (group 2), which present the most advantageous 21 working conditions and the highest degree of job satisfaction. Finally, an intermediate group (group 1) including the rest of the countries can be found (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). To confirm the validity of these results (average silhouette value is greater than 0.5), the working conditions of the groups created and the job satisfaction among blocks and within blocks are analyzed. Regarding the latter, significant differences between clusters in terms of working conditions and job satisfaction are observed (see Table 7). Comparing job satisfaction among blocks, significant differences are observed. Likewise, analyzing the working conditions among blocks, differences among all of them exist, with the exception of clusters 1 and 2, which show similarity in their work time quality; and between clusters 2 and 3, which show similarity in physical environment and work intensity. There is a high heterogeneity in the variables related to working conditions in the three groups identified, endorsed by medium-high effect sizes in many of the comparisons that are also higher than the effects found in the original blocks identified in the literature. Table 7. Inter-group differences in working conditions and job satisfaction (proposed classification). T-Student test. P-value (Effect size). Variables Group1 vs. Group2 Group1 vs. Group3 Group2 vs. Group3 Earnings 0.008 (0.208) 0.000 (0.396) 0.000 (0.769) Prospects 0.002 (0.227) 0.000 (0.534) 0.000 (0.754) Social environment 0.042 (0.154) 0.001 (0.193) 0.000 (0.349) Physical environment 0.000 (0.591) 0.000 (0.523) 0.487 (0.056) Work intensity 0.000 (0.460) 0.000 (0.577) 0.151 (0.116) Skills and discretion 0.000 (0.299) 0.035 (0.118) 0.000 (0.420) Work time quality 0.999 (0.000) 0.000 (0.421) 0.000 (0.440) Job satisfaction 0.0021 (0.090) 0.0001 (0.177) 0.0511 (0.074) 1 p-value of Mann-Whitney test (four-point Likert scale). Regarding the differences across countries within each cluster, it can be observed that there are no significant differences in job satisfaction among the countries that are part of the same block (see Table 8). Regarding working conditions, a high degree of homogeneity is 22 observed. Countries in groups 2 and 3 show the greatest homogeneity in working conditions. Although there are significant differences, especially in group 1, the effect sizes are small. This is observed in the ANOVA test (except in earnings and, to a lesser extent, in prospects in group 1), and in the rest of the tests performed, as shown in Table 8. Table 8. Intra-group differences in working conditions and job satisfaction (proposed classification). ANOVA test. P-value (Effect size). Variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Earnings 0.000 (0.148) 0.363 (0.015) 0.0071 (0.310) Prospects 0.000 (0.072) 0.223 (0.020) 0.0201 (0.235) Social environment 0.003 (0.029) 0.178 (0.023) 0.3371 (0.105) Physical environment 0.040 (0.019) 0.189 (0.022) 0.0111 (0.222) Intensity 0.125 (0.015) 0.148 (0.024) 0.8041 (0.025) Skills and discretion 0.000 (0.057) 0.009 (0.051) 0.0001 (0.366) Work time quality 0.702 (0.007) 0.070 (0.032) 0.1901 (0.132) Job satisfaction 0.0002 (0.040) 0.1402 (0.025) 0.9923 (0.000) 1 p-value of t-test (2 countries). 2 p-value of Kruskal-Wallis test (four-point Likert scale). 3 p-value of Mann- Whitney test (four-point Likert scale and 2 countries). The workers in the three defined blocks are homogeneous in terms of characteristics such as age, gender, seniority in the company, and the percentage of self-employed people, as shown in Table 9. 23 Table 9. Working conditions and demographic characteristics in the proposed blocks. Groups 1 2 3 Gender Percentage of women 44.2 42.6 43.6 Self-employed Percentage of self-employment 19.5 19.4 21.1 Variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Age 41.22 13.60 41.18 13.35 38.89 11.16 Seniority (years) 8.29 9.32 8.77 9.44 7.12 8.58 Monthly earnings (€) 1400.74 903.46 1586.81 853.09 1086.70 507.29 Skills and discretion 46.61 21.07 52.90 20.82 44.12 20.93 Social environment 73.12 26.41 69.00 27.70 78.16 25.53 Physical environment 85.79 11.37 78.77 13.76 79.52 13.09 Work intensity 33.77 17.75 42.16 20.12 44.48 19.97 Prospects 60.70 19.23 65.06 19.02 50.33 19.76 Work time quality 64.80 16.26 64.80 14.86 58.08 15.44 Studying the working conditions of each block, a great disparity between the salaries of groups 2 and 3 is observed. The group composed of Greece and Spain presents lower values in all variables except social environment and work intensity. Groups 1 and 2 show similar results, but working conditions are slightly more favorable in group 2. This group presents better results with respect to the rest in skills and discretion, intensity, and prospects, while group 1 shows more favorable conditions in the social environment and physical environment dimensions with respect to the rest. 5. Discussion This research identifies a novel grouping of European countries according to the working conditions prevailing in the tourism sector. The differences among country clusters are manifested in different levels of employee satisfaction since the institutional context greatly influences working conditions, which in turn determines job satisfaction (Salvatori, 2010; Western, 1998). Despite the relevant role of the institutional context—where planning and policymaking occur—in shaping working conditions, this issue has received little attention 24 in the literature on tourism. Studies focused on institutional context and working conditions and job satisfaction in the tourism industry are rare. According to Western (1998), working conditions are highly influenced by national regulations—and especially by labor regulations—and therefore by the institutional context. The strength of unionization becomes an important factor influencing job satisfaction because employees’ wellbeing is highly determined by salary and work intensity, among other working conditions, which are especially influenced by the levels of unionization (Pichler and Wallace, 2008). Since strong unionization in a country can lead to better working conditions, the relevance of the institutional context as an antecedent of working conditions and job satisfaction must be highlighted. Classifying European countries according to their working conditions can set the basis for a deeper understanding of the factors that determine job satisfaction in the tourism industry in different territories. As has been concluded from the analysis, a classification of countries based on their institutional characteristics as proposed by the previous literature (e.g., Albareda et al., 2007; Brookes and Barfoot, 2005; Filella, 1991; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985; Tangian, 2008) does not group countries correctly according to working conditions and job satisfaction perceived by workers. Few differences in worker satisfaction among countries that have different institutional settings and large differences among countries of the same institutional context have been found. Similarly, countries of different institutional environments have similar working conditions, while countries of the same context present large differences in working conditions. These results point to the need to propose a new classification or clustering of European countries according to their prevailing working conditions and job satisfaction levels. Although the comparison of job satisfaction across European countries has been studied by academics, previous studies have analyzed individual countries without considering the existence of homogeneity among countries and the existence of differentiated blocks in terms of their institutional setting. This research proposes a novel classification of countries according to prevailing labor conditions in each territory—what marks differences in job satisfaction across country clusters. One of the key aspects that determines working conditions is labor flexibility, and this depends to a large extent on institutional context (Posada-Kubissa, 2018). Tangian (2008) 25 affirms that policies that enhance flexible employment are incompatible with achieving employment security. Carr and Chung (2014) propose that in countries where the levels of labor flexibility are high, employment security policies should be implemented to increase employees’ security. Therefore, different levels of employment protection and labor flexibility determine different social systems. Despite the EU s supranational government, there are differences in social systems across countries (Brewster and Hegewisch, 2017). Sapir et al. (2004) identified four social models in Europe, each emphasizing security versus flexibility to a different extent: flex-insecure, inflex-secure, inflex-insecure, and flex-secure. According to our analysis, group 1 corresponds to two groups of inflexible countries according to Sapir’s classification: The Continental cluster (inflexible and secure: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) and the countries included in the Anglo-Saxon block (inflexible and insecure: Ireland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom). The former are countries characterized by high income inequality, lowwage jobs, high levels of employment protection, low job security, and by early retirement pensions (Sapir et al., 2004). According to the previous characteristics and inspired by Sapir et al. (2004), we propose to call group 1 as inflexible group. According to Probst et al. (2017), this model was considered to be effective in reducing poverty but ineffective in job creation in the long term. On the contrary, the Anglo-Saxon model is characterized by lowwage jobs, low job security, and high levels of income inequality. This model was effective in creating employment opportunities but ineffective in reducing poverty. Group 2 resulting from our analysis corresponds to the Scandinavian model (Denmark, Finland, France, and Sweden). This country cluster is characterized by a robust social security system. Although job protection is low, employment security is high in comparison to the rest of the blocks. This model enhances job creation and a high standard of living. The countries grouped in this cluster present similar levels of employment protection and low levels of inequality (Gil-Alana et al., 2019). Therefore, following Sapir et al. (2004), we propose to call this country block as flex-secure. Group 3 resulting from our analysis, the so-called Mediterranean model (Greece and Spain), emphasizes employment protection and early retirement pensions (Probst et al., 32 Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., & Westlund, A. H. (2004). Work motivation and job satisfaction in the Nordic countries. Employee relations, 26(2), 122-136. Eurostat (2018). Unemployment and activity by sex. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Sixth European Working Conditions Survey. Retrieved from: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/page/field_ef_documents/6th_ew cs_2015_final_source_master_questionnaire.pdf Fahri, E. & Werning, I., (2014). Fiscal unions, American Economic Review, 107(12), 3788- 3834. Filella, J. (1991). Is there a Latin model in the management of human resources? Personnel Review, 20(6), 14-23. Fregin, M. C., Bijlsma, I., & Van der Velden, R. (2018). Much ado about social outcomes? (No. 002). Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA). Gialis, S., Tsampra, M., & Leontidou, L. (2017). Atypical employment in crisis-hit Greek regions: Local production structures, flexibilization and labor market re/deregulation. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 38(4), 656-676. Gil-Alana, L. A., Škare, M., & Pržiklas-Družeta, R. (2019). Measuring inequality persistence in OECD 1963-2008 using fractional integration and cointegration. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 72, 65-72. Goetz, K., Jossen, M., Szecsenyi, J., Rosemann, T., Hahn, K., & Hess, S. (2016). Job satisfaction of primary care physicians in Switzerland: an observational study. Family Practice, 33(5), 498-503. Gómez-Baya, D., Lucia-Casademunt, A., & Salinas-Pérez, J. (2018). Gender differences in psychological well-being and health problems among European health professionals: analysis of psychological basic needs and job satisfaction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1474. 33 Grimshaw, D.; Fagan, C.; Hebson, G.; Tavora, I. (2017) Making Work More Equal: A New Labour Market Segmentation Approach; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. Hofmann, V., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2017). The impact of emotional labor on employees’ work-life balance perception and commitment: A study in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65, 47-58. Ignjatović, M., & Svetlik, I. (2003). European HRM Clusters. EBS review (17). International Monetary Fund (2020). World Economic Outlook, April 2020: The Great Lockdown. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues /2020/04/14/weo-april-2020. Iranmanesh, M., Zailani, S., Moeinzadeh, S., & Nikbin, D. (2017). Effect of green innovation on job satisfaction of electronic and electrical manufacturers’ employees through job intensity: personal innovativeness as moderator. Review of Managerial Science, 11(2), 299-313. Jovanović, T., Mijatov, M., Dragin, A. S., Simat, K., & Majstorović, N. (2019). Identification of predictors’ effects on perceiving the ethical climate and job satisfaction within Serbian tourism industry. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-29. Jung, Y., & Takeuchi, N. (2018). A lifespan perspective for understanding career selfmanagement and satisfaction: The role of developmental human resource practices and organizational support. Human Relations, 71(1), 73-102. Keune, M., & Jepsen, M. (2007). Not Balanced and Hardly New: The European Commission's Quest for Flexicurity: ETUI-REHS Brussels. Koh, S., Ong, T., & Samuel, A. (2017). The impacts of physical, psychological, and environmental factors on employees’ job satisfaction among public accounting professionals in Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal, 12(2), 129- 156. Kong, H., Jiang, X., Chan, W., & Zhou, X. (2018). Job satisfaction research in the field of hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(5), 2178-2194. 34 Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069-1089. Lee, Y. H., & Chelladurai, P. (2018). Emotional intelligence, emotional labor, coach burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention in sport leadership. European Sport Management Quarterly, 18(4), 393-412. Leineweber, C., Chungkham, H. S., Lindqvist, R., Westerlund, H., Runesdotter, S., Alenius, L. S., & Tishelman, C. (2016). Nurses’ practice environment and satisfaction with schedule flexibility is related to intention to leave due to dissatisfaction: A multi-country, multilevel study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 58, 47-58. Lillo-Bañuls, A., Casado-Díaz, J. M., & Simón, H. (2018). Examining the determinants of job satisfaction among tourism workers. Tourism Economics, 24(8), 980-997. Locke, E. A., Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., Hulin, C. L., & Miller, A. M. (1964). Convergent and discriminant validity for areas and methods of rating job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(5), 313. Loi, R., Ao, O. K., & Xu, A. J. (2014). Perceived organizational support and coworker support as antecedents of foreign workers’ voice and psychological stress. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 23-30. Mahdieh, N., & Sotoudehnama, E. (2018). Positive and negative perfectionism of EFL and non-EFL major graduate students. Mateos-Romero, L., & del Mar Salinas-Jiménez, M. (2018). Labor mismatches: Effects on wages and on job satisfaction in 17 OECD countries. Social Indicators Research, 140(1), 369-391. Millán, J. M., Hessels, J., Thurik, R., & Aguado, R. (2013). Determinants of job satisfaction: A European comparison of self-employed and paid employees. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 651-670. Nickson, D. (2013). Human Resource Management for Hospitality, Tourism and Events. New York: Routledge. 35 Nikandrou, I., Apospori, E., & Papalexandris, N. (2005). Changes in HRM in Europe: A longitudinal comparative study among 18 European countries. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(7), 541-560. O'Donoghue, K., & Tsui, M. (2013). Social work supervision research (1970–2010): The way we were and the way ahead. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 616- 633. Okay-Somerville, B., Scholarios, D., & Sosu, E. (2019). 9 Young Workers’ Job Satisfaction in Europe. Work Orientations: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Findings, 193. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469. Parent-Thirion, A., Biletta, I., Cabrita, J., Vargas, O., Vermeylen, G., Wilczynska, A., & Wilkens, M. (2016). Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: Overview Report. Eurofound. Retrieved from: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2016/working-conditions/sixtheuropean-working-conditions-survey-overview-report Pichler, F., & Wallace, C. (2008). What are the reasons for differences in job satisfaction across Europe? Individual, compositional, and institutional explanations. European Sociological Review, 25(5), 535-549. Posada-Kubissa, L. (2018). Reflexiones críticas sobre la prostitución desde el modelo abolicionista (Critical reflections on prostitution from the abolitionist model). Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Forthcoming. Probst, T. M., Gailey, N. J., Jiang, L., & Bohle, S. L. (2017). Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety science, 100, 74-82. Punzo, G., Castellano, R., & Buonocore, M. (2018). Job satisfaction in the “Big Four” of Europe: Reasoning between feeling and uncertainty through CUB models. Social Indicators Research, 139(1), 205-236. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 435-454. 36 Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis. (pp. 231-244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation Roy, D. F. (2017). “Banana Time” job satisfaction and informal interaction. In the Anthropology of Organizations (pp. 31-41): Routledge. Rushton, C. H., Batcheller, J., Schroeder, K., & Donohue, P. (2015). Burnout and resilience among nurses practicing in high-intensity settings. American Journal of Critical Care, 24(5), 412-420. Salpigktidis, I. I., Paliouras, D., Gogakos, A. S., Rallis, T., Schizas, N. C., Chatzinikolaou, F., Lazopoulos, A. (2016). Burnout syndrome and job satisfaction in Greek residents: Exploring differences between trainees inside and outside the country. Annals of translational medicine, 4(22). Salvatori, A. (2010). Labour contract regulations and workers' wellbeing: International longitudinal evidence. Labour Economics, 17(4), 667-678. Sapir, A., Aghion, P., Bertola, G., Hellwig, M., Pisani-Ferry, J., Rosati, D., ... & Smith, P. M. (2004). An agenda for a growing Europe: The Sapir report: OUP Oxford. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 493-511. Soriano, A., Kozusznik, M., Peiró, J. M., & Mateo, C. (2018). Mediating role of job satisfaction, affective well-being, and health in the relationship between indoor environment and absenteeism: Work patterns matter! Work, (Preprint), 1-13. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3): Sage Publications. Stamolampros, P., Korfiatis, N., Chalvatzis, K., & Buhalis, D. (2019). Job satisfaction and employee turnover determinants in high contact services: Insights from employees’ online reviews. Tourism Management, 75, 130-147. 37 Suzuki, A., Mano, Y., & Abebe, G. (2018). Earnings, savings, and job satisfaction in a labor-intensive export sector: Evidence from the cut flower industry in Ethiopia. World Development, 110, 176-191. Tangian, A. S. (2007). Is work in Europe decent? A study based on the 4th European survey of working conditions 2005. Retrieved from: https://nbnresolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-219237 Tangian, A. (2008). Is Europe ready for flexicurity? Empirical evidence, critical remarks and a reform proposal. Intereconomics, 43(2), 99-111. Thite, M., Wilkinson, A., & Shah, D. (2012). Internationalization and HRM strategies across subsidiaries in multinational corporations from emerging economies—A conceptual framework. Journal of World Business, 47(2), 251-258. Tomczak, M., & Tomczak, E. (2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences, 1(21), 19–25. Tongchaiprasit, P., & Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2016). Creativity and turnover intention among hotel chefs: The mediating effects of job satisfaction and job stress. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 33-40. Vaiman, V., & Brewster, C. (2015). How far do cultural differences explain the differences between nations? Implications for HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(2), 151-164. Van Dierendonck, D., Lankester, A., Zmyslona, M., & Rothweiler, H. (2016). Linking HRM practices and institutional setting to collective turnover: An empirical exploration. Administrative Sciences, 6(4), 18-34. Western, B. (1998). Institutions and the labor market. In M. C. Brinton & V. Nee (Eds), The new institutionalism in sociology (pp. 224-243). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Williams, A. M., & Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism and migration: New relationships between production and consumption. Tourism Geographies, 2(1), 5-27. 38 Wisse, B., van Eijbergen, R., Rietzschel, E. F., & Scheibe, S. (2018). Catering to the needs of an aging workforce: The role of employee age in the relationship between corporate social responsibility and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(4), 875-888. World Tourism Organization (2018). European Union Tourism Trends. Retrieved from https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284419470. Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P., & Theocharous, A. L. (2014). Job involvement, commitment, satisfaction and turnover: Evidence from hotel employees in Cyprus. Tourism Management, 41, 129-140.