Previous Article in Journal
Laser-Carved Legacy: Exploring the Scientific Construction and Cultural Significance of the World’s Largest Golden Buddha in Thailand Through a Tourist Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comparative Study of VR and 2D Tourism Videos: A Thematic Analysis of Virtual Tourism Experiences Among Generation Z
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Leaders’ STARA Competencies and Green Innovation: The Mediating Roles of Challenge and Hindrance Appraisals

by
Sameh Fayyad
1,2,*,
Osman Elsawy
3,
Ghada M. Wafik
4,5,
Siham A Abotaleb
6,
Sarah Abdelrahman Ali Abdelrahman
7,8,
Azza Abdel Moneim
2,9,
Rasha Omran
10,11,
Salsabil Attia
4 and
Mahmoud A. Mansour
1,12
1
Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
2
Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, October 6 University, Giza 12573, Egypt
3
Department of Human Resources Management, College of Business, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 3247, Abha 61471, Saudi Arabia
4
Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, October 6 University, Giza 12573, Egypt
5
Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt
6
Administrative and Financial Sciences Department, Hospitality and Tourism Management, Applied College, Taibah University, Medina 42353, Saudi Arabia
7
Tourism Studies Department, Cairo Higher Institute Mokkatm, Cairo 11571, Egypt
8
Tourism and Hospitality Department, Jeddah International College, Jeddah 23831, Saudi Arabia
9
Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63512, Egypt
10
Tourist Guidance Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, October 6 University, Giza 12573, Egypt
11
Tourist Guidance Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt
12
Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Service Technology, East Port Said University of Technology, North Sinai 45632, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6(4), 202; https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6040202
Submission received: 17 August 2025 / Revised: 24 September 2025 / Accepted: 30 September 2025 / Published: 2 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Transformation in Hospitality and Tourism)

Abstract

The hospitality sector is undergoing a rapid digital change due to smart technology and artificial intelligence. This presents both possibilities and problems for the development of sustainable innovation. Yet, little is known about how leaders’ technological competencies affect employees’ capacity to engage in environmentally responsible innovation. This study addresses this gap by examining how leaders’ competencies in smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA) shape employees’ green innovative behavior in hotels. Anchored in person–job fit theory and cognitive appraisal theory, we propose that when employees perceive a strong alignment between their skills and the technological demands introduced by STARA, they are more likely to appraise such technologies as opportunities (challenge appraisals) rather than threats (hindrance appraisals). These appraisals, in turn, mediate the link between leadership and green innovation. Convenience sampling was used to gather data from staff members at five-star, ecologically certified hotels in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. According to structural equation modeling using SmartPLS, employees’ green innovation behaviors are improved by leaders’ STARA abilities. Crucially, staff members who viewed STARA technologies as challenges (i.e., chances for learning and development) converted leadership skills into more robust green innovation results. Conversely, employees who perceived these technologies as obstacles, such as burdens or threats, diminished this beneficial effect and decreased their desire to participate in green innovation. These findings highlight that the way employees cognitively evaluate technological change determines whether leadership efforts foster or obstruct sustainable innovation in hotels.

1. Introduction

The global hospitality sector is navigating an era of rapid change under intensifying sustainability pressures (Khatter, 2023). As a result of increased emissions, resource depletion, and climate change, governments throughout the world are closely monitoring the sector and have tightened laws, established carbon-neutral goals, and enforced more stringent reporting standards. For hotels, compliance with sustainability standards has shifted from a voluntary initiative to a mandatory condition of survival (Dai et al., 2025). Moreover, stakeholders increasingly demand greater corporate responsibility and environmental stewardship to meet evolving sustainability expectations while maintaining competitiveness (Shi & Tsai, 2022). At the same time, consumer preferences are evolving, as travelers, particularly Millennials and Gen Z, actively seek environmentally responsible accommodations (Minazzi & Grechi, 2025). The increasing importance of sustainability indices, eco-certifications, and green ratings has made environmental performance a crucial factor in determining a brand’s reputation and competitive edge (Elshaer et al., 2025a). As a result, hotels are being compelled to include genuine green practices into their long-term plans (Alsheref et al., 2024; Mahar et al., 2025). Within this context, green innovation has emerged as a strategic approach for embedding sustainability into core operations (Zhong, 2021).
To effectively realize the goals of green innovation, many hotels are increasingly turning to STARA technologies comprising smart technologies, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms as powerful tools for enhancing environmental performance through automation, data-driven decision-making, and resource optimization (Hossain et al., 2025). These tools are revolutionizing conventional hotel operations by making automation, customization, and data-driven decision-making possible. Chatbots for customer care, dynamic pricing, and real-time demand forecasting are all made possible by artificial intelligence (Bakir et al., 2025). In front-of-house and back-of-house positions, robotics is also becoming more popular. Examples include automated cleaning systems, delivery bots, and robotic concierges. Predictive analytics, labor scheduling optimization, and operational efficiency are all supported by algorithms (Lukanova & Ilieva, 2019). STARA technologies act as external stimuli that employees cognitively evaluate, and their appraisal either as a challenge or a hindrance directly influences their willingness to engage in innovation-oriented behaviors, including green innovation (Kang et al., 2023).
In the context of green innovation, staff response to the demands of STARA technologies in hotel settings is significantly influenced by person–job fit. Employees are more inclined to use these technologies and actively support sustainability initiatives if they believe that their digital skills and the technology demands of their jobs are aligned (Park & Hai, 2024). On the other hand, a mismatch, such as a lack of digital literacy, can cause unease, opposition, and a decrease in participation in green projects (Stentoft et al., 2021). According to the cognitive appraisal theory, this sense of fit influences how workers cognitively assess technological change, either as a challenge that presents opportunities for development and environmental impact or as a barrier linked to job instability or elevated stress (Ding, 2022; Teng et al., 2025). In consequence, these evaluations have a big impact on their desire to encourage STARA-driven innovation. Crucially, by offering focused assistance, training, and task realignment, leaders with high STARA abilities may significantly contribute to resolving person–job mismatch, enhancing workers’ perceptions of fit, and promoting challenge-based evaluations (Ghosh & Kabra, 2025). By doing this, these leaders support the alignment of worker competencies with environmental and technology requirements, resulting in more efficient and long-lasting innovative results in the hospitality industry.
According to Ogbeibu et al. (2021), leaders who possess strong STARA competency are more likely to foster an innovative and creative atmosphere inside their companies. Employees with this culture are more likely to come up with sustainable concepts and solutions that improve environmental performance and give the company a competitive edge (Shahzad et al., 2024). Thinking outside the box, investigating other angles, and developing creative solutions to sustainability problems are all components of green creativity (Begum et al., 2023). Additionally, by actively promoting and assisting green innovation, leaders with high STARA competency may help their firms generate sustainable concepts and behaviors. As a result, the company is better equipped to get a competitive edge through creative goods, sustainable initiatives, and outstanding customer service (Ogbeibu et al., 2021).
However, despite the growing adoption of smart technologies and automation in the hospitality sector, particularly in hotels e.g., AI-powered service robots, energy-saving systems, and smart room management (Buhalis et al., 2024; Khan & Khan, 2025; Sujood et al., 2024), there is limited research on how hotel leaders’ STARA competencies shape green innovation outcomes. Prior research treats digital transformation and green innovation as distinct phenomena (Feng et al., 2022; Yang & Jiang, 2025). Additionally, existing studies on green innovation in hotels often emphasize operational or policy-level factors (e.g., energy-saving initiatives, green certifications) (Kuo et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2024) but overlook the cognitive and psychological dynamics that occur among employees when exposed to technological change driven by their leaders. Finally, prior studies examine leadership influence on green innovation in broad terms (e.g., transformational or ethical leadership) (Hameed et al., 2023; H. T. Pham et al., 2023) without addressing how specific leader capabilities in technology influence the cognitive appraisals of employees. Specifically, most studies on green innovation focus on either top-down leadership strategies or bottom-up employee behavior (Fu et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2025), without fully exploring how leaders shape the way employees cognitively appraise technology. Moreover, while digital leadership is often associated with innovation outcomes (Erhan et al., 2022; Zia et al., 2024), its indirect influence through employees’ psychological responses to STARA has been largely overlooked, particularly in service sectors like hospitality, where employee buy-in is essential for implementing technology-driven change.
Overall, this study aims to examine the direct effect of leaders’ STARA competencies on subordinates’ green innovation, hindrance, and challenge effects, in addition to the indirect effect via hindrance and challenge effects.
In line with these goals, the research answers the following queries:
  • RQ1: What is the impact of leaders’ STARA abilities on hotel staff members’ green, creative behavior?
  • RQ2: How does the link between leaders’ STARA abilities and green innovation become mediated by workers’ challenge appraisals?
  • RQ3: How do employees’ hindrance appraisals mediate the effect of leaders’ STARA abilities on green innovation?
This study is expected to add theoretically. This research is anticipated to contribute to the person–job fit theory by proving that workers’ perceived alignment with STARA-related job requirements has a substantial impact on their involvement in green innovation. Additionally, it advances the cognitive appraisal theory by demonstrating how this fit influences whether workers view the adoption of technology as a challenge or a barrier. The study also presents leaders’ STARA abilities as a new antecedent that affects assessment results and person–job fit, providing a comprehensive framework that links sustainable innovation, psychological reaction, and leadership in the hospitality industry.
From a practical standpoint, the results are expected to highlight the necessity for hotel companies to make investments in enhancing the digital and innovation-focused skills of their management. Green innovation can be accelerated, employee resistance can be decreased, and engagement can be increased via training programs that improve leaders’ comprehension of STARA and their capacity to steer digital-sustainability shifts. Additionally, hotels may improve staff flexibility and match technology development with environmental objectives by fostering a challenge-oriented workplace.

2. Underpinned Theories

2.1. Person–Job Fit

The person–job fit theory emphasizes how crucial it is to match work requirements with employee skills in order to get the best results. The emergence of STARA technologies has changed the nature of work in the hotel industry, necessitating the acquisition of new digital skills (Ahmad & Bilal, 2025). Strong fit workers are more inclined to support green innovation, whereas misfit workers, such as those with inadequate digital skills, may be less engaged. By offering training, changing positions, and creating a positive environment, leaders with strong STARA abilities significantly contribute to the decrease in misfits (Bakir et al., 2025). These leaders encourage enthusiasm and creativity by assisting staff members in better meeting the needs of technology. Employee dedication to green objectives is further strengthened by their capacity to explain the environmental benefits of STARA instruments (Yang & Jiang, 2025). Therefore, in the hospitality industry, leaders serve as both facilitators of person–job fit and catalysts for sustainable innovation.

2.2. Cognitive Appraisal Theory

According to cognitive appraisal theory, technology can function as a stressor depending on how it is cognitively evaluated by individuals. Employees may perceive new technologies either as challenges, representing opportunities for development, mastery, and success, or as hindrances, viewed as obstacles that threaten resources and well-being (Hur & Shin, 2024). During the primary appraisal, individuals assess whether the introduction of technology constitutes a challenge (e.g., skill enhancement) or a threat (e.g., potential job loss). The secondary appraisal involves evaluating available coping resources such as training, managerial support, and digital competencies (Aboutaleb et al., 2025). When these resources are deemed sufficient, technology is appraised positively; otherwise, it may provoke resistance and stress (Spătaru et al., 2024). Consequently, leaders’ competencies in STARA (smart technology, ai, robotics, and algorithms) play a critical role in shaping these appraisals by influencing how technology is introduced, supported, and framed within organizational contexts (Yang & Jiang, 2025).
In the hospitality industry, employee responses to STARA technologies can be comprehensively understood through the integration of person–job fit (P-J Fit) theory and cognitive appraisal theory. These frameworks offer a complementary perspective (W. Wang et al., 2020). Based on person–job fit theory and cognitive appraisal theory, we contend that a key factor influencing how people react to technological change is the alignment of their STARA-related abilities with job needs (Teng et al., 2025). Person–job fit clarifies whether employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities match the digital and analytical requirements imposed by STARA (Ding, 2021). This perceived alignment directly informs the appraisal process outlined by cognitive appraisal theory. Strong fit makes workers feel well-resourced, which encourages challenge evaluations and helps them view STARA as a chance for innovation, progress, and mastery. Conversely, when fit is weak, employees experience a resource deficit, which drives hindrance appraisals, perceiving STARA as stressful, threatening, or obstructive (Ahmed et al., 2025). Thus, P-J fit provides the structural foundation of alignment, while cognitive appraisal theory explains the evaluative mechanism, thereby providing a logical explanation of how workers react to STARA abilities on a cognitive and affective level.
The strength of integrating these theories lies in showing that alignment is not only a static condition (fit versus misfit) but also a dynamic trigger of appraisal processes. P-J fit establishes the structural basis (whether employees have the resources) (Z. Zhang & Yan, 2024), whereas cognitive appraisal theory describes how this basis influences the cognitive–emotional assessments that lead to behavioral results (Yeo & Ong, 2024). When combined, they offer a conceptually sound justification for why workers with strong STARA capabilities flourish in the face of technological pressures, whereas workers with inferior competences could become stressed or disengaged (Maqsood et al., 2024).

3. The Hypotheses Development

3.1. Leader STARA Competence (LSC) and Green Innovative Behavior (GIB)

According to Zhou et al. (2011), person–job fit reflects the alignment of individual skills, knowledge, and abilities with job requirements. When employees’ values match their job descriptions, they exhibit greater citizenship behavior (Farzaneh et al., 2014; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Similarly, Huang and Gursoy (2024) argue that fit between employees’ competencies and work demands fosters innovative behavior, which Janssen (2000) and Ramamoorthy et al. (2005) classify as a voluntary activity beyond formal tasks. Moreover, alignment between digital skills and technological requirements enhances technology adoption and sustainability support (Park & Hai, 2024), while misfit leads to resistance and disengagement (Stentoft et al., 2021). Person–organization fit, defined as the congruence between employee values and organizational culture (Mackey et al., 2017), enhances psychological ownership, lowers turnover, and stimulates creativity (Ucar et al., 2021). Leaders’ STARA competence may strengthen this fit, increasing satisfaction, loyalty, and performance (Puspitasari & Kusmaningtyas, 2025).
As service firms adopt STARA (Smart Technologies, AI, Robotics, Algorithms) to enhance productivity (Davenport & Ronanki, 2018; Sarc et al., 2019), their affordability and efficiency (Brougham & Haar, 2018) coexist with risks of job loss, burnout, and turnover (Adeniji & Igarashi, 2022; Başer et al., 2025; Kong et al., 2021; Mahlasela & Chinyamurindi, 2020; Zhu et al., 2023). Employees unable to adapt may quit due to job insecurity (Ivanov & Webster, 2020; Parvez et al., 2022), although human interaction remains central in tourism (Parvez et al., 2022). While some employees associate STARA with dismissal risk (Khaliq et al., 2022), others view it as performance-enhancing when guided by STARA-competent leaders (Oosthuizen, 2019; C. Smith, 2019). Developing leaders’ STARA competence reduces task demands, accelerates green initiatives, and fosters environmental sustainability (Ogbeibu et al., 2020, 2021). By applying their expertise, leaders help teams adopt new technologies, manage complex tasks (Ding, 2021), and pursue cleaner manufacturing (Ogbeibu et al., 2022). Consequently, LSC mitigates turnover intentions (Brougham & Haar, 2018; Vishwanath et al., 2019), supports green creativity (Ogbeibu et al., 2020; Oosthuizen, 2019), simplifies tasks (Mahlasela & Chinyamurindi, 2020; Masood & Egger, 2020), and drives sustainable innovation (Jia et al., 2018; Khallash & Kruse, 2012). Following from the previous logic, we suggest the following:
H1. 
Leader STARA competence (LSC) is positively correlated with Green innovative behavior.

3.2. Leader STARA Competence (LSC) and Challenge Appraisal of STARA Technologies

According to the theory of cognitive appraisal, it is the process by which a person decides whether and how an environmental experience relates to their well-being (Ding, 2021). Based on this theory, stressors are appraised as either challenges or threats (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In technological transformation, employees may feel job insecurity when firms adopt STARA technologies, realizing these tools can perform some or all of their tasks (Brougham & Haar, 2018). This may cause anxiety and loss of optimism about career goals (H. Wang et al., 2015). Yet, employees aware of STARA adoption may use proactive coping mechanisms to avoid job loss (Repenning, 2000), viewing the stressor as an opportunity to adapt to a changing workplace (Ding, 2021). Koolhaas et al. (2011) note that STARA-linked uncertainty, role ambiguity, and insecurity align with stress, defined as a response to uncontrollable demands. A stressor may be both challenging and hindering (Searle & Auton, 2015). STARA adoption creates emotional strain and cognitive stress from continuous education (Oosthuizen, 2022). Coping begins with an individual’s cognitive evaluation of whether a stressor is a threat or opportunity (Nasaj et al., 2025), influenced by personal traits that shape future responses (Yang & Jiang, 2025).
The Challenge–Hindrance Stressor Model (CHSM) distinguishes stressors as challenges or hindrances (Cavanaugh et al., 1998). Motivation increases when stressors are challenges and decreases when they are hindrances (Pearsall et al., 2009). Stressors are assessed by importance and coping skills, leading to challenge or hindrance appraisals (Ma et al., 2021). Smart technologies can mitigate operational, financial, and health risks (Masood & Egger, 2020). Hindrance stressors relate to negative outcomes such as job insecurity, while challenge stressors relate to positive outcomes such as job satisfaction (Abdelghani et al., 2025; Başer et al., 2025). It remains debated whether STARA increases or replaces productivity in tourism (Lukanova & Ilieva, 2019). Robots may assist or replace employees (Ivanov & Webster, 2020). Technological stressors may be beneficial if managed effectively (Zhu et al., 2023). When employees perceive techno-stress as a challenge, work involvement rises (Adeniji & Igarashi, 2022), with greater enthusiasm, dedication (Başer et al., 2025), and proactive behaviors like creative problem-solving (Ogbeibu et al., 2021). Responses thus depend on whether STARA adoption is seen as an opportunity or a danger (Ding, 2021; Teng et al., 2025). Employees’ understanding of STARA has more influence on job performance than the technology itself (Hur & Shin, 2024), since stressors are judged as beneficial or harmful to objectives, values, and well-being (Başer et al., 2025; Tan et al., 2023).
In this context, subordinates’ assessment of the challenges posed by STARA technologies is significantly influenced by the Leader STARA Competence (LSC) (Khairy et al., 2025b). When leaders exhibit a high level of proficiency in robots, artificial intelligence, algorithms, and smart technologies, they provide an example of confidence and flexibility in the face of technological change (Bock & von der Oelsnitz, 2025). According to the cognitive appraisal theory, leaders are important information sources and cues for subordinates to understand changes in the workplace. Competent leaders are more likely to present STARA technology as possibilities for learning, development, and innovation rather than as threats (Ding, 2021). Subordinates view the introduction of these technologies as challenges to be overcome rather than burdens to be avoided thanks to this positive framing (Nguyen et al., 2023). After this discussion, the following hypothesis is produced:
H2. 
Leader STARA competence (LSC) is positively correlated with Challenge appraisal of STARA technologies.

3.3. Leader STARA Competence (LSC) and Hindrance Appraisal of STARA Technologies

According to Mahlasela and Chinyamurindi (2020) and Masood and Egger (2020), LSC is crucial in reducing team members’ workload and familiarizing them with cutting-edge technology relevant to green initiatives. Ma et al. (2021) noted that individuals assess stress based on its significance and coping mechanisms, leading to two appraisals: challenge and hindrance. In technological change, STARA may replace human labor (DeCanio, 2016). Employees unable to adapt may quit due to job insecurity (Ivanov & Webster, 2020; Parvez et al., 2022). For instance, hotel employees linked their knowledge of STARA to turnover intentions, fearing dismissal from its use (Khaliq et al., 2022). STARA adoption also exposes frontline staff to uncertainty, making them feel their critical resources are threatened (Tan et al., 2023). Since STARA has fewer service failures than humans, frontline service employees (FSEs) may view their competencies as weaker (Brougham & Haar, 2018; Smids et al., 2020). Moreover, its use of smart monitoring reduces job autonomy (Hur & Shin, 2024). A lack of autonomy discourages proactive participation and erodes motivation (Parker et al., 2017). Additionally, STARA adoption increases workload, as employees must acquire STARA-related skills and knowledge (Demerouti, 2022). Consequently, employees may perceive diminished autonomy as automation replaces routine tasks (Parker & Grote, 2022).
Subordinates’ evaluation of STARA technologies’ obstacles is significantly influenced by leader STARA competence (LSC) (Ghosh & Kabra, 2025). Strong STARA competency, or the ability to clearly comprehend and effectively manage these cutting-edge technologies, tends to lessen team members’ perceptions of technological change as a barrier (Olya et al., 2024). The cognitive appraisal theory states that workers look to their leaders for guidance on how to handle difficult circumstances. Employees may experience sentiments of irritation, overload, or blockage as a result of a leader’s assurance and proactive approach to STARA implementation. These emotions are common elements of hindrance appraisal (Hur & Shin, 2024). The risk that subordinates may perceive STARA technologies as obstacles or dangers to their job is decreased when leaders assist them in feeling more capable of handling technological demands by offering clear communication, sufficient resources, and emotional support (Ravani, 2025). In light of these considerations, the following hypothesis can be established:
H3. 
Leader STARA competence (LSC) is negatively correlated with Hindrance appraisal of STARA technologies.

3.4. Challenge Appraisal of STARA Technologies and Green Innovative Behavior

H. Li et al. (2023) define innovative green behavior as the creation and use of creative ideas for ecologically friendly customer service. Asghar et al. (2023) argue that the hotel and tourism industries increasingly embrace green service innovation to reduce environmental impact, enhance social responsibility, and deliver greater value. Nguyen et al. (2024) state that responsible leaders are the main source of employee creativity, while also preserving sustainable organizational environments (Asghar et al., 2023). Zhu et al. (2023) note that if technology stressors are properly managed, they can be beneficial, and employees’ work involvement may rise if they view techno-stress as a challenge (Adeniji & Igarashi, 2022). Thus, self-motivation is linked to evaluating challenges, as employees who view stress as a challenge approach work with energy, enthusiasm, and dedication (Başer et al., 2025), while also showing proactive attitudes by seeking new activities (Ogbeibu et al., 2021). Consequently, employee responses differ depending on whether they view STARA adoption as an opportunity or a danger (Ding, 2021; Tan et al., 2023), and employees’ understanding of STARA has a greater influence on job performance than the technology itself (Hur & Shin, 2024). According to the person–environment fit theory (Edwards et al., 1998), the mismatch created by adopting STARA motivates employees to cope with stress and work innovatively, not only to adapt to but also to master the changing environment. The extent to which employees perceive collaboration with STARA as an opportunity for personal growth and value creation positively influences their level of innovativeness. Drawing from the previously presented logic, we suggest the following:
H4. 
Challenge appraisal of STARA technologies is positively correlated with Green innovative behavior.

3.5. Hindrance Appraisal of STARA Technologies and Green Innovative Behavior

Based on the transactional theory of stress, primary appraisal is a critical psychological process that connects stressors to outcomes and is a way for an individual to evaluate the significance and meaning of a situation (Kraimer et al., 2022). Additionally, an individual’s primary assessment affects the value of consequences that they will encounter, including performance, motivation, strain, and well-being (Dillard, 2019; Huang & Gursoy, 2024). According to Cavanaugh et al. (2000) and Searle and Auton (2015), hindrance appraisals are characterized by an individual’s subjective perception that certain aspects of their profession may impede or obstruct their efforts to accomplish important objectives. In this regard, negative consequences, including increased turnover and withdrawal behavior, are linked to hindrance needs (J. A. Lepine et al., 2005). P. Li et al. (2021) defined hindrance demands as work-related expectations that hinder or obstruct an individual’s ability to achieve desired goals and that impede advancement, such as role conflict, job ambiguity, and organizational limitations.
As per Brougham and Haar (2018), Brougham and Haar (2018), and Ogbeibu et al. (2021), organizational team leaders must be able to manage and execute STARA technologies in order to carry out specific sustainability actions. To achieve this, businesses will need leaders who are knowledgeable in the development, management, and use of smart technology to support technological procedures that promote green initiatives (X. Li et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the emergence of STARA poses a serious threat to traditional jobs, primarily because these technologies are relatively inexpensive to purchase and maintain (Brougham & Haar, 2018; Lukanova & Ilieva, 2019). According to Frey and Osborne (2017), 47% of American employment may be automated, which could significantly affect the labor force over the next 20 years. However, in labor-intensive sectors such as tourism, human-to-human interaction remains essential, and STARA technology cannot fully replace human labor (Parvez et al., 2022). Even so, employees may get gloomy about their jobs and future career opportunities because of the uncertainty that STARA technology brings, which will reduce innovation in work (Başer et al., 2025; H. Li et al., 2023). With the above-mentioned logic in mind, we suggest the following:
H5. 
Hindrance appraisal of STARA technologies is negatively correlated with Green innovative behavior.

3.6. Challenge and Hindrance Appraisal of STARA Technologies Mediate the Relationship Between Leader STARA Competence and Green Innovative Behavior

According to the challenge–hindrance stressor theory, stressors that are seen as challenges lead to positive effects, engagement, and results (M. A. LePine, 2022). Furthermore, challenge stresses are linked to favorable business results like work satisfaction (Başer et al., 2025). Zhu et al. (2023) support this viewpoint, asserting that, when properly controlled, technology shocks can be beneficial. Therefore, employees’ level of work involvement may rise if they view techno-stress as a challenge (Adeniji & Igarashi, 2022). Based on the ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO) theory, employee performance is believed to be influenced by their opportunity, willingness, and performance capacity (Marin-Garcia & Martinez Tomas, 2016). N. T. Pham et al. (2019) have highlighted the significance of the three AMO theory components—ability, motivation, and opportunity—in shaping employee green behavior. When employees have the right direction, support, and encouragement, they demonstrate proactive innovation (Sibian & Ispas, 2021). Employees are already engaging in creative green behaviors when they apply innovative concepts for environmentally responsible customer service (H. Li et al., 2023). Ogbeibu et al. (2021) claim that employees also exhibit proactive attitudes by actively looking for novel activities. As a result, assessing challenges is associated with self-motivation, and workers who see stress as a challenge approach their work with vigor and excitement and are more committed to their responsibilities (Başer et al., 2025).
However, human labor could be replaced by STARA technologies (Başer et al., 2025). In addition, employees who are unable to adjust to STARA technologies may be compelled to quit because they fear losing their jobs (Ivanov & Webster, 2020; Parvez et al., 2022). Additionally, frontline staff are exposed to risks and uncertainties because of STARA adoption, which makes them feel as though their important resources are in threat (Tan et al., 2023). Furthermore, it is tougher to achieve the autonomy criterion since STARA uses smart technology to monitor work procedures and processes (Hur & Shin, 2024). According to Brougham and Haar (2018) and Lukanova and Ilieva (2019), the rise of STARA presents a significant threat to traditional jobs. Moreover, because STARA technology is unpredictable, workers may become pessimistic about their current positions and prospects for advancement (Başer et al., 2025). For businesses to overcome these obstacles and challenges and support technical procedures that promote green initiatives, leaders with experience in the development, management, and use of smart technology will be required (X. Li et al., 2021). In this context, the job autonomy of frontline service jobs is significantly impacted by the knowledge that STARA technology may replace them, which lowers proactive service performance (Hur & Shin, 2024). Finally, employee technostress evaluation affects results: challenge evaluation increases creativity and engagement, while hindrance evaluation reduces creativity and increases anxiety (S. Zhang et al., 2025). Based on the above reasoning, we propose the following (see Figure 1):
H6. 
Challenge appraisal of STARA technologies mediates the relationship between Leader STARA competence and green innovative behavior.
H7. 
Hindrance appraisal of STARA technologies mediates the relationship between Leader STARA competence and green innovative behavior.

4. Methods

4.1. Measures

The measurement scales for the study variables were borrowed from previous studies. 4 items from Ogbeibu et al. (2020) were used to assess leader STARA competencies (LSC). The Ogbeibu et al. (2020) scale for measuring LSC has been widely applied in previous studies, including research conducted in the hospitality sector, and more specifically in Egypt (Ahmed et al., 2025; Khairy et al., 2025b; Olya et al., 2024). Accordingly, the use of this validated scale provides both reliability and contextual relevance to the present study. Furthermore, the challenge appraisal of STARA technologies (CAS) and hindrance appraisal of STARA technologies (HAS) variables were evaluated utilizing 4 items for each one borrowed from Searle and Auton (2015). Finally, green innovative behavior (GIB) was gauged using four items proposed by Z. Wang et al. (2021). Following the guidelines of Brislin (1980), the original English survey was initially translated into Arabic by two bilingual experts. Subsequently, a separate team conducted a back-translation into English to verify accuracy and conceptual equivalence. Additionally, the questionnaire was reviewed by 18 academics and practitioners to confirm the clarity and consistency of the measurement items with the study’s objectives. Only minor modifications were necessary.

4.2. Data Gathering Methods

As Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, advances toward becoming the nation’s first green city, data were collected from employees at 21 five-star, environmentally certified hotels in the area. The study employed a convenience sampling method due to practical considerations of time, cost, and participant accessibility. Although this approach may limit representativeness and generalizability (this limitation was explicitly acknowledged in the study), it is commonly applied in hospitality research (Abdulaziz et al., 2025; Elshaer et al., 2024), where random sampling is often constrained. Prior evidence indicates that sufficiently large samples can mitigate such concerns (Jager et al., 2017). Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary, that they could withdraw at any time without penalty, and that completing the questionnaire implied informed consent. They were also advised that there were no right or wrong answers and assured that all responses would remain confidential and used solely for statistical analysis. Ethical approval was obtained from the authors’ institution, and this will be reported in the Ethical Approval section of the manuscript. Activating the mandatory response option in the online questionnaire ensured complete data and yielded 446 valid responses for analysis. The sample consisted of 300 males (67.3%) and 146 females (32.7%), with participants aged 18 to 59. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

4.3. Data Analysis

To align with the study’s predictive orientation and to address the complexity of the research model, partial least squares (PLS) was selected as the analytical technique. The primary objective was to predict the relationships among the independent variable (STARA leadership competence), the dependent variable (green innovative behavior), and the mediators (challenge appraisal of STARA and hindrance appraisal of STARA), rather than to confirm a pre-existing theoretical model (Hair et al., 2017).

5. Results

5.1. Common Method Bias (CMB) and Data Normality

Harman’s single-factor test showed that the first factor explained 40.674% of the variance, below the 50% threshold (Podsakoff et al., 2003), suggesting no serious CMB issues. Furthermore, skewness and kurtosis were evaluated to verify the normality of the data distribution. The observed values were within the accepted thresholds of +2 for skewness and +7 for kurtosis (see Table 2) (Curran et al., 1996).

5.2. Outer Model Evaluation

The outer model in PLS-SEM was assessed by examining indicator reliability (factor loadings, λ), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha, α), and composite reliability (CR), as well as convergent validity (average variance extracted, AVE). According to Hair et al. (2019), λ and α should be >0.7, while AVE should exceed 0.50. As presented in Table 2, all criteria were met.
Many studies (Elshaer et al., 2024, 2025b; Khairy et al., 2025a) have employed the Fornell–Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) in conjunction with the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT) (Henseler et al., 2015) to assess discriminant validity, addressing criticisms associated with relying solely on the Fornell–Larcker approach. The HTMT criterion demonstrated superior performance, with specificity and sensitivity rates of 97–99% compared to 20.82% for the Fornell–Larcker criterion (Henseler et al., 2015). (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) suggested that discriminant validity is considered adequate when a construct’s AVE is > the squared correlations it shares with other constructs, as shown in Table 3. Meanwhile, (Gold et al., 2001) stated that the HTMT value should be less than 0.90. As indicated in Table 3 and Table 4, the DV was successfully validated.

5.3. Structural Model Assessment and Hypotheses Testing

Table 2 indicates that the VIF values (1.808–3.437) fall below the recommended threshold of 5.0, confirming the absence of multicollinearity among predictors and demonstrating that each variable contributes uniquely to the explanation of the endogenous constructs (Hair et al., 2019). For the coefficient of determination (R2), the R2 value for CAS was 0.351. Similarly, the R2 values for GIB and LSC were 0.358 and 0.278, respectively, both exceeding the acceptable threshold of 0.10 (Hair et al., 2019). This demonstrates an accepted explanatory power of the model in line with the theoretical framework that was built on person–job fit theory and cognitive appraisal theory. Similarly, the Q2 values presented in Table 5 exceeded 0.0, which confirms the predictive relevance of the model. These results confirm the adequacy of the structural model (Hair et al., 2019).
Table 5 and Figure 2 illustrate that LSC had a significant positive effect on GIB (β = 0.189, t = 2.891, p < 0.004) and CAS (β = 0.593, t = 12.621, p < 0.004), while exhibiting a significant negative effect on HAS (β = −0.527, t = 15.845, p < 0.000), thereby supporting hypotheses H1, H2, and H3. Furthermore, CAS positively influenced GIB (β = 0.330, t = 5.147, p < 0.000), confirming H4. In contrast, HAS had a negative impact on GIB (β = −0.230, t = 4.763, p < 0.000), supporting H5. Regarding the mediation effects, CAS and HAS were found to mediate the effect of LSC on GIB. Specifically, the indirect effects were significant, with β = 0.195, t = 4.660, p < 0.000, and β = 0.121, t = 4.709, p < 0.000, respectively. Thus, hypotheses H6 and H7 were also supported.

Multi-Group Analysis (MGA) Based on Gender Group

To explore potential gender-based differences, the SmartPLS Multi-Group Analysis (MGA) was applied. Under MGA guidelines, a hypothesis is supported if the significance value is <0.05 or the t-value is >1.96 (Cheah et al., 2020). As shown in Table 6, no statistically significant differences emerged between male and female groups across any of the proposed structural relationships. These results indicate that gender does not exert a meaningful influence on the structural paths examined in this study.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

6.1. Discussion

Despite the widespread application of STARA competencies in service-related functions, research examining tourism and hospitality employees’ responses to its adoption remains scarce. While prior research has examined the nexus between STARA leadership competencies and green innovation behavior (Ogbeibu et al., 2020; Oosthuizen, 2019) and has also investigated the challenge and hindrance appraisals associated with STARA (Başer et al., 2025; Hur & Shin, 2024; Tan et al., 2023), such efforts have sometimes overlooked the hospitality sector. This gap is particularly evident in developing countries’ contexts, where empirical evidence remains scarce. To address this research gap, the present study investigated the relationship between leader STARA competencies (LSCs) and green innovation behavior (GIB), with challenge appraisal of STARA (CAS) and hindrance appraisal of STARA (HSA) serving as mediating variables.
The findings support the first hypothesis, indicating that LSCs significantly foster GIB in hotels (β = 0.189, t = 2.891, p < 0.004). These results are consistent with Puvaneswary (2024), who emphasized that leaders equipped with technological (STARA) skills are better positioned to effectively address sustainability requirements within their organizations and promote GIB among employees (Ogbeibu et al., 2023). LSCs are essential for enhancing employees’ GIB and enabling them to work creatively toward achieving organizational sustainability agendas, as leaders are often perceived as role models by their followers (Olya et al., 2024). Thus, LSCs could be crucial in helping team members become more comfortable with innovative technologies relevant to improving green activities, as well as in simplifying their tasks (Mahlasela & Chinyamurindi, 2020; Masood & Egger, 2020). Additionally, LSCs help organizations initiate green activities that encourage innovative green organizational practices (Jia et al., 2018; Khallash & Kruse, 2012).
Similarly, the results revealed that LSCs are positively associated with the challenge appraisal of STARA technologies (CAS) (β = 0.593, t = 12.621, p < 0.000) (H2), while showing a negative association with the hindrance appraisal of STARA technologies (HAS) (β = −0.527, t = 15.845, p < 0.000) (H3). Employees tend to fall into two distinct groups: the first perceives technological pressures as challenges (CAS), whereby their self-motivation is linked to challenge appraisals, leading to greater engagement, enthusiasm, and higher levels of dedication in performing their duties (Başer et al., 2025). In contrast, the second group perceives these pressures as work burdens (HAS), as they are required to acquire new skills and knowledge associated with such technologies. Consequently, these employees may experience reduced job autonomy and feel constrained to perform only demanding tasks, particularly as job automation technologies frequently replace routine tasks (Demerouti, 2022; Parker & Grote, 2022). In this regard, Masood and Egger (2020) noted that LSCs can persuade their subordinates that innovative technologies may mitigate or even prevent potential operational, financial, and health risks. Similarly, Cavanaugh et al. (1998) found that leaders can reduce employees’ negative stress perceptions toward technology (HAS), such as job insecurity, while CAS has been shown to yield positive organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction (Başer et al., 2025).
In the same vein, studies have indicated that the more employees perceive collaboration with STARA as an opportunity and anticipate gaining personal value and achieving accomplishments, the more innovative they become at work. However, employees may also feel pessimistic about their jobs and future career prospects due to the uncertainty brought by STARA technologies, which in turn may diminish workplace innovation (Başer et al., 2025). Consistent with these arguments, the results supported Hypotheses 3 and 4, indicating that CAS is positively associated with GIB (β = 0.330, t = 5.147, p < 0.000), whereas HAS is negatively related to GIB (β = −0.230, t = 4.763, p < 0.000).
With regard to the mediating effects, both CAS (H6 → β = 0.121, t = 4.709, p < 0.000) and HAS (H → β = 0.121, t = 4.709, p < 0.000) were found to mediate the relationship between LSC and GIB. This mediation is further substantiated by the significant direct relationships observed among the study variables. Therefore, for organizations to enhance performance and green initiatives, it is essential to have leaders equipped with STARA competencies who possess expertise in developing, managing, and utilizing smart technologies. Such leaders can motivate and support employees in embracing technology, while simultaneously alleviating hindering perceptions from their minds (X. Li et al., 2021).

6.2. Theoretical Implications

In the context of social sciences, it is often preferable to draw on multiple theoretical perspectives in order to gain deeper insights and achieve a more comprehensive understanding of practice (Abdulaziz et al., 2025; Deegan et al., 2000). Accordingly, this study advances theoretical contributions by uniquely integrating person–job fit theory (Edwards, 1991), cognitive appraisal theory (C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985), and the Challenge–Hindrance Stressor Model (CHSM) (Cavanaugh et al., 1998) into a one framework. This multi-theoretical integration offers a novel lens through which to examine green innovation behavior in the hospitality sector, particularly within developing country contexts.
This study extends the application of person–job fit theory to the context of integration technologies in the workplace by proposing that when leaders possess STARA competencies and provide adequate support to their subordinates, they are more likely to embrace new technologies and perceive their own capabilities as aligned with emerging job requirements. In this sense, leaders play a critical role in shaping employees’ appraisals of STARA-related pressures as manageable challenges, thereby reinforcing the perception of person–job fit. Beyond applying cognitive appraisal theory and the Challenge–Hindrance Stressor Model (CHSM), this study advances the theoretical discourse by highlighting the dynamic mechanism through which employees’ appraisals can shift. While cognitive appraisal theory posits that stressors may be appraised as either challenges (CAS) or hindrances (HAS), and CHSM distinguishes between challenge (CAS) and hindrance (HAS) stressors, the present study suggests that threat and hindrance appraisals are not static. Instead, under supportive STARA leadership, these negative appraisals can be transformed into challenge appraisals, thereby enabling employees to reinterpret technology-induced pressures as opportunities for growth and innovation rather than constraints. This theoretical extension provides a nuanced explanation of how resistance to technology adoption can evolve into proactive engagement.
Overall, this study is expected to contribute to person–job fit theory by demonstrating that leaders play a pivotal role in creating alignment between jobs involving STARA-related tasks and employees, which in turn significantly enhances their engagement in green innovation. The study also advances cognitive appraisal theory by suggesting that leaders’ STARA competencies serve as antecedents that can transform employees’ appraisal of technology adoption from a hindrance to a challenge. This transformation fosters a better fit that provides a conducive environment for green innovation. Accordingly, the study offers a comprehensive theoretical framework that integrates sustainable innovation, psychological processes, and leadership within the hospitality sector.

6.3. Practical Implications

Practically, this study provides several insights for managers and decision-makers. First, the findings highlight a positive relationship between LSCs and GIB. This underscores the importance of developing STARA competencies among hospitality leaders, as such capabilities enable them to design and implement innovative solutions that facilitate a smooth going to green. To ensure the long-term greening of hotels, the use of STARA technologies should be reinforced through the design of specialized training programs to enhance leaders’ understanding of innovative technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and intelligent automation (STARA). These programs should emphasize the application of such technologies across different hotel departments to strengthen leaders’ technological knowledge and equip them to serve as trainers of trainers (TOTs) for their subordinates. This knowledge should be linked to the context of green innovation within the organization to foster sustainable transformation.
The widespread adoption of STARA technologies in hotel operations necessitates increased managerial focus on employee performance and the emerging challenges and hindrances associated with technologically driven work environments. Organizations should adopt a proactive approach to addressing the challenges and negative perceptions employees may hold toward STARA technologies to maximize their benefits. When employees’ resources fail to keep pace with the rapid adoption of technology, a misalignment between capabilities and demands emerges. Therefore, leaders must provide adequate organizational support that enables employees to adapt their skills and competencies to the evolving work environment. This, in turn, enhances their readiness to embrace new technologies, fostering more competitive and innovative work behaviors. In addition, hospitality organizations may organize targeted workshops and seminars serving two strategic purposes. First, to strengthen STARA-competent leaders’ persuasion and communication skills to enable them to convey the benefits of technological transformation to their teams effectively. Second, to foster joint participation of leaders and employees in these sessions to reduce resistance to change and position STARA-related demands as motivating challenges rather than hindrances.
In order to make these insights more broadly applicable outside of the Egyptian hospitality setting, businesses in other industries and locations should modify them to fit their own institutional and cultural circumstances. This may include aligning technology adoption with global sustainability frameworks (e.g., the UN Sustainable Development Goals or national green transformation agendas), customizing training to local workforce capabilities, and fostering partnerships between industry, government, and academia to support eco-digital innovation. By embedding both green and digital dimensions into their strategic vision, organizations create a dual pathway to competitiveness where technological efficiency reinforces environmental responsibility. This strategy maximizes long-term organizational and social value by fortifying market position and boosting legitimacy with consumers, authorities, and global stakeholders.

7. Study Limitations and Future Research

Similar to prior studies, this research is subject to several limitations that should be addressed in future investigations. First, the reliance on a cross-sectional design (i.e., data collected at a single point in time from hotel employees) restricts the ability to draw causal inferences. Future studies are therefore encouraged to adopt longitudinal designs to better capture causal dynamics. Second, the study was conducted in a single geographical setting (Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt) using self-reported data from hotel employees, which may introduce contextual and common method biases. Third, although convenience sampling is widely used in hospitality and tourism research due to its practicality and cost efficiency, it inherently limits sample representativeness and generalizability. Hence, probability-based sampling strategies are recommended in future research. Fourth, while PLS-SEM is a powerful and widely applied method in hospitality studies, it carries methodological constraints such as potential endogeneity concerns and limited capacity to account for unobserved heterogeneity. Thus, complementary approaches such as CB-SEM, Mplus, or multilevel modeling should be considered. Furthermore, as this study was conducted in a developing country context (Egypt), cross-cultural or multi-country studies are recommended to validate the role of STARA competencies in shaping environmental performance across diverse hospitality contexts and to enhance external validity. Finally, future research may explore alternative mediating and moderating mechanisms—such as psychological safety, employees’ environmental orientation, organizational culture, organizational support, or STARA awareness—which could provide deeper theoretical insights and broaden contributions to the literature on STARA competencies and green transformation in the hotel sector.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.F., S.A.A. and S.A.A.A.; Methodology, S.F.; Software, S.F. and M.A.M.; Validation, O.E., G.M.W., A.A.M., R.O. and S.A.; Formal analysis, S.F. and M.A.M.; Investigation, S.F., O.E. and A.A.M.; Resources, R.O. and S.A.; Data curation, S.A.; Writing—original draft, S.F., G.M.W., S.A.A., S.A.A.A., A.A.M. and M.A.M.; Writing—review & editing, S.F., O.E. and G.M.W.; Visualization, S.A.A. and M.A.M.; Supervision, S.F.; Project administration, S.F.; Funding acquisition, O.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Deanship of Research and Graduate Studies at King Khalid University through the Small Research Project [grant number RGP1/94/46].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, October 6 University (protocol code 1-22-6-2025, approved on 22 June 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The information provided in this research can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Research and Graduate Studies at King Khalid University for funding this work through Small Research Project [grant number RGP1/94/46].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdelghani, A. A. A., Ahmed, H. A. M., Zamil, A. M. A., Elsawy, O., Fayyad, S., & Elshaer, I. A. (2025). Gossip gone toxic: The dual role of self-esteem and emotional contagion in counterproductive workplace behavior. Administrative Sciences, 15(9), 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abdulaziz, T. A., Mansour, M. A., Elwardany, W. M. M., & Fayyad, S. (2025). The mediating role of psychological detachment between work overload and workplace withdrawal. Current Psychology. Ahead of Print. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aboutaleb, M., Mohammad, A., & Fayyad, S. (2025). Emotional contagion in hotels: How psychological resilience shapes employees’ performance, satisfaction, and retention. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism. 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Adeniji, J., & Igarashi, R. (2022). Managing foreign subsidiaries remotely: The role of culture in techno-stress appraisal and well-being. Journal of International Marketing, 30(3), 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahmad, B., & Bilal, S. (2025). Knowledge of AI as a future work skill for career sustainability. Journal of Career Development, 52(2), 134–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ahmed, H. A. M., Fayyad, S., Al-Romeedy, B. S., & Abdelghani, A. A. A. (2025). The role of STARA competencies in driving AI adoption performance in tourism and hospitality: A systematic-quantitative synthesis of dual mediation analysis of self-efficacy and Techno-Eustress. Research Journal in Advanced Humanities, 6(2), 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  7. Alsheref, F. K., Khairy, H. A., Alsetoohy, O., Elsawy, O., Fayyad, S., Salama, M., Al-Romeedy, B. S., & Soliman, S. A. E. M. (2024). Catalyzing green identity and sustainable advantage in tourism and hotel businesses. Sustainability, 16(12), 5267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Asghar, M., Gull, N., Xiong, Z., Shu, A., Faraz, N. A., & Pervaiz, K. (2023). Sustainable practices in hospitality pre and amid COVID-19 pandemic: Looking back for moving forward post-COVID-19. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 56, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bakir, S., Ayoun, B., Wei, C., & Bilgihan, A. (2025). Understanding employee retention in the age of AI and robotics: A study of technology competencies and turnover intentions in the hotel sector. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology. Ahead of Print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Başer, M. Y., Büyükbeşe, T., & Ivanov, S. (2025). The effect of STARA awareness on hotel employees’ turnover intention and work engagement: The mediating role of perceived organisational support. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 8(2), 532–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Begum, S., Ashfaq, M., Asiaei, K., & Shahzad, K. (2023). Green intellectual capital and green business strategy: The role of green absorptive capacity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(7), 4907–4923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bock, T., & von der Oelsnitz, D. (2025). Leadership-competences in the era of artificial intelligence—A structured review. Strategy & Leadership, 53(3), 235–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Methodology (pp. 389–444). Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2018). Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(2), 239–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Buhalis, D., Efthymiou, L., Uzunboylu, N., & Thrassou, A. (2024). Charting the progress of technology adoption in tourism and hospitality in the era of industry 4.0. EuroMed Journal of Business, 19(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Roehling, M. (1998). “Challenge” and “hindrance” related stress among US managers. Cornell University. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Cheah, J.-H., Thurasamy, R., Memon, M. A., Chuah, F., & Ting, H. (2020). Multigroup analysis using SmartPLS: Step-by-step guidelines for business research. Asian Journal of Business Research, 10(3), I–XIX. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dai, J., Mehmood, U., & Nassani, A. A. (2025). Empowering sustainability through energy efficiency, green innovations, and the sharing economy: Insights from G7 economies. Energy, 318, 134768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Davenport, T. H., & Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the real world. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 108–116. [Google Scholar]
  22. DeCanio, S. J. (2016). Robots and humans—Complements or substitutes? Journal of Macroeconomics, 49, 280–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Voght, P. (2000). Firms’ disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 101–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Demerouti, E. (2022). Turn digitalization and automation to a job resource. Applied Psychology, 71(4), 1205–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dillard, D. M. (2019). The transactional theory of stress and coping: Predicting posttraumatic distress in telecommunicators. Walden University. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ding, L. (2021). Employees’ challenge-hindrance appraisals toward STARA awareness and competitive productivity: A micro-level case. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(9), 2950–2969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ding, L. (2022). Employees’ STARA awareness and innovative work behavioural intentions: Evidence from US casual dining restaurants. In Global strategic management in the service industry: A perspective of the new era (pp. 17–56). Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  29. Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person-environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28–67). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Elshaer, I. A., Alyahya, M., Azazz, A. M. S., Mansour, M. A., Mohammad, A. A. A., & Fayyad, S. (2024). Understanding the nexus between social commerce, green customer citizenship, eco-friendly behavior and staying in green hotels. Sustainability, 16(4), 1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Elshaer, I. A., Azazz, A. M. S., Kooli, C., Aljoghaiman, A., Elsawy, O., & Fayyad, S. (2025a). Green transformational leadership’s impact on employee retention: Does job satisfaction and green support bridge the gap? Administrative Sciences, 15(5), 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Elshaer, I. A., Azazz, A. M. S., Mansour, M. A., & Fayyad, S. (2025b). Perceived greenwashing and employee non-green behavior: The roles of prevention-focused green crafting and work alienation. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2449592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Erhan, T., Uzunbacak, H. H., & Aydin, E. (2022). From conventional to digital leadership: Exploring digitalization of leadership and innovative work behavior. Management Research Review, 45(11), 1524–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Farzaneh, J., Dehghanpour Farashah, A., & Kazemi, M. (2014). The impact of person-job fit and person-organization fit on OCB. Personnel Review, 43(5), 672–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Feng, H., Wang, F., Song, G., & Liu, L. (2022). Digital transformation on enterprise green innovation: Effect and transmission mechanism. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 10614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fu, H., Zeng, S., & Sun, D. (2024). Top-down or bottom-up? How environmental state attention and civic participation coordinate with green innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(9), 2187–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ghosh, V., & Kabra, G. (2025). “I exist because I adapt”: Evolving technology HR themes, HR roles with STARA competencies for performance. Sustainable Futures, 10, 100926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hameed, Z., Naeem, R. M., Misra, P., Chotia, V., & Malibari, A. (2023). Ethical leadership and environmental performance: The role of green IT capital, green technology innovation, and technological orientation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hossain, M. I., Islam, M. T., Kumar, J., & Jamadar, Y. (2025). Harnessing STARA for enhancing green performance of hospitality industry: Green HRM, employees commitment as mediators and psychological climate as moderator. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 8(6), 2117–2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huang, Y., & Gursoy, D. (2024). How does AI technology integration affect employees’ proactive service behaviors? A transactional theory of stress perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 77, 103700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hur, W.-M., & Shin, Y. (2024). Service employees’ STARA awareness and proactive service performance. Journal of Services Marketing, 38(4), 426–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ivanov, S., & Webster, C. (2020). Robots in tourism: A research agenda for tourism economics. Tourism Economics, 26(7), 1065–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jager, J., Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2017). II. More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(2), 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jia, J., Liu, H., Chin, T., & Hu, D. (2018). The continuous mediating effects of GHRM on employees’ green passion via transformational leadership and green creativity. Sustainability, 10(9), 3237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kang, D. Y., Hur, W.-M., & Shin, Y. (2023). Smart technology and service employees’ job crafting: Relationship between STARA awareness, performance pressure, receiving and giving help, and job crafting. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 73, 103282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Khairy, H. A., Fayyad, S., & El Sawy, O. (2025a). AI awareness and work withdrawal in hotel enterprises: Unpacking the roles of psychological contract breach, job crafting, and resilience. Current Issues in Tourism. 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Khairy, H. A., Lee, Y. M., & Al-Romeedy, B. S. (2025b). Leader STARA competence and green competitiveness in tourism and hotel enterprises: Leveraging green creativity and human capital. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 8(6), 2338–2358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Khaliq, A., Waqas, A., Nisar, Q. A., Haider, S., & Asghar, Z. (2022). Application of AI and robotics in hospitality sector: A resource gain and resource loss perspective. Technology in Society, 68, 101807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Khallash, S., & Kruse, M. (2012). The future of work and work-life balance 2025. Futures, 44(7), 678–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Khan, S., & Khan, S. U. (2025). Tourist motivation to adopt smart hospitality: The impact of smartness and technology readiness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 8(4), 1268–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Khatter, A. (2023). Challenges and solutions for environmental sustainability in the hospitality sector. Sustainability, 15(15), 11491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kong, H., Yuan, Y., Baruch, Y., Bu, N., Jiang, X., & Wang, K. (2021). Influences of artificial intelligence (AI) awareness on career competency and job burnout. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(2), 717–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Koolhaas, J. M., Bartolomucci, A., Buwalda, B., de Boer, S. F., Flügge, G., Korte, S. M., Meerlo, P., Murison, R., Olivier, B., Palanza, P., Richter-Levin, G., Sgoifo, A., Steimer, T., Stiedl, O., van Dijk, G., Wöhr, M., & Fuchs, E. (2011). Stress revisited: A critical evaluation of the stress concept. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(5), 1291–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kraimer, M. L., Shaffer, M. A., Bolino, M. C., Charlier, S. D., & Wurtz, O. (2022). A transactional stress theory of global work demands: A challenge, hindrance, or both? Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2197–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kuo, F.-I., Fang, W.-T., & LePage, B. A. (2022). Proactive environmental strategies in the hotel industry: Eco-innovation, green competitive advantage, and green core competence. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(6), 1240–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company. [Google Scholar]
  65. Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. LePine, M. A. (2022). The challenge-hindrance stressor framework: An integrative conceptual review and path forward. Group & Organization Management, 47(2), 223–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, H., Li, Y., Sarfarz, M., & Ozturk, I. (2023). Enhancing firms’ green innovation and sustainable performance through the mediating role of green product innovation and moderating role of employees’ green behavior. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(2), 2142263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Li, P., Peeters, M. C. W., Taris, T. W., & Zhang, Y. (2021). In the eye of the beholder: Challenge and hindrance appraisals of work characteristics and their implications for employee’s well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 708309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Li, X., Nosheen, S., Haq, N. U., & Gao, X. (2021). Value creation during fourth industrial revolution: Use of intellectual capital by most innovative companies of the world. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lukanova, G., & Ilieva, G. (2019). Robots, artificial intelligence, and service automation in hotels. In Robots, artificial intelligence, and service automation in travel, tourism and hospitality (pp. 157–183). Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ma, J., Liu, C., Peng, Y., & Xu, X. (2021). How do employees appraise challenge and hindrance stressors? Uncovering the double-edged effect of conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(3), 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mackey, J. D., Perrewé, P. L., & McAllister, C. P. (2017). Do I fit in? Perceptions of organizational fit as a resource in the workplace stress process. Group & Organization Management, 42(4), 455–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mahar, A. S., Zhang, Y., Sadiq, B., & Gul, R. F. (2025). Sustainability transformation through green supply chain management practices and green innovations in Pakistan’s manufacturing and service industries. Sustainability, 17(5), 2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mahlasela, S., & Chinyamurindi, W. T. (2020). Technology-related factors and their influence on turnover intentions: A case of government employees in South Africa. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 86(3), e12126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Maqsood, A., Gul, S., Noureen, N., & Yaswi, A. (2024). Dynamics of perceived stress, stress appraisal, and coping strategies in an evolving educational landscape. Behavioral Sciences, 14(7), 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Marin-Garcia, J. A., & Martinez Tomas, J. (2016). Deconstructing AMO framework: A systematic review. Intangible Capital, 12(4), 1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Masood, T., & Egger, J. (2020). Adopting augmented reality in the age of industrial digitalisation. Computers in Industry, 115, 103112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Minazzi, R., & Grechi, D. (2025). Exploring gen Z sustainable behavior in the hospitality industry. Administrative Sciences, 15(7), 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nasaj, M., Badi, S., Murtagh, N., & Alghababsheh, M. (2025). Team innovation behaviour: Employees’ appraisals of new technology implementation and the mediating role of collective coping strategies. International Journal of Innovation Science. Ahead of Print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nguyen, M., Rundle-Thiele, S., Malik, A., & Budhwar, P. (2023). Impact of technology-based knowledge sharing on employee outcomes: Moderation effects of training, support and leadership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(8), 2283–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nguyen, M., Sharma, P., & Malik, A. (2024). Leadership styles and employee creativity: The interactive impact of online knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(3), 631–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ogbeibu, S., Burgess, J., Emelifeonwu, J., & Pereira, V. (2020, September 2–4). How green HRM and technological turbulence predicts green product innovation: A STARA tale. British Academy of Management 2020 Conference in the Cloud: Innovating for a Sustainable Future, Virtual. [Google Scholar]
  83. Ogbeibu, S., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Burgess, J., Gaskin, J., & Renwick, D. W. S. (2022). Green talent management and turnover intention: The roles of leader STARA competence and digital task interdependence. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(1), 27–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ogbeibu, S., Emelifeonwu, J., Pereira, V., Oseghale, R., Gaskin, J., Sivarajah, U., & Gunasekaran, A. (2023). Demystifying the roles of organisational smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics and algorithms capability: A strategy for green human resource management and environmental sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(2), 369–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ogbeibu, S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Gaskin, J., Senadjki, A., & Hughes, M. (2021). Leveraging STARA competencies and green creativity to boost green organisational innovative evidence: A praxis for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5), 2421–2440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Olya, H., Ahmad, M. S., Abdulaziz, T. A., Khairy, H. A., Fayyad, S., & Lee, C. (2024). Catalyzing green change: The impact of tech-savvy leaders on innovative behaviors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(6), 5543–5556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Oosthuizen, R. M. (2019). Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics and algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions and wellbeing in future workplaces. In Theory, research and dynamics of career wellbeing (pp. 17–40). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Oosthuizen, R. M. (2022). The fourth industrial revolution—Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics and algorithms: Industrial psychologists in future workplaces. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, 913168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Park, I.-J., & Hai, S. (2024). Person-organization fit, person-job fit and organizational commitment among hotel employees: The roles of positive affect and calling. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 36(3), 852–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022). Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology, 71(4), 1171–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Parvez, M. O., Öztüren, A., Cobanoglu, C., Arasli, H., & Eluwole, K. K. (2022). Employees’ perception of robots and robot-induced unemployment in hospitality industry under COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 107, 103336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pham, H. T., Pham, T., Truong Quang, H., & Dang, C. N. (2023). Impact of transformational leadership on green learning and green innovation in construction supply chains. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(5), 1883–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pham, N. T., Tučková, Z., & Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J. (2019). Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed-methods study. Tourism Management, 72, 386–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Puspitasari, S., & Kusmaningtyas, A. (2025). Person-organization fit to reduce employee turnover intention with leader STARA competence as moderation variable. Jurnal Manajemen Maranatha, 24(2), 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Puvaneswary, S. (2024, July 15). Malaysia to propel smart hotel innovations. Asia-Pacific’s Leading Travel Trade Business Resource. Available online: https://www.ttgasia.com/2024/07/15/malaysia-to-propel-smart-hotel-innovations/#:~:text=The%20Malaysia%20Budget%20%26%20Business%20Hotel,initiatives%20within%20Malaysia’s%20hospitality%20industry (accessed on 14 September 2025).
  99. Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of innovative work behaviour: Development and test of an integrated model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ravani, A. (2025). Empowered resilience. In S. Dhiman (Ed.), The palgrave encyclopedia of leadership and organizational change (pp. 1–12). Springer Nature Switzerland. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Repenning, N. P. (2000). Drive out fear (Unless you can drive it in): The role of agency and job security in process improvement. Management Science, 46(11), 1385–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sarc, R., Curtis, A., Kandlbauer, L., Khodier, K., Lorber, K. E., & Pomberger, R. (2019). Digitalisation and intelligent robotics in value chain of circular economy oriented waste management—A review. Waste Management, 95, 476–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Searle, B. J., & Auton, J. C. (2015). The merits of measuring challenge and hindrance appraisals. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 28(2), 121–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., An, X., Asif, M., & Haider Jafri, M. A. (2024). Effect of stakeholder pressure on environmental performance: Do virtual CSR, green credit, environmental and social reputation matter? Journal of Environmental Management, 368, 122223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Shi, Y., & Tsai, K.-H. (2022). A sequential process from external stakeholder pressures to performance in services. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 32(5), 589–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sibian, A.-R., & Ispas, A. (2021). An approach to applying the ability-motivation-opportunity theory to identify the driving factors of green employee behavior in the hotel industry. Sustainability, 13(9), 4659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Singh, A. B., Mishra, Y., & Yadav, S. (2024). Toward sustainability: Interventions for implementing energy-efficient systems into hotel buildings. Engineering Proceedings, 67(1), 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Smids, J., Nyholm, S., & Berkers, H. (2020). Robots in the workplace: A threat to—Or opportunity for—Meaningful work? Philosophy & Technology, 33(3), 503–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Smith, C. (2019). An employee’s best friend? How AI can boost employee engagement and performance. Strategic HR Review, 18(1), 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Spătaru, B., Podină, I. R., Tulbure, B. T., & Maricuțoiu, L. P. (2024). A longitudinal examination of appraisal, coping, stress, and mental health in students: A cross-lagged panel network analysis. Stress and Health, 40(5), e3450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Stentoft, J., Adsbøll Wickstrøm, K., Philipsen, K., & Haug, A. (2021). Drivers and barriers for Industry 4.0 readiness and practice: Empirical evidence from small and medium-sized manufacturers. Production Planning & Control, 32(10), 811–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sujood, Bano, N., & Siddiqui, S. (2024). Consumers’ intention towards the use of smart technologies in tourism and hospitality (T&H) industry: A deeper insight into the integration of TAM, TPB and trust. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 7(3), 1412–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Tan, K.-L., Gim, G. C. W., Hii, I. S. H., & Zhu, W. (2023). STARA fight or flight: A two-wave time-lagged study of challenge and hindrance appraisal of STARA awareness on basic psychological needs and individual competitiveness productivity among hospitality employees. Current Issues in Tourism, 27(13), 2151–2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Teng, H.-Y., Li, M.-W., & Chen, C.-Y. (2025). Does smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithm (STARA) awareness have a double-edged-sword influence on proactive customer service performance? Effects of work engagement and employee resilience. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 34(3), 443–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ucar, A. C., Alpkan, L., & Elci, M. (2021). The effects of person–organization fit and turnover intention on employees’ creative behavior: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Sage Open, 11(4), 21582440211066924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Vishwanath, A., Singh, A., Chua, Y. H. V., Dauwels, J., & Magnenat-Thalmann, N. (2019, October 14–18). Humanoid co-workers: How is it like to work with a robot? 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1–6), New Delhi, India. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wang, H., Lu, C., & Siu, O. (2015). Job insecurity and job performance: The moderating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1249–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Wang, W., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Ma, J. (2020). Spillover of workplace IT satisfaction onto job satisfaction: The roles of job fit and professional fit. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Wang, Z., Ren, S., Chadee, D., & Sun, C. (2021). The influence of exploitative leadership on hospitality employees’ green innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 99, 103058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Yang, C., & Jiang, P. (2025). The effect of employee STARA awareness on job crafting: Exploring the moderating role of positive stress mindset. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 40(2), 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Yeo, G. C., & Ong, D. C. (2024). Associations between cognitive appraisals and emotions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 150(12), 1440–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Zhang, S., Guo, P., Yuan, Y., & Ji, Y. (2025). Anxiety or engaged? Research on the impact of technostress on employees’ innovative behavior in the era of artificial intelligence. Acta Psychologica, 259, 105442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zhang, Z., & Yan, Z. (2024). The impact of core self-evaluations and person-job fit on work-related outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1341717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Zhao, X., Xu, S., Jiang, T., & Liu, B. (2025). Digital economy’s impact on green innovation efficiency: Bottom-up or top-down? Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 27(1), 367–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Zhong, Z.-W. (2021). Processes for environmentally friendly and/or cost-effective manufacturing. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 36(9), 987–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Zhou, M., Shi, S., & Jiang, J. (2011). Person-job, fit and work attitudes: Self-efficacy as a mediator. Ind. Eng. Manag, 16, 123–129. [Google Scholar]
  128. Zhu, Z., Zhao, M., Wu, X., Shi, S., & Leung, W. K. S. (2023). The dualistic view of challenge-hindrance technostress in accounting information systems: Technological antecedents and coping responses. International Journal of Information Management, 73, 102681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zia, A., Memon, M. A., Mirza, M. Z., Iqbal, Y. M. J., & Tariq, A. (2024). Digital job resources, digital engagement, digital leadership, and innovative work behaviour: A serial mediation model. European Journal of Innovation Management. Ahead of Print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.
Tourismhosp 06 00202 g001
Figure 2. Estimation of the structure model.
Figure 2. Estimation of the structure model.
Tourismhosp 06 00202 g002
Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics.
Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics.
CategoryGroup (N = 446)Frequency%
Gender
Male30067.3
Female14632.7
Age group
18–2920445.7
30–3913129.4
40–498118.2
50–59306.7
From 60 and more--
Education
High School368.1
Middle school23953.6
Bachelor’s Degree11826.5
Postgraduate102.2
Other439.6
Experience
Below 2 Years11024.7
Between 2 and 5 Years11024.7
Between 5 and 10 Years7516.8
Over 10 Years15133.9
Table 2. Confirmatory factors.
Table 2. Confirmatory factors.
Measuresλ
(>0.7)
VIF
(<5)
MSDSKKU
Leader STARA competence (LSC) (α = 0.885, CR = 0.921, AVE = 0.744)
LSC_10.8632.2413.8451.148−0.688−0.439
LSC_20.8542.2563.7511.184−0.546−0.700
LSC_30.8752.5303.8141.182−0.661−0.536
LSC_40.8572.1913.8141.145−0.614−0.613
Challenge appraisal of STARA (CAS) (α = 0.921, CR = 0.944, AVE = 0.808)
CAS_10.9053.2413.5901.308−0.605−0.713
CAS_20.9153.4373.6641.279−0.608−0.749
CAS_30.9023.0723.7041.283−0.702−0.531
CAS_40.8742.5773.8391.224−0.761−0.466
Hindrance appraisal of STARA (HAS) (α = 0.871, CR = 0.912, AVE = 0.722)
HAS_10.8321.9803.5160.989−0.310−0.323
HAS_20.8612.2373.4910.982−0.225−0.371
HAS_30.8492.1213.5020.980−0.294−0.288
HAS_40.8552.1723.5610.929−0.304−0.049
Green innovative behavior (GIB) (α = 0.864, CR = 0.908, AVE = 0.711)
GIB_10.7971.8083.3051.200−0.009−0.970
GIB_20.8572.0953.4351.252−0.273−0.927
GIB_30.8602.2173.3831.225−0.145−1.024
GIB_40.8572.1313.3521.281−0.197−1.047
Note: “λ = factor loadings, α = coefficient alpha, CR = construct reliability, AVE = average variance extracted, VIF = variance inflation factor, SK = skewness, KU = kurtosis, M = mean”.
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criteria.
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criteria.
CASGIBHASLSC
Challenge appraisal of STARA (CAS)0.899
Green innovative behavior (GIB)0.5040.843
Hindrance appraisal of STARA (HAS)−0.274−0.4190.850
Leader STARA competence (LSC)0.5930.505−0.5270.862
Table 4. HTMT matrix.
Table 4. HTMT matrix.
CASGIBHASLSC
Challenge appraisal of STARA (CAS)
Green innovative behavior (GIB)0.563
Hindrance appraisal of STARA (HAS)0.3050.480
Leader STARA competence (LSC)0.6550.5720.599
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing, R2, and Q2.
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing, R2, and Q2.
Path Coefficientsβt Value Sig.Result
Direct Effects
H1: LSC→ GIB0.1892.8910.004
H2: LSC → CAS0.59312.6210.000
H3: LSC → HAS−0.52715.8450.000
H4: CAS → GIB0.3305.1470.000
H5: HAS → GIB−0.2304.7630.000
Indirect mediating effect
H6: LSC → CAS → GIB0.1954.6600.000
H6: LSC → HAS → GIB0.1214.7090.000
Challenge appraisal of STARA (CAS) R20.351Q20.267
Green innovative behavior (GIB)R20.358Q20.235
Hindrance appraisal of STARA (LSC)R20.278Q20.189
Note: Leader STARA competence = LSC; green innovative behavior = GIB; challenge appraisal of STARA technologies = CAS; hindrance appraisal of STARA technologies = HAS; beta coefficients = β; t-value = t; p value = p; R2 = coefficient of determination; Q2 = predictive relevance/Stone–Geisser’s Q2, Supported = ✔.
Table 6. MGA.
Table 6. MGA.
The Pathβ-diff (Female - Male)Sig. (Female vs. Male)
Direct effect
H1: LSC → GIB0.1650.882
H2: LSC → CAS0.1160.882
H3: LSC → HAS0.0630.833
H4: CAS → GIB0.0480.361
H5: HAS → GIB0.0400.658
Indirect mediating effect
H6 and 7: LSC → GIB0.0260.395
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fayyad, S.; Elsawy, O.; Wafik, G.M.; Abotaleb, S.A.; Ali Abdelrahman, S.A.; Abdel Moneim, A.; Omran, R.; Attia, S.; Mansour, M.A. Leaders’ STARA Competencies and Green Innovation: The Mediating Roles of Challenge and Hindrance Appraisals. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6, 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6040202

AMA Style

Fayyad S, Elsawy O, Wafik GM, Abotaleb SA, Ali Abdelrahman SA, Abdel Moneim A, Omran R, Attia S, Mansour MA. Leaders’ STARA Competencies and Green Innovation: The Mediating Roles of Challenge and Hindrance Appraisals. Tourism and Hospitality. 2025; 6(4):202. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6040202

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fayyad, Sameh, Osman Elsawy, Ghada M. Wafik, Siham A Abotaleb, Sarah Abdelrahman Ali Abdelrahman, Azza Abdel Moneim, Rasha Omran, Salsabil Attia, and Mahmoud A. Mansour. 2025. "Leaders’ STARA Competencies and Green Innovation: The Mediating Roles of Challenge and Hindrance Appraisals" Tourism and Hospitality 6, no. 4: 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6040202

APA Style

Fayyad, S., Elsawy, O., Wafik, G. M., Abotaleb, S. A., Ali Abdelrahman, S. A., Abdel Moneim, A., Omran, R., Attia, S., & Mansour, M. A. (2025). Leaders’ STARA Competencies and Green Innovation: The Mediating Roles of Challenge and Hindrance Appraisals. Tourism and Hospitality, 6(4), 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6040202

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop