Enhancing guest outcome through perceived dynamic capability and guest-centric strategic agility in Indonesia’s star-related hotel industry

  • 4 Views
  • 0 Downloads

Creative Commons License DMCA.com Protection Status
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Type of the article: Research Article

Abstract
Indonesia’s star-rated hotel industry has become increasingly competitive, placing pressure on hotels to adapt to rising guest expectations. This paper examines how perceived dynamic capability and perceived guest-centric strategic agility jointly enhance guest outcomes (satisfaction, loyalty, and advocacy) in the hotel industry using remains underexplored. Data were collected through an online questionnaire using purposive non-probability sampling to Indonesian guests (Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z) who stayed in three-star to five-star hotels within the past twelve months in 2025. This segment was selected because upper-tier hotels tend to implement adaptive service practices that are perceivable to guests. A total of 324 valid responses were analyzed using PLS-SEM with SmartPLS 4. The results revealed that perceived dynamic capability positively and significantly influenced both perceived guest-centric strategic agility and guest outcome. There was also a significant mediating effect of perceived guest-centric strategic agility on the relationship between perceived dynamic capability and guest outcome, indicating partial mediation. Age and income showed no significant effects, confirming the main model’s robustness across demographic groups. The findings suggest that hotels can enhance guest satisfaction, loyalty and advocacy by developing guest-perceivable dynamic capabilities and translating them into agile service delivery to sustain competitive positioning in a dynamic hospitality environment.

Acknowledgment
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this study.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Research framework
    • Figure 2. Structural model results
    • Table 1. Measurement items
    • Table 2. Control variables
    • Table 3. Respondents’ demographics
    • Table 4. Measurement model (first-order)
    • Table 5. Measurement model (second-order)
    • Table 6. Structural (inner) model
    • Table 7. Summary of hypotheses testing results
    • Conceptualization
      Nurafni Rubiyanti, Evo Sampetua Hariandja, Yokie Radnan Kristiyono
    • Data curation
      Nurafni Rubiyanti, Evo Sampetua Hariandja, Yokie Radnan Kristiyono
    • Formal Analysis
      Nurafni Rubiyanti, Evo Sampetua Hariandja
    • Funding acquisition
      Nurafni Rubiyanti, Yokie Radnan Kristiyono
    • Investigation
      Nurafni Rubiyanti, Yokie Radnan Kristiyono
    • Resources
      Nurafni Rubiyanti, Yokie Radnan Kristiyono
    • Software
      Nurafni Rubiyanti
    • Writing – original draft
      Nurafni Rubiyanti, Yokie Radnan Kristiyono
    • Methodology
      Evo Sampetua Hariandja
    • Project administration
      Evo Sampetua Hariandja, Yokie Radnan Kristiyono
    • Supervision
      Evo Sampetua Hariandja
    • Validation
      Evo Sampetua Hariandja
    • Writing – review & editing
      Evo Sampetua Hariandja, Yokie Radnan Kristiyono