1

Motivational Drivers That Fuel Employees to Champion The

Hospitality Brand

Presenter: Teresa HsuInstructor: Marie LinDate: 2014/12/22

2

Xiong, L , ＆ King, C. (2014). Motivational drivers that fuel employees to champion the hospitality brand. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 44, 58–69.

Citation

3

Definition of Terms

IBM = Internal Brand Management

SDT = Self-Determination Theory OIT = Organismic Integration Theory

4

Contents♣Introduction♣Literature Review♣Method♣Data Analysis♣Discussion♣Conclusion♣Reflection

5

Introduction♣Background♣Purpose Of The Study♣Research Question

6

Many hospitality organizations have recognized the

significance of having strong brands in the market-place.

Background

7

Purpose Of The Study

To go above and beyond their formal job

requirement to benefit the brand

8

Introduction

Research Question: What are the drivers of employee brand motivation that

elicit employee brand performance?

9

Literature Review ♣Motivation to be a brand champion♣Antecedents of employee pro-brand motivation♣Impact of intrinsic motivation to work

10

Literature Review

The role of employees in achieving service

excellence and brand success has been

well-recognized in literature .

( Berry & Lampo, 2004)

11

Motivation is an important topic that explains people’s

behaviors. motivation can be defined as

“the psychological processes that direct, energize, and

sustain action”.

Literature Review

(Grant, 2008)

12

Identified the moderating role of intrinsic motivation to

work with respect to strengthening / decreasing the

relationship between employee pro-social motivation and

their subsequent productivity, performance, and

persistence.

Literature Review

(Grant, 2008)

Hypothesis H1 Employee pro-brand motivation has a positive impact

on employee brand performance.

H2 Employee perceived brand meaningfulness has a significant impact on employee pro-brand motivation.

H3 Employee perceived brand value fit has a significant impact on employee pro-brand motivation.

H4 Employee intrinsic motivation to work moderates the relationship between employee pro-brand motivation and employee brand performance.

13

14

Method♣Measures

♣Data collection and overview

15

Measures

Employee

brand

performance

(EBP)

Pro

-bra

nd

mot

ivat

ion

(PB

M)Brand

meaningfulness

(BMN)

Brand value fit

(FIT)

Intrinsic

motivation to

work (IM)

16

Data collection and overview

Data was collected from August 26 to 31, 2013.

In the US based hotel employees.

Participation was anonymous and voluntary.

202 respondents,female participants

are more represented than male

participants (61.4% versus 38.6%).

17

Table 1. Profile of Participants (N = 202).

Variable Results Response details (percentage)Gender Male 38.6

Female 61.4

Age Average: 36.9 years old (s.d.: 13.5)

Length of employment Less than 1 year 10.4

1–3 years 35.6

3–5 years 20.8

More than 5 years 33.2

Work status Casual 5.4

Part time 28.7

Full time 65.8

Position classification Entry level 46.5

Supervisor 27.2

Middle management 19.3

Senior management 6.9

Organization size 1–20 employees 20.8

21–50 employees 28.2

51–100 employees 20.3

101–500 employees 18.8

500+ employees 11.9

Star ranking Six star and beyond 2.5

Five star 23.3

Four star 39.6

Three star 25.2

Two star 6.4

Brand type Chain brand 65.8

Independent 34.2

18

Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis results (N = 202).

we identified a moderate non-normality issue with the data as most of the item mean values are above 5 (Table 2). Since the

skewness values were all smaller than 2, and kurtosis values were smaller than 7.

P64.

19

Items were retained if they loaded at 0.7 or higher on a single factor to yield a clean factor structure. This cut-off value is well above the 0.5 criterion suggested. All items

have shown good reliability. The detailed results are presented in Table 2.

20

Table 3. Measurement model results.

Reliability values as reflected in Composite Reliability were all above 0.9, further supporting good convergent reliability.

CR AVE BMN FIT PBM IMEBP

Brand meaningfulness (BMN)

0.908 0.665 0.816

Brand value fit (FIT)

0.932 0.776 0.762 0.881

Pro-brand motivation (PBM)

0.957 0.847 0.678 0.762 0.920

Intrinsic motivation to work (IM)

0.935 0.782 0.488 0.708 0.719 0.884

Brand performance (EBP)

0.923 0.750 0.790 0.697 0.706 0.516 0.866

21

Hypotheses Coefficient t-Value p

H1 Brand meaningfulness →Pro-brand motivation

0.378 6.36 ***

H2 Brand value fit → Pro-brand motivation

0.552 9.17 ***

H3 Pro-brand motivation → Brand performance

0.73 11.21 ***

Table 4. Structural model results (main model). ***Refers to p < 0.001.

H1. Employee pro-brand motivation has a positive impact on employee brand performance.

H2. Employee perceived brand meaningfulness has a significant impact on employee pro-brand motivation.

H3. Employee perceived brand value fit has a significant impact on employee pro-brand motivation.

22

Fig. 3. The interaction effect of pro-brand motivation and intrinsic motivation to work.

H4. Employee intrinsic motivation to work moderates the

relationship between employee pro-brand motivation and employee brand performance.

23

Discussion♣Limitation and future research

24

DiscussionBrand training and communication that help employees to

identify with the brand values in helping employees to cope

with such perceived job stress, especially for frontline

service employees who tend to experience higher

occupational stress.

(Pienaar & Willemse, 2008)

25

Conclusion The results of this study suggest that employees’ pro-brand

motivation and brand performance can be strengthened by their

intrinsic motivation to work. In adopting a motivational

perspective to examine employee brand performance.

Considering what motivates employees to act, in contrast to

treating them as a repository of information that is expected to

respond as instructed.

26

Research Question: What are the drivers of employee brand motivation that

elicit employee brand performance?

A:The results of this study provide insight with respect

to what motivates employees to enhance customer-brand

outcomes as well as advance the organization’s mission.

Conclusion

27

Reflection

Encouragement instead of blame.

The Reward is a good way to promote leadership

communication with employees.

28

Thank you everyone listen to my presentation !