becoming an employer of choice: assessing commitment in the hospitality workplace

[ 3 ]

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management8/6 [1996] 3–9

© MCB University Press [ISSN 0959-6119]

Introduction

In a global service economy the workplace ischanging. With a tremendous increase in theservice sector, decreasing labour pools andincreasing demands for services, quality ofworklife has to be taken seriously by employ-ers. Desire for a good quality of worklife hasled to increased interest in employee jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment.Rogers et al.[1], say “increasing job satisfac-tion among service personnel has the poten-tial of generating higher customer satisfac-tion … ”.

Seashore[2] defined job satisfaction interms of the workers themselves: “There is inthe ‘normal’ worker a persistent forcetowards the experiences of satisfaction andthe avoidance of the experience of dissatisfac-tion; experiencing dissatisfaction with thejob or some aspect of the job, the worker willseek and find accommodation in some fash-ion.” Employers must be aware of their rolesin the satisfaction of their employees. Beyondthis, “if the business wants to satisfy theneeds of its customers, it must first satisfy theneeds of its employees”[3]. In today’s work-place, employee commitment to the organiza-tion becomes increasingly important becausemore and more companies, hotel companiesincluded, are “empowering” employees at thelowest decision-making levels.

The concept of “organizational commit-ment” has gained increasing attention pri-marily because of the negative relationshipfound between commitment and potentiallycostly behaviours such as absenteeism[4] andemployee turnover[5]. Others have foundpositive relationships between organizationalcommitment and individual motivation, jobinvolvement and some aspects of job perfor-mance[6]. The construct of organizationalcommitment is of particular relevance to thehospitality industry, which is a service ori-ented industry with high employeeturnover[7].

With regard to the importance of a serviceorientation, Hoffman and Ingram[3] indicatethat “overall job satisfaction is positivelycorrelated with customer-oriented behavior.In addition, job satisfaction dimensions of work, co-workers, supervision, and

promotion were also found positively andsignificantly correlated with customer-orientation.”

Organizational commitmentdefinitions

The concept of “organizational commitment”has been defined in numerous ways in theliterature. It has been described as “thestrength of an individual’s identification withand involvement in a particular organiza-tion”[8, pp. 68-77]. Sheldon[9] referred to theconcept as a linkage between the employee’sidentity and the organization which typicallyresults in a positive evaluation of the organi-zation. Hrebiniak and Alutto[10] consideredthe variable to be evidenced by an unwilling-ness to leave the organization for incrementalincreases in pay, status, professional auton-omy or increased social interactions.

Theoretical background of organizational commitment

A common element among many organiza-tional commitment perspectives is the ele-ment of an exchange involving a type of psy-chological contract between the employeeand employer[11]. In considering employee-employer exchanges, the values and needsthat the employee brings to the organizationmust be recognized[12]. When an employee’sexpectations regarding fulfilment of impor-tant needs are met by the organization, anexchange between needs and rewards hasoccurred and commitment to the organiza-tion is, therefore, expected to increase. Thereis much support for the increase in jobrewards and the decrease in job costs (i.e.increase in job satisfaction) leading tostronger organizational commitment[13].

There is an evident need to expand organi-zational commitment theory by furtherresearching how this variable is related to jobsatisfaction involving the fulfilment of work-oriented needs as compared with the costs orinterferences involved in working. Thesevariables have not received sufficient attention in the growing service industries,

Reports on research, theoverall objective of whichwas to develop a basicunderstanding of jobsatisfaction andcommitment of employeesof a particular hospitalityorganization. Describes asurvey of 7,504 hourly andsalaried employees at 94lodging properties whichaimed to identify factorsrelating to employeesatisfaction andcommitment.

Kenneth SmithColorado State University, Fort Collins, USASusan R. GregoryColorado State University, Fort Collins, USADebby CannonGeorgia State University, Atlanta, USA

Becoming an employer of choice: assessing commitment in the hospitality workplace

[ 4 ]

Kenneth Smith, Susan R. Gregory and Debby CannonBecoming an employer ofchoice: assessing commitment in the hospitality workplace


nor among varied organizational levels ofemployees.

Job satisfaction definitions

Although there are similarities in the defin-ing of organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction, important distinctions betweenthe two factors do exist. Job satisfaction is anaffective response to specific aspects of thejob and, therefore, may be more transitorythan commitment which is an affectiveresponse to the organization as a whole[14].

Theoretical background of job satisfaction

Theoretical work pertaining to job satisfac-tion dates back to Frederick Taylor and thescientific management approach. A numberof perspectives have followed including theHawthorne studies and the human relationsmovement, Maslow’s need hierarchy theoryand Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory.Ronen and Sadan[15], in attempting to sum-marize the range of job satisfaction theories,noted that most reviewers consider a two-factor model as best in incorporating thegeneral research trends on this topic. Such amodel stresses that an individual’s job needscan relate to intrinsic or extrinsic occupa-tional factors. The intrinsic/extrinsic classi-fication corresponds to work by Herzberg et al.[16] and the motivator-hygiene theory.Employees obtain job satisfaction from bothintrinsic and extrinsic factors. This is themodel selected for this study.

Job satisfaction in the hospitality industry research

One of the limited studies conducted on hotelemployees and job satisfaction was done byPizam and Chandrasekar[17] who studiedoverall and factor specific satisfaction. Therewas a high percentage of satisfaction, with 75 per cent of the respondents voicing overallsatisfaction with their positions. Respon-dents were, however, highly educated youngexecutives which is not reflective of the pro-file of a typical hospitality employee.

Kent[18] found no significant differences injob satisfaction among three managementcategories of hotel employees: directors ofsales, directors of personnel and generalmanagers. When the size of the hotel wascontrolled, there were differences in satisfac-tion scores between general managers andthe other two levels, with general managersof larger hotels expressing higher

satisfaction levels. Several researchers haveconcluded that intrinsic factors are a majorsource of importance to job satisfaction atany organizational level[19].

Pizam and Chandrasekar[17, pp. 5-10] alsofound their sample of hotel executives tovalue learning opportunities through work,advancement and achievement potential.Pavesic and Brymer[20], however, determineddissatisfaction with job income, particularlyin relation to the number of hours worked, tobe a primary reason for managers with hospi-tality administration degrees changing jobsor leaving the hospitality industry. No studieswere found that researched the importance ofjob factors among a diversified sample ofhotel employees, including non-managementemployees.

Job satisfaction-organizationalcommitment relationship

Additional studies have supported the rela-tionship between satisfaction of higher-orderneeds and organizational commitment.Lawler[21] and Hackman and Oldham[22]maintained that job involvement shouldcovary with intrinsic need strength. Theseresearchers stated that intrinsically moti-vated individuals will show higher jobinvolvement than extrinsically motivatedemployees when the respective salient needsare met.

Demographics and organizational commitment

Varied findings have also resulted from stud-ies involving the variables of age and organi-zational tenure. Koch and Steers[23] foundage and tenure to be positively related to jobattachment but inversely related to job satis-faction. Kent[18] concluded a modest positiverelationship between age and job satisfactionin his study of hotel management employees.However, there was no significant relation-ship between tenure and job satisfactionamong his subjects. Kent concluded that thelack of a significant correlation was due tothe mobility and transient nature of hotelpositions.

Several additional studies have made con-sistent conclusions regarding positive rela-tionships between age, tenure and organiza-tional commitment[4, pp. 1-14; 10, pp. 555-72].One explanation for this positive correlationis that alternative employment options aremore limited at advanced career stages whileinvestments, through benefits such as pen-sion plans, are greater.

[ 5 ]



Importance of work-related needs accord-ing to employee gender has received attentionin the research literature. Kent[18], in hisstudy of hotel executives, found no significantgender differences regarding job satisfaction.He did find female managers were as satisfiedas male managers with their salaries,although considerable differences in payexisted between women and men. One possi-ble explanation for the absence of significantdifferences in pay satisfaction was thatfemales had lower expectations regardingmonetary rewards. One explanation forfemales having higher organizational com-mitment levels was that organizational mem-bership may be perceived as more importantby women because of the barriers they haveto overcome to reach their positions[24].

Hypothesis and development of the model

The hypothesis guiding this study was to findif there was a positive correlation betweenoverall job satisfaction and commitment tothe organization. Figure 1 depicts the struc-tural model developed for this study. The solidline indicates findings of previous researchconducted by Herzberg et al. This study’sassumptions are depicted by the broken line.Herzberg’s study segmented motivationalfactors into two groups – hygiene factors andmotivators. These segments were found, byHerzberg, to predict overall job satisfaction.We posit that overall job satisfaction directlyaffects an employee’s commitment to anorganization.

Methodology

Insight was sought in identifying ways ofmaintaining the present base of employees byidentifying factors relating to employee com-mitment and satisfaction. The desired resultwas to use this information in developingstrategies and tactics for becoming an“employer of choice” in the hospitalityindustry.

A survey instrument was developed by thehospitality management company’s humanresource department. Questions were

adapted from Kahn et al.[25] Rizzo et al.[26]and those submitted by this particular hotelcompany’s human resource staff.

Facilitators at each lodging property werechosen to attend a training session at thecorporate headquarters on the procedures tobe used in administering and using feedbackintervention. Notices were sent to all employ-ees explaining the purpose of the survey andemphasizing that all responses would beconfidential. The survey was conducted on apayday while employees were “on-the-clock”.The survey was both in English and Spanish.

The survey consisted of eight demographicquestions and 72 commitment and satisfac-tion questions. The questionnaire tookapproximately 30 minutes to complete. Theinternal reliability was measured at 0.877.

The survey was conducted at 94 lodgingproperties in the USA. These properties areowned and/or managed by an independentmanagement company. The properties sur-veyed were classified as premier, full serviceor economy. Those employees surveyedincluded 6,431 hourly employees, and 1,063salaried employees, a total of 7,504. Theresponse rate was 82 per cent.

Results

The questions asked used a four-point Likertscale. The first question was related to overalljob satisfaction and set apart on the instru-ment from the other questions. This ques-tion’s scale ranged from 1 – Dissatisfied, to 4 –Satisfied. The remaining questions used afour-point scale ranging from 1 – Stronglydisagree, to 4 – Strongly agree. In response tothe first question (regarding overall job satis-faction), “Overall, how satisfied are you withyour job at this hotel”, over 84 per cent of allemployees were “somewhat satisfied” or“satisfied” with their job (see Table I).

Chi squares were calculated to determine ifgender or tenure on the job affected overalljob satisfaction. The results showed no signif-icant difference in overall job satisfactionbased on gender. However, there was a signifi-cant difference in overall job satisfactionbased on job tenure (p < 0.001). Those employ-ees working less than six months reported thegreatest amount of overall job satisfaction.

Intrinsicfactors

Extrinsicfactors

Commitment toorganization

Overall jobsatisfaction

Figure 1Satisfaction/commitment relationship

[ 6 ]



There was no significant difference in overalljob satisfaction among employees of morethan six months of employment.

To determine if there was a positive corre-lation between overall job satisfaction andcommitment to the organization a two-stepanalysis was performed. The first step was afactor analysis.

The factor analysis yielded 11 factors whichhad questions loading at 0.4 or above, regard-ing overall job satisfaction. The significantfactors that reported eigenvalues of more that2.0 were labelled: organization support,supervisor relations, immediate work envi-ronment, and attitude towards general man-agement (GM) and the executive committee.These four factors accounted for 40.80 percent of the variance in overall job satisfac-tion. See Table II.

The second phase of the statistical analysiswas to compute a multiple regression. Thequestion, “Overall, how satisfied are you withyour job at this hotel?”, was used as the inde-pendent variable and the question, “I wouldchoose to work here if faced with the samedecision again”, as the dependent variable.There was a positive correlation with a R2 of0.103 and a “F ” value of 742.18 and signifi-cance level of p < 0.001. In addition, a secondmultiple regression was run. The question “Iwould not accept a job at another company,

doing the same job as here, with the same payand benefits”, was the dependent variableand, “Overall, how satisfied are you with yourjob at this hotel?”, was the independent vari-able. There was also a positive correlationwith a R2 of 0.053 and a “F” value of 450.95 anda significance level of p < 0.001.

There was a significant difference in over-all job satisfaction based on tenure with thecompany. The higher satisfaction levels ofnew employees (less than six months) may berelated to the euphoria of obtaining a new job.Overall satisfaction drops for employees ofmore than six months. For this particularcompany, the greatest amount of job turnoveroccurs during this period. This turnover maybe due to lack of job satisfaction by theemployees and the end of the job probation-ary period (nine months). The reported over-all job satisfaction was higher than found inpreviously published hospitality-relatedresearch.

There were two commitment-related ques-tions asked in the questionnaire. A multipleregression explained 5.3 per cent of the vari-ance of, “I would not accept another job …”and 10.3 per cent of the variance of, “I wouldchoose to work here again”. These questionsrefer to a person’s commitment to an organization. Although limited, they are significant in explaining commitment to the

Table IEmployee profile

Category n Percentage satisfied

Hourly employees 6,431 84.0Salaried employees 1,063 89.0All employees 7,494 84.8Rooms division 2,958 82.8

Housekeeping, front office, reservations, bell, laundry, garageFood and beverages 2,957 85.56

Restaurant, kitchen, banquet service, loungeAdministration and general services 568 87.3

Administration, accounting, human resources, securityMarketing 752 89.4

Room sales, catering salesEngineering 623 87.5

Maintenance, groundsSpeciality 108 86.7

Golf course, tennis, health club, swimming, marina, otherTime in current position

0-3 months 1,007 91.13-6 months 1,163 87.66 months to 1 year 1,171 84.21-3 years 1,962 83.33-5 months 933 82.8Over 5 years 942 83.8

GenderMale 3.471 86.0Female 3.736 84.3

[ 7 ]



organization. Commitment, like overall jobsatisfaction, is a complex attitudinal variable.

Management implications

Prior studies have contributed support to thetheoretical perspective of exchange relation-ships between certain variables and organi-zational commitment and satisfaction. Inorder to expand organizational commitmenttheory, it is necessary to explore job

satisfaction factors and to include a compre-hensive view of multiple job levels. Thisstudy, by virtue of the fact that the samplesize was very large and respondents werefrom all levels of the organization, addressedsome of the limited generalizability of previ-ous research.

The purpose of this study was to find sup-port for the hypothesis that there is a positivecorrelation between overall job satisfactionand commitment to the organization. In turn,

Table IIAttitudinally significant predictors of overall job satisfaction

CumulativeFactor percentageloading Eigenvalue of variance

Organizational support 1.0 21.01 30.0General management (GM) and executive committee encourage

department to work togetherPeople in my work group encourage one anotherMy work group works as a teamMy work group and department resolve conflicts fairlyOrientation was adequateReceive enough instructions to do job wellReceive additional training when neededCan take advantage of training opportunitiesAm cross-trainedAm satisfied with training receivedAm allowed to do whatever it takes to satisfy customersManagement supports me when making decisions to satisfy customersStaff is professional

Supervisor relations 2.0 2.76 34.0Given job descriptionEvaluations are given regularlyI know what is expected of meDepartment meetings are held regularlyReceive enough information to do jobSupervisor communicates wellSupervisor listens to my commentsSupervisor lets me know how I am doingMorale in work group is high

Job environment 3.0 2.49 37.5Scheduling practices are fairUniform is comfortableAmount of work expected is reasonableDistribution of work is fairAllowed and supported to take initiativeSupervisor treats everyone fairlySupervisor willing and able to help outTrust and confidence in my supervisor

Attitude towards GM and executive committee 4.0 2.29 40.8GM listens and follows upGM manages wellI know executive committee and am comfortable going to themExecutive committee listens and follows upExecutive committee manages wellGM and executive committee work as a team

[ 8 ]



this information will be used in developingan “employer of choice” programme. This programme will identify factors that posi-tively affect job satisfaction and organiza-tional commitment, potentially resulting inreduced job turnover. In addition, importantjob satisfaction factors were identified for thepurpose of developing strategies for recruit-ing management personnel.

As stated earlier, job satisfaction is an affec-tive response to specific aspects of the job.These responses are related to intrinsic orextrinsic occupational factors. The factoranalysis identified four factors that weresignificant when explaining overall job satis-faction. The factors explain 40.8 per cent ofthe variance of overall job satisfaction. Thesefactors sorted themselves into extrinsic(organization support, supervisor relations,immediate work environment and attitudetowards GM and executive committee) andintrinsic (challenging job) factors. This studydoes not support previous findings or conclu-sions that cited intrinsic factors as a majorsource of importance to overall job satisfac-tion. There were more extrinsic factors thatwere significant in explaining overall jobsatisfaction than intrinsic factors. The firstfactor (30 per cent of variance), labelled“organization support” included items thatdealt with an employee’s ability to meet theneeds of customers. These items included:training, employee empowerment and man-agement support when making decisions tosatisfy customers. It then follows that whenemployees are given the tools (training, infor-mation), managerial support, and are notconstrained by restrictive policies and proce-dures, they feel satisfied. In service indus-tries, such as hospitality, quality is intrinsi-cally dependent on the relationship betweencustomers and front-line employees, satisfac-tion is fundamental[27].

The management implications are clear.According to previous research, organiza-tional commitment is related to employeeturnover[7,18]. This is of particular impor-tance to the hospitality company surveyedhere which has excessive turnover rates. Inaddition, other researchers have found thatoverall job satisfaction is positively corre-lated with customer-oriented behaviour.

Additional research needs to be done todetermine how overall job satisfaction affectscommitment. Commitment, itself, can becategorized by being either passive or active,and whether it is commitment towards theorganization, the work itself, or to one’s co-workers.

According to Crosby et al.[28] passive com-mitment relates to “resistance to outsideinfluences”, and falls within the domain of

the human resources department (e.g. train-ing, employee benefits and welfare). Activecommitment refers to the kind of employeewho is willing to serve as an advocate for theorganization. This active form of commit-ment is reflected in what the employee saysabout the organization and his/her dedica-tion to company goals and objectives. Bothtypes of commitment can affect customersatisfaction and willingness of the employeeto remain with the organization[3, pp. 68-77].

Employee retention has a positive impacton repeat customer patronage, which directlyimpacts profitability[28]. The findings of thisresearch indicated, through factor analysis,that elements of both passive and active com-mitment contribute significantly to employeesatisfaction. To affect employee satisfaction,continual training of employees and manage-ment support of employee effort to meet cus-tomer needs is fundamental.

Satisfied and committed employees con-tribute to the success of any hospitality com-pany. These same employees also contributeto this success through providing positiveguest satisfaction. Hospitality companiesmust be sensitive to their employees’ needs inorder to provide satisfaction and commit-ment. In doing so, a company may become an“employer of choice”.

References1 Rogers, J.D., Clow, K.E. and Kash, T.J.,

“Increasing job satisfaction of service person-nel”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 8,1994, pp. 14-26.

2 Seashore, S.E., “Defining and measuring thequality of working life”, paper for Interna-tional Conference on the Quality of WorkingLife, New York, NY, 1972, p. 21.

3 Hoffman, K.D. and Ingram, T.N., “Serviceprovider job satisfaction and customer-ori-ented performance”, The Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 6, Spring 1992, pp. 68-77.

4 Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L., “An empiricalassessment of organizational commitment andorganizational effectiveness”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 26, 1981, pp. 1-14.

5 DeCotiis, T.A. and Summers, T.P., “A pathanalysis of a model of the antecedents andconsequences of organizational commitment”,Human Relations, Vol. 40 No. 7, 1987, pp. 445-70.

6 Farrell, D. and Rusbult, C.E., “Exchange vari-ables as predictors of job satisfaction, jobcommitment and turnover: the impact ofrewards, costs, alternatives and investments”,Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, Vol. 27/28, 1981, pp. 78-95.

7 Tanke, M.L., Human Resource Management,Delmar, Albany, NY, 1990.

8 Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. andBoulian, P.V., “Organizational commitment,job satisfaction and turnover among

[ 9 ]



psychiatric techniques”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 59, 1974, pp. 603-09.

9 Sheldon, M.E., “Investments and involvementsas mechanisms producing commitment in theorganization”, Administrative Science Quar-terly, Vol. 16, 1971, pp. 142-50.

10 Hrebiniak, L.G. and Alutto, J.A., “Personal androle-related factors in the development oforganizational commitment”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 17, 1972, pp. 555-72.

11 Angel, H.L. and Perry, J.L., “Organizationalcommitment – individual and organizationalinfluences”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 10 No. 2, 1983, pp. 123-46.

12 Kidron, A., “Work values and organizationalcommitment”, Academy of Management Jour-nal, Vol. 21, 1978, pp. 239-47.

13 Demicco, F.J. and Olsen, M.D., “The relation-ship of work satisfaction and organizationalcommitment to retirement intentions of olderworkers employed in institutional food-service”, unpublished manuscript, 1987.

14 Williams, L.J. and Hazer, J.T., “Antecedentsand consequences of satisfaction and commit-ment in turnover models: a reanalysis usinglatent variable structural equation methods”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2,1986, pp. 219-31.

15 Ronen, S. and Sadan, S., “Job attitudes amongdifferent occupational status groups”, Workand Occupations, Vol. 11 No. 1, 1984, pp. 77-97.

16 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R.O. andCapwell, D.F., Job Attitudes: Review of Researchand Opinion, Psychological Services of Pitts-burgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1957.

17 Pizam, A. and Chandraseker, V., “You do likeyour work”, The Cornell HRA Quarterly,August 1983, pp. 5-10.

18 Kent, W.E., “Interrelationships of attitudes,demographics, and job aspects with job satisfaction among hotel managers”,

unpublished doctoral dissertation, GeorgiaState University, Atlanta, GA, 981.

19 Dunnette, M.D., Campbell, J.P. and Hakel, M.D.,“Factors contributing to job satisfaction andjob dissatisfaction in six occupational groups”,Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, Vol. 2, 1967, pp. 143-7.

20 Pavesic, D.V. and Brymer, R.A., “Job satisfac-tion: what’s happening to the youngmanagers?”, The Cornell HRA Quarterly,February 1990, pp. 90-6.

21 Lawler, E.E., Motivations in Work Organiza-tions, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1973.

22 Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., “Motivationthrough the design of work: test of a theory”,Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, Vol. 16, 1976, pp. 250-79.

23 Koch, J.L. and Steers, R.M., “Job attachment,satisfaction and turnover among publicemployees”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 12, 1978, pp. 119-28.

24 Grusky, O., “Career mobility and organiza-tional commitment”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 10, 1966, pp. 488-503.

25 Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek,J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A., OrganizationalStress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity,John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1964.

26 Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J. and Lirtzman, S.I.,“Role conflict and ambiguity”, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1970, pp. 150-63.

27 Grönroos, C. and Gummerson, E., ServiceMarketing – Nordic School Perspectives,Department of Business Administration,University of Stockholm, Stockholm, 1985.

28 Crosby, L., Grisaffe, D. and Marra, T., “Theimpact of quality and customer satisfaction onemployee organizational commitment”, Marketing and Research Today, February 1994,pp. 23-4.

becoming an employer of choice: assessing commitment in the hospitality workplace

Documents