Download - 1031222
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
6
Many hospitality organizations have recognized the
significance of having strong brands in the market-place.
Background
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
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.
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.