Tourism Management 29 (2

uctme

M

nive

BercThe Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen, Norway

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

higher levels of customization and customer satisfaction(e.g., a` la carte restaurants, upscale hotels, etc.). Even if

forms is needed in the hospitality industry. Even in highlyformalized organizations, it has long been acknowledgedthat aside from purposes explicitly stated by organizations,

ARTICLE IN PRESSmanagers and other organizational members also possessprivate purposes in their job situations (Burns & Stalker,1994/1961, p. 97). This issue has been rmly pointed out in

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.006

Corresponding author. Tel.: +4751 83 37 00; fax: +4751 83 37 50.E-mail address: torvald.ogaard@uis.no (T. gaard).Keywords: Organic organization; Mechanistic organization; Leadership; Hospitality

1. Introduction

One of the continuing challenges of hospitality industrymanagement is to strike a balance between the need forcustomization, that is, for employees to adapt the service tovarying and changing customer needs and wants versus theneed for efciency, control and standardization to be costeffective. Some companies opt for an efciency strategyand deliver standardized products at low prices (e.g., fastfood operations, budget motel chains, etc.). Others aim for

companies try to focus on customization, market competi-tion will always induce pressure towards efciency. Andeven if a company focuses on an efciency strategy, in adynamic market there will always be a need for innovationand change. Efciency requires standardization, repetition,rules and often formalized, mechanistic ways of doingthings, while customization requires openness, empower-ment, freedom of action and more organic organizationalforms. Thus, a continuing duality in the organizationalReceived 31 March 2006; accepted 6 July 2007

Abstract

The discussion about characteristics of organic and mechanistic organizational modes and their effects has a long history within

organizational writing and research. The mechanistic mode has its roots in traditional bureaucratic organizations with autocratic

leadership, where managers are given a great responsibility to run the organization. Research in the hospitality eld indicates that

traditional leadership styles are dominant. Research also indicates that the industry has employees who have high-quality values, are

highly motivated and seek learning possibilities, and thus may be looking for more open, organic organizational modes in which to work.

This study investigates the tension between organic and mechanistic organization forms in the hospitality industry and the relationships

of both to individual employees commitment, job satisfaction and performance.

The experience and effects of organizational modes are investigated in 54 hotel units with 734 managers and employees. The ndings

indicate that managers and employees perceptions of their work environments are different; employees nd the organization to be less

organic. The experience of both organic and mechanistic organizational modes is positively associated with subjective performance

evaluation, commitment and job satisfaction. Interaction effects are also analyzed, and suggest that only when a well-structured

mechanistic organizational form is present will organic organizational forms be benecial. The implications of these ndings are

discussed in relation to previous and future hospitality research.Perceptions of organizational strConsequences for commi

perceived p

Torvald gaarda,c,, EinaraThe Norwegian School of Hotel Management, U

bUniversity of008) 661671

ture in the hospitality industry:ent, job satisfaction andrformance

arnburga, Svein Larsena,b

rsity of Stavanger, NO-4036 Stavanger, Norway

gen, Norway

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

ARTICLE IN PRESSanthe classical organization theory literature (e.g., Barnard,1946; Homans, 1951; Selznick, 1949). Although theclassical writers focused primarily on how these privatepurposes conicted with the companies formal organiza-tions and business purposes, some positive effects ofinformal organizations were also recognized, such as, forexample, extra role behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1978).Hospitality organizations represent complex organiza-

tions wherein coordination of several types of services givesa task environment that has to be well organized, but alsohas to have openings for ad hoc problem solving incontinuously changing environments. The employees will-ingness to deal with such a work environment, their qualitystandards and motivation to learn and develop newroutines will, of course, be one of the key factors insuccessful hotel operations. Studies of hotel employees andpotential hotel employees attitudes, motivations andintentions indicate that the hospitality industry in generalhas access to employees who are highly motivated andseeking to learn (e.g., Fossum, Helgerud, & Vaeng, 2004;Gjelsvik, 2002; Ross, 1994a, b; Zacarelli, 1985). Complexorganizations need routines, policies and formal systemsthat coordinate tasks and secure efcient fulllment ofbusiness goals as well as strategic objectives. Nevertheless,formalized routines given by management can slow downor hinder employees ad hoc problem solving and learning.The mechanistic and organic modes of organization

(Burns & Stalker, 1994/1961), respectively, represent thevery formalized and the very ad hoc organization.Although these have often been seen as mutually exclusive(cf. Burns & Stalker, 1994/1961), there is reason to believethat managers and employees perceive the same organiza-tion differently, and that both modes can have a positiveeffect on the organization members job satisfaction andcommitment. This paper explores how different actors inthe hospitality industry experience their work environmentand how perceptions of the organizations are related toindividual job outcomes and job performance. Interactioneffects of organic and mechanistic forms of organizationare also discussed.

2. Literature review

The continuum between the need for permanent routinesand the need for ad hoc problem solving was described byBurns and Stalker (1994/1961) in the two modes oforganizing: organic and mechanistic.Differences in reported experiences of a work environ-

ment as organic or mechanistic can probably be explainedby how people recognize the inuence of the formal orinformal organization on task performance and socialinteractions. According to Burns and Stalker (1994/1961,p. 98), the employees private purposes form the basis ofthe informal organization, in contrast to the formalorganization, which is supposed to serve the purposes of

T. gaard et al. / Tourism M662the corporation. One of the reasons for the existence of aninformal organization within business systems is thatindividuals resist being treated as means to an end, andthey interact as wholes, bringing with them their ownproblems and purposes that give rise to spontaneousbehaviors that seeks to control their conditions of work(Homans, 1951, pp. 250251). The effects of this can forinstance be that communication is not efcient: subordi-nates might consider managers decisions and instructionsmerely as information for them to use (or not use) in linewith other information when they make their owndecisions (Burns, 1954).In an organic organization, the individual is allowed to

follow and combine his or her own purposes with thecompanys mission. In a mechanistic mode, the individualhas to follow and adapt to rules and stringent routines thatreduce these possibilities.

2.1. Leaders and management

In our time, trading systems and industries are char-acterized by short lifecycles and a rapidly changing history.However, conceptions of how a business should beorganized and how it achieves its results have not changedmuch compared to, for example, the development inadministrative technology, trading systems, liberalizedmarkets, common welfare, level of education and democ-racy, etc. In fact, current thoughts about management andleadership are largely inuenced by the feudalism paradigm(Barker, 1997), which describes leaders at the top of thehierarchy where they direct and control all activities of thepeople working below them. Organizational success orfailure could then be explained by actual managersattributes. The much-used and popular bureaucratic model(Weber, 1922/1992) was given a rational basis: in order togive young, well-educated and bright people the opportu-nity to realize their thoughts and wills, the rest of theorganization had to be arranged in such a way that thesewills were realized. The distribution of intelligence madedivision of thoughts and actions necessary.The idea of strong leadership as a condition for

organizational success has elicited an enormous researcheffort (see, e.g., Yukl, 2002), investigating what explainsthe good leader by focusing on individuals traits,characteristics of the situations and behavioral styles. It isa bit curious that only these few theories and models havedominated the research within this eld (cf. Bass &Stogdill, 1990, p. 37), considering the large differences inhow people understand and dene leadership (see, e.g.,Yukl, 2002).An important theoretical distinction is the difference

between management and leadership. Management isfocused primarily on maintaining patterns of successfulactions (routines), while leadership is focused on develop-ing new patterns of actions (Barker, 1997). In the study ofbusinesses like the hospitality industry, however, it can bedifcult to divide the functions of leaders versus managers

agement 29 (2008) 661671simply because managers are generally supposed to carryout leadership and are given the means to do so. However,

ARTICLE IN PRESSanas Bass and Stogdill (1990, p. 383) note, a manager is notnecessarily a leader, which opens up for others, informally,to take on leader roles. Nevertheless, according to thetraditional view of formal leadership and a leaders role vis-a`-vis those of his or her subordinates, the leader/manager isthe one who takes responsibility for the destinies of others(McGregor, 1960), including the importance of reducingany disturbances in the subordinates executions ofroutines. Thus, managers should reduce stimuli that couldhave such an effect (Thompson, 1967). A review ofempirical knowledge, however, demonstrates how difcultthis is: studies from the mid-1950s to the present routinelyshow that 6075% of employees in any organization and inany occupational group report that their immediatesupervisor represents the dominant factor among factorshindering them from doing a good job (Hogan, Curphy, &Hogan, 1994). Generally, it is well documented thatmanagers and work environments have a great effect onemployees motivation (see, e.g., review in Ross & Boles,1994).The quite limited research into leadership within the

hospitality industry has mainly revealed that such aleadership is important and necessary (see review inPittaway, Carmouche, & Chell, 1998). Because of the largeand well-documented change in the industrys environ-ment, there is a need for better leadership. A reasonableassumption, however, is that large parts of the hospitalityindustry are managed by traditional leadership styles (see,e.g., Pittaway et al., 1998; Tracey & Hinkin, 1994, 1996).A study by Worsfold (1989), for example, indicated thatmanagers in some US hotels appreciated a participativeleadership style, but were inclined to use a moreauthoritative style. More recently, Mok, Pine, and Pizam(1998) also found that Chinese managers were autocraticand paternalistic in their leadership style.Surprisingly few empirical studies address the question

of how to lead and manage hotels (cf. Pittaway et al.,1998). An exception is the research of Tracey and Hinkin(1994, 1996), who report that transformational leadership(also called charismatic leadership) functions better thantransactional leadership. The transformational leader ischaracterized by the ability to inuence subordinatesattitudes and assumptions, and by building a commitmentfor the organizations mission (Yukl, 2002, p. 204). Thetransactional leader bases his or her leadership oncontingent exchanges of valued resources for the subordi-nates support (Bass, 1995). Other important elements oftransactional leadership are management by exception,that is, exercise control, implement corrective actions ifroutines deviate and prescribe routines or exercise a morepassive form by intervening only when problems becomeserious. This type of management will always includerulemaking to govern the behavior of subordinates (Bass,1997). Theoretically, transformational and transactionalleaderships have been closely associated with organic and

T. gaard et al. / Tourism Mmechanistic organization structure, respectively. Theseobservations were supported by Pillai and Meindl (1998),who investigated 101 work units of US governmentalhealth agencies and found that members of the unitsperceived their leaders as more charismatic when thestructure was organic and more collectivist oriented.Burns (1978) described these types of leadership as

polars, but Bass (1985) postulated that leaders could beboth transformational and transactional. Such a combina-tion of apparently contrasting claims was identied amongmiddle managers in restaurants (Ogaard, Larsen, &Marnburg, 2005), where the middle managers expressedpreferences for an organic work environment and morestraightforward rules to follow. In general, some evidencesuggests that parts of the transactional leadership princi-ples, that is, the contingent rewards, are positivelycorrelated to transformational leadership (see review inJudge & Bono, 2000). Lord, Brown, Harvey, and Hall(2001) point out the most reasonable argument thatcontext is of importance when leadership principles arechosen. However, studies of the effect of leaders andcultures on subordinates identities (Erez, 1997; Tylor,1997) have demonstrated that transformational leadershipprincipally addresses a collective identity (proceduraljustice), and transactional leadership addresses an indivi-dual identity (distributive identity). Both of these identitiesare of great importance, and in order to secure both, onecan argue that elements from both transformational(organic) and transactional (mechanistic) leadership stylesare needed.

2.2. Employees in the hospitality industry

Lord and Levy (1994) point out that Anglo-Americanmotivational research has focused primarily on choice,laterally ignoring volitional issues, and thereby limiting ourunderstanding of effective work performance. Such willand volition are probably not merely limited to those whohold a management or supervisory position, but compriseall employees. If this were true, it would be wise not only tosearch for the best method to lead people, but also forvolitional attitudes, values and intentions of employees. Inother words: an understanding of which private purposesemployees generally possess, if the companies are able totake advantage of them, can promote the effectiveness anddevelopment of the company.From a humanistic point of view, people will act in a

way that is mutually best for all parties if they get thenecessary information, authority and resources (Hall,1980). In a study of hospitality employees in NorthernAustralia, Ross (1994a, b) found that the employees needsfor achievement and accomplishment motivation arepredictors of high quality. Studies within the hotel sectorin Scandinavia and the US indicate that employees are verymotivated about their work (Fossum et al., 2004; Gjelsvik,2002; Zacarelli, 1985), and Ross (1991) reports thatAustralian hospitality aspirants have positive attitudes

agement 29 (2008) 661671 663towards the industry and express vocational intentions infuture jobs. A remarkable anecdotal study from Norway

et al., 2003). And, subjective performance evaluations (i.e.,

ARTICLE IN PRESSan(Eide, 2005) elaborates the case of a hotel that wasprofoundly mismanaged and how the employees worriedabout their company. The employees took silent action andhad a union meeting once a week. In these meetings, theystudied the accounting books, reservation statistics, etc.,and carried out plans for marketing, happenings, rates,personnel plans and other activities. During the week, theysuggested these plans bit-by-bit to the management whichin turn, was appreciative of such suggestions and of the factthat the operations seemed to turn out well!However, the positive picture of the high motivation of

hospitality employees has been challenged. Gjelsvik (2002)reports that high motivation fades after employees haveworked in a specic hotel for a while due to reducedlearning possibilities. Also, short-term or part-time em-ployment reduces employees experiences of the learningclimate (Gjelsvik, 2002). Gjelsvik concludes that morelong-term planning and long-term employment with careeropportunities appear to be conditions for a good learningclimate.Although these referred studies within the hospitality

industry are certainly not conclusive about hospitalityemployees intentions, values and motivations, they in-dicate that the hospitality industry is privileged with aworking force that has a potential for high intrinsicmotivation and an intention of learning and developingas professionals. However, an appropriate question to askis whether the industrys managers are able to make thebest possible use of motivated employees?

2.3. Perspectives and paradoxes in hospitality organizations

Judging or characterizing the degree of organic and/ormechanistic characteristics in a specic hospitality com-pany can depend on a persons perspective. Severalempirical studies have proven the difference in perceptionsbetween managers and their subordinates. Ross (1994a)investigated quality ideals among 274 Australian hospital-ity employees and how they perceived their own andmanagements ideals. He found that being frank andgenuine dominated in the employees minds, while theperceived management quality ideals were practical experi-ence and being apologetic. Ross further notes that theresults might indicate that staffs are more subjectively andpersonal-disposition oriented as opposed to management,which prefers values that are visible and objective. If this istrue, there exists a problem in understanding employeesmotivations and occupational intentions. When consider-ing the extremely high personnel turnover that charac-terizes the hospitality industry worldwide (see, e.g., Zuber,2001), such a misunderstanding might be part of the reasonfor the high turnover rate (cf. Ross, 1994a). Based onempirical data, Zacarelli (1985) argues that managers in thehospitality industry have systematically misunderstood themotivation of their subordinates, believing that they were

T. gaard et al. / Tourism M664motivated by external factors such as wages, when theactual motivation was of a more dispositional andemployees self-assessments of performance) have beensystematically related to actual performance (see, e.g., vander Heijden, 2001).

Organizational commitment is the relative strength of anindividuals identication with and involvement in aparticular organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter,1979). It is characterized by at least three factors: (1) awillingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of theorganization; (2) a strong belief in and acceptance of anorganizations goals and values; and (3) a strong desire tomaintain membership in the organization. Commitmentthus represents something beyond mere passive loyalty toan organization. It involves an active relationship with theorganization such that individuals are willing to givesomething of themselves in order to contribute to theorganizations well-being (Mowday et al., 1979, p. 226).

Job satisfaction refers to the individuals overall satisfac-tion or lack of satisfaction with the job they currently do inpsychological character. An explorative study of Norwe-gian restaurant franchisees incentives (Marnburg, Ogaard,& Larsen, 2004) conrms the importance of psychologicalfactors when the franchisees had, in contrast to whatshould normally be expected, stronger commitment to thefranchisor than the franchisors full-time manager employees.More recently, the emphasis on the competitive im-

portance of knowledge has actualized the importance ofoperational work environments (see, e.g., Toumi, 2002):the knowledge that gives knowledge-intensive companiesstrategic capabilities is mainly of operational nature andnot, as Max Weber assumed, concentrated alone at the topof the hierarchy. Managements one-sided focus on routineeffectiveness in the hospitality industry is recognized inindustrial macro studies as an explanation of stagnation oflearning processes (Baum & Ingram, 1998; Ingram &Baum, 1997).

2.4. Effects of organic and mechanistic organization

Our goal is to examine the effects of organic andmechanistic organizational modes on service workersresponses to their jobs. Ideally, we would have preferreda wide array of objective and perceptual performanceevaluations, but resource limitations excluded this option.Instead, we focused on attitudinal measures of individualoutcomes that have been well documented to relateto actual performance (see for example Harris &Mossholder, 1996). In particular, we included three joboutcomes: (1) organizational commitment; (2) job satisfac-tion; and (3) subjective performance evaluation. Althoughthey are not the only determinants of performance-relatedoutcomes, organizational commitment and job satisfactiongenerally predict performance and turnover (Donavan,Brown, & Mowen, 2004; Homburg & Stock, 2004; Parker

agement 29 (2008) 661671a specic company (cf. Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &Klesh, 1983).

ARTICLE IN PRESSanSubjective performance evaluation is a variable thatdescribes a persons self-reported perception of his or herown job performance. One might expect that the under-lying norms for evaluating oneself would be a combinationof individual self-expectations and formal and informalexpectations and norms existing in a working environment.Commitment describes, on one hand, the t between an

individuals preferences and how the organizational en-vironment is arranged, as suggested in the mechanisticorganic dimension, but is also an outcome variable andrelates to job satisfaction and performance (Locke &Latham, 1990).

3. Research questions and hypothesis

The main question addressed in this study is whether theorganic and mechanistic aspects of the work environmentis perceived differently by employees and managers, andwhat relationships, if any, the degree of organicmecha-nistic organization perceptions have to individual out-comes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitmentand self-evaluation.The literature review has suggested that potential and

actual hospitality employees are highly motivated to theirjobs, and express values and attitudes towards servicequality and job performance that indicate they havepersonal purposes and intentions of how jobs should bestbe performed (Fossum et al., 2004; Gjelsvik, 2002; Ross,1991, 1994a, b; Zacarelli, 1985). On the other hand, severalresearchers have pointed out that managers in thehospitality industry are inuenced by a traditional conceptof leadership and management (cf., e.g., Pittaway et al.,1998; Tracey & Hinkin, 1994, 1996), where the leader andmanager does the thinking by structuring and controllinghis or her subordinates, and the subordinates followspecic instructions and systems given by their superiors.When discussing this empirical research, both Ross (1994a)and Zacarelli (1985) note that there are indications thatemployees and managers in the hospitality industry canexperience and perceive the work environment differently,that is, employees in a more subjective manner andmanagers in a more objective manner. This implies thateven if managers experience the work environment asorganic, employees who are highly motivated and seekingto learn will experience that the systems set limits forexecuting subjectively based quality standards and perso-nal and professional development. This implies thefollowing hypothesis:

H1. Managers in the hotel industry will experience thecompanies work environments as more organic than theirsubordinates.

There is neither strong theoretical agreement norsystematic empirical support for the relationships betweenorganizational modes (organic/mechanistic) and employee

T. gaard et al. / Tourism Moutcomes. However, traditional organizational develop-ment values suggest that an emphasis on human relationsand open system values is a key for enhancing satisfactionand fulllment in individuals (Mirvis, 1988).From these theories, one would expect that a strong

emphasis on organic values would result in greaterindividual well-being. This suggestion has been consistentlycorroborated in empirical ndings (e.g., Cameron &Freeman, 1991; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991), which warrantsthe following hypotheses:

H2. The degree of organic work environments is positivelyassociated with job satisfaction, organizational commitmentand a high score on subjective performance evaluation.

Organic and mechanistic organization modes are theore-tically (Burns, 1978; Burns & Stalker, 1994/1961) andempirically (Pillai & Meindl, 1998) associated with transfor-mational and transaction leadership styles. These dimensionswere originally perceived as poles (Burns, 1978). However,several researchers (e.g., Bass, 1985; Lord et al., 2001) havenoted that combinations are possible, and that the bestform of leadership depends on the situation. Empirically,the transaction element contingent rewards has beenassociated with transformational leadership (see reviewin Judge & Bono, 2000). Ogaard et al. (2005) reported thatmiddle managers in a restaurant chain favored bothorganic and mechanistic organization. Erez (1997) andTylor (1997), by studying leadership styles and cultures,respectively, have demonstrated that work environmentmodes and leadership styles serve different kinds ofemployee identities. This suggests that not only organicorganization, as hypothesized in H2, explains an indivi-duals well-being and behavior, but that the mechanisticorganization mode might also be positively associated withpersonal outcome. Also, if organic and mechanisticorganizational modes serve different kinds of employeeidentities, an interactional effect should be expected. Thiswarrants H3 and H4, as follows:

H3. The degree of mechanistic work environments ispositively associated with job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment and a high score on subjective performanceevaluation.

H4. The interaction of a high degree of organic andmechanistic work environments is positively associatedwith job satisfaction, organizational commitment and ahigh score on subjective performance evaluation.

4. Methods and materials

4.1. Sample

A pilot study indicated that a direct sampling technique(i.e., distributing questionnaires directly to hotel employees)would be very ineffective. The response rate would be small,and thus we decided to do a cluster sample of employees bycontacting and securing the cooperation of hotel manage-

agement 29 (2008) 661671 665ment. Another pilot study further indicated that it would bevery difcult to obtain a satisfactorily large and random

In the nal sample, 65% were females, the mean age was32, and the respondents had been with the presentemployer for an average of 6 years. Seventy-ve percentreported that they held full-time positions, 25% were part-time employees, 23% belonged to management, while 77%were regular employees.

5.2. Data analyses

The data analyses were performed with SPSS for Windows,Release 11.5.1 (SPSS Inc., 2002). First, we generated compositescores for all variables measured by multiple items. Since themeasures of organizational forms are new, their measurementproperties are more thoroughly evaluated in Appendix B.Next, we evaluated Hypothesis 1 with a simple analysis ofvariance. Results are presented in Table 1.The results indicate that managers perceive the com-

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N 168 168

anagement 29 (2008) 661671sample of hotels. Norwegian hotels are generally small with alimited number of employees in management positions and,quite often, the requested survey of employees would not beprioritized in the managers daily routines. Industry repre-sentatives strongly advised us to do a more concentratedeffort, and the nal sampling plan involved three veryheterogeneous hotel chains with independently owned andoperated hotels as well as hotels at two major Norwegiandestinations. The method of selecting hotels chains as ameans for establishing contact with hotel employees has beenused in a number of studies, for example, Hartline andFerrell (1996).

4.2. Measures

The data were collected using a pen and pencilquestionnaire. The questions were formulated in a Likert-like format with an 11-point response scale ranging from5 (very poor description) to +5 (very good description).The organic and mechanistic dimensions of organizing

were measured with an adaptation of the competing valuesapproach (CVA) of Cameron and Freeman (1991) andQuinn and Spreitzer (1991). Some of the original questionswere slightly reformulated in our study and some were splitinto two independent items to improve clarity. Items arepresented in Appendix A.

Job outcomes. In line with Harris and Mossholder(1996), we measured job satisfaction using two itemsadapted from the Michigan Organizational AssessmentQuestionnaire (Cammann et al., 1983): All in all, I amsatised with my job, and I would recommend a goodfriend to apply for work in this hotel.Organizational commitment was measured using the

short form of the Organizational Commitment Question-naire (Mowday et al., 1979), which measures affective orattitudinal commitment. In line with Mathieu (1991), weused the nine positively worded items. Examples of itemsused include: For me, this hotel is the best of all possibleorganizations for which to work, and I would acceptalmost any type of job assignment in order to keep workingfor the hotel.Job performance was measured with two items adapted

from Singh, Verbeke, and Rhoads (1996), where eachemployee was asked to evaluate him- or herself incomparison to co-workers and to hotel industry employeesin general. The items and scale properties are presented inmore detail in Appendix A.

5. Results

5.1. Sample description

The sampling procedure established contact with 54hotels that agreed to participate in the study. From thesehotels, 734 usable questionnaires were obtained. The

T. gaard et al. / Tourism M666response rate for each hotel ranged between 35% and100%, with a mean of 62%.SD 1.12 1.53

Regular employee

Mean 3.21 1.24

N 589 619

SD 1.05 1.95

Total 3.21 1.54

Overall F .022 34.40panys work environment as more organic than theirsubordinates. A closer evaluation of the specic differencesreveals that general managers as well as departmentmanagers perceive the environment to be signicantlymore organic than the perceptions of regular employees(pp.000). The perceptions of general managers are onlymarginally signicantly higher on the organic scale thanthose of middle managers (pp.051).Table 1 also indicates that no signicant differences exist

among the perceptions of mechanistic work environmentsbetween different hierarchical levels.Hypothesis 2 was evaluated with the correlations

displayed in Table 2. The results indicate that job outcomesare positively related to mechanistic and organic percep-tions of the environment.Hypothesis 3 was investigated using moderated regres-

sion analysis (Aiken & West, 1991; Jaccard, Turrisi, &Wan, 1990). To do this, the independent variables were rstmean-centered to control for colinearity problems. Then,

Table 1

Perceptions of work environments by employee category

Employment Mechanistic Organic

General manager

Mean 3.26 3.11

N 19 19

SD 1.01 1.33

Department manager

Mean 3.21 2.44Signicance .98 .00

the interaction term was computed as the product of theindependent variables (mechanistic organic). Finally, tworegressions were run for each dependent variable. In therst regression, the independent variablesmechanisticand organicwere entered alone. Then, the interactionterm was included and the regression coefcient of theinteraction term was evaluated for signicance. The resultsare displayed in Table 3.Results displayed in Table 3 indicate that organic and

mechanistic organizational environment dimensions interactsignicantly to inuence subjective performance evaluations.To check for the functional form of the interactions, thesample was split into four quartiles of the perceptions ofmechanistic environments. Within each quartile, a newregression was run between organic perceptions andsubjective performance evaluations. The results are displayedin Table 4, and indicate that only if mechanistic perceptions

are in the highest quartile is there a relationship betweenperceptions of organic environment and performance.

6. Discussion

Data from 54 hotels with 734 respondents were analyzedand tested according to four hypotheses. It was found thatmiddle managers experienced the work environment assignicantly more organic than regular employees, andgeneral managers experience (marginally) a signicantlymore organic work environment than middle managers.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Correlations between perceptions of organic and mechanistic environ-

ments and job outcomes

Mechanistic

environment

Organic

environment

Commitment .46 .61

Subjective performance

evaluation

.29 .22

Job satisfaction .35 .51

pp.000.

Table 3

Moderated regression of interaction effects

Independent variables Dependent variable

Job

satisfaction

Commitment Subjective performance

evaluation

eva

tile

st m

nm

igni

T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 667Mechanistica .16 .24 .25

Organica .45 .51 .12

Interaction:

mechanisticorganic.04 .03 .11

aMechanistic and organic variables have been mean-centered.pp.01.

Table 4

Regression of organic environment perceptions on subjective performance

Quar

1

Lowe

enviro

Signicance of regression .16

Standardized regression coefcient of organic perceptions on

subjective performance evaluationaNot saMechanistic and organic variables have been mean-centered.pp.01.No difference was identied in the experience of degree ofmechanistic work environment among the actor groups.The analyses revealed a positive and signicant relation-

ship between the experience of both mechanistic andorganic work environment and personal outcome variables(commitment, subjective performance evaluation and jobsatisfaction). Testing interaction effects of experience oforganic and mechanistic work environments indicates asignicant positive effect on subjective performanceevaluation, but not on commitment and job satisfaction.A further analysis revealed that only in the highest quartileof mechanistic perception is there a positive relationshipbetween perceptions of organic work environments andsubjective performance.Research into the hospitality industry indicates that

existing hotels within the industry have difculties when itcomes to carrying out innovations (see, e.g., Baum &Ingram, 1998; Ingram & Baum, 1997). There are alsostrong assumptions about a traditional autocratic leader-ship style within the industry (Mok et al., 1998; Pittawayet al., 1998; Tracey & Hinkin, 1994; Worsfold, 1989). And,empirical studies indicate that the industry has a highlymotivated and high quality-oriented human resource baseof which the industry scarcely takes advantage (see, e.g.,Fossum et al., 2004; Gjelsvik, 2002; Mok et al., 1998; Ross,1991, 1994a, b; Zacarelli, 1985). It is this identied lack ofdevelopment, the identied hindrance of development andpotential development resources, which makes research inhospitality attractive and studying modes of organizationand leadership styles particularly interesting.Our nding of a positive relationship between organic

organizational modes and personal outcome is certainly

luations in four quartiles of mechanistic environment perceptions

of mechanistic environment perceptions

2 3 4

echanistic

ent perceptions

Highest mechanistic

environment perceptions

.94 .50 .00

cant Not

signicant

Not

signicant

.33

ARTICLE IN PRESSannot surprising and conrms previous research (e.g.,Cameron & Freeman, 1991; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991).What is more interesting is that the analyses came up witha positive and signicant correlation among perceivedmechanistic organizational mode and commitment, jobsatisfaction and subjective performance evaluation. Such arelationship is previously reported from the industry inOgaard et al. (2005).Considering the complexity of the many service elements

that have to be coordinated in hotel operations, it is to beexpected that employees appreciate rules and routines thatdene expectations of other parts of the organization, butalso make the individuals job less ambiguous and morecomprehensible. On the other hand, the employees alsohave preferences for organic organization modes that allowthem to carry out more private purposes as well as theirown quality standards. These preferences for rules andstandards, and for few rules and few standards, seem to bea contradiction.However, the interaction effect seems to explain some of

the relationship between perceived organic and mechanisticorganizational mode: the signicant interaction was onlyfound on subjective performance evaluation, and not oncommitment and job satisfaction. Further analyses showedthat the interaction effect appears primarily when the level ofperceived mechanistic organizational mode is high. Thismight imply that in the hotel industry, a high level of rulesand regulations is a prerequisite for employees to utilize thepossibilities of organizational modes of organization. Itmight appear that only when mechanistic organizationalforms are strong are the employees able to put theirdiscretion, empowerment and decentralization inherent inorganic organizational modes to good use and get a feelingthat they are doing a good job. At lower levels of mechanisticforms (less rules and regulations), the employees might be ata loss as to what to do with the operational freedom allowedthem. Thus, it seems that the employee, to be effective,simultaneously needs a number of rules and regulationsassociated with mechanistic organizational modes to knowwhat is expected of him or her, and needs the operationalfreedom and social support associated with organic organi-zational forms to effectively perform their jobs.In sum, this indicates that in order to exploit valuable

human resources, the hospitality industry should secure arm organizational base along mechanistic organizationalprinciples and simultaneously secure an organic organiza-tional form. The two organizational principles of mechan-istic and organic forms are not opposite poles; rather, theyare complementary, and both are needed for organiza-tional effectiveness.The managers in the industry could represent a

hindrance in pursuing such a recommendation. As pointedout above, the managers are generally considered to betraditional bureaucrats and autocratic in style. In itself,mechanistic organizational forms may be benecial as long

T. gaard et al. / Tourism M668as they are combined with organic forms. In this study, wedid however nd that managers consider the workenvironment to be more organic than their subordinatesdo. This may imply that managers may not do anythingabout things they consider okay. In other words: if themanagers perceive a mainly organic organization structure,they will certainly feel no need to make it more organic. Intodays constantly changing environment and with claimsof continuous changes and innovations, such managersmight be obstacles to development rather than innovationdevelopers. Thus, managers will slow down the individualemployees opportunity to learn and develop.The imbalance in perception between managers and

employees within this industry is previously reported severaltimes in hospitality research concerning service ideals (Ross,1994a), learning environments (Gjelsvik, 2002), turnoverproblems (Fossum et al., 2004), intrinsic/extrinsic motivation(Zacarelli, 1985) and management styles (Worsfold, 1989).How serious this issue is compared to business life in generalis not known since no such comparison exists.

6.1. Theoretical and research implications

Dichotomies such as organic/mechanistic organizationalmodes and their sister leadership dichotomy, transfor-mational- and transactional leadership styles, with theirintrinsic normative messages, sound reasonable and areoften easy to exemplify, and therefore have a high level ofsurface validity among professionals and scholars. Previousresearch as well as the present seem to indicate that thesedichotomies might be too simplistic for a good under-standing of hospitality industry settings. More specically,the results of this study clearly show the realm experiencedby hospitality managers: on one hand, they experience theirorganization to be signicantly more organic than theiremployees do, and, on the other, they clearly perceive theneed for mechanistic structures. One might speculate thatthis could be one reason why management in thehospitality industry is traditional and bureaucratic, thatis, simply because management does not see any need tochange the way things are.In sum, if, as in this study, peoples preferences indicate

Yes, we want it all, it might be more fruitful to study setsof organizational functions, that is, what is needed in orderto establish collective and individual identities amongemployees (Erez, 1997; Tylor, 1997), or what is needed inorder to create and maintain a learning environment thatpromotes innovations and development.

6.2. Managerial implications

This study indicates the importance of both organic andmechanistic organizational structures. Organic structuresare considered important when it comes to employees andorganizations learning, innovations and development.However, this study strongly indicates the importance ofmechanistic organizational forms for the individuals. In

agement 29 (2008) 661671addition, both this study and previous research indicatethat the hospitality industry might have a general problem

with their managers, who are characterized by traditionalleadership styles that fail to make the most of theemployees resources. As pointed out above, this studyindicates that the dichotomy of transactional and trans-formational leadership styles may be an oversimplicationof the challenges hospitality managers face, strategically aswell when running the daily operations. All together, thisimplies that the hospitality industry has big challengeswhen it comes to developing their styles of management,but the answer is obviously not to be found in, for example,the principles of transformational leadership theory alone.

6.3. Future research

Perhaps the most surprising nding in our study is theimportance of mechanistic organizational forms for therelationship between organic forms and the employeesperceptions of performance. Future studies should investi-gate this relationship more closely, and try to establish inmore detail which aspects of mechanistic forms are neededfor the employees to put the freedom and support offered byorganic forms to good use. What kinds of rules, regulations,goals, feedback, etc. are benecial? And, as evidenced in

In addition, we would like to draw more attentiontowards the industrys human resources. Instead of study-ing which leadership styles give the highest results, or, as inthis study, which organizational mode is associated withthe best outcome, more attention should be given toemployee intentions, standards and service values. We needmore knowledge about substance; we need more knowl-edge about how to let such private purposes affect theindustrys future development.Research in organizational structure modes and leader-

ship can be done in many ways. However, results from thisstudy indicate that more research and understanding ofmanagers roles and functions in the hospitality industryseems necessary and needed. The knowledge aboutmanagers in the industry is very scarce and limited, andmore evidence of how things areand whyis needed.The fact that this study may indicate that normativerecommendations like organic organization and transfor-mational leadership styles do not seem to be sufcient andoptimal solutions for the hospitality industry.

Appendix A

Appendix B

ARTICLE IN PRESS

mea

to

to

reti

d to

here

ion

am

atio

s an

lear

sid

men

der

othe

othe

pu

T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 669other industries, too much mechanistic organization willresult in excessive rules and stiing bureaucracy that willhamper effectiveness, and there is no reason to believe thatthe positive relationship between the mechanistic forms andemployees perceived performance we observed here will bevalid for any amount of mechanistic forms. A very importantquestion for future research is thus to establish what will beenough mechanistic forms in hotel management.

Table A1

Variable No. of items a Items used in

Organizing principle

Organic 11 .88 Sample items:

It is important

It is important

I have full disc

I am authorize

In this hotel, t

Mechanistic 14 .82 Sample items:

Our organizat

In my work, I

In our organiz

There are rule

My tasks are c

Job outcomes

Job satisfaction 2 .75 Everything con

I would recom

Intentions to stay with the hotel 1 I do not consi

Job performance 2 .85 Compared to

Compared to

Commitment 9 .90 Sample items:

I am willing toI am proud to besurement

discover improvements in the ways we do things.

test new ideas in our work.

on in choosing the means for getting the job done.

correct things that are wrong even if they are outside my responsibility.

is a strong team spirit.

puts a lot of emphasis on measuring the results of our work.

very concerned with efciency.

n, there is a heavy emphasis on protability.

d procedures for my work.

ly dened.

ered, I am very satised with my present job.

d a friend to apply for a job here.

leaving this job within the next year.

r employees in the hotel industry, I do a good job.

r employees in this hotel, I do an excellent job.

t in an effort beyond normal for this hotel.A closer evaluation of convergent and discriminantvalidity of the mechanistic and organic organizational forms.Items and scale properties of measurements used in thestudy (see Table A1).part of this organization.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Mec12 .528

Mec13 .584

Mec14 .455

anOrg1 .580

Org2 .634 .432

Org3 .446

Org4 .502

Org5 .553

Org6 .520

Org7 .727

Org8 .799

Org9 .744Table B1

Factor

1 2

Mec1 .532

Mec2 .616

Mec3 .581

Mec4 .611

Mec5 .451

Mec6 .512

Mec7 .499

Mec8 .571

Mec9

Mec10 .467

Mec11 .523

T. gaard et al. / Tourism M670The factor analysis reported in Table B1 indicates thatthe items used to measure organic and mechanisticorganizational forms show very good convergent anddiscriminant validity. Two items, Mec9 and Org 2, showslightly less than desirable properties, but since this is anexploratory application of the measures, we decided tokeep them in the scales.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do not know what

leadership is? Human Relations, 50(4), 343362.

Barnard, C. J. (1946). The functions and pathology of status systems in

formal organizations. In Organization and management. Chicago:

Harvard University Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New

York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux.

Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 463478.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership

paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American

Psychologist, 52(2), 130139.

Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of

leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.).

New York: Free Press.

Org10 .766

Org11 .620

Extraction method: principal axis factoring.

Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

For clarity, we have only included factor loadings larger than .4.

Factor correlation: .42.Baum, J. A. C., & Ingram, P. (1998). Survival-enhancing learning in the

Manhattan hotel industry, 18981980. Management Science, 44(7),

9961016.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Burns, T. (1954). The directions of activity and communications in a

departmental group. Human Relations, 7, 7397.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1994/1961). The management of innovation

(3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength

and type: Relationships to effectiveness. In R. W. Woodman, & W. A.

Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development,

Vol. 5 (pp. 2358). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. J., & Klesh, J. R. (1983).

Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In

S. D. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.),

Assessing organizational change. New York: Wiley.

Donavan, D. T., Brown, T. J., & Mowen, J. C. (2004). Internal benets of

service-worker customer orientation: Job, satisfaction, commitment,

and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 68(1),

128146.

Eide, D. (2005). Emotions in organizations. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.

Tromsoe: University of Tromsoe.

Erez, M. (1997). A culture-based model of work motivation. In P. C.

Earley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/

organizational psychology (pp. 193242). San Francisco: The New

Lexington Press.

Fossum, E., Helgerud, C., & Vaeng, E. (2004). Hvilke utfordringer innen

turnoverproblematikken br man fokusere pa i Hotell- og Restaurant-

bransjen, og finnes det forskjeller mellom Norge og Danmark?

Unpublished bachelor diploma thesis. Stavanger, Norway: Stavanger

University.

Gjelsvik, M. (2002). Hotel as learning arenas. Scandinavian Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism, 2(3148).

Hall, J. (1980). The competence process: Managing for commitment and

creativity. The Woodlands, TX: Teleometrics Intl.

Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of

perceived congruence with culture dimensions during organizational

transformation. Journal of Management, 22(4), 527547.

Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer-

contact service employees: An empirical investigation. Journal of

Marketing, 60, 5270.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about

leadershipeffectiveness and personality. American Psychologist,

49(6), 493504.

Homans, G. C. (1951). The human group. London: Routledge & Kegan

Paul.

Homburg, C., & Stock, R. M. (2004). The link between salespeoples job

satisfaction and customer satisfaction in a business-to-business

context: A dyadic analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 32(2), 144158.

Ingram, P., & Baum, J. A. C. (1997). Opportunity and constraint:

Organizations learning from the operating and competitive experience

of industries. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Summer special issue),

7598.

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple

regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and

transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5),

751765.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations

(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Work motivation: The high

performance cycle. In U. Kleinbeck, et al. (Eds.), Work motivation

(pp. 425). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001). Contextual

agement 29 (2008) 661671constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences

for leadership perceptions. Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 311338.

Lord, R. G., & Levy, P. E. (1994). Moving from cognition to actionA

control-theory perspective. Applied PsychologyAn International

Review [Psychologie AppliqueeRevue Internationale], 43(3), 335398.

Marnburg, E., Ogaard, T., & Larsen, S. (2004). Uncovering aspects of the

franchisees incentives: An explorative investigation and discussion.

Journal of Food, Service and Technology, 4, 117128.

Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents

of organizational commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 76(5), 607618.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Mirvis, P. H. (1988). Organizational development: Part 1An evolu-

tionary perspective. In W. A. Pasmore, & R. W. Woodman (Eds.),

Research in organizational change and development. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press Inc.

Mok, C., Pine, R., & Pizam, A. (1998). Work values of Chinese hotel

managers. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(3), 116.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement

Ross, G. F. (1994b). Visitor expectations of service quality ideals among

hospitality industry employees. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure

Marketing, 2(3), 3761.

Ross, L. E., & Boles, J. S. (1994). Exploring the inuence of workplace

relationships on work-related attitudes and behaviors in the hospitality

work environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management,

13(2), 155171 ; 12(2), 155172.

Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of

formal organization. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Singh, J., Verbeke, W., & Rhoads, G. K. (1996). Do organizational

practices matter in role stress processes? A study of direct and

moderating effects for marketing-oriented boundary spanners. Journal

of Marketing, 60(3), 6986.

SPSS Inc. (2002). SPSS for Windows (Version 11.5.1). SPSS Inc.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill

Inc.

Toumi, I. (2002). The future of knowledge management. Lifelong Learning

in Europe, VII(2), 6979.

Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1994). Transformational leaders in the

hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration

Quarterly, 35(2), 1824.

Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1996). How transformational leaders lead

ARTICLE IN PRESST. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 671Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A.,

Lacost, H. A., et al. (2003). Relationships between psychological

climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389416.

Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A meso level

examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and

crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24(5), 643671.

Pittaway, L., Carmouche, R., & Chell, E. (1998). The way forward:

Leadership research in the hospitality industry. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 17(4), 407426.

Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the

competing values instrument and an analysis of the impact of

organizational culture on quality of life. In R. W. Woodman, & W.

A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development,

Vol. 5 (pp. 115142). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Ross, G. F. (1991). Correlations of work responses in the tourism

industry. Psychological Reports, 68, 10791083.

Ross, G. F. (1994a). Service quality ideals among hospitality industry

employees. Tourism Management, 15(4), 273281.Management, 15(2), 165176.

Tylor, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective

on voluntary deference t authorities. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 1, 323345.

van der Heijden, B. (2001). Age and assessments of professional expertise:

The relationship between higher level employees age and self-

assessments or, supervisor ratings of professional expertise. Interna-

tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(4), 309324.

Weber, M. (1922/1992). Makt og byrakrati. Oslo: Gyldendal.

Worsfold, P. (1989). Leadership and managerial effectiveness in the

hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management,

8(2), 145155.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zacarelli, H. E. (1985). Is the hospitality/food service industry turning its

employees onor off? International Journal of Hospitality Manage-

ment, 4, 123124.

Zuber, A. (2001). High turnover: Staff in ux leaves morale low, training

costs high. Nations Restaurant News, 35(21), 147.Journal of Food, Service and Technology, 5, 2334. in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitalityof organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14,

224247.

Ogaard, T., Larsen, S., & Marnburg, E. (2005). Organizational culture

and performanceEvidence from the fast food restaurant industry.

Perceptions of organizational structure in the hospitality industry: Consequences for commitment, job satisfaction and perceived performanceIntroductionLiterature reviewLeaders and managementEmployees in the hospitality industryPerspectives and paradoxes in hospitality organizationsEffects of organic and mechanistic organization

Research questions and hypothesisMethods and materialsSampleMeasures

ResultsSample descriptionData analyses

DiscussionTheoretical and research implicationsManagerial implicationsFuture research

References