The Impact of Hotel Social Events on Employee Satisfaction

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 07 November 2014, At: 03:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK</p><p>Journal of Human Resources inHospitality &amp; TourismPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:</p><p>The Impact of Hotel SocialEvents on EmployeeSatisfactionAviad A. Israeli a &amp; Rachel Barkan ba Department of Hotel and Tourism Management ,Ben Gurion University of the Negev , Beer Sheva,Israel , 84104b Department of Business Administration , BenGurion University of the Negev , Beer Sheva, Israel ,84104Published online: 04 Oct 2008.</p><p>To cite this article: Aviad A. Israeli &amp; Rachel Barkan (2004) The Impact of HotelSocial Events on Employee Satisfaction, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &amp;Tourism, 2:2, 23-39</p><p>To link to this article:</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor &amp; Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,</p><p></p></li><li><p>and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms &amp; Conditions of access and use can be found at</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>UQ</p><p> Lib</p><p>rary</p><p>] at</p><p> 03:</p><p>08 0</p><p>7 N</p><p>ovem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p><p></p></li><li><p>The Impact of Hotel Social Eventson Employee Satisfaction:</p><p>A Case Study</p><p>Aviad A. IsraeliRachel Barkan</p><p>ABSTRACT. Employee satisfaction is an important factor in the hos-pitality industry. This study offers a technique to gauge employee sat-isfaction and demonstrates its use in an actual setting. A case study ofthe Mercure Mirage Eilat Hotel evaluated employees satisfaction, be-fore and after organizational social event, revealing that satisfactionimproved after the social event. The findings also demonstrate that thecomposition of satisfaction altered. Prior to the organizational activity,monetary compensation was of prime importance; following the orga-nizational activity, social issues gained significant importance in form-ing employee satisfaction. [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]</p><p>KEYWORDS. Job satisfaction, additive weighting, hospitality, factormodel</p><p>Aviad A. Israeli, PhD, is Senior Lecturer, Department of Hotel and Tourism Manage-ment, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel 84104 (E-mail:</p><p>Rachel Barkan, PhD, is Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, Ben GurionUniversity of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel 84104 (E-mail:</p><p>Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &amp; Tourism, Vol. 2(2) 2003</p><p> 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J171v02n02_02 23</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>UQ</p><p> Lib</p><p>rary</p><p>] at</p><p> 03:</p><p>08 0</p><p>7 N</p><p>ovem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p></li><li><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p>The tourism and hospitality sector is one of the largest industrialsectors in the world, employing over 250 million people that amountto about 10% of the world labor force. Employment in the servicesector is quite different than it is in manufacturing industries. Similarto the production industries employee, service sector employees areresponsible for tangible aspects of the job. These tangible aspects in-clude, for example, food preparation, room cleaning, etc. To fulfillthese tangible requirements, in many cases, employees can rely onrules and regulations, or on supervisory guidance. In addition to tan-gible elements, the service interaction requires additional intangibleproperties from the employee. These intangible aspects include cus-tomer relations skills, the ability to defuse customer complaints, etc.and they are not always based on regulations or on supervisory guid-ance, but on certain personal attributes or on experience and tenure(Lovelock 1990).</p><p>It is often argued that satisfaction is an important element in ser-vice-workers environment because it increases retention and allowsthe workers to become more proficient at what they do (Riley 1993,Price and Mueller 1981). Despite the importance of satisfaction andretention, some of the characteristics of the service sector may un-dermine their attainment. These characteristics include small wagesand long working hours that result in high turnover (Riley 1993).This combination, leading to low satisfaction levels, has expensiveside-effects. Among them are the inability of workers to gain and de-velop specific customer-related skills (Johnson 1980), and reducedstability in the firm human resource (Saunders 1981).</p><p>Given the importance of employees satisfaction in the contextof service industries, this study offers a technique to gauge em-ployees satisfaction and demonstrates its use in an actual setting.In the following section we present a review of the job satisfactionliterature. In section 3, we provide a method for evaluating satisfac-tion which addresses the importance of certain factors of satisfac-tion, and the satisfaction which is actually drawn from thesefactors. To demonstrate this method, section 4 is dedicated to a casestudy of the Mercure Mirage Eilat Hotel, presenting evaluations ofemployees satisfaction, before and after an organizational/socialevent.</p><p>24 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY &amp; TOURISM</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>UQ</p><p> Lib</p><p>rary</p><p>] at</p><p> 03:</p><p>08 0</p><p>7 N</p><p>ovem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p></li><li><p>REVIEW OF JOB SATISFACTION LITERATURE</p><p>The traditional labor economic literature puts little emphasis on em-ployees satisfaction and retention. The main argument offered in laboreconomics posits that labor mobility is based on economic justificationalone and that the actual cost of turnover is negligible (Johnson 1986).However, with the emergence of modern concepts such as core-qual-ity-commitment-culture (Riley 1993), the emphasis has changed frommobility to stability. Job satisfaction became a major construct that fa-cilitates stability mainly by reducing turnover. In addition, satisfied em-ployees make efforts to become proficient at what they do, increasetheir loyalty to the organization and serve customers in a more efficientmanner (LaLopa 1997).</p><p>The construct of employees satisfaction is especially important inthe hotel industry, which is characterized by low job security, lowwages, low skill levels, use of casual workforce, and is generally re-ferred to as an industry with high turnover rates (Iverson and Deery1995). Evidence from past research suggests that employee satisfactionin the hospitality industry has been found to reduce turnover (LaLopa1997) and support improvements in hotels overall performance (Nel-son and Bowen 2000, Simons and Enz 1995, Kwame and Marshall1992).</p><p>In general, job satisfaction describes a set of feelings that employeesmaintain regarding their workplace. The construct of job satisfactionhas been conceptualized and measured in various ways, but is generallyconsidered to be an individuals perceptual/emotional reaction to im-portant facets of work (Vroom 1964). Two different streams deal withsatisfaction measures, and though both approaches to satisfaction mea-surement are useful, research has indicated that they are not synony-mous (Mount and Bartlett 2002, Scarpello and Campbell 1983). Thefirst focuses on overall satisfaction. However, this aggregate measurecannot support managers who wish to identify the components of em-ployee satisfaction or dissatisfaction.</p><p>The second approach for measuring job satisfaction focuses on as-pect (or facet) satisfaction, and refers to the tendency to be more or lesssatisfied with various aspects of the job. This approach suggests thatoverall job satisfaction is the composite (typically, the sum or mean) ofthe satisfaction derived from the specific aspects. Measuring aspect sat-isfaction also allows potential improvement of employees satisfaction,as it focuses managerial attention to specific aspects, and provides rec-ommendations for specific actions. There are a few techniques for mea-</p><p>Aviad A. Israeli and Rachel Barkan 25</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>UQ</p><p> Lib</p><p>rary</p><p>] at</p><p> 03:</p><p>08 0</p><p>7 N</p><p>ovem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p></li><li><p>suring aspects of satisfaction. Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) list fiveaspects including work itself, pay, supervision, co-workers, and oppor-tunities for promotion. Spector (1985) extends the list to nine, includingthe traditional nature of work, supervision, co-workers, promotion, pay,benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures and communication.</p><p>In all the abovementioned techniques, employees are requested to re-port their level of satisfaction and overall satisfaction is evaluated by amathematical manipulation which usually involves adding the satisfac-tion drawn from each aspect. These models do not make assumptionsabout the importance of each of these aspects for different employees.Moreover, in the simple additive form, the weight of the aspects is as-sumed to be uniform. Lalopa (1997), who recognized the problem withaspects weight, has altered the technique to include only the aspects thatthe employees report as important. However, the weight of different as-pects and their contribution to overall job satisfaction is left unresolved.</p><p>A METHOD FOR MEASURING JOB SATISFACTION</p><p>In this case-study, we evaluate how various aspects of the job con-tribute to satisfaction formation. We gauge employee satisfaction with atool that evaluates each aspect of satisfaction in two dimensions: one di-mension refers to the importance of each aspect, and a second dimen-sion refers to the level of satisfaction drawn from that aspect. In otherwords, we are looking for the weight of the aspect and for the level ofsatisfaction it generates. Overall satisfaction is represented with a com-posite score which is the sum of the products importance satisfactionof all the aspects. This approach is similar to Andersons (1996)weighted averaging rule of information integration. According to thisapproach, a general attitude is affected more by components that are im-portant to an individual and less by components that are less importantto the individual. The weighted aspects approach is also similar to theclassical Simple Additive Weighting model (SAW). This model isprobably the best-known, and most widely used compensatory model.In a decision problem with i alternatives, each characterized by j attri-butes (aspects), the value of each alternative can be expressed as:</p><p>V(Ai) = w v xj j ij( ),j</p><p>where V(Ai) is the value function of alternative Ai, and wj and vj(xij) arethe weight and value functions of attribute (aspect) Xj, respectively.</p><p>26 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY &amp; TOURISM</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>UQ</p><p> Lib</p><p>rary</p><p>] at</p><p> 03:</p><p>08 0</p><p>7 N</p><p>ovem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p></li><li><p>In our case, using the additive weighted form suggests that we canevaluate the value of job satisfaction for employees. Assigning a weightto aspect, we will be able to approximate the wj for the additive function.Similarly, estimating how much satisfaction is generated by aspect,would enable us to approximate the value of the aspect vj(xij) for the em-ployee. For example, assuming that employees consider three aspectswhen evaluating satisfaction: wages (j = 1), job security (j = 2), and rela-tionships with superiors (j = 3). Measuring employees satisfaction withan additive function would be carried out in three steps. First, we assigna certain scale to the weights (techniques for assigning weights are dis-cussed in Yoon and Hwang 1995). In our case, we use a 1-5 scale where5 is most important and 1 is least important, for the importance mea-sures. Second, we use a similar scale to evaluate the level of satisfactioneach aspect generates for an employee, where 5 is highly satisfied and 1is not satisfied. Third, we compute the composite score of satisfaction asthe sum of the products (importance satisfaction) for each aspect.</p><p>Continuing with the example, Table 1 provides a hypothetical re-sponse from three different employees. The SAW formulation assists usin calculating the ordinal value index of each employee satisfaction. Forexample, for employee A, VA = (5)*3 + (3)*5 + (1)*3 therefore, VA = 33.Similarly, VB = 43 and VC = 23. The example suggests that employee Bis the most satisfied. Employee A and C follow.</p><p>There may be some criticism regarding the abovementioned ap-proach for employee satisfaction. Critics may argue that the selection ofaspects is crucial. This is a valid comment; however, we should notethat there are established criteria for the identification and selection ofattributes (or aspects) in general problems (Keeney and Raiffa 1976,</p><p>Aviad A. Israeli and Rachel Barkan 27</p><p>TABLE 1. Importance and Satisfaction Drawn by Employee by Aspect</p><p>Employee A Employee B Employee C</p><p>Practice Importance Level ofsatisfaction</p><p>Importance Level ofsatisfaction</p><p>Importance Level ofsatisfaction</p><p>Wages (j = 1) 5 3 3 1 3 5</p><p>Job security(j = 2)</p><p>3 5 5 5 3 3</p><p>Relationship withsuperiors (j = 3)</p><p>1 3 5 3 3 1</p><p>Overallsatisfaction</p><p>33 43 27</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>UQ</p><p> Lib</p><p>rary</p><p>] at</p><p> 03:</p><p>08 0</p><p>7 N</p><p>ovem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p></li><li><p>Yoon and Hwang 1995). For example, Pardee (1969) suggested that thelist of attributes should be complete, exhaustive, mutually exclusive,and restricted to the performance degree of the highest degree of impor-tance. Additionally, we attempt to illustrate in this paper that it is possi-ble to assemble a list of practices with general guidelines for specificproblems, as done in the past by Israeli (2001), in a study of guest satis-faction in hotels. In the following sections of the paper, we will demon-strate how this method was used to investigate employee satisfactionand evaluate how employee satisfaction may change as a result of an or-ganizational action.</p><p>THE CASE STUDYOF THE MERCURE MIRAGE EILAT HOTEL</p><p>The management of the Mercure Mirage Eilat Hotel was interested inlearning if and how organizatio...</p></li></ul>


View more >