The Impact of Hotel Social Events on Employee Satisfaction

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

Journal of Human Resources inHospitality & TourismPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

The Impact of Hotel SocialEvents on EmployeeSatisfactionAviad A. Israeli a & 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.

To cite this article: Aviad A. Israeli & Rachel Barkan (2004) The Impact of HotelSocial Events on Employee Satisfaction, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &Tourism, 2:2, 23-39

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J171v02n02_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & 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 & 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,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J171v02n02_02

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

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 & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Impact of Hotel Social Eventson Employee Satisfaction:

A Case Study

Aviad A. IsraeliRachel Barkan

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 employee’s 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:<[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>© 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Job satisfaction, additive weighting, hospitality, factormodel

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: [email protected]).

Rachel Barkan, PhD, is Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, Ben GurionUniversity of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel 84104 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 2(2) 2003http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JHRHT

© 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J171v02n02_02 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

INTRODUCTION

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).

It is often argued that satisfaction is an important element in ser-vice-worker’s 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).

Given the importance of employee’s satisfaction in the contextof service industries, this study offers a technique to gauge em-ployee’s 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 ofemployee’s satisfaction, before and after an organizational/socialevent.

24 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

REVIEW OF JOB SATISFACTION LITERATURE

The traditional labor economic literature puts little emphasis on em-ployee’s 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).

The construct of employee’s 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 hotel’s overall performance (Nel-son and Bowen 2000, Simons and Enz 1995, Kwame and Marshall1992).

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 individual’s 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.

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 employee’s satisfaction,as it focuses managerial attention to specific aspects, and provides rec-ommendations for specific actions. There are a few techniques for mea-

Aviad A. Israeli and Rachel Barkan 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

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.

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.

A METHOD FOR MEASURING JOB SATISFACTION

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 Anderson’s (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:

V(Ai) = w v xj j ij( ),j

∑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.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

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 employee’s 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.

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.

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,


TABLE 1. Importance and Satisfaction Drawn by Employee by Aspect

Employee A Employee B Employee C

Practice Importance Level ofsatisfaction

Importance Level ofsatisfaction

Importance Level ofsatisfaction

Wages (j = 1) 5 3 3 1 3 5

Job security(j = 2)

3 5 5 5 3 3

Relationship withsuperiors (j = 3)

1 3 5 3 3 1

Overallsatisfaction

33 43 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

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.

THE CASE STUDYOF THE MERCURE MIRAGE EILAT HOTEL

The management of the Mercure Mirage Eilat Hotel was interested inlearning if and how organizational action affects employee satisfaction.The opportunity to study this issue arose when the hotel became in-volved in a recycling project, which included a joint effort by all of thehotel’s employees to redecorate the lobby using recycled materials.

Population: The Mercure Mirage Eilat Hotel belongs to the Accorchain of hotels. It is located in the resort city of Eilat. The hotel is at themid-price range and it attracts mostly European vacationers. The hotelemploys around 40 workers.1 Twenty-six workers are males with an av-erage age of 35.8 and an average income of 5,796 Israeli Shekels (ap-proximately $1,290), and 14 workers are females with an average age of29.5 years and an average income of 3,973 Israeli Shekels (approxi-mately $885).

General procedure: The case study reported below involved twostages. In the first stage the hotel’s employees were asked to fill out aquestionnaire regarding their job satisfaction. According to the simpleadditive weighting approach, employees were asked to rank the impor-tance of several job aspects and the level of satisfaction drawn fromeach aspect. Thirty-three employees completed the questionnaire. Afew days later, an organizational planned activity took place. The orga-nizational activity included several meetings of workers and managersin which they discussed recycling, environmental issues and environ-mental awareness. In this session, the employees planned a social eventthat included activities for redecorating the lobby using recycled mate-rials. The decorating activity lasted a few days. A short time after this


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

organizational activity, the hotel employees were approached again andasked to fill out the same questionnaire. This time 40 employees com-pleted the questionnaire.

The organizational action: As mentioned before, the organizationalactivity began with a special meeting between the management and thestaff. The first part of this meeting was dedicated to a discussion of theenvironmental importance of recycling and the possible contribution ofthe hotel. Later at that meeting, the management proposed to involve allemployees in a social event of redecorating the lobby using recycledmaterials. Some of the issues that were stressed at this meeting includedintegration between management and staff, varying mundane dailywork patterns, communication among employees, and performance ingroups. The meeting was adjourned with a decision to carryout the re-decorating event. A few days after this presentation, all hotel employeesbegan the process of renovating the lobby by painting the walls and dec-orating the area using recycled materials. The event was a success anddrew attention from the local media and from the guests.

The questionnaire: Twelve job aspects were measured on importanceand level of satisfaction. Each measure utilized a 1-5 scale (with 1 repre-senting the lowest levels of importance and satisfaction and 5 representingthe highest levels of importance and satisfaction). The choice of the job as-pects was based on research by Kovach (1987), Kwame and Marshall(1992), Darder (1994), Simons and Enz (1995), and Mount and Bartlett(2002). A list of aspects from the abovementioned sources was modifiedand adjusted to the context of the Israeli hospitality industry (Table 2).

Based on classical theories of motivational needs (Alderfer 1972,McClelland 1985), we categorized these aspects according to four basicneeds (maintenance, relations, achievement and power), crossed bythree levels at which the need may be actualized (self, group and organi-zation). Note that this categorization creates several clusters. One istermed maintenance-organizational and includes aspects 5, 3, 9, 1, 11 and12. This cluster consists of basic aspects of the job which are specifi-cally problematic in the hotel industry (Iverson and Deery 2000). As aresult, this cluster may be the core of dissatisfaction. Four other (sub)clusters are of higher needs and are integrated under the title socialmeaning and growth. The sub-clusters include relations-group (aspects2, 4), achievement-self (aspect 8), achievement-organization (aspects 6,7), and power-group (aspect 10). These two theoretical clusters may bevalidated or invalidated empirically using factor analysis.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

RESULTS

Ratings of Importance and Satisfaction Priorto the Organizational Action

The ratings of importance and satisfaction of each job aspect prior tothe organizational action are summarized in Table 3. The results showthat before the decorating activity took place, wages and relationshipswith colleagues were the most important aspects for satisfaction, fol-lowed by ability to initiate and influence, job security, work hours, andfeeling of achievement. With respect to satisfaction derived from the as-pect, the picture was somewhat different. Employees drew most of theirsatisfaction from relationships with colleagues, followed by job secu-rity, recognition by superiors, and ability to initiate and influence. Notsurprisingly, wages, ranked first for importance, was ranked eighth onthe ability to generate satisfaction.

Combined satisfaction, or the product of importance and satisfactionwas computed for each aspect and for all of the aspects together. Sincethe maximum possible score for the subjects is known for each aspectand for overall satisfaction, the last column in Table 3 provides thescore of combined satisfaction for each aspect and the overall combinedsatisfaction. The overall combined satisfaction was 54%, however, thehighest combined satisfaction (67%) was generated from relationships


TABLE 2. List of Job Aspects

Aspect Name

1 Wages

2 Relationships with colleagues

3 Bonuses and tips

4 Social activities

5 Gifts

6 Recognition by superiors

7 Opportunities for promotion

8 Feeling of achievement

9 Job security

10 Ability to initiate and influence

11 Work hours

12 Variety of tasks

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

with colleagues, followed by job security and ability to initiate and in-fluence. The lowest combined satisfaction was derived from bonusesand tips and from gifts. The combined score for wages was 58%, whichis above the aggregate score of satisfaction. Through these findings,managers can learn what is important to the labor force, how much sat-isfaction is drawn from different aspects of their work, and what can bedone to improve their satisfaction.

To test the clustering of job aspects, factor analysis was carried on theproduct of importance and satisfaction. As shown in Table 4a, this anal-ysis generated three factors. The first included job security, ability toinitiate and influence, relationship with colleagues, and variety of tasks.

This factor was titled job security and ability to initiate at the work-place and it accounted for 42.54% of the variance. The second factor in-cluded opportunities for promotion, work hours, feeling of achievement,


TABLE 3. Summary Statistics for Satisfaction Test Before OrganizationalActivity

Importance Satisfaction

Aspect MeanStd.

Deviation MeanStd.

Deviation Product

Wages 4.63 0.87 3.30 1.19 480 58%

Relationshipswith colleagues

4.63 0.66 4.00 0.90 597 72%

Bonuses and tips 3.84 1.29 2.76 1.27 314 38%

Social activities 3.66 1.15 3.09 1.12 340 41%

Gifts 3.35 1.11 3.00 1.27 295 36%

Recognition bysuperiors

4.25 0.98 3.70 1.15 448 54%

Opportunitiesfor promotion

3.94 1.29 3.13 1.41 423 51%

Feeling ofachievement

4.27 0.98 3.44 1.27 490 59%

Job security 4.45 1.06 3.91 0.93 552 67%

Ability toinitiate andinfluence

4.56 0.76 3.59 0.98 514 62%

Work hours 4.36 1.11 3.39 1.17 476 58%

Variety of tasks 4.00 1.12 3.53 1.05 461 56%

Overallsatisfaction

5390 54%Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

and social activities. This factor was titled social and/or developmentpotential of the job and accounted for 16.56% of the variance. The lastfactor included bonuses and tips, gifts, and wages and was titledmonetary gains of the job. This factor accounted for 10.97% of thevariance.

Table 4b represents the three empirical factors according to the the-oretical categorization of needs by level of actualization mentionedearlier (Alderfer 1972, McClelland 1985). The first factor is repre-sented with bold letters. The second factor is represented with under-lined letters. The third factor is represented with italic letters. The firstfactor is scattered around the space of needs and levels of actualiza-tion. The second factor resides mainly in the cluster of higher needsand the third factor is located at the maintenance-organizational clus-ter.

This undifferentiated pattern holds in it a potential for change and im-provement. Given that the hotel industry characteristics limit organiza-tional changes in wages, it is encouraging that employees appreciate theimportance of relationships and ability to initiate and influence. In thesame manner, while it is difficult to change bonuses, tips and gifts, iteasier to come up with social activities.


TABLE 4a. Factor Analysis Results–Product of Importance and Satisfac-tion Stage 1

Aspect Component

1 2 3

Job security 0.894 0.120 0.122

Ability to initiate and influence 0.868 0.241 0.129

Relationships with colleagues 0.754 0.067 0.040

Variety of tasks 0.569 0.562 0.098

Recognition by superiors 0.470 0.382 0.244

Opportunities for promotion 0.169 0.845 0.296

Work hours -0.183 0.809 0.402

Feeling of achievement 0.397 0.775 0.051

Social activities 0.354 0.669 -0.082

Bonuses and tips 0.175 0.229 0.857

Gifts 0.372 -0.110 0.711

Wages -0.136 0.406 0.651

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ratings of Importance and Satisfaction Postthe Organizational Action

The ratings of importance and satisfaction of each job aspect post theorganizational action are summarized in Table 5. The results are quitedifferent. Regarding the importance dimension, variety of tasks wasranked first, followed by relationships with colleagues and wages. Withrespect to satisfaction drawn from aspect, there were some changes aswell. Employees still drew most of their satisfaction from relationshipswith colleagues, as in the first stage. However, feelings of achievementranked second, followed by recognition by superiors and job security.

Overall satisfaction improved, from 54% in the first stage to 65% inthe second stage. The product of importance and satisfaction was com-puted again for each aspect. The highest combined satisfaction (82%)was generated from relationships with colleagues, followed by feelingsof achievement, variety of tasks, and recognition by superiors. Thecombined score for wages was 62%, this time below the aggregate scoreof satisfaction.


TABLE 4b. Spatial Representation of Factor Analysis Results–Product ofImportance and Satisfaction Stage 1

Level of Actualization

Self Group OrganizationNeeds

Power (10) Ability toinitiate and influence

Achievement (8) Feelings ofachievement

(6) Recognition bysuperiors

(7) Opportunities forpromotion

Relations (4) Social activities(2) Relationships

with colleagues

Maintenance (5) Gifts(3) Bonuses and tips(9) Job security(1) Wages

(11) Work hours(12) Variety of tasks

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Factor analysis was repeated in stage two to evaluate the product ofeach aspect’s importance and satisfaction. This analysis generated threefactors, shown in Table 6a. The first factor included: recognition by su-periors, ability to initiate the influence, feelings of achievement, socialactivities, opportunities for promotion, relationships with colleaguesand gifts. This factor accounted for 44.54% of the variance and was ti-tled social values at the workplace. Factor two included: wages, workhours, job security, and bonuses and tips; it was titled compensation is-sues and accounted for 16.56% of the variance. Finally, the last factorconsisted of a single aspect–variety of tasks–and accounted for 10.98%of the variance.

Table 6b represents the three empirical factors according to the theo-retical categorization of needs by level of actualization. The first factoris represented with bold letters. The second factor is represented withunderlined letters. The third factor is represented with italic letters. As


TABLE 5. Summary Statistics for Satisfaction Test After Organizational Activity

Importance Satisfaction

Aspect MeanStd.

Deviation MeanStd.

Deviation Product

Wages 4.72 0.51 3.30 1.07 623 62%

Relationshipswith colleagues

4.75 0.49 4.28 0.72 818 82%

Bonuses and tips 4.00 1.04 3.00 1.16 477 48%

Social activities 4.13 0.85 3.63 0.95 604 60%

Gifts 3.85 1.00 3.63 0.95 561 56%

Recognition bysuperiors

4.45 0.85 3.88 1.02 712 71%

Opportunitiesfor promotion

4.33 1.02 3.25 1.15 565 57%

Feeling ofachievement

4.55 0.71 3.90 0.96 717 72%

Job security 4.58 0.78 3.83 0.98 702 70%

Ability toinitiate andinfluence

4.25 1.03 3.53 1.15 617 62%

Work hours 4.63 0.67 3.70 1.04 688 69%

Variety of tasks 5.23 6.28 3.69 1.03 716 72%

Overallsatisfaction

7800 65%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE 6a. Factor Analysis Results–Product of Importance and Satisfac-tion Stage 2

Aspect Component

1 2 3

Recognition by superiors 0.796 0.073 -0.237

Ability to initiate and influence 0.765 0.075 0.355

Feeling of achievement 0.751 0.185 0.177

Social activities 0.705 0.115 -0.213

Opportunities for promotion 0.645 0.331 0.173

Relationships with colleagues 0.642 0.081 0.161

Gifts 0.551 0.370 -0.354

Wages -0.042 0.809 -0.032

Work hours 0.138 0.776 -0.146

Job security 0.372 0.742 0.169

Bonuses and tips 0.234 0.735 0.215

Variety of tasks 0.090 0.081 0.912

Level of ActualizationSelf Group Organization

NeedsPower

(10) Ability toinitiate andinfluence

(4) Social activities(2) Relationships

with colleagues

(6) Recognitionby superiors

(7) Opportunitiesfor promotion

(5) Gifts(3) Bonuses and tips(9) Job security(1) Wages(11) Work hours(12) Variety of tasks

(8) Feelings ofachievement

Achievement

Relations

Maintenance

TABLE 6b. Spatial Representation Factor Analysis Results–Product of Impor-tance and Satisfaction Stage 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

can be seen the three factors of the composite scores for satisfaction arenow inline with the theoretical clustering offered at the introduction ofthis paper. The first factor is located at the cluster of social meaning andgrowth (relations, achievement and power) and is distributed along thethree levels of actualization (self, group and organizational). Note thatthe focus of attention for satisfaction resides away from the problematiccharacteristics of the hotel industry. The problematic issues have con-verged via the second and third factors to the maintenance-organiza-tional cluster that accounts for a smaller percentage of the variance.

Comparison of employee satisfaction between stages: The techniqueoffered in this study allows for an evaluation of employee satisfactionby aspect’s importance and by level of satisfaction drawn from the as-pect. However, since employee satisfaction is a dynamic construct andmay change over time, we evaluated satisfaction at different time peri-ods–prior to and after an organizational effort to promote social interac-tion in the workplace. The aggregate findings suggest that overallsatisfaction has improved after the organizational action. This change inoverall satisfaction has some interesting attributes. First, as shown inTable 7, employees assigned more importance to many aspects of theirworking environment. Most notable is the statistically significant in-


TABLE 7. Differences in Importance and Satisfaction of Aspects (After-Before)

Differences *

Aspect Importance Satisfaction

Wages 0.09 0.00

Relationships with colleagues 0.12 0.28

Bonuses and tips 0.16 0.24

Social activities *0.47 *0.54

Gifts *0.50 *0.63

Recognition by superiors 0.20 0.18

Opportunities for promotion 0.39 0.12

Feeling of achievement 0.28 0.46

Job security 0.13 -0.08

Ability to initiate and influence -0.31 -0.06

Work hours 0.27 0.31

Variety of tasks 1.23 0.16

* Differences are statistically significant (p = 0.05)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

crease in the importance social activities and the satisfaction drawnfrom this aspect. The change in gifts was also statistically significant,and there was an increase in employee’s satisfaction from gifts.

The changes in the composition of aspects that form employee satis-faction can be identified by comparing the results of the factor analysis.An investigation of satisfaction prior (Table 3) and post (Table 5) orga-nizational activity reveals that prior to the organizational action, job se-curity and ability to initiate at the workplace was the most importantfactor. Post the organizational action, this changed to social values atthe workplace. Again, these changes demonstrate a certain adjustmentin the determinants of satisfaction among employees.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Factor analysis of the questionnaire for employee satisfaction canserve as an initial validation tool for the technique offered in this study.The analysis demonstrates that this questionnaire may be used in the fu-ture to gauge employee satisfaction in hospitality settings. With respectto the specific study, the findings demonstrate that organizational ac-tions, such as the one carried out at the Mercure Mirage Eilat Hotel, cancreate a change in the composition of employee satisfaction and in theactual satisfaction. The findings support other well-known research,such as the historic Hawthorne experiments, that showed that social is-sues at work are important in generating a fruitful relationship betweenemployees and their workplace. Social issues became more significantfor the formation of satisfaction in the workplace when the organizationbecame more aware of social processes among employees. This is animportant finding since it suggests that monetary compensations are notthe only way to combat high turnover and that employees can be com-pensated in alternative ways. This finding is especially valuable in lightof the crisis in the tourism and hotel industries in various parts of theworld. When hotels cannot compensate monetarily, they may findother, creative ways of improving their employee’s satisfaction.

Some issues are still left for future investigation. The first issue re-gards the intensity of the change. In this study, the shift of employee’sfocus from monetary to social concerns was observed primarily becauseof the organizational effort described above. Though it is unlikely thatemployees will maintain the shift of this focus in a long-term and con-stant manner, it is important to understand the intensity of the impactthat organizational efforts can have on employee satisfaction. The sec-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

ond issue regards the relationship between satisfaction and perfor-mance. We suggested that improved satisfaction may lead to reducedturnover and, consequently, to improvements in firm performance. How-ever, future investigations should focus on this process and investigate ifindeed a positive change in employee satisfaction does bring about a fa-vorable change in employee turnover and in hotel performance.

NOTE

1. Due to the high turnover in the hotel industry, the number of employees present forthe first and second stages was different. At the first stage, 33 employees were present(25 males and 8 females). At the second stage, 40 employees were present (26 males and14 females).

REFERENCES

Alderfer, C. P. (1972) Existence, Relatedness and Growth, Free Press, New York.Anderson, N. H. (1996) A Functional Theory of Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-

ates, Mahwah: NJ.Cooke, R. and Rousseau D. (1988) Behavioral norms and expectations: A quantitative

approach to the assessment of organizational norms, Group and OrganizationalStudies, 13 (3), 245-273.

Darder, R. (1994) Six steps to creating a positive motivational working environment,International Gaming and Wagering Business, 15 (March), 17-18.

Iverson, R. D. and Deery, M. (1995) Turnover culture in the hospitality industry, Hu-man Resource Management Journal, 7 (4), 71-82.

Israeli, A. (2001) Exploring the importance of hotel features among guests using amulti-attribute scaling approach, ANATOLIA: An International Journal of Tourismand Hospitality Research, 11 (2), 141-158.

Johnson, K. (1980) Staff turnover in hotels. Hospitality, February, 28-36.Johnson, K. (1986) Labor turnover in hotels–an update. Service Industries Journal, 6

(3), 362-380.Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Wiley, NY.Kovach, K. (1987) What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different

answers, Business Horizons, Sept.-Oct., 58-65.Kwame, C. and Marshall, L. (1992) Motivational preferences of Caribbean hotel work-

ers: An exploratory study, International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, 4 (3), 25-29.

LaLopa, J. (1997) Commitment and turnover in resort jobs. Journal of Hospitality andTourism Research, 21, 11-26.

Lovelock, C. H. (1990) Managing interactions between operators and marketing andtheir impact on customers. In: Bowen, D. E., Chase, R. B. and Cummings, T. G.(eds.). Service Management Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 343-368.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

McClelland, D. C. (1985) Human Motivation, Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.Mount, D. J., Bartlett, A. L. (2002) Development of a job satisfaction factor model for

the lodging industry, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 1 (1),17-40.

Nelson, K. and Bowen, J. (2000) The effect of employee uniforms on employee satis-faction, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, April, 86-95.

Pardee, E. S. (1969) Measurement and evaluation of transportation system effective-ness. RAND Memorandum RM-5869-DOT.

Price, J. and Mueller, J. (1981) A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy ofManagement Journal, 42, 543-565.

Riley, M. (1993) Labor turnover: Time to change the paradigm? International Journalof Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5 (4), i-iii.

Saunders, K. (1981) Measuring job stableness in employment: An experimental analy-sis based on life-work histories of workers with special references to the hotel andcatering industry. Service Industries Review, 1 (3), 25-43.

Scarpello, V. & Campbell, J. (1983) Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? PersonnelPsychology, 36, 577-600.

Simons, T. and Enz, C. A. (1995) Motivating hotel employees: Beyond the carrot andthe stick, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, February, 20-27.

Smith, P., Kendall, L. and Hulin, C. (1969) The Measurement of Satisfaction in Workand Retirement, Chicago: Rand.

Spector, P. (1985) Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of thejob satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13: 693-713.

Vroom, V. H. (1964) Work and Motivation, New York: Wiley.Yoon, K. P., and Hwang, C. L. (1995) Multiple Attribute Decision Making–An Intro-

duction, Sage University Paper.

RECEIVED: July, 2003REVISED: August, 2003

ACCEPTED: August, 2003


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

03:

08 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

The Impact of Hotel Social Events on Employee Satisfaction