Click to Print This Page Using job satisfaction and pride as internal-marketing tools. (Human Resources). By Dennis B. Arnett & Debra A. Laverie & Charlie McLane Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly | April, 2002 Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration? QuarterlyCornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration? QuarterlyCornell UniversityTradeMagazine/JournalBusinessTravel industryCOPYRIGHT 2002 Cornell? University0010-8804Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights? reserved. 200204012002April432Arnett, Dennis B. Laverie, Debra A.
McLane, Charlie87(10)Arnett, Dennis B. ^Laverie, Debra A. ^McLane, CharlieUsing job satisfaction and pride as internal-marketing? tools. (Human Resources).
9911210Motivational Techniques00WORWorldHospitality industry? Product developmentHospitality industry? Human resource managementWork environment? Economic aspectsWork environment? Psychological aspectsEmployee motivation? Psychological aspectsCorporate culture? ManagementOrganizational change? ManagementJob satisfaction? MeasurementJob satisfaction? Psychological aspectsJob satisfaction?Economic aspectsCompany personnel managementCompany service developmentCompany business management280Personnel administration361Services development200Management dynamicsHuman resource managementService developmentPsychological aspectsEconomic aspectsManagementMeasurementProduct developmentHospitality industry? Product developmentHospitality industry? Human resource managementWork environment? Economic aspectsWork environment? Psychological aspectsEmployee motivation? Psychological aspectsCorporate culture? ManagementOrganizational change? ManagementJob satisfaction? MeasurementJob satisfaction? Psychological aspectsJob satisfaction?Economic aspectsSales management Employees’ attitudes and opinions about their colleagues and? the work environment may make all the difference between workers’? merely doing a good job and delivering exceptional guest service.? Increased competition in the hotel industry has caused many? companies to consider new strategies for gaining a competitive? advantage. To implement new marketing approaches successfully, however,? it is often necessary to first alter the culture of an organization to? help align employees’ attitudes with the new strategy. For example,? many service-oriented organizations institute strategies that are? esigned to increase customer satisfaction and loyalty, and the? successful implementation of those plans requires that employees adopt? certain actions and beliefs (e. g. , being customer-focused and? cooperating with each other).? Managers can alter the culture of their organizations by (1) hiring? employees who fit well with the new vision of the organization, (2)? training employees in skills that match the new vision, or (3)? motivating employees to adopt actions and attitudes that are consistent? with the new vision.
This process is often referred to as internal? marketing. As Philip Kotler suggests, “internal marketing must? recede external marketing. It makes no sense to promote excellent? service before the company’s staff is ready to provide it. “? (1)? Benefits of Internal Marketing? Successful internal marketing programs can lead to important? payoffs for an organization. The benefits of internal marketing stem? from four main sources: (1) low employee-turnover rates, (2) an increase? in service quality, (3) high levels of employee satisfaction, and (4) an? improved ability to implement change in the organization. (2)? First, the reduction in employee turnover decreases both recruiting? and training costs.
Because fewer new employees are needed, resources? that would have been directed to filling empty positions and training? new employees can be used for other purposes (e. g. , improving the skills? of existing employees). In addition, low turnover rates translate into? less stress for existing employees. When people leave an organization,? other employees are often called on to fill in until new employees are? hired and trained, which can increase those reassigned employees’? level of stress and, in turn, decrease their level of job satisfaction.? Second, internal marketing has both an internal (employee) focus? nd an external (customer) focus. It is internally focused because it? involves motivating, mobilizing, co-opting, and managing employees.
It? is externally focused because it is designed to improve the way a? company serves its customers. Therefore, internal marketing provides a? way to encourage employees to continually improve the way they serve? customers and each other.? Third, an increase in employee satisfaction motivates workers to be? more engaged and, as a result, they are more likely to rake actions that? result in increased guest satisfaction and profitability.
For example,?Spinelli and Canavos suggest that the most-satisfied employees respond? best to the needs of individual guests, which increases the overall? level of satisfaction of the guests. (3)? Fourth, one of the most difficult things to manage in organizations? is change. For organizations in transition, internal marketing is? crucial.
Internal marketing helps reinforce and develop a culture where? the need for change is understood and accepted. As a result, the? organization is more successful at implementing new strategies, which? improves the chances that the strategies will be successful.? Positive Employee Behavior?One of the basic benefits of successful internal marketing is the? ability to motivate employees to practice behavior that will assist in? the implementation of marketing strategies. Since the hotel industry has? always been committed to developing customer loyalty, it is as critical? now as ever for hotel employees to act in a manner that encourages? guests’ loyalty. That is, customer loyalty is important in the? hotel industry because it is a mature industry and competition is? intense. As a result, there is often little product differentiation? within segments (e.
g. , many luxury hotels offer guests many of the same? menities) . (4)? Because most hotels rely directly on their employees to deliver? superior service, hotel employees can be a source of competitive? advantage. (5) Customer satisfaction, service quality, and customer? loyalty are influenced considerably by the beliefs and actions of hotel? employees. (6) By providing outstanding service, hotel employees can? enhance the image of the hotel and the level of perceived (and actual)? service quality.? We suggest that successful internal-marketing strategies can? enhance both job satisfaction and pride in the organization, which? result in an increase in positive employee behavior.
Positive employee? behavior is characterized by a commitment to providing the guest with? good service, cooperation with other employees, and a commitment to the? organization. These activities and beliefs contribute to a hotel’s? ability to deliver a high level of service that encourages customer? loyalty. We note that although the effects of employee satisfaction have? been researched extensively, the effect of pride has not.
We posit that? both job satisfaction and pride are important variables that can be used? by managers to encourage employees to engage in desired behavior.? Model for Increasing Positive Employee Behavior?The focus of many hotels is to develop long-term competitive? advantages over their rivals that lead to increased customer loyalty? and, in turn, increased profitability. Because many attributes of the? products and services they offer can be easily copied by competitors? (e. g. , the size or price of rooms), successful hotels must build? customer loyalty using factors other than product-and-service? attributes. Developing loyal customers is easier when an organization? emphasizes the importance of the relationship it has with its employees.? We suggest that developing a good relationship with employees is a? recursor to building a good relationship with customers. This study? focuses on the antecedents of positive employee behavior (i.
e. , a? commitment to customer service, cooperation with other employees, and a? commitment to the organization). Specifically, our investigation focuses? on how hotels can use an internal marketing approach to encourage their? employees to develop a sense of job satisfaction and pride in the hotel.? Exhibit 1 provides an overview of the factors included in our study as? well as the hypothesized relationships among them.? Job Satisfaction? Job satisfaction refers to an employee’s general affective? valuation of his or her job. Job satisfaction is fundamental in the? hotel industry as it helps to ensure that employees will treat customers? with the utmost respect. Because of the important role that service? employees play in developing relationships with customers,? employees’ satisfaction is a major concern for organizations that? are interested in increasing customer loyalty.
Employees’ job? satisfaction has been linked to an increase in customer orientation by? the employee, an increase in customer satisfaction, and an increase in? perceived service quality. Research suggests that satisfied employees? elieve that appropriate behavior will be rewarded by the organization.? (7) In general, job satisfaction leads to employees’ intentions to? keep performing well their required job tasks, which, in turn affects? their actual behavior. Therefore, employee job satisfaction is a crucial? prerequisite to service excellence. We posit that employees who are? satisf ied with their jobs will also be those most likely to engage in? positive employee behavior.? Pride in the Organization? Pride is an emotion that is crucial to understanding human? behavior.
It is derived from both self-appraisals and others’? pinions. Pride represents a belief that one is competent and viewed? positively by others. It encourages self-control and is responsible for? people behaving in accordance with norms. (8) Pride in an organization? results from specific perceptions of the organization and from? experiences with that organization. Moreover, it stems in part from the? belief that ones actions influenced the success of the organization. It? is enhanced by one’s personal beliefs about the organization as? well as by other people’s perceptions of it.? Employees with a high level of pride in an organization perceive? hat organization as important, meaningful, effective, and as a? worthwhile part of the community. As a result, employees are more likely? to engage in activities that help the organization to meet its? objectives.
Emotions such as pride have been linked to high quality? service delivery and employees “going out of the way” or? “beyond the call of duty” for customers. For example, Howard? Johnson franchisees indicate that employee pride played a key role in? its mid-1990s turnaround. (9) Therefore, we predict that there is a? positive relationship between pride in the organization and positive? employee behavior.
In addition, we suggest that there is a positive? relationship between job satisfaction and pride. (10)? Role Clarity? Role clarity suggests that employees are clear about the scope and? responsibilities of their job. In the context of the hotel industry,? role clarity involves providing clear expectations of the? role-prescribed behavior that the organization monitors and rewards. For? example, organizations often define explicitly role-prescribed actions? such as greeting guests by name, making a personal promise to a customer? that a request will be processed quickly, and answering the phone in? three rings.
11) When employees know what is expected of them, they are? more likely to meet role obligations and are more satisfied with their? jobs. (12)? Conversely, when employees are unsure of what their job entails? they tend to feel frustrated. Therefore, we expect a positive? relationship between role clarity and job satisfaction.? Evaluation of Reward Systems? Employees need to know that they will be measured on how well they? perform their duties and that it is worthwhile to perform their duties? well.
(13) Employees’ perceptions of rewards are closely related to? those workers’ motivation and performance. To be effective, any? eward system will support organizational goals, encourage cooperation,? be fair, have a positive influence on performance, and focus on serving? the customer. In brief, effective rewards are a key to achieving the? strategic goals of a company. In the hotel industry, effective rewards? help employees to understand the level of guest service that needs to be? delivered. In addition, they provide employees with a measure of how? much the company values their contributions.? The purpose of a reward system is to motivate employees to practice? proper behavior.
To do this the rewards offered must be perceived as? being valuable.In addition, the reward system must be perceived as? being fair (i. e.
, every one has a chance to be recognized, and rewards? are commensurate with the outstanding service performed). The extent to? which employees believe that the reward system is appropriate and fair? will have a positive effect on employees’ job satisfaction.? Work Environment? Employees, like guests, prefer an environment that is pleasing and? offers rewarding experiences. (14) One of the factors that employees use? to judge a work environment is the image the firm portrays, which is? influenced by the appearance of the surroundings and the level and? eputation of the organization. Other factors include an opportunity to? grow, the existence of competent and knowledgeable co-workers, the? ability to be involved in decision-making, and the availability of tools? necessary to do the job well. Finally, employees look for an environment? where they feel trusted and can count on the other people in the? organization. (15) Hotel-industry executives suggest that when companies? provide an excellent work environment they achieve employee? satisfaction.
(16) Therefore, we expect to find a positive relationship? between work environment and job satisfaction.? Evaluating the Managers?Customer loyalty must begin with employee loyalty in a culture that? is employee-based and employee-driven. (17) Managers need to ensure that? employees have the proper training and resources that allow them to? deliver high levels of guest service. In addition, it is important that? managers listen to employees and act appropriately. Employees’? perceptions of managers’ fairness are important and are related to? how the managers handle such issues as allocating the workload, applying? standards, performing evaluations, and issuing compensation and? promotions. (18) Fair and effective procedures coupled with the proper? xecution of such procedures provide a guarantee of rewards that promote? exceptional employee cooperation and customer-service performance.
(19)? Thus, we expect to find a positive relationship between employees’? evaluation of managers and workers’ job satisfaction and pride in? the organization.? Organization Performance? Organizational performance can be a source of pride for employees.? People like to associate themselves with successful groups as a means to? bolster their self esteem. In contrast, people also try to maintain? their self esteem by disassociating themselves from unsuccessful groups.?Therefore, when a company is performing well, its employees are more? likely to be satisfied and to perform well. (20)? Organizational performance is normally public knowledge, and as? such it becomes a measure of the quality of the company and its? employees. The fact that it is known to others outside the company? increases its importance as a measure of selfworth. Therefore, we posit? that successful companies foster more pride in their employees than do? average companies.
? Positive Employee Behavior? Positive employee behavior refers to the constructive actions of? employees on behalf of the firm, other employees, and customers.These? activities are part of the employee’s role in the organization and? are intended to promote the well-being of the organization or its? customers. (21) To be effective, hotels must encourage employees to? engage in behavior that allow them to interact better with each other? and with guests. Many actions are prescribed by the organization.
? However, some desired behavior might include actions that go beyond? those outlined in any employee manual. Specifically, we suggest that? positive employee behavior is a combination of a minimum of three? actions and beliefs: (1) a commitment to customer service, (2)? ooperation with fellow employees, and (3) a commitment to the? organization.? Questionnaire Development? The questionnaire that we used in this study was developed for? internal purposes at a prominent hotel-casino corporation. The? questionnaire was developed by using relevant literature, expert? opinions, and employee responses. Sample questions from the survey are? presented in Exhibit 2. The questionnaire was tested and refined over a? nine-year period by examining its psychometric properties. The items on? the current questionnaire performed well (i.
e. , they exhibit acceptable? psychometric properties– see Exhibit 3). 22) As part of the? corporation’s annual internal assessment process, the questionnaire? was administered to all employees. The current study represents the? responses from one of its properties.? Results? The census provided us with 860 questionnaires. The majority (71? percent) of the respondents had been with the organization for between 1? and 5 years, 26 percent had been with the corporation less than one? year, and the remaining 3 percent had been with the corporation for over? five years.
Most respondents (83 percent) were hourly employees, 9? percent were supervisors, 4 percent were considered salaried? on-management employees, and another 4 percent were managers.? Forty-seven percent worked the day shift, 34 percent worked the? “swing” shift, and 19 percent worked the “graveyard”? shift.? Statistical tests. The model in Exhibit 1 was tested using? PLSPath–a structural-equation-modeling program developed by Norbert? Sellin. (23) Using procedures suggested by other researchers, we were? able to produce a model that fit the data well (see Exhibit 4). (24) The? main criterion non for assessing model adequacy for PLSPath analysis is? explained variance ([R.
sup. 2]). (25) As can be seen in Exhibit 4, the? odel explains a great deal of variance in job satisfaction ([R. sup. 2]? =. 54), pride in the organization ([R.
sup. 2] = . 62), and positive? employee behavior ([R. sup. 2] = . 64).
Therefore, the model is a good fit? to the data. (26)? Establishing Positive Behavior? It is important that managers understand the effect that job? satisfaction and pride have on desired employee behavior. The results? support our suggestion above that both job satisfaction and pride in the? organization are important antecedents of positive employee behavior.? The regression weight ([beta]) for the path from job satisfaction to? ositive employee behavior is . 46. The path from pride to positive? employee behavior is also strong, as demonstrated by the regression? co-efficient ([beta]) of .40.
Those factors explain a large portion (64? percent) of the variance in positive employee behavior. These results? indicate that the two factors have similar effects on positive employee? behavior (i. e. , the regression coefficients have comparable magnitudes).? (27)? Encouraging Job Satisfaction? As discussed earlier, three factors seem especially critical to? building job satisfaction among employees–role clarity, the work? nvironment, and employees’ evaluations of managers’? performance.
As expected, role clarity is related positively to job? satisfaction, as evidenced by a [beta] of . 25. Employees who believed? that they had a clear understanding of what it took to do their job were? more likely to be satisfied with their jobs. Therefore, employers should? try to ensure that employees have a clear understanding of their hob? responsibilities and the actions that are expected of them.
? Interestingly, the employees’ evaluation of the reward system? did not influence their job satisfaction. (The regression coefficient? as not significant. ) However, we believe that this is not an indication? that employees do not care about the reward systems in their? organizations. Instead, it may be an indication that other factors are? more important determinants of employee behavior (e. g.
, work? environment, role clarity, and perceptions regarding managers). (28)? The results do support the proposition that the work environment? affects job satisfaction, as evidenced by a [beta] of . 20.
Employees? tended to be satisfied with their jobs when they believed that they had? a good work environment. Therefore, hotels should not focus solely on? he guests’ environment, but should also examine the environment? that their employees experience. Although the two environments overlap,? employees en-counter many things that guests do not (e. g.
, there are? many things that guests do not (e. g. , there are many parts of a hotel? that a guest never sees).? The data support the proposition that employees’ evaluations? of managers is related positively to job satisfaction, as evidenced by a? [beta] of . 38. Employees who evaluated managers positively tended to be? satisfied with their jobs. Therefore, managers should monitor the? erceptions that employees have of the management team–and efforts? should be made to alter negative perceptions and promote positive ones.? An examination of the regression weights related to job? satisfaction reveals that workers’ evaluation of managers is the? most important antecedent of job satisfaction (i.
e. , it has the largest? regression weight, ([beta] = . 38). Role clarity is the next most? important construct ([beta] = .
25), followed by work environment ([beta]? = . 20). Those three factors explained 54 percent of the variance in job? satisfaction.? Building Pride in the Organization?The effects of three factors on pride in the organization were? examinated–job satisfaction, evaluation of managers, and organizational? performance. The results support the proposition that job satisfaction? effects pride positively, as evidenced by a [beta] of . 41.
Employees who? wee the most satisfied with their jobs exhibited the most pride in their? organizations. Therefore, we suggest that job satisfaction influences? employee behavior. Second, it affects positive employee behavior? indirectly by encouraging, pride in the organization, which, in turn,? encourages positive employee behavior.
?The results support the proposition that employees’ evaluation? of managers has a positive effect on pride in the organization, as? evidenced by a [beta] of. 32. Employees who had a positive impression of? management tended to have more pride in the organization. The results? suggest that employees’ positive perceptions of managers can affect? positive employee behavior in three ways.
It is related positively to? job satisfaction, which, in turn, affects positive employee behavior? both directly and indirectly through pride in the organization. It also? has a direct effect on pride in the organization, which, in turn,? ffects positive employee behavior. Therefore, as our model suggests,? the perception of management may have the greatest ability of all of the? factors examined in this study to influence employee behavior.? The results support the proposition that organizational performance? can influence pride in the organization, as evidenced by a [beta] of? .
19. Employees who believed that the organization was performing well? tended to exhibit great pride in the organization.? An examination of the regression weights related to pride in the? organization reveals that job satisfaction is the most important? antecedent of pride in the organization (i.
. , it has the largest? regression weight–[beta] = . 41). Evaluation of management is the next? most important construct ([beta] = . 32), followed by organization? performance ([beta] = . 19). These factors explained 62 percent of the? variance in pride in the organization.? Implications: Why Job Satisfaction and Pride Are Important? Our study suggests that both job satisfaction and pride in the? organization are important factors that influence employee behavior.
In? fact, for our sample they have approximately the same direct effect on? employee behavior. Therefore, organizations that wish to promote? ositive behavior in their employees should focus on both of these? factors. Although many organizations have specific programs and? procedures designed to improve employee satisfaction, fewer? organizations make a concerted effort to increase employee pride. Our? results suggest that more organizations should focus on improving? employee pride.
Organizations in other industries have followed this? strategy with success. (29) For example, Southwest Airlines executives? have told us that the firm makes an extraordinary effort to increase? both employee satisfaction and pride, and its efforts have paid off.?When interpreting our results, one should note that this study? examines all employees of a single property. It may be the case that? there are factors that exist that are specific to different types of? jobs (e. g. , managers, housekeepers, chefs) that affect job satisfaction? and pride. Therefore, the factors included in this study should be? viewed as potential starting points.
Managers must try to understand? what additional factors may affect their specific employees’ levels? of satisfaction and pride and then use this information to improve their? employees’ levels of satisfaction and pride. In addition, one? hould note that the respondents in this study, as in many studies of? this kind, were asked questions about their own actions and, therefore,? there is always the chance that their answers may reflect a bias toward? socially desirable answers.? EXHIBIT 2? Sample items from the questionnaire? Construct Role Clarity Evaluation of? Rewards System Work Environment Evaluation of? Management Organization? Performance Job Satisfaction Pride in Organization Positive Employee Behavior Sample question? I understand what my role is in the? delivery of excellent customer? service.
? High performers are rewarded.?I have the resources that I need to? deliver excellent customer service? Managers take action quickly to? correct employee problems.? This hotel provides better guest? services than its rivals.? Overall my job experience has been? excellent here at .? I am proud to tell people where I? work.? I make every possible effort to? resolve customers’ problems.? Note: These examples do not represent the exact items used in the study.? The scales are proprietary and, therefore, it was necessary to alter? their wording slightly.
? EXHIBIT 3? Measurement Results? Scale item, description Role Clarity RC1 RC2 RC3 Average variance extracted . 5 . 77? .81? .84? Internal? reliability? .85? Loading Evaluation of Reward System ERS1 ERS2 ERS3 Work Environment WE1 WE2 WE3 Evaluation of Management EM1 EM2 EM3 EM4 EM5 Organization Performance PERF1 PERF2 PERF3 Job Satisfaction S1 S2 S3 Organizational Pride P1 P2 P3 Positive Employee Behavior EB1 EB2 EB3 .77 .
88? .91? .84? .65 .
80? .83? .79? .71 . 83? .
83? .89? .84? .
83? .63 . 78? .71? .88? .
65 . 73? .85? .83? .80 . 87? .
92? .89? .53 . 50? .77? .
86? .91? .85? .93? .83? .85? .92? .
76? Note: All loadings are significant at p < . 05.? (1. ) Philip Kotler, Marketing Management, (Upper Saddle River, NJ:?Prentice Hall, 2000), p.
22.? (2. ) Susan L. Taylor and Robert M. Consenza, “Internal? Marketing Can Reduce Employee Turnover,” Supervision, Vol. 58, No.? 12 (December 1997), pp.
3-5; Robert C. Lewis, “Hospitality? Marketing: The Internal Approach,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant? Administration Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 3 (November 1989), pp. 41-45; W.
? Benoy Joseph, “Internal Marketing Builds Service Quality,”? Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Spring 1996), pp.? 54-59; and Sybil F. Stershic, “New Imperative for Service? Management,” Marketing News, Vol. 28, No. 19 (May 9, 1995), pp.
? 22-23.? (3. Michael A. Spinelli and George C. Canavos, “Investigating? the Relationship between Employee Satisfaction and Guest? Satisfaction,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration? Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 6 (December 2000), pp.
29-33.? (4. ) John T. Bowen and Stowe Shoemaker, “Loyalty: A Strategic? Commitment,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly? Vol. 39, No. 1 (February 1998), pp.
12-25.? (5. ) Cathy A. Enz and Judy A. Siguaw, “Best Practices in? Service Quality,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration? Quarterly. Vol. 41, No.
5 (October 2000), pp. 20-24.? (6. ) Mary Jo Bitner, Bernard H.Booms and Mary Stanfield Tetreault,? “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable? Incidents,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No.
1 (January 1990),? pp. 71-84.? (7. ) Valerie Zeithaml and Mary Jo Bitner, Services Marketing:? Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm (New York, NY: Irwin? McGraw-Hill, 2000).? (8. ) Sheldon Stryker, “The Vitalization of Symbolic? Interactionism,” Social Psychological Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 1? (March 1987), pp.
83-94; and Susan Shott, “Emotion and Social Life:? A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis,” American Journal of Sociology,? Vol. 84, No. 6 (May 1979), pp.
1317-1334.? 9. ) Robert Nozar, “Pride Pushes HoJo’s Success,”? Hotel and Motel Management, Vol. 210, No.
3 (February 20, 1995), pp. 3,? 24.? (10. ) As pointed out by two anonymous reviewers, the relationship? between pride and job satisfaction could also be reversed. That is, a? case could be made for pride leading to an increase in job satisfaction.? Indeed, one could argue that the relationships could go both ways.? However, our argument is based on the premise that pride is based on? self and social appraisals.
We posit that job satisfaction acts as a? component of both self and social appraisals linked to the organization.?To feel pride in an organization, one must believe that one’s? actions are influencing the organization positively. Job satisfaction,? we argue, provides the needed connection between an employee’s? actions and the organization. Definitive evidence as to the exact? relationship could be derived from longitudinal studies.
However,? currently we know of no such study.? (11. ) Patricia Galagan, “Putting on the Ritz,” Training? & Development, Vol. 47, No. 12 (December 1993), pp. 41-45.? (12. ) David E.
Bowen and Benjamin Schneider, “Boundary? Spanning Role Employees and the Service Encounter: Some Guidelines for?Management and Research,” in The Service Encounter: Managing? Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Business, ed. J. A. Xzepiel,? M. R. Soloman, and G. E Surprenant (New York, NY: Lexington Books, 1985),? pp. 127-147.
? (13. ) Leonard L. Berry and A. Parasuraman, Marketing Services? Competing through Quality (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1991).? (14. ) Judy King, “Industry Must Treat Employees, Guests with? the Same Concern,” Hotel & Motel Management, Vol. 214, No. 1? (January 11, 1999), p.
12.? (15. ) Laurette Dube, Cathy A. Enz, Leo M. Renaghan, and Judy A.? Siguaw, “Managing for Excellence: Conclusions and Challenges from a?Study of Best Practices in the U. S. Lodging Industry,” Cornell? Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol.
41, No. 5 (October? 2000), pp. 30-39.? (16.
) Spinelli and Canavos, pp. 29-33.? (17.
) Carlo Wolff, “Great Hospitality Is Made Not Born,”? Lodging Hospitality, Vol. 56, No. 4 (March 15, 2000), pp. 28-32.? (18. ) Jerald Greenberg, “Organizational Justice: Yesterday,? Today, and Tomorrow,” Journal of Management, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June? 1990), pp.
399-432.? (19. ) Allan E. Lind and Tom R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of? Procedural Justice (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1988).? (20.
) R. B.Cialdini, R.
J. Border, A. Thorne, M. R. Walker, S.? Freeman, and L. R Sloan, “Basking in the Reflected Glory: Three? (Football) Field Studies,” Journal of Personality and Social? Psychology, Vol.
34, No. 3 (September 1976), pp. 366-375.? (21. ) Dennis W. Organ, Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The? Good Soldier Syndrome (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1998).? (22. ) All internal-consistency measures are above the .
70 level.? Therefore, the scales demonstrate internal reliability. The average? variance extracted for each reflectively measured construct is high (all? values are above . 53).
This high average variance extracted coupled with? the strength and significance of the parameter estimates for the? reflective scales provide evidence of convergent validity. The results? also show that the variance shared between each construct and its? measures is higher than the variance shared between the construct and? other constructs in the model, which provides evidence of discriminant? validity–see Exhibits 3 and 4. See: C. Fornell and David F. Larcker,? “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables? and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No.? (February 1981), pp. 39-50.
? (23. ) N. Sellin, PLSPath Version 3. 01 Application Manual (Hamburg,? Germany: Norbert Sellin, 1989).? (24. ) See: C.
Fornell, G. J. Tellis, and G. M. Zinkhan,? “Validity Assessment: A Structural Equation Approach Using Partial? Least Squares,” in AMA Educators’ Proceedings, Vol.
48, ed.? B. J. Walker, et al. (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1982), pp.? 405-409; and Fornell and Larcker, pp. 39-50.
? (25. ) D. W. Barclay, “Interdepartmental Conflict in? Organizational Buying: The Impact of the Organizational Context,”? Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, No.
2 (May 1991), PP. 45-159.? (26. ) PLS analysis is a SEM technique that is an alternative to? covariance structure analysis, which uses programs such as LISREL and? EQS. The use of PLS analysis has certain advantages: (1) it does not? suffer from indeterminacy problems like other causal modeling techniques? (e. g. , EQS and LISREL), (2) it is a nonparametric technique and,? therefore, does not assume normality of the data, (3) it allows? researchers to work with more complex models than other causal modeling? techniques, and (4) it allows researchers to easily use both formative? and reflective measures in the same analysis.The objective of PLS? analysis is the explanation of variance through an iterative ordinary? least squares (OLS) procedure and, therefore, fir indices such as the? ones generated by covariance structure analysis are not generated.
? Because of its algorithmic nature it is predictive in a regression? sense. For a more detailed discussion of the PLS method see W. W. Chin,? “The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Model? ing,” in Modern Methods for Business Research, ed. Marcoulides? (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998).? (27. ) Note that one can directly compare regression weights in this? odel because they are standardized to the same scale.
? (28. ) Discussions with human-resources experts in the hotel? industry, including one of the authors of this study, suggest that this? result does not contradict their experiences. For example, reward? systems are not usually the most important points of contention in labor? negotiations.? (29. ) Cathy A.
Enz and Judy Siguaw, “Best Practices in Human? Resources,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,? Vol. 41, No. 1 (February 2000), Pp. 48-61.? Dennis B. Arnett. Ph. D.
(above, left), is an assistant professor of? marketing at Texas Tech University ([email protected] tu. edu), where Debra A.? Laverie, Ph. D.
(middle), is an associate professor of marketing? ([email protected] ttu. edu). Charlie McLane, J. D. (right), is executive? director of CUE, Inc.
(charles. [email protected] com).? COPYRIGHT 2002 Cornell University Reproduced w ith permission of the copyright holder.
Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited w ithout permission. Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company. NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article. Copyright © 2011 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. All rights reserved.