Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671

Perceptions of organizational structure in the hospitality industry:

Consequences for commitment, job satisfaction and
perceived performance
Torvald gaard
a,c,
, Einar Marnburg
a
, Svein Larsen
a,b
a
The Norwegian School of Hotel Management, University of Stavanger, NO-4036 Stavanger, Norway
b
University of Bergen, Norway
c
The Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen, Norway
Received 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.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Organic organization; Mechanistic organization; Leadership; Hospitality
1. Introduction
One of the continuing challenges of hospitality industry
management is to strike a balance between the need for
customization, that is, for employees to adapt the service to
varying and changing customer needs and wants versus the
need for efciency, control and standardization to be cost
effective. Some companies opt for an efciency strategy
and deliver standardized products at low prices (e.g., fast
food operations, budget motel chains, etc.). Others aim for
higher levels of customization and customer satisfaction
(e.g., a` la carte restaurants, upscale hotels, etc.). Even if
companies try to focus on customization, market competi-
tion will always induce pressure towards efciency. And
even if a company focuses on an efciency strategy, in a
dynamic market there will always be a need for innovation
and change. Efciency requires standardization, repetition,
rules and often formalized, mechanistic ways of doing
things, while customization requires openness, empower-
ment, freedom of action and more organic organizational
forms. Thus, a continuing duality in the organizational
forms is needed in the hospitality industry. Even in highly
formalized organizations, it has long been acknowledged
that aside from purposes explicitly stated by organizations,
managers and other organizational members also possess
private purposes in their job situations (Burns & Stalker,
1994/1961, p. 97). This issue has been rmly pointed out in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.006

Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 51 83 37 00; fax: +47 51 83 37 50.

E-mail address: torvald.ogaard@uis.no (T. gaard).
the classical organization theory literature (e.g., Barnard,
1946; Homans, 1951; Selznick, 1949). Although the
classical writers focused primarily on how these private
purposes conicted with the companies formal organiza-
tions and business purposes, some positive effects of
informal organizations were also recognized, such as, for
example, extra role behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
Hospitality organizations represent complex organiza-
tions wherein coordination of several types of services gives
a task environment that has to be well organized, but also
has to have openings for ad hoc problem solving in
continuously changing environments. The employees will-
ingness to deal with such a work environment, their quality
standards and motivation to learn and develop new
routines will, of course, be one of the key factors in
successful hotel operations. Studies of hotel employees and
potential hotel employees attitudes, motivations and
intentions indicate that the hospitality industry in general
has access to employees who are highly motivated and
seeking to learn (e.g., Fossum, Helgerud, & Vaeng, 2004;
Gjelsvik, 2002; Ross, 1994a, b; Zacarelli, 1985). Complex
organizations need routines, policies and formal systems
that coordinate tasks and secure efcient fulllment of
business goals as well as strategic objectives. Nevertheless,
formalized routines given by management can slow down
or hinder employees ad hoc problem solving and learning.
The mechanistic and organic modes of organization
(Burns & Stalker, 1994/1961), respectively, represent the
very 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 believe
that managers and employees perceive the same organiza-
tion differently, and that both modes can have a positive
effect on the organization members job satisfaction and
commitment. This paper explores how different actors in
the hospitality industry experience their work environment
and how perceptions of the organizations are related to
individual job outcomes and job performance. Interaction
effects of organic and mechanistic forms of organization
are also discussed.
2. Literature review
The continuum between the need for permanent routines
and the need for ad hoc problem solving was described by
Burns and Stalker (1994/1961) in the two modes of
organizing: organic and mechanistic.
Differences in reported experiences of a work environ-
ment as organic or mechanistic can probably be explained
by how people recognize the inuence of the formal or
informal organization on task performance and social
interactions. According to Burns and Stalker (1994/1961,
p. 98), the employees private purposes form the basis of
the informal organization, in contrast to the formal
organization, which is supposed to serve the purposes of
the corporation. One of the reasons for the existence of an
informal organization within business systems is that
individuals resist being treated as means to an end, and
they interact as wholes, bringing with them their own
problems and purposes that give rise to spontaneous
behaviors that seeks to control their conditions of work
(Homans, 1951, pp. 250251). The effects of this can for
instance be that communication is not efcient: subordi-
nates might consider managers decisions and instructions
merely as information for them to use (or not use) in line
with other information when they make their own
decisions (Burns, 1954).
In an organic organization, the individual is allowed to
follow and combine his or her own purposes with the
companys mission. In a mechanistic mode, the individual
has to follow and adapt to rules and stringent routines that
reduce 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 be
organized and how it achieves its results have not changed
much compared to, for example, the development in
administrative technology, trading systems, liberalized
markets, common welfare, level of education and democ-
racy, etc. In fact, current thoughts about management and
leadership are largely inuenced by the feudalism paradigm
(Barker, 1997), which describes leaders at the top of the
hierarchy where they direct and control all activities of the
people working below them. Organizational success or
failure could then be explained by actual managers
attributes. The much-used and popular bureaucratic model
(Weber, 1922/1992) was given a rational basis: in order to
give young, well-educated and bright people the opportu-
nity to realize their thoughts and wills, the rest of the
organization had to be arranged in such a way that these
wills were realized. The distribution of intelligence made
division of thoughts and actions necessary.
The idea of strong leadership as a condition for
organizational success has elicited an enormous research
effort (see, e.g., Yukl, 2002), investigating what explains
the good leader by focusing on individuals traits,
characteristics of the situations and behavioral styles. It is
a bit curious that only these few theories and models have
dominated the research within this eld (cf. Bass &
Stogdill, 1990, p. 37), considering the large differences in
how people understand and dene leadership (see, e.g.,
Yukl, 2002).
An important theoretical distinction is the difference
between management and leadership. Management is
focused primarily on maintaining patterns of successful
actions (routines), while leadership is focused on develop-
ing new patterns of actions (Barker, 1997). In the study of
businesses like the hospitality industry, however, it can be
difcult to divide the functions of leaders versus managers
simply because managers are generally supposed to carry
out leadership and are given the means to do so. However,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 662
as Bass and Stogdill (1990, p. 383) note, a manager is not
necessarily a leader, which opens up for others, informally,
to take on leader roles. Nevertheless, according to the
traditional view of formal leadership and a leaders role vis-
a` -vis those of his or her subordinates, the leader/manager is
the one who takes responsibility for the destinies of others
(McGregor, 1960), including the importance of reducing
any disturbances in the subordinates executions of
routines. Thus, managers should reduce stimuli that could
have such an effect (Thompson, 1967). A review of
empirical knowledge, however, demonstrates how difcult
this is: studies from the mid-1950s to the present routinely
show that 6075% of employees in any organization and in
any occupational group report that their immediate
supervisor represents the dominant factor among factors
hindering them from doing a good job (Hogan, Curphy, &
Hogan, 1994). Generally, it is well documented that
managers and work environments have a great effect on
employees motivation (see, e.g., review in Ross & Boles,
1994).
The quite limited research into leadership within the
hospitality industry has mainly revealed that such a
leadership is important and necessary (see review in
Pittaway, Carmouche, & Chell, 1998). Because of the large
and well-documented change in the industrys environ-
ment, there is a need for better leadership. A reasonable
assumption, however, is that large parts of the hospitality
industry 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 that
managers in some US hotels appreciated a participative
leadership style, but were inclined to use a more
authoritative style. More recently, Mok, Pine, and Pizam
(1998) also found that Chinese managers were autocratic
and 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 than
transactional leadership. The transformational leader is
characterized by the ability to inuence subordinates
attitudes and assumptions, and by building a commitment
for the organizations mission (Yukl, 2002, p. 204). The
transactional leader bases his or her leadership on
contingent exchanges of valued resources for the subordi-
nates support (Bass, 1995). Other important elements of
transactional leadership are management by exception,
that is, exercise control, implement corrective actions if
routines deviate and prescribe routines or exercise a more
passive form by intervening only when problems become
serious. This type of management will always include
rulemaking to govern the behavior of subordinates (Bass,
1997). Theoretically, transformational and transactional
leaderships have been closely associated with organic and
mechanistic organization structure, respectively. These
observations were supported by Pillai and Meindl (1998),
who investigated 101 work units of US governmental
health agencies and found that members of the units
perceived their leaders as more charismatic when the
structure was organic and more collectivist oriented.
Burns (1978) described these types of leadership as
polars, but Bass (1985) postulated that leaders could be
both transformational and transactional. Such a combina-
tion of apparently contrasting claims was identied among
middle managers in restaurants (Ogaard, Larsen, &
Marnburg, 2005), where the middle managers expressed
preferences for an organic work environment and more
straightforward rules to follow. In general, some evidence
suggests that parts of the transactional leadership princi-
ples, that is, the contingent rewards, are positively
correlated to transformational leadership (see review in
Judge & Bono, 2000). Lord, Brown, Harvey, and Hall
(2001) point out the most reasonable argument that
context is of importance when leadership principles are
chosen. However, studies of the effect of leaders and
cultures on subordinates identities (Erez, 1997; Tylor,
1997) have demonstrated that transformational leadership
principally addresses a collective identity (procedural
justice), and transactional leadership addresses an indivi-
dual identity (distributive identity). Both of these identities
are of great importance, and in order to secure both, one
can argue that elements from both transformational
(organic) and transactional (mechanistic) leadership styles
are needed.
2.2. Employees in the hospitality industry
Lord and Levy (1994) point out that Anglo-American
motivational research has focused primarily on choice,
laterally ignoring volitional issues, and thereby limiting our
understanding of effective work performance. Such will
and volition are probably not merely limited to those who
hold a management or supervisory position, but comprise
all employees. If this were true, it would be wise not only to
search for the best method to lead people, but also for
volitional attitudes, values and intentions of employees. In
other words: an understanding of which private purposes
employees generally possess, if the companies are able to
take advantage of them, can promote the effectiveness and
development 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 the
necessary information, authority and resources (Hall,
1980). In a study of hospitality employees in Northern
Australia, Ross (1994a, b) found that the employees needs
for achievement and accomplishment motivation are
predictors of high quality. Studies within the hotel sector
in Scandinavia and the US indicate that employees are very
motivated about their work (Fossum et al., 2004; Gjelsvik,
2002; Zacarelli, 1985), and Ross (1991) reports that
Australian hospitality aspirants have positive attitudes
towards the industry and express vocational intentions in
future jobs. A remarkable anecdotal study from Norway
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 663
(Eide, 2005) elaborates the case of a hotel that was
profoundly mismanaged and how the employees worried
about their company. The employees took silent action and
had a union meeting once a week. In these meetings, they
studied the accounting books, reservation statistics, etc.,
and carried out plans for marketing, happenings, rates,
personnel plans and other activities. During the week, they
suggested these plans bit-by-bit to the management which
in turn, was appreciative of such suggestions and of the fact
that 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 have
worked in a specic hotel for a while due to reduced
learning possibilities. Also, short-term or part-time em-
ployment reduces employees experiences of the learning
climate (Gjelsvik, 2002). Gjelsvik concludes that more
long-term planning and long-term employment with career
opportunities appear to be conditions for a good learning
climate.
Although these referred studies within the hospitality
industry are certainly not conclusive about hospitality
employees intentions, values and motivations, they in-
dicate that the hospitality industry is privileged with a
working force that has a potential for high intrinsic
motivation and an intention of learning and developing
as professionals. However, an appropriate question to ask
is whether the industrys managers are able to make the
best possible use of motivated employees?
2.3. Perspectives and paradoxes in hospitality organizations
Judging or characterizing the degree of organic and/or
mechanistic characteristics in a specic hospitality com-
pany can depend on a persons perspective. Several
empirical studies have proven the difference in perceptions
between managers and their subordinates. Ross (1994a)
investigated quality ideals among 274 Australian hospital-
ity employees and how they perceived their own and
managements ideals. He found that being frank and
genuine dominated in the employees minds, while the
perceived management quality ideals were practical experi-
ence and being apologetic. Ross further notes that the
results might indicate that staffs are more subjectively and
personal-disposition oriented as opposed to management,
which prefers values that are visible and objective. If this is
true, there exists a problem in understanding employees
motivations 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 reason
for the high turnover rate (cf. Ross, 1994a). Based on
empirical data, Zacarelli (1985) argues that managers in the
hospitality industry have systematically misunderstood the
motivation of their subordinates, believing that they were
motivated by external factors such as wages, when the
actual motivation was of a more dispositional and
psychological character. An explorative study of Norwe-
gian restaurant franchisees incentives (Marnburg, Ogaard,
& Larsen, 2004) conrms the importance of psychological
factors when the franchisees had, in contrast to what
should normally be expected, stronger commitment to the
franchisor than the franchisors full-time manager employees.
More recently, the emphasis on the competitive im-
portance of knowledge has actualized the importance of
operational work environments (see, e.g., Toumi, 2002):
the knowledge that gives knowledge-intensive companies
strategic capabilities is mainly of operational nature and
not, as Max Weber assumed, concentrated alone at the top
of the hierarchy. Managements one-sided focus on routine
effectiveness in the hospitality industry is recognized in
industrial macro studies as an explanation of stagnation of
learning processes (Baum & Ingram, 1998; Ingram &
Baum, 1997).
2.4. Effects of organic and mechanistic organization
Our goal is to examine the effects of organic and
mechanistic organizational modes on service workers
responses to their jobs. Ideally, we would have preferred
a wide array of objective and perceptual performance
evaluations, but resource limitations excluded this option.
Instead, we focused on attitudinal measures of individual
outcomes that have been well documented to relate
to actual performance (see for example Harris &
Mossholder, 1996). In particular, we included three job
outcomes: (1) organizational commitment; (2) job satisfac-
tion; and (3) subjective performance evaluation. Although
they are not the only determinants of performance-related
outcomes, organizational commitment and job satisfaction
generally predict performance and turnover (Donavan,
Brown, & Mowen, 2004; Homburg & Stock, 2004; Parker
et al., 2003). And, subjective performance evaluations (i.e.,
employees self-assessments of performance) have been
systematically related to actual performance (see, e.g., van
der Heijden, 2001).
Organizational commitment is the relative strength of an
individuals identication with and involvement in a
particular organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter,
1979). It is characterized by at least three factors: (1) a
willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the
organization; (2) a strong belief in and acceptance of an
organizations goals and values; and (3) a strong desire to
maintain membership in the organization. Commitment
thus represents something beyond mere passive loyalty to
an organization. It involves an active relationship with the
organization such that individuals are willing to give
something of themselves in order to contribute to the
organizations 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 in
a specic company (cf. Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &
Klesh, 1983).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 664
Subjective performance evaluation is a variable that
describes a persons self-reported perception of his or her
own job performance. One might expect that the under-
lying norms for evaluating oneself would be a combination
of individual self-expectations and formal and informal
expectations 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 mechanistic
organic dimension, but is also an outcome variable and
relates to job satisfaction and performance (Locke &
Latham, 1990).
3. Research questions and hypothesis
The main question addressed in this study is whether the
organic and mechanistic aspects of the work environment
is perceived differently by employees and managers, and
what relationships, if any, the degree of organicmecha-
nistic organization perceptions have to individual out-
comes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment
and self-evaluation.
The literature review has suggested that potential and
actual hospitality employees are highly motivated to their
jobs, and express values and attitudes towards service
quality and job performance that indicate they have
personal purposes and intentions of how jobs should best
be performed (Fossum et al., 2004; Gjelsvik, 2002; Ross,
1991, 1994a, b; Zacarelli, 1985). On the other hand, several
researchers have pointed out that managers in the
hospitality industry are inuenced by a traditional concept
of leadership and management (cf., e.g., Pittaway et al.,
1998; Tracey & Hinkin, 1994, 1996), where the leader and
manager does the thinking by structuring and controlling
his or her subordinates, and the subordinates follow
specic instructions and systems given by their superiors.
When discussing this empirical research, both Ross (1994a)
and Zacarelli (1985) note that there are indications that
employees and managers in the hospitality industry can
experience and perceive the work environment differently,
that is, employees in a more subjective manner and
managers in a more objective manner. This implies that
even if managers experience the work environment as
organic, employees who are highly motivated and seeking
to learn will experience that the systems set limits for
executing subjectively based quality standards and perso-
nal and professional development. This implies the
following hypothesis:
H1. Managers in the hotel industry will experience the
companies work environments as more organic than their
subordinates.
There is neither strong theoretical agreement nor
systematic empirical support for the relationships between
organizational modes (organic/mechanistic) and employee
outcomes. However, traditional organizational develop-
ment values suggest that an emphasis on human relations
and open system values is a key for enhancing satisfaction
and fulllment in individuals (Mirvis, 1988).
From these theories, one would expect that a strong
emphasis on organic values would result in greater
individual well-being. This suggestion has been consistently
corroborated in empirical ndings (e.g., Cameron &
Freeman, 1991; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991), which warrants
the following hypotheses:
H2. The degree of organic work environments is positively
associated with job satisfaction, organizational commitment
and a high score on subjective performance evaluation.
Organic and mechanistic organization modes are theore-
tically (Burns, 1978; Burns & Stalker, 1994/1961) and
empirically (Pillai & Meindl, 1998) associated with transfor-
mational and transaction leadership styles. These dimensions
were originally perceived as poles (Burns, 1978). However,
several researchers (e.g., Bass, 1985; Lord et al., 2001) have
noted that combinations are possible, and that the best
form of leadership depends on the situation. Empirically,
the transaction element contingent rewards has been
associated with transformational leadership (see review
in Judge & Bono, 2000). Ogaard et al. (2005) reported that
middle managers in a restaurant chain favored both
organic and mechanistic organization. Erez (1997) and
Tylor (1997), by studying leadership styles and cultures,
respectively, have demonstrated that work environment
modes and leadership styles serve different kinds of
employee identities. This suggests that not only organic
organization, as hypothesized in H2, explains an indivi-
duals well-being and behavior, but that the mechanistic
organization mode might also be positively associated with
personal outcome. Also, if organic and mechanistic
organizational modes serve different kinds of employee
identities, an interactional effect should be expected. This
warrants H3 and H4, as follows:
H3. The degree of mechanistic work environments is
positively associated with job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and a high score on subjective performance
evaluation.
H4. The interaction of a high degree of organic and
mechanistic work environments is positively associated
with job satisfaction, organizational commitment and a
high 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 by
contacting and securing the cooperation of hotel manage-
ment. Another pilot study further indicated that it would be
very difcult to obtain a satisfactorily large and random
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 665
sample of hotels. Norwegian hotels are generally small with a
limited number of employees in management positions and,
quite often, the requested survey of employees would not be
prioritized in the managers daily routines. Industry repre-
sentatives strongly advised us to do a more concentrated
effort, and the nal sampling plan involved three very
heterogeneous hotel chains with independently owned and
operated hotels as well as hotels at two major Norwegian
destinations. The method of selecting hotels chains as a
means for establishing contact with hotel employees has been
used in a number of studies, for example, Hartline and
Ferrell (1996).
4.2. Measures
The data were collected using a pen and pencil
questionnaire. The questions were formulated in a Likert-
like format with an 11-point response scale ranging from
5 (very poor description) to +5 (very good description).
The organic and mechanistic dimensions of organizing
were measured with an adaptation of the competing values
approach (CVA) of Cameron and Freeman (1991) and
Quinn and Spreitzer (1991). Some of the original questions
were slightly reformulated in our study and some were split
into two independent items to improve clarity. Items are
presented in Appendix A.
Job outcomes. In line with Harris and Mossholder
(1996), we measured job satisfaction using two items
adapted from the Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1983): All in all, I am
satised with my job, and I would recommend a good
friend 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 or
attitudinal commitment. In line with Mathieu (1991), we
used the nine positively worded items. Examples of items
used include: For me, this hotel is the best of all possible
organizations for which to work, and I would accept
almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working
for the hotel.
Job performance was measured with two items adapted
from Singh, Verbeke, and Rhoads (1996), where each
employee was asked to evaluate him- or herself in
comparison to co-workers and to hotel industry employees
in general. The items and scale properties are presented in
more detail in Appendix A.
5. Results
5.1. Sample description
The sampling procedure established contact with 54
hotels that agreed to participate in the study. From these
hotels, 734 usable questionnaires were obtained. The
response rate for each hotel ranged between 35% and
100%, with a mean of 62%.
In the nal sample, 65% were females, the mean age was
32, and the respondents had been with the present
employer for an average of 6 years. Seventy-ve percent
reported 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 composite
scores for all variables measured by multiple items. Since the
measures of organizational forms are new, their measurement
properties are more thoroughly evaluated in Appendix B.
Next, we evaluated Hypothesis 1 with a simple analysis of
variance. Results are presented in Table 1.
The results indicate that managers perceive the com-
panys work environment as more organic than their
subordinates. A closer evaluation of the specic differences
reveals that general managers as well as department
managers perceive the environment to be signicantly
more organic than the perceptions of regular employees
(pp.000). The perceptions of general managers are only
marginally signicantly higher on the organic scale than
those of middle managers (pp.051).
Table 1 also indicates that no signicant differences exist
among the perceptions of mechanistic work environments
between different hierarchical levels.
Hypothesis 2 was evaluated with the correlations
displayed in Table 2. The results indicate that job outcomes
are 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 rst
mean-centered to control for colinearity problems. Then,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
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 2.44
N 168 168
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 34.40
Signicance .98 .00
T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 666
the interaction term was computed as the product of the
independent variables (mechanistic organic). Finally, two
regressions were run for each dependent variable. In the
rst regression, the independent variablesmechanistic
and organicwere entered alone. Then, the interaction
term was included and the regression coefcient of the
interaction term was evaluated for signicance. The results
are displayed in Table 3.
Results displayed in Table 3 indicate that organic and
mechanistic organizational environment dimensions interact
signicantly to inuence subjective performance evaluations.
To check for the functional form of the interactions, the
sample was split into four quartiles of the perceptions of
mechanistic environments. Within each quartile, a new
regression was run between organic perceptions and
subjective performance evaluations. The results are displayed
in Table 4, and indicate that only if mechanistic perceptions
are in the highest quartile is there a relationship between
perceptions of organic environment and performance.
6. Discussion
Data from 54 hotels with 734 respondents were analyzed
and tested according to four hypotheses. It was found that
middle managers experienced the work environment as
signicantly more organic than regular employees, and
general managers experience (marginally) a signicantly
more organic work environment than middle managers.
No difference was identied in the experience of degree of
mechanistic work environment among the actor groups.
The analyses revealed a positive and signicant relation-
ship between the experience of both mechanistic and
organic work environment and personal outcome variables
(commitment, subjective performance evaluation and job
satisfaction). Testing interaction effects of experience of
organic and mechanistic work environments indicates a
signicant positive effect on subjective performance
evaluation, but not on commitment and job satisfaction.
A further analysis revealed that only in the highest quartile
of mechanistic perception is there a positive relationship
between perceptions of organic work environments and
subjective performance.
Research into the hospitality industry indicates that
existing hotels within the industry have difculties when it
comes to carrying out innovations (see, e.g., Baum &
Ingram, 1998; Ingram & Baum, 1997). There are also
strong assumptions about a traditional autocratic leader-
ship style within the industry (Mok et al., 1998; Pittaway
et al., 1998; Tracey & Hinkin, 1994; Worsfold, 1989). And,
empirical studies indicate that the industry has a highly
motivated and high quality-oriented human resource base
of 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 of
development, the identied hindrance of development and
potential development resources, which makes research in
hospitality attractive and studying modes of organization
and leadership styles particularly interesting.
Our nding of a positive relationship between organic
organizational modes and personal outcome is certainly
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
Mechanistic
a
.16

.24

.25

Organic
a
.45

.51

.12

Interaction:
mechanistic organic
.04 .03 .11

a
Mechanistic and organic variables have been mean-centered.

pp.01.
Table 4
Regression of organic environment perceptions on subjective performance evaluations in four quartiles of mechanistic environment perceptions
Quartile of mechanistic environment perceptions
1 2 3 4
Lowest mechanistic
environment perceptions
Highest mechanistic
environment perceptions
Signicance of regression .16 .94 .50 .00
Standardized regression coefcient of organic perceptions on
subjective performance evaluation
a
Not signicant Not
signicant
Not
signicant
.33

a
Mechanistic and organic variables have been mean-centered.

pp.01.
T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 667
not surprising and conrms previous research (e.g.,
Cameron & Freeman, 1991; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991).
What is more interesting is that the analyses came up with
a positive and signicant correlation among perceived
mechanistic organizational mode and commitment, job
satisfaction and subjective performance evaluation. Such a
relationship is previously reported from the industry in
Ogaard et al. (2005).
Considering the complexity of the many service elements
that have to be coordinated in hotel operations, it is to be
expected that employees appreciate rules and routines that
dene expectations of other parts of the organization, but
also make the individuals job less ambiguous and more
comprehensible. On the other hand, the employees also
have preferences for organic organization modes that allow
them to carry out more private purposes as well as their
own quality standards. These preferences for rules and
standards, and for few rules and few standards, seem to be
a contradiction.
However, the interaction effect seems to explain some of
the relationship between perceived organic and mechanistic
organizational mode: the signicant interaction was only
found on subjective performance evaluation, and not on
commitment and job satisfaction. Further analyses showed
that the interaction effect appears primarily when the level of
perceived mechanistic organizational mode is high. This
might imply that in the hotel industry, a high level of rules
and regulations is a prerequisite for employees to utilize the
possibilities of organizational modes of organization. It
might appear that only when mechanistic organizational
forms are strong are the employees able to put their
discretion, empowerment and decentralization inherent in
organic organizational modes to good use and get a feeling
that they are doing a good job. At lower levels of mechanistic
forms (less rules and regulations), the employees might be at
a loss as to what to do with the operational freedom allowed
them. Thus, it seems that the employee, to be effective,
simultaneously needs a number of rules and regulations
associated with mechanistic organizational modes to know
what is expected of him or her, and needs the operational
freedom 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 a
rm organizational base along mechanistic organizational
principles and simultaneously secure an organic organiza-
tional form. The two organizational principles of mechan-
istic and organic forms are not opposite poles; rather, they
are complementary, and both are needed for organiza-
tional effectiveness.
The managers in the industry could represent a
hindrance in pursuing such a recommendation. As pointed
out above, the managers are generally considered to be
traditional bureaucrats and autocratic in style. In itself,
mechanistic organizational forms may be benecial as long
as they are combined with organic forms. In this study, we
did however nd that managers consider the work
environment to be more organic than their subordinates
do. This may imply that managers may not do anything
about things they consider okay. In other words: if the
managers perceive a mainly organic organization structure,
they will certainly feel no need to make it more organic. In
todays constantly changing environment and with claims
of continuous changes and innovations, such managers
might be obstacles to development rather than innovation
developers. Thus, managers will slow down the individual
employees opportunity to learn and develop.
The imbalance in perception between managers and
employees within this industry is previously reported several
times in hospitality research concerning service ideals (Ross,
1994a), learning environments (Gjelsvik, 2002), turnover
problems (Fossum et al., 2004), intrinsic/extrinsic motivation
(Zacarelli, 1985) and management styles (Worsfold, 1989).
How serious this issue is compared to business life in general
is not known since no such comparison exists.
6.1. Theoretical and research implications
Dichotomies such as organic/mechanistic organizational
modes and their sister leadership dichotomy, transfor-
mational- and transactional leadership styles, with their
intrinsic normative messages, sound reasonable and are
often easy to exemplify, and therefore have a high level of
surface validity among professionals and scholars. Previous
research as well as the present seem to indicate that these
dichotomies might be too simplistic for a good under-
standing of hospitality industry settings. More specically,
the results of this study clearly show the realm experienced
by hospitality managers: on one hand, they experience their
organization to be signicantly more organic than their
employees do, and, on the other, they clearly perceive the
need for mechanistic structures. One might speculate that
this could be one reason why management in the
hospitality industry is traditional and bureaucratic, that
is, simply because management does not see any need to
change 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 sets
of organizational functions, that is, what is needed in order
to establish collective and individual identities among
employees (Erez, 1997; Tylor, 1997), or what is needed in
order to create and maintain a learning environment that
promotes innovations and development.
6.2. Managerial implications
This study indicates the importance of both organic and
mechanistic organizational structures. Organic structures
are considered important when it comes to employees and
organizations learning, innovations and development.
However, this study strongly indicates the importance of
mechanistic organizational forms for the individuals. In
addition, both this study and previous research indicate
that the hospitality industry might have a general problem
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 668
with their managers, who are characterized by traditional
leadership styles that fail to make the most of the
employees resources. As pointed out above, this study
indicates that the dichotomy of transactional and trans-
formational leadership styles may be an oversimplication
of the challenges hospitality managers face, strategically as
well when running the daily operations. All together, this
implies that the hospitality industry has big challenges
when 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 the
importance of mechanistic organizational forms for the
relationship between organic forms and the employees
perceptions of performance. Future studies should investi-
gate this relationship more closely, and try to establish in
more detail which aspects of mechanistic forms are needed
for the employees to put the freedom and support offered by
organic forms to good use. What kinds of rules, regulations,
goals, feedback, etc. are benecial? And, as evidenced in
other industries, too much mechanistic organization will
result in excessive rules and stiing bureaucracy that will
hamper effectiveness, and there is no reason to believe that
the positive relationship between the mechanistic forms and
employees perceived performance we observed here will be
valid for any amount of mechanistic forms. A very important
question for future research is thus to establish what will be
enough mechanistic forms in hotel management.
In addition, we would like to draw more attention
towards the industrys human resources. Instead of study-
ing which leadership styles give the highest results, or, as in
this study, which organizational mode is associated with
the best outcome, more attention should be given to
employee intentions, standards and service values. We need
more knowledge about substance; we need more knowl-
edge about how to let such private purposes affect the
industrys future development.
Research in organizational structure modes and leader-
ship can be done in many ways. However, results from this
study indicate that more research and understanding of
managers roles and functions in the hospitality industry
seems necessary and needed. The knowledge about
managers in the industry is very scarce and limited, and
more evidence of how things areand whyis needed.
The fact that this study may indicate that normative
recommendations like organic organization and transfor-
mational leadership styles do not seem to be sufcient and
optimal solutions for the hospitality industry.
Appendix A
Items and scale properties of measurements used in the
study (see Table A1).
Appendix B
A closer evaluation of convergent and discriminant
validity of the mechanistic and organic organizational forms.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table A1
Variable No. of items a Items used in measurement
Organizing principle
Organic 11 .88 Sample items:
It is important to discover improvements in the ways we do things.
It is important to test new ideas in our work.
I have full discretion in choosing the means for getting the job done.
I am authorized to correct things that are wrong even if they are outside my responsibility.
In this hotel, there is a strong team spirit.
Mechanistic 14 .82 Sample items:
Our organization puts a lot of emphasis on measuring the results of our work.
In my work, I am very concerned with efciency.
In our organization, there is a heavy emphasis on protability.
There are rules and procedures for my work.
My tasks are clearly dened.
Job outcomes
Job satisfaction 2 .75 Everything considered, I am very satised with my present job.
I would recommend a friend to apply for a job here.
Intentions to stay with the hotel 1 I do not consider leaving this job within the next year.
Job performance 2 .85 Compared to other employees in the hotel industry, I do a good job.
Compared to other employees in this hotel, I do an excellent job.
Commitment 9 .90 Sample items:
I am willing to put in an effort beyond normal for this hotel.
I am proud to be part of this organization.
T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 669
The factor analysis reported in Table B1 indicates that
the items used to measure organic and mechanistic
organizational forms show very good convergent and
discriminant validity. Two items, Mec9 and Org 2, show
slightly less than desirable properties, but since this is an
exploratory application of the measures, we decided to
keep 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.
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 nnes 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
constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences
for leadership perceptions. Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 311338.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 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
Mec12 .528
Mec13 .584
Mec14 .455
Org1 .580
Org2 .634 .432
Org3 .446
Org4 .502
Org5 .553
Org6 .520
Org7 .727
Org8 .799
Org9 .744
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.
T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 670
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
of 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.
Journal of Food, Service and Technology, 5, 2334.
Parker, 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.
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
in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality
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.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. gaard et al. / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 661671 671