Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.61
Subjective performance
evaluation
.29
.22
.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