Employee Turnover in the Hospitality Indutsry

This article was downloaded by: [Suleyman Demirel Universitesi] Universitesi] On: 14 December 2012, At: 13:16 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: h t t p : / / w w w. w . t a n df d f o nl n l i ne n e . co c o m / l oi o i / w h r h2 h20

Employe mpl oyee e Tur Tur nover nover i n t he Hospit ospit al i t y Indust Indust r y Robin B. Dipi et ro PhD

a

& St even J. Condl y PhD PhD

b

a

Rosen osen Coll Coll ege of Hospit Hospit alit y Management Management , Univers Univ ersit it y of Centr al Flori da, Orl ando, FL, 32816-1450, USA b

College of Educat Educat ion, Universit Universit y of Centr al Flori Flori da, Orlando, FL, 32816-1250, USA Version of record first published: 25 Sep 2008.

To cit e t his ar t icle: Robin B. Dipi et ro PhD & St even J. Condl y PhD PhD (2007): (2007): Em pl oyee Turnover in t he Hospit Hospit alit y Indust Indust ry, ry, Journal of Human Res Resources ources in Hos Hospit alit y & Tourism, ourism, 6:1, 1-22 To link t o thi s art icle: htt p:/ / dx.doi.org dx.doi.org// 10 10.130 .1300/ 0/ J1 J171 71v0 v06n 6n01 01_0 _011

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ter ttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsmsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private p rivate study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

2 1 0 2 r e b m e c e D 4 1 6 1 : 3 1 t a ] i s e t i s r e v i n U l e r i m e D n a m y e l u S [ y b d e d a o l n w o D


Employee Turnover in the Hospitality Industry: An Analysis Based on the CANE Model of Motivation Robin B. DiPietro Steven J. Condly

Employee turnover is reaching crisis proportions for many organizations who struggle to maintain proper staffing levels in a tight labor market (Wilson, 2000). Turnover has been a measure of performance in organizations that is expensive in terms of financial and operational effectiveness. The current study used the Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model of motivation (Clark, 1998, 1999) to determine if levels of motivated thinking and behavior, indexed as choice, persistence, and effort, and influenced by self-efficacy, support, emotion, and task value, impacted employee turnover rates in the hotel and quick service restaurant segments of the hospitality industry. Using regression analysis, it was determined that the motivation component of the CANE model was a statistically significant variable when analyzing turnover in the current study. Over 96% of the variation in turnover of the 22 worksites analyzed was explained by the components of the motivation model. This research is important to industry practitioners as well ABSTRACT.

Robin B. DiPietro, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-1450 (E-mail: dipietro@ mail.ucf.edu). Steven J. Condly, PhD, is Assistant Professor, College of Education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-1250 (E-mail: [email protected]). Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 6(1) 2007 Available online at http://jhrht.haworthpress.com © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1300/J171v06n01_01

1

2


JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM

as academics to help predict and lower turnover in various segments of the hospitality industry. Implications for practice are discussed regarding the components of the CANE model of motivation. doi:10.1300/ J171v06n01_01 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Motivation, hospitality industry, hotel industry, quick service restaurant industry, turnover KEYWORDS.

INTRODUCTION

Human performance technology refers to “a powerful collection of techniques, procedures, and approaches intended to solve problems involving human performance” (Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999, p. xii). As specified by Keller (1999), any individual, in order to perform a task, must have adequate ability or knowledge, be motivated, and have opportunity. Organizations can give training to individuals to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to perform a task. They can also create the culture that gives individuals permission and support for task performance. The component of the human performance technology theory that eludes most organizations is how to properly influence the internal motivation of an individual employee. Research has shown that managers can help to motivate their employees, but they need to be cognizant of the fact that the desire to do the job must be internally driven by each individual employee (Simons, 1995). That is, while managers have direct influence on externalities (such as permitting music to be played or not, the giving of verbal encouragement or criticism, or saying nothing at all), employees internalize the messages associated with permission, praise, criticism, and the like, and then think and act accordingly (Clark & Estes, 2002; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan (1994) provided supporting evidence when they found that only about 30% of line managers are able to adequately motivate the people who report to them. Through their research, they have found that motivation accounts for about half of all performance results. This means that motivation is a critical factor in the ability of organizations to achieve positive performance results and 70% of managers cannot find ways to motivate their employees to help achieve these goals. Knowing that motivation influences organizational performance, managers should work to find ways to motivate their hourly employees to improve the total motivation and performance of the organization.

Robin B. DiPietro and Steven J. Condly


3

The present study analyzes motivation based on a model of motivation that is synthetic in nature; that is, the model identifies the constructs that have a demonstrated effect on motivated behavior and on performance. The outcome or dependent variable of interest is employee turnover, a phenomenon that has long been of interest in the hospitality industry (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000). Hospitality organizations have a disproportionate rate of employee turnover relative to other service organizations. Iverson and Deery (1997) found that one of the most significant explanations for high turnover in the hospitality industry is the “turnover culture” that prevails in many organizations. This phenomenon relates to the fact that many organizations just accept turnover as part of the workplace culture rather than trying to take steps to resolve it. Many hospitality organizations expect high turnover and dissatisfaction to occur because of the nature of the business, the demographics of the employees that work in the industry, and the lower pay associated with the hospitality industry (Heskett, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997). Clark and Estes (2002) suggest that employee turnover may not be purely a function of remuneration but rather of employee motivation. If so, then the implications for management are clear and demanding; management will have to consider how best to create conditions and provide information that will result in improved motivation if they wish to lower employee turnover.

BACKGROUND

Motivation as a component in human performance has been studied in various work settings and has evolved from earlier theoretical foundations of researchers such as Maslow (1943), Herzberg (1968), and McClelland (1961). Maslow’s (1943) motivational model determined that humans were motivated by a desire to fulfill a hierarchy of needs that ranged from lower order needs (such as a need for safety) to higher order needs (such as self-actualization). Herzberg (1968) classified these lower order needs as hygiene factors that did not intrinsically motivate a person, but could demotivate them if they were not met. Herzberg further classified the higher order needs as motivational factors that could determine the effort and persistence that went into accomplishing goals. McClelland’s (1961) research focused only on the higher order needs and the intensity with which these needs were shown in individuals’ interactions with others. More recent research regarding motivation such as goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1984, 2002) and the job characteristics model (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975; Hackman & Oldham, 1976) more closely match the theoretical underpinnings of the Clark and Estes (2002) research on

4



motivation. The goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1984, 2002) posits that conscious goals affect action by people. It distinguishes between higher goals which lead to greater effort and persistence, and lower goals which lead to less effort and persistence on a task. It also posits that people with high self-efficacy are more likely to create strategies to accomplish goals and therefore these people have a higher level of success with goal accomplishment. The job characteristics model builds on and complements the Herzberg (1968) research by determining that people have various psychological states that are critical in determining how much motivation and personal satisfaction that they have on the job (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The components that need to be present to help with the intrinsic motivation of a person are experienced meaningfulness in the job, experienced responsibility for the job that they perform, and knowledge of the results. A person must feel that their work is worthwhile in order for them to commit much effort into the job, and the job must fit into the system of values that they hold. They must also feel some sense of personal responsibility for the work that they do and that they are accountable for the work that they get done. Finally, a person must be able to get regular feedback about the work they do in order to be able to determine whether the outcomes of the work are worthy of the effort put forth in the job (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The first synthetic model of motivation was Ford’s (1992) Motivational Systems Theory (MST). Ford culled the existing research literature on human motivation and identified constructs that, while sometimes called by different names, were nevertheless considered by researchers in general to be important to human motivation. He concluded that motivation was a function of three primary factors: personal agency beliefs, emotions, and goals (see Figure 1). MST argues that motivation cannot exist apart from non-zero levels of the three predictors. In other words, to be motivated, one must at least minimally believe that one is capable, not feel nothing about the task, and have the task as part of one’s goal structure. Clark’s (1998, 1999) Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model (see Figure 2) represents an adjustment and extension of Ford’s (1992) MST. Essentially, Clark (1998, 1999) made three changes. First, Motivation was theorized to be indicated by Choice, Persistence, and Effort, with the first two comprising Goal Commitment. Additionally, he hypothesized that only SelfFIGURE 1. MST Model of Motivation Personal Agency Beliefs x Emotions x Goals = Motivation


5

FIGURE 2. CANE Model of Motivation 2 1 0 2 r e b m e c e D 4 1 6 1 : 3 1 t a ] i s e t i s r e v i n U l e r i m e D n a m y e l u S [ y b d e d a o l n w o D

Personal Agency x -Self-Efficacy -Supportt Self-efficacy

Emotion

x

Task Value -Importance -Interest -Utility

Goal Commitment -Choice - Persistence

Mental Effort

Efficacy influences Effort, while a host of factors influence Goal Commitment. Second, Personal Agency Beliefs included not just self-efficacy, but support perceptions as well. And third, Task Values replaced Goals as a predictor because Clark reasoned that values underlie all goals. The CANE model takes components of these motivational theories, builds upon them and finds that motivation influences three critical areas with regard to work performance (Clark, 1998; Clark & Estes, 2002; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Motivation determines whether an individual works toward a goal in the first place. The level of motivation then determines whether an individual will persist at a goal until it is complete, and finally it determines how much mental effort an individual puts into the goal that they have chosen (Clark & Estes, 2002). These three indices of motivated behavior are choice, persistence, and effort. These combined factors, as implemented by individuals, will influence the overall ability of an organization to attain performance goals. The hospitality industry is very labor intensive and as such it relies on the performance and motivation of its employees to ensure success. The hospitality industry is one of the world’s largest employers generating over 7.2 million jobs in travel-related employment in the United States (U.S.) alone (Travel Industry Association of America, 2002) and over 12 million jobs in the U.S. restaurant industry (National Restaurant Association, 2003).The hospitality industry is a field that experiences a disproportionate amount of turnover in the hourly employee and management ranks when compared with other service industries. Despite the current downturn in the economy, annual turnover rates in some segments of the hospitality industry continue to exceed 100% (Ricci & Milman, 2002). The average turnover rate of hotel hourly employees is estimated to be between 60 and 300% (Foley, 1996; Woods, Heck, & Sciarini, 1998). According to a recent study of more than 70 high profile restaurant chains, the average turnover rate for hourly employees in the restaurant industry has been reported to be 104% and the average turnover rate for managers is reported to be 25% (Berta, 2003). Many hospitality organizations accept turnover as a part of the cost of doing business (Prewitt, 2000). They continue to use resources to hire more people,

6



but fail to put many of these resources toward minimizing or eliminating turnover in the hourly employee and management ranks. This is not a cost-effective strategy because of the lost money invested up front in hiring and training new employees, as well as the potential lost customers due to the decreased operational performance caused by lack of experience in the staffing ranks. Woods and Macauly (1989) estimated turnover costs to a hospitality employer between $3,000 and $10,000 for each hourly employee that leaves an organization. The cost of turnover is great given the financial expenses of recruiting, training, and retaining employees. Additionally, there is an emotional cost manifested by stress in the workplace for existing employees, supervisors, and customers (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000). These high costs of turnover create a need by hospitality practitioners to reduce voluntary, dysfunctional, and avoidable turnover and improve the retention rates of hourly employees in their organizations (Pizam & Ellis, 1999). By determining how motivation impacts the turnover in hospitality organizations, the industry can start looking at how they are helping or hurting the motivation of their employees. Heskett, Sasser, and Schlesinger (1997) have developed a model of customer satisfaction referred to as the “service profit chain.” This model describes how essential it is to ensure that employee satisfaction and motivation come before customer satisfaction, which then leads to an increase in improved profits. Through this “service profit chain” it is evident that it is critical to hire and keep “winners” in a service organization, rather than constantly working through the hiring circle of recruiting, interviewing, hiring, and training. The first component of the model is the assertion that profits are founded on a strong customer service base. This customer service and satisfaction is achieved through effective, well-motivated service people. It has also been shown through research that by providing employees with a job that they en joy and can feel motivated in, good customer service will be a result. Studies done on hotel hourly employees (Ricci & Milman, 2002) and attraction industry hourly employees (Milman, 2003) have shown that the most significant predictors of retention were factors that were not pay based but were more emotive in nature. Intrinsic motivators and good work environment were two of the factors more likely to predict retention than monetary or other remunerative rewards.

MOTIVATION MODEL

The survey instrument that was developed for the current research was based on the CANE model of motivation (Clark, 1998, 1999). The CANE model posits two interlinked processes: commitment to the goal (which causes



7

sustained goal pursuit), and the amount and quality of mental effort required in the pursuit of the goal. These two processes work together in order to allow goals to be accomplished by an individual. The necessary effort required for accomplishing a goal and the knowledge of how to accomplish the goal works together to allow the goals to be accomplished. Clark (1998, 1999) developed a scientifically based model of motivation that seeks to explicate those variables which are essential to, and predictive of, motivated behavior. The CANE model of motivation is based on the past research of others (Bandura, 1997; Ford, 1992) and takes into account the three indices of motivated behavior: choice, persistence, and effort. Each of the constructs which comprise the model is defined and briefly explained in the following text.

• Self-efficacy: The self-perceptions about how well a person can cope

• •

•

•

• • •

with situations as they arise. This is one’s perception of ability. Those with high self-efficacy deem themselves capable and confident about performing well at a task (Bandura, 1997). Support : The belief that one will be supported (or at least allowed) to perform tasks in accordance with one’s goals. This is one’s perception of opportunity in the work environment (Clark & Estes, 2002). Emotion: The feelings that are generated in response to environmental stimuli. Emotions predispose people’s actions. All emotions can be broadly categorized as being either positive or negative. Positive emotions tend to produce approach behaviors; negative emotions tend to produce avoidance behaviors (Ekman & Davidson, 1994). Importance: A task is considered important if participation in it is somehow connected with one’s self-schema (or one’s understanding of ones’ self). People tend to commit quite strongly to tasks when they can offer a positive response to the following question: “Is this task me?” (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). Interest : The enjoyment that participation in a task brings. Absent any quid pro quo, people can still commit themselves strongly to tasks (such as hobbies) when the only thing they get out of it is liking it (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). Utility : Performing A in order to secure B. It is the usefulness of the task in relation to attaining a goal (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). Choice : Buy-in, or the first step. This is that actual goal that people have selected; it differs from intention in that it involves some sort of action or response rather than mere thought or words (Clark & Estes, 2002). Persistence: Continued choice in the face of obstacles or options out. This is a time-or quantity-oriented phenomenon; people can continue to engage

8



in a task without necessarily investing much effort. But, generally speaking, when individuals persist, they tend to succeed (Clark & Estes, 2002). • Effort : An energy-based phenomenon. In mental terms, this would involve actual thinking rather than rote performance; in physical terms this would involve the metabolism of glucose. Again, it is possible that individuals can exert great amounts of effort without really persisting, but, generally, when people do exert effort, they increase the likelihood of succeeding on the task (Clark & Estes, 2002). (Some example items from each scale are included in the Appendix). What the CANE model makes clear is that being motivated does not simply magically produce desired results; there are translation mechanisms involved. For example, being confident (having high self-efficacy) will lead to higher or better performance only if the person chooses, persists, or exerts effort to this end. It is this understanding of human motivation that guides the present investigation of the hospitality industry regarding its unacceptably high employee turnover problem. It is going to be critical in the long term that organizations have strategies in place to attract, motivate, and retain their employees in order to have a competitive advantage (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000; Umashankar & Kulkarni, 2002).

METHODOLOGY

This research sought to determine (1) the validity of the CANE model in a hospitality industry setting; and, (2) the relative importance of a variety of motivational variables in terms of their effect on persistence, effort, and turnover in the organization. Implications for business practice will follow from the presentation and discussion of the data and results. A survey was done with a sample of the population from the hospitality industry. There were 22 total job sites which participated in this preliminary study. Three mid-scale hotels contributed 81 surveys (14.9% of total) and 19 quick service restaurants contributed 464 surveys (85.1% of total) for a grand total of 545 responses. A random sample of employees and managers were used from each of these locations. All organizations were located in the southeastern United States. Subjects were not paid for their participation and volunteered to complete the motivation survey. The supervisors in the organizations allowed the participation of employees at the various worksites. Two forms of the survey were developed, one for the quick service restaurants and one for the hotels. They were different only in the adjectives used to describe work performance items. The surveys were also developed both in English and



9

Spanish in order to ensure that all employees and managers of the organizations would be able to complete them accurately. There were 700 surveys that were sent out to the organizations, and 545 were returned for a 78% return rate. The survey was developed from specific items taken from or adapted from previously validated scales. The self-efficacy items were adapted from Eccles and Wigfield (1995); they had a reported reliability of .92. The support items were created by the researchers according to principles developed by Bandura (1997) for the construction of self-efficacy items (a related construct). Emotion was measured using the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) found in Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988); it had a reported reliability of .88 for positive affect and .77 for negative affect (no full-scale reliability was reported). Mood was not measured as it was determined by the researchers that the measurement of emotion was sufficient to capture the nature and effect of “affect” on choice and persistence behaviors. The three task values were measured using Eccles and Wigfield’s (1995) instrument; importance had a reliability of .70, interest had a reliability of .76, and utility had a reliability of .62. Persistence was assessed using an abridged version of the eight-item scale developed by Miller, Green, Montalvo, Ravindran, and Nichols (1996); no reliability was reported in the original article. Effort was measured using Salomon’s (1984) AIME (Amount of Invested Mental Effort) Scale. It consists of three questions and had a reliability of .81. The dependent variable of employee turnover was measured by determining the number of employees who left their employment during the two months that the study was conducted as a percentage of total employees at the worksite. This is a standard measure of turnover percentage used in the hospitality industry. This measure, when used as a performance outcome, gives an organization information about how many employees are leaving their employment, whether dysfunctional or functional turnover, or avoidable or unavoidable turnover. This research is important to the service sector of the economy in general and more specifically to the field of hospitality because of the importance of the relationship between emotions and how people feel about the work they do and customer satisfaction in these sectors of the economy. There is increasing recognition that effectiveness and customer satisfaction in the service sector is strongly related to the emotion and motivation of the person providing the service (Heskett, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997; Waryszak & King, 2001).

RESULTS

The demographics for the respondents were primarily females (57.8%) versus male (40.36%), with 10 surveys missing data for that variable. The average

10



age for the respondents was 26.8 with a standard deviation of 11.97 (n = 545). This did not include the Spanish speakers as their age was not given as a continuous variable on the survey form, but as a categorical variable. The average years on the job were 2.4 with a standard deviation of 3.78 (n = 545). The survey language was 511 English and 34 Spanish, and the surveys came from restaurants (85.13%) and hotels (14.86%). Of the 545 surveys, 446 came from hourly employees and 84 from salaried managers, with 15 missing data. Overall, the various subscales were of at least adequate reliability (Table 1) . Nevertheless there were two notable exceptions. One, the Importance subscale never broke the necessary .6000 level, even with the deletion of any of the three items (often the deletion of an item can raise the reliability to an acceptable level). However, it did not have a deleterious effect on full-scale Task Value. Effort also did not reach significance, and there was likewise no benefit in the deletion of any of the three items. However, when added into the mix with the five Persistence items, a new outcome variable (Goal Commitment) did have acceptable reliability. Problems are inherent with both constructs (Importance and Effort). The former relates to how a task is perceived to be part of a person’s self-schema, and that idea is very difficult to translate into a readily understood survey item. The latter has a demonstrated history of problems associated with individuals falsely reporting actual effort expenditures (see Salomon, 1984, and Clark & Estes 2002, for discussions). The items were included because it obviously TABLE 1. Scale Reliabilities Construct

Number of items

Reliability

Self-efficacy

5

.7937

Support

5

.8416

Emotion

10

.8539

Negative

5

.8024

Positive

5

.8742

Task Value

9

.8502

Importance

3

.5644

Interest

3

.8490

Utility

3

.7793

Persistence

5

.6188

Effort

3

.5663

GC*`

8

.6356

*GC: Goal Commitment



11

could not be known ahead of time that the subscales would fail to attain adequate reliability. Future work will have to refine the subscales. Correlations of motivation predictor variables (such as self-efficacy) and motivation outcome variables (such as persistence) are all significant at the .05 level, and some are quite strong. Approximately 95% of the variance in employee persistence is explained by the variables specified by the CANE model, providing evidence that employee goal commitment is very largely a function of people’s perceptions of their capabilities, the emotions they feel at work, and the value that they have for work tasks. Clark’s (1998, 1999) CANE model specifies that only self-efficacy has a direct influence on effort, but the present research obtained significant effects for the other predictor variables (89% of variance explained). When the three Effort items were added to the five Persistence items, the motivation predictor variables explained 94% of the variation in the new construct Goal Commitment. Motivation was a strong influence on employee turnover. The employee turnover percentage was calculated and reported by the organization for the months that the study was conducted. The individual constructs vary in terms of their effect on turnover, but, when aggregated, they explain over 96% of the variance in the turnover percent in the organizations. The assertion of Clark and Estes (2002) would seem to be validated. However, it is not clear from the research which comes first. Do people with higher motivation turn over less, or do organizations that have lower turnover encourage higher motivation in the people that work there? Another way to look at the relationship between motivation and turnover is to consider the effect size of the score differences between high- and low-turnover worksites. In order to determine high- and low-turnover worksites, the researcher calculated turnover percent and then simply divided the 22 worksites ranked by turnover and split them in half. Effect sizes are mostly moderate to large and in the expected direction. Low-turnover worksites are characterized by persistent and effortful behavior on the part of employees who are efficacious, agentic, emotionally pleased by and in their work, and who report high levels of value for that work.

DISCUSSION

The CANE model would appear to be a valid model for use in studying, and in guiding the study of, workplace performance. Internally consistent (see Tables 2 and 3), and externally predictive (see Tables 4-6), the CANE model seems to go far into capturing those motivational elements that have an effect on choice, persistence, and effortful behaviors. This is not surprising as the

12


TABLE 2. Internal Validity of CANE Model 2 1 0 2 r e b m e c e D 4 1 6 1 : 3 1 t a ] i s e t i s r e v i n U l e r i m e D n a m y e l u S [ y b d e d a o l n w o D

Measure Self-efficacy Support Emotion Emotion negative Emotion positive Task Value Importance Interest Utility

r With Persistence

r With Effort

r With Persis-Effort

.501 .255 .376 .299 .212 .355 .481 .238 .165

.330 .380 .291 .160 .319 .442 .419 .388 .321

.546 .382 .435 .433 .315 .474 .573 .372 .282

All correlations were significant (p Յ .05).

TABLE 3. Regressions 2

R

R

Persistence .977 Effort .943 Persistence-Effort .968

Adjusted Std. Error 2 R of Estimate

2

R F Change Change

df1

df2 Sig. F Change

.954

.840

.5710474

.954

8.363

15

6

.008

.889

.611

.4263365

.889

3.194

15

6

.080

.936

.777

.8177585

.936

5.877

15

6

.019

Predictors: (Constant), Utility; Self-Efficacy proxy; Emotion negative; Support; Importance proxy; Emotion positive; Self-efficacy; Importance; Support proxy; Utility proxy; Emotion proxy; Interest; Interest proxy; Emotion; Task Value.

TABLE 4. Correlations of Motivation with Turnover Measure Self-Efficacy Support Emotion Negative Positive Task Value Importance Interest Utility Persistence Effort GC* *Goal Commitment

2

r

r

.271 Ϫ.457 Ϫ.297 .150 Ϫ.316 Ϫ.456 Ϫ.595 Ϫ.351 Ϫ.397 Ϫ.231 Ϫ.602 Ϫ.440

.073 .209 .088 .023 .100 .208 .354 .123 .158 .053 .362 .194

Ϫ


13

TABLE 5. Regression on Turnover 2 1 0 2 r e b m e c e D 4 1 6 1 : 3 1 t a ] i s e t i s r e v i n U l e r i m e D n a m y e l u S [ y b d e d a o l n w o D

R

R

.980

2

.961

Adjusted Std. Error 2 R of Estimate .739

27.47170

2

R F Change Change .961

4.334

df1

df2

Sig. F Change

17

3

.126

Predictors: (Constant), Utility; Persistence; Emotion negative; Effort; Support; Importance proxy; Self-efficacy proxy; Emotion positive; Importance; Support proxy; Self-efficacy; Utility proxy; Interest; Emotion proxy; Interest proxy; Emotion; Task Value.

TABLE 6. Effect Size of Differences Between High- and Low-Turnover Worksites Measure Turnover (%) Self-efficacy Support Emotion Emotion negative Emotion positive Task Value Importance Interest Utility Persistence Effort Goal Commitment

Turnover

n

Mean

Std. Dev. p-value

High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low

11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

170.36 90.93 20.8544 21.1311 17.9992 19.1789 37.3130 38.0722 20.6558 20.8396 16.6645 17.2931 33.4591 35.1483 12.1836 12.7774 11.0733 11.5828 10.1841 10.7872 19.9415 20.5888 11.5897 12.0309 31.4426 32.6018

28.560 43.030 1.1925 .6413 1.7255 1.2052 1.9185 2.8484 1.3397 2.0342 1.0607 1.6730 2.2544 3.2042 .6925 .6076 .7332 1.2102 .9444 1.5015 1.4746 1.3716 .4795 .8018 1.5782 1.7512

Cohen’s d

.000

2.1976

.506

.2890

.078

.7927

.472

.3127

.805

.1067

.305

.4487

.168

.6097

.045

.9114

.246

.5093

.273

.4808

.299

.4545

.133

.6677

.119

.6954

14



CANE model is a synthetic model; that is, it incorporated those variables (such as self-efficacy) that have a demonstrated history of effect on a variety of outcomes. It would have been quite surprising to discover that perceptions of capability, affect, and task value all had only a weak relationship with persistence (and, by extension, turnover). While the CANE model posits that only self-efficacy has an effect on mental effort expenditures, the present research demonstrated that all three classes of variables influenced effort (see Table 2). Clark and Estes (2002) admit that it is quite difficult to measure mental effort. An additional problem is that, in experimental situations, subjects often report task difficulty perceptions, not their actual effort expenditures. In fact, to most individuals, being persistent is being effortful; the two are barely distinguished. This, coupled with the fact that the effort being reported in the present study was not limited to mental effort, leads the researchers to conclude that the Effort items were simply related to Goal Commitment in the same manner as the Persistence items. Thus, there was reason to combine the items into a new construct (Goal Commitment). Further and more specific research will have to be conducted to determine whether the CANE model’s original assertion of the isolated influence of self-efficacy on mental effort is valid or not. The effect sizes listed in Table 6 would lead one to conclude that Support is most important when it comes to explaining employee turnover. Self-efficacy was tied with Utility for least important variables while Emotion, Importance, and Interest (and full-scale Task Value) were in between the two extremes. It seems reasonable that Support should matter the most in explaining employee turnover as it is the most externally focused of the motivational constructs. Self-efficacy deals with one’s perceptions of his or her ability to perform a task (Do I have what it takes to do this?); Emotion is personal as well (How do I feel about this task?). The same can be said of any of the task values; they all relate to the value that one has for engaging in a task. As such, a reasonable person would expect the average employee to be at least moderately efficacious, feel moderately happy about their job, and have some minimal value for their work. The motivational construct which is least in an employee’s control is Support. When an employee perceives the environment to be unsupportive, that employee’s support perception is weakened, and, as a result, levels of work commitment decline. Ultimately, the employee decides to leave, concluding that they are not allowed to be as effective as they “know” they can be. In order to help improve perceptions of the motivational constructs for employees, the Hackman and Oldham (1976) motivation theory presents several ways that employers can help create a more positive environment for motiva tion. Giving an employee more task variety at work may help them find more



15

value to their job. Having more task identity by allowing the employee to see a task through to completion will help them discover more of their value in the organization. Also by giving an employee more feedback on their tasks and accomplishments will help them to possibly find links between the job and the core values that the employees hold (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). These factors could improve the level of self-efficacy and task value and importance, and improve the overall motivation level of the employee. This, in turn, could help decrease the desire to turnover in an organization. In contrast to the myriad studies that demonstrate a powerful influence of self-efficacy on human performance, the present research suggests that, at the workplace, efficacy differences between high- and low-turnover groups (and, by presumption, high- and low-performance groups) are not all that large. Again, this is reasonable as one would expect an individual hired to perform a certain task or collection of tasks to be reasonably confident in their ability to perform those tasks. Additionally, worksites provide specialized training to ensure that employees have the knowledge needed to carry out their duties. It seems as if support, not self-efficacy, is the real issue at the modern hospitality industry worksite. Of the task values, Utility has the weakest effect. This is to be expected as even the most unhappy or lackadaisical employee gets paid for their efforts; thus, there is a rather high minimal level of utility for the job. Interest differences are moderate and in the expected direction (one would expect higher levels of job interest to be associated with lower turnover rates). Again, even in today’s economy, most individuals choose jobs with at least some mind toward their own interests. The largest effect size difference was for Importance. High turnover was associated with lower levels of importance. To the degree that a job (and the tasks and duties associated with the job) is part of an employee’s self-definition or self-understanding, to the degree that an employee can gain personal validation from a job, that employee commits to the job. This and the above-mentioned findings have implications for the selection of intervention techniques. IMPLICATIONS

Employers have good reason to consider these predictor variables and to take them seriously. Inefficacious employees, for example, are not merely dissatisfied; they do not persist, do not exert enough effort, and generally are less likely to remain on the job. In other words, there are real consequences that ensue

16



from employee motivation. So what is an employer to do? Each of the major predictor variables will be discussed with recommendations for corrective action. Whether their perceptions are accurate or not, employees who perceive their work conditions to be unfair and/or unreliable will withdraw, retreat, protest, and possibly quit. Support is the perception that the environment is permissive and supportive. Employees who lack a positive sense of support need evidence that the system is there to help them be effective. If, in fact, the employee’s negative perceptions are correct, then management needs to adjust the system to ensure that employees are receiving the kind of support and assistance they need to do their jobs well. Even if the employees’ perceptions are incorrect, management needs to work with the employee to discover where the gaps in perception and reality are. Until the gaps are resolved, employees will leave the job–either mentally or physically. Regarding task value, the easiest of the three to manipulate is utility. It is almost impossible to argue or command someone into accepting a task as being self-defining (importance); it is easier, but still not easy, to make a task interesting. But employers and managers can do much to provide evidence that task engagement is useful or worth the employee’s while. Targeted incentives are an excellent method for building utility value for work of even a mundane sort (see Condly, Clark, & Stolovitch, 2003, for a discussion). Allowing individual choice regarding tasks (when permissible) often heightens interest. When tasks are being avoided or devalued, often a carefully targeted incentive system can solve the problem in both the short- and long-terms. While it is not possible for a manager to anticipate every stimulus that might anger, frighten, or disgust an employee, the general work environment ought to be emotionally satisfying. When negative emotions do arise, it is useless to argue against them. Emotions are biological responses to perceived stimuli. They cannot be wrong; the perception of the cause might be erroneous, but the emotion itself is not subject to such analysis. When negative emotions do arise, employers need to take corrective steps (negative emotions produce avoidance behaviors, and if employees perceive work conditions or tasks to be the cause of their negative emotions, they will seek to avoid those conditions or tasks). Fortunately, emotions do not last very long, but regardless of how long they do last, a wise manager should allow a little “pressure release” time; once an emotionally distracted employee has calmed down somewhat, they are in a much better position to discuss and reason. The focus of the conversation ought to be on the perceived cause. If the employee’s perceptions are correct, then action needs to be taken to remedy the situation and an apology offered (it is remarkable how much goodwill an honest apology can create); if the employee’s perceptions are incorrect (e.g., there isn’t and



17

never was any plan to make employees pay for parking), then the correct information needs to be offered along with appropriate assurances. Employees who are inefficacious, who believe that they cannot perform tasks, tend to avoid those tasks and persons associated with those tasks. It is generally agreed upon by efficacy researchers that the only way to build effi cacy is to reduce the size and/or complexity of the assigned task. This does not mean assigning only the most menial tasks to individuals who think they’re too incompetent to handle the really important jobs. It means that a large, complex task needs to be broken down into smaller, more manageable chunks, so the inefficacious employee can perceive himself capable relative to what is presently before him. For example, instead of giving an employee one month to balance the company’s books (which might severely reduce efficacy levels for even a marginally proficient bookkeeper), the manager could instead assign sections of the task each week. The outcome would be identical: a complete balancing of all books in one month’s time, but the quality of the results would most assuredly be different (superior in the case of the latter, inferior in the case of the former). If management wants employees to choose tasks, persist at performing them in the face of difficulties, and exert effort in seeing things through, they will have to take steps to ensure that their employees believe they can do the task, are convinced that they are supported in their efforts, are not emotionally distracted, and have some level of value for engaging in task performance. The evidence provided in this research study argues that when motivation levels fall, there are definite negative effects on employee turnover and on other business outcomes. Hospitality practitioners play an important overall role in the motivation level in their organizations by creating supportive environments and situations. There are components of motivation that are internal to the employee, but creating a positive work environment through the use of the aforementioned ways will help to improve overall motivation through choice, persistence, and effort of employees.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

More research needs to be done in order to determine if other business performance measures such as the quality of service provided to guests, speed of service, financial performance measures, cost controls, etc., are impacted by motivation in a similar way as turnover is. It would also be important for future research to determine if various other segments of the hospitality or service sectors of the economy are impacted in the same way regarding motivation and turnover. This research can help practitioners formulate ideas for how to

18



improve the motivation level in their organization, along with improving the turnover rate. In order to compete in the current economy, it is important for organizations to get the most production in a positive way from their employees, managers and work units. The current research will help organizations work with their staff, instead of trying to work around their staff. Motivation levels can be changed and enhanced, and organizations need to be able to objectively measure the motivation in their units and work to provide a better environment in order to help enhance motivation, and thus enhance the business performance of the location. REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: W.H. Freeman. Berta, D. (2003). People Report confab: Wane in hourly workers’ turnover. Nation’s Restaurant News, 37 (46), 16. Clark, R. E. (1998). Motivating performance: Part 1–Diagnosing and solving motivation problems. Performance Improvement , 37 (8), 39-47. Clark, R. E. (1999). The CANE model of motivation to learn and to work: A two-stage process of goal commitment and effort. In J. Lowyck (Ed.), Trends in Corporate Training. Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven Press. Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions . Atlanta: CEP Press. Condly, S. J., Clark, R. E., & Stolovitch, H. D. (2003). The effects of incentives on workplace performance: A meta-analytic review of research studies. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17 (3), 46-63. Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of achievement task values and expectancy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 , 215-225. Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions. New York: Oxford University Press. Foley, R. T. (1996, April). United States lodging industry: The next ten years . Paper presented at the Long Range Planning Committee meeting of the Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Motel Association, April 25, 1996. Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions and personal support beliefs. Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publishing. Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review , 17, 57-71. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance , 16(2), 250-280. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53-62.



19

Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1997). The service profit chain: How leading companies link profit and growth to loyalty, satisfaction, and value . New York: Free Press. Hinkin, T.R., & Tracey, J.B. (2000). The cost of turnover: Putting a price on the learning curve. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly , 41(3), 14-22. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49 (6), 493-504. Iverson, R.D., & Deery, M. (1997). Turnover culture in the hospitality industry. Human Resource Management Journal , 7(4), 71-83. Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivational systems. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology: Improving individual and organizational performance worldwide (2nd ed., pp. 373-394). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass/Pfeiffer. Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works! Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist , 57(9), 705-716. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-379. McClelland, D. C. (1961). Achieving society. New York: The Free Press. Miller, R. B., Green, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 388-422. Milman, A. (2003). Hourly employee retention in small and medium attractions: The Central Florida example. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 22(2003), 17-35. National Restaurant Association (2003). Industry Trends. Retrieved February 14, 2004 from http://www.restaurant.org/research. Prewitt, M. (2000). Studies find operators create employee turnover problem. Nation’s Restaurant News, 34(36), 8. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Pizam, A. & Ellis, T. (1999). Absenteeism and turnover in the hospitality industry. In Lee-Ross, D. (Ed.) HRM in Tourism & Hospitality: International Perspectives on Small to Medium-sized Enterprises (pp. 109-131). London: Cassell. Ricci, P., & Milman, A. (2002). Retention of hourly hotel employees: A look at select hotels in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 1(4), 47-62. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is ‘easy’ and print is ‘tough’: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 , 774-786. Simons, T. (1995). Motivating hotel employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36 (1), 20-27.

20



Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. (2003). Organizational citizenship: A comparison between part-time and full-time service employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44 (1), 33-1. Stolovitch, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (1999). Handbook of human performance technology: Improving individual and organizational performance worldwide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Travel Industry Association of America (2002). Retrieved February 14, 2004 from http://www.tia.org/Travel/EconImpact.asp. Umashankar, V., & Kulkarni, A., (2002). Employee motivation and empowerment in hospitality, rhetoric or reality–some observations from India. Journal of Services Research, 2(1), 31-54. Waryszak, R., & King, B. (2001). Managerial attitudes towards work activities in the hospitality and service industries. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(4/5), 197-203. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 , 1063-1070. Wilson, T. (2000). Brand imaging: Five steps to developing a retention program. ACA News, 43, 44-48. Woods, R.H., Heck, W., & Sciarini, M. (1998). Turnover and diversity in the lodging industry. Washington, D.C.: American Hotel Foundation. Woods, R.H., &Macauly, J.F. (1989). Rx for turnover: Retention programs that work. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly , 30(1), 79-90.

RECEIVED: October 2005 ACCEPTED: December 2005

doi:10.1300/J171v06n01_01



21

APPENDIX Example Items from Each Scale Set A (Self-Efficacy) 1. Compared to other employees, how well do you expect to do on your work performance evaluation? 1

2

3

Much worse

Worse

4

The same

5

Better

Much better

2. How good at performing your job duties are you, overall? 1

2

Not at all good

Not good

3

4

5

Fair

Good

Very good

Set B (Support) 3. I am given adequate time to complete my assigned tasks. 0

1

2

3

4

Never

5

6

7

8

9

Sometimes

10 Always

4. The company supports me in performing routine work tasks. 0

1

2

3

Not at all

4

5

6

7

8

Somewhat

9

10 Completely

Set C (Emotion) (Negative) 5. I felt _____ distressed because of my job requirements today. 1

2

Not at all

A little

3

4

Somewhat

A lot

5 Extremely

6. I felt _____ upset because of my job requirements today. 1

2

Not at all

A little

3 Somewhat

4

5

A lot

Extremely

Set C (Task Value) (Importance) 7. Is the amount of effort it takes to perform your job worthwhile to you? 1

2

Not at all

Not much

3 Neutral

4 Somewhat

5 Very much

8. I feel that it is important to do well at work because it helps guests have a good experience, which is important to me. 1 Strongly disagree

2 Disagree

3

4

5

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

22


APPENDIX (continued) 2 1 0 2 r e b m e c e D 4 1 6 1 : 3 1 t a ] i s e t i s r e v i n U l e r i m e D n a m y e l u S [ y b d e d a o l n w o D

(Interest) 9. In general, I find work _____. 1

2

Very boring

3

Boring

4

Neutral

5

Interesting

Very interesting

10. How much do you like the work stations to which you are assigned? 1

2

Not at all

Not much

3 Neutral

4

5

Somewhat

Very much

(Utility) 11. How useful is doing well at work for your future? 1

2

Not at all

Not much

3 Neutral

4

5

Somewhat

Very much

12. How useful is what you learn from work for your daily life outside of work? 1

2

Not at all

Not much

3 Neutral

4 Somewhat

5 Very much

Set D (Persistence) 13. If I have trouble understanding a part of my job, I have someone retrain me until I understand it. 1 Strongly disagree

2 Disagree

3

4

Neutral

Agree

5 Strongly agree

14. I try to complete my job as fast as possible without making sure guests are happy. 1 Strongly disagree

2 Disagree

3

4

Neutral

Agree

5 Strongly agree

Set F (Mental Effort) 15. How much thinking goes into performing your work assignments daily? 1 None at all

2 Not much

3 Neutral

4 Some

5 A great deal

16. How much did you have to think about your training to perform your work assignments? 1 Not at all

2 Not much

3

4

Neutral

Some

5 A great deal

Employee Turnover in the Hospitality Indutsry

Recommend Documents