case study on housekeeping in hotel

Transformative Housekeeping: A Case Study of The Boulders Hotel

by Prince Kumar | Dec 31, 2023

Have you ever stayed at a hotel and wondered what goes on behind the scenes to make your experience seamless and comfortable? The answer often lies within the bustling hive of activity known as housekeeping . In this blog, we’re taking an inside look at an innovative model of housekeeping operations through the lens of “The Boulders – A Prime Hotel in USA,” where a transformative approach to teamwork has revolutionized the guest experience.

Table of Contents

The innovative approach to housekeeping at The Boulders

Breaking away from traditional housekeeping structures, The Boulders Hotel introduced a model that pivots on the formation of self-directed, multicultural teams. These teams, composed of individuals from diverse backgrounds, bring a range of experiences and perspectives to their roles. But what exactly does it mean to have a self-directed team in housekeeping?

Characteristics of self-directed teams

• Autonomy : Team members have the discretion to make decisions on day-to-day operations without constant oversight.
• Collaboration : A focus on working together to achieve common goals and solve problems as they arise.
• Multicultural dynamics : Embracing cultural diversity as a strength that contributes to innovative problem-solving and vibrant team dynamics.

The benefits of teamwork in housekeeping

The Boulders Hotel has seen remarkable improvements in efficiency and guest satisfaction since introducing their team-based approach. Let’s explore the multi-faceted benefits this model has brought to the hotel.

Boosting efficiency and quality

Efficiency isn’t just about speed; it’s also about the quality of work. By pooling their skills and knowledge, housekeeping teams at The Boulders can divide tasks in a way that plays to each member’s strengths, leading to faster completion without compromising on quality.

Enhancing guest satisfaction

When housekeeping operates like a well-oiled machine, guests take notice. Rooms are cleaner, requests are fulfilled quicker, and the overall atmosphere of the hotel improves. Happy teams lead to happy guests, and the numbers speak for themselves—guest satisfaction ratings have soared.

Improving employee morale

A sense of belonging and contribution to a team can drastically improve how employees feel about their work. At The Boulders, team members are empowered, have a clearer understanding of their contribution to the hotel’s success, and report higher job satisfaction.

Challenges of transitioning to a team-based approach

Change is never easy, and The Boulders faced its fair share of obstacles in implementing this new approach to housekeeping.

Overcoming resistance to change

Some employees were accustomed to the old way of doing things and hesitant to adopt a new style of working. It took time, communication, and demonstrated success to win over skeptics.

Adjusting to new roles

Moving to a self-directed team model meant that individuals had to take on more responsibility and learn to trust their judgment. This was a significant shift from relying on direct instructions from supervisors.

Navigating multicultural dynamics

Cultural differences can lead to misunderstandings or clashes in working styles. The Boulders invested in cultural sensitivity training to help teams appreciate and leverage their diversity.

The importance of training in facilitating change

Training played a pivotal role in the successful transition to team-based housekeeping. Let’s delve into the types of training that made a difference.

Developing leadership skills

With self-direction comes a need for leadership within the team. The Boulders provided training to help team members lead without formal authority, encouraging cooperation and shared decision-making.

Building team dynamics

Team-building exercises and workshops helped to forge strong bonds among team members, establishing trust and a shared commitment to excellence.

Enhancing communication

Effective communication is the backbone of any successful team. Training in this area ensured that team members could express ideas, concerns, and solutions effectively, regardless of cultural or language barriers.

The potential for operational effectiveness and an inclusive work environment

The Boulders’ housekeeping model has not only enhanced operational effectiveness but has also fostered a more inclusive work environment.

Benefits to operational effectiveness

With teams working in concert, operational bottlenecks have decreased, resources are utilized more efficiently, and the hotel has seen a reduction in wasted time and effort.

Fostering inclusivity

The multicultural aspect of the teams at The Boulders has created an environment where diversity is not only accepted but celebrated. This inclusivity has rippled out to improve guest experiences as well, with guests from various backgrounds feeling more at home.

The case study of The Boulders Hotel provides a compelling narrative of how innovation in housekeeping can lead to significant improvements in efficiency, satisfaction, and morale. By embracing a self-directed, team-based approach and investing in training, The Boulders has set a new standard for operational excellence in the hospitality industry.

What do you think? Could this model be the future of housekeeping in hotels worldwide? How might the principles of teamwork and diversity apply to other industries? Share your thoughts on how embracing change can lead to transformative results.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

Tourism Operations

1 Understanding Tourism Operations (Inter-Sectoral Linkages)

• Tourism Operations: A Historical Profile
• Inter-Sectoral Linkages
• Elements in Tourism Operations

2 Respecting Resident Concerns in Tourism Operations and Development

• Concern at Planning Stage
• Concern at Post-Planning/Implementation Stage
• Tourism Development Benefits to Residents vis-à-vis Economy

3 Quality Management and Customer Care

• Concept of Quality Management in Services
• Quality Management in Tourism
• Caring for Customers in Tourism

4 Managing Tour Operations – I (In-House Operations and Use of Technology)

• Setting Up A Tour Operation Company
• Management of In-house Operations
• Use of Technology

5 Managing Tour Operations – II (Field Operations – Inbound and Outbound)

• Developing and Managing Linkages with Principal Suppliers
• Managing Recruitment and Trained Manpower
• Inbound Tour Operations
• Outbound Tour Operations
• Managing the Marketing of Tours Packages

6 Managing Tour Operations – III (Managing Distribution)

• Role of Distribution in Exchange Process
• Selling in Tourism Through Distribution Chains
• Logistics in Tour Operations
• Managing Distribution System in Tour Operations

7 Managing a Tour- Escort

• Managing Escort Services
• Considerations for An Escort
• The Preparations
• Managing Special Situations

8 Managing Travel Agency Operations – I (Managing Internal Operations, Technology)

• Travel Agency Operations
• Departmentalisation of an Agency
• Managerial Responsibilities
• Sources of Revenue
• Operational Departmentalisation of an Agency (In-House)

9 Managing Travel Agency Operations – II (Dealing with Principal Suppliers)

• Relationship with Principal Suppliers
• Dealing with Air Travel Providers
• Dealing with Tourist Transport Suppliers
• Relationship with Accommodation Suppliers
• Challenges for Relationship

10 Managing Travel Agency Operations – III (Publicity and Promotions)

• Issues Related to Sales
• Promotional Issues
• Marketing Communications
• Public Relations

11 Managing Hospitality Operations- Organised Sector

• Types of Accommodation in the Organised Sector
• Policy Formulation and Strategies
• Financial Management
• Product Design
• Marketing Management
• Safety and Security
• Organisation of a Hotel

12 Managing Front Office Operations

• Front Office Functions
• Front Office: Organisational Structure
• The Reservation Office
• Check-in Process
• Front Office Accounting
• Check-out Process
• The Electronic Front Office (EFO)

13 Managing House Keeping Operations

• Organisation of Housekeeping Department
• Layout of the Housekeeping Department
• Functions of the Housekeeping Department
• Management of Guest Amenities
• The Boulders – A Prime Hotel in USA: A Case Study

14 Managing Food and Beverages Operations

• Food and Beverage Operations
• Assessment of Market and Consumer Needs
• Food Service Operation System
• Managing Food Service Operations
• Cost Control
• Computer Applications in Food and Beverage Services

15 Managing Hospitality Operations- Unorganised Sector

• Types of Hospitality Organisations
• Features of Services Rendered in This Sector
• Positioning and Promotion in Unorganised Sector
• Pricing Strategies of Unorganised Sector

Share on Mastodon

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

• Sign in to my profile My Profile

Trouble in Hotel Paradise Housekeeping Department: A Case Study

• By: June E. Clarke , Omar Robinson & Cynthia Mayo
• Publisher: International CHRIE
• Publication year: 2018
• Online pub date: January 15, 2020
• Discipline: Leadership Styles , Leadership Theory , Hospitality, Travel & Tourism Management
• DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781529720662
• Contains: Content Partners | Teaching Notes Length: 4,779 words Region: Global Originally Published In: Clarke , J. , Robinson , O. , & Mayo , C. ( 2018 ). Trouble in Hotel Paradise housekeeping department: A case study . Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Cases , 7 (1) , 34 – 41 . Industry: Accommodation Type: Experience case info Organization: fictional/disguised Online ISBN: 9781529720662 Copyright: © 2018 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education (ICHRIE). All rights reserved. More information Less information

Teaching Notes

The case discusses the challenges that the housekeeping department (HK) at Hotel Paradise faced, as well as the interpersonal relationships among the team members. Bradley Spencer was hired to increase productivity, decrease costs and establish the four-star rating of the property. Bradley accepted the position with preconceived decisions and solutions, however, Bradley returned low morale and no change in productivity. Attendance at a Ritz-Carlton workshop with two of the controversial HK supervisors helped Bradley rethink and re-assess to involve the participation of all stakeholders. Implementation of the new processes and a change in the focus of the leaders provided the tools to make a difference in Hotel Paradise.

Introduction to the Case

Guests complaints, reduced occupancy and disgruntled employees all led to the beginning of the four-star Hotel Paradise housekeeping department’s demise, until a new housekeeping manager was hired. There were several challenges that the housekeeping (HK) department at Hotel Paradise was facing. The executive team thought that a new manager, Bradley Spencer, would be the answer to the current challenges. The department was without a manager for over a year. Prior to Bradley Spencer joining the team, one of the department’s two senior supervisors was assigned to be the interim leader. During that time, the services eroded and the department became dysfunctional: hence, the department was unable to meet its required standards. Additionally, conflicts emerged among the supervisors. The staff was not motivated and morale was low; productivity had also declined. Teamwork and camaraderie among the staff were lacking, that negatively impacted the relationship among the team members. Guests’ complaints about the quality of service emerged as occupancy rates tumbled. How could a “destination property with high ratings decline” to hurt tourism dollars?

The new manager, Bradley Spencer, was hired to bring Hotel Paradise HK department from its demise and restore excellent quality standards. His first task was to observe and get “first-hand” knowledge of the critical issues the department was facing. He observed all employees as they performed their assigned duties. After observing the employees and getting a first-hand knowledge of how they execute assigned duties, Bradley Spencer decided to conduct several meetings and discussions. The content of the meetings varied and was determined based on what he saw, what he didn’t see, what employees and customers were experiencing along with the operation’s goals, mission, objectives, and standard operating procedures (SOPs). Subsequently, goals and timelines were established to assist with improving the department’s performance. Using a combination of reflective practices with other personal strengths, the new manager felt that he had the experience, knowledge and motivation to change things in a positive manner. He felt that his work with the supervisors in a retraining process that included updated standard operating procedures would be the answer. Team building and motivational workshops were also organized for the staff. Initially, this led to decreased motivation and the morale went to an all-time low. There were increased call-outs by employees, claiming sickness and other crisis. Bradley felt that, in addition, with coaching and mentoring, the team would be able to transform the department into an award-winning unit.

Bradley Spencer Early Years and Perspectives on Leadership and Management Theories

Early in his management career, Bradley Spencer was hired to lead and transform the operations of the housekeeping department at Hotel Paradise. Hotel Paradise is a luxury, four star, 250 room hotel that sits on a 150-acre property located in the resort town of Ocho Rios, St. Ann, in the Caribbean Island of Jamaica. Hotel Paradise operated above a 93% occupancy, and is known for its quality service. At the time Bradley assumed office, there were four supervisors and 24 Housekeepers who were employed to carry out the daily housekeeping duties. Most of Hotel Paradise employees had been working there since the opening of the hotel, 25 years ago.

Bradley Spencer loved the hospitality and tourism industry, and has been working in it since he graduated from high school. Bradley started out in the industry as an intern and decided that was where he wanted to establish his professional career. He was determined to be successful. Bradley worked very hard and pretty soon he was assigned to management duties. Bradley knew there was no limit to his growth, therefore, when he opted to accept this new position, he was confident that one day he would make it to the level of hotel general manager and fulfill his ultimate career goal.

This leadership position took place very early in Bradley’s professional career. Prior to assuming this leadership role, Bradley Spencer worked as a manager of a small restaurant, preparing and serving lunch and dinner five days a week. As a result, Bradley Spencer had 10 years of experience working in restaurants. Besides his years of experience working in the field, Bradley Spencer graduated from a recognized university in New Hampshire, USA, with a Master’s degree in Organizational Leadership.

When Bradley was hired to take over the housekeeping department, he realized that he needed to take a holistic approach towards the issue at hand. He told the hotel’s executive team that he believed that he was the most suitable person to turn the housekeeping department around. He considered himself a very meticulous person, who is intrinsically motivated, with a determination to succeed. As such, he demanded high standards from his team and ensured that tasks were completed accurately, efficiently and within established deadlines. Bradley realized that it was attainable if he worked hard. Hence, it was important for him to succeed at this task. Based on West (2013), statement, he realized that leaders are held accountable for the success of the organizations that they lead. This propelled him to take on the responsibility and ownership of the project which allowed him to interact intimately with each issue until each was resolved.

Bradley Spencer studied management and leadership theories while in college. He felt that knowledge of the theories and his attitude that he had all the solutions that would make him the best manager ever. Bradley’s knowledge of leadership theories focusing on concepts of leadership styles initially centered around theories of autocratic leadership and democratic leadership. These leadership theories focus on the balance of power between the leader and employees. The autocratic leader makes the decision and tells the employees what they must do. The assumption is that the leader believes s/he has the traits, and know how to solve all problems. On the other hand, the participatory theory/style involves all participants, both internally and externally. Decision making includes the opinions of all, but the final decision is made by the leader, that reflect the consideration and suggestions of all involved. This approach involves the stakeholders who will embrace and follow the decisions to meet shared goals and objectives. Participative leaders adopt a mentorship and facilitative style that employees are empowered and committed and can make decisions within defined boundaries (Rose Ngozi Amanchukwu, Gloria Jones Stanley, Nwachukwu Prince Ololube, 2015).

The Issues Plaguing Hotel Paradise Housekeeping Department

The housekeeping department had been operating without a manager for over a year. One of the two senior supervisors (Harper Douglas) in the department was given the responsibility to lead the department on an interim basis until a suitable manager/leader was identified. The decision to select Harper Douglas over Mary Dawkins resulted in major disagreements and conflicts between both supervisors. Mary Dawkins was of the notion that she should have been given the opportunity to lead the department since she had a longer tenure and she knew how to organize a productive team. Not happy with the decision made by upper level management, Mary decided to take matters into her hand. The first thing she did was to find fault with everything that Harper did. She undermined Harper’s ability to make decisions on behalf of the department, as well as, carry out the department functions appropriately. She also discussed Harper’s management skills with line employees who would care to listen. Mary’s attention was focused on having the housekeeping team to embrace all she said. This attempt was unsuccessful, as some employees actually liked Harper, while some did not care who was leading the department. As a result of her action, Mary lost the respect and support from some of the team members. This incident eventually led to a division among the employees in the housekeeping department. In addition, Mary would show preferences and favoritism by adding overtime to the employees who supported her action.

The situation got to a point where employees were unhappy and morale was at an all-time low. Positive interpersonal relationships among the team members were lacking, coupled with the division in support and the non-existence of teamwork and camaraderie. Additionally, the technical skills of the team members needed improvement as none of the department’s employees had undergone any form of training and development in the last five years. The current SOPs used were obsolete and the supervisors had no idea about the newest and most up-to-date procedures, because none of the supervisors had gone to the yearly conferences that provided training and updated procedures for more than five years.

As a result, various housekeeping functions were not being reinforced, thus, the quality of standards, productivity, and output were low. The relationship between the housekeeping department and other key departments was also negatively impacted. The hotel’s general public areas were dirty and unattractive and the guest rooms were not cleaned and maintained according to established standards. Guest complaints increased drastically. Guests were disappointed with the level of services, which was not reflective of the international advertisements that portrayed a different service level. There was a lack of focus on quality, and a lack of attention to detail. Many of the housekeepers lacked the motivation and skills to clean the rooms to an exceptional level. They felt that the supervision and focus had negatively impacted their performance. In addition, the departmental expenses were 50% over budget each month due to lack of controls, excessive overtime pay and the inefficient use of resources by the employees. However, the supervisors felt that they knew what they needed to know to assure good housekeeping.

Bradley Spencer’s Intervention

After a week of observation, Bradley Spencer the new manager hired to oversee the housekeeping department conducted a series of meetings with the department team members. The first meeting was held with Harper Douglas, the senior supervisor who had the interim leadership position. During the meeting, Bradley provided an overview of his thoughts and opinions on the leadership of the department along with his perception of her performance. Bradley also took the opportunity to point out to the supervisor where he thinks she went wrong and how she could have gained the support and respect of her colleague (fellow supervisor) and ultimately the rest of the team. Bradley Spencer, however, provided his assessments, but did not get Harper Douglas’s perspectives.

Days later, Bradley Spencer held a meeting with the other supervisor, Mary Dawkins. In both meetings, with Harper and Mary, Bradley took the time to discuss his thoughts and opinions with them, as well as, share his perspective on the matter. During this meeting, he also took the opportunity to communicate what the expectations of the department were based on their job description and requirements. The proposed goals for the department were also outlined. He also did not get the perspectives of Mary Dawkins.

Bradley later had a meeting with all the team members, where he discussed the goals of the department in great detail. Timelines were also established for attaining the goals, both short term and long term. Subsequently, a series of follow-up meetings were held with all the team members. During these discussions, Bradley shared with the team members his expectations of them in terms of how they should execute their job functions. He emphasized the fact that each team member must execute assigned roles efficiently and effectively in order to achieve the department goals and objectives. He also shared with the team that he practices and embraces participatory leadership style, yet he provided all of the solutions. Bradley Spencer assured the staff that he was willing to work with each team member in order to assist them in developing their capabilities. His aim was to ensure a high-performance level in both the technical and leadership aspects of their jobs.

The housekeeping staff was also expected to foster greater teamwork and support the senior supervisor in her role and responsibilities. They were also expected to assist in creating a work environment where all employees were willing and motivated to be productive. The final general meeting regarding the issue at hand was held with the employees as a group. The goals and objectives of the department were reiterated and reinforced. Each employee was reminded of specified roles and responsibilities, all related to achieving the department goals and objectives. At this juncture, Bradley Spencer made sure that he solicited each employee’s input and participation in the discussions and the decisions. He came to realize that they were the ones who would have to implement the changes necessary, therefore, their buy-in and support were important. In previous discussions and decision making, Bradley Spencer merely said that he wanted their participation, while he made all of the decisions. He was also not sociable as immediately after he completed each of the meetings, he would dismiss the staff to do their work. There were no exchanges of thoughts among the team.

Subsequent to the meetings, a supervisory skill training workshop was conducted to equip the supervisors in team development and performance of job duties. The skills training workshops were identified as the best option to use in the retraining of the supervisory employees. The purpose was to ensure that the work performed was at a higher standard, and that eventually following the training, the housekeeping department would regain its quality assurance. The standard operating procedures for the departmental tasks were reviewed and with the input of the supervisors’, amendments were made where necessary. This was after the fact that Bradley developed the SOPs without their initially input. While the scheduled training was a good idea, the training was conducted based on old and outdated housekeeping procedures. Bradley Spencer made no effort to ensure that the training was current and relevant.

Employees were also surveyed for their feedback. Besides soliciting word-of-mouth input, an on-the-job satisfaction survey was conducted. The results from the survey revealed that the overall level of job satisfaction from an individual and a team perspective was the same and had not improved. The employees complained that they were told what to do without being allowed to provide some input. They also expressed the desire to learn new and relevant procedures relating to their job. They also asked for a summary of the guests’ comments about housekeeping which they did not receive. As a result, several of the HK staff became rebellious.

Bradley seems to be very positive on paper, hence the HK standards were developed without the input from the supervisors or line employees until after the fact. He thought that the employees and supervisors were very enthusiastic about the improvements he recommended. As a result, he felt that the employees who had not embraced them should be fired. He claims that he strives to see the good in people and in the situation without focusing on the negative. Although some of the team members weren’t convinced of the outcome, Bradley maintained an upbeat and optimistic view, hoping that, eventually, the employees would see the light. He believed in the words of Haslam et al. (2011) who noted that, the gap between a leader and his followers can be closed by exercising fairness at all times. He felt that as a result, each employee would develop a sense of trust and respect for his/her superior. This will eventually lead them to become more committed and dedicated to the attainment of the housekeeping department goal as well as increased output.

Saving Hotel Paradise Housekeeping Department

Hotel Paradise housekeeping employees finally asked to have a meeting with Bradley Spencer, because they thought that the new standards were obsolete. They also had issues with the new cleaning chemicals that they thought were dangerous for them to use, and the fact that some of them were not getting the work hours needed to support their families. Nonetheless, Bradley Spencer felt that the housekeeping department was improving under his leadership. There still was a lack of teamwork and the desire to meet objectives. Bradley felt that his role after the implementation of the new standards was one as a mentor and coach. The employees were told that they could have a meeting with Bradley Spencer, once there was an improvement in occupancy percentage and room revenue.

Bradley Spencer developed and implemented a performance appraisal for each employee. During the appraisal, each employee strengths were highlighted and the areas in which improvements were needed, recommendations were made. Bradley Spencer made it his duty to frequently inform and emphasize to the employees the importance of operating in a fair and consistent manner among each other. In addition, a series of conflict resolution and team-building sessions were conducted to help create a more harmonious and team-driven work environment. The employees felt that during the appraisal process, each of them would get a chance to voice their opinions about the operation and how improvements could be realized. However, Bradley did all of the talking. The normal occupancy rate that had been 95% was now down to an average of 63%. When Bradley realized that the occupancy rate had declined so much, he was disturbed. He soon realized that, yes, he had great ideas, but he needed to do something to engage the employees in order to increase productivity and occupancy.

Bradley Spencer decided to contact managers of other housekeeping departments where the occupancy was high and the hotels had good ratings. He talked to the housekeeping manager of the Ritz Carlton, the hotel company that had won the Malcolm Baldridge Award twice. He explained what he had implemented and felt that his ideas were great and that the employees seemed pleased. He noted that there are guests’ complaints and the occupancy has not increased to the normal level. The manager asked a series of questions to help Bradley assess the real problems of Hotel Paradise. Bradley was told that the problem was perhaps with him and his management style. He was encouraged to attend a special supervisor of housekeeping workshop to be held in two weeks, at the Ritz Carlton Hotel. He was also encouraged to bring as many of his supervisors as he could. Bradley was disappointed that the manager made the suggestion to bring his supervisors. He felt that he should be the one to attend the workshop and bring the information back to the supervisors since he was the superior.

Reluctantly, Bradley approached the general manager of his hotel and asked for funds to attend the suggested workshop for the supervisors and for himself. He admitted that, while he had implemented some changes and was a democratic manager and an innovative leader, things had not improved as they should have. He admitted that the employees had requested a meeting with him, but he had not schedule it as yet. He felt that the employees’ performance appraisals, the training of the supervisors and the review of their goals and objectives were all that was needed for improvement. He informed the general manager that he had not shared guests’ comments with employees, although they had asked to review them.

The general manager approved for Bradley and two of his supervisors to attend the Ritz Carlton housekeepers’ workshop. They attended the workshop and learned about the new process that the Ritz Carlton had implemented regarding cleaning, team development, and employee engagement. They were exposed to many simulations including “how-to” simulations. Each of the supervisor was elated about the seminar as they learned about the new and relevant processes. Each was committed to going back to Hotel Paradise with their new-found knowledge, involving employees and implementing the new processes of housekeeping.

Nevertheless, challenges were experienced throughout the process of turning the housekeeping department around. As a result, the two supervisors who attended the workshop with Bradley were happy that they did, and felt that with the employees’ inputs they could make progress. Nevertheless, the new approach Bradley took to owning and accepting responsibility gave him the courage to see to the completion and success of the project. Bradley’s attitude depicted Lowney (2003) statement which stated that “ingenuity is the willingness to work without a script and to dream up imaginative new approaches to problems that have stymied others” (p. 127). Bradley also realized that as a leader, followers are needed to be successful.

Bradley changed his approach to leadership. He was also able to steer his team in a direction where they could identify where the department went wrong and came up with creative solutions to fix the problem. Each activity’s challenge, solution, and outcome were evaluated by all members of the housekeeping department. Once he involved all team members, he was able to ensure that the department was on the right track. At the end of the process and after successfully achieving the goals established, Bradley reflected on the entire process. He also held regular meetings with his team members so that he could thank each employee individually for their hard work and dedication.

A New Perspective

As a young manager, Bradley Spencer, was grateful that he attended the Ritz Carlton workshop that provided new processes and the special session that was held for managers and leaders, entitled: Lead for Results. He was now able to maintain a daily focus on the goals important to the members of the department. He was no longer myopic in his views or how to adequately lead his new team. He quickly gained the trust of the employees. This allowed him to focus on how the effective running of the housekeeping department fits into the greater whole of the organization and could eventually result in a successful and profitable operation. Bradley was able to allocate the resources necessary to enhance the department and allow it to be more efficient and effective. He worked assiduously to instill a greater sense of attention to detail among the housekeeping staff. Bradley met with his team every morning to discuss the previous day’s activities including what worked well and what did not work. The current day’s activities and how they were to be accomplished, were also discussed.

Bradley was able to draw on the unique qualities and strength that each person possessed, once he realized that the employees had excellent ideas. He maintained continuous observation and dialogue with the employees. In so doing, he also was able to help each individual identify their strengths and weaknesses. This was important as it helps each individual become more cognizant of who they were. In addition, employees made suggestions on how they could make improvements and mitigate their weaknesses. The employees’ unique differences and individual contributions were recognized and celebrated. This boosted their self-esteem and self-assurance and made them feel appreciated and valued. Their intrinsic drive to want to do better and achieve more made them very cooperative and open to accepting new ideas and ways of doing things. While the changes have been made in a positive light, the occupancy rate is still lagging and the guests’ comments are becoming more positive.

However, a few months later, Bradley Spencer beamed with pride and joy as he walked to his office one late afternoon. He pulled his tie from around his neck, grabbed his belongings, and headed out his office door for home. As he walked through the parking lot towards his car, a happy feeling came over him as he smiles and let out a sigh, “today is a beautiful day, Hotel Paradise HK department is on top, camaraderie and team work have been restored, and the employees are embracing change; I think I will drink to that.”

Bradley’s philosophy has always been to lead with love, a genuine care and concern for the well-being of his employees in an inclusive and supportive way. He considered himself to be a democratic leader, who has had a lot of experience and can solve any problem, related to employee issues and department operations. However, Bradley did not practice the processes of a democratic leader initially. According to Robbins and Judge (2013), leaders are considered more effective when they show concern for people and production. Bradley reflected on his growth as a leader since the early age of 22 and how he has managed to balance the well-being of his employees while achieving greater performance and productivity. While the organization exists mainly to achieve its stated goals, Bradley’s perspective is that there should be a high level of job-satisfaction among the organization’s members as they are the most critical component in the production of a good or service. As such, they should never be seen as the means to an end. Over the years, Bradley admits that the Ritz Carlton workshop helped him honed effective leadership skills and create an environment where employees see themselves as valued and have the ability to display effective work habits, and become loyal and trustworthy constituents.

Case Study Questions

One of Hotel Paradise housekeeping department biggest challenges was how to work as a team to accomplish departmental functions, and build a department brand on a trusting relationship among the employees, and supervisors and department manager.

1. Explain how Hotel Paradise housekeeping department could develop as a team, build trusting relationships among its members and create an environment that exemplifies the Hotel Paradise standards.

Ans . The housekeeping department managers and supervisors need understand the value of employees’ input and suggestions. An assessment of how the department reached the level of low productivity and declining occupancy rate. Policies, procedures and updates should be a part of continuous improvement. While the housekeeping department was without a manager, updates and standards should never be neglected. An environment that exemplifies quality standards should start with the general manager. There must be a continuous training and improvement schedule developed and implemented. Changes occur often and guest references change yearly. Therefore, updates are essential.

2. What would be your approach for introducing the new processes and procedures to the housekeeping department?

Ans . Develop standards as an executive team, all employees and guests. Develop processes to maintain the standards; have yearly operating updates planned for all employees. Evaluation of standards on a yearly basis is essential for success.

3. What do you believe are the risks and benefits to Bradley’s processes and procedures?

Ans . Bradley had great ideas, but he felt he could solve the problems, engage the employees his way and felt that all would comply. He considered himself a democratic leader, but his behavior was not democratic. He refused initially to involve his supervisors and the employees. Once he attended the Ritz Carlton workshop, he realizes that supervisors and employees have the answers.

4. How was Bradley Spencer able to get full commitment from the department team members? Discuss some other pointers that you think would have worked just as well.

Ans . Bradley realized that he must include all members of the housekeeping staff.

Attending the workshop with supervisors helped tremendously for Bradley to realize what he must do to succeed.

5. What do you think were the main challenges Bradley had to deal with in terms of rebuilding Hotel Paradise housekeeping department? Elaborate.

Ans . Bradley was hired because Hotel Paradise was experiencing declines in occupancy, guests’ satisfaction and revenue. There were problems in the housekeeping department that indicated that procedures were outdated, guests’ complaints increased, hence hotel revenue decreased. Employees lost focus and were not concentrated on Hotel Paradise’s goals and objectives.

6. In your experience, do you think that the shift Bradley took (once a team attended the Ritz Carlton’s housekeeper’s workshop) towards a better workplace will increase or decrease productivity and build a better work environment for the employees?

Ans . Yes, productivity will increase; occupancy will increase, once employees are engaged in the process. Cleanliness and excellent quality standards are displayed through housekeeping and other hotel staff.

7. Discuss whether Hotel Paradise HK department made full recovery based on the fact that Bradley Spencer beamed with pride and joy as he walked to his office one late afternoon, pulled his tie from around his neck, grabbed his belongings, and headed out his office door for home.

Ans : It seems as if that was the case because as he walked through the parking lot towards his car, a happy feeling came over him, he smiled and let out a sigh. He also went on to say “today is a beautiful day, Hotel Paradise HK department is on top, camaraderie and team work have been restored, and the employees are embracing change; I think I will drink to that.”

This case was prepared for inclusion in Sage Business Cases primarily as a basis for classroom discussion or self-study, and is not meant to illustrate either effective or ineffective management styles. Nothing herein shall be deemed to be an endorsement of any kind. This case is for scholarly, educational, or personal use only within your university, and cannot be forwarded outside the university or used for other commercial purposes.

2024 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

• Sign in/register

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

Sign in to my profile

Please sign into your institution before accessing your profile

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources have to offer.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

• View or download all content my institution has access to.

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources has to offer.

• view my profile
• view my lists

Job satisfaction factors for housekeepers in the hotel industry: a global comparative analysis

International Hospitality Review

ISSN : 2516-8142

Article publication date: 18 December 2020

Issue publication date: 21 June 2021

This study offers a global comparative analysis of variables associated with job satisfaction, specifically work-life balance, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and work relations on job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers.

Design/methodology/approach

The study analyzes these variants across 29 countries using International Social Survey Program data.

Findings indicate significant differences in job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers across countries, lower job satisfaction for hospitality occupations compared to all other occupational categories, lower job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers than employees in other hospitality occupations, and a statistically significant positive impact of some elements of work-life balance, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and coworker relations on job satisfaction.

Originality/value

The hospitality industry is characterized by poor work-life balance, high turnover rates and limited rewards. Hotel housekeepers report lower levels of satisfaction than other hospitality workers in terms of work-life balance, pay, relationships with managers, useful work and interesting work. Housekeepers play an important role in hotel quality and guest satisfaction. As such, understanding and addressing factors contributing to job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers is critical for managers

• Job satisfaction
• Hospitality industry

Work-life balance

• Housekeeping workers

Andrade, M.S. , Miller, D. and Westover, J.H. (2021), "Job satisfaction factors for housekeepers in the hotel industry: a global comparative analysis", International Hospitality Review , Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 90-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/IHR-06-2020-0018

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Maureen Snow Andrade, Doug Miller and Jonathan H. Westover

Published in International Hospitality Review . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Job satisfaction, or the “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences” ( Locke, 1976 , p. 1304) results in outcomes such as stronger job performance ( Harter et al. , 2002 ; Judge et al. , 2001 ; Ostroff, 1992 ; Ryan et al. , 1996 ), increased organizational citizenship behavior ( Hoffman et al. , 2007 ; Koys, 2001 ), improved customer satisfaction ( Schulte et al. , 2009 ; Vandenberghe et al. , 2009 ), moderately reduced absenteeism ( Scott and Taylor, 1985 ; Steel and Rentsch, 1995 ) and decreased turnover ( Hom and Griffeth, 1995 ; Griffeth et al. , 2000 ).

The hospitality industry is known for high employee turnover rates ( Davidson et al. , 2010 ), poor work-life balance ( Deery, 2008 ; Deery and Jago, 2009 , 2015 ; Davidson and Wang, 2011 ; Wolfe and Kim, 2013 ; Yang et al. , 2012 ; Zopiatis and Constanti, 2007 ), and limited extrinsic and intrinsic rewards due to low pay, extended working hours, lack of professional growth opportunities, inadequate personal time and exhaustion ( Deery and Jago, 2015 ; Groblena et al. , 2016 ). Job satisfaction is a critical issue for employers and managers in the hospitality industry in order to understand how to mitigate dissatisfiers and increase job satisfaction and motivation.

Globally, hotel housekeepers demonstrate significantly lower levels of satisfaction than other hospitality workers in terms of work-life balance, relationships with management, pay, perceptions of work being useful to society and interesting work ( Andrade and Westover, 2020 ). High housekeeper turnover puts guest satisfaction and a hotel's quality and competitiveness at risk ( Grobelna and Tokarz-Kocik, 2017 ). Studies on job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers primarily focus on working conditions in specific geographical locations ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ; Hsieh et al. , 2016 ; Maumbe and Van Wyk, 2008 ; Powell and Watson, 2006 ). The current study examines country differences in job satisfaction among hotel housekeeping staff by examining work-life balance, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and work relations variables in 37 countries using International Social Survey Program data ( ISSP, 2015 ). The purpose of the study is to identify similarities and differences in the variables that impact job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers across countries with the goal of informing management practice. To our knowledge, this is the first global comparative study of job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers.

Literature review

Research on job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers indicates a range of conditions and experiences. Individual characteristics (e.g. education level, ethnicity, immigrant status), work-life balance (e.g. flexible scheduling, work interfering with families), work relations (e.g. relationships with coworkers, management, and guests), extrinsic rewards (e.g. pay, benefits, professional growth) and intrinsic rewards (e.g. task variety and significance) all play a role. We next examine these and other relevant themes identified in the research.

Demographic and contextual factors

Hotel housekeepers are primarily women with low levels of education ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ; Hsieh et al. , 2016 ; Powell and Watson, 2006 ) and are often immigrants ( Krause et al. , 2010 ). In Denmark, housekeepers who are immigrants tend to have higher levels of education than their Danish counterparts but are underemployed due limited Danish language skills. In Wales, housekeepers may have some vocational training ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ). In Las Vegas, Latina hotel housekeepers typically lack educational credentials as well as English language skills ( Hsieh et al. , 2016 ). Unrecognized foreign credentials may also be an issue leading to under employment ( Hsieh et al. , 2016 ; Knox, 2011 ). In the hotel industry in South Africa, higher levels of education were correlated with job tenure for white employees and with shorter tenure for black employees who moved to other opportunities ( Maumbe and VanWyk, 2008 ). Length of service correlated with income increases for white but not for non-white employees.

The contexts in which housekeepers are employed varies greatly, including rural and urban hotel locations, the availability of government benefits and services which can offset other job disadvantages ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ), and historical, economic and political factors that contribute to dissatisfaction such as racial inequities ( Maumbe and VanWyk, 2008 ). Urban hotel workers are more likely to be immigrants or ethnic minorities than those in rural locations ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ; Knox, 2011 ; Watson and Power, 2006 ).

Job characteristics

Common safety and health risks associated with hotel housekeeping, which potentially affect job satisfaction, include exposure to hazardous chemicals, physical demands such as heavy lifting and repeated bending ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ; Knox, 2011 ; Hsieh et al. , 2016 ; Krause et al. , 2002 ; Lee and Krause, 2002 ; Powell and Watson, 2006 ); work-related physical pain that goes largely unreported ( Lee and Krause, 2002 ); time pressure, job stress, and low job control ( Lee and Krause, 2002 ; Krause et al. , 2002 ; Powell and Watson, 2006 ); lack of social status, invisibility due to work being perceived as unskilled, and limited promotion opportunities ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ; OnsØyen et al. , 2009 ). Hotel housekeepers in Cardiff, Wales described their work as tiring, low paid, hard, dirty, repetitive, and uninteresting ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ). In some situations, housekeepers supply their own cleaning resources rather than waiting for management to provide needed items ( Knox, 2011 ).

Extrinsic rewards

Extrinsic factors cause both job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for hotel housekeepers. Job satisfaction for housekeepers in Denmark is high due to comparatively good pay, scheduling flexibility, a congenial working climate, guaranteed work hours and task variety ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ). In Australia, room attendants are often paid by the number of rooms they clean and are not paid for a full workday if they do not complete their assigned number of rooms ( Knox, 2011 ). If they complete rooms before they work time is up, they are required clean elsewhere in the hotel. In South Africa, job satisfaction among hotel employees as a whole is considered high although low pay, pay inequities, and long working hours contribute to dissatisfaction ( Maumbe and Van Wyk, 2008 ). These studies illustrate that pay in one context can be a satisfier and in another, a dissatisfier.

Latina hotel housekeepers in Las Vegas reported positive aspects of work as coworker relations, flexible scheduling and hours, and simply having a job while dissatisfiers included lack of benefits, low pay, weekend work, unfair assignments, coworker discrimination, inadequate equipment, and heavy physical and repetitive work ( Hsieh et al. , 2016 ). Economic rewards are highly valued ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ). Low pay for housekeepers in Australia presents economic challenges and satisfaction with pay varies from feelings that it is inadequate to accepting that it is sufficient ( Knox, 2011 ). Some extrinsic factors identified in these studies were satisfiers (e.g. scheduling, having a job), but most were dissatisfiers (e.g. lack of benefits, low pay, long hours, the nature of job tasks).

Intrinsic rewards

Housekeeping staff work independently and autonomously, factors associated with intrinsic motivation ( Deci et al. , 1999 ; Deci and Ryan, 2002 ; Pink, 2009 ). Housekeeper autonomy is also associated with organizational commitment, which leads to increased productivity and decreased turnover ( Groblena and Tokarz-Kocik, 2017 ). Cardiff hotel housekeepers reported having their work monitored by a supervisor but also having “scope to determine the sequence and pace of tasks” ( Powell and Watson, 2006 , p. 301). Empowerment strategies involving room self-checks and decreased supervision, higher hourly compensation, and recognition points for positive guest reviews increased pressure but also pride in work, valuing guest interactions, visibility of work and guest tipping ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ), reflecting both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.

Some Australian hotel housekeepers, particularly older workers, view independence and the physical nature of the work as advantages leading to satisfaction and pride ( Knox, 2011 ). Housekeepers also report that they enjoy serving others, take pride in their roles, and establish personal goals to improve their work ( Robinson et al. , 2015 ). They see visible results of their work and value their part in creating a positive image for the hotel. In the Cardiff study, 94% of housekeepers saw their work as useful and 62% were proud of their jobs ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ). Initiatives such as room self-checking increase autonomy and trust ( Kensbock et al. , 2013 ).

Increased visibility of work and recognition of its impact on guests is reflected in Hackman and Oldham's (1967 , 1980) job characteristics model. Core job characteristics such as task significance lead to an increased sense of meaningfulness in one's work and intrinsic motivation. Task variety contributes to job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers in Denmark ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ), but in other contexts, work repetitiveness is a problem ( Knox, 2011 ; Hsieh et al. , 2016 ; Watson and Powell, 2016 ).

Autocratic management and control as opposed to encouraging initiative and reduced autonomy are issues for housekeepers in parts of Australia ( Kensbrock et al. , 2013 ). A Polish study showed that as workload increases, organizational commitment decreases ( Groblena and Tokarz-Kocik, 2017 ). The same was true of role conflict resulting in unclear expectations. A New Zealand study found that in the hotel industry generally, respect, autonomy, task variety and task meaningfulness lead to career longevity ( Mooney et al. , 2015 ).

Some aspects of work-life balance for hotel housekeepers are problematic such as working weekends ( Hsieh et al. , 2016 ) or long hours for hospitality employees generally ( Maumbe and VanWyk, 2008 ); however, scheduling flexibility is a satisfier as it allows housekeepers, who are primarily female, to work around their children's school schedules ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ; Hsieh et al. , 2016 ; Hunter-Powell and Watson, 2006 ). A comparison of housekeepers, front office, and food and beverage staff found that managers are considered central to work-life balance through their scheduling, teamwork, and cross-training functions ( Robinson et al. , 2015 ). Australian room attendants perceived a positive work-life balance with a sufficient number of days off and convenient working schedules, allowing time for family and personal interest ( Robinson et al. , 2015 ).

Worker relations

Worker relations for hotel housekeepers contributes to job satisfaction when positive coworker connections are present ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ). Relatedness is a component of self-determination theory, which argues that feelings of connection and belonging strengthen motivation ( Deci et al. , 1999 ; Deci and Ryan, 2002 ). In the Cardiff study, half of the participants indicated that if they lost their jobs, they would miss their friendships the most ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ). The majority indicated being respected by supervisors and guests, but a third did not feel respected by other workers. This feeling was also evident in an Australian study in which housekeepers felt looked down on by other hotel workers due to the nature of their work ( Robinson et al. , 2015 ) and in a study of Las Vegas hotel housekeepers ( Hsieh et al. , 2016 ).

In other cases, workers feel discriminated against by management ( Hsieh et al. , 2016 ; Maumbe and Van Wyk, 2008 ). Housekeepers also feel they are undervalued, not listened to, not involved in decision making, and that managers are unavailable ( Kensbock et al. , 2013 ; OnsØyen et al. , 2009 ). Social interactions with customers may also prove problematic due to unwanted attention and harassment ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ; Kensbock et al. , 2016 ).

Satisfaction with management and satisfaction and coworkers has been correlated with positive organizational behavior for hotel housekeepers in Croatia, potentially resulting in greater guest satisfaction ( Ažić, 2017 ). A New Zealand study found that strong social connections among managers, coworkers, and guests led to the establishment of a positive professional identity and increased job tenure ( Mooney et al. , 2015 ). Similarly, an Australian study identified that working relationships and being in a team environment were linked to satisfaction ( Robinson et al. , 2015 ).

As is evident in this review, previous research has focused primarily on demographic profiles, the nature of housekeeping work, and location-specific studies. Housekeepers typically have low levels of education and may be immigrants or from ethnic minority groups. Work-life balance, specifically work interfering with families, is generally not a dissatisfier. In fact, most of the studies reviewed indicated that housekeepers had sufficient flexibility in scheduling to accommodate their children's school schedules as well as time to spend with family. However, in other cases, long hours and working weekends were problematic, both of which could interfere with families.

Findings on work relations with coworkers were mixed. Friendships and positive working environments contributed to job satisfaction but workers also experienced discrimination and harassment from coworkers and guests, and relationships with management were sometimes characterized by perceived and actual inequities and reluctance to request benefits such as sick days or report physical injuries, demonstrating a lack of trust. Extrinsic rewards in the form of pay is a dissatisfier in most contexts while intrinsic rewards in the form of task significance contribute to job satisfaction.

What researchers term as high or low levels of job satisfaction vary. Hsieh et al. (2016) considered that 54% of housekeepers being satisfaction with their jobs and 23% being dissatisfied to be low relative to findings of other studies. For example, 74% of hotel housekeepers in the Cardiff study reported high job satisfaction ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ) and 79% of housekeepers in a San Francisco study similarly reported high levels of satisfaction ( Lee and Krause, 2002 ). The Danish study identified high levels of job satisfaction overall ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ). In another study, 63.1% of South African hotel housekeepers reported being very satisfied or satisfied, which the researchers considered to be a high outcome ( Hsieh et al. , 2016 ).

It should be noted that the studies cited in this review are based on both qualitative and quantitative data to provide in depth understanding of job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers. For example, in the Krause et al. (2002) study of Las Vegas hotel housekeepers, participants were involved in formulating the research questions and developing the survey instrument as well as interpreting the results, thus the study was informed by the first-hand experiences of the participants. Hsieh et al. 's (2016) study of Latina hotel housekeepers in Las Vegas was based on interviews. The study of housekeepers in Wales consisted of a survey followed by interviews and observations ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ). The Denmark study was comprised of case studies, including interviews with general managers and room attendants ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ). Methods for the Norwegian study were interviews and focus groups in order to obtain rich data about the participants' experiences ( OnsØyen et al. , 2009 ). Knox's (2011) study of four- and five-star hotels in Sydney, Australia was based on case studies with data collected through interviews and combined with quantitative data on hotel performance and employment records. In-depth interviews were the primary source of data for the study of Gold Coast hotels in Australia conducted by Kensbock et al. (2013) , and memory work and semi-structured interviews in Kensbock et al.' s (2016) study. The New Zealand study by Mooney et al. (2015) consisted of interviews while the Robinson et al. (2015) study of housekeepers in Eastern Australian hotels was based on data from semi-structured interviews.

Thus, the findings discussed in this literature review tell the stories of the lived experiences and daily realities of housekeepers representing a variety of demographics and job profiles and working in a range of hotel types. While these studies provide insights into job satisfaction factors for hotel housekeepers in specific cities or countries (e.g. Krause et al. , 2002 ; Lee and Krause, 2002 ; Powell and Watson, 2006 ), however, this review has established that global comparative studies have not been conducted.

Theoretical framework and model

Over the previous half century, thousands of research studies have examined job satisfaction as an outcome variable, as well as its determinants. As seen in Figure 1 below, we utilize a job satisfaction theoretical and empirical model developed by Andrade and Westover's (2018a , b) ; e.g. see also Andrade et al. (2019a , b) , which synthesizes much of the literature to date on job satisfaction and its determinants. As has been done in many previous research studies, we include work-life balance, work relations, and other important intrinsic and extrinsic rewards variables, as well as organizational and job characteristics control variables. Additionally, we have included an occupation variable to explore differences in the model based on the type of hospitality management job the respondent currently holds.

Research design and methodology

There will be statistically significant differences in the levels of job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers across countries.

Job satisfaction for employees in hospitality occupational categories will be lower than for employees in all other occupational categories, controlling for other work characteristic and individual factors.

Job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers will be lower than for employees in other hospitality occupational categories, controlling for other work characteristic and individual factors.

There will be statistically significant cross-national differences in the mean scores of the determinants of job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers.

Work-life balance factors will have a statistically significant positive impact on the job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers across nations.

Extrinsic rewards will have a statistically significant positive impact on the job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers across nations.

Intrinsic rewards will have a statistically significant positive impact on the job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers across nations.

Coworker relations factors will have a statistically significant positive impact on the job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers across nations.

Description of the data

Following the approach of Andrade and Westover's (2018a , b) ; e.g. see also Andrade et al. (2019a , b) , this research utilizes cross national comparative data from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) 2015 Work Orientations Module IV [1] , which uses multistage stratified probability samples in 37 individual countries around the globe [2] and asks questions about employees' work experiences, conditions, and perceptions. In this analysis, we focus on hotel housekeepers, with N =  408, all hospitality workers, with an N =  982, and all workers, with an N =  18,716 . As Westover noted, “The International Social Survey Program Work Orientations modules utilized a multistage stratified probability sample to collect the data for each of the various countries with a variety of eligible participants in each country's target population” ( 2012a , p. 3). All ISSP Work Orientation variables are single-item indicators and the unit of analysis is individuals across each participating country. The sample of hotel housekeepers, by the 29 countries, is as follows in Table 1 .

Operationalization of variables

We use Andrade and Westover's (2018a , b) ; e.g. see also Andrade et al. (2019a , b) job satisfaction model (building on Handel's (2005) and Kalleberg's (1977) job satisfaction model, for comparing global differences in job satisfaction and its determinants across job types (e.g. see also Spector, 1997 ; Souza-Poza and Souza-Poza, 2000 ). Following the approach of Andrade and Westover's (2018a ; b ; see also Andrade et al. , 2019a , b ), we focused on a range of intrinsic, extrinsic, workplace relationships and work-life balance variables (in addition to a range of organization and individual control variables; Table 2 below [3] ).

Control variables

As indicated by Westover (2012b , p. 17) “the literature has identified many important individual control variables, due to limitations in data availability, control variables used for the quantitative piece of this study will be limited to the following individual characteristics: (1) Sex, (2) Age, (3) Years of Education, (4) Marital Status, and (5) Size of Family…” ( 2012b , p. 17). Additionally, control variables used in this analysis include: (1) Work Hours, (2) Supervisory Status, (3) Employment Relationship, and (4) Public/Private Organization (see Hamermesh, 2001 ; Souza-Poza and Souza-Poza, 2000 ).

Statistical methodology

We analyzed ISSP Work Orientations data from individual respondents across 37 counties, first running appropriate bivariate and multivariate analyses [4] on all key study variables in order to make comparisons. Next, we ran an Ordinary Least Squares Regression (OLS) model for all main study variables and respondents in all countries, followed by an OLS regression model specific for all hospitality jobs lumped together. Finally, we ran OLS regression models for all hotel housekeepers in all countries.

Descriptive results

Figure 2 shows mean job satisfaction scores for housekeepers, by country. The highest job satisfaction levels for housekeeping jobs is in the Philippines (6.50), Chile (5.96), with the lowest job satisfaction scores in Israel (4.00), China (4.33), and Sweden (4.43). Housekeepers in most nations have a mean job satisfaction scores in the 4.7 to 5.3 range (overall world-wide mean for all occupations is 5.32).

Tables 2 and 3 below shows the means of job satisfaction and other main study variables, broken down for housekeepers, all other hospitality occupations (11 total), and all jobs, regardless of occupation type for respondents in all 37 countries included in the 2015 wave of ISSP Work Orientations data. We also ran descriptive statistics for hotel housekeepers by country to be able to compare mean scores of main study variables (those results are available upon request). Of note is the general variation across countries for the different study variables and the difference between housekeepers with other hospitality jobs and when compared with all occupations. Housekeepers have lower overall job satisfaction than other hospitality workers, and much lower than workers across all occupations. Additionally, housekeepers have lower mean scores than other hospitality workers in 12 of the 19 work characteristics examined, with the biggest gap landing on “interesting work.”

As we examined the study variables with the greatest variations in means scores between housekeepers and other hospitality occupations, as well as across countries, our attention was drawn toward the following variables, as depicted in Figures 3–5 below: Interesting Work, Useful Job, Pay, Relations with Management, and Work Interferes with Family. In each case, we see a clear linear relationship between the work characteristic of housekeepers and the corresponding job satisfaction. As interesting work, useful work, pay and relations with management improved, job satisfaction improves. Additionally, the more work interferes with family, job satisfaction declines.

Regression results

Model 1 – All control variables

Model 2 – All intrinsic rewards variables

Model 3 – All extrinsic rewards variables

Model 4 – All work relations variables

Model 5 – All work-life balance variables

Model 6 – Combined model of all key independent variables (intrinsic, extrinsic, work relations, and work-life balance) and the control variables on job satisfaction.

Nearly all variables were statistically significant ( p  < 0.001) when the individual control model and models 2–5 were run, with the exception of size of family and working weekends. However, in the combined model, working weekends was significant, while physical effort, contact with others, working from home, and several individual control variables were not significant. Additionally, there were variations in adjusted r-squared values for the individual controls model and models 2–5 (with the separate intrinsic and extrinsic rewards models holding the strongest predictability), with the combined model (including all intrinsic, extrinsic, work relations, work-life balance, and control variables) accounting for nearly 43% of the variation in job satisfaction (adjusted r -squared = 0.428).

The above specified combined model was then run for workers across all job types, for all hospitality workers combined, and then for hotel housekeepers specifically. As can be seen in Table 3 , there is a great deal of variation between occupational categories in standardized beta coefficient statistical significance for each of the intrinsic, extrinsic, work relations, and work-life balance job characteristics and control variables in predicting job satisfaction. Of particular note is that many of the statistically significant independent variables in the model for all workers were not significant in the model for all hospitality jobs and the model for housekeepers. Part of this is likely due to the relatively small N for the hospitality occupations generally, but housekeepers, specifically (where achieving statistical significance of a variable is more difficult). We also see some clear patterns of difference in the driving indicators of job satisfaction in housekeeping jobs and hospitality jobs when compared with those of all jobs in general.

For housekeepers specifically, only two intrinsic variables (interesting work and job useful to society), one extrinsic variable (pay), one work relations variable (relations with management) and one work-life-balance variable (work interferes with family) was statistically significant, as compared to the model for all occupations, in which intrinsic and extrinsic variables are the most significant and have the strongest standardized beta coefficients (the most impact on predictability of job satisfaction).

Revisiting hypotheses

This study looked at the housekeeping function across the globe for clues on differences in job satisfaction. We anticipated that universally accepted factors determining job satisfaction would exhibit low results for hotel housekeepers across the studied countries. This is largely borne out in the study results (see Table 5 ). Difference of means analysis demonstrates a statistically significant difference in mean scores across the 29 countries in the study ( H1 ; see Figure 2 ). Additionally, results show that generally all countries face the same challenges. Outside of a few outliers among the 29 countries studied, all countries gave housekeeper job satisfaction scores lower than all other hospitality job categories and again lower still from all non-hospitality occupations ( H2 and H3 ; see Tables 2 and 3 ).

Furthermore, results affirm statistically significant differences in the mean scores of the determinants of hotel housekeeper job satisfaction across countries ( H4 ; see Tables 2 and 3 ). In terms of the statistical significance of job satisfaction determinants within the OLS regression analysis, all categories of independent variables employed in this study provided mixed results in relation to study hypotheses ( H5 , H6 , H7 and H8 ; see Table 4 ). Overall, there are demonstrated cross-national differences in statistical significance and variable beta coefficient strength across each of the work-life balance ( H5 ), extrinsic rewards ( H6 ), intrinsic rewards ( H7 ), work relations ( H8 ) variables for hotel housekeepers, versus all hospitality workers and all workers. Within each variable category, some variables are statistically significant, while others are not. With the exceptions of education level (a control variable), all statistically significant variables across variable categories have a positive relationship with job satisfaction. Education has a negative relationship, meaning that as the education level of hotel housekeepers increase, job satisfaction decreases. Additionally, statistically significant cross-national differences in mean scores of main study variables further supports these hypotheses.

Housekeeping is the most critical function of a lodging operation. A clean room is often taken for granted by guests, but hospitality managers know that a room not cleaned properly will cause the greatest level of guest dissatisfaction. Housekeeping in a hotel is also the largest department in a hotel, and often the lowest paid department. This combination – most critical to operation and guest satisfaction while also the hardest to staff – is why it is considered the most difficult department to manage in a hotel.

Comparative OLS model comparisons and comparisons of mean score differences reveal lower satisfaction levels and work quality characteristics when compared to both “other hospitality occupations” and “all occupations” groups were. While this may be discouraging to lodging managers, considering the importance of the housekeeping function and the difficulty hiring and maintaining a strong housekeeping crew, it can be considered an opportunity for improvement. Incremental positive movement in any or all of these characteristics will improve job satisfaction and close the gap between housekeepers and other occupations.

For example, intrinsic rewards internalized by housekeepers (particularly helping other people and job useful to society) can be improved by the culture of the hotel and the narrative communicated to the staff. Extensive previous research has indicated the importance of intrinsic factors such as autonomy, empowerment ( Groblena and Tokarz-Kocik, 2017 ; Kensbock et al , 2013 ; Mooney et al. , 2015 ), work pride ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ; Robinson et al. , 2015 ), and task variety ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ) as contributing to job satisfaction. There is a disconnect between the reality of the housekeepers self-reported scores on intrinsic factors and the fact that these positions are tremendously valuable to society. With little or no costs, management can create opportunities and initiatives for housekeeping staff to learn and internalize this value. Creating more opportunities for housekeepers to engage with guests (work relations/contact with others) can also be designed and managed to increase their interest in their work and understand the importance of their role.

Another area where improvement appears to be needed and obtainable is relations with coworkers and with management. Previous research indicates that good relations with coworkers positively impacts job satisfaction ( Ericksson and Li, 2009 ; Powell and Watson, 2006 ; Robinson et al. , 2015 ) and is negatively impacted when housekeepers are not involved in decision-making, feel undervalued, or are not listened to by management ( Kensbock et al. , 2013 ; OnsØyen et al. , 2009 ). While the overall scores in these factors were not necessarily terribly low (relations with management was significantly lower than others), they present potential places for improvement where financial resources are not required. Instead good and creative management practices alone can create improvement.

Finally, one area often cited as an obvious target to increase job satisfaction is to increase wages. Previous studies have identified the importance of economic rewards to job satisfaction ( Powell and Watson, 2006 ) and low pay as a dissatisfier ( Hsieh et al. , 2016 ; Knox, 2011 ; Maumbe and Van Wyk, 2008 ) with some exceptions ( Eriksson and Li, 2009 ). However, hoteliers are constrained by economic factors often outside their control when it comes to pay. Housekeepers are a fairly ubiquitous employee group where pay rates do not vary much among hotels in geographic areas. While housekeepers identify pay as a significant satisfaction factor in this study, this decision is outside the discretion of the hotels' management. This research identifies 19 factors that affect morale and job satisfaction. Therefore, managers can pursue factors other than pay to improve the job satisfaction of the critical housekeeping team.

Limitations and future research

In this study, we did not have enough participants in each individual countries to run the OLS regression model by country and test the statistical significance of the determinants of job satisfaction across countries. Future research can seek for larger in-country samples of hotel housekeepers. Additionally, there is potential for an interesting study further examining the differing mean scores by country. In terms of country comparisons, a question worth pursuing is whether hotel housekeepers in developed counties have higher or lower job satisfaction in than those in developing countries. As well, future research could examine the role of cultural differences in understanding country differences and looking for ways to improve job satisfaction.

Additionally, as mentioned above, housekeeper pay is a challenging problem for hotel managers and owners. Due to the size of the housekeeping department, raising the wages of housekeepers is difficult to budget. And, raising the wages of this department then puts pressure on managers to raise wages for all the other line-level employees (e.g. front desk staff). Future research should address in more detail the impact pay has on job satisfaction for hotel housekeepers across countries. This research may also look at whether those paid more are also more productive in their overall job performance.

Factors influencing work characteristics and job satisfaction

Mean job satisfaction of housekeepers, by country

Mean job satisfaction by response to interesting work, useful job and pay

Mean job satisfaction score by response to relations with management

Mean job satisfaction score by response to work interferes with family

Hotel housekeeper sample, by country

Key work characteristics related to job satisfaction

OLS regression results of job satisfaction and main study variables, 2015

ISSP Researchers collected the data using multistage stratified random sampling, using self-administered questionnaires, personal interviews, and mail-back questionnaires, depending on the country. For a full overview of the questions in the Work Orientations IV module and for a full summary and description of this research, see https://www.gesis.org/issp/modules/issp-modules-by-topic/work-orientations/2015/ .

Countries include, in alphabetical order: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, China, Taiwan, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela.

Each variable is a single-item indicator.

All correlations, cross-tabulations, ANOVA, ANCOVA, post-hoc tests, and full descriptive statistics have not been included here due to space limitations, but are available upon request. Additionally, appropriate tests for multicollinearity were conducted. There are no issues with multicollinearity of variables in the OLS model. Additionally, all outliers were Winsorized in the initial data cleaning stages, prior to final models and analysis.

Andrade , M.S. and Westover , J.H. ( 2018a ), “ Generational differences in work quality characteristics and job satisfaction ”, Evidence-based HRM , Vol. 6 No. 3 , pp. 287 - 304 .

Andrade , M.S. and Westover , J.H. ( 2018b ), “ Revisiting the impact of age on job satisfaction: a global comparative examination ”, The Global Studies Journal , Vol. 1 No. 4 , pp. 1 - 24 .

Andrade , M.S. , Westover , J.H. and Kupka , B.A. ( 2019a ), “ The role of work-life balance and worker scheduling flexibility in predicting global comparative job satisfaction ”, International Journal of Human Resource Studies , Vol. 9 No. 2 , pp. 80 - 115 .

Andrade , M.S. , Westover , J.H. and Peterson , J. ( 2019b ), “ Job satisfaction and gender ”, Journal of Business Diversity , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 22 - 40 .

Andrade , M.S. and Westover , J.H. ( 2020 ), “ Comparative job satisfaction and its determinants in for-profit and nonprofit employees across the globe ”, American Journal of Management , Vol. 20 No. 1 .

Ažić , M.L. ( 2017 ), “ The impact of hotel employee satisfaction on hospitality performance ”, Tourism and Hospitality Management , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 105 - 117 .

Davidson , M. and Wang , Y. ( 2011 ), “ Sustainable labor practices? Hotel human resource managers views on turnover and skill shortages ”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism , Vol. 10 No. 3 , pp. 235 - 253 .

Davidson , M.C. , Timo , N. and Wang , Y. ( 2010 ), “ How much does labour turnover cost? A case study of Australian four-and five-star hotels ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 451 - 466 .

Deci , E. and Ryan , R. (Eds) ( 2002 ), Handbook of Self-Determination Research , University of Rochester Press , Rochester, NY .

Deci , E.L. , Koestner , R. and Ryan , R.M. ( 1999 ), “ A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation ”, Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 125 No. 6 , pp. 627 - 668 .

Deery , M. ( 2008 ), “ Talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 20 No. 7 , pp. 792 - 806 .

Deery , M. and Jago , L. ( 2009 ), “ A framework for work-life balance practices: addressing the needs of the tourism Industry ”, Tourism and Hospitality Research , Vol. 9 No. 2 , pp. 97 - 109 .

Deery , M. and Jago , L. ( 2015 ), “ Revisiting talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 27 No. 3 , pp. 453 - 472 .

Eriksson , T. and Li , J. ( 2009 ), “ Working at the boundary between market and flexicurity: housekeeping in Danish hotels ”, International Labour Review , Vol. 148 No. 5 , pp. 357 - 373 .

Griffeth , R.W. , Hom , P.W. and Gaertner , S. ( 2000 ), “ A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 26 No. 3 , pp. 463 - 488 .

Groblena , A. and Tokarz-Kocik , A. ( 2017 ), “ Relationships between job characteristics and organizational commitment: the example of hotel housekeeping employees ”, Proceedings of the 25th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development , pp. 491 - 500 .

Groblena , A. , Sidorkiewicz , M. and Tokarz-Kocik , A. ( 2016 ), “ Job satisfaction among hotel employees: analyzing selected antecedents and job outcomes. A case study from Poland ”, Argumenta Oeconomica , Vol. 2 No. 37 , pp. 281 - 310 , doi: 10.15611/aoe.2016.2.11 .

Hackman , J.R. and Oldham , G.R. ( 1967 ), “ Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory ”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , Vol. 16 No. 2 , pp. 250 - 279 .

Hackman , J.R. and Oldham , G.R. ( 1980 ), Work Redesign , Addison-Wesley , Reading, MA .

Hamermesh , D.S. ( 2001 ), “ The changing distribution of job satisfaction ”, Journal of Human Resources , Vol. 36 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 30 .

Handel , M.J. ( 2005 ), “ Trends in perceived job quality, 1989 to 1998 ”, Work and Occupations , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 66 - 94 .

Harter , J.K. , Schmidt , F.L. and Hayes , T.L. ( 2002 ), “ Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 87 No. 2 , pp. 268 - 279 .

Hoffman , B.J. , Blair , C.A. , Maeriac , J.P. and Woehr , D.J. ( 2007 ), “ Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 92 No. 2 , pp. 555 - 566 .

Hom , W. and Griffeth , R.W. ( 1995 ), Employee Turnover , South-Western Publishing , Cincinnati, OH .

Hsieh , Y. Ch. , Apostolopoulos , Y. and Sönmez , S. ( 2016 ), “ Work conditions and health and well-being of Latina hotel housekeepers ”, Journal of Minority Health , Vol. 18 No. 3 , pp. 568 - 581 , doi: 10.1007/s10903-015-0224-y .

Hunter-Powell , P. and Watson , D. ( 2006 ), “ Service unseen: the hotel room attendant at work ”, International Journal of Hospitality Management , Vol. 25 No. 2 , pp. 297 - 312 .

International Social Survey Program ( 2015 ), “ Work orientations IV ”, available at: https://www.gesis.org/issp/modules/issp-modules-by-topic/work-orientations/2015/ ( accessed 16 June 2020 ).

Judge , T.A. , Thoresen , C.J. , Bono , J.E. and Patton , G.K. ( 2001 ), “ The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review ”, Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 127 No. 3 , pp. 376 - 407 .

Kalleberg , A. ( 1977 ), “ Work values & job rewards: a theory of job satisfaction ”, American Sociological Review , Vol. 42 , pp. 124 - 143 .

Kensbock , S. , Jennings , G. , Bailey , J. and Patiar , A. ( 2013 ), “ ‘The lowest rung’: women room attendants' perceptions of five star hotels' operational hierarchies ”, International Journal of Hospitality Management , Vol. 35 No. 2013 , pp. 360 - 368 , doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.07.010 .

Kensbock , S. , Jennings , G. , Bailey , J. and Patiar , A. ( 2016 ), “ Performing: hotel room attendants' employment experiences ”, Annals of Tourism Research , Vol. 56 No. 2016 , pp. 112 - 127 .

Knox , A. ( 2011 ), “ ‘Upstairs, downstairs’: an analysis of low paid work in Australian hotels ”, Labour and Industry , Vol. 21 No. 3 , pp. 573 - 594 .

Koys , D.J. ( 2001 ), “ The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study ”, Personnel Psychology , Vol. 54 No. 1 , pp. 101 - 114 .

Krause , N. , Lee , P.T. , Scherzer , T. , Rugulies , R. , Sinnott , P.L. and Baker , R.L. ( 2002 ), Health and Working Conditions of Hotel Guest Room Attendants in Las Vegas , Report to the Culinary Workers Union, Local 226, Las Vegas, available at: http://www.lohp.org/docs/pubs/vegasrpt.pdf ( accessed 16 June 2020 ).

Krause , N. , Rugulies , R. and Maslach , C. ( 2010 ), “ Effort-reward imbalance at work and self-rated health of Las Vegas hotel room cleaners ”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine , Vol. 53 , pp. 372 - 386 .

Lee , P.T. and Krause , N. ( 2002 ), “ The impact of a worker health study on working conditions ”, Journal of Public Health Policy , Vol. 23 No. 3 , pp. 268 - 285 .

Locke , E.A. ( 1976 ), “ The nature and causes of job satisfaction ”, in Dunnette , M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Rand McNally , Chicago, IL , pp. 1297 - 1349 .

Maumbe , K.C. and Van Wyk , L.J. ( 2008 ), “ Employment in cape town's lodging sector: opportunities, skills requirements, employee aspirations and transformation ”, Geojournal , Vol. 73 No. 2008 , pp. 117 - 132 .

Mooney , S.K. , Harris , C. and Ryan , I. ( 2015 ), “ Long hospitality careers—a contraction in terms? ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 28 No. 11 , pp. 2589 - 2608 , doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2015-0206 .

OnsØyen , L.E. , Mykletun , R.J. and Steiro , T. ( 2009 ), “ Silenced and invisible: the work experience of room attendants in Norwegian hotels ”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 81 - 102 .

Ostroff , C. ( 1992 ), “ The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: an organizational level analysis ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 77 No. 6 , pp. 963 - 974 .

Pink , D. ( 2009 ), Drive , Riverhead Books , New York, NY .

Powell , P.H. and Watson , D. ( 2006 ), “ Service unseen: the hotel room attendant at work ”, International Journal of Hospitality Management , Vol. 25 No. 2 , pp. 297 - 312 .

Robinson , R.H.S. , Kralj , A. , Solnet , D.J. , Goh , E. and Callan , V.J. ( 2015 ), “ Attitudinal similarities and differences of hotel frontline occupations ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 28 No. 5 , pp. 1051 - 1072 .

Ryan , A.M. , Schmit , M.J. and Johnson , R. ( 1996 ), “ Attitudes and effectiveness: examining relations at an organizational level ”, Personnel Psychology , Vol. 49 No. 4 , pp. 853 - 882 .

Schulte , M. , Ostroff , C. , Shmulyian , S. and Kinicki , S. ( 2009 ), “ Organizational climate configurations: relationships to collective attitudes, customer satisfaction, and financial performance ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 94 No. 3 , pp. 618 - 634 .

Scott , K.D. and Taylor , G.S. ( 1985 ), “ An examination of conflicting findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism: a meta-analysis ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 28 No. 3 , pp. 599 - 612 .

Sousa-Pouza , A. and Sousa-Pouza , A.A. ( 2000 ), “ Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the levels and determinants of job satisfaction: ”, Journal of Socio-Economics , Vol. 29 No. 6 , pp. 517 - 538 .

Spector , P. ( 1997 ), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences , Sage , London .

Steel , R. and Rentsch , J.R. ( 1995 ), “ Influence of cumulation strategies on the long-range prediction of absenteeism ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 38 No. 6 , pp. 1616 - 1634 .

Vandenberghe , C. , Bentein , K. , Michon , R. , Chebat , J. , Tremblay , M. and Fils , J. ( 2007 ), “ An examination of the role of perceived support and employee commitment in employee-customer encounters ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 92 No. 4 , pp. 1177 - 1187 .

Westover , J.H. ( 2012a ), “ Comparative international differences in intrinsic and extrinsic job quality characteristics and worker satisfaction, 1989–2005 ”, International Journal of Business and Social Science , Vol. 3 No. 7 , pp. 1 - 15 .

Westover , J.H. ( 2012b ), “ Comparative welfare state impacts on work quality and job satisfaction: a cross-national analysis ”, International Journal of Social Economics , Vol. 39 No. 7 , pp. 502 - 525 , doi: 10.1108/03068291211231687 .

Wolfe , K. and Kim , H.J. ( 2013 ), “ Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, and job tenure among hotel managers ”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism , Vol. 12 No. 2 , pp. 175 - 191 .

Yang , J. , Wan , C. and Fu , Y. ( 2012 ), “ Qualitative examination of employee turnover and retention strategies in international tourist hotels in Taiwan ”, International Journal of Hospitality Management , Vol. 31 No. 3 , pp. 837 - 848 .

Zopiati , A. and Constanti , P. ( 2007 ), “ Human resource challenges confronting the Cyprus hospitality industry ”, EuroMed Journal of Business , Vol. 2 No. 2 , pp. 135 - 153 .

Further reading

Hausknecht , J.P. , Rodda , J. and Howard , M.J. ( 2009 ), “ Targeted employee retention: performance-based and job-related differences in reported reasons for staying ”, Human Resource Management , Vol. 48 No. 2 , pp. 269 - 288 .

Kensbock , S. , Bailey , J. , Jennings , G. and Patiar , A. ( 2015 ), “ Sexual harassment of women working as room attendants within 5-star hotels ”, Gender, Work and Organization , Vol. 22 No. 1 , pp. 36 - 50 .

Yang , I.A. , Lee , B.W. and Wu , S.T. ( 2017 ), “ The relationships among work-family conflict, turnover intention and organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry of Taiwan ”, International Journal of Manpower , Vol. 38 No. 8 , pp. 1130 - 1142 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support