Chef Satisfaction free essay sample

The findings showed that employees’ job satisfaction directly and positively influences organizational commitment, but does not directly influence job performance. Employees’ job satisfaction enhances job performance only through organizational commitment. Internal marketing, empowerment and leadership also positively influence job satisfaction. Empowerment and leadership enhance employees’ organizational commitment. Internal job stress negatively influences employees’ job satisfaction and external job stress enhances employees’ job performance. According to the findings, this paper realized the main factors which influence hospitality industry employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance, which can function as criteria for human resource management in the hospitality industry. Key words: Hospitality industry, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance.   With the change of the industrial structure in recent years, the output value of the service industry has become more than 70% of the GDP in most advanced countries (CIA, 2009). Thus, the service industry plays a significant role in national economic development. In 2008, as the world encountered a financial tsunami, the governments of different countries selected potential service industries and supported them with resources, in order to energize economic development. The hospitality industry is a typical service industry, and it is critical service industry around the world. In Taiwan, the scale of the hospitality industry has been increasing year by year. According to the Statistics Department, Ministry of Economic Affairs, in 2001 the business volume of the hospitality industry in Taiwan was NTD 261. 3 billion. In 2006 it passed NTD 300 billion and in 2009 it reached NTD 321. 7 billion. However, the hospitality industry refers to labor services and relies on manpower in areas such as production, delivery and restaurant service. Thus, the hospitality industry is mainly based on services. As mentioned in Bitner’s (1995) framework of the service marketing triangle, service providers play a critical role in the service industries. In service industry management, regarding the importance of employees, Heskett et al. (1994) proposed the framework of service profit chain. In the service profit chain, there are critical linkages among internal service *Corresponding author. E-mail: [emailprotected] tcmt. edu. tw. Tel: +886-2-28102292 ext. 5009. Fax: +886-2-2810-6688. Tsai et al. 4119 quality, employee satisfaction/productivity, the value of services provided to the customer, customer satisfaction and company’s profits. This chain shows that internal service quality can enhance employee satisfaction, which will enhance employee productivity and further result in external service value and enhanced customer satisfaction. Finally, the company can make a profit (Zeithaml et al. , 2009). Therefore, satisfied employees make satisfied customers. Service personnel satisfaction significantly influences organizational commitment and job performance on customer satisfaction and corporate operational performance (Ladkin, 2002; Dunlap et al. , 1988; Tansuhaj et al. , 1988; Chowdhary, 2003; Yang and Chen, 2010). How to enhance service personnel satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance is a critical issue in service industry management. In past research on employee satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance, many scholars (Babin and Boles, 1998; Bernhardt et al. 2000; Van Scotter, 2000; Koys, 2003; Testa, 2001) have validated that employees’ job satisfaction positively influences job performance and organizational commitment. In studies on factors of employees’ job satisfaction, job performance and organizational commitment, the service profit chain proposed by Heskett et al. (1994) and service marketing management model indica ted by Tansuhaj et al. (1988) on overall service industry both demonstrated that managements internal marketing activities produce job satisfaction and commitment to the organization. In addition, many studies have found close relationships between leadership, employee satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance (Billingsley and Cross, 1992; Yammarino and Dubinsky, 1994; Burton et al. , 2002; Avolio et al. , 2004; Chen and Silverthorne, 2005). The above studies have mainly focused on the educational service industry, retail industry, manufacturing service industry, medical service industry and governmental institutions, but have not conducted indepth explorations on the hospitality service industry. Hopfl (1994) indicated that in the service delivery, firstline employees must be empowered to some degree in order to cope with customers’ special demands. Thus, job empowerment can be treated as important management to encourage first-line service personnel and immediately solve customers’ differential demands. Avolio et al. (2004), Caykoylu et al. (2007) and Chen et al. (2008) respectively conducted empirical studies on medical personnel and employees of the telecommunication industry, banking industry and postal industry, and found that empowerment positively influences employee satisfaction and organizational commitment. One issue worthy of further study is the extent of how empowerment positively influences hospitality industry employee satisfaction and organizational commitment. In addition, first-line employees face different customer demands and supervisor requirements, therefore job stress is a critical issue for them. Jamal (1990) and Jex (1998) suggested that reducing employees’ job stress could enhance employees’ job satisfaction and job performance. Williams and Cooper (2002) and Ouyang (2009) indicated that proper job stress would enhance employees’ job performance. In the hospitality industry, the influence of job stress from external customers and internal supervisors on employees’ job satisfaction and job performance is an issue worthy of further exploration. Based on the above, internal marketing, leadership, empowerment and job stress are possible factors of service industry employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance, and these factors are validated in various service industries. However, the outcomes in different service industries are not the same. For the hospitality industry, it is important to validate and analyze the influences of the above factors on employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance. Thus, this study intended to combine internal marketing, leadership, empowerment and job stress and proposed an integrated model of hospitality industry employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance. Hospitality industry employees in Taipei City were treated as the subjects, and the researcher probed into factors of hospitality industry employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance in order to function as criteria for management in the hospitality industry. LITERATURE REVIEW Job satisfaction The term â€Å"job satisfaction† was proposed by Hoppock (1935) who suggested that job satisfaction means employees’ emotions and attitude toward their jobs, and is their subjective reaction toward their jobs. The definition of job satisfaction is generalized into three categories: (1) Definition of generality: Job satisfaction refers to the affective reaction to one’s job as the most (Ozer and Gunluk, 2010). Job satisfaction, which is one of the most important necessities for an individual to be successful, happy and productive, is a feeling of satisfaction, that is, an outcome of the perception of what the job provides for an individual (Ay and Av aro lu, 2010); (2) Definition of difference: This refers to the degree of satisfaction and the difference between ndividual actual returns and required returns. For instance, Porter and Lawler (1968) suggested that the degree of satisfaction depends on the difference between a person’s actual returns and expected returns; (3) Definition of criterion framework: Peoples subjective perception and interpretation on objective traits of organizations or jobs would be influenced by individual criterion framework. According to Smith et al. (1969), job satisfaction is the outcome after a person interprets the job traits according 4120 Afr. J. Bus. Manage. o the criterion framework. The influence of certain work situations on job satisfaction is related to many factors, such as comparisons between good and bad jobs, comparisons with others, personal competency and past experience, etc. Job performance Kane and Lawler (1976) suggested that job performance refers to the record of the results when employees have practiced a job for a certain period of time. According to Schermerhorn (1989), job performance refers to the quality and quantity accomplished by individuals or groups after fulfilling a task. After a certain period of time, measurements of employees’ job performance could serve as criterion for promotions, wage adjustments, rewards, punishments and evaluations. Cascio (2006) suggested that managers must specifically define performance to allow the teams or employees to recognize the organizational expectations in order to fulfill the organizational goals. In other words, managers must set concrete goals, trace the fulfillment degree and evaluate the teams’ or employees’ performance. Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) suggested that employees with a high degree of job enthusiasm will demonstrate extra effort and devotion, and will actively seek out solutions to problems at work in order to enhance their job performance. Robbins (1998) divided the measurement of job performance into job result, job behavior and personal traits. Lee et al. (1999) divided job performance into efficiency, efficacy and quality. Efficiency refers to the employees’ output rate and is the ability to accomplish tasks before deadline. Efficacy refers to the employees’ goal accomplishment rate and proposals. Quality refers to the employees’ error rate and complaint rate, supervisor satisfaction, customer satisfaction and colleague satisfaction. This study suggested that in the application of this construct to measure hospitality industry employees’ job performance, efficiency should refer to the employees’ speed in customer service, efficacy should mean the accomplishment of tasks assigned by customers, and quality should mean the employees’ performance in customer service. As to measurement, Shore and Thornton (1986) indicated that self-evaluation allows individuals to participate in performance evaluation and serves as a criterion. Based on the above, according to the views of Lee et al. (1999), this study divided job performance into efficiency, efficacy and quality, and measured hospitality industry employees’ job performance using employee self-evaluation. Smith et al. (1969) proposed the Job Description Index (JDI) to measure job satisfaction, with the constructs including wage, promotion, job, supervisors and colleagues. Black and Gregersen (1997) found a positive correlation between job satisfaction and job performance. Organ (1990) suggested that when employees are satisfied with their work, they are willing to sacrifice themselves and devote to their organization. Organizational commitment From the perspective of attitude, Porter et al. (1974) indicated that organizational commitment is a person’s active and positive intention to identify with and internalize organizational goals and value. According to Reyes and Pounder (1990), organizational commitment is the strong belief and intention to identify with organizational value, devote to and stay with the organization. Mathews and Shepherd (2002) suggested that organizational commitment refers to workers’ attitude, behavior and connection between individuals and the organization. Guest (1995) indicated that organizational commitment is at the core of human resource management. It transforms traditional manpower management into the core of human resources. Organizational members’ attitude or intentions particularly indicate the importance of employees’ organizational commitment. Dee et al. (2006) suggested that organizational commitment is a person’s intention to devote to and be loyal to the organization. Lambert et al. (2006) suggested that organizational commitment is the structural phenomenon of trading between individuals and organizations. It increases with time, but it does not lead to a transferable investment outcome. Thus, in theoretical study and practical use, scholars have valued organizational commitment in human resource management. In recent years, many scholars have probed into organizational commitment from the view of Porter et al. (1974). Thus, this study also followed the above view and divided organizational commitment into value commitment, effort commitment and retention commitment. This study further treated these three constructs as criteria to measure hospitality industry employees organizational commitment. Definitions of these constructs are thus shown: (1) Value commitment: a strong belief and identification with organizational goals and values. 2) Effort commitment: the intention to devote more to the organization. (3) Retention commitment: a strong intention to continue being part of the organization. Internal marketing Internal Marketing (IM) is the process of handling staff as internal customers and projects as internal products that satisfy the needs and desires of the customers and adhere to the company’s goals (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991). Rafiq and Ahmed (1993) suggest that internal marketing involves â€Å"a planned effort to overcome organizational resistance to change and to align, motivate Tsai et al. 4121 nd integrate employees towards the effective implementation of corporate and functional strategies†. Joseph (1996) suggested that internal marketing is can be applied to marketing and human resource management, combining theoretical techniques and principles in order to encourage, recruit and manage all employees in the organization and constantly improve external customer service and mutual services. In addition, Ahmed et al. (2003) defined internal marketing as the emp loyees’ evaluation of the reward system, internal communication, training and development of the company. Internal marketing empirical research in the service sector has proven that internal marketing has influenced on internal customers (that is, employees) satisfactions. Berry and Parasuraman (1991) suggested that the advantages of internal marketing implementation in organizations are as follows: (1) To acquire and keep excellent talent; (2) to provide a common vision so that employees have job purpose and meaning; (3) to give employees the ability and knowledge to accomplish the work; (4) to encourage employees to share the results of teamwork; (5) to create job designs be based on the findings of marketing studies. The aforementioned views reveal that corporate implementation of internal marketing allows employees to enhance service quality, which increases the production and profits of the companies. The implementation of internal marketing in the organizations results in an internal service culture, raises service consciousness and increases profits (Parasuraman et al. , 1985). Based on the views of these scholars, internal marketing is critical for organizations and influences external marketing to further enhance customer satisfaction. According to the these definitions and based on the views of Rafiq and Ahmed (1993) and Ahmed et al. (2003), this study treated employee evaluations of reward systems, internal communication, and training and development of companies as criterion for measuring internal marketing of the hospitality industry. Leadership Leadership refers the process of influencing the team to accomplish the goals (Robbins and Coulter, 2005). Leaders are key success factors of an organization (Bass, 1985; Daft, 2002). Skillful leaders recognize and use the interpersonal relationships of the team and strengthen the members’ loyalty and morale. Effective leaders must learn skills such as patiently sharing information, trusting others and recognizing the timing of interventions (Steckler and Fondas, 1995). In recent years, numerous scholars have tried to discuss leadership from new perspectives. New studies of leadership theory have particularly stressed the influences of demands between leaders and subordinates, the interaction of personality traits and situational factors on leadership (Bargal and Schmid, 1989). Corporate leaders must select a proper leadership according to their subordinates’ different demands for supervision, in order to enhance employee satisfaction and fulfill expected goals. Bass and Avolio (1997) divided leadership into transformational leadership and transactional leadership. In transformational leadership, subordinates trust, respect and are loyal to their leaders. Leaders can develop their subordinates’ potential and enhance their confidence by changing their values and beliefs in order to increase their organizational commitment, intention and motivation to create exceptional outcomes. Transformational leadership can be divided into ideal traits, ideal behavior, the encouragement of inspiration, and the stimulation of wisdom and individual care. In addition, transactional leadership means leaders and members remain in the process of negotiation and mutual benefit instead of a persistent one-purpose relationship. Social exchange theory is treated as the theoretical base. When subordinates act according to their leaders’ expectations, they will have returns with a specific value. Transactional leadership can be divided into contingent rewards, and active and passive exceptional management. Most quantitative studies on leadership have created questionnaires using the MLQ scale designed by Bass and Avolio (1997). The MLQ scale includes two constructs (transformational leadership and transactional leadership). This study also designed a leadership questionnaire for the hospitality industry according to the MLQ scale. Empowerment Empowerment signals a transition away from traditional development that confined people’s role to that of passive recipients, effectively rendering them dependent on handouts in the form of foreign aid (O’Gorman, 1995). Bowen and Lawler III (1992) define empowerment as sharing with frontline employees four organizational ingredients: (1) Information about the organizations performance; (2) rewards based on the organizations performance; (3) knowledge about contributing to organizational performance; (4) power to make decisions that influence organizational direction and performance. Murat and Thomas (2003) suggested that empowerment does not simply refer to telling employees that they are empowered, but aims to allow the employees to recognize what power has been authorized. Boudrias et al. (2004) suggested that in managerial circles, empowerment application includes two types: (1) Empowering the responsibility of decision-making to subordinates while emphasizing rich work environments 4122 Afr. J. Bus. Manage. and diverse authority, information, resources and support, and providing the opportunity to learn in order to improve performance; (2) psychological empowerment, which refers to employees’ experiences of empowerment that are inferred as a mediating variable of empowerment and expected results. According to Sherman (1996), empowerment acknowledges that employees have the power to change in order to encourage employees to increase their competency. Kanter (1993) suggested that empowerment can keep employees from feeling helpless. Organizations could thus reduce negative effects such as low morale. The most significant effect of empowerment is to enhance employees’ abilities and self-efficacy (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). Bowen and Lawler III (1992) suggested the advantages of empowerment for organizations below: (1) To rapidly respond to customer demands and questions; (2) a high degree of employees’ job satisfaction; (3) positive interactions with consumers; (4) employees with creative thoughts; (5) the creation of loyal customers. About the definition of psychological empowerment, Spreitzer (1995) defines this concept as the psychological state that employees must experience for managerial empowerment interventions to be successful.