International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Developing a new hospitality industry organizational culture scale

Ali Bavik
Tourism College, Institute for Tourism Studies, Macau

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Defining and measuring organizational culture is important, because a strong organizational culture
Received 15 February 2016 could potentially yield sustainable competitive advantages to organizations. However, creating a strong
Received in revised form 8 June 2016 organizational culture is often challenging due to the ambiguity surrounding this concept. A review of
Accepted 27 July 2016
the organizational culture literature resulted in a wide range of definitions and measurements of organi-
zational culture across disciplines and industries. This study argues that the diversity in scales that have
Keywords:
been previously developed for assessing organizational culture may not be fully applicable or appropriate
Organizational culture
for use within the hospitality context. Therefore, by highlighting the key factors affecting the business
Scale development
Hospitality industry
environment and the unique characteristics of the hospitality industry, the purpose of this study is to
New Zealand identify the scope of organizational culture, specifically within the hospitality industry, as well as to
introduce a tailored organizational culture scale, which is aligned with the hospitality context. There-
fore, one of the purposes of this study is to identify hospitality industry organizational culture constructs.
Another purpose of this study is to investigate whether the identified constructs unique and distinguish-
able from that of other industries. To fill these gaps, this current study employed a multidisciplinary and
mixed-method research approach in order to develop a new hospitality industry organizational scale
(HIOCS) particularly for the hospitality industry. The findings suggest that the hospitality industry has
unique cultural characteristics that are distinguished from similar industries. The findings also suggest
that cohesiveness is the most important cultural element of the hospitality industry. This study also
makes recommendations with regards to how this newly developed scale can be used by the hospitality
industry as a means to assess and strengthen organizational culture within organizations in this industry.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This implies that developing a concrete understanding of organiza-

Businesses today operate in a globalized economy where mar-
kets are characterized by hyperactive competition (Sloan et al.,
2013). This implies that businesses must be prepared to continually
adapt to change, whether this be political, economic, social, tech-
nological, and/or environmental in nature. This adaptation must be
balanced alongside of maintaining of focus on customer needs and
wants, service quality and customer retention − all of which needs
to be achieved within the limits of available resources. While seek-
ing competitive advantage, corporations find that they must not
only consider technological and physical elements but must also
seek effective solutions in order to maximize the performance of
their employees. An understanding of organizational culture is con-
sidered to be one of the most important ways for shaping employee
behavior, which could contribute positively to delivering organiza-
tional effectiveness (Barney, 1986; Joyce et al., 1982; Lund, 2003).
E-mail address: bavikali@gmail.com
tional culture is vital for a company’s management so that the goals
of their employees may be more accurately aligned with those of
the organization.
The importance of organizational culture has received con-
siderable attention in the field of organizational behavior. Over
the past three decades, much of this attention has been directed
towards various debates with regards to its conceptualization and
its measurement (see, Delobbe et al., 2002; Glaser, 1991; Schein,
1985a; Wallach, 1983; Weinzimmer et al., 2008). The main areas of
research on organizational culture to date have focused on aspects
of competitiveness, productivity, company sales, profitability, and
growth of companies (e.g., Barney, 1986; Denison et al., 1995;
Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Lund, 2003; Peter and Waterman, 1982).
However, the importance of industry as a factor in defining organi-
zational culture, has received considerably little attention (Tepeci
and Bartlett, 2002). This holds especially true for the hospital-
ity industry (which is one of the largest industries), where little
attention has been paid to organizational culture. This is surprising
because human involvement is considered an inherent and inte-
gral characteristic of the hospitality industry (Yavas and Konyar,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.07.005
0278-4319/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55
2003). In other words, the relationships between hosts and guests
are considered to be more fragile than those in other industries
(Hemmington, 2007; King, 1995; Walker and Miller, 2009). The dis-
tinct characteristics of the hospitality industry make organizational
culture an essential concern in this industry, as organizational cul-
ture potentially affects employees’ behaviors. Hence, there is a
discernible need for developing an effective tool for appropriately
measuring organizational culture within the context of this indus-
try (Dawson et al., 2011; Tepeci and Bartlett, 2002). The results of
this study set out to provide a valid, reliable, and industry-specific
organizational culture scale that uncovers the different layers of
organizational culture and which combines approaches from the
fields of anthropology, sociology, and psychology. The scale devel-
oped in this present study is hitherto referred to as Hospitality
Industry Organizational Culture Scale (HIOCS). This study signifi-
cantly contributes to the existing literature in a number of ways.
The most significant theoretical contribution of this study is the
development and validation of a potentially new, reliable, and valid
organizational culture measurement instrument that is uniquely
suited to the hospitality industry. This provides a new theoretical
insight regarding organizational culture, particularly in the hospi-
tality context. The second major contribution of this study is the use
of multi-methodological research methods. Although some pre-
vious studies have attempted to measure organizational culture
in the hospitality industry (e.g., Dawson et al., 2011; Tepeci and
Bartlett, 2002), certain pitfalls and limitations have been presented
with the use of singular measures. This study, however, has merged
the best of both quantitative and qualitative methods in its scale
development and provided a new conceptualization that generates
a more effective scale for the hospitality industry. Although it needs
to be pointed out that, this contribution is specifically related to the
hospitality industry, and not for other fields of study. Finally, hospi-
tality industry research has often been characterized as a neglected
area within organizational culture (Tepeci and Bartlett, 2002), and
this study furthers our understanding of the hospitality industry
and its associated organizational culture in different physical envi-
ronments.
2. Literature review
2.1. Measuring organizational culture
Over the last three decades, a range of organizational culture
scales have been developed and applied in various industries. How-
ever, like its definition, the measurement of organizational culture
varies according to industry (Chatman and Jehn, 1994; Gordon,
1991; Gregory, 1983; Jelinek et al., 1983; Morey and Luthans, 1985;
Ouchi and Wilkins, 1985; Scott et al., 2003; Xenikou, 1996). Despite
the fact that there are several studies measuring organizational
culture, two basic ‘typological’ and ‘dimensional’ approaches are
presented in the literature.
The typological approach examines culture by means of classi-
fying organizational culture according to various characteristics.
Based on this approach, each organization is an amalgamation
of different cultural dimensions and usually, one type of culture
being noticeably more powerful or influential, compared with other
culture types. For instance, Harrison (1972) typology defines orga-
nizational culture as ‘organizational ideologies’ that associate with
employee behaviors and organizational change. Based on this cul-
tural profile, the culture of organizations consists of four categories:
power orientation, task orientation, person orientation, and role
orientation. On the other hand, in Wallach (1983) typology, orga-
nizational culture is defined as “the shared understanding of an
organization’s employees” (p. 26). This typology is also known as
the ‘organizational culture index’, which focuses on values, beliefs,
45
and ethical behaviors and classifies culture as bureaucratic, inno-
vative, and supportive forms.
Despite the fact that typological studies help to define organiza-
tional culture and present a particular type of employee behavior
(Lim, 1995), several studies have argued that such studies are
mainly descriptive and therefore, there is a potential to stereo-
type, categorize, and pass judgment on different types of culture.
Therefore, the interpretation and implementation of models in
the more diverse industries are limited or problematic (Barley,
1983; Gregory, 1983; Henri, 2006; Jamieson, 1982; Smircich, 1983).
For example, according to Henri (2006), typological studies are
not theory-driven and focus on beliefs about how to manage
rather than on beliefs about how to compete. Correspondingly,
and consistent with these views, Xenikou (1996) similarly reported
that classification of cultural elements does not provide detail
beyond the descriptive level of organizational culture. The poten-
tial problem is that organizational cultures may be misclassified,
or necessary aspects may be ignored (Barney, 1991; Henri, 2006;
Schein, 1990). The reason is that organizational culture “is ubiqui-
tous [as it] covers all areas of group life [and that a] content typology
is always dangerous because one may not have the right variables in
it” (Schein, 1988). In a similar vein, Meyer et al. (1993) argued that
“the allocation of organizations to types often is not clear-cut [and]
their a priori nature and frequent lack of specified empirical refer-
ents and cutoff points, typologies are difficult to use empirically”
(p. 1182, sic, in original). Therefore, typologies of organizational
culture make it complicated for researchers to choose the types
of categories that researchers should use in an analysis (Jamieson,
1982).
The second type of approach is dimensional. In this approach,
the main focus is finding organizational culture profiles by iden-
tifying cultural dimensions of organizations. To achieve this, the
operationalization of scales in related studies focuses on scale
validity and reliability. Therefore, these studies preferred using
standardized questionnaires to gather data. However, several
authors (e.g, Alexander, 1978; Amsa, 1986; Chatterjee et al., 1992;
Cooke and Rousseau, 1988a; Glaser et al., 1987; Meglino et al.,
1989; Tucker et al., 1990; Webster, 1993) have reported a diverse
set of dimensions, ranging from one to fourteen and which cre-
ate variation in the dimensional scope. Some studies focus on the
one or more specific dimensions of organizational culture (see
Amsa, 1986; Schall, 1983), while others present a more compre-
hensive range of dimensions (see Alexander, 1978; Christensen
and Gordon, 1999; Gordon, 1979; Tucker et al., 1990). For exam-
ple, Webster (1993) revealed 34 items and 6 dimensions derived
from factor analysis, with the 6 dimensions being service qual-
ity, interpersonal relationships, selling task, organization, internal
communication, and innovation. On the other hand, Alexander
(1978) reported 42 items and 10 dimensions, concerning; organiza-
tional and personal pride, performance excellence, teamwork and
communication, leadership and supervision, cost effectiveness and
productivity, associate relations, citizen relations, innovation and
creativity, training and development and candor, and openness.
Scott et al. (2003) indicated that the empirical formulation
of organizational culture dimensions are inconsistent with those
dimensions that might be included in organizational culture mod-
els. The probable reason behind such inconsistency is that some
organizational culture dimensions are unipolar while some are
bipolar. For example, some studies paired up a communication
dimension with teamwork or openness (see Alexander, 1978;
Tucker et al., 1990), whereas some researchers split communi-
cation into two dimensions, i.e. ‘communication and openness’
and ‘communication and teamwork’ (see Christensen and Gordon,
1999; Glaser et al., 1987; Gordon, 1979). Therefore, studies explore
different levels of organizational culture, resulting in different
dimensions (Delobbe et al., 2002). In this sense, existing scales are
46 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55
inconsistent with dimensional structure and therefore the gener-
alization and content validity of these scales has been questioned
(Bavik and Duncan, 2015; Weinzimmer et al., 2008).
There are also differences in the methodological approaches
towards data collection in dimensional approaches to measuring
organizational culture (Morey and Luthans, 1985). For exam-
ple, metaphoric studies have considered organizational culture as
organizational knowledge systems with shared cognitions, shared
symbols and meanings (e.g., Ogbonna and Harris, 2002; Sathe,
1983; Smith and Simmons, 1983; Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983). The
predominant approaches to culture measurement for these stud-
ies were qualitative methods (particularly ethnographic studies),
where the purpose of research is to describe and understand
the phenomenon through in depth-interviews and observations
(Cassell and Symon, 1994). On the other hand, variability studies
treated organizational culture with a linear relationship to other
variables (e.g., Alexander, 1978; Calori and Sarnin, 1991; Cooke
and Rousseau, 1988b; Denison, 1984; Goll and Sambharya, 1995;
Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992; Lee and Yu, 2004). The main assump-
tion of these studies is that the external environment such as
competition, customer expectation, and societal expectations put
pressure on organizational culture and organizational performance
(Gordon, 1991). Jelinek et al. (1983) argued that “both process and
outcome [. . .] shapes human interactions and is also the outcome
of those interactions” (p. 331). Therefore, variability studies largely
employed quantitative methods, which explain phenomena by col-
lecting numerical data (Creswell, 2009). While both techniques
possess advantages evident in the literature, the strength of one
has been presented as the weakness of the other. For instance, De
Witte and van Muijen (1999) stressed that qualitative approaches
have the ability to go beyond the superficial characteristic of orga-
nizational culture, thus providing a broader understanding of the
phenomenon (Xenikou, 1996). This approach has the potential to
produce more detailed information about data (Van Maanen, 1979),
and to provide greater awareness of the perspectives of respon-
dents (Schein, 1990). On the other hand, Lee and Yu (2004) stressed
that the objectivity of qualitative studies is problematic due to pos-
sible researcher or respondent error. Cooke and Rousseau (1988b)
suggested that quantitative approaches provide for large-scale
measurement of ideas, beliefs, and attitudes, because these data
are gathered in the form of numbers rather than pictures (Hofstede
et al., 1990). Similar to the issues concerning data collection, the tar-
get respondents of dimensional studies show differences (Denison
and Mishra, 1995; Goll and Sambharya, 1995; Pelham and Wilson,
1995). Relevant studies have used different representative popula-
tions for measuring organizational culture. Some studies (e.g., Fey
and Denison, 2003; Hartog and Verburg, 2004) collected data only
from executives and top management within an organization. Col-
lecting data only from higher hierarchical positions may provide
important insights about top management but “such an approach
clearly results in only a partial view of the organizational culture”
(Scott et al., 2003). In this sense, this method is unable to provide
a detailed understanding of the organizational culture constructs
(Weinzimmer et al., 2008). Therefore, assessment of organizational
culture in a single hierarchical level (bottom line employees, super-
visor, managers) or department (front office, housekeeping, sales)
may limit the generalizability of results and may not reflect the
culture of the whole company (Schein, 1990).
Keeping this in mind, many of these studies adopt either a
typological or a dimensional approach, yet a key question arises
concerning the extent to which a scale developed for a selected
industry can be generalized to another industry. A scale of orga-
nizational culture, initially developed, measured, operationalized
in a specific industry and then applied to other industry settings
may not be completely transferable in terms of the economic
system, industry characteristics, context, and employee and/or
customer relationships (Chatman and Jehn, 1994; Gordon, 1991).
For instance, scales that are appropriate for studying manufactur-
ing businesses might be not applicable for service or hospitality
industries due to their different characteristics. Organizational cul-
ture is often based on the industry and where it is located due
to the environmental forces that influence employees’ values and
assumptions (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Gordon, 1985). Deal and
Kennedy (1982) pointed out that industry characteristics and the
nature of the business create different cultural types. Hence, sev-
eral researchers (e.g., Churchill and Peter, 1980; Hofstede, 2003;
Mattila, 1999; Yavas and Konyar, 2003) have suggested that devel-
oped scales have to be modified when being applied to different
industries, businesses and locations. In this regard, it would seem
that a specific industry is being measured, the degree to which the
related criteria are consistent with the nature of the industry, and
internal as well as external factors, should be of paramount concern
to the researcher.
Although several organizational cultural measurement scales
have been developed in different industries (such as manufac-
turing, insurance, service, banking, and government agencies,
organizational culture), much less attention to scale development
has been given to the hospitality industry (Tepeci and Bartlett,
2002). In addition, while several studies have examined organi-
zational culture in different geographic locations, for example, in
Europe (Calori and Sarnin, 1991; Fey and Denison, 2003; Hartog
and Verburg, 2004; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003), in Asia (Lee and
Yu, 2004), and in the United States (Christensen and Gordon, 1999;
Denison, 1984; Denison and Mishra, 1995; Goll and Sambharya,
1995; Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992; Pelham and Wilson, 1995;
Sørensen, 2002), few studies have examined this in the Southern
Hemisphere (e.g., Deery, 1999; Kemp and Dwyer, 2001).
Of the studies that have considered organizational culture in
the hospitality context, two main approaches of measurement
have drawn researchers’ attention. The first approach is the use
of previously developed organizational culture scales for testing
other organizational dimensions. For instance, Sparrowe (1994)
examined the relationship between organizational culture and
empowerment among employees in 33 hospitality organizations
by using the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) developed by
Cooke and Lafferty (1989). Similarly, Iverson and Deery (1997)
explored the existence of a turnover culture in the hotel indus-
try using the scales developed by Agho et al. (1993) and Price
and Mueller (1986), the researchers combined turnover variables
(structural, pre-entry variables, environmental, union) with vari-
ous organizational outcomes (job satisfaction, employee intention
to leave).
The second approach is the development of industry specific
scales. For example, Kemp and Dwyer (2001) examined how orga-
nizational culture influences employee behaviors within the Regent
Hotel in Sydney and how it affects organizational performance.
Using Johnson (1992) ‘Cultural Web’ as a framework, they adopted
qualitative methodology and interviewed 45 respondents includ-
ing both bottom line employees and managers. The study provides
a clear picture of the organizational culture in the Regent Hotel
in Sydney. In addition, they used multiple sources of data includ-
ing document analysis of in-house publications, staff bulletin board
notices and advertising material as well as observed the interac-
tions between staff and guests. A drawback of this research is that
assumptions cannot be made outside the scope of the selected
hotel. Given the fact that their research is organization specific,
generalizability of their conclusions is restricted (Janićijević, 2012).
As another example, Tepeci (2001) developed an organizational
culture scale specifically designed for the hospitality industry. The
author formed the Hospitality Industry Culture Profile (HICP) based
on O’Reilly et al. (1991) Organizational Culture Profile (OCP). More
specifically, based on the Organizational Culture Profile, they have
 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55
added dimensions of valuing the customer, honesty, and ethics
based on previous hospitality research (Woods, 1989) with a sam-
ple of 182 junior and senior hospitality management students.
Subsequently, Tepeci and colleagues (Tepeci, 2005; Tepeci and
Bartlett, 2002) adopted the scale for examining the effect of orga-
nizational culture on various employee outcomes, including job
satisfaction and intention to quit. The HICP scale provides contri-
butions by focusing the unique roles of personal and ethics-based
characteristics (e.g., orientations, honesty) in affecting organiza-
tional culture.
There is also a specialized instrument for measuring organiza-
tional culture in the hospitality industry, which has been developed
by Dawson et al. (2011). The aim of their study was to discover
the attributes that are unique to hospitality organizations while
identifying the characteristics and values of a person who would
fit into hospitality industry culture. The researchers theoretically
defined relevant domains of the construct (organizational culture);
invited hospitality professionals to review these, and to then rate
and rank the identified items to confirm the final pool of items.
Consequently, they identified six constructs that are unique to the
hospitality industry.
These studies of Tepeci and Bartlett (2002) and Dawson et al.
(2011), while breaking new ground in this area, have also high-
lighted some important methodological shortcomings that need to
be addressed. First, due to the terminological differences among
instruments, drawing a clear boundary among them and differen-
tiating them clearly from each other is nearly impossible. That is,
alternative classifications and a variety of dimensions consisted in
a scale is always possible, depending on the perspective taken by
researchers. For example, Reynolds (1986) scale emphasizes work
values, and work beliefs whereas Schall (1983) emphasizes com-
munication. Such approaches lead to the problem of researchers
shaping their analysis and mapping their methodology based on
the scope of organizational culture adopted in previous studies.
Second, both Tepeci and Bartlett (2002) and Dawson et al. (2011)
administered their scale evaluation using students as participants.
However, using students as participants have been shown to be
problematic. Most importantly, as a sample, students possess only
a very limited amount of industry work experiences. Using stu-
dents as subjects in empirical studies could also lead to inadequate
assessment of some on-job related variables such as job satisfac-
tion and intention to quit (Dawson et al., 2011), as well as the issue
of having a rather demographically homogenous sample (Tepeci
and Bartlett, 2002). Gordon et al. (1986) critiqued this approach,
claiming the use of students as subjects means the research suffers
from a lack of external validity, thus the potential for generalizabil-
ity to other populations, settings and variables is compromised.
Another limitation associated with the organizational culture scale
(OCP) is that it was developed and tested in government agen-
cies. There is a clear consensus in the literature that private and
public sectors are different in terms of employee recruitment,
employee motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and man-
agement (Boyne and Walker, 2005; Budhwar and Boyne, 2004;
Guyot, 1962; Murray, 1975; Tansel, 2005). To illustrate, in terms
of management, in the private sector the hierarchical order is a
pyramid shape and the structure is based on top to bottom hierar-
chy (Houston, 2000; Lewis and Frank, 2002). On the other hand, the
public sector “is subject to the pressure of the press and to public
scrutiny, it operates in a goldfish bowl” (Murray, 1975). Therefore,
the public sector has clear rules for employees while the private
sector has more flexibility and employees are empowered to make
decisions (Rainey et al., 1976). As highlighted earlier, industries
may have different values and assumptions, therefore the OCP scale
might not be applicable for service or hospitality industries due
to their different characteristics. Although the studies discussed
above provide some conceptually and empirically sound results,
47
this study extends the quantitative methods of these previous stud-
ies by providing a mixed methodological approach that provides
additional detailed description. Finally, prior studies have not yet
fully explored the interactive effects of contextual or higher-level
variables and individual factors in constructing organizational cul-
ture. Tepeci specifically stated, “the measurement instruments vary
according to what elements of culture one assesses” (Tepeci, 2005).
Hence, to comprehensively investigate various sub-dimensions of
culture elements, it is necessary for researchers to consider other
environmental factors, such as human resource management prac-
tices.
To address the research gaps summarized above, this cur-
rent study develops a scale (that is, the Hospitality Industry
Organizational Culture Scale, or HIOCS) specifically for the hos-
pitality industry by adopting a hybrid methodological approach.
An industry-specific approach to analyzing organizational culture
offers a more comprehensive, real, and accurate picture of industry
characteristics and complexities (Christensen and Gordon, 1999;
Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Gordon, 1991). This is because different
industries can be perceived as separate entities that are associ-
ated with their own characteristics, customer requirements, work
beat, and employee relationships, which implies that each indus-
try should be examined and studied individually to yield objective
insights (Gordon, 1985). Hence, in this study, the organizational
culture scale is developed specifically for the hospitality indus-
try based on its unique characteristics. In addition, by conducting
the study as well as by collecting data from companies in New
Zealand, the current study addresses the gap of a lack of investi-
gation of the construct in the hospitality industry in the Southern
Hemisphere. Finally, combining the approaches of anthropology,
sociology, and psychology in the qualitative investigation of this
research, I look into more macro-level and contextual factors that
may influence organizational culture, thereby uncovering differ-
ent layers of organizational culture in the hospitality industry and
potentially enhancing the implications of the scale developed.
3. Measurement of scale development
As mentioned earlier, this study incorporates both qualita-
tive and quantitative methods in exploring the dimensionality of
the organizational culture scale, following a three-step approach
in its design: (1) item generation, (2) scale purification, and (3)
testing the validity and reliability of the Hospitality Industry Orga-
nizational Culture Scale (hereafter HIOCS). These approaches are
discussed below.
3.1. Item generation
The process of item generation involves two main stages. In the
first stage, an extensive literature review was conducted regard-
ing the measurement of organizational culture scales developed
for different industrial contexts following a mixture of deductive
and inductive approaches (Cooper et al., 1998; Hinkin, 1995).
In the second stage, a total of 18 personal interviews were
conducted. The sample includes both managers and bottom line
employees who worked in four, four plus and five-star accommo-
dation establishments in Dunedin, Christchurch, and Queenstown,
all located in the South Island of New Zealand. These cities were
chosen because 32 percent of New Zealand’s hotels are located
in these cities (Qualmark, 2010). In other words, these cities rep-
resent a large proportion of the total number of hotels in New
Zealand. Finally, a judgmental sampling approach was employed,
as subjects were selected and interviewed who were considered
representative of the hotel industry workforce in New Zealand (see
Judd et al., 1991). Emails were then sent to 29 hotels located in
48 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55
Dunedin, Queenstown, and Christchurch. With the intention of fur-
ther increasing the response rate, follow-up e-mails were sent after
two weeks to non-responding hotel managers in order to request
their participation. When agreement and consent was obtained,
the researcher visited the hotels for data collection. Seven hotels
agreed to take part in the interviews, which is a response rate of 24
percent.
Given the exploratory nature of qualitative part, there is lit-
tle consensus to an appropriate number of interviews. Although
some researchers provided numerical instructions, i.e. 12–60 inter-
views (Adler and Adler, 2012), 5–25 interviews (Creswell, 2009)
and 30–50 interviews (Morse, 2000), a recent study conducted
by Baker et al. (2012) suggested that 12 interviews would be the
minimum requirement for qualitative study. Considering the pre-
vious suggestions regarding the minimum requirement for the
number of interviews as well as the purpose of this study, the
researcher initially aimed for 25–30 interviews. Even though the
initial targeted sample size couldn’t be achieved, a point of satura-
tion occurred with a total of 18 interviews. The participants in this
study consisted of 11 females and 7 males. In addition, these par-
ticipants were recruited from a broad variety of background in the
hospitality industry such as housekeeping, front office, food and
beverage, kitchen, engineering, and accounting, forming a repre-
sentative sample with certain level of functional diversity. Guided
by previous qualitative research on organizational culture, this
study combined interview approaches that have been developed
in the fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
Two key paradigms of organizational culture have also been
identified and commonly applied in related studies, one of which
refers to Deshpande and Webster (1989) paradigm, where organi-
zational culture is categorized into five approaches (i.e. contingency
management, organizational symbolism, comparative manage-
ment, cognition perspective, and psychodynamic perspective),
while the other refers to the three-level paradigm proposed by
Schein (1985b). Even though the two paradigms encompass dif-
ferent dimensions and layers of organizational culture, there are
certain overlapping areas among them (cf. Schein, 1985b; Webster,
1993). In order to cover different layers of organizational culture,
during the planning stages of designing the interview questions,
each level of organizational culture (artifacts, values, and assump-
tions), is described in Schein (1985b) paradigm and Deshpande
and Webster (1989) paradigm were included in the interview
design. Thirteen questions were adopted from (Hofstede et al.,
1990; Rentsch, 1990; Schein, 1992) to measure the first layer. The
focuses of contingency management and organizational symbol-
ism were language, symbols, signs, stories, myths, and rituals. For
example, interview questions such as What are special terms here
that only organization members understand? were used for deter-
mining language and symbols, and Which events are celebrated in
this organization? to determine rituals that were used for identi-
fying ‘artifacts’. These questions corresponds to the first level of
Schein (1985b) organizational culture—artifacts, which are observ-
able components of culture.
Ten questions were adopted from (Hofstede et al., 1990;
Rentsch, 1990; Schein, 1992) to measure the second layer of orga-
nizational culture (that is, ‘values’). Comparative management and
cognition perspective emphasizes knowledge, norms, rules, and
beliefs. For example, interview questions such as What is the biggest
mistake one can make?, What behaviors are rewarded around here?
were used to determine ‘norms’, and What makes your organiza-
tion unique from other businesses? was used to determine ‘beliefs’
and ‘values’. These questions correspond to the second level of
Schein (1985b) organizational culture − ‘values’ which emphasizes
unwritten norms and rules.
In order to identify the third layer, two questions were adopted
from (Hämmal and Vadi, 2006). Psychodynamic perspective
studies consider culture as metaphor and focuses on the mean-
ing of the metaphors. For instance, interview questions such as If
you had to compare your organization with an animal, then what ani-
mal would it be? Why? were designed to capture the subconscious
(metaphorical) aspects of organizational culture. This question is
categorized under the ‘assumption’ level of organizational culture
in Schein (1985b) framework, because shared basic assumptions
(Schein, 1985b) and metaphors (Morgan, 1980; Morgan et al., 1983)
have been illustrated as interchangeable concepts of organizational
culture in some studies (e.g., Sun, 2008). In total, 25 interview ques-
tions, which focus on different layers of organizational culture,
were adopted from these previous studies. Participants were asked
these 25, open-ended questions and all responses from participants
were recorded by the interviewer.
The qualitative data gathered from the interviews were then
analyzed with thematic analysis following the approach of Braun
and Clarke (2006). Specifically, data obtained from the interview
were coded for creating a thematic map and generating relevant
dimensions following both inductive and deductive approaches
using the Mindjet Manager 8.0 software. Specifically, codes were
initially formed based on relevant literature (deductive approach)
and then were checked for the consistency with the data provided
by interviewees (inductive approach).
To purify the items in the initially identified dimensions, all
the coded items were reviewed. Throughout this process, other
researchers acted as independent coders and reviewed the process
to reduce researcher bias (Braun and Clarke, 2006). As a result, a
consensus was established about the findings. Items that appeared
to be redundant, ambiguous, and/or represented by less than thirty
percent of the respondents were eliminated. This process resulted
in the initial generation of 102 items with eight dimensions.
Next, a panel of academic experts formed by faculty members
with work experience in the tourism and hospitality industries
were invited to serve as independent judges. King and Horrocks
(2010) suggested that content validity of a questionnaire can be
achieved by the submission of the questionnaire to a panel of judges
who are expert or knowledgeable about a particular phenomenon.
Based on the comments received from this panel, modification of
the questionnaire can improve the overall quality and validity of
the questionnaire (Cassell and Symon, 1994). Keeping this in mind,
a review of the relevant literature revealed that there is no com-
mon rule with respect to the number of judges required for content
validation. Besides, a comparison of related studies on this subject
shows a lack of congruity (see Bearden et al., 1989; Hinkin, 1995;
Lee and Crompton, 1992; Petrick, 2002). Netemeyer et al. (2003)
suggest that using as many judges as possible may contribute to a
greater validity. In this regard, 14 judges were selected consisting
of University of Otago faculty members and doctoral candidates
who had some work-related experience in various tourism and
hospitality industries. The operational definitions for the proposed
dimensions of the hospitality industry organizational culture were
provided to the judges. In the first stage, the judges were asked to
edit and to improve the items in terms of content, readability, clar-
ity, and representativeness (Petrick, 2002). This process resulted in
rewording and rephrasing some of the items. In the second stage,
judges were asked to identify any items that were representative
of more than one dimension. In the third stage, the judges were
requested to identify items that needed to be refined, changed, or
omitted from the statements (Zaichkowsky, 1985). To achieve this,
and as recommended by Lee and Crompton (1992), a consensus
analysis was taken when comparing the comments of the judges.
Any decision for refining the items was made based on the agree-
ment from four or more experts. In this regard, some of items were
omitted because the judges stated that the items were too similar
with other items in different dimensions, while some seemed not
related to the concept. Lee and Crompton (1992) strongly suggested
 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55 49

this process as an effective way of increasing the content validity of Table 1

Exploratory factor analysis results.
a newly developed scale. Likewise, Hinkin (1995, p. 970) stated that
this process “serve[s] as a pre-test [which permits] the deletion of Variables and Items Eigenvalue Factor Loadings % Variance ␣
items deemed conceptually inconsistent”. This process resulted in Level of Cohesiveness 9.751 26.20 0.83
7 of the 102 items being eliminated. COH2 0.84
To further test for the face validity of the dimensions, 30 grad- COH4 0.81
uate students were recruited and asked to rate those items on COH5 0.74
COH8 0.67
a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree).
COH1 0.67
Such a process resulted in 95 items being retained and classi- COH11 0.65
fied into a total of eight identified dimensions, including level of COH6 0.61
cohesiveness, ongoing onboarding, work norms, social motivation, Communication 8.810 12.84 0.76
guest focus, human resource management practices, communica- COM6 0.81
tion, and innovation. COM7 0.75
COM1 0.69
COM5 0.68
3.2. Scale purification
COM8 0.66

A pre-test was conducted by collecting data from 130 full- Social Motivation 6.436 9.56 0.89
SM13 0.87
time employees who worked in four, four plus to five stay hotels SM9 0.83
in Dunedin and Queenstown. Respondents returned their filled SM11 0.80
questionnaires in a sealed envelope to the front desk of their SM2 0.76
hotels for researchers’ subsequent collection. A total of 82 valid SM8 0.72
SM1 0.71
questionnaires were obtained, resulting a response rate of 63.7%.
SM6 0.69
Emails were sent to 29 hotels located in Dunedin, Queenstown, SM12 0.63
and Christchurch. Consequently, nine hotels agreed to take part
Ongoing Onboarding 5.318 6.11 0.85
in the pilot study. To assess the construct validity of the scale, ONO12 0.82
an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. Results of the ONO11 0.80
EFA revealed that the eight factors had a coefficient alpha ranged ONO7 0.80
from 0.60 to 0.88. After removing those items with factor load- ONO8 0.75
ONO13 0.73
ings lower than 0.60 and those with a factor loading of 0.60 or
ONO2 0.67
higher on two or more factors (Nunnally, 1978), 58 items were
retained under the eight dimensions, which explained 52 per- Guest Focus 5.292 5.46 0.71
GF6 0.78
cent of the variance (Thompson, 2004). To evaluate the internal
GF7 0.78
consistency of the scale, Cronbach’s alphas were obtained. The
coefficient alphas for the eight factors were: level of cohesiveness Innovation 4.326 4.87 0.73
INV1 0.89
(␣ = 0.81), ongoing onboarding (␣ = 0.80), work norms (␣ = 0.79), INV2 0.79
social motivation (␣ = 0.82), guest focus (␣ = 0.72), human resource INV3 0.73
management practices (␣ = 0.82), communication (␣ = 0.79), and Job Variety 2.221 3.21 0.74
innovation (␣ = 0.75). The overall Cronbach alpha (␣) was found to HRMP11 0.90
HRMP12 0.90
be ␣ = 0.81. Results revealed that the scale had a satisfactory level
of internal consistency. HRM Practices 1.867 2.79 0.86
HRMP8 0.77
HRMP10 0.76
3.3. Results of the main study (testing validity and reliability of HRMP3 0.75
the HIOCS) HRMP2 0.74
HRMP9 0.72
3.3.1. Sample and procedure HRMP6 0.71
HRMP5 0.63
For the main study of this research, questionnaires were dis-
HRMP4 0.62
tributed to employees working in four, four plus to five star hotels
located in Queenstown, Wellington, and Auckland in New Zealand. Work Norms 1.345 2.48 0.88
WN15 0.88
Consent was obtained from human resource managers and the duty
WN12 0.85
managers before sending out the surveys to hotel employees. The WN9 0.84
data was collected from 23 hotels. A total of 294 questionnaires WN20 0.79
were returned, of which 281 were valid for data analysis, with a WN18 0.75
WN4 0.67
response rate of 62.4%. Of the respondents, 54.44% were male; 55.2%
were between the age of 18–27; 33.5% had a monthly income of Notes: KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test of Sampling Adequacy) → 0.866. Bartlett’s
NZD 1500 to NZD 1999; 62.6% were full-time employees; 35.6% Test of Sephericity → 1482.425 p < 0.0001. Overall alpha coefficient = 0.866.

had worked in their position for one to three years; 34.9% received
at least a secondary school qualification; 45.6% worked at the front
office; and 59.1% were from Queenstown.
3.3.2. Findings
Before carrying out the EFA, the univariate and multivariate
normality of the data set was assessed to ensure that the sub-
sequent estimation process would be rigorous (Hair et al., 1995;
Tashakkori, 2006; Thompson, 2004). Data distribution with either
a highly skewed nature or with high kurtosis is indicative of non-
normality such as the existence of outlier cases, which has random
effects on specification or estimation (Nunnally, 1978). Results sug-
gested that the Skewness and Kurtosis scores for 11 items exceeded
2.00, which should be excluded from data for further analysis (Hair
et al., 1998; Jöreskog, 1999). As a result, 47 items remained for
conducting EFA.
EFA was conducted with the Varimax rotation method and the
criterion of minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 (Steed and Coakes, 2001).
As shown in Table 1, results show that the coefficient alphas of
all items ranged from 0.71 to 0.88, which were all above the 0.70
50 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55
threshold level suggested by Nunnally (1978). The findings also
identified an additional dimension, i.e. job variety. During the plan-
ning and testing stages of this study, and with the agreement of
judges, the items in this study were categorized within HRM prac-
tices. Although results of the pilot study suggested there were eight
dimensions, confirmatory factor analysis of the main study reveals
that job variety items represent a distinct dimension. It appears that
the interviews and empirical results are theoretically sound, with
the study of Dawson et al. (2011), who indicated job variety as one
of the components of the hospitality industry organizational cul-
ture. These scholars measured job variety with two identical items.
Given these previous findings, the research presented in this study
job variety can be considered one of the components of the HIOCS.
The proposed nine-factor organizational culture scale was
then examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order
to establish convergent and discriminant validity for the scale
(Schwab, 1980). As illustrated in Table 2, all items significantly
loaded on their postulated dimensions and their factor loadings
ranged from 0.62 to 0.91, with the smallest t-value being 7.91
(p < 0.001). The proposed nine-factor measurement model had also
achieved good fit with the data (CFI = 0.83; ␹2 /df = 2.58; NFI = 0.80;
RMSEA = 0.06), providing support for the convergent and discrim-
inant validity of the scale. Further, the average variance extracted
(AVE) value, which demonstrates the amount of variance in the
related items explained by a specific latent construct, was com-
puted for each latent factor. The AVE values for all the constructs
were above 0.50, indicating a satisfactory level of convergent
validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Results of the data analy-
ses suggested that the proposed nine-factor organizational culture
scale was valid.
One of the ways of testing the discriminant validity involves
analyzing the confidence interval for all the possible construct
correlations. Table 3, presents the descriptive statistics and correla-
tions among the factors. Peter (1981) states “discriminant validity
is determined by demonstrating that a measure does not corre-
late very highly with another measure from which it should differ”
(p. 136). If the estimated confidence interval (+/− two standard
errors) are not greater than 0.85, this provides additional evidence
of discriminant validity (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).
As can be seen from Table 3, all correlations are significant at
the 0.005. The highest correlation occurred between ‘level of cohe-
siveness’ and ‘social motivation’ factors (0.75), and the lowest was
found between ‘job variety’ and ‘social motivation’ (0.17). Table 3
further presents that none of the correlation is greater than 0.85.
This result suggests that dimensions are distinct from each other.
This finding also provides evidence of HIOCS’s discriminant valid-
ity. The results also show that the highest standard deviation is 1.26
whilst the lowest is 0.48. In this respect, standard deviation scores
indicated that the majority of the respondents tended to answer
similarly and therefore there were no major differences among
mean scores. This finding indicates that standard deviations are
low and the data are clustered closely around the mean (reliable).
4. Conclusion
4.1. Discussion
As mentioned before, the current study aims to identify the key
organizational culture dimensions in the hospitality industry. In
this respect, the confirmatory factor analysis identified nine dimen-
sions including (i) level of cohesiveness, (ii) social motivation, (iii)
ongoing onboarding, (iv) human resource management practices,
(v) work norms, (vi) communication, (vii) innovation, (viii) job vari-
ety, and (ix) guest focus.
Another aim of the study is to investigate whether the identified
dimensions are unique to the hospitality industry. Examination of
the relevant literature shows that communication and innovation
have been identified earlier in previous studies as two of the orga-
nizational culture dimensions in a number of different industries
(e.g., Alexander, 1978; Gordon, 1979; Hartog and Verburg, 2004;
Webster, 1993). On the other hand, job variety and guest focus
were also identified in Dawson et al.’s (2011) study. That leads to
five dimensions being uniquely uncovered in this present study that
are distinguishable in the hospitality industry, namely level of cohe-
siveness, social motivation, ongoing onboarding, human resource
management practices, and work norms.
Regarding the dimension of level of cohesiveness, there is an
agreement in the relevant literature that group cohesiveness is task
and social-oriented in nature (Festinger et al., 1950; Yukelson et al.,
1984). As a particular example, Carron et al. (1998) defined group
cohesiveness as “the social bonding and/or task unity that devel-
ops in groups is pleasing to members”. Taking some of the level
of cohesiveness items as an example COH4 People I work with are
direct and honest each other, COH2 This hotel has a friendly working
environment, and COH8 Working together gives me confidences in my
job. These items represent unique characteristics in the hospitality
industry, which are rarely found in other industries. The hospital-
ity industry is characterized as labor intensive with many of the
jobs requiring certain levels of skills and knowledge (King, 1995).
Therefore, no employee can work alone and s/he has to team up to
accomplish the given tasks efficiently. “Each member of the team is
interconnected and represents a piece of this puzzle. In order to put
the puzzles together, you must have cohesion” (Walker and Miller,
2009).
For social motivation, Tyler, (2010) suggests that human behav-
ior can be shaped by social relationships such as equality, support
and fairness. Labov (2010) reported that employees reciprocate
with corresponding levels of attitudes and behaviors based on their
perception of the nature of the relationship with the supervisors.
Schein (2006) distinguishes four sets of concepts about the nature
of man and links with organization. Regarding the social man con-
cept, individuals are social organisms and as such are motivated
by their need for human relationships. Therefore, employees are
generally motivated by social relationships in the workplace. Keep-
ing in this mind, employees are a vital source in the hospitality
because it is a highly people-oriented industry (Mullins, 2001). Sev-
eral authors (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1986; Saks, 2006; Walters and
Raybould, 2007; Wayne et al., 1997) reported the hospitality estab-
lishments can only achieve and maintain guest satisfaction through
employee satisfaction. Compared to other industries such as bank-
ing, insurance, advertising; hospitality industry, particularly hotel
establishment, has no routine holiday and needs to operate 24 h a
day, 7 days a week (Cassee and Reuland, 1983). Thus, it increases the
tension at work and makes personal relationships between super-
visors and subordinates challenging in the hospitality industry.
Further, this study defines ongoing onboarding as the ability
of organizations to deliver its goals and objectives, through certain
communication channels. According to organizational socialization
theory, onboarding is “the process by which an individual acquires
the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organiza-
tional role” (Van Maanen and Schein, 1977). It should be stressed
that several studies preferred the term ‘onboarding’ to delineate
the phenomenon (Wong and Ladkin, 2008). The researcher prefers
‘ongoing’ onboarding, because this definition is not only subject to
new members, but also covers each member as a whole in the sense
that it reminds members to understand their own roles, continu-
ously feel engaged and how their individual contributions append
value to the complete success of the organization. The hospitality
industry has a high level of employee turnover, which decreases
productivity (e.g., Bauer et al., 1998; Chao et al., 1994; Schein, 1967;
 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55 51

Table 2
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.

Item No Variables and Items Factor Loading t-value

Level of Cohesiveness
COH5 This hotel is like an extended family. 0.74 11.59
COH6 People in our team/department socialize together outside of the hotel. 0.73 7.97
COH4 People I work with are direct and honest with each other. 0.71 13.60
COH11 People work together in a structured way rather than working independently. 0.69 9.88
COH1 We help each other in our busy periods. 0.67 11.82
COH8 Working together gives me confidence in my job. 0.66 11.48
COH2 This hotel has a friendly working environment. 0.62 16.41

Ongoing Onboarding
ONO12 I am expected to have high personal standards of performance. 0.75 14.60
ONO11 I am expected to multi-task. 0.73 14.54
ONO8 I am expected to maintain good working relationships. 0.72 12.48
ONO13 I am expected to have specific knowledge for my particular profession. 0.70 12.27
ONO7 I am expected to be enthusiastic about my job. 0.68 14.25
ONO2 I am expected to be committed to my job. 0.62 10.30

Work Norms
WN18 Improper dress code is tolerated in this hotel. 0.91 12.55
WN20 Sharing hotel secrets is tolerated in this hotel. 0.87 13.32
WN15 Discrimination is tolerated in this hotel. 0.84 18.93
WN4 Displaying violence to other staff or guests is not tolerated in this hotel. (R) 0.83 10.06
WN12 Using foul language is tolerated in this hotel. 0.83 16.74
WN9 Telling lies is tolerated in this hotel. 0.79 16.93

Social Motivation
SM13 My supervisors verbally motivate me when I do a good job. 0.72 17.39
SM 11 My supervisors have a flexible leadership style. 0.68 14.93
SM12 My supervisors clearly state what their expectations of staff are. 0.68 10.41
SM8 When I do a good job, my supervisors tell me. 0.67 12.74
SM2 My supervisors have an “open-door” policy. 0.65 14.25
SM1 My supervisors motivate staffs who are having a difficult day. 0.64 12.42
SM9 My supervisors collaborate with other employees at work. 0.64 16.23
SM6 My supervisors provide equal treatment to each employee. 0.63 11.88

Guest Focus
GF6 This is a hotel that is in the business of creating memories for its guests. 0.79 17.05
GF7 This is a hotel that is a home away from home for its guests. 0.72 14.28

Human Resource Management Practices

HRM6 This hotel provides career opportunities for their employees. 0.68 11.81
HRM9 Employee satisfaction is one of the priorities for this hotel. 0.68 12.05
HRM8 This hotel empowers its employees. 0.67 13.66
HRM4 The safety of every employee is important. 0.66 9.10
HRM5 Within the hotel, training is important. 0.66 9.49
HRM10 This hotel rewards its employees. 0.65 13.52
HRM3 This hotel builds positive morale and motivation for its employees. 0.63 13.38
HRM2 This hotel provides a satisfactory level of employee benefits. 0.62 12.47

Job Variety
HRM11 This job is one where every day is different. 0.88 13.54
HRM12 This job is one that can be challenging at various times. 0.72 11.58

Communication
COM7 Everyone takes a part in discussions at meetings. 0.73 10.40
COM5 Everyone communicates more formally during busy periods. 0.71 9.97
COM6 People I work with are good listeners. 0.70 15.23
COM1 I can comfortably ask questions of my supervisors. 0.69 11.02
COM8 People are expected to share their ideas with others about the job. 0.68 8.48

Innovation
INV3 We find creative solutions together. 0.73 18.47
INV1 We attempt to find new and better ways to serve the guest. 0.70 9.34
INV2 My supervisors let me suggest new ideas for doing things. 0.67 11.62

Each Item is measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 “strongly agree” to 5 “strongly disagree”. All loadings are significant at the 0.01 level/R = Reverse coded item(s).

Van Maanen and Schein, 1977). Further, it costs a company signif-
icant amount of time and resources (Arnold and Feldman, 1982).
Thus, it is important for the managers in the hospitality industry
to provide clearer communication, greater certainties, and more
concrete guidelines regarding company’s expectation, boundaries,
as well as their responsibilities to both newcomers and existing
employees.
Over the past two decades, perspectives on human resource
management practices have significantly evolved to focus on
a broader variety of elements (Harrison, 1993). For example,
international human resource management (IHRM) practices are
developed to deal with cultural differences based on a management
style and business strategy (Aycan et al., 1999; Bowen and Ostroff,
2004; Cabrera and Bonache, 1999; Lau and Ngo, 2004; McKenzie,
2010; Ulrich, 1984; Wilkins, 1984). Similarly, HRM practices are
combined with the strategic objectives of an organization strate-
gic human resource management (SHRM) to improve competitive
performance (Pfeffer, 1998). The hospitality industry is inherently
human-oriented and competitive advantage is highly dependent
on the knowledge, skills and attitudes of employees, which are all
52 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Study Dimensions 1 2
1 Guest focus 1
2 Job Variety 0.24** 1
3 Innovation 0.49** 0.50**
4 Level of Cohesiveness 0.47** 0.29**
5 Ongoing Onboarding 0.37** 0.26**
6 Work Norms 0.17* 0.19*
7 Social Motivation 0.61** 0.17*
8 Human Resource Management Practices 0.50** 0.25**
9 Communication 0.43** 0.33**
Means 1.96 1.98
Standard Deviations 0.76 0.78
Notes: a Composite scores are calculated by averaging items representing that measure. Responses range from 1 being “strongly agree to 5 being “strongly disagree. Higher
scores indicate favorable responses. b **Significant at the 0.01 level. c *Significant at the 0.005 level.
primary sources of guest satisfaction (Green, 1997; Harzing and
Pinnington, 2010). Thus, considering the key characteristics of the
hospitality industry, particularly the hotel sector, HRM practices
seem to be more important than those in any other sectors (Cassee
and Reuland, 1983). Given the changes in HRM practices in the
last two decades, it would be sound to consider the fact that HRM
practices may blend gradually with the culture of an organization
and ultimately become a cultural tool over time. It also appears
that theoretical and empirical studies support this notion, in par-
ticular Aycan et al. (1999) who presented the model of culture fit.
The model suggests that managers utilize HRM practices based on
their assumption about the nature of the industry and behavior
of employees. It also suggests that HRM practices reinforce the
assumptions, values, and behaviors, which are exist in the company
culture.
Finally, concerning the dimension of work norms, a number
of studies suggest that industries have different standards and
norms due to a central issue that may not be as important as
in the other industries (Chatman and Jehn, 1994; Gordon, 1991;
Pennings and Gresov, 1986; Schein, 1988). Several studies indicate
that the hospitality industry is guest oriented; however it requires
doing things from an ethical and procedural perspective (Coughlan,
2001; Malloy and Fennell, 1998; Payne, 1996; Raiborn and Payne,
1990). Given the importance of guest satisfaction is in the hospital-
ity, it is logically sound that work norms items emphasize ethical
issues such as dress code, organizational confidentiality, honesty,
inequity, and openness. In support of the arguments and find-
ings of the current study, several studies in the relevant literature
emphasize ethical elements of the hospitality industry. Particularly,
those of Raiborn and Payne (1990), Payne (1996), Tucker, (1999),
Coughlan (2001) Malloy and Fennell (1998) who present of code of
ethics in the hospitality industry as values of justice (morally right),
integrity (honesty, sincerity, condor), utility (greatest good for the
greatest number) competence (self-improvement) (see Bavik, 2014
for detailed descriptions of the HIOCS dimensions).
4.2. Implications
Results of this study provide four main theoretical contributions.
The first major contribution is the use of multi-methodological
research methods. Although some previous studies have attempted
to measure organizational culture in the hospitality industry (e.g.,
Kemp and Dwyer, 2001), certain pitfalls and limitations have been
presented with the sole use of single method. In this respect, this
study has merged the best of both quantitative and qualitative
methods in its scale development and provided a new and perhaps
more rigorous conceptualization that generates a more effective
scale for the hospitality industry.
Despite the fact that the main purpose of this study is to develop
an industry specific measurement for the hospitality industry, the
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0.69** 1
0.46** 0.46** 1
0.28** 0.41** 0.27** 1
0.75** 0.67** 0.49** 0.47** 1
0.46** 0.51** 0.56** 0.49** 0.64** 1
0.44** 0.54** 0.58** 0.44** 0.55** 0.48** 1
1.98 1.93 1.58 2.81 2.01 2.19 2.18
0.61 0.57 0.48 1.21 0.61 0.57 0.56
framework and methodologies that were utilized during the scale
development procedure are as important as the scale itself. In
this respect, second theoretical contribution of the study is that
the multi-disciplinary elements addressed in the interview ques-
tions used during the stage of scale development. Particularly, each
level of organizational culture (artifacts, values, and assumptions)
described in Schein (1985b) and Deshpande and Websters (1989)
paradigm were all included in the interview design. Moreover,
organizational culture is a multilayered and multidimensional phe-
nomenon, such that different methods should be combined for
more comprehensively exploring its various layers and dimensions
(Janićijević, 2012). Combining different approaches in the qualita-
tive part elaborates and covers a wider range of details to measuring
organizational culture in the hospitality industry.
Third, to the best of researcher’s knowledge, HIOCS introduces
new dimensions (level of cohesiveness, ongoing onboarding, social
motivation, work norms, human resource management practices)
that prove to be important to scholar in how they perceive hospi-
tality industry organization culture. New dimensions can lead to a
broader understanding of the concept.
Finally, hospitality industry research has often been character-
ized as a neglected area within organizational culture (Tepeci and
Bartlett, 2002). This study furthers our understanding of the hospi-
tality industry and the associated organizational culture in different
physical environments. In addition, by conducting the study as well
as by collecting data from companies in New Zealand, the current
study addresses the gap of a lack of investigation of the construct in
the hospitality industry in the New Zealand (and Southern Hemi-
sphere) context, thereby improving the external validity of the
findings yielded in this study. The results of the study are expected
to provide hospitality companies in this geographical space with
valuable implications.
The hospitality establishments have been measuring organi-
zational culture using diverse measurements because of a lack
of available industry-specific scales. However, the HIOCS devel-
oped in this study could potentially provide executives (as well as
other stakeholders) in the hospitality industry with a convenient
method for understanding and measuring organizational culture.
The HIOCS could be used as a diagnostic instrument to pinpoint
areas where particular enhancements are necessary. The assess-
ment of the scale can be used in the hospitality industry in several
ways. First, executives should be aware of the cultural elements on
which their company relies on before they implement the HIOCS.
This scale will enable executives to determine if there is a gap
between organizational ideologies and the organization’s actual
culture. Second, assessing and profiling the dominant culture of an
organization is essential for executives. The scale will help execu-
tives identify the core values that are held by most of the members
in an organization. This will provide a better understanding about
what happens behind the scenes within their organizations, and
 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55
which might require improvement. Third, large organizations usu-
ally develop specific values or experiences that are unique to
members of certain departments. The assessment of this scale could
also potentially allow executives to identify if there are significant
discrepancies among departments, and then identify which steps
need to be taken, as an example, to improve communications, or
more generally, to assist in streamlining communications between
departments. In addition to this, it can be also used between dif-
ferent hierarchical levels, which may provide multilevel analysis of
an organization’s culture. Fourth, if an organization has numerous
branches (hotels) in different geographic locations, organizational
culture profiles for the individual branches can be used to identify
the similarities and discrepancies with other branches. Fifth, exec-
utives might consider the culture of an organization and consider
its compatibility with any future strategy. For example, if an orga-
nization seeks to break into the New Zealand market, the HIOCS
provides key information regarding the organizational culture of
the hospitality context in the country, and would no doubt assist
in the organization’s adaptation of its business to the local envi-
ronment. Finally, the assessment of the HIOCS can be used during
the recruitment and selection efforts of an organization. The HRM
department may compare perceptions of prospective applicants’
personal characteristics with their company’s culture.
4.3. Limitations
Patton (2002) suggested “there are always trade-offs to make in
designing a study, due to limited resources, time, and human abil-
ity to grasp the complex nature of the social reality” (p. 223). As in
all other studies, there are some limitations and delimitations to
this study. In the first place, one of the purposes of this study is to
identify the cultural elements of the hospitality industry. Therefore,
no dependent variable was tested in the study. In future studies,
organizational culture and potential outcomes such as employee
performance, employee retention, employee commitment, and dif-
ferent facets of job satisfaction may be used in order to examine the
possible relationships. The results of this study indicate that the
relationship between organizational culture and firm-level perfor-
mance could be further examined and tested. As with all research in
the social sciences, and although the statistical procedures suggest
sufficient validity, it is strongly recommended that future research
replicate the methods in this research in order to provide greater
support for the generalization of the current study findings. Next,
this study only focused on the New Zealand context, thus in future
studies a more geographically diversified sample of hotels should
be used, since organizational culture has been shown to vary sig-
nificantly across countries/territories. It also needs to be pointed
out that—although hotels could be considered representative of the
hospitality industry—the focus on hotels in this study cannot be
used to describe other sectors in the hospitality industry. In order
to enhance our understanding of hospitality industry, it would be
interesting and worthwhile to research the relationships that could
exist between national culture and the organizational culture of the
hospitality industry in specific contexts.
Scholars have investigated organizational culture in different
industries, but less attention has been paid to the hospitality indus-
try. This study combined multidisciplinary approaches to uncover
different layers of hospitality organizational culture while using
multi-methodological research methods. The HIOCS, involving nine
dimensions with 47 items, is shown to be clear, concise and prac-
tical, and can be used as an assessment tool for the hospitality
executives to diagnose their organizational culture in line with their
company ideology. Since there has been not much research con-
ducted focusing on organizational culture and hospitality industry
contexts, there is still room for scholars to further add on to
the existing body of knowledge. Therefore, future research may
53
further investigate the interrelationships among the nine dimen-
sions derived from this study and those constructs of interest by
using causal or structural models. In conclusion, it is the hope that
this study may provide future researchers with a better under-
standing and working knowledge of the dynamics underlying
organizational culture in the hospitality industry, specifically in the
New Zealand context. It is the hope that researchers in hospital-
ity studies can benefit from the theoretical concepts and methods
discussed in this article to further explore organizational culture
research in other countries, as well as other contexts in the hospi-
tality industry.
References
Adler, P., Adler, P., 2012. Expert voice. In: Baker, S.E., Edwards, R. (Eds.), How Many
Qualitative Interviews Is Enough? Expert Voices and Early Career Reflections
on Sampling and Cases in Qualitative Research. Southampton. National Centre
for Research Methods Review Paper, pp. 8–10.
Agho, A.O., Mueller, C.W., Price, J.L., 1993. Determinants of employee job
satisfaction: an empirical test of a causal model. Hum. Relat. 46, 1007–1027.
Alexander, M., 1978. Organizational norms opinionnaire. In: The 1978 Annual
Handbook for Group Facilitators. University Associates, La Jolla, CA, pp. 81–88.
Amsa, P., 1986. Organizational culture and work group behaviour: an empirical
study. J. Manag. Stud. 23, 347–362.
Arnold, H.J., Feldman, D.C., 1982. A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job
turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 67, 350.
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N., Sinha, J.B.P., 1999. Organizational culture and human
resource management practices the model of culture fit. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol.
30, 501–526.
Baker, S.E., Edwards, R., Doidge, M., 2012. How many qualitative interviews is
enough? : Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in
qualitative research.
Barley, S.R., 1983. Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational
cultures. Adm. Sci. Q., 393–413.
Barney, J.B., 1986. Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained
competitive advantage? Acad. Manag. Rev. 11, 656–665.
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17,
99–120.
Bauer, T.N., Morrison, E.W., Callister, R.R., 1998. Organizational socialization: A
review and directions for future research.
Bavik, A., Duncan, T., 2015. Organizational culture and scale development:
methodological challenges and future directions. Nang Yan Bus. J. 3, 55–66.
Bavik, A., 2014. Developing the hospitality industry organizational culture scale.
In: A New Zealand case study. University of Otago, New Zealand.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G., Teel, J.E., 1989. Measurement of consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence. J. Consum. Res., 473–481.
Bowen, D.E., Ostroff, C., 2004. Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The
role of the strength of the HRM system. Academy of management review. 29,
203–221.
Boyne, G.A., Walker, R.M., 2005. Introducing the determinants of performance in
public organizations symposium. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 15, 483–488.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res.
Psychol. 3, 77–101.
Budhwar, P.S., Boyne, G., 2004. Human resource management in the Indian public
and private sectors: an empirical comparison. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 15,
346–370.
Cabrera, E.F., Bonache, J., 1999. An Expert HR System for Aligning Organizational
Culture and Strategy. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
Calori, R., Sarnin, P., 1991. Corporate culture and economic performance. A French
study, 12. Organization studies, pp. 049.
Carron, A., Brawley, L., Widmeyer, W., 1998. The measurement of cohesiveness in
sport groups. Adv. Sport Exercise Psychol. Meas., 213–226.
Cassee, E., Reuland, R., 1983. The Management of Hospitality. Press Ltd., Pergamon.
Cassell, C., Symon, G., 1994. Qualitative methods in organizational research: A
practical guide. eds G.Symon and C. Canell.
Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J., Gardner, P.D., 1994.
Organizational socialization: its content and consequences. J. Appl. Psychol. 79,
730.
Chatman, J.A., Jehn, K.A., 1994. Assessing the Relationship between industry
characteristics and organizational culture: how different can you be? Acad.
Manag. J. 37, 522–553.
Chatterjee, S., Lubatkin, M.H., Schweiger, D.M., Weber, Y., 1992. Cultural
differences and shareholder value in related mergers: linking equity and
human capital. Strateg. Manage. J. 13, 319–334.
Christensen, E.W., Gordon, G.G., 1999. An exploration of industry, culture and
revenue growth. Organ. Stud. 20, 397.
Churchill, G.A., Peter, J.P., 1980. Measurement abstracts: purpose, policy, and
procedures. J. Mark. Res. 17, 537–538.
Cooke, R.A., Lafferty, J.C., 1989. Organisational Culture Inventory. Human
Synergistic, Plymouth Mass.
Cooke, R.A., Rousseau, D.M., 1988a. Behavioral norms and expectations. Group
Organ. Manag. 13, 245.
54 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55
Cooke, R.A., Rousseau, D.M., 1988b. Behavioral norms and expectations a
quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group
Organ. Manag. 13, 245–273.
Coughlan, R., 2001. An analysis of professional codes of ethics in the hospitality
industry. Int. J. Hospitality Manag. 20, 147–162.
Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Sage Publications, Inc.
Dawson, M., Abbott, J., Shoemaker, S., 2011. The hospitality culture scale: a
measure organizational culture and personal attributes. Int.J. Hospitality
Manag. 30, 290–300.
De Witte, K., van Muijen, J.J., 1999. Organizational culture: critical questions for
researchers and practitioners. Eu. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 8, 583–595.
Deal, T., Kennedy, A., 1982. Corporate cultures. In: The rites and rituals of
organizational life. Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.
Deery, M.A., 1999. An investigation of the relationship between employee turnover
and organizational culture. J. Hospitality Tourism Res. 23, 387–400.
Delobbe, N., Haccoun, R.R., Vandenberghe, C., 2002. Measuring core dimensions of
organizational culture: a review of research and development of a new
instrument. In: Unpublished Manuscript. Universite catholique de Louvain,
Belgium.
Denison, D.R., Mishra, A.K., 1995. Toward a theory of organizational culture and
effectiveness. Organ. Sci. 6, 204–223.
Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R., Quinn, R.E., 1995. Paradox and performance: toward a
theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organ. Sci., 524–540.
Denison, D.R., 1984. Bringing Corporate Culture to the Bottom Line Periodicals
Division. American Management Associations.
Deshpande, R., Webster Jr., F.E., 1989. Organizational culture and marketing:
defining the research agenda. J. Mark. 53, 3–15.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., Sowa, D., 1986. Perceived
organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 71, 500–507.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., Back, K., 1950. The spatial ecology of group formation.
Soc. Press. Informal Groups, 33–60.
Fey, C.F., Denison, D.R., 2003. Organizational culture and effectiveness: can
American theory be applied in Russia? Organ. Sci. 14, 686–706.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res., 382–388.
Glaser, S.R., Zamanou, S., Hacker, K., 1987. Measuring and interpreting
organizational culture. Manag. Commun. Q. 1, 173–198.
Glaser, R., 1991. The corporate culture survey: A discussion starter. Organizational
Learning Resources, Organization design and development.
Goll, I., Sambharya, R.B., 1995. Corporate ideology, diversification and firm
performance. Organ. Stud. 16, 823–846.
Gordon, G.G., DiTomaso, N., 1992. Predicting corporate performance from
organizational culture*. J. Manag. Stud. 29, 783–798.
Gordon, M.E., Slade, L.A., Schmitt, N., 1986. The science of the sophomore revisited:
from conjecture to empiricism. Acad. Manage. Rev. 11, 191–207.
Gordon, G.G., 1979. Gordon (1979) Managing Management Climate. Lexington
Books, Lexington, Mass.
Gordon, G.G., 1985. The relationship of corporate culture to industry sector and
corporate performance. Gaining Control Corporate Culture 103, 125.
Gordon, G.G., 1991. Industry determinants of organizational culture. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 16, 396–415.
Gregory, K.L., 1983. Native-view paradigms: multiple cultures and culture conflicts
in organizations. Adm. Sci. Q., 359–376.
Guyot, J.F., 1962. Government bureaucrats are different. Public Adm. Rev., 195–202.
Hämmal, G., Vadi, M., 2006. Organizational cutlure through the connections
between metaphors and orientations.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1995. Multivariate Data
Analysis: with Readings. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., William, C., 1998. Black (1998). In:
Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River. Prentice Hall, NJ.
Hämmal, G., Vadi, M., 2006. Organizational cutlure through the connections
between metaphors and orientations.
Harrison, R., 1993. Human resource management. In: Issues and strategies.
Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.
Hartog, D.N., Verburg, R.M., 2004. High performance work systems, organisational
culture and firm effectiveness. Hum. Res. Manag. J. 14, 55–78.
Harzing, A.-W., Pinnington, A., 2010. International Human Resource Management.
SAGE Publications Limited.
Hemmington, N., 2007. From service to experience: understanding and defining
the hospitality business. Serv. Ind. J. 27, 747–755.
Henri, J.-F., 2006. Organizational culture and performance measurement systems.
Accounting. Organ. Soc. 31, 77–103.
Hinkin, T.R., 1995. A review of scale development practices in the study of
organizations. J. Manag. 21, 967.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D., Sanders, G., 1990. Measuring organizational
cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Adm. Sci. Q.,
286–316.
Hofstede, G.H., 2003. Culture’s consequences. In: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage publications.
Houston, D.J., 2000. Public-service motivation: a multivariate test. J. Public Adm.
Res. Theor. 10, 713–728.
Iverson, R.D., Deery, M., 1997. Turnover culture in the hospitality industry. Hum.
Resour. Manag. J. 7, 71–82.
Jöreskog, K.G., 1999. Formulas for skewness and kurtosis. In: Scientific Software
International. http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel.
Jamieson, I., 1982. The concept of culture and its relevance for an analysis of
business enterprise in different societies. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 12, 71–105.
Janićijević, N., 2012. The influence of organizational culture on organizational
preferences towards the choice of organizational change strategy. Econo. Ann.
57, 25–51.
Jelinek, M., Smircich, L., Hirsch, P., 1983. Introduction: a code of many colors. Adm.
Sci. Q. 28, 331–338.
Johnson, G., 1992. Managing strategic change—strategy, culture and action. Long
Range Plann. 25, 28–36.
Joyce, W., Slocum, J.W., Von Glinow, M.A., 1982. Person-situation interaction:
competing models of fit. J. Organ. Behav. 3, 265–280.
Judd, C.M., Smith, E.R., Kidder, L.H., 1991. Res. Methods Soc. Relat.
Kemp, S., Dwyer, L., 2001. An examination of organisational culture-the regent
hotel, Sydney. Int. J. Hospitality Manag. 20, 77–93.
King, N., Horrocks, C., 2010. Interviews in Qualitative Research. Publications Ltd,
Sage.
King, C.A., 1995. What is hospitality? Int. J. Hospitality Manag. 14, 219–234.
Kotter, J.P., Heskett, J.L., 1992. Corporate culture and performance. Free Pr.
Lau, C.M., Ngo, H.Y., 2004. The HR system, organizational culture, and product
innovation. Int. Bus. Rev. 13, 685–703.
Lee, T.H., Crompton, J., 1992. Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Ann. Tourism
Res. 19, 732–751.
Lee, S.K.J., Yu, K., 2004. Corporate culture and organizational performance. J.
Manag. Psychol. 19, 340–359.
Lewis, G.B., Frank, S.A., 2002. Who wants to work for the government? Public Adm.
Rev. 62, 395–404.
Lim, B., 1995. Examining the organizational culture and organizational
performance link. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 16, 16–21.
Lund, D.B., 2003. Organizational culture and job satisfaction. J. Busi. Ind. Mark. 18,
219–236.
Malloy, D.C., Fennell, D.A., 1998. Codes of ethics and tourism: an exploratory
content analysis. Tourism Manag. 19, 453–461.
Mattila, A.S., 1999. The role of culture in the service evaluation process. J. Serv. Res.
1, 250–261.
McKenzie, K., 2010. Organizational culture: an investigation into the link between
organizational culture, human resource management, high commitment
management and firm performance. Otago Manag. Graduate Rev. 8, 57–68.
Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C., Adkins, C.L., 1989. A work values approach to corporate
culture: a field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to
individual outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 424.
Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S., Hinings, C.R., 1993. Configurational approaches to
organizational analysis. Acad. Manage. J. 36, 1175–1195.
Morey, N.C., Luthans, F., 1985. Refining the displacement of culture and the use of
scenes and themes in organizational studies. Acad. Manage. Rev. 10, 219–229.
Morgan, G., Frost, P.J., Pondy, L.R., 1983. Organizational symbolism. Organ.
Symbolism 3, 35.
Morgan, G., 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization
theory. Adm. Sci. Q. 25, 605.
Morse, J.M., 2000. Determining sample size. Qual. Health Res. 10, 3–5.
Mullins, L.J., 2001. Hospitality Management and Organisational Behaviour. Pearson
Education.
Murray, M.A., 1975. Comparing public and private management: an exploratory
essay. Public Adm. Rev., 364–371.
Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S., 2003. Scaling Procedures: Issues and
Applications. Sage publications, Inc.
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric Theory. McGraw, New York.
Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Methods. McGraw, New York.
O’Reilly III, C.A., Chatman, J., Caldwell, D.F., 1991. People and organizational
culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit.
Acad. Manag. J., 487–516.
Ogbonna, E., Harris, L.C., 2002. Managing organisational culture: insights from the
hospitality industry. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 12, 33–53.
Ouchi, W.G., Wilkins, A.L., 1985. Organizational culture. Annu. Rev. Sociol.,
457–483.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Publications, Inc,
Sage.
Payne, D., 1996. Towards a code of conduct for the tourism industry: an ethics
model. J. Bus. Ethics 15, 997–1007.
Pelham, A.M., Wilson, D.T., 1995. A longitudinal study of the impact of market
structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on
dimensions of small-firm performance. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 24, 27.
Pennings, J.M., Gresov, C.G., 1986. Technoeconomic and structural correlates of
organizational culture: an integrative framework. Organ. Stud. 7, 317–334.
Peter, T.J., Waterman, R.H., 1982. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s
Best-run Companies. Warner Book, New York.
Peter, J.P., 1981. Construct validity: a review of basic issues and marketing
practices. J. Mark. Res. (JMR) 18.
Petrick, J.F., 2002. Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the
perceived value of a service. J. Leisure Res.
Pfeffer, J., 1998. Seven practices of successful organizations. Org Dev & Trng, 6E
(Iae) 460.
Price, J.L., Mueller, C.W., 1986. Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees.
Qualmark, 2010. New Zealand’s official quality tourism website.
Raiborn, C.A., Daniah, Payne, 1990. Corporate codes of conduct: a collective
conscience and continuum. J. Bus. Ethics 9, 879–889.
 A. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 58 (2016) 44–55
Rainey, H.G., Backoff, R.W., Levine, C.H., 1976. Comparing public and private
organizations. Public Adm. Rev., 233–244.
Rentsch, J.R., 1990. Climate and culture: interaction and qualitative differences in
organizational meanings. J. Appl. Psychol. 75, 668.
Reynolds, P.D., 1986. Organizational culture as related to industry, position and
performance: a preliminary report. J. Manage. Stud. 23, 333–345.
Sørensen, J.B., 2002. The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm
performance. Adm. Sci. Q., 70–91.
Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J.
Manag. Psychol. 21, 600–619.
Sathe, V., 1983. Implications of corporate culture: a manager’s guide to action.
Organ. Dyn.
Schall, M.S., 1983. A communication-rules approach to organizational culture.
Adm. Sci. Q. 28, 557–581.
Schein, E.H., 1967. Organizational socialization and the profession of management.
In: Alfred P. Sloan School of Management. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Schein, E.H., 1985. How culture forms, develops, and changes. Gaining control of
the corporate culture, 17–43.
Schein, E.H., 1985b. Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View.
Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E.H., 1988. Organizational socialization and the profession of management.
Sloan Manage. Rev. 30, 53–65.
Schein, E.H., 1990. Organizational culture. Am. Psychol. 45, 109.
Schein, E.H., 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, 2nd
ed. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Schein, E., 2006. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-bass.
Schwab, D.P., 1980. Construct validity in organizational behavior. Res. Organ.
Behav. 2, 3–43.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., Marshall, M., 2003. The quantitative
measurement of organizational culture in health care: a review of the available
instruments. Health Serv. Res. 38, 923–945.
Sloan, P., Legrand, W., Chen, J.S., 2013. Sustainability in the hospitality industry:
principles of sustainable operations. Routledge.
Smircich, L., 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Adm. Sci. Q. 28,
339–358.
Smith, K.K., Simmons, V.M., 1983. A Rumpelstiltskin organization: metaphors on
metaphors in field research. Adm. Sci. Q., 377–392.
Sparrowe, R.T., 1994. Empowerment in the hospitality industry: an exploration of
antecedents and outcomes. J. Hospitality Tourism Res. 17, 51–73.
Steed, L., Coakes, S., 2001. SPSS : Analysis Without Anguish. John Wiley & Son,
Brisbane.
Sun, S., 2008. Organizational culture and its themes. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 3, P137.
Tansel, A., 2005. Public-private employment choice, wage differentials, and gender
in Turkey. Econ. Dev. Cultural Change 53, 453–477.
Tashakkori, A., 2006. Mixed methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Sage.
Tepeci, M., Bartlett, A., 2002. The hospitality industry culture profile: a measure of
individual values, organizational culture, and person-organization fit as
predictors of job satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Int. J. Hospitality
Manag. 21, 151–170.
Tepeci, M., 2001. The Effect of Personal Values, Organizational Culture, and
Person-organization Fit on Individual Outcomes in the Restaurant Industry.
The Pennsylvania State University.
55
Tepeci, M., 2005. The dimensions and impacts of organizational culture on
employee job satisfaction and intent to remain in the hospitality and tourism
industry in Turkey. J. Travel Tourism Res. 5, 21–39.
Thompson, B., 2004. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In:
Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
Tucker, R.W., McCoy, W.J., Evans, L.C., 1990. Can questionnaires objectively assess
organisational culture? J. Manag. Psychol. 5, 4–11.
Tucker, L.R., 1999. A multidimensional assessment of ethical codes: the
professional business association perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 19, 287–300.
Tyler, T.R., 2010. Why People Cooperate: The Role of Social Motivations. University
Press, Princeton.
Ulrich, W.L., 1984. HRM and culture: history, ritual, and myth. Hum. Resour.
Manag. 23, 117–128.
Van Maanen, J.E., Schein, E.H., 1977. Toward a theory of organizational
socialization.
Van Maanen, J., 1979. Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research:
a preface. Adm. Sci. Q. 24, 520–526.
Walker, J.R., Miller, J.E., 2009. Supervision in the hospitality industry. In: Leading
Human Resources. Wiley.
Wallach, E.J., 1983. Individuals and organizations: the cultural match. Training
Dev. J.
Walters, G., Raybould, M., 2007. Burnout and perceived organisational support
among front-line hospitality employees. J. Hospitality Tourism Manag. 14,
144–156.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Liden, R.C., 1997. Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Acad. Manag. J.,
82–111.
Webster, C., 1993. Refinement of the marketing culture scale and the relationship
between marketing culture and profitability of a service firm. J. Bus. Res. 26,
111–131.
Weinzimmer, L.G., Franczak, J.L., Michel, E.J., 2008. Culture-performance research:
challenges and future directions.
Wiklund, J., Shepherd, D., 2003. Knowledge based resources, entrepreneurial
orientation, and the performance of small and medium sized businesses.
Strateg. Manage. J. 24, 1307–1314.
Wilkins, A.L., Ouchi, W.G., 1983. Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship
between culture and organizational performance. Adm. Sci. Q. 28, 468–481.
Wilkins, A.L., 1984. The creation of company cultures: the role of stories and
human resource systems. Hum. Resour. Manage. 23, 41–60.
Wong, S.C.-k., Ladkin, A., 2008. Exploring the relationship between employee
creativity and job-related motivators in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Int. J.
Hospitality Manag. 27, 426–437.
Woods, R.H., 1989. More alike than different: the culture of the restaurant
industry. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 30, 82–97.
Xenikou, A., 1996. A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire
measures of organizational culture. Hum. Relat. 49, 349–371.
Yavas, B.F., Konyar, K., 2003. Cultural and economic determinants of managerial
perceptions of quality. J. Asia Pacific Bus. 4, 3–23.
Yukelson, D., Weingberg, R., Jackson, A., 1984. A multidimensional group cohesion
instrument for intercollegiate basketball teams. J. Sport Psychol.
Zaichkowsky, J.L., 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. J. Consum. Res.,
341–352.