Theoretical and Empirical Evolution in Corporate Hospitality

ISSN 2237-0374e-JESS. electronic Journal of Economic Sociology Studies www.e-jess.org

v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278

Theoretical and Empirical Evolution in Corporate Hospitality

José Alberto Carvalho dos Santos ClaroUniversidade Metodista de São Paulo (UMESP)

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to present the theoretical conceptual discussions on hospitality and deepen the little explored subject of Corporate Hospitality, which deals with the hospitable relations within the workplace. As a result, there was a consistent theoretical definition for the devel-opment of this organizational concern and the emergence of indicators that may be used in future empirical studies. An exploratory study with a deep revision, followed by a field research through a survey with managers concerning their understanding on the topic. The theoretical frailty perceived in the literature review shows some dullness to the insiders on the subject, which is latent. In Brazilian jour-nals and in major international journals debating hospital-ity, the subject of Corporate Hospitality is little worked. The investigated sample is not representative due to its being regional and to the focus on formal associates of a people managers’ association. This study offers some implications for organizations and their managers, as it indicates several factors to create a hospitable environment and establishes the need for the creation of indicators or management maps that measure these factors. Contributes to the dissemination of the culture of hospitality for people managers. The theo-retical contribution herein helps the interdisciplinary field of Hospitality to flourish as part of the organizational concerns with the people who belong to it, using the traditional theo-retical framework of the area and generating a new perspec-tive on the subject.

Keywords

Hospitality. Corporate Hospitality. Management. Corpora-tions. People Management.

267


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278

José Alberto Carvalho dos Santos ClaroTheoretical and Empirical Evolution in Corporate Hospitality

1 Introduction

The aim of this study was to establish the constructs of a so-called Corporate Hospitality (CH) for future researches and the creation of scales and indicators for the diagnosis and management in corporations. Its specific objectives are: to check the understanding of theoretical concepts of CH by experts (herein called judges) who work with people management in organizations; to seek the agreement or full agreement of approximately 80% of the chosen judges on the constructs represented by the variables in order to build the understanding of Corporate Hos-pitality; to generate a theoretical framework for the future development of a scientifically and validated constructed scale that helps managers and researchers to define whether a particular organization is hospitable or not.

The study is explained by the fact that previous researches on the subject are not conclusive and because more accurate studies are needed for the construction of a more solid theoretical basis on CH. Upon reflecting on the intention of this theoretical contribution and its results, we resorted to Whetten (1989, 2003), who questions what are the factors, variables, constructs and concepts that should be taken into account in order to explain the phenomenon in question.

The focus of this theoretical and empirical study is not to recover the traditional concepts of Hospitality and bring them to an epistemological discussion, but to identify, within the concepts of the area, those which can relate to a hospitable corporate environment.

Initially, we chose an exploratory research on the theme of hospitality and its corporate branch. Then we conducted an empirical study based on a survey with a group of expert people man-agers affiliated with the Brazilian Association of Human Resources – São Paulo, Santos Regional Office (ABRH-SP/BS). This survey was intended to examine the theoretical items and verify the level of corroboration or understanding of the theoretical concepts of CH, which Pasquali (2003, p. 106) sees as “the behavioral representation [of the object’s] potential trait”. The analysis of these items consists in checking the agreement or full agreement of approximately 80% of the judges. The item’s permanence in the list occurs only in this case (Pasquali, 2003), otherwise it is discarded.

The sections included in this study are: introduction, literature review on aspects of hospitality, conceptual determination of Corporate Hospitality (CH), described and justified methodologi-cal aspects used in the research, analysis of the findings, final thoughts, and proposals for further research. We understand that the main contribution of this work is the improvement of discus-sions on CH and the intention to build a measuring instrument and a scale to check the level of hospitality within an organization.

268


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


2 Theory

Creating a hospitable environment among employees is on the agenda of organizational studies. Lynch, Molz, Mcintosh, and Lugosi (2011) attest that hospitality has been studied from different research areas, but interaction is limited among scholars working in different academic tradi-tions and a lesser one occurs among professionals and academics. Quadros (2011) addressed the reception of guests in service enterprises, but did not care to notice the welcome among employees in a bilateral relationship. With that in mind, we propose these relationships are tran-scended in order that the employees are welcomed by the organization and by each other in their day-to-day relationships.

Chang, Gong and Shum (2011) conducted a study addressing the use of similar hospitality prac-tices in people management and examining innovation in hospitality through the lens of human resource management practices. This study gives a special contribution to the advancement of the theoretical basis of CH and certifies the few empirical studies applied to people manage-ment in the hospitality industry.

In a ten-year long study comparing the changes in conducts related to people management (in the hospitality industry), Kelliher and Johnson (1997) observed a broader and more sophis-ticated approach through the use of some personnel management techniques. Morrison and O’Gorman (2008), on their turn, show that hospitality has lately included other aspects of society in its studies and reached a better positioning in the business world through the multidisciplinar-ity provided by Social Sciences besides seeking reciprocity with other fields of knowledge.

The development of the subject Hospitality "has now reached a point where there is a grow-ing acceptance of its potential and value, a symbiotic relationship between management and research" (Morrison and O'Gorman, 2008, p. 214). King (1995) confirms that the social aspect of hospitality is more concerned with relationships, ensuring that the guest feels good in the new place. In the private area, the family is a great molder and also the nucleus of our society (Quadros, 2011) with its rules, norms, symbols, attitudes, customs, ordinances and other forms of control. In the so-called “Private Hospitality”, the acts from individuals towards individuals typically occur in private residences or places (King, 1995). In organizations, people sometimes see themselves as members of a family. The performance of the commercial form of hospitality, in its various aspects, fit for hotel and catering establishments, is considered “Public Hospitality”.

A study by João, Claro, Dias, and Sarmento (2011) investigated a Dutch hotel and the aspects of mobility provided as a value to its guests. A new concern is attested there: people are in intense movement, requiring good connectivity and support services. This has a close relationship with what Camargo (2008) calls “Virtual Hospitality”. “Business Hospitality” seeks results in corporate

269


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


transactions, such as improved image and profitability through the customer or guest’s satisfac-tion (Quadros, 2011; King, 1995). The development and testing of a research model to examine career satisfaction, based on Karatepe’s (2012) understanding of organizational support, under-scores this concern.

The "Corporate Hospitality" branch is directly related to the organization’s marketing activities, targeted to its business audiences. A study by R. Bennett (2003) discusses whether this should be just a tool to benefit a few corporate executives and facilitate contracts or even personal benefits. Quaiton (2011) warns that this type of activity is not bringing good results for companies. Fed-rizzi (2009) analyzed dissertations produced in years 2004 to 2007, in the Master’s Program in Hospitality from Anhembi Morumbi University (UAM), and showed that from the 108 indexed dissertations, six approached corporate hospitality in a sense close to what is intended here.

Employees have always associated hospitality to the good treatment given to guests, limiting themselves to a courtesy approach (King, 1995). The author says that hospitality can be useful in many services in which employees interact with customers, provided that the concepts are com-municated and understood by them. They should have prior knowledge of what hospitality is and practice it among themselves.

Gjerald and Øgaard (2010) identified a structure with seven assumptions of employees from the area of hospitality related to guests, colleagues, and competitors: predictability, control, af-fection, responsibility, communication, competence, and ethics. In a study that addresses the culture and personal attributes of organizations in the hospitality industry, Dawson, Abbott, and Shoemaker (2011) say that if hospitality is providing accommodation, meals and entertainment for people who are far from home, a complement to this idea should be that when employees are in the company such view is also required. Based on this, Dawson, Abbott, and Shoemaker (2011, p. 291) proposed a scale to measure organizational culture in hospitality organizations and determine the individual values – The Hospitality Culture Scale (HCS). Another study that confirms what is intended in this paper was conducted by Heise (2006), who analyzed an or-ganization’s decision to extend to employees the hospitality strategies used to win the loyalty of guests, which attested gains for the company. An internal corporate host can be conceptual-ized as one who seeks skills coupled with much effort to please, receive, welcome and care for the internal organizational guest or other employees, and both are cared for by the hospitable organization.

What makes an organization hospitable is the group of hosts and guests looking after each other. “It is not enough to be hospitable to be a good host. [It is] important to interact according to a set of beliefs that motivate the individual to welcome someone and be courteous to him” (Quad-ros, 2011, p. 52). Unlike what happens in commercial hospitality, reciprocity here must be free

270


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


of any interest other than the growth of both guests and employees and the organization’s. The organization and the area that cares for people should generate a motivating environment for this to occur naturally, which refers not only to the premises for a good reception, but the human condition, attitudes, behaviors, norms, rules and other codes that provide welfare.

One concern of the manager who wants to stimulate CH occurs at the admission. For Dawson, Abbott, and Shoemaker (2011), recruitment and selection are key contributors to the hiring of hospitable employees. Interpersonal relationships within an organization are based on subjectiv-ity, with an effort to be positive, with a sense of friendship, intimacy and fraternity. Failures occur, and among the reasons for that is the training of employees to be courteous by using an impro-vised interpersonal communication. This is coupled with the fact that some programs intended to generate an atmosphere of collegiality and hospitality come from the organization’s summit, being imposed from the top down (King, 1995). As a result, Hein and Riegel (2012) found that formal education is extremely important for the employees of an organization to deal with as-pects of hospitality.

J. B. Bennett (2003) explored the relationship between four factors: power, relationship, hospi-tality and conversation in the academic community and realized that they are found positive, provided they do not interfere with the inherent freedom. In the central idea is the hypothesis that the acceptance of diversity in the organization generates hospitality and that its existence and conversation help produce a more sustainable company. Another text that deals with the exercise of power in relationships between employees of civil society organizations has been prepared by B. Abbott, Heery, and Williams (2012).

Heloani and Captain (2003) discuss how work is organized in our society as well as the psy-chological repercussions caused by meaningless work and how it leaves marks of suffering in the body, manifesting themselves in various occupational diseases. With aspects of corporate responsibility and organizational citizenship, charity should be a guiding line of CH. This was veri-fied by Liang (2012), which identified that the values relating to how the work is carried out are important predictors for the promotion of organizational citizenship behaviors.

A similar result was reached by Porto and Tamayo (2005), whose research indicates that organi-zational values predict civic behaviors within the organizations. Reciprocity (Kanan & Zanelli, 2011; Siqueira, 2005) should also prevail in a hospitable corporate environment. Courtesy (Port & Canova, 2010) would be another component of CH and its concept should be broader than the one that inserts it in service to customers. Fraternity and friendship (King, 1995) have their space in the corporate environment, in a context of respect and reverence (King, 1995). For King (1995), tact and politeness are also key items for hospitality to fulfill its purpose. Neatness and cleanliness in the workplace (Denipotti & Robazzi, 2011) are allied to issues related to health,

271


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


welfare, accommodation, and benefit programs in organizations (Berndt & Coimbra, 1995; Des-sen & Peace, 2010; Mendes, Vieira, & Morrone, 2009). The facilitation of individual actions, com-fort, convenience, and the meeting of basic needs (King, 1995) may be important items for CH. Food is formalized in organizations through industrial restaurants, nutritional care, outsourced cafeterias or other forms of support. The offer of luxuries and amenities (freebies, etc.) are con-sidered by King (1995) as instruments of traditional hospitality. Elci and Alpkan (2009) argue that the existence of an ethical climate is a major factor that should permeate intraorganizational relationships and the employees’ attitudes. And so is the opposite; for them, when an employee perceives that the organization is permeated by an ethical performance, he/she is more stimu-lated to fulfill his/her tasks.

The theoretical basis treated in the text will aid in the development of a CH scale. Such scale con-struction could be based on the model developed by Dawson, Abbott, and Shoemaker (2011), which establishes three steps to be followed. It begins with a clear definition of what is meant by CH and the strategic decision to apply it, as well as the constructs conforming it. Secondly, the items selected to build the scale should be considered, which is important for determining which of them should be eliminated or retained for the final relation. The third step involves the development of constructs for the scale, conceptualizing and using them in a survey performed to validate the scale instrument. A survey covering the indicators of Human Resources at hotels in Brazil, made by Piellusch and Taschner (2009), corroborated the study by Gueiros and Oliveira (2004), who investigated and testified the possible impacts of HR policies and practices and the consequences for customers. None of the studies have any relation with what is intended here and this became a limiting aspect, for the construction of this scale requires a greater evolution and institutionalization of the organizational discussion on hospitality.

3 Materials and Methods

This research used an exploratory methodological strategy, with the development of a deep literature review. We then chose the descriptive study. Based on the dimensions identified in the literature review, 47 items of the data collection instrument were written and subjected to semantic analysis to check their understanding, clarity of instructions, sufficiency and possible reactions suggesting the absence of understanding during the questionnaire’s application.

To Pasquali (2003, p. 107), “judges are subjects from the population for whom the test shall be built [and should] be experts in the construct, [ judging if ] the items refer or not” to the object under analysis. The analyzed items should reach an agreement or full agreement of approxi-mately 80% of the judges in order to be retained in the list that will form the basis for the future instrument.

272


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


The survey instrument contained 60 questions. Part A referred to information and the charac-terization of respondents and contained 13 questions that raised information about the sample (age, gender, education, professional experience, job position). In Part B, there were 47 ques-tions with a seven-point Likert scale with an interval scale in order of intensity: answer one (1), Totally disagree; answer two (2), Disagree; answer three (3); Partly disagree; answer 4 (four), Neither agree nor disagree; answer five (5), Partly agree; answer six (6), agree; and answer seven (7), Totally agree. The intention of using a seven-point scale was to obtain the highest possible accuracy as to the intensity with which the respondent agrees or disagrees with the statements presented to him.

Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires and raw data were manually en-tered into the IBM SPSS Statistics 19 database. This occurred shortly after the presentation of a seminar in the city of Santos, on November 25, 2011, in the morning, which lasted about three hours. At the end, the research instruments were distributed to those present, who had 15 min-utes to fill it. Thirty nine instruments (numbered 1 to 39) were distributed. Thirty eight were returned completely filled and one was partially filled, resulting in its exclusion (questionnaire # 32). Thus, the valid sample had 38 respondents. The study sample is non-probabilistic, selected by convenience, and initially formed by 39 experts associated with ABRH-SP/BS. At the time of the survey, the population consisted of 96 professionals. So the sample represented 40.63% of the population. After the data collection, its validity was examined and there was an inspection for error correction and to assure its integrity and coherence. This task was performed while the responses were being typed. For data analysis, we used IBM SPSS Statistics 19 software with a descriptive statistics of the sample and the relative frequency of agreement to the items pro-posed for the theoretical concept of CH. Items below six (6) were considered as dissenting from the construct, even though item five (5) was equivalent to Partly agree. What was sought was precisely the agreement or the full agreement about the construct representing the variable to build the understanding of what is Corporate Hospitality for an expert in people management ( judge).

4 Results and Discussion

Regarding gender, there were 21 females (55.3%) and 17 males (44.7%). As to the age, it ranged from 27 to 60 years old, with a 29-year mode, a 39.2-year media, and a 37-year median. Data on occupation showed a high number of people employed in the private sector (71.1%). Regarding education, data pointed to higher education (complete or incomplete graduate, specialist and master's course), reaching 78.9%. The more frequent training was in Administration (34.25%) and Psychology (13.2%). According to respondents, the more frequent positions were in the management level (31.6%), followed by coordination (15.8%), and consulting (10.5%). As to the

273


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


time of work experience, there was a 15-year mode.

Part B of the questionnaire was analyzed using the relative frequency of each response, following the criterion of an 80% acceptance by the judges with an index higher or equal to the interval scale in order of intensity 6 (six) – Agree –, as explained above. The others were discarded. Ex-perts agree (84.3%) that rules, rituals and codes serve to keep people oriented to procedures necessary for a good organizational life and they understand that it is important to include CH in the strategic agenda of the area dealing with people in organizations (84.2%); that it should appear in the Mission and that these actions must not be false or empty, but incremented by sincerity and nonviolent communication (94.7%). Good relationships should permeate the or-ganizations, despite the differences between hierarchical positions (94.7%). The employee must meet the company’s standards and its requirements, and still maintain his/her own emotional balance and self-esteem (84.2%).

Also in the view of experts, at the time of hiring (recruitment and selection) new talents should be identified so as to contribute to a hospitable work environment and that this should be a con-cern for the people manager (92.1%). To this we must add the intensity of training and capac-ity building for the improvement of internal relations and the emergence of CH itself (92.1%). Clear procedures and a harmonious coexistence help avoid conflicts (92.1%). Occasions may arise where an employee has a hospitable spirit toward his/her colleagues and external custom-ers, but the company or organization does not act accordingly with this employee and others (84.2%) and this should be a concern for managers.

Business ethics is part of the company’s internal behavior (81.5%). The CH fully creates a wel-coming environment (92.1%) in which the new employee can learn based on the experiences of others, which is seen as an extension of the concepts of organizational climate (92.1%). Respond-ents understand that generosity (97.4%) is a key component of CH and should occur frequently among coworkers. Reciprocity (89.5%), courtesy (92.1%), fraternity (89.5%), respect (97.4%), tact (84.7%), politeness (94.1%), appropriate behavior (89.4%) are regarded as components of CH. In addition, the work environment should be neat and clean (97.4%) and have suitable ac-commodation (84.2%) and comfort (89.5%) for the existence of CH. Health Programs aimed at the employee and related benefits are also seen as components of CH (92.1%). The quality of life provided by the organizational environment is fully confirmed as an item of CH (100%).

It is understood, therefore, that the basic human needs should be permanently met by the or-ganization (89.5%). Accessibility was another item that got agreement on the fact that it was a component of CH (84.2%). The agreement on the fact that corporate responsibility, organiza-tional citizenship and charity (76.3%) should be conductors of CH was hit. It is interesting to mention that meals (79%), considered the essence of traditional hospitality, are also seen as a

274


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


component of CH, but not fully. The variables that did not stand the assessment of judges and were discarded as constructs of CH, although at times they were registered in the theoretical framework, were: entertainment in the workplace (55.3%), the company as a good place to have fun (55.2%), and the provision of amenities (freebies and others) (31.6%) to employees. The existence of free communication systems in the organization was not confirmed as an item of CH (26.4%). Luxury in the organizational environment must be radically extirpated, in the view of respondents, for it was fully discarded by the experts as a component of CH (10.5%). Regarding the different levels, the existence of formal codes of hospitality does not necessarily mean a mu-tual protection against threats (65.8%). Alongside this, there was no agreement that competition and the maintenance of power occur at all organizational levels with mutual respect (63.1%). The judges have not confirmed that the obligation to be hospitable is mutual in CH, noting that em-ployees are organizational guests and hosts at the same time and that there is no need for a pay-ment for the good relationship to occur (63.2%). Falsehood in the organizational environment should not be part of the CH (68.4%). It was noticed that the attitude befitting with the organiza-tion’s suggestion that people may have to "act" to fit in does not create a hospitable environment (65.8%). However, friendships and personal relationships in teams can also cover up flaws in the execution of tasks (65.8%), which suggests the need for control by leaders.

For the expert respondents, the fact that the organization provides a good environment, fit for good personal and organizational relationships, does not mean that mentors or leaders should open their personal lives as well as the organization’s confidential data to team members, espe-cially in the beginning of their careers in the company (26.2%). Reverence was not included in the list of items of CH (73.7%). In the analysis of the results it was noticed that experts believe that the concepts of CH seek to produce a hotel structure within the company (locker rooms, cafeterias, gyms, libraries, daycare centers, parking lots, messengers, the use the company’s for-mal structure to resolve personal issues of employees), but it is not considered as part of hospi-tality (73.8%), although the index is near the cutoff, which corroborates the fact of the existence of support services in the workplace, such as bank agencies (for example), whose construct was called convenience (68.4%), was not seen as CH. These items can be discussed anew in the future and with new rounds they are likely to incorporate the theoretical constructs of CH.

5 Conclusions

The aim of this study was to develop an early theoretical reference on corporate hospitality and establish its constructs. The aim was to check the understanding of theoretical concepts of CH by specialists who work with people management in organizations, generate a theoretical framework for the development of a scale that helps managers determine whether a particular organization is hospitable or not, and seek the agreement or full agreement on the constructs

275


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


represented by the variables for the understanding of what is CH for an expert in people man-agement.

This study offers some implications for organizations and their managers, as it indicates several factors to create a hospitable environment and establishes the need for the creation of indicators or management maps that measure these factors. It is noticed that the hospitality industry should transfer its cognitive technologies to organizations that do not operate in the sector, but need to establish better internal relationships to achieve its strategic objectives in their market.

This study also contributes to the dissemination of the culture of hospitality for people manag-ers. The theoretical contribution herein helps the interdisciplinary field of Hospitality to flourish as part of the organizational concerns with the people who belong to it, using the traditional the-oretical framework of the area and generating a new perspective on the subject. As a managerial contribution, we were able to evolve into the construction of indicators or factors to measure the levels of hospitality in a working environment, with the future establishment of an instrument based on scales. Further research should be undertaken on CH.

The attempt to build a measurement scale to identify the level of hospitality in an organization must be given a fresher air by researchers, and the topic’s discussion is paramount. The theo-retical framework should be strengthened, both nationally and internationally, for even in those institutions that study hospitality, its use on a corporate basis is still incipient. Therefore, research-ers should focus their studies on two aspects: the deepening of the subject’s theoretical and conceptual – perhaps paradigmatic – basis, and the pursuit of a measurement scale of the level of hospitality in organizations that helps researchers and managers in their studies.

At first, the items considered by the judges and used in this study will serve to support new studies and therefore it is suggested that future researches create Corporate Hospitality indica-tors after these items. This article has severe limitations. The theoretical frailty perceived in the literature review shows some dullness to the insiders on the subject, which is latent. In Brazilian journals and in major international journals debating hospitality, the subject of Corporate Hos-pitality is little worked. The investigated sample is not representative due to its being regional and to the focus on formal associates of a people managers’ association. Future studies should broaden this sample, but taking advantage, of course, of more accurate measuring instruments. In the future, the variables perceived here should be treated by exploratory factor analysis and we suggest the use of a redesigned questionnaire with a smaller number of constructs. We sug-gest the application of new questionnaires and larger samples to confirm or correct the results of this exploratory analysis. Therefore, the continuity of theoretical and empirical studies on Cor-porate Hospitality is necessary and crucial.

276


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


6 References

Abbott, B.; Heery, E.; Williams, S. Civil society organizations and the exercise of power in the employment relationship. Employee Relations 34(1), 91-107, 2012.

Bennett, J. B. Constructing academic community: power, relationality, hospitality, and conversa-tion. Interchange 34(1), 51-61, 2003.

Bennett, R. Corporate hospitality: executive indulgence or vital corporate communications weapon? Corporate Communications: An International Journal 8(4), 229-240, 2003.

Berndt, A.; Coimbra, R. As organizações como sistemas saudáveis. RAE - Revista de Adminis-tração de Empresas 35(4), 33-41, 1995.

Camargo, L. O. de L. A pesquisa em hospitalidade. Revista Hospitalidade V(2), 15-51, 2008.

Canova, K. R.; Porto, J. O impacto dos valores organizacionais no estresse ocupacional: um estudo com professores de ensino médio. RAM - Revista de Administração Mackenzie 11(5), 4-31, 2010.

Chang, S.; Gong, Y.; Shum, C. Promoting innovation in hospitality companies through human resource management practices. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30(4), 812-818, 2011.

Dawson, M.; Abbott, J.; Shoemaker, S. The Hospitality Culture Scale: A measure of organiza-tional culture and personal attributes. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30, 290-300, 2011.

Denipotti, M. E. de P.; Robazzi, M. L. do C. C. Riscos ocupacionais identificados nos ambientes de panificação brasileiros. Ciencia y Enfermería XVII(1), 117-127, 2011.

Dessen, M. C.; Paz, M. G. T. da. Bem-estar pessoal nas organizações: o impacto de configurações de poder e características de personalidade. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa 26(3), 549-556, 2010.

Elci, M.; Alpkan, L. The impact of perceived organizational ethical climate on work satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics 84, 297-311, 2009.

Fedrizzi, V. L. F. Facetas da hospitalidade. Revista Hospitalidade VI(2), 96-114, 2009.

Gjerald, O.; Øgaard, T. Eliciting and analyzing the basic assumptions of hospitality employees about guests, co-workers and competitors. Int. Journal of Hospitality Management 29, 476-487, 2010.

Hein, S. G.; Riegel, C. D. Human resource and organizational management content in the hospi-tality curriculum: how the professionals view it. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism 11(2), 165-181, 2012.

Heise, S. What’s your request?: Wyndham International's answer for transforming culture and enriching employees' experience. Journal of Organizational Excellence Spring 2006, 47-55, 2006.

Heloani, J. R.; Capitão, C. G. Saúde mental e psicologia do trabalho. São Paulo em Perspectiva 17(2), 102-108, 2003.

João, B. do N.; Claro, J. A. C. dos S.; Dias, A. H.; Sarmento, M. B. C. de P. Inovação de valor: o caso CitizenM Hotels. RTVA - Revista Turismo Visão e Ação – Eletrônica 13(3), 299-310, 2011.

Kanan, L. A.; Zanelli, J. C. Organização de trabalho, credora ou devedora? Estudo sobre reci-procidade organizacional. Psicologia em Estudo 16(1), 139-147, 2011.

277


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


Karatepe, O. M. Perceived organizational support, career satisfaction, and performance out-comes: a study of hotel employees in Cameroon. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-tality Management 24(5), 1-33, 2012.

Kelliher, C.; Johnson, K. Personnel Management in hotels — an update: a move to human re-source management? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3, 321-331, 1997.

King, C. A. What is hospitality? International Journal of Hospitality Management 14(3/4), 219-234, 1995.

Liang, Y.-W. The relationships among work values, burnout, and organizational citizenship behaviors a study from hotel front-line service employees in Taiwan. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24(2), 251-268, 2012.

Lynch, P.; Molz, J. G.; Mcintosh, A.; Lugosi, P. Theorizing hospitality. Hospitality & Society Journal 1(1), 3-24, 2011.

Mendes, A. M. B.; Vieira, A. P.; Morrone, C. F. Prazer, Sofrimento e saúde mental no trabalho de teleatendimento. RECADM - Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Administrativa 8(2), 151-158, 2009.

Morrison, A.; O’Gorman, K. Hospitality studies and hospitality management: a symbiotic rela-tionship. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27(2), 214-221, 2008.

Oliveira, L. M. B. de O.; Gueiros, M. G. Clientes internos satisfeitos com as práticas de RH con-duzem à satisfação dos clientes externos? Um estudo no setor hoteleiro. Anais do Encontro da ANPAD - EnANPAD, Curitiba, PR, Brasil, 28, 2004.

Pasquali, L. Psicometria: teoria dos testes na psicologia e na educação. Petrópolis (RJ): Vozes, 2003.

Piellusch, M.; Taschner, G. B. Indicadores de RH no setor hoteleiro: um estudo nas maiores re-des do Brasil. O&S - Revista Organizações e Sociedade 16(51), 665-686, 2009.

Porto, J. B.; Tamayo, Á. Valores organizacionais e vivismo nas organizações. RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea 9(1), 35-52, 2005.

Quadros, A. H. de. A hospitalidade e o diferencial competitivo das empresas prestadoras de serviço. Revista Hospitalidade VIII(1), 43-57, 2011.

Quaiton, D. Improper hospitality: The ramifications of a proposed law to tighten up corporate entertaining will be felt far and wide, but at the moment everyone is playing the waiting game. Event (London), Feb./Mar., 18-19, 2011.

Siqueira, M. M. M. Esquema mental de reciprocidade e influências sobre afetividade no tra-balho. Estudos de Psicologia 10(1), 83-93, 2005.

Whetten, D. A. O que constitui uma contribuição teórica? RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas 43(3), 69-73, 2003.

______. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? The Academy of Management Review 14(4), 490-495, 1989.

278


v. 3, n. 3, set.-dez./2013, p.266-278


About the Author:

José Alberto Carvalho dos Santos Claro

Universidade Metodista de São Paulo (UMESP)Rua Alfeu Tavares, 149Rudge Ramos - São Bernardo do Campo – SP - BrasilCEP: 09641-000

Address for correspondence:Rua Dr. Osvaldo Cruz, 517, apto. 91 – Santos – SP – BrasilCEP 11045-101Phone number: 00 55 13 997182308e-mail: [email protected]

Theoretical and Empirical Evolution in Corporate Hospitality

Documents

Transcript of Theoretical and Empirical Evolution in Corporate Hospitality