Title: Addressing the Negative Perception of Jobs in the Hospitality Industry

Douglas G. Miller, PhD.

Utah Valley State College
800 West University Parkway
Orem, UT. 84058
millerdo@uvsc.edu

Susan R. Madsen, PhD.

Utah Valley State College
800 West University Parkway
Orem, UT. 84058
madsensu@uvsc.edu

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to introduce a new construct that would assist
in understanding employee attitudes and behaviors in hospitality sector jobs. The
research justifies job-esteem as a unique construct worthy of further study. Job-esteem
is defined as the level of respect and dignity an individual believes is associated with
his/her job. An instrument measuring an employee’s level of job-esteem was developed
and administered. Tests show the instrument meets reliability standards.
Job-Esteem: Definition and Instrument Development

Douglas G. Miller
Utah Valley State College

Susan R. Madsen
Utah Valley State College

The purpose of this study was to introduce a new construct that would assist in understanding employee
attitudes and behaviors in hospitality sector jobs. The research justifies job-esteem as a unique construct
worthy of further study. Job-esteem is defined as the level of respect and dignity an individual believes is
associated with his/her job. An instrument measuring an employee’s level of job-esteem was developed
and administered. Tests show the instrument meets reliability standards.

A possible phenomenon hindering the success of the hospitality industry is the negative perception many service
employees have of their jobs (Ghiselli, La Lopa, & Bai, 2001). Many front-line service employees often feel their
work is insulting, demeaning, and humiliating as they cater to the needs and sometimes eccentric wants of
customers. Hospitality industry employees are especially vulnerable to these feelings due to the nature of the
services provided (Spillane, 2001). Experts (Bowen & Lawler, 1995) believed that this perception could cause poor
service delivery, dislike for the guest, negative job attitudes, and high turnover rates. If employees do not take pride
in their jobs or find dignity in what they do, they are more likely to leave the industry. Perhaps a greater concern
occurs when employees with negative attitudes toward their jobs do not leave the industry but stay and provide poor
service. The future success of the hospitality industry may rest in part with its ability to improve the image of service
employment (Waryszak & King, 2001).
To study this phenomenon, a new construct job-esteem was created for this research project and is used to
describe the level of respect and dignity an individual believes is associated with his/her job. Job-esteem is the self-
analysis of the social value and dignity associated with one's job. Similar, but not synonymous, concepts of self-
esteem, job satisfaction, work ethic, job involvement, and job-related anomie are identified as components or
contributing forces that influence job-esteem. The study of job-esteem is important to the hospitality industry
because of the service nature of positions and the transient nature of many of the jobs. Many employees find
cleaning guests' rooms, carrying guests' luggage, and serving guests' food to be demeaning and servile. This negative
perception lowers employee job longevity. Understanding job-esteem would enhance the industry's ability to address
these issues through various organization development interventions including training. Job-esteem would also be
important for a variety of other service-related industries (e.g., health care, retail) that struggle with similar attitude
and performance issues and challenges.
A primary focus of human resource development (HRD) in hotels is to assist organizations and individuals in
improving their workplace performance. Because job-esteem is a new construct, related HRD and management
research has not yet been conducted and published. However, the relationships between the previously mentioned
job-esteem components and various areas of HRD (e.g., organization development, training and development, and
performance improvement) have been explored (e.g., De Meuse & Hostager, 2001; Tracey, Kinkin, Tannenbaum, &
Mathieu, 2001).

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this research was to develop an instrument that measures job-esteem and captures all its components.
The goal was to produce a comprehensive, yet versatile, measure of job-esteem that can be used to advance
understanding of this complex phenomenon. Because job-esteem is a new construct, the first research question
focused on the identification of the components of job-esteem. The second question revolved around item
development while the final question focused on reliability standards of the utilized instrument.
1. What are the primary components of job-esteem?
2. What survey items would appropriately measure each of these job-esteem components?
3. Can the newly developed instrument meet reliability standards?
Research Method

This section will address the identification of job-esteem components, instrument development, research sample,
data collection, and data analysis information.
Identification of Components
The literature on many of the variables or constructs that were considered to be possible components of job-
esteem was explored. The most applicable included job involvement, job-related anomie, job satisfaction, job-
specific esteem, self-esteem, work ethic, and occupational prestige.
Job Involvement. Saleh and Hosek (1976) defined job involvement as the degree to which the total job situation
is a central life interest or the degree to which it is perceived to be a major source for the satisfaction of important
needs. The central life interest implies the importance of the job on factors outside the job itself. Individuals are
unique in how they view their employment as the most important function in their life (Ramsey, Lassk, & Marshall,
1995). Job-esteem, although it does have impact on central life issues, has few implications for how the job is
perceived in terms of order of importance relative to other life activities. Lodahl and Kejner (1965) defined job
involvement as the degree of importance of one’s work in one’s total self-image. This definition also implies the
significance of the job on the individual’s work and non-work life. Again, it is expected for a job to affect one’s total
life; but the job does not need to be a major source or central interest in order for job-esteem to be an effective factor
in the satisfaction and success of the employee. Finally, Allport (1943) defined job involvement as the degree to
which the job meets the need for prestige and self-respect or the level of importance to one’s self-esteem. Again,
there is reason to assume that a job may very well enhance as well as diminish an individual’s overall self-esteem. A
worthy, and perhaps ethical, goal of any organization is to increase an employee’s self-esteem; whether it improves
the productivity of the employee is immaterial. Nevertheless, as pointed out earlier, self-esteem and job-esteem are
overlapping, yet distinct concepts.
Job-related anomie. Another factor affecting job-esteem is anomie. Anomie is defined by traditional sociology
as a negative social condition resulting from the collapse of values and norms. Individuals with anomie feel
alienated, lack a sense of purpose, and are confused about acceptable behavior (Durkheim, 1897/1951). Durkheim
researched the anomie phenomenon (an ancient Greek concept) while measuring suicide rates in late nineteenth
century industrial Europe. His explanation for most suicides was that people had lost touch with their values and
norms. Individuals felt removed or aloof from society--partly due to the specialization of labor. During this societal
shift many individuals left their home villages and moved into the cities where the factories were located. In doing
so, they lost contact with family, traditions, and agrarian norms. They had become lost and confused with no identity
and no sense of purpose. Durkheim claimed anomie was a result of egoistic individualism. In other words,
individuals with anomie focused on satisfying the ego or personal needs, while ignoring the needs of the group
(Kendall, 1996). However, Durkheim proposed a solution for anomie. He reasoned that combining the individual
needs with the group (or society’s) needs would satisfy the identity of the individual and the need for group norms
and values.
For this study a distinction is made between anomie and job-related anomie. Job-related anomie is defined as
the level of an employee’s belief that his or her organization is void of values and norms. Many authors have warned
of the increased potential for anomie in today’s work environment. Recently, social bonds have loosened while new
forms of alienation and domination of profit motives are increasing (Muckenberger, 1996). Popular literature (e.g.,
Corbo, 1997) has claimed that Generation X members, those born between 1965 and 1980, are particularly prone to
feelings of alienation, cynicism, and detachment--classic symptoms of anomie. It is this age group (18 to 35 years
old) that makes up the largest percentage of hotel front-line employees.
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is defined as “the emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job and
as such can be negative, positive, or neutral” (Arvey, 1995, p. 273). Spector’s (1997) widely used Job Satisfaction
Survey dissects job satisfaction into these nine parameters representing both affective and cognitive aspects: pay,
promotion, supervision, benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures, coworkers, nature of work, and
communication. Other studies have shown support for these job satisfaction parameters as well (Bassett, 1994; Kline
& Boyd, 1991; Smith, 1992).
Job satisfaction makes up a part of job-esteem, but the two concepts are not the same. There are four possible
combinations of an individual’s level of job-esteem and job satisfactions. First, it is possible for the job incumbent in
a service role to have high job satisfaction but low job-esteem. This combination would seem to be the least likely of
the four. An individual who perceives cleaning rooms for strangers as demeaning will have low job-esteem as a
housekeeper at any hotel. However, this housekeeper is not precluded from having high job satisfaction because of
low job-esteem. Many hotel companies go to great lengths to improve satisfaction of employees by manipulating the
work environment. It is possible for employees to ignore their feelings of low job-esteem if they have excellent work
conditions, benefits, pay, and supervision resulting in high job satisfaction. Second, it is possible for an employee to
have high job satisfaction and high job-esteem. This combination is not uncommon and intuitively makes sense.
Emotionally and cognitively, the job holder who is highly satisfied with pay, benefits, supervisors, and all other
elements of job satisfaction will also be more likely to find the job to have elements of pride and dignity. Third,
some workers may experience low job satisfaction but also have high job-esteem. This relationship is not common
but possible. A housekeeper may believe in the dignity of caring for travelers and may value the role of providing
this needed service. However, this housekeeper’s job satisfaction may depend on factors such as work conditions,
supervisors, and co-worker relationships. In other words, this housekeeper with high job-esteem for housekeeping
may not find job satisfaction at the Marriott Hotel but may be satisfied at the Hilton. Finally, workers may feel low
job satisfaction and low job-esteem. There is evidence that a large number of hospitality service sector employees
have low job satisfaction (Barron & Maxwell, 1998; Price, 1994). It is reasonable to assume that a number of these
individuals also have low job-esteem.
Job-specific esteem. The next component investigated was what is titled job-specific esteem. Job-esteem is
proposed to be a global construct that is relevant in any industry. Therefore, for the concept to be effective in a
measurement situation a unique set of items addressing the specific job studied must be included. For example,
determining the job-esteem of hotel employees will require ascertaining attitudes to serving paying guests, whereas,
the job-esteem of steel factory workers will require a unique set of items dealing with the manufacturing sector. In
other industries the items may address different items.
Self-esteem. Self-esteem is defined as one’s overall self-evaluation composed of respect, competence, and worth
(Cast & Burke, 2002). It is the attitude individuals have about themselves as good or bad and whether they like
themselves. People with high self-esteem are psychologically better adjusted, better students, better at handling
criticism, and better at coping with failure (Baron & Bryne, 1991). When Tharenou (1979) evaluated self-esteem in
the work place, she found that high self-esteem was positively related to high job satisfaction and intention to stay
on the job. Although research has failed definitively to show a connection between self-esteem and job performance
(Marsh, 1993; Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989), business practitioners insist there is a connection.
Job-esteem is similar to self-esteem because it encompasses the attitude, feeling, and emotions that one has for
his/her specific job. Respect and dignity associated with a job affects one’s self-esteem and visa-versa, the level of
one’s self-esteem affects the level of respect and dignity that an individual associates with his/her job. Job-esteem
may, therefore, be considered a component of self-esteem as an individual’s employment contributes to his/her
overall self-esteem.
Work Ethic. Many definitions for work ethic exist; most notable is the Protestant work ethic, which implies a
religious obligation to work hard--a commandment from God (Grenholm, 1993). This concept was first proposed by
Weber in 1905 and has undergone exhaustive study ever since. Furnham (1987) defined work ethic as “dispositional
variable characterized by a belief in the importance of hard work, rationality, and frugality which acts as a defense
against sloth, sensuality and religious doubt” (p. 383). Work ethic has been used as an index of job satisfaction
(Pietrofesa & Splete, 1975), providing a theoretical connection to job-esteem. Job-esteem is expected to be
associated with work ethic because work in itself is a source of pride for some workers. For workers with a
traditional work ethic, it may not matter what job they do; the key point of importance is that they are, in fact,
working.
Occupational prestige. Some may assume that occupational prestige is the same concept as job-esteem.
However, occupational prestige is determined by perceptions the public has for particular job classifications (Hope,
1972). Therefore, occupational prestige is different from job-esteem because only an incumbent in the particular
occupation being analyzed can make a personal evaluation of his/her job-esteem. For example, an individual who
has never worked in a restaurant may rank restaurant jobs as having low occupational prestige, but this individual is
not able to evaluate the job-esteem without having experienced the job. On the other hand, a restaurant server may
recognize that outsiders see his/her position as having low prestige, but this fact does not necessarily mean he or she
will feel a low level of job-esteem. Overall, it was determined the occupational prestige is not the same as job-
esteem and neither does it fit as a job-esteem component.
Conclusion. After completing a literature review (including a review of current instruments) and consulting
numerous hospitality management experts, the primary components of job-esteem were determined and a model
created. The final components of this model include job involvement, job-related anomie, job satisfaction, job-
specific esteem, self-esteem, and work ethic (see Figure 1). It was deemed that occupational prestige should not be
considered a component of job-esteem. To have the desired effect on job-esteem, the beliefs and attitudes that are
components of this construct must be influenced. Job-esteem is a fluid and dynamic phenomenon. The overall
performance of employees may be improved through interventions focused on the improvements related to the
components of job-esteem. Hence, it stands to reason that there may be a direct correlation between the increased
levels of job-esteem components and increased overall job-esteem.

Figure 1. The Job-Esteem Construct and its Six Components.

Each of the job-esteem components (job involvement, job-related anomie, job satisfaction, job-specific esteem,
self-esteem, work ethic) is a contributor to job-esteem but is not synonymous with job-esteem. Each component has
been determined to be important in the overall job-esteem of an employee. For many employees, job-esteem can
make the difference between poor and excellent work performance.
Instrument Development
Gable and Wolf’s (1993) and Mueller's (1986) texts on instrument development were studied and utilized in
developing the instrument for measuring job-esteem in a hospitality setting. Gable and Wolf stated that after the
development of construct definitions, the second step is to “generate the perceptions, attributes, or behaviors of a
person with high or low levels of this characteristic” (p. 29). They indicated that the most useful technique was
conducting extensive interviews with the targets.
To develop the current job-esteem instrument, a number of existing adaptable scales were consulted. These
included Spector's (1997) Job Satisfaction Survey, Srole's (1956) Anomia Scale, Rosenburg's (1965) Self-Esteem
Scale, Lorence and Mortimer’s (1985) Job Involvement Scale, and Wayne's (1989) Work Ethic Scale. In addition,
items were added to address job-specific job-esteem (hospitality). The items were chosen using the criteria that each
must be related to the concept of respect and dignity associated with an employee's hotel service job.
Three hotel managers were then gathered in a focus group to review the initial 45-item instrument. Following
these discussions slight changes were made to the wording of a few questions. The instrument was then given to 30
employees at a number of hotels in a pilot test setting. Finally, a panel of experts was gathered from academia and
industry to review the instrument and discuss findings and concerns gained in the pilot study. Pertinent instrument
adjustments were made to reflect the expert conclusions. This included the elimination of 4 questions from various
component areas. The final instrument consisted of 3 questions from job involvement, 4 from job-related anomie, 11
from job satisfaction, 7 from job-specific esteem, 6 from self-esteem, and 10 from work ethic—a total of 41items.
Sample
The final instrument was administered to a 75 line-level employees at six different hotels within a large hotel
chain in Hawaii. The service quality of hotels included in this study was either Four Star or Five Star. All employees
were in front-line guest contact positions and had worked for their employer for less than two years. This was a
convenient sample of employees who attended a required training seminar sponsored by their parent company.
Data Collection
The data collection occurred in the fall of 1999. At the end of the training, the primary researcher hand-
distributed surveys to each of the 75 participants. All employees immediately completed and returned the surveys
for a return rate of 100 percent. Descriptive information was collected from participants (see Table 1).
Data Analysis
Item-total correlation was computed for each item and reliability results were determined. The correlation
between participant’s responses to each item on the instrument and their total instrument score was analyzed. The
internal consistency of the instrument was then measured utilizing Cronbach’s alpha.
 Table 1. Sample Demographics

Variable Totals
Gender (N) 75
Male 42
Female 33
Missing values 0
Position (N) 75
Food and Beverage 20
Front desk 25
Bell 12
Host 16
Missing values 2

Results and Discussion

The first research question focused around the identification of the primary components of the new construct job-
esteem. Through a detailed literature review, six primary components identified. The seven most applicable were
discussed in the Research Method section and six (i.e., job-involvement, job-related anomie, job satisfaction, job-
specific esteem, self-esteem, and work ethic) were included in the first job-esteem model. It was determined that
occupational prestige would not be included in the model. Each of the components included were found to relate in
some way to the level of respect and dignity an individual believes is associated with his or her job.
The second research question focused around identifying and determining the instrument items of the job-
esteem survey. As discussed in the Instrument Development section of this article, a number of applicable scales
were analyzed and five well-known scales were chosen and included in the instrument used to collect data. The
primary researcher developed the job-related (hospitality esteem) scale, which went through the instrument
development phases described.
The results of the third research question concerned the reliability of the job-esteem instrument. After the
surveys were distributed and collected, the data was analyzed and an item analysis and reliability analysis were
conducted with item-to-total correlations. Cronbach’s alpha was utilized to establish reliability of the instrument (see
Table 2). Several items were dropped from the instrument due to their low reliability. As a result of the item
analysis, item 7 of the job-esteem (hospitality esteem) scale was dropped. The adjusted component (job-specific
esteem) had a final alpha of .7723. All items were retained from the self-esteem scale, which resulted with a
Cronbach’s alpha of .7470. All items were kept after the item analysis of job satisfaction resulting in a very strong
(.8361) alpha. The Job Involvement scale (questions 25, 26, and 27) was dropped from the instrument due to an
alpha of .1512. Item 31 (job-related anomie) was dropped in order to improve alpha scores in the related scale
resulting in an alpha of .8781. Finally, all items from the work ethic scale was kept resulting in an alpha of .7678.
Overall, as an initial step in the development of a job-esteem instrument, this research has shown the scale to be
valuable. The scale appears to support and justify the newly developed job-esteem construct. With slight
adjustments (dropped items) from the job-esteem and job-related anomie scales, alpha scores were strong and
supportive. A major concern with the six-component model is that the job involvement portion of the instrument
was dropped from this overall survey during analysis. Allport (1943) found that job involvement was the degree that
a job meets the need for prestige and self-respect in an individual’s self-esteem. This remains intuitively linked to
the level of respect and dignity an individual believes is associated with his or her job. Because the initial literature
review supported the inclusion of this component, our future job-esteem research will maintain the job involvement
component but utilize related items from other established and validated scales.

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research

This study is not without limitations. First, data was collected and the instrument analyzed on only one sample and
issues of validation were not addressed. Validation of the instrument across organizations and occupations is needed
to further establish the scale and provide generalizability. Second, for the nature of the study, a larger sample size
would have strengthened results. Third, having limited the study to higher quality hotels a situation of constrained
variance may be present. Constrained variance occurs when the sample participants are clustered together at one
extreme of the construct being measured. Finally, social desirability may have had an impact on participants’
responses. Due to the timing of the data collection, after a service-training course, participants may have had biased
responses.

Table 2. Reliability Analysis and Item-Total Correlation of Job-Esteem Items

Item-Total Cronbach’s
Abbreviated Index Items Correlation Alpha
Hospitality Esteem (items created for this instrument) .7723
1. Serving visitors gives me pride. .4663
2. I am embarrassed if my friends see me. .5785
3. Hotel work is demeaning. .5476
4. I encourage friends to get hotel jobs. .4602
5. Caring for hotel guests is rewarding. .6234
6. Hotel guests see me as a paid servant. .4714
Self-Esteem (items from Rosenburg, 1965) .7470
8. I have not done much to deserve pay. .3824
9. I am able to do my job as well as most. .4701
10. I have good qualities that help in my job. .6370
11. I am as valuable as any other employee. .5756
12. I am not proud of my job performance. .3732
13. I feel useless at work. .5655
Job Satisfaction (items from Spector, 1997) .8361
14. My job is enjoyable. .5576
15. I am paid fairly. .5084
16. My supervisor is competent. .5814
17. I receive recognition for good work. .5382
18. My supervisor is unfair to me. .7057
19. I do not feel appreciated. .6312
20. I work harder due to other’s incompetence. .4642
21. I like doing the things I do at work. .2627
22. My supervisor shows little interest in employees. .6573
23. I enjoy my co-workers. .3501
24. I feel a sense of pride in my job. .3278
Job-related Anomie (items from Srole, 1956) .8781
28. Managers aren’t interested in workers. .7227
29. Work conditions are getting worse. .8040
30. Workers don’t know who to depend on. .7172
Work Ethic (items from Wayne, 1989) .7678
32. If you try hard enough, you can get ahead. .4342
33. Most employees go out of their way to help. .2575
34. I feel my job is meaningless. .6121
35. Being a hospitality employee is fulfilling. .4079
36. A good employee values a job well done. .5209
37. Dignity exists in hard work. .4908
38. I should give my best effort regardless of the job. .5005
39. Work is worthwhile only if it earns respect. .3992
40. I take pride in the quality of my effort. .5723
41. I seek personal fulfillment from work. .3087
 Because this is the first study focused on the new concept of job-esteem, further research is needed in many
areas. First, the instrument needs to be used in future studies to further establish instrument reliability and to
establish validity. These studies need to incorporate rigorous research designs and include large and randomized
samples so that exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis can be utilized. In addition, randomization will expand
generalizability. Second, the instrument should be used in various industries and organizational settings so results
can also be generalized to a larger population. Third, additional exploratory research needs to be performed to
ensure that the primary components of job-esteem have been identified. Fourth, research focused on the weighting
of each component in the model needs to be conducted. Finally, job-esteem may be found useful in improving guest
satisfaction. Guest satisfaction in the hospitality industry is strongly related to employee behaviors (Gundersen,
Heide, & Olsson, 1996; Schmit & Allscheid, 1995). Because of the current labor shortage in the service industries,
most hospitality operations do not have the opportunity to employ only those individuals who are predisposed to a
high degree of these behaviors. Therefore, further research will assist managers and supervisors who are required to
elicit and affect positive behaviors from subordinates through training, motivation, modeling, and other techniques.

Conclusions

Job-esteem is of particular concern to the hospitality industry because of the personal nature of the service required
by hospitality employees. Understanding the nature of job-esteem and being able to measure job-esteem levels of
employees can be beneficial to employees and hospitality providers. Because research related to the components of
job-esteem is well documented within organizational, management, and HRD literature, it is expected that future
research may find job-esteem to be an important predictor of performance in other industries as well.
This research project resulted in the design of the new job-esteem construct consisting of six primary
components. In addition, an instrument was developed with sub-scales primary taken from well-established
component (e.g., Rosenburg’s (1965) Self-Esteem, Spector’s (1997) Job Satisfaction) instruments and from a focus
group, pilot test, and feedback from a panel of experts. Finally, the new instrument was distributed to participants in
the hospitality industry and results compiled. Overall, with slight adjustments, the new instrument was found to be
valuable and also meet reliability standards.
This research contributes to a growing body of HRD research that emphasizes the importance of employee
attitudes, involvement, and motivation on actual job performance. The results of this study suggest that this
instrument may be a useful instrument for HRD practitioners to use in assessing job-esteem and its components.
Summary scores provide an overall assessment of the level of respect and dignity an individual believes is
associated with his/her job and the subscores for the components provide detailed information on actual job
satisfaction, job involvement, job-related anomie, self-esteem, and work ethic. This determination is important so
that focused and customized interventions (e.g., training and development, job restructuring) can ultimately be
designed and implemented. This will help ensure that an employee’s performance does improve. Furthermore, this
instrument can be utilized as a needs assessment tool in challenges related to corporate culture. Overall, the
development of the job-esteem construct and instrument provides HRD consultants and managers with an additional
tool to analyze employees and organizations. It is expected that a refined job-esteem instrument can be useful in the
design and implementation of change interventions to improve performance.

References

Allport, G. W. (1943). The ego in contemporary psychology. Psychological Review, 50, 451-476.
Arvey, R. D. (1995). Job satisfaction. In N. Nicholson (Ed.), Encyclopedia dictionary of organizational behavior
(pp. 272-274). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Baron, R. A., & Bryne, D. (1991). Social psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Barron, P., &
Maxwell, G. (1998). Employee job perceptions: A comparison of Scottish and Australian fast food units.
Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 5(1), 33-41.
Barron, P., & Maxwell, G. (1998). Employee job perceptions: A comparison of Scottish and Australian fast food
units. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, (1), 33-41.
Bassett, G. (1994). The case against job satisfaction. Business Horizons, 37(3), 61-68.
Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1995). Empowering service employees: What, why, how, and when. Sloan
Management Review, 36, 73-84.
Cast, A. D., & Burke, P. J. (2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80(3), 1041-68.
Corbo, S. A. (1997). The x-er files: They’re young, techno-hip job hoppers. And maybe the perfect health care
workers. Hospitals & Health Networks, 71, 58-63.
De Meause, K. P., & Hostager, T. J. (2001). Developing an instrument for measuring attitudes toward and
perceptions of workplace diversity: An initial report. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 33-52.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simposon, Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work
published 1897).
Furnham, A. (1987). Predicting Protestant work ethic beliefs. European Journal of Personality, 1, 93-106.
Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain: Measuring attitudes and
values in corporate and school settings. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ghiselli, R. F., La Lopa, J. M., & Bai, B. (2001). Job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and turnover intent: Among food-
service managers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 28-37.
Grenholm, C. (1993). Protestant work ethics: A study of work ethical theories in contemporary protestant theology.
Coronet Books.
Gundersen, M.G., Heide, M., Olsson, U. H. (1996). Hotel guest satisfaction among business travelers: What are the
important factors? Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37 (2), 72-83.
Hope, K. (Ed). (1972). The analysis of social mobility: Methods and approaches. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kendall, D. E. (1996). Sociology in our times. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Kline, J. B. & Boyd, J. E. (1991). Organizational structure, context, and climate: Their relationships to job
satisfaction at three managerial levels. Journal of General Psychology, 118(4), 305-316.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 49, 24-33.
Lorence, J. & Mortimer, J. (1985). Job involvement through the life course. American Sociological Review, 50,
618-638.
Marsh, H.W. (1993). Relations between global and specific domains of self: The importance of individual
importance, certainty, and ideals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 975-992.
Muckenberger, U. (1996). Towards a new definition of the employment relationship. International Labour Review,
135, 683-713.
Mueller, D. J. (1986). Measuring social attitudes. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L., & Dunham R.B. (1989). Organization-based self -esteem: Construct
definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622-648.
Pietrofesa, J. J. & Splete, H. (1975). Career development: Theory and research. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Price, L. (1994). Poor personnel management in the hotel and catering industry: Does it matter? Human Resource
Management Journal, 4(4), 44-61.
Ramsey, R., Lassk, F. G., & Marshall, G. W. (1995). A critical evaluation of a measure of job involvement: The use
of the Lodahl and Kejner (1965) scale with salespeople. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
15(3), 65-74.
Rosenburg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schmit, M. J. & Allscheid, S. P. (1995). Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction: Making theoretical and
empirical connections. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 521-536.
Saleh, S. D., & Hosek, J. (1976). Job involvement: Concepts and measurements. Academy of Management Journal,
19, 213-223.
Smith, P. C. (1992). In pursuit of happiness: Why study general job satisfaction? In Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C. &
Stone, E. F. (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance.
New York: Lexington.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Spillane, J. J. (2001). The Christian humanization of work: Job satisfaction in the hospitality industry. Review of
Business, 22(3), 16-23.
Srole, L. (1956). Social integration and certain corollaries: An exploratory study. American Sociological Review,
709-716.
Tharenou, P. (1979). Employee self-esteem: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 316-
346.
Tracye, J. B., Hinkin, T. R., Tannenbaum, S., & Mathieu, John E. (2001). The influence of individual characteristics
and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
12(1), 5-23.
Waryszak, R., & King, B. (2001). Managerial attitudes towards work activities in the hospitality and service
industries. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(4/5), 197-204.
Wayne, F. S. (1989). An instrument to measure adherence to the Protestant ethic and contemporary work values.
Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 793-804.