Employee Turnover in the Hospitality Indutsry

This article was downloaded by: [Suleyman Demirel Universitesi]On: 14 December 2012, At: 13:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Human Resources inHospitality & TourismPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

Employee Turnover in theHospitality IndustryRobin B. Dipietro PhD a & Steven J. Condly PhD ba Rosen College of Hospitality Management,University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL,32816-1450, USAb College of Education, University of Central Florida,Orlando, FL, 32816-1250, USAVersion of record first published: 25 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Robin B. Dipietro PhD & Steven J. Condly PhD (2007): EmployeeTurnover in the Hospitality Industry, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &Tourism, 6:1, 1-22

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J171v06n01_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J171v06n01_01

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

Employee Turnoverin the Hospitality Industry:

An Analysis Based on the CANE Modelof Motivation

Robin B. DiPietroSteven J. Condly

ABSTRACT. Employee turnover is reaching crisis proportions for manyorganizations who struggle to maintain proper staffing levels in a tightlabor market (Wilson, 2000). Turnover has been a measure of perfor-mance in organizations that is expensive in terms of financial and opera-tional effectiveness. The current study used the Commitment AndNecessary Effort (CANE) model of motivation (Clark, 1998, 1999) todetermine if levels of motivated thinking and behavior, indexed aschoice, persistence, and effort, and influenced by self-efficacy, support,emotion, and task value, impacted employee turnover rates in the hoteland quick service restaurant segments of the hospitality industry. Usingregression analysis, it was determined that the motivation component ofthe CANE model was a statistically significant variable when analyzingturnover in the current study. Over 96% of the variation in turnover ofthe 22 worksites analyzed was explained by the components of the moti-vation model. This research is important to industry practitioners as well

Robin B. DiPietro, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Rosen College of Hospitality Man-agement, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-1450 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Steven J. Condly, PhD, is Assistant Professor, College of Education, University ofCentral Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-1250 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 6(1) 2007Available online at http://jhrht.haworthpress.com

© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J171v06n01_01 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

mailto:[email protected]

http://jhrht.haworthpress.com

as academics to help predict and lower turnover in various segments ofthe hospitality industry. Implications for practice are discussed regard-ing the components of the CANE model of motivation. doi:10.1300/J171v06n01_01 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth DocumentDelivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The HaworthPress, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Motivation, hospitality industry, hotel industry, quickservice restaurant industry, turnover

INTRODUCTION

Human performance technology refers to “a powerful collection of tech-niques, procedures, and approaches intended to solve problems involving hu-man performance” (Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999, p. xii). As specified by Keller(1999), any individual, in order to perform a task, must have adequate abilityor knowledge, be motivated, and have opportunity. Organizations can givetraining to individuals to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to per-form a task. They can also create the culture that gives individuals permissionand support for task performance. The component of the human performancetechnology theory that eludes most organizations is how to properly influencethe internal motivation of an individual employee.

Research has shown that managers can help to motivate their employees,but they need to be cognizant of the fact that the desire to do the job must be in-ternally driven by each individual employee (Simons, 1995). That is, whilemanagers have direct influence on externalities (such as permitting music tobe played or not, the giving of verbal encouragement or criticism, or sayingnothing at all), employees internalize the messages associated with permis-sion, praise, criticism, and the like, and then think and act accordingly (Clark& Estes, 2002; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan (1994)provided supporting evidence when they found that only about 30% of linemanagers are able to adequately motivate the people who report to them.Through their research, they have found that motivation accounts for abouthalf of all performance results. This means that motivation is a critical factor inthe ability of organizations to achieve positive performance results and 70% ofmanagers cannot find ways to motivate their employees to help achieve thesegoals. Knowing that motivation influences organizational performance, man-agers should work to find ways to motivate their hourly employees to improvethe total motivation and performance of the organization.

2 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012



http://www.HaworthPress.com

The present study analyzes motivation based on a model of motivation thatis synthetic in nature; that is, the model identifies the constructs that have ademonstrated effect on motivated behavior and on performance. The outcomeor dependent variable of interest is employee turnover, a phenomenon that haslong been of interest in the hospitality industry (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000). Hos-pitality organizations have a disproportionate rate of employee turnover rela-tive to other service organizations. Iverson and Deery (1997) found that one ofthe most significant explanations for high turnover in the hospitality industryis the “turnover culture” that prevails in many organizations. This phenome-non relates to the fact that many organizations just accept turnover as part ofthe workplace culture rather than trying to take steps to resolve it. Many hospi-tality organizations expect high turnover and dissatisfaction to occur becauseof the nature of the business, the demographics of the employees that work inthe industry, and the lower pay associated with the hospitality industry(Heskett, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997).

Clark and Estes (2002) suggest that employee turnover may not be purely afunction of remuneration but rather of employee motivation. If so, then the im-plications for management are clear and demanding; management will have toconsider how best to create conditions and provide information that will resultin improved motivation if they wish to lower employee turnover.

BACKGROUND

Motivation as a component in human performance has been studied in vari-ous work settings and has evolved from earlier theoretical foundations of re-searchers such as Maslow (1943), Herzberg (1968), and McClelland (1961).Maslow’s (1943) motivational model determined that humans were motivatedby a desire to fulfill a hierarchy of needs that ranged from lower order needs(such as a need for safety) to higher order needs (such as self-actualization).Herzberg (1968) classified these lower order needs as hygiene factors that didnot intrinsically motivate a person, but could demotivate them if they were notmet. Herzberg further classified the higher order needs as motivational factorsthat could determine the effort and persistence that went into accomplishinggoals. McClelland’s (1961) research focused only on the higher order needsand the intensity with which these needs were shown in individuals’ interac-tions with others.

More recent research regarding motivation such as goal setting theory(Locke & Latham, 1984, 2002) and the job characteristics model (Hackman,Oldham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975; Hackman & Oldham, 1976) more closelymatch the theoretical underpinnings of the Clark and Estes (2002) research on

Robin B. DiPietro and Steven J. Condly 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

motivation. The goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1984, 2002) posits thatconscious goals affect action by people. It distinguishes between higher goalswhich lead to greater effort and persistence, and lower goals which lead to lesseffort and persistence on a task. It also posits that people with high self-effi-cacy are more likely to create strategies to accomplish goals and thereforethese people have a higher level of success with goal accomplishment.

The job characteristics model builds on and complements the Herzberg(1968) research by determining that people have various psychological statesthat are critical in determining how much motivation and personal satisfactionthat they have on the job (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975; Hack-man & Oldham, 1976). The components that need to be present to help withthe intrinsic motivation of a person are experienced meaningfulness in the job,experienced responsibility for the job that they perform, and knowledge of theresults. A person must feel that their work is worthwhile in order for them tocommit much effort into the job, and the job must fit into the system of valuesthat they hold. They must also feel some sense of personal responsibility forthe work that they do and that they are accountable for the work that they getdone. Finally, a person must be able to get regular feedback about the workthey do in order to be able to determine whether the outcomes of the work areworthy of the effort put forth in the job (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy,1975; Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

The first synthetic model of motivation was Ford’s (1992) MotivationalSystems Theory (MST). Ford culled the existing research literature on humanmotivation and identified constructs that, while sometimes called by differentnames, were nevertheless considered by researchers in general to be importantto human motivation. He concluded that motivation was a function of threeprimary factors: personal agency beliefs, emotions, and goals (see Figure 1).

MST argues that motivation cannot exist apart from non-zero levels of thethree predictors. In other words, to be motivated, one must at least minimallybelieve that one is capable, not feel nothing about the task, and have the task aspart of one’s goal structure.

Clark’s (1998, 1999) Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model(see Figure 2) represents an adjustment and extension of Ford’s (1992) MST.Essentially, Clark (1998, 1999) made three changes. First, Motivation wastheorized to be indicated by Choice, Persistence, and Effort, with the first twocomprising Goal Commitment. Additionally, he hypothesized that only Self-


Personal Agency Beliefs x Emotions x Goals = Motivation

FIGURE 1. MST Model of Motivation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

Efficacy influences Effort, while a host of factors influence Goal Commitment.Second, Personal Agency Beliefs included not just self-efficacy, but supportperceptions as well. And third, Task Values replaced Goals as a predictor be-cause Clark reasoned that values underlie all goals.

The CANE model takes components of these motivational theories, buildsupon them and finds that motivation influences three critical areas with regardto work performance (Clark, 1998; Clark & Estes, 2002; Pintrich & Schunk,2002). Motivation determines whether an individual works toward a goal inthe first place. The level of motivation then determines whether an individualwill persist at a goal until it is complete, and finally it determines how muchmental effort an individual puts into the goal that they have chosen (Clark &Estes, 2002). These three indices of motivated behavior are choice, persis-tence, and effort. These combined factors, as implemented by individuals, willinfluence the overall ability of an organization to attain performance goals.

The hospitality industry is very labor intensive and as such it relies on theperformance and motivation of its employees to ensure success. The hospital-ity industry is one of the world’s largest employers generating over 7.2 millionjobs in travel-related employment in the United States (U.S.) alone (Travel In-dustry Association of America, 2002) and over 12 million jobs in the U.S.restaurant industry (National Restaurant Association, 2003).The hospitalityindustry is a field that experiences a disproportionate amount of turnover inthe hourly employee and management ranks when compared with other ser-vice industries. Despite the current downturn in the economy, annual turnoverrates in some segments of the hospitality industry continue to exceed 100%(Ricci & Milman, 2002). The average turnover rate of hotel hourly employeesis estimated to be between 60 and 300% (Foley, 1996; Woods, Heck, &Sciarini, 1998). According to a recent study of more than 70 high profile res-taurant chains, the average turnover rate for hourly employees in the restaurantindustry has been reported to be 104% and the average turnover rate for man-agers is reported to be 25% (Berta, 2003).

Many hospitality organizations accept turnover as a part of the cost of doingbusiness (Prewitt, 2000). They continue to use resources to hire more people,


Personal Agency x Emotion x Task Value Goal Commitment-Self-Efficacy -Importance -Choice-Supportt -Interest -Persistence

-Utility

Self-efficacy Mental Effort

FIGURE 2. CANE Model of Motivation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

but fail to put many of these resources toward minimizing or eliminating turn-over in the hourly employee and management ranks. This is not a cost-effectivestrategy because of the lost money invested up front in hiring and training newemployees, as well as the potential lost customers due to the decreased opera-tional performance caused by lack of experience in the staffing ranks. Woodsand Macauly (1989) estimated turnover costs to a hospitality employer between$3,000 and $10,000 for each hourly employee that leaves an organization.

The cost of turnover is great given the financial expenses of recruiting,training, and retaining employees. Additionally, there is an emotional costmanifested by stress in the workplace for existing employees, supervisors, andcustomers (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000). These high costs of turnover create aneed by hospitality practitioners to reduce voluntary, dysfunctional, andavoidable turnover and improve the retention rates of hourly employees intheir organizations (Pizam & Ellis, 1999). By determining how motivation im-pacts the turnover in hospitality organizations, the industry can start looking athow they are helping or hurting the motivation of their employees.

Heskett, Sasser, and Schlesinger (1997) have developed a model of cus-tomer satisfaction referred to as the “service profit chain.” This model de-scribes how essential it is to ensure that employee satisfaction and motivationcome before customer satisfaction, which then leads to an increase in im-proved profits. Through this “service profit chain” it is evident that it is criticalto hire and keep “winners” in a service organization, rather than constantlyworking through the hiring circle of recruiting, interviewing, hiring, and train-ing. The first component of the model is the assertion that profits are foundedon a strong customer service base. This customer service and satisfaction isachieved through effective, well-motivated service people. It has also beenshown through research that by providing employees with a job that they en-joy and can feel motivated in, good customer service will be a result.

Studies done on hotel hourly employees (Ricci & Milman, 2002) and at-traction industry hourly employees (Milman, 2003) have shown that the mostsignificant predictors of retention were factors that were not pay based butwere more emotive in nature. Intrinsic motivators and good work environmentwere two of the factors more likely to predict retention than monetary or otherremunerative rewards.

MOTIVATION MODEL

The survey instrument that was developed for the current research wasbased on the CANE model of motivation (Clark, 1998, 1999). The CANEmodel posits two interlinked processes: commitment to the goal (which causes


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

sustained goal pursuit), and the amount and quality of mental effort required inthe pursuit of the goal. These two processes work together in order to allowgoals to be accomplished by an individual. The necessary effort required foraccomplishing a goal and the knowledge of how to accomplish the goal workstogether to allow the goals to be accomplished.

Clark (1998, 1999) developed a scientifically based model of motivationthat seeks to explicate those variables which are essential to, and predictive of,motivated behavior. The CANE model of motivation is based on the past re-search of others (Bandura, 1997; Ford, 1992) and takes into account the threeindices of motivated behavior: choice, persistence, and effort. Each of the con-structs which comprise the model is defined and briefly explained in the fol-lowing text.

• Self-efficacy: The self-perceptions about how well a person can copewith situations as they arise. This is one’s perception of ability. Thosewith high self-efficacy deem themselves capable and confident aboutperforming well at a task (Bandura, 1997).

• Support: The belief that one will be supported (or at least allowed) toperform tasks in accordance with one’s goals. This is one’s perception ofopportunity in the work environment (Clark & Estes, 2002).

• Emotion: The feelings that are generated in response to environmentalstimuli. Emotions predispose people’s actions. All emotions can bebroadly categorized as being either positive or negative. Positive emo-tions tend to produce approach behaviors; negative emotions tend to pro-duce avoidance behaviors (Ekman & Davidson, 1994).

• Importance: A task is considered important if participation in it is some-how connected with one’s self-schema (or one’s understanding of ones’self). People tend to commit quite strongly to tasks when they can offer apositive response to the following question: “Is this task me?” (Eccles &Wigfield, 1995).

• Interest: The enjoyment that participation in a task brings. Absent anyquid pro quo, people can still commit themselves strongly to tasks (suchas hobbies) when the only thing they get out of it is liking it (Eccles &Wigfield, 1995).

• Utility: Performing A in order to secure B. It is the usefulness of the taskin relation to attaining a goal (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995).

• Choice: Buy-in, or the first step. This is that actual goal that people haveselected; it differs from intention in that it involves some sort of action orresponse rather than mere thought or words (Clark & Estes, 2002).

• Persistence: Continued choice in the face of obstacles or options out. This isa time-or quantity-oriented phenomenon; people can continue to engage


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

in a task without necessarily investing much effort. But, generally speaking,when individuals persist, they tend to succeed (Clark & Estes, 2002).

• Effort: An energy-based phenomenon. In mental terms, this would in-volve actual thinking rather than rote performance; in physical terms thiswould involve the metabolism of glucose. Again, it is possible that indi-viduals can exert great amounts of effort without really persisting, but,generally, when people do exert effort, they increase the likelihood ofsucceeding on the task (Clark & Estes, 2002).

(Some example items from each scale are included in the Appendix).What the CANE model makes clear is that being motivated does not simply

magically produce desired results; there are translation mechanisms involved.For example, being confident (having high self-efficacy) will lead to higher orbetter performance only if the person chooses, persists, or exerts effort to thisend. It is this understanding of human motivation that guides the present in-vestigation of the hospitality industry regarding its unacceptably high em-ployee turnover problem. It is going to be critical in the long term thatorganizations have strategies in place to attract, motivate, and retain their em-ployees in order to have a competitive advantage (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000;Umashankar & Kulkarni, 2002).

METHODOLOGY

This research sought to determine (1) the validity of the CANE model in ahospitality industry setting; and, (2) the relative importance of a variety of mo-tivational variables in terms of their effect on persistence, effort, and turnoverin the organization. Implications for business practice will follow from thepresentation and discussion of the data and results.

A survey was done with a sample of the population from the hospitality in-dustry. There were 22 total job sites which participated in this preliminarystudy. Three mid-scale hotels contributed 81 surveys (14.9% of total) and 19quick service restaurants contributed 464 surveys (85.1% of total) for a grandtotal of 545 responses. A random sample of employees and managers wereused from each of these locations. All organizations were located in the south-eastern United States. Subjects were not paid for their participation and volun-teered to complete the motivation survey. The supervisors in the organizationsallowed the participation of employees at the various worksites.

Two forms of the survey were developed, one for the quick service restaurantsand one for the hotels. They were different only in the adjectives used to describework performance items. The surveys were also developed both in English and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

Spanish in order to ensure that all employees and managers of the organizationswould be able to complete them accurately. There were 700 surveys that weresent out to the organizations, and 545 were returned for a 78% return rate.

The survey was developed from specific items taken from or adapted frompreviously validated scales. The self-efficacy items were adapted from Ecclesand Wigfield (1995); they had a reported reliability of .92. The support itemswere created by the researchers according to principles developed by Bandura(1997) for the construction of self-efficacy items (a related construct). Emotionwas measured using the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)found in Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988); it had a reported reliability of.88 for positive affect and .77 for negative affect (no full-scale reliability wasreported). Mood was not measured as it was determined by the researchers thatthe measurement of emotion was sufficient to capture the nature and effectof “affect” on choice and persistence behaviors. The three task values weremeasured using Eccles and Wigfield’s (1995) instrument; importance hada reliability of .70, interest had a reliability of .76, and utility had a reliabilityof .62. Persistence was assessed using an abridged version of the eight-itemscale developed by Miller, Green, Montalvo, Ravindran, and Nichols (1996);no reliability was reported in the original article. Effort was measured usingSalomon’s (1984) AIME (Amount of Invested Mental Effort) Scale. It con-sists of three questions and had a reliability of .81.

The dependent variable of employee turnover was measured by determiningthe number of employees who left their employment during the two months thatthe study was conducted as a percentage of total employees at the worksite.This is a standard measure of turnover percentage used in the hospitality industry.This measure, when used as a performance outcome, gives an organization infor-mation about how many employees are leaving their employment, whetherdysfunctional or functional turnover, or avoidable or unavoidable turnover.

This research is important to the service sector of the economy in generaland more specifically to the field of hospitality because of the importance ofthe relationship between emotions and how people feel about the work they doand customer satisfaction in these sectors of the economy. There is increasingrecognition that effectiveness and customer satisfaction in the service sector isstrongly related to the emotion and motivation of the person providing the ser-vice (Heskett, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997; Waryszak & King, 2001).

RESULTS

The demographics for the respondents were primarily females (57.8%) ver-sus male (40.36%), with 10 surveys missing data for that variable. The average


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

age for the respondents was 26.8 with a standard deviation of 11.97 (n = 545).This did not include the Spanish speakers as their age was not given as a con-tinuous variable on the survey form, but as a categorical variable. The averageyears on the job were 2.4 with a standard deviation of 3.78 (n = 545). The sur-vey language was 511 English and 34 Spanish, and the surveys came from res-taurants (85.13%) and hotels (14.86%). Of the 545 surveys, 446 came fromhourly employees and 84 from salaried managers, with 15 missing data.

Overall, the various subscales were of at least adequate reliability (Table 1) .Nevertheless there were two notable exceptions. One, the Importance subscalenever broke the necessary .6000 level, even with the deletion of any of the threeitems (often the deletion of an item can raise the reliability to an acceptablelevel). However, it did not have a deleterious effect on full-scale Task Value. Ef-fort also did not reach significance, and there was likewise no benefit in the dele-tion of any of the three items. However, when added into the mix with the fivePersistence items, a new outcome variable (Goal Commitment) did have accept-able reliability.

Problems are inherent with both constructs (Importance and Effort). Theformer relates to how a task is perceived to be part of a person’s self-schema,and that idea is very difficult to translate into a readily understood survey item.The latter has a demonstrated history of problems associated with individualsfalsely reporting actual effort expenditures (see Salomon, 1984, and Clark &Estes 2002, for discussions). The items were included because it obviously


TABLE 1. Scale Reliabilities

Construct Number of items Reliability

Self-efficacy 5 .7937

Support 5 .8416

Emotion 10 .8539

Negative 5 .8024

Positive 5 .8742

Task Value 9 .8502

Importance 3 .5644

Interest 3 .8490

Utility 3 .7793

Persistence 5 .6188

Effort 3 .5663

GC*` 8 .6356

*GC: Goal Commitment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

could not be known ahead of time that the subscales would fail to attain ade-quate reliability. Future work will have to refine the subscales.

Correlations of motivation predictor variables (such as self-efficacy) andmotivation outcome variables (such as persistence) are all significant at the .05level, and some are quite strong. Approximately 95% of the variance in em-ployee persistence is explained by the variables specified by the CANE model,providing evidence that employee goal commitment is very largely a functionof people’s perceptions of their capabilities, the emotions they feel at work,and the value that they have for work tasks.

Clark’s (1998, 1999) CANE model specifies that only self-efficacy has adirect influence on effort, but the present research obtained significant effectsfor the other predictor variables (89% of variance explained). When the threeEffort items were added to the five Persistence items, the motivation predictorvariables explained 94% of the variation in the new construct Goal Commitment.

Motivation was a strong influence on employee turnover. The employeeturnover percentage was calculated and reported by the organization for themonths that the study was conducted. The individual constructs vary in termsof their effect on turnover, but, when aggregated, they explain over 96% of thevariance in the turnover percent in the organizations. The assertion of Clarkand Estes (2002) would seem to be validated. However, it is not clear from theresearch which comes first. Do people with higher motivation turn over less,or do organizations that have lower turnover encourage higher motivation inthe people that work there?

Another way to look at the relationship between motivation and turnover isto consider the effect size of the score differences between high- and low-turn-over worksites. In order to determine high- and low-turnover worksites, the re-searcher calculated turnover percent and then simply divided the 22 worksitesranked by turnover and split them in half. Effect sizes are mostly moderate tolarge and in the expected direction. Low-turnover worksites are characterizedby persistent and effortful behavior on the part of employees who are effica-cious, agentic, emotionally pleased by and in their work, and who report highlevels of value for that work.

DISCUSSION

The CANE model would appear to be a valid model for use in studying, andin guiding the study of, workplace performance. Internally consistent (seeTables 2 and 3), and externally predictive (see Tables 4-6), the CANE modelseems to go far into capturing those motivational elements that have an effecton choice, persistence, and effortful behaviors. This is not surprising as the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012


TABLE 2. Internal Validity of CANE Model

Measure r With Persistence r With Effort r With Persis-Effort

Self-efficacy .501 .330 .546Support .255 .380 .382Emotion .376 .291 .435Emotion negative .299 .160 .433Emotion positive .212 .319 .315Task Value .355 .442 .474Importance .481 .419 .573Interest .238 .388 .372Utility .165 .321 .282

All correlations were significant (p � .05).

TABLE 3. Regressions

R R2 AdjustedR2

Std. Errorof Estimate

R2

ChangeF

Changedf1 df2 Sig. F

Change

Persistence.977 .954 .840 .5710474 .954 8.363 15 6 .008Effort.943 .889 .611 .4263365 .889 3.194 15 6 .080Persistence-Effort.968 .936 .777 .8177585 .936 5.877 15 6 .019

Predictors: (Constant), Utility; Self-Efficacy proxy; Emotion negative; Support; Importance proxy; Emotionpositive; Self-efficacy; Importance; Support proxy; Utility proxy; Emotion proxy; Interest; Interest proxy;Emotion; Task Value.

TABLE 4. Correlations of Motivation with Turnover

Measure r r2

Self-Efficacy �.271 .073Support �.457 .209Emotion �.297 .088

Negative .150 .023Positive �.316 .100

Task Value �.456 .208Importance �.595 .354Interest �.351 .123Utility �.397 .158

Persistence �.231 .053Effort �.602 .362GC* �.440 .194

*Goal Commitment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012


TABLE 5. Regression on Turnover

R R2 AdjustedR2

Std. Errorof Estimate

R2

ChangeF

Changedf1 df2 Sig. F

Change

.980 .961 .739 27.47170 .961 4.334 17 3 .126

Predictors: (Constant), Utility; Persistence; Emotion negative; Effort; Support; Importance proxy; Self-effi-cacy proxy; Emotion positive; Importance; Support proxy; Self-efficacy; Utility proxy; Interest; Emotionproxy; Interest proxy; Emotion; Task Value.

TABLE 6. Effect Size of Differences Between High- and Low-Turnover Work-sites

Measure Turnover n Mean Std. Dev. p-value Cohen’s d

Turnover (%) High 11 170.36 28.560 .000 2.1976Low 10 90.93 43.030

Self-efficacy High 11 20.8544 1.1925 .506 .2890Low 11 21.1311 .6413

Support High 11 17.9992 1.7255 .078 .7927Low 11 19.1789 1.2052

Emotion High 11 37.3130 1.9185 .472 .3127Low 11 38.0722 2.8484

Emotion negative High 11 20.6558 1.3397 .805 .1067Low 11 20.8396 2.0342

Emotion positive High 11 16.6645 1.0607 .305 .4487Low 11 17.2931 1.6730

Task Value High 11 33.4591 2.2544 .168 .6097Low 11 35.1483 3.2042

Importance High 11 12.1836 .6925 .045 .9114Low 11 12.7774 .6076

Interest High 11 11.0733 .7332 .246 .5093Low 11 11.5828 1.2102

Utility High 11 10.1841 .9444 .273 .4808Low 11 10.7872 1.5015

Persistence High 11 19.9415 1.4746 .299 .4545Low 11 20.5888 1.3716

Effort High 11 11.5897 .4795 .133 .6677Low 11 12.0309 .8018

Goal Commitment High 11 31.4426 1.5782 .119 .6954Low 11 32.6018 1.7512

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

CANE model is a synthetic model; that is, it incorporated those variables (suchas self-efficacy) that have a demonstrated history of effect on a variety of out-comes. It would have been quite surprising to discover that perceptions ofcapability, affect, and task value all had only a weak relationship with persis-tence (and, by extension, turnover).

While the CANE model posits that only self-efficacy has an effect on men-tal effort expenditures, the present research demonstrated that all three classesof variables influenced effort (see Table 2). Clark and Estes (2002) admit thatit is quite difficult to measure mental effort. An additional problem is that, inexperimental situations, subjects often report task difficulty perceptions, nottheir actual effort expenditures. In fact, to most individuals, being persistent isbeing effortful; the two are barely distinguished. This, coupled with the factthat the effort being reported in the present study was not limited to mental ef-fort, leads the researchers to conclude that the Effort items were simply relatedto Goal Commitment in the same manner as the Persistence items. Thus, therewas reason to combine the items into a new construct (Goal Commitment).Further and more specific research will have to be conducted to determinewhether the CANE model’s original assertion of the isolated influence ofself-efficacy on mental effort is valid or not.

The effect sizes listed in Table 6 would lead one to conclude that Support ismost important when it comes to explaining employee turnover. Self-efficacywas tied with Utility for least important variables while Emotion, Importance,and Interest (and full-scale Task Value) were in between the two extremes. Itseems reasonable that Support should matter the most in explaining employeeturnover as it is the most externally focused of the motivational constructs.Self-efficacy deals with one’s perceptions of his or her ability to perform a task(Do I have what it takes to do this?); Emotion is personal as well (How do I feelabout this task?). The same can be said of any of the task values; they all relate tothe value that one has for engaging in a task. As such, a reasonable person wouldexpect the average employee to be at least moderately efficacious, feel moder-ately happy about their job, and have some minimal value for their work. Themotivational construct which is least in an employee’s control is Support. Whenan employee perceives the environment to be unsupportive, that employee’ssupport perception is weakened, and, as a result, levels of work commitment de-cline. Ultimately, the employee decides to leave, concluding that they are not al-lowed to be as effective as they “know” they can be.

In order to help improve perceptions of the motivational constructs for em-ployees, the Hackman and Oldham (1976) motivation theory presents severalways that employers can help create a more positive environment for motiva-tion. Giving an employee more task variety at work may help them find more


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

value to their job. Having more task identity by allowing the employee to see atask through to completion will help them discover more of their value in theorganization. Also by giving an employee more feedback on their tasks andaccomplishments will help them to possibly find links between the job and thecore values that the employees hold (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy,1975; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). These factors could improve the level ofself-efficacy and task value and importance, and improve the overall motiva-tion level of the employee. This, in turn, could help decrease the desire toturnover in an organization.

In contrast to the myriad studies that demonstrate a powerful influence ofself-efficacy on human performance, the present research suggests that, at theworkplace, efficacy differences between high- and low-turnover groups (and,by presumption, high- and low-performance groups) are not all that large.Again, this is reasonable as one would expect an individual hired to perform acertain task or collection of tasks to be reasonably confident in their ability toperform those tasks. Additionally, worksites provide specialized training toensure that employees have the knowledge needed to carry out their duties. Itseems as if support, not self-efficacy, is the real issue at the modern hospitalityindustry worksite.

Of the task values, Utility has the weakest effect. This is to be expected aseven the most unhappy or lackadaisical employee gets paid for their efforts;thus, there is a rather high minimal level of utility for the job. Interest differ-ences are moderate and in the expected direction (one would expect higherlevels of job interest to be associated with lower turnover rates). Again, evenin today’s economy, most individuals choose jobs with at least some mind to-ward their own interests. The largest effect size difference was for Importance.High turnover was associated with lower levels of importance. To the degreethat a job (and the tasks and duties associated with the job) is part of an em-ployee’s self-definition or self-understanding, to the degree that an employeecan gain personal validation from a job, that employee commits to the job.This and the above-mentioned findings have implications for the selection ofintervention techniques.

IMPLICATIONS

Employers have good reason to consider these predictor variables and totake them seriously. Inefficacious employees, for example, are not merely dis-satisfied; they do not persist, do not exert enough effort, and generally are lesslikely to remain on the job. In other words, there are real consequences that ensue


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

from employee motivation. So what is an employer to do? Each of the majorpredictor variables will be discussed with recommendations for corrective action.

Whether their perceptions are accurate or not, employees who perceivetheir work conditions to be unfair and/or unreliable will withdraw, retreat, pro-test, and possibly quit. Support is the perception that the environment is per-missive and supportive. Employees who lack a positive sense of support needevidence that the system is there to help them be effective. If, in fact, the em-ployee’s negative perceptions are correct, then management needs to adjustthe system to ensure that employees are receiving the kind of support and as-sistance they need to do their jobs well. Even if the employees’ perceptions areincorrect, management needs to work with the employee to discover where thegaps in perception and reality are. Until the gaps are resolved, employees willleave the job–either mentally or physically.

Regarding task value, the easiest of the three to manipulate is utility. It is al-most impossible to argue or command someone into accepting a task as beingself-defining (importance); it is easier, but still not easy, to make a task inter-esting. But employers and managers can do much to provide evidence thattask engagement is useful or worth the employee’s while. Targeted incentivesare an excellent method for building utility value for work of even a mundanesort (see Condly, Clark, & Stolovitch, 2003, for a discussion). Allowing indi-vidual choice regarding tasks (when permissible) often heightens interest.When tasks are being avoided or devalued, often a carefully targeted incentivesystem can solve the problem in both the short- and long-terms.

While it is not possible for a manager to anticipate every stimulus thatmight anger, frighten, or disgust an employee, the general work environmentought to be emotionally satisfying. When negative emotions do arise, it is use-less to argue against them. Emotions are biological responses to perceivedstimuli. They cannot be wrong; the perception of the cause might be errone-ous, but the emotion itself is not subject to such analysis. When negative emo-tions do arise, employers need to take corrective steps (negative emotionsproduce avoidance behaviors, and if employees perceive work conditions ortasks to be the cause of their negative emotions, they will seek to avoid thoseconditions or tasks). Fortunately, emotions do not last very long, but regard-less of how long they do last, a wise manager should allow a little “pressure re-lease” time; once an emotionally distracted employee has calmed downsomewhat, they are in a much better position to discuss and reason. The focusof the conversation ought to be on the perceived cause. If the employee’s per-ceptions are correct, then action needs to be taken to remedy the situation andan apology offered (it is remarkable how much goodwill an honest apologycan create); if the employee’s perceptions are incorrect (e.g., there isn’t and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

never was any plan to make employees pay for parking), then the correctinformation needs to be offered along with appropriate assurances.

Employees who are inefficacious, who believe that they cannot performtasks, tend to avoid those tasks and persons associated with those tasks. It isgenerally agreed upon by efficacy researchers that the only way to build effi-cacy is to reduce the size and/or complexity of the assigned task. This does notmean assigning only the most menial tasks to individuals who think they’retoo incompetent to handle the really important jobs. It means that a large, com-plex task needs to be broken down into smaller, more manageable chunks, sothe inefficacious employee can perceive himself capable relative to what ispresently before him. For example, instead of giving an employee one monthto balance the company’s books (which might severely reduce efficacy levelsfor even a marginally proficient bookkeeper), the manager could instead as-sign sections of the task each week. The outcome would be identical: a com-plete balancing of all books in one month’s time, but the quality of the resultswould most assuredly be different (superior in the case of the latter, inferior inthe case of the former).

If management wants employees to choose tasks, persist at performingthem in the face of difficulties, and exert effort in seeing things through, theywill have to take steps to ensure that their employees believe they can do thetask, are convinced that they are supported in their efforts, are not emotionallydistracted, and have some level of value for engaging in task performance. Theevidence provided in this research study argues that when motivation levelsfall, there are definite negative effects on employee turnover and on otherbusiness outcomes. Hospitality practitioners play an important overall role inthe motivation level in their organizations by creating supportive environ-ments and situations. There are components of motivation that are internal tothe employee, but creating a positive work environment through the use of theaforementioned ways will help to improve overall motivation through choice,persistence, and effort of employees.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

More research needs to be done in order to determine if other business per-formance measures such as the quality of service provided to guests, speed ofservice, financial performance measures, cost controls, etc., are impacted bymotivation in a similar way as turnover is. It would also be important for futureresearch to determine if various other segments of the hospitality or servicesectors of the economy are impacted in the same way regarding motivationand turnover. This research can help practitioners formulate ideas for how to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

improve the motivation level in their organization, along with improving theturnover rate.

In order to compete in the current economy, it is important for organiza-tions to get the most production in a positive way from their employees, man-agers and work units. The current research will help organizations work withtheir staff, instead of trying to work around their staff. Motivation levels canbe changed and enhanced, and organizations need to be able to objectivelymeasure the motivation in their units and work to provide a better environmentin order to help enhance motivation, and thus enhance the business perfor-mance of the location.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.Berta, D. (2003). People Report confab: Wane in hourly workers’ turnover. Nation’s

Restaurant News, 37(46), 16.Clark, R. E. (1998). Motivating performance: Part 1–Diagnosing and solving motiva-

tion problems. Performance Improvement, 37(8), 39-47.Clark, R. E. (1999). The CANE model of motivation to learn and to work: A two-stage

process of goal commitment and effort. In J. Lowyck (Ed.), Trends in CorporateTraining. Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven Press.

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting theright performance solutions. Atlanta: CEP Press.

Condly, S. J., Clark, R. E., & Stolovitch, H. D. (2003). The effects of incentives onworkplace performance: A meta-analytic review of research studies. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 17(3), 46-63.

Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of achieve-ment task values and expectancy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,215-225.

Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of emotion: Fundamentalquestions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Foley, R. T. (1996, April). United States lodging industry: The next ten years. Paperpresented at the Long Range Planning Committee meeting of the Educational Insti-tute of the American Hotel and Motel Association, April 25, 1996.

Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions and personal support beliefs.Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publishing.

Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job en-richment. California Management Review, 17, 57-71.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of atheory. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 16(2), 250-280.

Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Busi-ness Review, 46(1), 53-62.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1997). The service profit chain:How leading companies link profit and growth to loyalty, satisfaction, and value.New York: Free Press.

Hinkin, T.R., & Tracey, J.B. (2000). The cost of turnover: Putting a price on the learn-ing curve. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 14-22.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effec-tiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504.

Iverson, R.D., & Deery, M. (1997). Turnover culture in the hospitality industry. Hu-man Resource Management Journal, 7(4), 71-83.

Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivational systems. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.),Handbook of human performance technology: Improving individual and organiza-tional performance worldwide (2nd ed., pp. 373-394). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique thatworks! Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goalsetting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9),705-716.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,370-379.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). Achieving society. New York: The Free Press.Miller, R. B., Green, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996).

Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences,pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology,21(4), 388-422.

Milman, A. (2003). Hourly employee retention in small and medium attractions: TheCentral Florida example. International Journal of Hospitality Management,22(2003), 17-35.

National Restaurant Association (2003). Industry Trends. Retrieved February 14, 2004from http://www.restaurant.org/research.

Prewitt, M. (2000). Studies find operators create employee turnover problem. Nation’sRestaurant News, 34(36), 8.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research,and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Pizam, A. & Ellis, T. (1999). Absenteeism and turnover in the hospitality industry. InLee-Ross, D. (Ed.) HRM in Tourism & Hospitality: International Perspectives onSmall to Medium-sized Enterprises (pp. 109-131). London: Cassell.

Ricci, P., & Milman, A. (2002). Retention of hourly hotel employees: A look at selecthotels in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Human Resources in Hospital-ity & Tourism, 1(4), 47-62.

Salomon, G. (1984). Television is ‘easy’ and print is ‘tough’: The differential invest-ment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 76, 774-786.

Simons, T. (1995). Motivating hotel employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Admin-istration Quarterly, 36(1), 20-27.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

http://www.restaurant.org/research

Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. (2003). Organizational citizenship: A comparison be-tween part-time and full-time service employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Ad-ministration Quarterly, 44(1), 33-1.

Stolovitch, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (1999). Handbook of human performance technology:Improving individual and organizational performance worldwide (2nd ed.). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Travel Industry Association of America (2002). Retrieved February 14, 2004 fromhttp://www.tia.org/Travel/EconImpact.asp.

Umashankar, V., & Kulkarni, A., (2002). Employee motivation and empowerment inhospitality, rhetoric or reality–some observations from India. Journal of ServicesResearch, 2(1), 31-54.

Waryszak, R., & King, B. (2001). Managerial attitudes towards work activities in thehospitality and service industries. International Journal of Contemporary Hospital-ity Management, 13(4/5), 197-203.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of briefmeasures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Wilson, T. (2000). Brand imaging: Five steps to developing a retention program. ACANews, 43, 44-48.

Woods, R.H., Heck, W., & Sciarini, M. (1998). Turnover and diversity in the lodgingindustry. Washington, D.C.: American Hotel Foundation.

Woods, R.H., &Macauly, J.F. (1989). Rx for turnover: Retention programs that work.Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 79-90.

RECEIVED: October 2005ACCEPTED: December 2005

doi:10.1300/J171v06n01_01


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

http://www.tia.org/Travel/EconImpact.asp

APPENDIXExample Items from Each Scale


Set A (Self-Efficacy)

1. Compared to other employees, how well do you expect to do on your work performanceevaluation?

1 2 3 4 5

Much worse Worse The same Better Much better

2. How good at performing your job duties are you, overall?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all good Not good Fair Good Very good

Set B (Support)

3. I am given adequate time to complete my assigned tasks.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Never Sometimes Always

4. The company supports me in performing routine work tasks.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all Somewhat Completely

Set C (Emotion)

(Negative)

5. I felt _____ distressed because of my job requirements today.

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all A little Somewhat A lot Extremely

6. I felt _____ upset because of my job requirements today.

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all A little Somewhat A lot Extremely

Set C (Task Value)

(Importance)

7. Is the amount of effort it takes to perform your job worthwhile to you?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all Not much Neutral Somewhat Very much

8. I feel that it is important to do well at work because it helps guests have a good experience,which is important to me.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

APPENDIX (continued)


(Utility)

11. How useful is doing well at work for your future?

1 2 3 4 5


10. How much do you like the work stations to which you are assigned?

1 2 3 4 5


(Interest)

9. In general, I find work _____.

1 2 3 4 5

Very boring Boring Neutral Interesting Very interesting

12. How useful is what you learn from work for your daily life outside of work?

1 2 3 4 5


Set D (Persistence)

13. If I have trouble understanding a part of my job, I have someone retrain me until I under-stand it.

1 2 3 4 5


14. I try to complete my job as fast as possible without making sure guests are happy.

1 2 3 4 5


Set F (Mental Effort)

15. How much thinking goes into performing your work assignments daily?

1 2 3 4 5

None at all Not much Neutral Some A great deal

16. How much did you have to think about your training to perform your work assignments?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all Not much Neutral Some A great deal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sule

yman

Dem

irel

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

13:

16 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2012

Employee Turnover in the Hospitality Indutsry

Documents

Transcript of Employee Turnover in the Hospitality Indutsry