Managerial core competency requirements for successfully creating and maintaining a high level of internal service quality in the hospitality industry : an assessment by managers and employees in the hotel industry in t

MANAGERIAL CORE

COMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS

FOR SUCCESSFULLY CREATING

AND MAINTAINING A HIGH

LEVEL OF INTERNAL SERVICE

QUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY

INDUSTRY.

AN ASSESSMENT BY MANAGERS AND

EMPLOYEES IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY IN THE

AMSTERDAM AREA.

Onno Deumer - 5732301

Bachelor Thesis - University of Amsterdam

Abstract

Background. Customer satisfaction is having a great influence on revenue growth and profitability of companies in the hospitality industry. One of the key drivers for customer satisfaction is employee satisfaction. When employees are satisfied they are willing to make an extra effort and this will have a positive effect on customer satisfaction. It is therefore important to create a pleasant atmosphere within a company in the hospitality industry, also referred to as the internal service quality. Creating and maintaining a high level of internal service quality is one of the primary goals of a hospitality manager. To ensure a high level of internal service quality, hospitality managers need to possess a number of competencies. The aim of this study is to identify the managerial core competency requirements for successfully increasing and maintaining a high level of internal service quality in the hospitality industry.

Methods. A study was conducted among 720 managers and employees in 40 selected hotel

companies in the Amsterdam area. Measurements were executed by means of a self-administered pen and paper questionnaire. The internal service quality and the importance and presence of 28 predefined determinants of managerial core competencies were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Differences in the assessment by managers and employees were measured by using independent t-tests. The correlation between internal service quality and managerial core competencies was examined with a Pearson correlation analysis.

Results. Managers and employees in the hospitality industry agree on the overall importance of managerial core competencies for successfully creating and maintaining a high level of internal service quality. The most important core competencies are industry knowledge, self-management and implementation according to managers and industry knowledge, leadership and strategic positioning according to employees. Differences in the assessment by managers and employees were also found for the correlation between managerial core competencies and the internal service level at the moment of inquiry.

Table

of

Introduction ... 3

Literature Review ... 6

Service Profit Chain ... 7

Internal Service Quality... 9

Managerial Core Competencies ... 11

Comparing Managers and Employees ... 13

Conceptual Framework ... 14 Empirical Research ... 17 Objective ... 17 Design ... 18 Sample ... 20 Collection ... 22 Measures ... 24 Analysis ... 26 Methodological Limitations ... 28 Results ... 30

Results on the Internal Service Quality ... 30

Results on the Managerial Core Competencies ... 32

Discussion ... 38

Limitations and Future Research ... 41

Conclusion ... 43

References ... 45

Appendix ... 48

Introduction

These days a lot of companies highlight the importance of hospitality in any industry, since it is becoming more decisive in the service encounter than ever before. During the last few decades improving customer experience has become a brainteaser for many organizations. For instance facility management from both Schiphol Group (Dessing, 2011) and Rabobank Nederland (Dessing, 2012) started a focus group to raise hospitality experienced by customers in order to improve corporate results. Reason for this emphasized attention for customer generosity is the direct linkage with business success. Perceived service quality and customer satisfaction will drive behavioural intentions, resulting in customer loyalty, profitability and growth in the long run (Chi and Gursoy, 2009; Tarn, 1999; Xu and Van der Heijden, 2008) as is also proven by the Service Profit Chain by Heskett et al. (1994). This is even more important in the hospitality industry, because of the increased competition and the changing needs and life-styles of ever-demanding customers (Callan and Bowman, 2000; Min and Chung, 2002).

Because of their direct contact with customers, frontline employees are considered to be the face of an organization. The success of any business in the hospitality industry - and service organizations in general - depends upon the performance of its frontline employees (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996). Many companies are focusing on meeting the needs of employees first. Having an engaged workforce is valuable and can be a competitive advantage, as there is a direct relationship between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction (Slåtten and Mehmetoglu, 2011). The Service Profit Chain by Heskett et al. (1994) also indicates that the external service value, created by employees, leads to an increase in customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. This is resonating more and more amongst managers in any business. For instance, Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric and elected by Fortune as ‘Manager of the Century’, quoted: ‘Any company trying to compete

must figure out a way to engage the mind of every employee.’ (Buckingham and Coffman,

1999, p. 273).

Because of the impact of employees on business success in the hospitality industry, the importance of employee characteristics in hiring decisions have been discussed frequently (Tews, Stafford and Tracey, 2010; Tracey, Stewman and Tews, 2007). An often mentioned

mantra in the hospitality industry is ‘We select for personality and train for skills’ (Tracey, Stewman and Tews, 2007). Since employees are considered the most important facet to increase customer satisfaction and customer loyalty, the management of employees in the hospitality industry is at least as important. Lashley (2008) argues that overseeing frontline employees is one of the chief tasks of hospitality managers. Prior literature has focused on different determinants of employee satisfaction and many suggestions have been made to managers with the intention to raise workplace morale, often referred to as the internal service quality (Babakus et al, 2003; Ogaard, Marnburg and Larsen, 2008; Time Magazine, 2013; Worsfold, 1989a). Managers are indirectly responsible for the service experience in the hospitality industry because of their role in engaging employees by creating and maintaining a high level of internal service quality.

With regard to the role of hospitality managers and their influence on the success of organizations, putting the right person in the right place is just as important when it comes to hiring mangers as when hiring employees. As mentioned before, a lot of research has been focusing on the opportunities for hospitality managers to increase the internal service quality (Babakus et al, 2003; Ogaard, Marnburg and Larsen, 2008; Time Magazine, 2013; Worsfold, 1989a), however only little is known about what constitutes a hospitality manager able to do so with success. Therefore, this study will try to identify the managerial core competencies required to influence the level of internal service on a positive way, according to managers and employees in the hospitality industry in the Amsterdam area, and give useful insight for manager hiring decisions. The central research question therefore is:

“What are the core competency requirements for hospitality managers to successfully create and maintain a high level of internal service quality?”

Stretching the debate of core competency requirements for employees in the hospitality industry, this research will highlight the imperative core competencies required by hospitality managers to successfully increase and maintain a high level of internal service quality, with the aim to create employee satisfaction and business success in the long run. Although the core competency requirements for hospitality employees have been thoroughly discussed in prior literature, not much is known about the assessment of managerial core competencies by managers and employees in the hospitality industry. However, this is important to know, first because of the importance of hiring and training a successful

hospitality manager and second because any congruity between hospitality managers’ and employees’ opinions about what constitutes a good hospitality manager may cause a loss of employee empowerment (Tjosvold et al., 2010).

In the first part of this study, prior literature on this topic will be addressed and discussed, foremost to identify the benefits of a high level of internal service quality as well as core competencies of managers in general. In the next part, the research methodology of this study will be presented and the feasibility of the research is reflected upon. Following, the results of a questionnaire distributed amongst personnel from a selection of businesses in the hospitality industry will be reported. Subsequently, the empirical results are discussed and compared to findings from prior literature, as discussed in the literature review. Finally, a conclusion is drawn, managerial recommendations are being made and the limitations as well as possibilities for future research are addressed.

Literature Review

Employee friendliness and warmth have proven to be of utmost importance in the hospitality industry in prior literature, because of the increased competition and the changing needs and life-styles of ever demanding customers (Callan and Bowman, 2000; Min and Chung, 2002). Therefore a lot of research has been done on the determinants of hospitality in order to give insight in the different possibilities to increase customer experience, satisfaction and loyalty (Chi and Gursoy, 2009; Heskett et al., 1994; Tarn, 1999; Xu and Van der Heijden, 2008). Prior studies have acknowledged the importance of good employees by inferring on their desired personality as well as skills to be trained (Tews et al, 2010; Tracey et al, 2007). The empowerment and supervision of employees is considered to be one of the main tasks of hospitality managers (Lashley, 2008). As a result, existing theories also highlight the importance of putting the right manager on the right spot, because of their influence on employees (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996; Worsfold, 1989a). Hospitality managers are responsible for raising employee performance by creating employee satisfaction, through an increase of the perceived internal service quality (Babakus et al, 2003; Joseph, 1993; Tsaur and Lin, 2004). Although prior literature has identified drivers for managerial success in the hospitality industry in general (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Kay and Russette, 2000; Suh et

al., 2012), only little is known about the required core competencies for a manager

successfully doing so.

This literature review will provide an answer to questions concerning the possible predictors of hospitality managers able to create and maintain a high level of internal service quality. In order to do so, an extensive review of currently available literature and prior research will take place. The discussed findings are considered important for the relevance of this thesis and give a clear overview of the topics covered, to guarantee a better understanding of the issue and the importance of the addressed problem. The first part of the literature review will discuss the importance of the service encounter in the hospitality industry according to the Service Profit Chain by Heskett et al. (1994). By doing so, the need for generous and cordial employees in the hospitality industry will be emphasized because of their indirect effect on revenue growth and profitability. This will clarify the significance of stimulating employees to operate in a hospitable way. In part two, this thesis will highlight the impact of internal service quality on employee satisfaction and discuss several ways to

measure and craft internal service quality, based on the Service Profit Chain (Heskett et al., 1994) and the Internal Service Quality Battery (Kang et al., 2002), derived from the SERVQUAL measurement technique designed by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988). This will give the reader an idea about the possibilities for managers to arouse the workforce to act in a desired manner, by creating a convenient and fulfilling environment for employees. Continuing in part three, hospitality management core competencies will be examined in more detail, with the aim to identify possible determinants for becoming or being a successful hospitality manager in general. To increase the applied value of this research and help in hiring decisions, more attention is paid to the identification of desired skills, knowledge factors and competencies by using the Leadership-Competency Model for the hospitality industry initiated by Chung-Herrera et al. (2003). Next, in the fourth and last part of this literature review, the focus will shift to possible differences in desired managerial core competencies by employees and managers in the hospitality industry. This is important because any congruity can cause a loss of employee empowerment, resulting in a decrease of the level of internal service quality, employee satisfaction and business success in general (Forrester, 2000; Tjosvold et al, 2010). The end of this literature review will provide a conclusion on the discussed theories, their implications for the hospitality industry, and their relationship with the research of this thesis.

Service Profit Chain

Nearly two decades ago, Heskett et al. (1994) introduced the Service Profit Chain, which describes several steps of the service operations, contributing to business success. In more detail, the Service Profit Chain provides a framework for a company’s operating strategy and service delivery system, with the aim to increase revenue growth and profitability. The Service Profit Chain by Heskett et al (1994) can be found in Table I.

Table 1: The Service Profit Chain by Heskett et al. (1994).

The links in the chain are as follows: profit and growth are stimulated primarily by customer loyalty. Loyalty is a direct result of customer satisfaction. Satisfaction is largely influenced by the value of services provided to customers. Value is created by satisfied, loyal and productive employees. Employee satisfaction, in turn, results primarily from high-quality support services and policies that enable employees to deliver results to the customer (Heskett

et al, 1994).

Although the central role of customer satisfaction remains undisputed, a permanent increase in customer satisfaction is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve (Brown and Mitchell, 1993; Brown and Chin, 2004). Therefore businesses are searching for alternative ways to raise customers’ loyalty. Homburg et al. (2009) try to overcome this drawback by constructing a model that incorporates deep-lying constructs as mediators of employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction into the conventional Service Profit Chain. According to them, companies should not exclusively rely on customer satisfaction to increase business success. In addition, more deep-lying constructs like primarily company-identification are helpful in the effort to build strong customer relationships. Specifically, evidence is provided that employee identification with the company is associated with stronger customer-company identification. Importantly, a higher level of customer-company identification increases the customer’s willingness to pay, which in turn improves financial performance (Homburg et al., 2009). Therefore, according to Homburg et al. (2009), business success is mediated by customer-company identification, which in turn is foremost affected by employee-identification.

One way or another, employees are to a great extent responsible for the economic success of their business. An increase in employee satisfaction will raise revenue growth and profitability in the end, although mediated by customer satisfaction (Chi and Gursoy, 2009; Heskett et al., 1994; Tarn, 1999; Xu and Van der Heijden, 2008). Satisfied employees are likely to be more motivated and work harder to provide a satisfactory service to customers than dissatisfied employees. If employees feel that their company takes good care of them, they are, in return, likely to take time to provide better services to meet and/or exceed customer expectations. Therefore, companies need to make sure that their employees are happy and satisfied with what they do.

In the hospitality industry, this is of the utmost importance because of several reasons. Customer satisfaction is generated by the quality of the emotions sparked by experiences and the performance of employees. These are the key sources engendering customer satisfaction through their emotional experience as guests (Lashley, 2008). Long-term customer loyalty and repeat visits to the venue are depending on the emotions generated by these elements. Highly satisfied customers are more likely to return, or to recommend the establishment to family and friends. Regardless of the increased competition and the changing needs and lifestyles of ever-demanding customers (Callan and Bowman, 2000; Min and Chung, 2002), any business in the hospitality industry has to consider these dimensions of the service interaction and how to support their emotional labourers, because they are the key to offering good hosting experiences that will engender customer satisfaction (Lashley, 2008).

Internal Service Quality

To create a service- and customer-oriented culture among employees, the hospitality industry is increasingly trying to adopt the concept of internal marketing. Although no single unified notion consists, internal marketing has been defined as selling the firm to its employees (Grönroos, 1981) and internal marketing is believed to be the best approach in order to create a high internal service quality (Joseph, 1993). Internal service quality refers to the nature and characteristic of inter-organizational relationships (Reynoso and Moores, 1995). Heskett et al. (1994) argue that internal service quality is the key to employee satisfaction and is measured by the feelings that employees have towards their job, colleagues and companies. Xu and Van der Heijden (2008) show that internal service quality is a significant factor in determining, and has a strong influence in, employee satisfaction, and affects profitability of the company.

Management should establish a clear human development policy related to performance appraisal and should provide sufficient work resources and environments in order to attract and retain satisfied employees. This is one of the primary concerns for the hospitality manager (Lashley, 2008; Xu and Van der Heijden, 2008).

In order to get the highest return on internal marketing, hospitality managers first need to access the internal service quality by measuring its current state. The most often used approach for measuring service quality has been the SERVQUAL instrument from Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988). Just as quality perceived by customers can be captured in the form of sets of dimensions or criteria, so too can the quality of internal services be meaningfully categorized. Kang et al. (2002) as well as Reynoso and Moores (1995) modified the SERVQUAL items to measure the employees’ perceptions of internal service quality by means of reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness. When necessary, items were reworded to capture internal rather than external service quality. This resulted in the Internal Service Quality Battery, a set of statements that can be rated by employees in order to measure the perceived level of internal service quality (Kang et al., 2002). The Internal Service Quality Battery and its including dimensions as well as a comparison with SERVQUAL can be found in Appendix A.

Once managers in the hospitality industry have created a notion of the present level of internal service quality by assessing the Internal Service Quality Battery, they are able to adjust and alter it in any preferred and suitable way. Heskett et al. (1994) argues in its Service Profit Chain theory that, in order to engage employees and ensure employee satisfaction, the company has to build the best possible internal service quality through effective workplace design, job design, employee selection and development, employee rewards and recognition, and tools for serving customers. Babakus et al. (2003) defined and measured internal service quality as a multidimensional construct that manifests itself through training, empowerment, and rewards as perceived by frontline service employees. More generally, there are multiple dimensions of internal service quality that can be significantly adjusted and influenced by hospitality managers to increase employee satisfaction and thus revenue growth and profitability in the long run.

Both methods mentioned before to measure and alter the level of internal service quality were combined by Tsaur and Lin (2004) for their research on service quality in

Taiwan’ tourist hotels. Their review of 42 different hotel units by assessing a total of 475 questionnaires returned by managers, employees and customers in the hospitality industry, shows that the measures generated for their research besides scoring high on validity and reliability, also indeed give a good estimate of opportunities to increase internal service quality. Therefore, the Internal Service Quality Battery by Kang et al. (2002) is assumed to be reliable and valid and will be the starting point for the questionnaire used in this research.

Managerial Core Competencies

Prior research has shown the importance of successful hospitality managers because of their influence on employee satisfaction, as well as possibilities to measure and influence employee satisfaction. However, even though this knowledge can be considered accessible for every manager in the hospitality industry, not every hospitality manager is, or will be, successful. One possible explanation is anchored in one of the most often mentioned mantra’s in the hospitality industry; “We select for personality and train for skills” (Tracey et al, 2007). Teaching a manager in the hospitality industry what he or she can do in order to increase employee satisfaction by raising the internal service quality, does not automatically make him or her a good hospitality manager. Like the mantra says, skills can be trained, personality or competencies cannot. This incorporates that not every manager is fit to reach an increase in employee satisfaction. Managers must be committed to improving the internal service quality before engaging in activities that have the potential to improve the level of internal service quality and should therefore possess at least some of the desired managerial core competencies (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996).

To ensure a company’s profitability and overall success through creating and maintaining a high level of the internal quality service in today’s fast-changing business environment, researchers have emphasized the importance of the ability to identify the core competencies required by hospitality managers. Required competencies refer to knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes, motives, traits, and characteristics (Suh et al., 2012), or knowledge, skills and abilities in general (Kay and Moncarz, 2004). Core competencies are considered required when the capability is assumed to be desirable or necessary for individuals to perform their job.

By conducting an extensive review of the literature and analysing 296 usable questionnaires collected from hospitality managers and students in the South-eastern United States, Suh et al. (2012) identified 44 core competency requirements for managers in the hospitality industry to be successful. The authors developed the list of required core competencies by adapting competency statements identified as important in the previous studies on hospitality management skills and competencies. However, the total amount of managerial core competencies defined in prior literature is limitless and there is a lot of similarity. Therefore, a more general notion of core competencies required by hospitality managers had to be found.

Table 2: Leadership Competency Model for the Hospitality Industry by Chung-Herrera et al. (2003)

Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) constructed a comparable Leadership-Competency Model for the hospitality industry, as shown in Table 2, by assessing a list of management competencies for the hospitality industry consisting of 8 overarching factors, 29 dimensions and 99 specific behavioural competencies. The factors and dimensions were derived from the literature on competency models in general and through hospitality managers’ feedback. The Leadership-Competency Model gives the reader an idea of the general competencies a hospitality manager should possess and will be leading in the design of the questionnaire for this research. The 99 specific behavioural competencies extracted from the literature by Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) can be found is Appendix B.

A downside of prior research on core competency requirements for hospitality managers is its focus on success in the hospitality industry in general, as can also be concluded when taking a look at the lists of required managerial core competencies mentioned before. No particular attention is being paid to the managerial core competency requirements to create and maintain a high level of internal service quality and reach revenue growth and profitability by aiming for employee and customer satisfaction, as proven by the Service Profit Chain (Heskett et al, 1994). This can be considered remarkable.

Comparing Managers and Employees

Buergermeister (1983) has done an extensive assessment of the educational skills and competencies needed by beginning hospitality managers. Results show that the top five competencies rated by hospitality employees deal directly with human relation skills and attitudes. Kay and Russette’s (2000) comparison on essential competencies show an average score of 4.87 on a 5 point scale for smooth interactions with a wide variety of people, including employees. This is the highest score in their overall comparison, showing the importance of employee interaction and interpersonal contact.

An important note with regard to the selection of managerial core competency requirements, is the indistinctness concerning different ratings from managers and employees from within the hospitality industry. Prior literature indicates that both groups gave high importance to leading teams, effective listening, coaching employees and providing feedback (Buergermeister, 1983; Brownell, 2004; Kay and Russette, 2000). They reported that human

resource skills such as employee-centered leadership and interpersonal skills were the most essential competencies across all employment levels examined in their study. Results from Suh et al. (2012) revealed that both groups tent to agree with the ranking of the top 10 core competencies required by a hospitality manager.

However, hospitality students soon becoming employees, considered customer and employee relation skills essential for future hospitality managers whilst hospitality managers placed more importance on dependability and ethics as well as relationship skills (Annaraud, 2006). In the research of Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) hospitality managers considered the factors Interpersonal and Leadership, the two factors containing employee interaction, less important than any other factor. The notion of a different interpretation of the importance of specific managerial core competencies by managers and employees in the hospitality industry can also been seen in practice when looking at the actual management style compared to the management style preferred by employees. According to Deery and Jago (2000), an autocratic management style is the most perceived management style, whilst being the least preferred by hospitality employees. There is a clear lack of uniformity between managers and employees in the hospitality industry and their overall assessment of the perceived importance of managerial core competencies. One possible explanation is given by Gilbert and Guerrier (2006); there might be congruity between what a hospitality managers believe they should be doing and what they are actually doing.

Conceptual Framework

Based on prior literature, a conceptual framework can be build, as depicted in Table 3. This conceptual framework is an overview of opportunities for hospitality managers to have an effect on revenue growth and profitability in the long run, through an increase of employee satisfaction by means of measuring and influencing the internal service quality.

In summary, prior literature discussed the impact of employee satisfaction on customer satisfaction as well as revenue growth and profitability in the long run. Satisfying the workforce is therefore of the highest importance in the hospitality industry, where business success is foremost depending on customer loyalty and retention. Hospitality managers can measure employee satisfaction by assessing the current level of internal service quality through models like the Internal Service Quality Battery. Also, improvements of the internal

service quality can be made. According to the Service Profit Chain, managers have to focus on job design, workplace design, employee selection and development, employee rewards and recognition, and tools for serving the customer.

Although a lot of research has been focusing on general issues determining the success of a hospitality manager, prior literature has not emphasized the influence of hospitality managers on internal service quality and the managerial core competencies involved. Not every manager can be successful in creating and maintaining a high level of internal service quality in the hospitality industry. Therefore it is imperative to research what combination of competencies, skills and attitudes can be considered good determinants of a hospitality managers’ chances on success when attempting to positively contribute to the level of internal service quality. This thesis will focus on exactly this question. Also, it will try to identify the differing opinions between managers and employees in the hospitality industry regarding the core competency requirements for successful hospitality managers.

Table 3: Conceptual Framework Based on Prior Literature

Empirical Research

Objective

As can be concluded from the literature review so many findings can be deducted from prior research regarding the role of managers in the hospitality industry and their influence on employee and company performance. Since the importance of a high level of internal service quality has been discussed extensively in the prior chapter, it is therefore easily derived that hospitality managers should give a high priority to creating and maintaining a high level of internal service quality. Previous empirical studies have proven the importance for hospitality managers to raise the level of internal service quality by focussing on satisfying employees first in order to come to a preferred performance outcome (Babakus et al., 2003; Gilbert and Guerrier, 2006; Tsaur and Lin, 2004). Tools are created for hospitality managers to measure and influence the level of internal service quality, by means of the Internal Service Quality Battery from Kang et al. (2002) and the Service Profit Chain from Heskett et al. (1994) respectively.

However, as may be clear, not every hospitality manager can be considered successful in reaching a necessary level of internal service quality. Worsfold (1989a) states that the maintenance of a profitable hospitality industry is dependent on the selection of effective managers by directing attention towards the use of assessment centres and personality inventories in the selection process. Even though some prior literature (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Kay and Russette, 2000; Suh et al., 2012) has been focusing on the general core competencies required by hospitality managers, only little is known about the true managerial core competencies directly contributing to the level of internal service quality in the hospitality industry. Not much attention has been paid to this query in currently existing literature, although creating and maintaining a high level of internal service quality should be one of the primary concerns of any hospitality manager trying to be successful (Xu and Van der Heijden, 2008). Therefore, this research will focus on the specific core competencies required by hospitality managers and try to give an answer to the general research question:

‘What are the core competency requirements for hospitality managers to

successfully increase and maintain the level of internal service quality?’

In comparison with the Leadership-Competency Model by Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) this research will focus only on core competencies explicitly required for one dimension of a hospitality manager’s work instead of its success in general. By concentrating on characteristics only predicting an effect on employee satisfaction, this research will try to contribute to a better understanding of the core competencies required by hospitality managers to effectively create and maintain a high level of internal service quality. Whilst both managers and employees in the hospitality industry in general tend to agree on the required managerial core competencies (Buergermeister, 1983; Brownell, 2004; Kay and Russette, 2000), there might be a difference in the importance both attach to certain core competencies (Annaraud, 2006; Deery and Jago, 2000). This differing perception might lead to unwanted behaviour and both managers and employees in the hospitality industry should align their views on desired behaviour in order to be successful (Gilbert and Guerrier, 2006). Therefore, this research will emphasize differences in the findings amongst hospitality managers and their subordinates regarding managerial core competencies required to create and maintain a high level of internal service quality, in order to see if there is any congruity amongst their responses.

Because of the importance of having a high level of internal service quality for its direct effect on employee satisfaction and its indirect effect on revenue growth and profitability (Heskett et al., 1994), the results of this research might be very valuable for general managers in the hospitality industry as well as any human resource departments concerned with hiring decisions and looking for a hospitality manager able to create and maintain a high level of internal service quality. General managers will be able to identify and get a better understanding of the influence of certain characteristics on employee satisfaction in order to establish a clear human development policy related to performance appraisal, as indicated by Xu and Van der Heijden (2008). The managerial core competency requirements indicated in this research will help human resource departments in the hospitality industry with their hiring decisions when looking for a hospitality manager directly involved with employee interactions and their perceived satisfaction. It will allow them to construct an effective profile of the desired hospitality manager (Worsfold, 1989b).

Design

This research is of a descriptive nature. The object of descriptive research is ‘to portray an accurate profile of persons, events and situations’ (Robson, 2002, p.59). The aim of this study

is to identify the core competency requirements for hospitality managers successfully creating and maintaining a high level of internal service quality, which can be considered to be a profile of a desired hospitality manager as well. However, the second part of this study is of an explanatory nature, because the research is focusing on a situation in order to explain the relationship between two variables, namely the set of core competencies and their liaison with the level of internal service quality (Saunders et al, 2007, p. 134). Therefore, this thesis may be a forerunner to more pieces of explanatory research.

For this research a survey, or more specifically a questionnaire, is used to collect the required data. Conducting a survey is considered to be the best approach for this research, because it allows the collection of a large amount of data from a large amount of people, in a highly economical way. The collected data can then be analysed quantitatively using descriptive and inferential statistics, as will be discussed later (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 138). To give an answer to the main research question, a lot of managers and employees in the hospitality industry need to be reached. A questionnaire is perceived as authoritative by people in general and is both comparatively easy to explain and to understand, allowing a higher response rate (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 138). The questionnaire is also used to guarantee standardized and consistent questions, so that every person gets the same questions, to compare the answers of different respondents easily and to make sure this comparison is reliable (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 139). Furthermore, a lot of research on the core competency requirements for hospitality manager’s success has already been done. The majority of these authors have employed self-administered questionnaires to rate the importance levels of different managerial core competencies derived from the literature (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Gilbert and Guerrier, 1997; Kay and Russette, 2000). An example of the questions used in prior literature can be found in Appendix A and B.

One limitation of the survey design is the number of questions that can be included, since generally people are not willing to fill in a large questionnaire (Saunders et al., 2007, p.364). Therefore, not all competencies listed in prior literature will be included in the questionnaire. Instead, only the 29 overarching dimensions of managerial core competencies from the Leadership-Competency model by Kang et al. (20032) will be presented. This reduction of the total amount of items recorded might result in a loss of reliability; however a multiple page questionnaire might process an even less reliable outcome. One way to reduce the apparent length without reducing the legibility of the research, is to record answers to

questions with the same set of possible responses as a table (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 387). This was kept in mind when designing the questionnaire and resulted in a standardized table that was both easy to understand and easy to process.

Sample

This research will focus on managers and employees in the hotel industry in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, by asking them to participate in an empirical research by filling in a questionnaire measuring the current level of internal service quality and the importance and presence of managerial core competencies considered important to create and maintain a high level of internal service quality. To give an answer to the research question of this study, respondents of the questionnaire are required to be employed at a hotel company in the Amsterdam area and be either a manager or a subordinate. One prerequisite for respondents to be included in the final sample is that they work at least 16 hours a week, because they need to have a general understanding about the contributions to the internal service quality a hospitality manager is able to make.

Hotel companies in the Amsterdam region are selected because of a variety of reasons. First, hotel companies are a major employment generator in the hospitality industry. Because of the high rate of employment within hotel companies, employee satisfaction is having a large effect on overall customer satisfaction and thus business success in general (Heskett et

al, 1994). Second, the Amsterdam area displays a high variety of hotel companies, which can

be classified on the basis of service level and target market. The Amsterdam area is showing a great selection of both budget versus luxury hotels and commercial versus convention hotels. Third, as response rates are found to be increased by personal (versus mail) surveys and follow up visits (Yu and Cooper, 1983) the high density of hotel companies in the Amsterdam area and its allocation nearby allow a close and personal attention and possibilities for easy follow-ups resulting in a higher response rate. Last, hotel companies in the Amsterdam region are also selected partly for convenience reasons.

In order to get a sample representative for the whole hotel industry, hotel companies in the Amsterdam area have been categorized based on their service level and target market as identified before. This results in four different categories, combinations of budget versus luxury hotels and commercial versus conventional hotels. In each category, ten hotel companies will be randomly selected. In total, 40 hotel companies in the Amsterdam area will

be asked to participate in the research. For the sample selection, a combined database from both Booking.com (www.booking.com) and Tripadvisor (www.tripadvisor.com), was used. This resulted in a total of 346 hotel companies in the Amsterdam area, which were then refined on either budget, luxury, family and business, or a combination of these. Any hotel company refusing to participate in the research was replaced instantly by another hotel company in the same category. The final sample of 40 selected hotel companies in the Amsterdam area, can be found in Appendix C.

To get enough data to make valid comparisons and draw reliable conclusions, it would be useful to have a large sample size and sufficient respondents. The larger a sample size the lower the likely error in generalizing and the more reliable results are (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 210). In prior literature, at least 200 useful questionnaires are collected before examining the data. Therefore, in this study a total of 800 questionnaires were distributed amongst a selection of hotel companies in the Amsterdam area. Prior to collection, four hotel companies withdraw from participating in the research. From the remaining 720 questionnaires a total of 87 questionnaires were returned resulting in a response rate of 12.1%. 28 questionnaires were returned by managers in the hospitality industry in the Amsterdam area with an average age of 28.36 years, compared to 59 questionnaires filled in by employees with an age of 24.34 years on average. Furthermore, no hotel companies returned either all Dutch or all English questionnaires so participating hotel companies were not constraint by a shortage of questionnaires.

The minimum requirements for any sample size were stated to be at least 30 people for every category compared, in order for the data to be normally distributed which means that the data can be used for most statistical tests (Stutely, 2003). Therefore, a total of 28 questionnaires returned by managers in the hospitality industry in the Amsterdam area is too few, however it is considered sufficient to give a good idea about the opinion of hospitality managers in general. Due to the short time frame in which this research has to be conducted, it is not possible to repeat the survey to collect more results in order to acquire as much respondents as is used in previous studies (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Gilbert and Guerrier, 1997; Kay and Russette, 2000).

The returned questionnaires were distributed evenly over the four specified categories; 21 questionnaires were returned by either managers or employees in hotel companies in the

budget-commercial category and 22 questionnaires were returned by respondents in hotel companies in the budget-convention, the luxury-commercial and the luxury-convention category, making the returned questionnaires a reliable reflection of the hospitality industry in the Amsterdam area. Collection biases are therefore reduced to an insignificant minimum. However, five questionnaires were rendered useless and therefore got excluded from the research because the respondent was working less than 16 hours a week. A total of 82 questionnaires were used for statistical analysis. The distribution of the final database is shown in Table 4.

Managers Employees Total

Budget - Commercial 6 12 18

Budget - Convention 9 12 21

Luxury - Commercial 7 15 22

Luxury - Convention 6 15 21

Total 28 54 82

Table 4: Distribution of Respondents over Hotel Categories and Function.

Collection

Because the sample selected consists of 40 hotel companies in the Amsterdam area, the primary survey method selected was a self-administered, paper and pencil questionnaire. This type of questionnaire was carefully chosen for several reasons. The questionnaire was designed to be self-administered so each respondent reads and answers the same set of questions in a predetermined order without the interviewer being present. The questions can be completed most quickly without the interference of an interviewer, since all of them require scaling to answer. Furthermore, self-administration saves a lot of time and it guarantees anonymity. This reduces the subject or participant bias and therefore improves the reliability of the data (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 359). A delivery and collection questionnaire has a higher response rate than any other kind of self-administered questionnaire, it allows the interviewee too see if all questions have been answered and it does not require a data set with contact details of possible participants (Saunders et al, 2007, p. 358). Saunders et al. (2007, p. 383) are advising to contact selected hotel companies prior to administering the

questionnaire, to ask whether they would be interested in participation and to increase the response rate. However, this was done in only three cases as it was considered impersonal. Also it gave selected hotel companies an easy opportunity to refuse participation. The three hotel companies were replaced and from this moment the selected hotels were no longer contacted prior to delivering the questionnaires.

The survey’s layout was designed to be attractive to make the questionnaire easy to process for participants and was delivered by hand to each hotel company and collected later. All of these techniques are aimed at increasing the response rate (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 357, p. 379-380). Furthermore, the questionnaire was accompanied by an introduction letter which explained the purpose of the research and thanked the participant in advance. It also stated that the responses are processed strictly anonymous. Participating managers and employees from selected hotel companies in the Amsterdam area were given a two week time slot to finish their questionnaires. After one week, a follow up email was sent to all hotel representatives to inform about progress, to stimulate participation and to schedule an appointment for collection.

The questionnaire was delivered in twofold, with forms in Dutch and English, for several reasons. Experience has learned that hotel companies in the Amsterdam area are employing a lot of foreigners, who would already be excluded from participation when the questionnaire would be written in Dutch only. Also, the surveys leading for the design of this questionnaire are written in English. Translating questions and associated instructions into another language requires a lot of care when the translated questionnaire is to be decoded and answered by participants in the way intended (Saunders et al., 2007, p.375). To minimalize translation bias, this questionnaire was written primarily in English. However, participating hotel companies also received questionnaires written in Dutch to increase the general understanding and raise the response rate, since this is expected to lower the participation constraints for Dutch managers and employees in the 40 selected hotel companies in the Amsterdam area. To increase the validity and decrease the translation bias of the Dutch questionnaire, the translated questionnaires were handed out to two independent relatives who were then asked to translate the Dutch phrases back to English. Based on the results the Dutch questions were reworded when necessary. The final questionnaires, both in English and in Dutch, are enclosed in respectively Appendix D and Appendix E.

Measures

As mentioned before in the literature review, prior literature is the starting point for the research in this thesis. To give an answer to the research question, first the current level of internal service quality has to be measured. Therefore, the concept of internal service quality is being explained to participants. According to the checklist for wording by Saunders et al. (2007), it is important that participants understand everything, so simple words must be used. That is why the description was derived from the Service Profit Chain by Heskett et al. (1994) and reworded to be easy to interpret and understand. To avoid participant bias, the influence of hospitality managers on the level of internal service quality is not presented at the start of the questionnaire, since this might affect responses:

“Customer satisfaction is having a great influence on the overall success of companies in the hospitality industry. One of the key drivers for customer satisfaction is employee satisfaction. When employees are satisfied they are willing to make an extra effort and this will have a positive effect on customer satisfaction. It is therefore important to create a pleasant atmosphere within a company in the hospitality industry, also referred to as the Internal Service Quality.”

Kang et al. (2002) demonstrate that a confirmatory factor analysis is verifying that the Internal Service Quality Battery may be utilized to measure the level of internal service quality. The Internal Service Quality Battery items reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsive will measure the perception of hospitality managers and their subordinates of internal service quality by using a five-point Likert scale anchored by “1 = strongly disagree” and “5 = strongly agree”, just like in the research from Kang et al. (2002). The Likert-style rating scale is the most often used variant of rating questions and a suitable way to collect opinion data (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 372). In addition to measuring the level of internal service quality by questions derived from the Internal Service Quality Battery, participants were asked to confirm that there is a high level of overall internal service quality perception. The same five-point semantic differential scale was used to assess an individual’s overall perception of internal service quality, to make sure this question could be incorporated in the same question grid. The measure of overall internal service quality provided an opportunity to verify the construct validity of the Internal Service Quality Battery (Kang et al., 2002) and serves as a check question. The reliability of the Internal Service Quality Battery designed by Kang et al. (2002) was also assessed by measuring the Cronbachs Alpha. The lowest score for

any of the five categories was .731 and since all results are higher than 0.7, the questions contained in each of the five categories are reliable for measuring their overarching dimension. Therefore, no questions had to be removed (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 374). An example of a question to measure the level of internal service quality is:

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Co-workers are dependable for handling my problems O 1 O 2 O 3 O 4 O 5

Next, the influence of hospitality managers on the level of internal service quality had to be revealed. When managers and employees in the hotel industry in the Amsterdam area start to rate the core competencies from hospitality managers, they need to recall that they value these characteristics with the aim of creating and maintaining a high level of internal service quality in mind. Therefore, the role of hospitality managers in creating and maintaining a high level of the internal service quality will be explained:

“Since a high level of internal service quality has a positive influence on the overall business success, creating a satisfied workforce is one of the primary goals of a hospitality manager. To ensure a high level of internal service quality, hotel managers need to possess a number of competencies.”

Now that the influence of hospitality managers on the level of internal service quality had been explained, it was time to measure what managerial core competencies are considered to be the most important according to both managers and employees in the hospitality industry, with the aim to create and maintain a high level of internal service quality. For designing this questionnaire, the Leadership-Competency Model from Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) will be leading. Based on feedback from a pilot study the competency model they derived from prior research, was modified to reflect hospitality-specific behaviour. This resulted in 8 overarching factors, 29 dimensions and 99 specific behavioural competencies. The factors and dimensions were derived from literature on competency models and through hospitality managers’ feedback (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003).

Participants will be asked to rate the 29 dimensions of core competencies required by a hospitality manager on two different scales. The first scale is used to rate the managerial core

competency dimensions on the importance in general for creating employee satisfaction, using a five-point Likert-type scale anchored by “1 = not important” and “5 = important”. The second scale is used to rate the possession of managerial core competency by managers in respondents’ hotel, using a five-point Likert-type scale anchored by “1 = absent” and “5 = present”. Both techniques are consistent with the research by Chung-Herrera et al. (2003). The results of a Cronbachs Alpha analysis show that all dimensions contained in the Leadership Competency Model (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003), except for implementation and interpersonal, score higher than .7 and that the Cronbachs Alpha of the factors implementation and interpersonal could not be increased by deleting items. Therefore, all questions were suitable for measuring their overarching factors and thus got included in the final analysis. Once again, participants were asked to keep the aim of creating and maintaining a high level of internal service quality in mind whilst rating the dimensions of managerial core competencies. An example of a question to rate the core competencies of hospitality managers is:

In General In Your Hotel

Very Unimportant Very Important Not at all Very Much

Active listening O 1 O 2 O 3 O 4 O 5 O 1 O 2 O 3 O 4 O 5

Both parts of the questionnaire were listed in alphabetical order, both in Dutch and in English, to decrease bias as a result of grouping comparable questions.

Analysis

The quantitative data analysis took place two weeks after the questionnaire was distributed amongst the 40 selected hotel companies in the Amsterdam. This resulted in ranked or ordinal data, since a five-point Likert scale was used foremost in the questionnaire. Ordinal data allows easy comparisons because the relative position of each case within the dataset is known (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 409). Some researchers even argue that, where such data are likely to have similar size gaps between data values, they can be analysed as if they were quantifiable interval data, making it possible to also calculate the relative distance or ratio between any two data values for a variable (Blumberg et al., 2005). The resulting data sets allowed multiple calculations.

First, to examine the hotel company’s current level of internal service quality, this was measured by using the Internal Service Quality Battery by Kang et al, (2002). The mean as well as the standard deviation were calculated for all five aspects, for both hotel managers and hotel employees individually. Also, a correlation coefficient was measured by comparing the average of all five aspects with the outcome of the ranking on the variable ‘overall internal quality’. This showed what aspect of the Internal Service Quality Battery is considered to be the most influential. Second, the list of 29 dimensions of core competencies for hospitality managers was evaluated. From the first scale, which measured the importance in general for creating employee satisfaction, both the mean and the standard deviation of the 8 overarching factors and the 29 dimensions were calculated in order to rank the perceived importance for both managers and employees from the 40 selected hotel companies in the Amsterdam area, The second scale, which measured the possession of core competency dimensions by managers in respondents’ hotels, was compared with the outcome of the actual perceived internal service quality. This demonstrated what dimensions of managerial core competencies are considered important by managers and employees in the hotel industry experiencing a low internal service quality versus managers and employees in the hotel industry experiencing a high internal service quality.

To give an answer to the research question, the means from both groups on both the 8 overarching factors and the 29 determinants were ranked in order of perceived importance. This shows either similar or congruent results and gives an indication of the important managerial core competencies as perceived by both hospitality managers and hospitality employees. Next, an independent groups t-test assessed the likelihood of these groups being different. This compares the difference in the means of the two groups using a measure of the spread of the source (Saunders et al., 2007; p. 447). If the likelihood of any difference between these two groups occurring by chance alone is low, this will be represented by a large

t statistic with a probability less than 0.05 (Saunders et al., 2007; p. 447). This gives an

answer to our research question and combined with the ranking of the actual overarching factors and dimensions shows what core competencies are required by hospitality managers in order to create and maintain the level of internal service quality, according to managers and employees in the hospitality industry in the Amsterdam area.

Methodological Limitations

Validity

Validity is concerned with whether findings are really about what they appear to be about. (Saunders et al, 2007, p. 150). Although all measures in the questionnaire were about core competencies and the internal service quality, the data collected by the survey strategy is unlikely to be as wide-ranging as those collected by other techniques (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 139). For example, there is a limit to the number of questions that any questionnaire can contain if the goodwill of the respondent is not to be presumed on too much. To increase the validity, attention was paid to the design of the questionnaire. Foddy (1994, p. 17) emphasized that ‘the question must be understood by the respondent in the way intended by the researcher and the answer given by the respondent must be understood by the researcher in the way intended by the respondent’. This was kept in mind at all times and the design of a closed-question survey reduced the possibility of bias and thus increased the validity.

Reliability

Reliability refers to the extent to which the data collection techniques or analysis procedures will yield consistent findings (Saunders et al., 2007, p. 149). This research however, has not been without limitations. The sample used for this study is relatively small. Only 40 hotel companies in the Amsterdam area were selected to participate in the research. In order to improve the reliability of the results, the same type of research should be conducted with a larger sample size. Additionally, the use of data gathered from the self-administered questionnaire might have affected participants’ responses, resulting in self-reported biases. Saunders et al. (2007, p.318) notes that survey participants could consciously or unconsciously offer responses that are socially desirable instead of those that reflect their true intentions. Hence, to overcome interviewee bias, employing different research methods is recommended for future research.

Generalizability

This research has been conducted amongst a selection of hotel companies in the Amsterdam area. Therefore, results cannot be generalized for other countries. Other countries have a culture that differs from the Dutch one, which can influence the results of this research. To find out how managers and employees in the hospitality sector in any other country then The Netherlands rate the core competencies required by a hospitality manager, the research has to be executed in other countries as well. Also, the fact that all respondents were managers and

employees in the hospitality industry in a well-known tourism destination might have biased the results of this study. Hence, replicating this study using a more diverse sample in other regions is encouraged to assess the generalizability of this study’s results.

Results

Results on the Internal Service Quality

The aim of the first part of the questionnaire was to examine the current level of the internal service quality as experienced by both managers and employees in the hospitality industry in the Amsterdam area. Therefore two techniques were being used. The first procedure used is the Internal Service Quality Battery designed by Kang et al. (2002). This technique is measuring the internal service quality by asking questions grouped in five categories. The average of the outcome on reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness represents the overall level of internal service quality. The second procedure used is to ask respondents whether they agree with a high level of internal service quality or not. An overview of both measurements including the Cronbachs Alpha, mean and standard deviation is presented in Table 5. Managers Employees Reliability α: .793 Mean: Std. Deviation: 4.04 0.50 3.91 0.58 Assurance α: .778 Mean: Std. Deviation: 4.16 0.57 3.99 0.58 Tangibles α: .768 Mean: Std. Deviation: 4.01 0.71 3.71 0.60 Empathy α: .746 Mean: Std. Deviation: 4.00 0.57 3.82 0.57 Responsiveness α: .731 Mean: Std. Deviation: 4.11 0.50 3.95 0.52 Internal Service Quality Mean: Std. Deviation: 4.21 0.78 3.81 0.78

Table 5: Internal Service Quality Mean and Standard Deviation

As can be concluded from the results in Table 5, managers are on average more satisfied than employees; managers are experiencing a higher level of internal service quality

than their subordinates. This can be constructed from both the average of the five categories derived from the Internal Service Quality Battery (Kang et al., 2002) as well as the mean of the internal service quality directly assessed by respondents. The average mean for the five categories is 4.06 for managers and 3.88 for employees. The difference is being confirmed by general scores on the internal service quality of 4.21 and 3.81 respectively. However, an independent groups t-test show that the difference in the assessment by hospitality managers and hospitality employees is only significant for one of the five categories, namely tangibles with a score of .049 (at the 0.05 level, 2-tailed). Therefore, for all other categories the differences cannot be interpreted. Interestingly, when the respondents are asked to rate the internal service quality directly, the results from hospitality managers and their subordinates do differ significantly (.031, 2-tailed.)

Internal Service Quality

Reliability Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.645 0.000

Assurance Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.655 0.000

Tangibles Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.721 0.000

Empathy Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.582 0.000

Responsiveness Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.574 0.000

Table 6: Internal Service Quality Correlations

Table 6 is showing the correlation between the five individual components of the internal service quality and the overall internal service quality. Only the weighted average of the five categories defined by Kang et al. (2002) was used to assess the overall internal service quality, since this is consisting of multiple variables and therefore a more reliable indication of the perceived internal service quality than the internal service quality directly assessed by respondents. The results show that all five categories have a positive and significant (at the 0.01 level, 2-tailed) correlation with the internal service quality, which is

understandable since the second variable is the average mean of the first variable. The results in Table 6 also show that the overall internal service quality is strongest related with tangibles with a Pearson correlation of .721 and that it is having the weakest association with empathy and responsiveness with Pearson-correlation scores of respectively .582 and .574

Concluding, the survey results show that hospitality managers are experiencing a higher level of internal service quality than their subordinates because of the former’s higher direct assessment of the level of perceived internal service quality. This finding however is not supported by the evaluation of the five different categories defined by Kang et al. (2002), only for the category tangibles the difference is significant. Also, the quality of tangibles is expected to have the biggest impact on the overall experienced Internal Service Quality whilst empathy and responsiveness has the least effect.

Results on the Managerial Core Competencies

The second part of the questionnaire measures the overall importance and the presence of managerial core competencies according to managers and employees in the selected hotel companies in the Amsterdam area. Hence a list of 29 managerial core competencies grounded in the Leadership-Competency model from Chung-Herrera et al (2003) was proposed to respondents with the request to assess them. Because the presence of the 29 managerial core competencies was measured, it is possible to assess a Pearson-correlation test to gauge whether there indeed is a relationship between the level of occurrence of managerial core competencies and the internal service quality, measured as an average of the categories, reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness. This resulted in a .615 Pearson-correlation, significant at the .01 level (2-tailed), displaying a strong positive relationship between the presence of managerial core competencies and the level of internal service quality. Therefore, it is allowed to assume that the greater the extent to which hospitality managers possess the proposed core competencies, the higher the level of internal service quality.

Manager Employee

Self-Management (α: .738 )

Ethics and integrity Time Management 4.56 4.64 4.61 4.34 4.30 4.25 32

Flexibility and adaptability Self-development 4.43 4.57 4.32 4.49 Strategic Positioning (α: .745 )

Awareness of customer needs Commitment to quality Managing stakeholders Concern for community

4.54 4.79 4.61 4.37 4.39 4.36 4.56 4.57 4.29 4.02 Implementation (α: .636) Planning Directing others Re-engineering 4.56 4.57 4.50 4.61 4.36 4.32 4.43 4.34 Critical Thinking (α: .708 ) Strategic orientation Decision making Analysis

Risk taking and innovation

4.51 4.32 4.64 4.57 4.50 4.33 4.30 4.50 4.31 4.28 Communication (α: .736)

Speaking with impact

Facilitating open communication Active listening Written communication 4.46 4.32 4.36 4.75 4.43 4.29 4.09 4.43 4.54 4.10 Interpersonal (α: .448 ) Building networks Managing conflict Embracing diversity 4.51 4.43 4.61 4.50 4.29 4.15 4.47 4.30 Leadership (α: .727 ) Teamwork orientation Fostering motivation Fortitude Developing others Embracing change Leadership versatility 4.53 4.43 4.64 4.29 4.74 4.52 4.61 4.37 4.55 4.55 3.98 4.45 4.37 4.38 Industry Knowledge 4.70 4.42 33

Business and industry expertise 4.70 4.42

Table 7: Managerial Core Competencies Means for Managers and Employees

Since the possession of core competencies by hospitality managers has a positive effect on internal service quality, it is important to analyse what managerial core competencies are considered to be important. Table 7 is showing part of the results from the rating of managerial core competencies by both managers and employees in the hospitality industry in the Amsterdam area, displaying their importance on average according to both groups of respondents, in random order. According to the results in Table 7, hospitality managers are rating the 8 managerial core competencies significantly higher than their subordinates, with an overall mean of respectively 4.53 and 4.33. Also, the spread amongst managers is less, indicated by a standard deviation of .329 for managers and .461 for employees in the selected hotel companies. Both groups of respondents rated industry knowledge as being the most important factor of core competencies for hospitality manager to possess. This might however be biased, because only one dimension is contributing to the overarching factor industry knowledge. In previous research the scores on individual dimensions have been generated by the assessment of multiple questions, which inevitability leads to lower results. The ranking of managerial core competencies by both managers and employees in the hospitality industry in the Amsterdam area is shown in Table 8.

Manager Employee

1. Industry Knowledge (4.70) 1. Industry Knowledge (4.42) 2. Self-Management (4.56) 2. Leadership (4.37)

2. Implementation (4.56) 3. Strategic Positioning (4.36) 4. Strategic Positioning (4.54) 3. Implementation (4.36)

5. Leadership (4.53) 5. Self-Management (4.34) 6. Critical Thinking (4.51) 6. Critical Thinking (4.33)

6. Interpersonal (4.51) 7. Interpersonal (4.29) 8. Communication (4.46) 7. Communication (4.29)

Table 8: Ranking of Managerial Core Competencies on Means for Managers and Employees