Hospitality Values

Bachelor Thesis Report

Hospitality Values - Advisory Report for the

Professorship Experience in Hospitality and

Leisure

Bachelor Thesis Report

Hospitality Values

Advisory Report for the Professorship Experience in Hospitality and

Leisure

Maureen Lansink, 111155 Deventer, the Netherlands, 2013

Professorship Experience in Hospitality and Leisure

First Examiner: Marc M. Vink Second Examiner: Bastienne Barnasco

Research Teacher: Adrienn Eros

This thesis deals with the management problem of the client, the professorship Experience: how do values as a form of intrinsic motivation influence the motives to work on the operational level in the hospitality industry and how can they be recognised, measured and implemented in the hotel industry to help hotel managers optimise selection and motivation? The objective of this project was: to gain insight into the manner in which the value priorities of Dutch, future hotel (management) professionals, currently studying at Saxion, influence the motives for working on the operational level in the hotel industry, in order to write an advice for the professorship Experience regarding the recognition, measurement and implementation of the values priority model within the hospitality industry. With this objective, this thesis aims to contribute to the project adopted by the professorship Experience, the “Gastvrijheid Verdient” (G.V.) project.

The concept of hospitality industry has been defined as: commercial hospitality: “a specific kind of relationship between a host and a guest. In this relationship, the host understands what would give pleasure to the guest and enhance his or her comfort and well-being, and delivers it generously and flawlessly in face to face interactions, with deference, tactfulness and the process of social ritual. The objective is to enhance guest satisfaction and develop repeat business” (King 1995). In light of the G.V. project this definition has been focused on hotels with or without food and/or drinks. The concept of values has been defined as “desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance that serves as guiding principle in peoples’ lives (Schwartz, 2009). This thesis follows the ideas of Telfer, that suggest that a hospitable person is someone who “entertains often, attentively and out of motives appropriate to hospitality” (2000). Combining these definitions and theories, motivational values can be considered as the underlying motivation for working in the hospitality industry. Thus, genuine hospitality can be recognised and measured by Schwartz’s ESS PVQ (2010).

In order to reach the objective, this thesis performed a single, holistic case study which included both quantitative and qualitative elements and answered the following Central Research Question (CRQ): In which manner do the value priorities of Dutch, future hotel management professionals, currently studying at Saxion, influence the motives for working on the operational level in the hotel industry?

The results of this research indicate that there are four values that influence the career decisions of Dutch, future hotel (management) professionals. These are benevolence, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction. From which the first two are associated positively with working in the industry, stimulation is undecided and self-direction is associated negatively. Furthermore, the other values are expected to have an indirect influence through their relation with these values.

After assessing several options the advice part suggested to implement the solution that advised to adapt HR practices to attract and motivate the researched future professionals, improving hiring and motivation practices. The advice provides a guideline to implementing the gathered knowledge into the hiring practices of SME hotels. Prior to the implementation it has been advised to determine whether the advice is actually suitable for a specific hotel, by using the model to identify the company’s value system and compare this with the average value system of the Dutch, future professional, currently studying at Saxion. This model is then implemented at different stages of the hiring process and PDCA cycle.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ... 1-1 1.1 Background ... 1-1 1.2 Objective and Research Questions ... 1-2 1.3 WBS and Reading Guide ... 1-3 2 Research Part ... 2-4 2.1 Theoretical Framework ... 2-4 2.1.1 Hospitality... 2-4 2.1.2 Values ... 2-6 2.1.3 Hospitality Values ... 2-8 2.2 Methodology ... 2-9 2.2.1 General Research Strategy ... 2-9 2.2.2 Method of Data Collection ... 2-10 2.2.3 Operationalisation ... 2-11 2.2.4 Selection of Data Sources ... 2-11 2.2.5 Method of Data Analysis ... 2-12 2.3 Results ... 2-12 2.3.1 Questionnaire Results ... 2-13 2.3.2 Interview Results ... 2-16 2.4 Conclusions ... 2-22 2.5 Discussion... 2-25 2.5.1 Validity... 2-25 2.5.2 Reliability ... 2-26 3 Advice Part ... 3-27 3.1 Alternative Solutions ... 3-27 3.1.1 Overview of Alternatives ... 3-27 3.1.2 Overview of Criteria... 3-29 3.1.3 Assessment of the Alternatives ... 3-31 3.2 Suggestion of Implementation ... 3-35 3.2.1 Plan ... 3-36 3.2.2 Do ... 3-38 3.2.3 Check... 3-38 3.2.4 Act ... 3-39 3.3 Conclusion ... 3-39 4 Afterword ... 4-40 4.1 Reflection ... 4-40 4.2 Value of the Thesis Project to the Industry ... 4-40 5 References ... 5-41 6 Figures ... 6-43 7 Tables ... 7-43 8 Appendix Attached on the CD-ROM ... 8-44

1 Introduction

The following paragraphs will outline the thesis project. The background of this project will be explained in terms of the goals and ambitions of the client and the bigger project, their reason for initiating this project and the relevance it has for them. Further, this chapter will introduce the objectives and questions that are of importance in this thesis project.

1.1 Background

In order to understand the reason and relevance for this thesis project, the background of the client should first be clear. The client consists of the “Saxion Research Centre Hospitality” and the “Professorship Experience”.

SAXION RESEARCH CENTRE HOSPITALITY| The client of this thesis project is "Saxion Research Centre Hospitality", which is a research institute that connects the work field with education on a regional, national and international level. Their aim is to connect students, teachers, researchers and professionals from the work field by an active cooperation focused on asking questions, searching for answers and creating market value. Together with external partners, they formulate specific problems which are then adopted by the professors (Saxion, 2012, pp. 3-4). The Hospitality research centre is divided into four professorships, ‘Experience in Hospitality and Leisure’, ‘Ethics’, ‘Business Development’ and ‘Ethics and Technology’. Each of these professorships has their own focus, research theme and specialism. The professorship is led by a professor, who is an expert within the field of knowledge of their professorship, and leads a research group and a team of teachers and students engaged in applied science. This is done in cooperation with external partners, including universities, companies, organisations and governments.

PROFESSORSHIP EXPERIENCE| The Professorship Experience, is the external client and will receive the advice following from this research. This professorship is a subdivision of the Saxion Research Centre Hospitality currently managed by Professor E. Ennen and centres around the theme "Experience in Hospitality and Leisure". The professorship aims to work together with bachelor and master students, teachers, researchers and professionals from the work field to generate practical knowledge through the methodology "Learning by Sharing" in programs that are specifically targeted at the market on the basis of a multiple year agenda, which is created through communication with Saxion’s external partners (Saxion, n.d.).

The Professorship Experience, has adopted the project, “Gastvrijheid Verdient” (G.V.), literally translated, "Hospitality Earns" which is initiated by the professorship Personality and Behaviour of Hotelschool The Hague and will be executed in a cooperation between the Professorship Experience, Hotelschool The Hague, and several stakeholders and professionals from the work field. According to them, hotel managers and supervisors of Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) hotels are looking for new knowledge about hospitality experience, characteristics of hospitable behaviour (intrinsic and registered) and the translation of this information to new selection methods and coordination- and coaching instruments for the managers to optimise the hospitality experience in their hotel (2012). The eventual clients of the G.V. project, consists of eleven SME hotels that have requested the project. A list of these hotels can be found in Appendix 1. The project is centred around the following Management Question (Hotelschool The Hague, 2012, p. 3): How can the hotel manager optimise staff selection,

coordination and coaching of hospitable staff, based on factors of personality and behaviour which guests experience as hospitable?

As part of fulfilling their contribution to the research, the Professorship Experience started several individual thesis projects, each covering a different topic in the area of hospitality experience, one of these projects is this thesis project. Hospitality experience consists of three aspects, management, employees and guests. Figure 1 illustrates these aspects, the relationships between them and the place of this project in the whole. As part of the G.V.

project, the focus of this thesis project is on factors and behaviour as it will look into values of people. In which values are considered to be an intrinsic motivation (Schwartz, 2006) and contribute to the motivation to work in the hotel industry.

The management problem of the external client, the Professorship Experience is as follows: how do values as a form of intrinsic motivation influence the motives to work on the operational level in the hospitality industry and how can they be recognised, measured and implemented in the hotel industry to help hotel managers optimise selection and motivation? This report will attempt to solve this management problem and aims to get the following direct results in the form of an advice for the professorship Experience:

 New knowledge in the area of hospitality concerning motivational values of future hospitality professionals.

 A model to recognise and measure value systems of hospitable employees.

 Solutions to the management problem that may be executed in cooperation between the professorship, the work-field and Saxion students.

The relevance for the client, the professorship Experience, is to gain the knowledge and a new model and providing the work-field with valuable information regarding hospitality values and contribution to the adopted G.V. project. Furthermore it is in their interest to be a part of the implementation of the advice. These results are in line with the objective of the professorship Experience, which aims to generate practical knowledge in cooperation with teachers, researchers and professionals from the work-field.

1.2 Objective and Research Questions

Based on the objective of the external client and taking into consideration the G.V. project and the Theoretical Framework of this thesis project, the central objective for this report is: to gain insight into the manner in which the value priorities of Dutch, future hotel (management) professionals, currently studying at Saxion, influence the motives for working on the operational level in the hotel industry, in order to write an advice for the professorship Experience regarding the recognition, measurement and implementation of the values priority model within the hospitality industry.

This objective resulted in the following Central Research Question (CRQ):

Figure 1 Hospitality Experience Topic Triangle, adapted from B.H. Groen (personal

CRQ In which manner do the value priorities of Dutch, future hotel management professionals, currently studying at Saxion, influence the motives for working on the operational level in the hotel industry?

In order to answer this question, several sub-questions have been formulated. First of all, the value priorities of Dutch, future hotel management professionals, currently studying at Saxion, University of Applied Sciences (students), should be described, resulting in sub-question one. Secondly in order to find out how value priorities are connected to the motives for working on the operational level in the hotel industry, data should be collected about which values the students associate with working on the operational level in the hotel industry and which values influence their career decisions such as the choice to study hotel management and their future career. This results in sub-questions two and three. In which ‘the ten values’ are (benevolence, universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity and tradition) and are each separately evaluated as sub-sub-questions. Together these questions form the answer to the CRQ. The sub-questions are formulated as follows:

Q1 What are the value priorities of Dutch, future hotel management professionals, currently studying at Saxion?

Q2 In which manner are the ten values associated with working on the operational level in the hotel industry by Dutch, future hotel management professionals, currently studying at Saxion?

Q3 Which of the ten values influence the career decisions of Dutch, future hotel management professionals, currently studying at Saxion?

1.3 WBS and Reading Guide

The WBS structure of this thesis project is illustrated in figure 2, this shows that the thesis project contains five sub-projects namely the Introduction, Research Theory, Research Results, Advice and the Finalising Products. The sub-projects each are split up in sub-sub-projects which distinguish the different type of activities done in each project.

The remainder of this Thesis Project consists of two more parts, the Research and the Advice.

RESEARCH PART| The research part contains an introduction to the research part, theoretical framework, methodology, discussion of results, a conclusion of the results and finally a discussion of the validity and reliability of the research part. ADVICE PART| The advice part contains an introduction to the advice part, an evaluation of alternative solutions to the management problem, suggestions for the implementation of the advice and finally a conclusion of the advice.

At the end of the thesis an afterword can be found, then a reference list and finally the appendix, which is included on a CD-R disc in the back of this report.

2 Research Part

This research part covers the field research of this thesis project. The following chapters include a theoretical framework concerning the core concepts of hospitality and values; a methodology chapter which covers the general research strategy, method of data collection, operationalization, selection of data sources and the method of data analysis; a results chapter concerning the findings of the field research; a conclusion which gives the answers to the research questions formulated in the introduction part of this thesis research; and finally a discussion of the validity and reliability of the field research.

2.1 Theoretical Framework

This theoretical framework aims to define the core concepts of the research questions and provide the foundation for the field research and advice of this thesis project by providing a discussion of the definitions and models found in literature and by selecting the best ones to be applied in the remaining thesis project. The research questions note two core concepts, ‘Hospitality’ and ‘Values’ which are discussed in the following paragraphs, as well as their relation.

2.1.1 Hospitality

Hospitality is a widely discussed concept of which researchers have not yet found a consensus. In order to limit the extent of the discussion in this theoretical framework, the literature used has been pre-selected with regards to the project. In light of staying within the topic hospitality experience of the professorship, theory about hospitality has been limited to the direction of ‘hospitality as an experience’.

King (1995) reviewed the existing literature before 1995, of hospitality and the development of commercial hospitality (or the hospitality industry) to create a hospitality model that could be used in other customer service organisations. Herein, King (King, 1995) distinguishes between private and commercial hospitality, where private hospitality takes place in the private setting and commercial hospitality entails ‘meals, beverages, lodging and entertainment provided for profit’ (p.222). In relation to this thesis, the focus will be on commercial hospitality as this definition relates to hospitality as a product and therefore the concept of ‘hospitality industry’.

King (1995) further defines commercial hospitality as:

“…a specific kind of relationship between a host and a guest. In this relationship, the host understands what would give pleasure to the guest and enhance his or her comfort and well-being, and delivers it generously and flawlessly in face to face interactions, with deference, tactfulness and the process of social ritual. The objective is to enhance guest satisfaction and develop repeat business.” (p.229) Brotherton (2000) provides a similar definition of hospitality: “A contemporaneous human exchange, which is voluntarily entered into, and designed to enhance the mutual well-being of the parties concerned through the provision of accommodation, and/or food, and/or drink” (p.142). According to

Hemmington (2007, p.749) this definition fails to “capture any sense of the exciting, vibrant and creative industry of the real world”. Hemmington then notes that Brotherton’s definition centres around accommodation, food and beverages provided through services. Hemmington (2007) suggests that “by exploring and defining hospitality in commercial environments, new perspectives emerge that have important implications for hospitality in commercial contexts” (pp.753-754). Based on the existing

literature, he finalises by identifying five dimensions of hospitality: “the host–guest relationship; generosity; theatre and performance; lots of little surprises; and safety and security” and concluding that hospitality businesses should focus on “the guest experience and stage memorable experiences that stimulate all five senses” (Hemmington, 2007, p. 754). Boswijk, Thijssen &Peelen (2007) support this view in their book about the ‘experience economy’, they state that “the goal of the hospitality industry is to make the guest as comfortable as possible’ and that the hospitality industry is “a sector in which the best and especially personal service – and thus experience- are of paramount importance” (p.74).

Considering the existing literature, the core of hospitality can be described as the relationship or interaction between a host and a guest (King, 1995; Brotherton, 1999; Tepeci & Bartlett, 2002; Littlejohn & Watson, 2004; Gehrels, 2007; Hemmington, 2007; Pizam & Shani, 2009; Teng, 2011; Kwok, Adams & Feng, 2012). In the remainder of this thesis, the term hospitality will concern commercial hospitality as defined by King (1995) and be limited to hotels, with or without food and/or drinks, this in relation to the G.V. Project.

Being Hospitable

According to several researchers a good host should be friendly, sociable, and trustworthy and should focus on the guest (e.g. Hemmington, 2007; King, 1995; Kwok, Adams & Feng, 2012; Telfer, 2000). Other characteristics of a good host, that are considered to be of importance to the hospitality industry are openness for other cultures and people (e.g. Pizam and Shani, 2009; Teng 2011), and innovation and entertaining (e.g. Hemmington, 2007; Tepeci & Bartlett, 2002). Moreover, a good host should be polite and respect and honour the guest (King, 1995; Tepeci & Bartlett, 2002). Telfer (2000, pp.40-41) claims that there is a difference between being a good host and being hospitable. She clarifies that one may be a good host displaying the right skills, but that this does not mean one is hospitable. Telfer (2000) then defines a hospitable person (in private hospitality) as ‘someone who entertains often, attentively and out of motives appropriate to hospitality’ (p.41). She distinguishes three groups of ‘Hospitable motives’: other-regarding motives, reciprocal motives and self-regarding motives, whereas other-regarding motives come the desire to please others, self-regarding motives come from the desire to benefit the host. Reciprocal motives is a mixture of the two other groups, an example is that the host has the desire for company, making friends or hoping that the hospitality will be returned (Telfer, 2000). True genuine hospitableness concerns the first two groups of motives, where the focus is on pleasing the guest (Telfer, 2000). Concerning commercial hospitableness, Telfer (2000) suggests looking at the motives people have to work in the hospitality industry and their performance of various actions concerning the guest. When a person acts out of the motive to please others, one may perform exceptionally or do more than the job requires. Telfer (2000) concludes that a genuine hospitable person shows this in one’s professional life but also in their private life. Therefore, it can be assumed that for one to be genuinely hospitable at work, their value priorities will concern values that are connected to being perceived as hospitable.

2.1.2 Values

The most significant contribution(s) to the literature of the value concept is Schwartz’ Value Theory (Schwartz, 1992; 1994; 2003; 2006; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2003). This theory is the most validated theory on values that can be (and is) used for researching the full set of values against other variables. The theory is confirmed by extensive research using the theory in relation to other variables (e.g. Rocco, Sagiv, Schwartz &Knafo 2002; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2003). In addition, the Theory is being used by the European Social Survey (ESS), which is an “academically-driven social survey designed to chart and explain the interaction between Europe’s changing institutions and the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour patterns of its diverse populations” (ESS, 2013). The ESS has currently performed its research in 34 countries of which twenty participated in four out of five waves and are participating in the next wave as well (ESS, 2013). In the interest of briefness, and in consideration of Schwartz’ contribution to the literature of values, the focus of this theoretical framework is placed upon Schwartz’ theory.

Unlike the concept of the hospitality industry, where there is still much discussion about the definition of the concept, according to Schwartz (2006; 2009) researchers (“e.g. Allport, 1961; Feather, 1995, Inglehart, 1997; Kohn, 1969; Kluckhohn, 1951; Morris, 1956; Rokeach, 1973”) have reached a consensus on the conception of values. He claims that the main features of the basic values can be summarized as the following quote.

 “Values are beliefs. But they are beliefs tied inextricably to emotion, not objective, cold ideas.  Values are a motivational construct. They refer to the desirable goals people strive to attain.  Values transcend specific actions and situations. They are abstract goals. The abstract nature of

values distinguishes them from concepts like norms and attitudes, which usually refer to specific actions, objects, or situations.

 Values guide the selection or evaluation of actions, policies, people, and events. That is, values serve as standards or criteria.

 Values are ordered by importance relative to one another. People’s values form an ordered system of value priorities that characterize them as individuals. This hierarchical feature of values also distinguishes them from norms and attitudes.”

Schwartz, 2009, p.2 For the Values Theory Schwartz defined values as “desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that serves as guiding principles in people’s lives. The five features above are common to all values” (Schwartz, 2006, p.0). Based on the existing value researches, Schwartz (1992) developed a structure of ten motivational values. He claims that it is possible to classify all items found in existing literature - and therefore cultures – into ten basic motivational values. This claim has been validated in several of researches by Schwartz (1992; 1994; 2003; 2006). The ten values are: Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-Direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Tradition, Conformity, and Security (Schwartz, 1992). Schwartz (2003) summarised the definitions of these motivational values in terms of their central motivational goal and the single values that represent them, table 1 on the next page presents this overview.

Schwartz (1994) claims that even though the theory discriminates among these motivational values that they, at a more basic level, form a continuum of related motivations.

Further, he

developed a

circumpolar model that represents the values' relationships between each other, as shown in figure 3. Values that are right next to each other involve related underlying motivations, while those opposing each other have significantly different underlying motivations (Schwartz, 1992; 1994; 2003; 2006; 2012). Schwartz (2003; 2006; 2012) summarized the structure as having two dimensions. Openness to change vs. conservation and self-transcendence vs. self-enhancement. Figure 3 shows the position of these dimensions, their focus and the values included. Herein, hedonism shares elements of both openness to change and self-enhancement

Table 1Definitions of the Ten Motivational Values by Schwartz (2003, pp.267-268)

(Schwartz, 2003; 2006; 2012). Schwartz notes that this model has been proven by samples from 67 nations (Schwartz, 2006).

In order to measure the ten motivational values, Schwartz developed, tested and adapted the Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ), which is adopted by the ESS as part of their survey. The PVQ exists of 21 person descriptions, to which the respondent can answer “very much like me” until “Not at all like me” (ESS 2010a). The filled out PVQ is then used to determine a person’s value priorities. In relation to this thesis project, the PVQ is used as a data collection method, which will be elaborated on in paragraph 2.2.2. Furthermore, Schwartz’s value theory is being used as a foundation for the remainder of this thesis project.

2.1.3 Hospitality Values

When being genuinely hospitable means that a person does not only act hospitable but also has the right underlying motives (Telfer, 2000), Schwartz’s motivational values (2006) can be seen as indicators of being genuinely hospitable. Schwartz’s values (2006) are expected to influence the motivations someone has to be hospitable in one's daily life and their choice for working in the hospitality industry.

One of the most concrete clues about which values characterize hospitality is Telfer's (2000) explanation of the other-regarding group of motives, in which she specifically mentions benevolence as an example for other-regarding motives, thereby suggesting benevolence as an important motivational value for hospitableness. This is supported by the description of a good host, which according to multiple researchers, should be friendly, sociable, trustworthy and should focus on the guest (e.g. Hemmington, 2007; King, 1995; Feng, 2012; Telfer, 2000). Furthermore, based on the definition of the higher order value Self-Transcendence (Schwartz, 2003) and the description of other-regarding motives (Telfer, 2000), they seem to be concerning the same type of motives. This suggests that a person who prioritises the motivational values Benevolence and Universalism are likely like to have other-regarding motives, thus, to display a higher level of genuine hospitality. The opposite of Schwartz’s higher value, Self-Transcendence is Self-Enhancement (2003), relating again to Telfer’s motive groups, this relates to the self-regarding motives, which concerns the least genuine hospitable motives (2000). In relation to Schwartz’s model (2003), this suggests that someone who prioritises the values Achievement and Power, is expected to not be as genuinely hospitable as someone who prioritises Benevolence. Moreover, Telfer (2000) also explains that when a person provides hospitality in order to show off their skills, they act out of a self-interested motive, thus is not genuinely hospitable. However, Telfer (2000) also mentions that the degree in which a person is still concerned about the guest’s wants and needs, determines whether it should be considered a self-regarding motive or a reciprocal motive. This suggests that the complete set of value priorities of a person is important to determine a person’s hospitableness.

On another note, characteristics mentioned as important in the hospitality industry are openness for other people and cultures (e.g. Pizam & Shani, 2009; Teng 2011), and innovation and entertaining (e.g. Hemmington, 2007; Tecepi & Bartlett, 2002). These items suggest values in the area of the higher value Openness to Change which includes the values Self-Direction and Stimulation (Schwartz, 2003). In contrast, researchers often mention that a good host is polite and should respect and honour the guest (e.g. King, 1995; Tepeci & Bartlett, 2002), these characteristics are related to conformity and

tradition values, which represented in Schwartz’s value model as the opposite of Stimulation and Self-Direction, but is still connected to Benevolence.

According to the theory, for a hospitable person, the benevolence and universalism values should have the highest priority. Followed by either conformity and tradition or self-direction and stimulation. The power and achievement values are expected to receive a negative score. These suggestions have been marked with colours in figure 4.

2.2 Methodology

This methodology chapter aims to describe the research methods used in the field research. The following chapters describe the general research strategy, method of data collection, operationalisation, selection of data sources and the method of analysis used in this thesis.

2.2.1 General Research Strategy

The goal of this field research was to gain insight into the manner in which the value priorities of Dutch, future hotel management professionals, currently studying at Saxion, University of Applied Sciences are connected to the motives for working on the operational level in the hotel industry. Therefore, a quantitative research approach has been applied to measure the value priorities of HM students by means of an existing questionnaire, while a qualitative research approach has been applied to gain a deeper insight in the value priorities of students and how they think these will be satisfied when working on the operational level in the hotel industry.

For this research a case study research design has been selected as the most appropriate research strategy, for the following reasons. Firstly, Brotherton (2008) stated that “Case studies are generally seen as valuable for exploring an issue in depth within a specific context, using qualitative data to assist in the development of insights and theory” (p.123). On the other hand Brotherton (2008) stated Figure 4 Schwartz' model colored with theoretical suggestions.

that although case studies may be useful for exploring an issue in depth in a specific context, it can also be used in a more quantitative context and therefore be used to test the applicability of existing theory to this case.

According to Yin (2003) a case study can be designed in four ways. In order to determine which design to use, one should first establish the amount of cases to be included in the study (Brotherton, 2008). In this research the Hotel Management division of the Hospitality Business School at Saxion Hogescholen Apeldoorn acts as the case. Therefore, this study has a single case design. The second choice to be made was how many units of analysis within the case to include. Concluding from the research questions, there is one unit of analysis, Dutch future professionals in Hotel Management. Cases with one unit of analysis are considered to be holistic. In conclusion, the research strategy selected for this research is a single, holistic case study which included both quantitative and qualitative elements. 2.2.2 Method of Data Collection

In order to determine the value priorities of HM students in general, the first approach chosen was an questionnaire, distributed by electronic means (Brotherton, 2008). Because quantitative data is required on a large scale, the questionnaire contains structured and closed-ended questions (Brotherton, 2008). The questionnaire’s body exists of the ESS PVQ by Schwartz (2003) as mentioned in paragraph “2.1.2 Values”. Since this questionnaire has been tested and validated in several researches, as well as in several rounds of the ESS, validity and reliability of the questionnaire can be ensured. The PVQ does not confront respondents directly with thinking about their value systems, rather, they are asked how much the person described in the question is like them on a scale of 1-6, ranging from “very much like me” until “not at all like me” (ESS, 2010a). Using this approach, called “Projective Techniques”, persons are less likely to give socially desirable answers (Brotherton, 2008). The questionnaire can be found in appendix 2. The students have been invited to participate by email, these emails can be found in appendix 3. Additional to the online questionnaire, the questionnaire has also been distributed in person.

In order to answer all the research questions, more in-depth information was required and according to Brotherton (2008), “interviewing is generally regarded as a useful approach where qualitative data are required and more in-depth exploration is necessary” (p. 151-152). Therefore, interviewing has been selected as the most appropriate approach to gain an in-depth insight into which value priorities influence the study and career decisions of the unit of analysis. Before the start of the interviews, the respondents has been asked to fill out the questionnaire as input for the interviews. The same questions form the basis of the interviews. According to Verwijmeren (2010) there are three types of interviewing, standardised, un-standardised and semi-standardised. While there are predetermined questions that structure the interview, to get more in-depth answers, the interviews allowed space for probing questions beyond the predetermined questions and correct flow of the conversation. Therefore the type of interviewing for this thesis is semi-standardised interviews (Verwijmeren, 2010). The interview guide used for the interviews can be found in appendix 4. In order to ensure the comfort of the interviewee during the interview, two main measures have been taken. First of all, the interviews took place face-to-face at the most convenient place for the interviewee. Secondly, considering the personal nature of the questions, the interview had a rather informal setting. To achieve this, the interviewer took some time to engage in small talk with the interviewee prior to recording the interview

and the interviewee has been informed about the purpose and structure of the interview and was asked for permission to record the interview.

2.2.3 Operationalisation

According to Brotherton (2008), there is a need to translate or convert tangible and abstract constructs into concrete and tangible in order to collect empirical data, this process is known as operationalisation. Within this thesis the concept of hospitality has been given a clear definition for the purpose of this thesis within the theoretical framework. Values on the other hand, the concept which has been measured in this field-research, has been operationalised by Schwartz (2003) when he created the PVQ. When looking at the concept of values as described in the theoretical framework, the first operationalisation of the concept by Schwartz’s model results in four higher order values, which in turn develop into the ten motivational values by Schwartz as displayed in figure 5. Furthermore, Schwartz operationalised the ten motivational values into the values that represent them, this operationalisation, can be found in appendix 5.

2.2.4 Selection of Data Sources

According to Brotherton (2008, p.168) there are two types of sampling methods, probability-based sampling, which is most suited for quantitative research and non-probability-based sampling which is commonly used in qualitative research. However, for this study purposive sampling, a non-probability-based method has been selected as the most suitable approach to be used for both parts of the research, because both the questionnaire and interviews required respondents to fulfil certain criteria. Therefore known as key respondents. This method has been used to select the sampling frame based on the G.V. project. The subjects in sample needed to meet the following criteria: student at Saxion, study course Hotel Management within the Hospitality Business School, have the Dutch nationality and has completed their first year of study. In light of the questionnaire, and the response rate, the population is so small, it was not possible to create a smaller sample. Therefore no further sampling method has been used, instead every student in the sampling frame has been included in the sample. This lead to a total of 321 sampling subjects. For the interviews the purposive sampling approach has been used to select the sampling frame. Based on this approach a certain date and time have been selected to locate the sample and to ask them to participate in the interviews, this method was repeated until new interviews no longer led to new insights. The final amount of sampling respondents was eight.

2.2.5 Method of Data Analysis

First, all the data was entered in IBM SPSS Statistics 20 (SPSS), and the variables and formats were specified. (SPSS is recommended by Brotherton (2008, p.176), he claims that it is “the most commonly used package, widely available in most institutions”.) As SPSS works with numerical input, the answers needed to be coded. Before analysing, the raw data needed to be tidied, cleaned and/or edited, which according to Brotherton (2008) is necessary because some questions may not have been answered. In this process, all respondents who did not fill out the PVQ part of the questionnaire were deleted from the data base, leaving only valid responses. When

the data was entered it had to be prepared for analysis, first the individual scores were recoded wherein, a score of 1 first meant “a lot like me” now means “not at all like me”. Secondly, raw scores of the PVQ values had to be computed. These scores were computed by taking the mean scores of the items that index the separate values, as shown in

table 2.Finally, the centred scores for the ten values were computed, using Schwartz’s description for calculating the centred scores (ESS, 2013). This means that the centred scores were computed by subtracting the mean score of all measured items (MRAT) from the raw score of the specific value. The ordered and prepared data was then used to generate frequency tables, a cross tabulation, a descriptive table of the value priorities, a bivariate correlation analysis between the centred scores and categorical results (gender, age, study year and hospitality experience) and a descriptive table of the higher order values. The raw data gathered from the questionnaire can be found in appendix 6.

According to Brotherton, qualitative data tends to have more variability than quantitative data is therefore considered to be more challenging to analyse (2008). There are however, several methods that may be applied to analyse qualitative data. The foremost thing to do was to write a word-for-word transcript of each recorded interview, in order to create a written version of the results, which could then be analysed. The content analysis start with open coding, which according to Mills, Durepos and Wieden refers to “the initial interpretive process by which raw research data are first systematically analysed and categorized” (2010). The interviews were coded by using the questionnaire questions in combination with Schwartz’ operationalisation of the ten values as guidelines for codes and categories. The codes were categorised by translating them back through the operationalisation tree-diagram as shown in appendix 5. Writing and coding the transcripts was followed by performing a content analysis on the written interviews, as suggested by Verwijmeren (2010), where the key items were compared. 2.3 Results

This chapter describes and analysis all results gained from the field-research. This chapter is split up into two parts due to the different research methods. The first part concerns the questionnaire results which includes the response rate, respondents’ characteristics, PVQ results, bivariate analysis and the higher order values. The second part deals with the results of the interviews and includes the respondent’s characteristics, reasons for studying hotel management and the results of the ten values per value.

Table 2 The ten value types and the items that index it. Source: ESS PVQ (2010)

2.3.1 Questionnaire Results

Response Rate

From the 321 sampling subjects, a total of 106 students responded, which would generate a response rate of 33%. However, in the process of preparing the data, a total of 18 invalid cases have been identified. These invalid cases concern respondents that have cancelled the questionnaire after the categorical section. For the reason that these respondents did not complete the ESS PVQ section, these have been deleted from the data base. The process of preparing the data resulted in a total of 88 valid cases. This generates a final response rate of 27.4%.

Respondents’ Characteristics

The first part of the questionnaire concerned categorical questions, these concerned: gender, age, study year, hospitality experience. Table 3 shows the frequency count, and percentages per question. (For the actual questions, please refer to the

Questionnaire which is included in Appendix 2.)

The results of the first question, asking for the respondents’ gender, show that there were significantly more female respondents (75%) than male respondents (25%). The results of the second question show that the age of most respondents was between 19 and 21 years (46.6%) or 22 and 25 years (38.6), while only a small amount (total of 14.8%) was younger than 19 or older than 25. The third question concerned the respondents’ study year. The results show that most of the respondents (42%) were in their final year, 33 percent in their second year and 25 percent in their third year. The final result shown in table 3 is the amount of hospitality experience in years the respondents had. The table shows that most of the respondents (44.3%) have four to six years of experience in the

hospitality industry. Furthermore, 26.1% of the respondents have one to three years of experience, while 20.5 percent has seven to ten years of experience. Finally only 3.4 percent has less than a year of experience and 5.7 percent of the respondents have more than ten years of experience in the industry.

Table 3 Characteristics of the Respondents: Gender, Age Group, Study Year and Hospitality Experience

Besides questions about characteristics, the categorical section also required information about the respondents’ intention to work in the hotel industry and if yes, which position, back of house or front of house, they preferred. The results are shown in a cross-tabulation between

these two questions, in table 4. The table indicates that a total of 42.5 percent of the respondents were pursuing career in the hotel industry at the time of the questionnaire, against 35 percent that were not pursuing a career in the industry and 22.5 percent answered “maybe”. Of the 34 respondents that do pursue a career in the hotel industry, 44.1 percent prefers back of house, 50 percent prefers front of house and 5.9 percent did not indicate a preference.

PVQ Results

Using the results of the questions that index the values as shown previously in table 2, chapter 2.2.5, the centred scores of the values have been computed in SPSS. The centred scores as displayed in table 5, indicate the average value priorities of HM students.

The value that scored highest (thus, considered to be the most important value for HM students) is the benevolence value (M=0.600), this is in line with suggestions made in the theoretical framework of this thesis project, that benevolence would rank high in the list of value priorities of people working on the operational level in the hotel industry. The list also indicates that the self-direction value is ranked second with a mean of 0.361. The

suggestion about self-direction the theoretical framework is that either self-direction or conformity and tradition values follow benevolence. Since in this case it is self-direction following the benevolence value, tradition (M=-0.650) and conformity (M=-4.00) rank lower. The Hedonism value (M=0.356) is listed third in within the value priorities which, was to be expected since this value not only possesses elements of self-enhancement but also openness to change which is, according to the theory, to be expected to be important in being hospitable. Considering Schwartz’ theory (2003) it is surprising that the achievement value is ranked relatively high (M=0.236) in this list since this value is opposite of the self-transcendence values in the Schwartz curriculum. However, as mentioned in the theoretical framework, achievement related motives may also have more reciprocal nature in hospitality in combination with more self-transcendence values such as benevolence. The stimulation value (M=0.140) seems to be of average importance. Another unexpected result is that the universalism value did does not accompany the benevolence value at the top of the list as was predicted, rather it is

Table 4 Hotel Career and Hotel Position Cross-tabulation

Table 5 List of Value Priorities HM Students

ranked sixth in the list. Besides positive values, in the theoretical framework of this thesis it is also suggested that there are also values that are considered negative for a hospitable person, these values were considered to be power, achievement and hedonism. While the achievement and hedonism values came out positive, the power value scored rather low (M=-0.423). The results show three more negative values, security (M=-0.383), conformity (-0.400) and the with the lowest score in the list, tradition. These three values each below to the higher value conservation which opposes the higher value openness to change. Therefore this rating may be perceived as logically, considering Schwartz’ theory (2003).

Bivariate Analyses.

When generating a bivariate analyses of the questionnaire results in SPSS, 26 relations between the variables were identified. These contain: six positive relations (significance at the 0.05 level), one strong positive relation (significance at the 0.01 level), three negative relations (significance at the 0.05 level) and 15 strong negative relations (significance at the 0.01 level). Table 6 lists these relations and the full

table with correlations can be found in appendix 7. These relations show confirm Schwartz’ theory (2003) that the values are interrelated and when one value becomes more important, (often) an opposite value becomes less important. However, within this research, the results also show strong negative relations between variables that are next to each other in the circle, such as tradition and benevolence.

Higher Order Values

When translating the values to a more general level, the higher order values (as shown in table 7), it suggests that the most importance is put into Self-Transcendence (M=0.353) and Openness to Change (M=0.286) values. The more negative values are Self-Enhancement (M=0.057) and Conservation Values (M=-0.478).

The results indicates that the value priorities of HM students follow Schwartz’ circle of values in a counter clock-wise manner. This

suggests that HM students find it important to help others before helping themselves and strive to do their own thing and learn new things rather than sticking to the status quo and in-group. It may be expected that people with a list of value priorities are looking for a job in which achieving personal goals has everything to do with helping other people, hence the hotel industry. In this sight, these people have reciprocal motives for being hospitable.

Table 6 List of Statistically Significant Relations

Table 7 List of Higher Order Value Priorities HM Students

2.3.2 Interview Results

Respondents’ Characteristics Table 8 presents the specific characteristics of the interview respondents. In order to ensure anonymity, respondents have been coded as IR1 through IR8 throughout the entire results chapter, the interview recordings and the transcripts with coding can be found in

Appendix 8 and 9. Table 8 shows that all interview respondents were female. One of the respondents was in her fourth year of studies, four in their third year and four in their second year. Two of the respondents fit within the age group 22-25 years old, five fit into 19-21 years old and one is younger than 19 years old. Three of the respondents have 1-3 years of hospitality experience, two have 4-6 years of experience, and three have 7-10 years of hospitality experience.

Reasons for Studying Hotel Management

While not every respondent was entirely sure why they chose to study Hotel Management, two main reasons were given for studying Hotel Management. The first reason is that the study is quite broad and combines management studies with hospitality, this was the reason for five out of eight respondents. According to Respondent IR1, the HM study can be described as: “commercial economics, with a focus on hospitality” (personal communication, 2013). Respondent IR3 explained that the broadness of the study that allows her to go in many different directions afterwards which is the reason for choosing to study HM (personal communication, 2013). The second main reason for studying HM is “working with guests and colleagues”, nearly all respondents mentioned this during their interview. Even though she likes the broadness of the study, respondent IR3 also mentions she likes being in contact with guests and colleagues (personal communication, 2013). Respondent IR8 choose to study HM because this study has the most focus on the guest and providing them services (Interview 8, 2013, Lines: 17-19).

The elaborations on the reason “it is a broad study”, indicate motives that are linked mostly to the stimulation value, which concerns learning new and different things and taking risks (Schwartz, 2003). When averaging the value priorities of the interview respondents, the stimulation value is in fact ranked second. The respondents that gave “working with guest and colleagues” as the main reason, score relatively high on the value benevolence, placing this value between first and third place in the list of value priorities. On the average value priority list Benevolence is ranked first. This indicates that these values are certainly of influence when deciding to whether to study Hotel Management, however it should be noted that the values in itself are influenced by each other as well, therefore the decision to study HM is also (in a lesser extend) influenced by other values.

Table 8 Characteristics of Interview Respondents: Respondent Number, Study Year, Age, and Hospitality Experience.

Benevolence

The reasons for studying HM already indicated that the benevolence value has an influence on the choice of study. The same reasons are considered when respondents were asked why they pursue a career in the hotel industry, or at least in the hospitality industry, they “like working with guests and colleagues” and enjoy making people happy. The respondents associate benevolence positively with the hotel industry. According to respondent IR1, a hotel employee can make a guest feel welcome (personal communication, 2013), which means they are contributing positively to the well-being of another person. She also believes that someone who’s motives to work in the hotel industry solely exists of wanting to help other people will be able to feel in place in the hotel industry. On the other hand, one might place the focus of helping other people within their in-group, which means their family and friends are more important. When the respondents were asked to give their opinion on whether one is able to combine working on the operational level in the hotel industry with maintaining personal relations, the answers showed a division. While some believe that it is easy to combine because one might switch shifts in order to get more day shifts (IR2, IR3, IR4 and IR8, personal communication 2013), others believe it is not impossible but difficult to combine (IR1 and IR3, personal communication 2013). Respondent IR8 states that even though it is important to be with friends, they can hang out whenever possible (personal communication, 2013). Most respondents agree that when one wants to work in the hotel industry, one makes a choice to work with flexible timetables, which they did as well. IR3 states that when working she tries to position herself into the guest’s perspective and serves them the way she would like to be served when going out (personal communication, 2013). This suggests that in the first place, guests have hedonism related motives to go out for dinner, to enjoy themselves and have a good time. In this case, the employee has to set asides the things he/she likes to do by working, in order to help the guest to fulfil his/her wishes for a good time. This indicates that only one who finds it important to place another’s needs and wants before their own, will feel comfortable working at the operational level of the hotel industry. However, two of the respondents made it very clear why they opted for working in the hotel management (instead of e.g. health care). IR3 and IR5 state that they enjoy providing relaxation and entertainment for other people because she is then part of a positive event, while working in health care mainly includes negative events (personal communication, 2013). In conclusion, the benevolence value is associated in a positive manner to working on the operational level in the hotel industry and has an influence on the career decisions of the respondents.

Hedonism

The Hedonism value is ranked differently for each of the interview respondents, however when the eight scores are average and listed, hedonism gets the fourth place. Even though it has not the highest score, hedonism seems to influence quite a bit of the respondents’ motivations. As mentioned before, most of the respondents stated that they “enjoy providing services” and “enjoy making people happy”, even though it can be considered to come from benevolence values, the “enjoy” part plays an important role. This is because the motivation of the respondents to choose a study or career that involves working with guests and helping other is because they enjoy doing so, therefore making their motivations reciprocal in nature as they expect to fulfil their own pleasure by helping others. Three respondents said that it is very important to have fun and enjoy the work because it has a great influence on their hospitable performance towards the guests (IR1, IR2, IR3, personal communication,

2013). Furthermore, IR1 believes that a guest will notice when one is not genuinely smiling and might feel uncomfortable because of it (personal communication, 2013). In fact when the respondents were asked which criteria they looked for when searching for a job, they often mentioned that the job needs to be “fun”, something they would enjoy doing. IR2 and IR3 both mentioned they prefer to have a job they like, over earning more money (personal communication, 2013). IR6 justified her low score on one of the two questions that index hedonism, by stating she “prefers to please others instead of herself, but it is very important that the work is fun” (personal communication, 2013). This phrase explains how benevolence and can be closer together on the value priorities list than Schwartz’ value circle (2003) suggests. Finally, all respondents associate working on the operational level in the hotel industry with a possibility to have fun. In conclusion, the hedonism value’s association is positive and it does have an influence on the respondents’ career decisions.

Universalism

Universalism generally ranks around sixth place (M= 0.119) in the list of value priorities. Even though the theoretical framework suggested this value would be in the top three of hospitable value priorities, it does not. During the interviews it became clear that the questions that index the universalism value, distinguish two different aspects. The three questions that index universalism concern equal treatment, being open-minded and taking care of nature. Whereas the first two concern people and rank relatively high, the third concerns the environment and scores relatively low. IR8 clarifies that she believes equality and being open-minds are very important but that she absolutely does not care about the environmental sustainability (personal communication, 2013). Most of the respondents refer to the equal treatment within the company and the equal treatment of guests. Since equal treatment and being open-minded can both contribute to the well-being of guests and even staff, equality can be considered to be important to the hotel-industry but does not directly influence the career decision. The nature part on the other hand, seems to be not important at all to the respondents’ decisions. IR3 mentions that caring for nature might be important but being environmentally sustainable should not negatively influence the level of salary of the employee or the level of comfort of the guest. (personal communication, 2013). Furthermore, IR2 indicated that even when environmental sustainability would be important to a person, the hotel industry is would not be a suitable due to its large amounts of waste, and environmental decisions are taken at higher level of the company (personal communication, 2013). Considering that more than half of the respondents feel that equality is not so much of a problem when working in hotels, it may be concluded that the universalism value is associated with the hotel industry in a neutral manner and it does not specifically influence the choice whether to work in the hotel industry.

Stimulation

On the average value priorities list of the interview respondents, stimulation is ranked second (M=0.619). This means that most of the respondents scored high on the indexed questions for this value and they like surprises, doing new and different things, adventure and dare to take a risk. IR7 indicates that she cannot sit still and prefers to tend to many guests instead of a few (personal communication, 2013). This suggests that IR7 has a high need for stimulation to do her work. When looking for work IR7’s main criteria for jobs is whether it has a high level of variety and a good location. All respondents agree that a job should have much variation. Opinions on whether the hotel industry provides enough variety, excitement and advancement options. Some of the respondents say

that “working in a hotel tends to become a routine” and that advancement is very limited (IR1, personal communication, 2013). Others say that there are quite a few possibilities to keep the job interesting by means of advancement and positions switches. The respondents agree that there is a change every day in terms of different guests, however, not everyone agrees that this stays interesting over a longer period of time. Furthermore, they agree that on the operational level, there are not many risks to overcome (personal communication, 2013). In conclusion, the interviews indicates that the stimulation value has a major influence on the respondents’ decision whether to work in the hotel industry. However, the interviews also show a significant difference between the associations of the stimulation value with working on the operational level in the hotel industry. Whereas one believes there is plenty of variety and opportunities to learn something new, another believes that there is hardly any variety, besides the change in guests, and that there are hardly any advancement opportunities. In conclusion, the stimulation value has a significant influence on the career decisions of the respondents but the association with working on the operational level in the hotel industry is both negative and positive.

Achievement

The achievement value ranks third (M= 0.557), on the average value priorities list of the interviews respondents. Compared to the theoretical framework, this result is relatively high. However, it did mention that despite being a self-enhancement motive, it can be mixed with self-transcendence motives where the achievement is considered to be making people happy and serving them in the best way possible. IR2 is such an example, and states that she “gets a feeling of achievement when the guest is happy” (personal communication, Sept. 18, 2013). The example proves that achievement motives can actually be reciprocal in nature and explains the relatively high score in achievement. According to the questions in the questionnaire (ESS, 2010), the achievement value concerns wanting to present skills and capabilities and getting admiration for them, as well as others recognising certain achievements. Concerning admiration and recognition, the respondents all seem to agree that compliments are good for their motivation. IR4 indicates that in the hospitality industry one gets compliments but should also be able to deal with criticism and working under stress (personal communication, Sept. 27, 2013). IR4 argues that one should be competitive and show of one’s skills in order to get and maintain the job (personal communication, Sept. 27, 2013). On the other hand IR4 also states that the guest should not notice anything from this competitiveness, as the host should be there for the guest not him-/herself (personal communication, Sept. 27, 2013). Most of the respondents believe that achievement related needs can be satisfied in the hotel industry but it does depend on the company and department one is working at (IR3, personal communication, Sept. 18, 2013). Therefore, most of the respondents indicate that when looking for a new job, advancement options are one of the criteria (personal communication, 2013). In conclusion the respondents associate the achievement value positively with working in a hotel, and has no influence when looking for a new job.

Self-direction

According to Schwartz’ theory (2003), self-direction related motives concern the importance of creativity and freedom of own decisions. The self-direction value is ranked fifth (M= 0.369) in the interview respondents’ value priorities. While it is a high priority to some, it is of less importance to others. For IR1, self-direction is very important in her motivations. She likes to be creative and do things her own way and she believes the only way to have that freedom is to become a business owner.

Therefore, she does not longer pursue a career in the hotel industry but wants to start her own internet business focused on hospitality (personal communication, Sept. 18, 2013). On the other hand IR3, believes that creativity is important when working on the operational level in the hotel industry. Even on the operational level, staff will encounter situations in which they need to be creative (personal communication, Sept. 18, 2013). IR2 mentioned that she prefers to get orders rather than to give them, which makes that she scores under the average score on self-direction (personal communication, Sept. 18, 2013). In general all respondents believe that freedom for own input should be possible but within reason in order to avoid chaos. From the individual questionnaire score on self-direction in combination with the interviews, it may be concluded that the respondents with a higher than average score on self-direction prefer a higher level of freedom for own input than respondents with a lower score. IR4 suggests that one needs to distinguish themselves from others, otherwise it will be less fun for the guest (personal communication, Sept. 27, 2013). IR5 claims that own responsibilities are important when working in a hotel (personal communication, Sept. 30, 2013). In conclusion, the self-direction related motives play an important role in deciding whether to work in a hotel and is associated in a negative way with working in a hotel.

Conformity

On the average value priorities list of the interview respondents, the conformity value ranks ninth (M= -0.756). The two questions that index the conformity value concern following rules and behaving in a correct manner. As mentioned in the paragraph about self-direction, most respondents believe that freedom for own input is important but within the framework of the rules. IR1 states that rules are important but should be followed naturally as part of one’s own personal norms and values (which relates to the tradition value) (personal communication, Sept. 18, 2013). Some of the respondents prefer to have some rules over being in total control. However, they still feel they need to be able to say something about the rules being made. Moreover, IR2 believes that “rules are important but should not hinder” services, and ”too many rules may restrict genuine hospitableness” (personal communication, Sept. 18, 2013). Concerning correct behaviour, respondents suggest that the host should remain calm at all times but may, in a calm and polite manner tell guests when they are crossing lines (IR1, personal communication, Sept. 18, 2013). According to IR3, “rules can be bent as long as one behaves correctly and hospitable” and everything depends on the type of situation (personal communication, Sept. 18, 2013). Respondents believe that in the hotel industry a balance between rules, correct behaviour and freedom for own input is very important. However, the conformity motives in itself do not seem to influence the motivation to work in the hotel industry. Respondents seem to associate the conformity value in a positive manner with working on the operational level in the hotel industry.

Tradition

The tradition value is ranked tenth (M= -0.944), thus has the lowest priority for most of the respondents. According to Schwartz’ theory (2003) this is quite logical as the values on the opposite of the circle rank relatively high. Respondent IR4 believes that being humble and modest is fine but being too humble and modest is a negative thing when working on the operational level in the hotel industry, because one then may come across as insecure (personal communication, Sept. 27, 2013). As mentioned in the paragraphs self-direction and conformity, standard or normal rules should be followed, this raises the question what are standard or normal rules? The respondents often seemed