working conditions in hospitality

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238317068
Working Conditions in Hospitality: Employees' Views of the Dissatisfactory
Hygiene Factors
Article in Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism · March 2009
DOI: 10.1080/15280080902716993
CITATIONS
45
READS
6,869
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
New age View project
Jill Poulston
Auckland University of Technology
39 PUBLICATIONS 467 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jill Poulston on 08 December 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Working Conditions in Hospitality: Employees’
Views of the Dissatisfactory Hygiene Factors
JILL M. POULSTON
Department of Hospitality, School of Hospitality and Tourism, Auckland University of
Technology and New Zealand Tourism Research Institute, Auckland, New Zealand
This study explores the nature of hospitality workplaces by presenting
comments from employees about unfair, unethical, and illegal
practices in their workplaces. A qualitative methodology is used to
capture and present a range of problems, rather than the frequency
with which each occurs, and the focus is primarily on the difficult
nature of hospitality work. The conclusions are largely informed by
Herzberg’s (1959) two-factor theory, which states that unless an
employee’s ‘hygiene’ factors are satisfied, motivating factors such as
opportunities for advancement will have no effect, leaving the
employee unmotivated and dissatisfied. DiPietro and Condly (2007)
found a significant link between poorly motivated employees and
their desire to quit their employment, providing an important but
logical connection between Herzberg’s hygiene factors and staff
turnover. Working conditions experienced by participants in this
study indicate that their motivation would have been severely
impeded because of dissatisfaction with their pay, their supervisors,
and their working conditions generally. The most likely outcome of
their poor motivation and dissatisfaction is that they will seek
alternative work.
KEYWORDS hospitality, hygiene, motivation, staff, turnover,
work
23
Received 11 June 2008; revised 1 January 2009; accepted 9 January 2009.
Address correspondence to Jill M. Poulston, Head of Hospitality Department, School of
Hospitality and Tourism, Auckland University of Technology and New Zealand Tourism
Research Institute, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. E-mail: jill.poulston@aut.
ac.nz
Journal of Quality Assurance In Hospitality & Tourism, 10:23–43, 2009
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1528-008X print / 1528-0098 online
DOI: 10.1080/15280080902716993
DownloadedBy:[EBSCOHostEJSContentDistribution]At:09:3918June2009

INTRODUCTION
Hospitality managers are challenged with the task of extracting the maximum
value from employees to generate a profit. This process rewards supervisors
and managers for securing labor for minimal costs, and can create tensions
between staff and management. The emphasis on achieving results through
others can result in the exploitation of workers, as those at the bottom of the
hierarchy may work hardest for the least pay. Perhaps as a result, workplace
problems are common in commercial hospitality and are symptomatic of a
style of management concerned more with meeting profit targets than with
employee satisfaction. However, the literature provides strong indications that
by meeting employees’ needs, management also meets the organization’s
needs, as satisfied employees are more likely to contribute to quality and
productivity (Davies et al., 2001) and stay longer (Bowen et al., 1999; Buick &
Muthu, 1997; Chiang et al., 2005; Davies et al., 2001; Ghiselli et al., 2001; Lo &
Lamm, 2005). Employee satisfaction depends on a variety of factors such as
the manager’s style, the employee’s personality, and the particular stressors of
each individual workplace. Soliciting employees’ feedback about their
workplaces is therefore an important aspect of assessing their satisfaction,
and therefore, their commitment to stay.
Hotel and restaurant staff are often treated poorly, not just by managers,
but also by customers. The industry pays poorly, trains poorly (Poulston,
2005), and demands long hours. Furthermore, customers buoyed by alcohol
or separated from their inhibitions while away from home (Hayner, 1928)
can add to the already volatile cocktail of over-worked staff and managers,
making unfair and inappropriate demands on service providers (Gilbert
et al., 1998). It therefore seems likely that some hospitality workers may
find their work difficult or unpleasant, and perhaps hold management
responsible.
Background and Rationale for the Study
Some motivation theories have emerged from the last half century as so
enduring, their application to current problems continues to be appropriate.
This study’s findings are largely informed by the work of Herzberg (1959)
whose two-factor theory continues to explain the behaviors of those
struggling with unpleasant working conditions. Herzberg’s work identified
an important division in the factors that motivate workers; the factors that
satisfy, and therefore motivate (satisfiers), are intrinsic elements such as
career prospects or opportunities for development, and are moderated by
the presence of extrinsic elements (hygiene factors) such as pay and working
conditions. If the hygiene factors are deficient, the satisfiers or motivators
will have limited or no effect, as employees will be unable to appreciate the
intrinsic benefits of their work while irritated by environmental difficulties.
24 J. M. Poulston

Alongside economic justifications for motivating employees to make a
contribution to their workplace, is likely that theft and similar counter-
productive behaviors may arise if employees feel cheated (Adams, 1963;
Greenberg, 1990). Unhappy employees are also prone to stress and
absenteeism, exacerbating staff turnover and workplace problems, and
further eroding profits.
Aims of the Study
This study therefore aims to examine employees’ views on how well the hygiene
factors identified in Herzberg’s (2003) two-factor theory are met in hospitality
workplaces, to determine whether employees are likely to be satisfied in their
work, and whether they are motivated to make a meaningful contribution. By
giving a voice to staff, it is also hoped to provide researchers and practitioners
with an insight into how some hospitality employees feel about their jobs.
While a quantitative study can measure levels of satisfaction, there is also
value in presenting employees’ views verbally, particularly as they relate to pay
and conditions, by exploring the various factors that affect peoples’ views of
their workplace. This study presents some verbatim, but mostly summarized,
comments from hospitality employees, to determine how well they feel their
needs are met, and to provide direction for further research on the relationships
between the problems identified and turnover intent. Quantitative data on
tenure (i.e., length of stay) and under-staffing are also discussed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Workers’ Profile
The New Zealand hospitality workforce largely comprises vulnerable workers
unfamiliar with employment protection legislation, because they are either
young or new to this country. Around 40% are under 25 years old, with the 15
to 19-year age category being the largest group. Although most (58%) are
European, a significant proportion (16%) is Asian, and in 2006, about one-third
were born overseas (Whiteford & Nolan, 2007), indicating a developing
reliance on migrant workers and international students. Furthermore, because
nearly half work either part-time or casually (Whiteford & Nolan, 2007),
employment relationships are often of a tentative or temporary nature, so staff
need to be cooperative and compliant if they are to maintain their hours.
Working Conditions and Pay
Herzberg (2003) included pay and working conditions amongst the hygiene
factors that can nullify the motivating effects of satisfiers such as promotion
Working Conditions in Hospitality 25

prospects, recognition, and personal growth. Many hospitality businesses
pay poorly, both in New Zealand and elsewhere (Lucas & Keegan, 2007).
British male hospitality workers earn less than half the national industry
average for men (Hoel & Einarsen, 2003), and the New Zealand Tourism
Industry Association admits that pay is ‘uncompetitive’ (2006). Working
conditions are difficult (O’Leary & Deegan, 2005), largely because of the
hours needed to cope with the 24-hour nature of the industry, and
supervisors and managers are often inadequately skilled (Poulston, 2005;
Presbury et al., 2005). Persistent staff shortages, time constraints, work
overload, long hours, shift work, and difficult customers (Lo & Lamm, 2005)
all contribute to stressful working environments that can stimulate staff
turnover. Conversely, fair pay and fair leadership discourage turnover
(Presbury et al., 2005), as do pleasant working conditions and stable hours
(Day & Buultjens, 2007). The poor pay and working conditions experienced
in many hospitality workplaces suggests employees are unlikely to find their
work satisfying, leading them to consider alternative employment.
Supervision, relationships with supervisors, working conditions and pay
are all identified by Herzberg as factors that can cause ‘extreme
dissatisfaction’ (2003: 90). These factors are therefore of particular interest
to this study, as dissatisfaction is considered to lead to turnover.
Working Conditions and Staff Retention
The problem of staff retention (and under-staffing) in hospitality is well
documented (e.g., Baum, 2002; Brien, 2004; Choi et al., 2000; Gustafson, 2002;
Jameson, 2000), and various causes proposed. Poor retention is commonly
linked to job dissatisfaction related to factors such as poor pay, long hours, and
unstimulating work (Ghiselli et al., 2001). Some studies (e.g., DiPietro &
Condly, 2007; Martin et al., 2006) specifically link poor retention to the hygiene
factors identified by Herzberg as impediments to staff satisfaction.
Although numerous studies discuss the links between pay (Milman, 2002;
Woods & Macaulay, 1989), working conditions (DiPietro & Condly, 2007;
Milman, 2002), and turnover, Milman found working conditions to be the most
significant influence on turnover. Furthermore, in a study of nearly 25,000
American hospitality and leisure workers, Hausknecht et al. (2008) found
hourly paid workers were particularly sensitive to job satisfaction and extrinsic
rewards, which significantly influenced their intention to stay.
Poor retention has also been linked to excess work, pressure of work,
and difficult customers (Sims, 2007), all of which contribute to difficult
working conditions. In a study of stress in the retail sector, Zeytinoglu et al.
(2004) found that job insecurity, short and split-shifts, unpredictable hours,
low pay, gendered work environments, and the need to maintain several
jobs, all contributed to stress, absenteeism, high turnover, and workplace
conflict. However, in their study of food service industry managers, Ghiselli
26 J. M. Poulston

et al. (2001) found that although long hours were frequently cited by
managers as a reason for leaving, they could not establish a direct link
between long hours and the intention to leave. While other causes of
turnover exist such as the age of staff (Ghiselli et al., 2001; Sims, 2007;
Woods & Macaulay, 1989) and the poor image of hospitality work (Wildes,
2005), factors related to working conditions may be easier to modify than
(for example) the industry’s image, which is no doubt affected by turnover
and the particular traditions of the industry.
To the contrary, attention to the hygiene factors of clear job
responsibilities and consistent working hours (Milman, 2002), quality
supervision (Woods & Macaulay, 1989), leader facilitation and support,
professional and organisational esprit, low conflict and ambiguity, work-
group cooperation, friendliness, and warmth (Manning et al., 2005), along
with a team environment (Gustafson, 2002) improves staff retention. Ricci
and Milman (2002) found retention in hospitality was predicted more by self-
fulfillment and positive working conditions than by monetary rewards, and
their respondents were attracted by flexible working hours, introductory
training, and working with ‘nice people.’ In a subsequent study of retention
in American quick-service restaurants, DiPietro et al. (2004) found that
humane treatment of employees was rated very highly, along with nice co-
workers and hourly wages. They point out that the discrepancies between
what employees want and what they experience is likely to be a significant
cause of turnover. Their findings are consistent with those of Milman’s earlier
study (1999), which linked flexible scheduling, good supervision, and
friendly co-workers to teenagers’ intention to stay.
The Employees’ Voice
The often difficult working conditions (i.e., unmet hygiene factors) in
hospitality workplaces suggest that the relationship between employee
unhappiness and their intention to leave is not fully understood by industry
practitioners. Managers’ opinions on turnover and associated problems are
commonly presented and evaluated (e.g., Lucas & Keegan, 2007; Presbury et
al., 2005; Stalcup & Pearson, 2001), but with the exception of some
quantitative studies (e.g., DiPietro & Milman, 2004; DiPietro et al., 2004;
Milman, 1999, 2002), staff remain uncharacteristically quiet. Qualitative studies
are common, but perhaps in the interests of brevity, verbatim responses are
less frequently published. Rowley and Purcell (2001) interviewed staff and
managers to determine the causes of turnover, but did not present their
comments. Presenting comments about sexual harassment is more common
(e.g., Biswas & Cassell, 1996; Folgerø & Fjeldstad, 1995), perhaps because
harassment is an acknowledged source of distress, and therefore deserving of
a voice. The verbatim presentation of staff’s views is therefore considered
overdue and a useful contribution to the literature.

METHODOLOGY
The key issue informing this study is the relationship between staff turnover
in hospitality, and poor working conditions, or unmet hygiene factors,
experienced by staff. Data were extracted from a study of specific issues
(smoky workplaces, sexual harassment, unfair dismissals, under-staffing,
training, illegal alcohol service, food hygiene, and theft) in which
respondents were canvassed for their views on workplace problems. A
few lines for comments followed a set of Likert-scale questions on each
problem, so respondents could provide contextual information or examples
to support their answers. Four open-ended questions solicited information
on ‘unethical personnel practices,’ ‘unethical services offered to guests,’
‘unethical treatment of customers,’ and ‘unethical behaviour to meet guests’
needs,’ and a page at the end of the questionnaire provided space for
respondents with a particular story to tell. The responses from these sections
have provided data for this study.
Data collected for one purpose can often provide insights into a
problem that was not the intended focus of the study. For example, in the
Hawthorne experiments, Mayo (2003) attempted to identify the optimum
lighting for the productivity of workers in an electrical plant, but found
instead, that productivity was improved more by the interest taken in the
workers than the intensity of lighting, stimulating further studies of
behavioral rather than environmental issues. This paper presents data
collected for a study of ethical issues in hospitality, though such issues also
help to explain why hospitality workers commonly move from job to job, as
comments about their workplaces were surprisingly negative.
Survey Questionnaire
Questionnaires surveying large populations are frequently used in social
science to measure seemingly abstract concepts such as organizational
culture (e.g., Hofstede et al., 1990). This study uses qualitative data from a
questionnaire, but does not attempt to measure the information; rather, the
aim is to disseminate sorted raw data, being the fairest and most expedient
way to communicate employees’ views. The intention is to provide
respondents with a voice, rather than to act as a mediator between them
and the wider community.
Demographic questions were used to collect personal information
about participants, to ensure each segment of the labor force was adequately
represented. Employees from Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) were
accessed through students at Auckland University of Technology’s (AUT)
School of Hospitality and Tourism, and hotel managers were invited to
respond to a postal questionnaire. Questionnaires were distributed amongst
staff, supervisors and managers in 27 hospitality workplaces in Auckland,
28 J. M. Poulston

and among hospitality staff and students at AUT. Workplaces included food
services premises, nightclubs, bars and hotels, and AUT students ranged
from those learning basic service and culinary skills to second year
postgraduate students. Of the 1848 questionnaires distributed in the main
collection, 29% were surplus to requirements and unused when collected,
42% were not returned, and 29% were returned completed, nine of which
were subsequently discarded as unusable. Of the 534 remaining, 55% were
collected from students, and 45% from industry.
Open-ended Questions
In a set of four open-ended questions, participants were invited to comment
on various practices in hospitality. The question relating to management
practices was:
Some workplaces treat their employees badly. Please comment on any
unfair, unethical or illegal treatment of employees that you have been
aware of in your workplace in the past 12 months.
Three other questions invited comment on products and services, peer
behavior and customer behavior, but data in this study are drawn mostly
from responses to the question on management practices, and notes written
by the quantitative data and in spaces for comments following each group of
questions.
Student Data
Without the student cohort, there would have been few responses from bars
and nightclubs, and none from small cafes, restaurants, youth hostels, or
motels, due to the complexities of working with numerous small businesses.
Most students were under 25 years old, had less hospitality experience, shorter
lengths of service, lower wages, and less job security than other respondents,
and Asians were over-represented. They were also more likely to work as staff
than as supervisors or managers, and primarily worked in food and beverages
businesses or hotels of less than four stars. Although the student data may
therefore have produced a disproportionate number of negative comments, as
this is a qualitative study, this is not considered cause for concern.
Data Analysis
Using a content analysis method, the qualitative data were grouped into
themes that emerged from the text, rather than into preconceived
classifications. ‘‘Content analysis is a technique for gathering and analyzing

the content of text’’ (Neumann, 2003, p. 219) and allows the researcher to
draw inferences and extract meaning from the text beyond what is written.
Data were sorted into categories and subcategories in tables, and
duplications removed using an iterative sorting and re-sorting process until
only the most salient remained. From these, comments relating to employee
working conditions were extracted for presentation in this paper, along with
managers’ comments relevant to these, and comments about resignations.
Quantitative data are also presented to provide a background to the
respondents. Relationships between variables were identified using chi
square tests, and consistent with conventional social science practice (Hie et
al., 1975), relationships with a probability of 5% (p , .05) or less of
occurring, were taken as statistically significant.
RESULTS
As nearly 50 typed pages of comments were collected, this paper presents
only those relevant to the theme of the study, and most are abbreviated or
summarised to improve readability. Comments about issues in the wider
study, such as alcohol consumption and theft, were excluded. Where several
respondents complained of a similar problem (e.g., poor pay), a range of
comments is presented, to provide different perspectives of the same issue.
Respondents’ Profile
An examination of demographic characteristics (not presented) revealed a
large workforce of inexperienced and poorly paid young people (mostly
women), managed by a smaller group of older people (mostly men). As most
respondents were food and beverages staff, data were more representative of
food and beverage operations than (for example) front office or housekeeping.
The general profile of respondents was comparable to that of hospitality
workplaces elsewhere, indicating that the population was a reliable sample.
There were more women than men, except in the over-30 age group,
which comprised slightly more men than women. Overall the sample
comprised 57% women, compared with 62% in hospitality nationwide
(Whiteford & Nolan, 2007). Women worked mostly in staff and supervisory
positions, whereas management positions were more likely to be held by
men; women were 25% less likely to be managers than were men.
Many respondents were poorly paid, and most staff (57%) were paid an
hourly wage of less than NZD15.00. When the data were collected, the average
hourly wage for women was NZD16.57 (Statistics New Zealand, 2003). Most
(52%) worked in hospitality part-time, compared with 49% nationwide
(Whiteford & Nolan, 2007), and were employed predominantly in food and
beverages departments or businesses (58%). The overall turnover rate of the
30 J. M. Poulston

sample was 50% (i.e., each position changes twice a year), and most
respondents (87%) had worked less than 5 years in their current position.
Managers had more experience than either staff or supervisors (half of
the managers had more than 10 years’ experience), but shorter tenures than
supervisors; that is, they moved jobs more frequently. Not surprisingly,
managers were generally older than staff or supervisors, and better paid.
Seniority and Respondents’ Characteristics
A cross-tabulation analysis of demographic characteristics and seniority
(Table 1) revealed the characteristics significantly associated with seniority,
identified by low chi-square values. Age, industry experience, pay, and
department were significantly associated with seniority (significant to the p
TABLE 1 Respondents’ Profile: Seniority and Demographic Characteristics
Demographic variable Staff Supervisor Manager
Age (p , .0001)
Count 312 60 90
Under 20 89.0% 9.2% 1.8%
20–24 81.6% 12.3% 6.1%
25–29 56.9% 15.5% 27.6%
30–39 33.3% 16.7% 50.0%
40 or over 41.7% 15.0% 43.3%
Sex (p , .027)
Count 320 61 91
Female 71.9% 13.5% 14.6%
Male 62.5% 12.2% 25.3%
Experience (p , .0001)
Count 322 62 91
Under 5 years 83.1% 10.7% 6.2%
5–10 years 53.6% 14.3% 32.1%
11 years plus 25.3% 20.5% 54.2%
Tenure (p , .003)
Count 322 62 91
Under 5 years 70.8% 11.4% 17.8%
5–10 years 57.9% 15.8% 26.3%
11 years plus 34.6% 34.6% 30.8%
Pay (p , .0001)
Count 321 60 84
Under $10 93.2% 3.4% 3.4%
$10–$14.95 80.3% 14.5% 5.2%
$15–$19.95 30.6% 24.2% 45.2%
$20 or more 6.7% 6.7% 86.6%
Department (p , .0001)
Count 320 62 91
Administration 40.6% 10.9% 48.5%
Food & Beverage 76.1% 12.8% 11.1%
Front office 64.7% 8.2% 27.1%
Rooms 62.2% 27.0% 10.8%

, .0001 level), and sex and tenure (i.e., length of stay) less significantly
associated (significant to the p , .027 and p , .003 levels, respectively).
Age was a significant determinant of seniority; the optimal age range for
a manager appeared to be 30 to 39 years. While sex was only a moderate
indicator of seniority, data clearly show a pattern of women in staff positions,
and men in management positions (Table 1). Food and beverage depart-
ments employed the youngest and least experienced staff, had the highest
staff turnover (70.8% of those who had been in their jobs for less than 5 years
worked in food and beverages), and had the lowest ratio of managers to
staff. This department was also identified as a source of problems in many of
the written comments (e.g., long bar shifts etc.).
Data in Table 1 also show that increased age, more industry experience,
longer tenures and higher hourly pay were all associated with more senior
positions.
More employees in front office and administration departments held
senior positions than in food and beverage and rooms departments, and
rooms divisions had the most employees in supervisors’ roles, perhaps
reflecting the need for housekeeping departments (in rooms division) to
employ supervisors on each hotel floor for quality control.
Pay, Hours, and Rosters
Because many respondents were poorly paid, their comments reflected this,
as well as a frustration with anything that might further erode their income.
Food and beverage workers particularly expressed frustration over a lack of
compensation for long hours: ‘shifts of up to 18 to 20 hrs, no incen-
tives…poor hourly rate.’ Many also complained of low or inequitable rates,
some commenting that they received ‘less than others,’ and others
complaining they were paid the same. ‘Everyone gets the same pay rate
and most staff are inexperienced. I work in both kitchen and bar and I feel
that I don’t get paid enough … I am experienced and hold a qualification.’
Some complained of being underpaid:
My company still owe me the sick payment and one week wages. And I
have been ring to the manager, he said they pay to my account already.
But I really don’t get it in my bank account. Since I chase it up in June till
now still haven’t get the wages (written in September).
Many seemed to be waiting for a promised pay raise, and one manager
commented on the secrecy surrounding pay: ‘Some did not get the salary/
wage increase but others have it secretly.’ Another manager complained of a
broken promise: ‘Promised salary review and increase after 3 months. Left
after 1 year but still no review or increase.’ Frustrations with pay were not
restricted to those working in staff or supervisory positions.
32 J. M. Poulston

Working Hours and Breaks
Complaints about working hours reflected the industry’s problems with
attracting and maintaining reliable staff, as several respondents complained
of long hours and fatigue; ‘12 hours straight with only 2 6 15 mins breaks +
1K hour break in between.’ The extraordinarily long hours (‘worked 16
hours and only had 15 minutes break’) exceeded even the expectations of
this writer, who would find it challenging merely to maintain consciousness
for such periods, let alone perform meaningful tasks. If breaks are provided
for in employment agreements, compensation is due if they are missed, but
this was not mentioned by respondents. Lack of breaks was blamed on
‘busyness’ and ‘staff shortage,’ but not all employees suffered alike, perhaps
resulting in feelings of inequity: ‘long-term staff and full-time usually get
days off when they want, also have breaks.’
Roster changes were a source of extreme dissatisfaction, and included
cancelled shifts and pressure to work extra shifts, sometimes without
compensation (Table 2). Some were given extra shifts but not advised of this,
and subsequently blamed for being absent from work. Frustrations over
inadequate time off extended well beyond wanting scheduled days off to
being bullied and pressured to work extra hours, presumably to cover for
absent staff or short staffing due to recruitment and retention problems.
Every kind of unfair behavior that might be complained of seems to
have been captured in the data. While most complaints related to too much
work, ironically, some respondents felt they had insufficient duties. One
such respondent’s questionnaire (#65) was preceded and succeeded by
those of respondents (#62 and #67) complaining of long hours, indicating
that they all worked for the same employer. Hours at this particular
workplace were apparently allocated by somewhat subjective criteria.
TABLE 2 Pay, Breaks, Hours, Workloads, and Rosters
Pay Breaks
Less pay than others No regular breaks
Poor hourly rate Staff working 6 days per week
Pay increases given only to some staff Inadequate days off (6- or 7-day work weeks)
No sick leave pay Insufficient or no breaks
No pay for experience or qualifications Inadequate recovery time in rosters
No holiday pay No accommodation on back-to-back shifts
Pay promises broken
Not paid enough
Under paid
Paid late wages Rosters
Hours and workloads Full time staff not given 40 hours work
Long hours (shifts of up to 20 hrs) Blamed for not knowing roster changes
Pressured to work after transport times Rosters changed without consultation
Pressured or forced to work extra shifts Rosters changed frequently
Use too few staff to reduce costs Back to back and double shifts

The abuse of migrant workers’ rights in a hotel given the responsibility
of hosting government officials was suggestive of a kind of slavery:
My work place have to serve people from government and often
important people. They quite nice. However my supervisor is really strict
about the way he do things there and sometimes they yelled at me or my
work mate; swore at us and we have to please them perfectly until we
didn’t get any break or didn’t eat.
As another respondent explained, ‘all the staff here are foreigners who
have no idea of their rights as workers.’ Several complaints were received about
discriminatory treatment, particularly on the bases of sex, race, and culture.
Managers’ Behavior
Staff competed for more pay, better rosters and management’s favor,
perhaps because this brought relief from a difficult working environment.
Negative management behaviors commented on included abuse of position,
commodification of employees, petty malice, discrimination, and bad
management (Table 3). Comments portrayed a persistent theme of
incompetence, a lack of appropriate skills, and a ‘dog-eat-dog’ environment,
in which only the favored few survive.
One ‘employee that caused a lot of trouble’ was dealt to by a bar
manager who ‘sort of pushed him out the door,’ suggesting the manager
might also be a trouble-maker of sorts, but one with position power and
perhaps senior management support. Managers and supervisors were
criticized for behaviors inappropriate to their roles and responsibilities.
Abuse of position power was common, revealed in comments such as
‘managers let their position go to their head.’ Some respondents also
mentioned the outcomes of problems with management, such as the
following comment, which relates to a sexual harassment incident.
The manager used to make gestures at me and other staff that were
sexual and when he dropped me home one night because my bus was
TABLE 3 General Comments and Abuse of Position
General comments Abuse of position
Should be more organised Takes home the food and wine samples
Should have backup (staff) Manager uses money from strong box
They are useless Abuses expense and beverage accounts
They have no spine Manager is sometimes drunk
Blame staff for their own problems Doesn’t share perks with staff
Sometimes their attitude made me sick Plays golf when hotel busy
Treat staff badly Leaves hotel for long periods
34 J. M. Poulston

late he asked me to give him a kiss. I told him to bugger off and got out
of the car. I then told another manager and a lot of girls also said the
same thing happened to them. He was then fired.
While examples such as that of the drunk manager (Table 3) may seem
a little improbable, in fact they are surprisingly common. Many such
behaviors were observed by this writer while working for a respected
international hotel organization, along with others too numerous to include.
Abuses of position were also evident from some managers’ and supervisors’
disrespectful treatment of employees. One respondent described ‘employees
reduced to tears,’ then, as though this were not sufficiently convincing,
continued with ‘when you see the facials and hear the tone of the owner’s
voice then you’ll understand.’
Some complaints about managers were suggestive of inappropriate
promotion processes that seemed to favor the least suitable contenders. As
one respondent explained, ‘people with insecurity and power complexes
manipulate their way into positions of authority.’
Employees seemed to ‘bear the brunt’ of problems caused by poor
service and difficult customers, described by one respondent as ‘taking the
side of the customer and not the staff member when the staff member isn’t in
the wrong.’ One respondent wrote that supervisors were ‘yelling at staff even
when it wasn’t their mistake so guests feel like they have had a reaction.’
Staff were commodified in all manner of ways, such as ‘encouraging female
staff to put up with sexual harassment from customers as it increases sales.’
Such attitudes conflate the provision of service with sexual favours and
actively militate against reducing the high levels of sexual harassment
experienced in many hospitality workplaces. Another comment suggested
that harassment and nepotism can be closely entwined: ‘manager has a
TABLE 4 Lack of Respect, Cronyism, and Unfairness
Nepotism or perceived favoritism Lack of respect
A few supervisors have their pet people Get yelled at and abused
Takes sides in an argument or complaint Call us pigs
Has own inner circle of staff Give staff a hard time
Chef has pet for day. Others are garbage Play employees against each other (mgr)
Makes decisions based on personal bias Comment on people’s weight (mgr)
Hangs out with selected staff after work Humiliate in front of guests
Incompetent boss is protected by HR Emotional blackmail
Given certain allowances due to race, age Detrimental comments
Females being treated as inferior Deliberate manipulation
Take shifts off staff for family members Tell them to clean toilets
Unfair treatment Bad mouthing and gossiping
Providing old food for staff meals Spread rumors
Giving staff unfair levels of responsibility Get angry at staff for no reason
Using unqualified staff as duty manager Abuse and racism
Cheated on our tips

weakness for girls—particularly blondes—and promotes them over better
qualified men.’ For those lacking the attributes favored by whoever is in
power, work must be a demeaning and frustrating experience: ‘(I am) not
given the same credibility as perhaps someone who isn’t female and
Polynesian. One of the briefest comments was also one of the most
disturbing: ‘I am not happy.’
Managers’ Views
Most of those identifying as managers offered an employee’s rather than a
manager’s perspective, and their views of workplace problems were
substantially the same. However, some commented on the difficulties of
finding reliable staff, and both managers and staff were critical of those who
manufactured reasons for staying away from work (Table 5). Some managers’
comments provided a different perspective on the problems commented on by
staff. For example, while staff complained of frequently changing rosters and
pressure to work (Table2), managers (and other staff) complained that staff
constantly called in sick, and were pressured to work. The overall picture was
one of critical labor shortages exacerbated by persistent absenteeism.
Staff Retention
Problems with recruitment and retention were apparent in quantitative data
on under-staffing; of total respondents, 12.6% said their workplace was
under-staffed ‘all the time,’ 14% said it was under-staffed ‘frequently,’ and
26% said it was understaffed ‘commonly.’ Overall, 52.6% said their
workplaces were under-staffed. However, while data collected on tenure
(not presented) indicated that only 10% of staff respondents had held their
jobs for over 5 years, this is not considered particularly alarming, given that
more than 70% of staff were under 25 years of age, and therefore likely to
move from job to job.
TABLE 5 Managers’ Views
Managers’ views about staff
I feel sorry for staff now and then that get pressured into working at the last minute
Good staff are hard to find
Some people constantly call in sick or make excuses (not) to work
It is a culture amongst staff to call in sick with minimal notice
Managers’ views about management
Our management has a very honest and straightforward approach to rosters and firing
As a standard practice we always work with less staff and control overheads
When management realizes staff are lazy, late to work, calling up sick last minute,
providing poor service to customers, they try to get rid of them using pressure and
unfriendliness instead of providing more training and using dismissal process
36 J. M. Poulston

Although reasons for leaving were not solicited in the questionnaire, of
those that were offered (Table 6), each one related to dissatisfaction caused
by ongoing issues or a dispute.
Personal Narratives
At the end of the questionnaire, participants were invited to share stories of
their experiences in the hospitality industry. Several took this opportunity to
vent their frustrations with their workplace, and of these, two are presented
(the names are fictitious). Both portray a deep dissatisfaction arising from
disrespectful treatment perpetuated by both colleagues and supervisors.
Anne: My kitchen is mainly all females. No one wears a hat. I have
been there 1 year in 1 month. About 2 months ago I was getting
emotionally and mentally harassed for not wearing a hat. I felt
horrible — ritual humiliation. I was humiliated. I felt I didn’t
have to wear a hat if no one else was. Just because I am the
youngest the front of house picked on me. I was close to leaving
and I hate the way we all talk about our lives and everyone
gossips. It all starts from the top. I love cooking. I love food but
I’ve lost my passion. It’s sad. I just hate getting yelled at and
humiliated when it’s not my fault. It happens to everyone.
Rose: Well we have worked here for 3 years and we have had no pay
raise at all and then some new workers started working and they
gave everybody 25c pay raise and I don’t think that fair on the other
workers including myself. Our Manager over spend on other things
for the hotel but he don’t care about his workers. Working as a
housekeeper in a hotel is properly the hardest job in that
department because we have to clean the room and do the best
we can and we have to clean it in a hurry before the guest arrives.
Most hotel treat their housekeeping staff like crap they look down
at them — that they are just cleaners and they are dumb, people
that cleans the room well I think a house maid can do anything and
the Managers of the hotel should treat them with respect and care
for them. In this hotel we don’t get lunch or any food treated to the
house maid and the way they treat us is like we are the slave — if
they want something done they want it to be done straight away
without asking in a polite way.
Positive Comments
A few respondents seemed happy in their work, writing ‘I’ve had really good
employers,’ and ‘employees are looked after well where I work,’ while
others thought conditions were improving: ‘I am optimistic about the new lot
of management working here now,’ and ‘when I first started, there were
fights all the time. It’s a lot better now though, a lot, lot better.’

DISCUSSION
The severity and diversity of unfair practices significantly exceeded
expectations, and portrayed a disturbing and profound dissatisfaction with
the way hospitality workers are managed. Aside from the effect on
individuals concerned, poorly managed labor also represents a serious
threat to customer service standards (Ulrich et al., 1991), profitability (Simons
& Hinkin, 2001), and tourism income generally. While gripes and
misunderstandings in the study related to almost every possible aspect of
work, it is also recognized that given the opportunity, many people will
complain about their employment relationship. However, the vehemence of
complaints and comprehensive collection of issues suggest serious
inadequacies at supervisory and management level.
Comments in Tables 2, 3, and 4 particularly reveal workers’ dissatisfac-
tion with management and their workplaces, and comments about
resignations presented in Table 6 suggest the likely outcome of such
dissatisfaction. Data in these tables focus on the working conditions and
relationships with supervisors highlighted by Herzberg as factors having the
capacity to cause extreme dissatisfaction. Although Herzberg’s particular
interest is motivation, the factors that dissatisfy, preventing motivating
factors from having an effect, are also those that lead to turnover. Logically,
if staff are dissatisfied, they are likely to take action, and resign. Data in this
study demonstrate that hospitality employees are likely to be subjected to
unpleasant working conditions: the kind of conditions that act against
motivating factors such as promotion prospects and recognition. However,
the factors that dissatisfy (such as poor working conditions) have also been
found to militate against staff retention (e.g., DiPietro & Milman, 2004;
Hausknecht et al., 2008; Lam & Zhang, 2003; Martin et al., 2006). DiPietro
and Condly (2007) found a significant relationship between levels of
motivating thinking and behavior and concluded that dissatisfied employ-
ees were not merely dissatisfied; they were also less likely to remain in their
job. The link between poorly motivated employees and the intention to
TABLE 6 Reasons for Leaving
I left my job because
Customers comment on my appearance and management expected me to deal with it
The rules were changed because of a large tip and they insinuated I was a thief
Other staff left because
One particular manager is moody and her dealings with staff and guests is shocking
Of conflict between new owners and existing staff members
Of not getting shifts, as a way of asking them to quit the job
Owner’s daughter put them down in front of other staff and customers
They were put in unfair situations, ie poor training, so they lack confidence and leave
The managers get staff to leave by treating them unfairly
38 J. M. Poulston

leave is not difficult to grasp. This study does not set out to prove that link,
but rather, to demonstrate the likelihood that hospitality employees are
likely to be dissatisfied with their working conditions. Herzberg’s theory
indicates these employees will be hard to motivate, and logic suggests they
will leave their place of employment before too long, in search of more
satisfying work.
CONCLUSION
Simons’ (2002) finding that a manager’s integrity is the greatest influence on
profit does not bode well for environments in which some managers treat
employees with disrespect, humiliating staff publicly and provoking bad
feelings by joining in with gossip and other duplicitous behaviours. Alam
(1999) noted that a manager provides examples for employees to follow,’
whether or not these are positive; another cause for concern, given the
behaviors of many managers described in this study.
Many respondents experienced the same difficulties as those described
by Zeytinoglu et al. (2004), and their employers appear to have experienced
the same outcome of staff turnover, as suggested by data on under-staffing
and comments about resignations (Table 6). Furthermore, Spinelli and
Canavos (2000) found that guest dissatisfaction was positively correlated
with employee satisfaction, indicating that employee unhappiness can have
far-reaching effects on a business.
In their study of hospitality staff turnover, Rowley and Purcell concluded
turnover was largely ‘self-inflicted,’ resulting from ‘poor management practices’
(2001: 182). After reviewing the literature on staff turnover and respondents’
comments about their workplaces, it appears that staff turnover is indeed
within management’s control. Data in this study also suggest that senior
managers may be unpleasantly surprised by the behaviors of their supervisors
and junior managers, many of whom may be acting irresponsibly and beyond
the intended limits of their authority. Gilbert et al.’s (1998) suggestion that
hospitality workers may be perceived as working in this industry because they
have no alternative suddenly leaps from hypothesis to fact; surely no-one
would put up with these conditions if they had a choice. Some employees’
willingness to work in an atmosphere of bullying, hen-pecking and harassment
suggests either that they tolerate it for the intrinsic rewards of hospitality work,
or they simply cannot find other work.
Herzberg’s (2003) theory states that unless an employee’s hygiene factors
are satisfied, motivating factors such as opportunities for advancement have no
effect. The working conditions described in this study indicate that
respondents’ motivation would have been extremely limited because their
basic needs were not being met. The most likely outcome, and the problem
consistently debated in the literature, will be persistent staff turnover.

Limitations
Care should be taken when applying results of this study to SMEs, which
comprised less than one-third of the workplaces in the study, and which
have different working conditions to those of large hotels.
While it seems likely that employees’ reactions to their job character-
istics could be affected by a predisposition to view their work environment
negatively, no evidence exists to support this hypothesis (Spector et al.,
1999). However, self-enhancing bias exists (e.g., Ferrell & Weaver, 1978;
Kantor & Weisberg, 2002), and is likely to have skewed data in favor of the
respondents. It is also recognised, that given the opportunity, many people
will find something to complain about in relation to their workplace.
It is a regret that more data were not collected on specific lengths of
service, as this would have facilitated a rigorous analysis of staff turnover.
The turnover rate of 50% obtained from the demographic data is significantly
lower than the 100+ rate indicated in anecdotal evidence, nearly double the
local restaurant industry’s reported rate of 26% (Restaurant Association of
New Zealand, 2008), and comparable to Australia’s rate of 50% for
operational staff (Davidson & Timo, 2006).
Some comments revealed an unexpected commitment to work,
underpinned by an almost devotional respect for the hospitality industry.
Further research to identify the typical profiles, personalities, and beliefs of
hospitality workers, may provide some clues about their reasons for working
in this industry.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436.
Alam, K. F. (1999). Business ethics in New Zealand organisations: views from the middle
and lower level managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 22(2, Part 1), 145–153.
Baum, T. (2002). Skills and training for the hospitality sector: a review of issues.
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54(3), 343–364.
Biswas, R., & Cassell, C. (1996). Strategic HRM and the gendered division of labour
in the hotel industry: a case study. Personnel Review, 25(2), 19–35.
Bowen, D. E., Gilliland, S. W., & Folger, R. (1999). HRM and service fairness: how
being fair with employees spills over to customers. Organizational Dynamics,
27(3), 7–23.
Brien, A. (2004). The New Zealand hotel industry - vacancies increase while
applicant numbers and caliber decrease. International Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Administration, 5(1), 87–104.
Buick, I., & Muthu, G. (1997). An investigation of the current practices of in-house
employee training and development within hotels in Scotland. Service
Industries Journal, 17(4), 652–668.
40 J. M. Poulston

Chiang, C. F., Back, K. J., & Canter, D. (2005). The impact of employee training on
job satisfaction and intention to stay in the hotel industry. Journal of Human
Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 4(2), 99–118.
Choi, J.-G., Woods, R., & Murrmann, S. (2000). International labour markets and the
migration of labour forces as an alternative solution for labour shortages in the
hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 1(12), 61–67.
Davidson, M., & Timo, N. (2006). Labour turnover and costs in the Australian
accommodation industry. Gold Coast, Australia: Griffith University Sustainable
Tourism Council.
Davies, D., Taylor, R., & Savery, L. (2001). The role of appraisal, remuneration and
training in improving staff relations in the Western Australian accommodation
industry: a comparative study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25(6/
7), 366–373.
Day, M., & Buultjens, J. (2007). Employment characteristics of a five-star hotel in
South-East Queensland, Australia. Paper presented at the 17th Annual
Conference of CAUTHE, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
DiPietro, R., & Milman, A. (2004). Hourly employee retention factors in the quick
service restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Administration, 5(4), 31–50.
DiPietro, R. B., & Condly, S. J. (2007). Employee turnover in the hospitality industry:
an analysis based on the CANE model of motivation. Journal of Human
Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 6(1), 1–22.
DiPietro, R. B., Thozhur, S. M., & Milman, A. (2004). Hourly employee retention
factors in the United Kingdom quick service restaurant industry. Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, 10(4), 39–61.
Ferrell, O. C., & Weaver, K. M. (1978). Ethical beliefs of marketing managers.
Journal of Marketing, 42(3), 69–73.
Folgerø, I., & Fjeldstad, I. (1995). On duty - off guard: cultural norms and sexual
harassment in service organizations. Organization Studies, 16(2), 299–313.
Ghiselli, R., La Lopa, J., & Bai, B. (2001). Job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and turnover
intent. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 28–37.
Gilbert, D., Guerrier, Y., & Guy, J. (1998). Sexual harassment issues in the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
10(2), 48–53.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the
hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561–568.
Gustafson, C. M. (2002). Employee turnover: a study of private clubs in the USA.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14(3), 106–113.
Hausknecht, J. P., Rodda, J. M., & Howard, M. J. (2008). Targeted employee
retention: performance-based and job-related differences in reported reasons
for staying. Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University
ILR School (Working Paper Series). http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/
articles/140 [Accessed the 13th of August, 2008, 10.27]
Hayner, N. (1928). Hotel life and personality. American Journal of Sociology, 33(5),
784–795.
Herzberg, F. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review, 81(1), 86–96.
Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Violence at work in catering, hotels, and tourism.
Geneva: International Labour Office.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring
organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty
cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316.
Jameson, S. M. (2000). Recruitment and training in small firms. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 24(1), 43–49.
Kantor, J., & Weisberg, J. (2002). Ethical attitudes and ethical behavior: are managers
role models? International Journal of Manpower, 23(8), 687–703.
Lam, T., & Zhang, H. Q. (2003). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
the Hong Kong fast food industry. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 15(4), 214–229.
Lo, K., & Lamm, F. (2005). Occupational stress in the hospitality industry: An
employment relations perspective. New Zealand Journal of Employment
Relations, 30(1), 23–47.
Lucas, R., & Keegan, S. N. (2007). Young workers and the National Minimum Wage.
Equal Opportunities International, 26(6), 573–589.
Manning, M. L., Davidson, M., & Manning, R. L. (2005). Measuring tourism and
hospitality employee workplace perceptions. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 24(1), 75–90.
Martin, A., Mactaggart, D., & Bowden, J. (2006). The barriers to the recruitment and
retention of supervisors/managers in the Scottish tourism industry. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(5), 380–397.
Mayo, E. (2003). Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company: The social
problems of an industrial civilisation. In The human problems of an industrial
civilization. UK: Routledge.
Milman, A. (1999). Teenage employment in the hospitality industry: An exploratory
study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 23(2), 195–205.
Milman, A. (2002). Hourly employee retention in the attraction industry: research
from small and medium-sized facilities in Orlando, Florida. Journal of Leisure
Property, 2(1), 40–51.
Neumann, W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Boston, USA: Allyn and Bacon.
O’Leary, S., & Deegan, J. (2005). Career progression of Irish tourism and hospitality
management graduates. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 17(4/5), 421–432.
Poulston, J. (2005). Constructive dismissals in hospitality: Perceived incidence and
acceptance. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration,
6(1), 11–26.
Presbury, R., Fitzgerald, A., & Chapman, R. (2005). Impediments to improvements in
service quality in luxury hotels. Managing Service Quality, 15(4), 357–373.
Restaurant Association of New Zealand. (2008). Remuneration survey summary.
Ricci, P., & Milman, A. (2002). Retention of hourly hotel employees: A look at select
hotels in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality and Tourism, 1(4), 47–62.
42 J. M. Poulston

Rowley, G., & Purcell, K. (2001). ‘As cooks go, she went’: Is labour churn inevitable?
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(2), 163–185.
Simons, T. (2002). The high cost of lost trust. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 18–19.
Simons, T., & Hinkin, T. (2001). The effect of employee turnover on hotel profits: A
test across multiple hotels. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 42(4), 65–69.
Sims, W. J. (2007). Antecedents of labor turnover in Australian alpine resorts.
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 6(2), 1–26.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & Katwyk, P. T. V. (1999). The role of negative affectivity in
employee reactions to job characteristics: Bias effect or substantive effect?
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 205–218.
Spinelli, M. A., & Canavos, G. C. (2000). Investigating the relationship between
employee satisfaction and guest satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 41(6), 29–33.
Stalcup, L., & Pearson, T. (2001). A model of the causes of management turnover in
hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 25(1), 17–30.
Statistics New Zealand. (2003). New Zealand income survey June 2003 quarter.
Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.
Tourism Industry Association New Zealand. (2006). Tourism and hospitality
workforce strategy. Wellington, New Zealand.
Ulrich, D., Halbrook, R., Meder, D., Stuchlik, M., & Thorpe, S. (1991). Employee and
customer attachment: Synergies for competitive advantage. Human Resource
Planning, 14(2), 89–104.
Whiteford, A., & Nolan, A. (2007). An employment profile of the hospitality industry.
Auckland, New Zealand: Hospitality Standards Institute.
Wildes, V. (2005). Stigma in food service work: How it affects restaurant servers’
intention to stay in the business or recommend a job to another. Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 5(3), 213–233.
Woods, R. H., & Macaulay, J. F. (1989). Rx for turnover: Retention programs that
work. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 78–90.
Zeytinoglu, I. U., Lillevik, W., Seaton, B., & Moruz, J. (2004). Part-time and casual
work in retail trade: Stress and other factors affecting the workplace. Relations
Industrielles, 59(3), 516–543.
View publication statsView publication stats

working conditions in hospitality

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to working conditions in hospitality

Similar to working conditions in hospitality (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

working conditions in hospitality