A Study Of Customer Satisfaction Factors

A STUDY OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION FACTORS AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY

By Ksenia Novikova

B.S., Voronezh State University, 2006

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science in Recreation Degree.

Department of Health Education and Recreation In the Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale May 2009

UMI Number: 1464981

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

______________________________________________________________ UMI Microform 1464981 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________ ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

THESIS APROVAL

A STUDY OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION FACTORS AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY

By Ksenia Novikova

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the field of Recreation

Approved by: Dr. Regina B. Glover, Chair Dr. Marjorie Malkin Dr. T.C. Girard

Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale January 28, 2009

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF  

Ksenia Novikova, for the Master’s of Science degree in Recreation Resource Administration, presented on 28 January 2009, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. TITLE: A STUDY OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION FACTORS AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY MAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr. Regina B. Glover The major purpose of this study was to identify customer and employee satisfaction levels and the most important satisfaction factors in the lodging industry by the example of two hotel properties of a resort on the East Coast. This study included a sample of 267 customers, while the exact number of employees was unknown. The customer satisfaction survey was prepared by the consulting agency. It was conducted in the form of a 10-minute telephone interview with the customers who stayed at the resort 30 days prior to the survey. The customers indicated their satisfaction levels with six areas of the customer experience at the resort such as dining experience, golfing experience, experience with spa, beach club experience, experience with facilities/activities, and guest problems experience. Top 10 and lowest 10 customer satisfaction factors were found for both hotels of the resort. Four similar factors out of 10 positive ones were found to be in both of the hotel properties. Nine similar factors out of 10 were ranked as least satisfying in both of the hotels. The range score between the highest and the lowest customer satisfaction rating for the Hotel A was found to be 1.44, and for B Hotel 1.6. As for the overall customer satisfaction in two hotels, the overall customer satisfaction for the Hotel A was 4.5 (90%), and for the Hotel B was 4.58 (91.6%).

i

To identify the customer satisfaction factors, four areas were selected for the analysis: staff, room divisions, recreation, and conflict resolution. Satisfaction with Room Divisions received the highest overall mean scores (4.64-for Hotel A, and 4.83- for Hotel B), while Conflict Resolution area received the lowest satisfaction scores for both of the Hotels (4.51- for Hotel A, 4.48- for Hotel B). The employee satisfaction questionnaire was created by the human resources department of the resort. The employee satisfaction survey was represented by 12 areas: the company; vision/mission/values; interact; your job; your department; physical work environment; communications; leadership, supervision and management effectiveness; teamwork; pay, opportunity, and benefits; career development and training; quality; and demographic information. To determine the employee satisfaction levels, the mean percentage scores of all positive and negative employees’ responses were calculated. Satisfaction with Your Department received the highest positive total percentage mean score of 81.1%, while satisfaction with the Interact program implemented by the resort received the lowest positive mean percentage score of 44.0%. Similar to customer satisfaction, the 10 top positive and 10 bottom negative employee satisfaction response questions were identified. The strong positive relationship (r=0.66) was found between the Hotel A and B of the resort and customer satisfaction factors. Those areas that were ranked high by the customers of the Hotel A were also highly ranked by the Hotel B customers. A Person’s correlation coefficient was run on the relationship between the hotel property and customer satisfaction levels. The strong positive association was found between two hotel properties and satisfaction statements. Paired sample t-test was also run in order to determine if there was a significant difference in customer satisfaction in two hotels A and B based on the customer’s responses to

ii

the questionnaire. The t equal to (-2.5), and the probability of (0.016) were found. There was found to be statistical significant difference between the Hotel A and B customer satisfaction statements.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank:

My advisor Dr. Regina Glover for her leadership, support, motivation, hard work and attention to details throughout this thesis. She played a major role for two years of my graduate school, investing her energy, and time into my personal and academic growth.

The members of my committee, Dr. Marjorie Malkin and Dr. T.C. Girard for their helpful comments, patience, and understanding, as well as great classes that I had a chance to take with their instruction.

I'd like to thank all the faculty members and the administrative staff of the Department of Health Education and Recreation. They each contributed to my professional development, and helped me with understanding of the American education system.

I would not have been able to complete my Masters degree without support of my family and friends. Their confidence in my abilities has been driving me to succeed and accomplish the goals that I set.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i  Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv  List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii  List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii  Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1  Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1  The statement of the problem ......................................................................................................... 2  Research questions .......................................................................................................................... 2  Null hypotheses............................................................................................................................... 3  Significance of the study................................................................................................................. 3  Delimitations ................................................................................................................................... 4  Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 5  Definitions....................................................................................................................................... 5  Chapter 2 Literature review ............................................................................................................ 7  Issues in customer satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 8  Cultural value ................................................................................................................................ 14  Waiting time.................................................................................................................................. 19  Issues in employee satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 21  Chapter 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 25  Description of the Sample............................................................................................................. 25  Instrument ..................................................................................................................................... 26  Data collection procedure ............................................................................................................. 27  Data preparation and statistical procedures .................................................................................. 27 

v

Chapter 4 Data Presentation.......................................................................................................... 29  Results ........................................................................................................................................... 29  Research Sample ........................................................................................................................... 29  Statistical analysis ......................................................................................................................... 43  Chapter 5 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 49  Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 51  Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 52  Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 55  References ..................................................................................................................................... 57  Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 60  Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 61  Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 666  Appendix C ................................................................................................................................. 889  VITA ............................................................................................................................................. 94 

vi

LIST OF TABLES  

Table 1. Top 10 Customer Satisfaction Factors in A Hotel .......................................................... 31 Table 2. Top 10 Customer Satisfaction Factors in B Hotel .......................................................... 32 Table 3. Lowest 10 Customer Satisfaction Factors in A Hotel..................................................... 33 Table 4. Lowest 10 customer satisfaction factors in B hotel ........................................................ 34 Table 5. Customer satisfaction factors grouping in 4 major areas................................................ 36 Table 6. Overall employee satisfaction facets of the resort on the east coast............................... 39 Table 7. Top 10 positive employee satisfaction response questions ............................................ 42 Table 8. Top 10 negative employee satisfaction response questions........................................... 43 Table 9. Spearman's Rho correlation coefficient calculation ....................................................... 45 Table 10. Paired samples test hotel A and hotel B ....................................................................... 48

vii

LIST OF FIGURES  

Figure 1. Customer Satisfaction Factors in A and B Hotel………………………………36 Figure 2. 12 Employee Satisfaction Facets………………………………………………41    

viii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Customer satisfaction is considered to be a key element for a company’s success in the market; a leading criterion in determining the quality of service or product to the customers; and it is also crucial for organizational survival. Customer satisfaction, loyalty, and the image of the business, have become the most discussed and relevant topics in research for the service industry, especially for hotel management theory and practice, being considered as the next source of competitive advantage (Woodruff, 1997, cited in Nasution, & Mavondo, 2008). The measurement of customer satisfaction has become an important issue for researchers in service marketing and hospitality management. According to Drucker, customer satisfaction is, and has always been, “the mission and the purpose of every business” (Drucker, 1973, p.79 cited in Kandampully, J. & Suhartanto, 2003, p. 5). Moreover, it is known that one of the goals of corporate culture is to retain and satisfy both the current and past customers. Shoemaker and Lewis (1999) claimed that for many years hospitality enterprises believed in creating as many new customers as possible as the goal of marketing, while hoteliers thought it is much more important to satisfy those customers who are on the property; although “the real goal was to continue to find new customers” (p. 345). It has been proven by researchers (Holmund & Kock, 1996, p.289 cited in Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003, p.4) that the cost of attracting new customers is five times higher than keeping the existing ones. The knowledge of customers’ expectations is essential for companies because it influences the repetition of purchases and word of the mouth recommendations.

1

Furthermore, Reichheld and Sasser’s research (1990) indicates that a profit increase of 25-28 percent can be produced by 5 percent increase in customer loyalty (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990 cited in Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003, p. 4). Each and every organization starts with the employees, the people who bring the organization alive and who are responsible for the output. Without the employees the hotel would be just a structure made of steel, iron, and glass (The Need for Employee Counseling, 2006). Employees are the most important asset the company has. Employee satisfaction levels can affect the quality of service, and therefore are believed to be related to customer satisfaction issue in the hospitality service industry, where front line employees have constant interaction with customers and can affect the overall company’s profitability and success.

1.2 The statement of the problem The primary purpose of this study was to understand customer and employee satisfaction factors and overall level of satisfaction in the resort setting. More specifically the study examined the customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction in the lodging industry in two hotel properties of a resort on the East Coast.

1.3 Research questions 1. What are the most important customer satisfaction factors in a Hotel A and B in a Resort on the East Coast of the US? 2. What are the biggest problems in customer satisfaction in a Resort on the East Coast by the example of the Hotel A and Hotel B? 3. What are the employee satisfaction levels in the lodging industry by the example of a Resort on the East Coast?

2

4. What are the strongest and the weakest areas of employee satisfaction in a Resort on the East Coast? 5. Is there a relationship between customer satisfaction rankings in two hotel properties of a Resort on the East Coast based on the customer satisfaction survey?

1.4 Null hypotheses 1. There is no significant difference in customer satisfaction rankings in two properties of a Resort on the East Coast.

1.5 Significance of the study The issue emphasized in the present research/study concerning customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction is of great importance today and expected to be even more important in the future. The research on the topic of customer satisfaction is increasing along with the importance of quality in service and production areas. More than 15,000 academic and trade articles have been published on this topic (Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327). Several conferences and profound literature review publications have been devoted to the topic of customer satisfaction (Daym 1977; Hunt,1977; LaTour & Peat, 1979; Smart, 1982; Ross, et al., 1987; Barsky, 1992; Oh and Parks, 1997 cited in Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327). The research has a practical and economic significance as the growth of service in the world’s developed economies continues to dominate. Today companies need to excel in both customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction in order to gain business growth, a positive reputation, an increase in the company’s overall profitability image, work atmosphere, positive employee attitudes, and behaviors.

3

Due to increasing competition among the hotel chains, the issue of customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction becomes relevant both for research and practice. The value of the study of customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction is increasing along with the importance of improving quality in hotel service, as well as the significance of reducing turnover and employee training. The knowledge obtained from this research may have applicability and practical value for hotel managers toward the development of creative strategies to maintain existing customer loyalty, increase prospective customers, improve management, and motivate personnel. The research results could be used by hotel managers in identifying their hotel’s strengths and weaknesses. The benefits of measuring customer satisfaction in various hotel departments raises the awareness of special challenges in the particular departments in providing service that could better satisfy the customers, enhance the use of customer service management and personnel training, and identify the best possible practices for quality service, and customer and employee satisfaction. This study is also important because there have been very few studies that would analyze customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction in the hotel industry, particularly in the Resort on the East Coast.

1.6 Delimitations 1. The study was limited to one resort setting on the East Coast. 2. Only 267 customers were used in the study. 3. No information was available for the researcher on the exact number of the employees who completed the employee satisfaction survey. 4. Data collection for the Employee Satisfaction occurred during the month of October, 2003. 5. Customer Satisfaction Surveys and data for this study were only received from December to February 2005 and are restricted to the outside agency interpretation.

4

6. The sample for the study was chosen from the guest list who stayed at the resort within 30 days prior to the survey.

1.7 Limitations 1. The results of this study may be generalized to only customers and employees of a small portion of the lodging industry. 2. There were some differences in lodging facilities between the two hotel properties. 3. Information may not accurately reflect the opinion of the total population. 4. Customer satisfaction data were provided by the outside consulting organization to the resort, and may not include all factors of customer satisfaction. 5. The employee satisfaction survey designed by the resort human resources may not include all factors of employee satisfaction. 6. Opinions of the employees might have been influenced by the management. 7. Human error in the transfer of data might have occurred. 8. Validity and reliability of the surveys used was not available to the researcher.

1.8 Definitions 1. Customer satisfaction is a psychological concept that involves the feeling of well-being and pleasure that results from obtaining what one hopes for and expects from an appealing product and/or service (WTO, 1985 cited in Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327). 2. Job satisfaction is an employee’s overall perceived evaluation of the job situation (Bettencourt & Brown , 1997 cited in Mount, & Frye, 2000). 3. Service loyalty is the degree to which a customer exhibits repeat purchasing behavior from a service provider, processes a positive attitudinal disposition toward the provider, and

5

considers using only this provider when a need for this service arises (Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003, p.6). 4. The main areas of the resort setting in this study are represented by Room Divisions, Recreation, Conflict Resolution, and Staff. The grouping of the existing data into those areas was done by the researcher. 5. Room Divisions Department of the resort includes reservations, bellman/butler service, front office, concierge service, and housekeeping. Eight statements regarding Room Divisions Department area of the customer satisfaction survey were used to describe this term.

6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter was to provide an overview of the related literature in order to understand customer satisfaction factors (i.e. pricing, waiting time for service, and satisfaction factors with different hotel departments) and their relation to employee satisfaction in the lodging industry. The review of literature contains various sources of information including recent publications in the following research journals, such as Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Hospitality Management, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Marketing Science. The review of literature includes such topics as the measurement of customer satisfaction in hospitality enterprises (Pizam, & Ellis, 1999); the importance of customer satisfaction and hotel reputation in gaining customer loyalty (Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003); measurement of customer satisfaction regarding personal service and service setting (Nicholls, Gilbert, & Roslow, 1998); links between waiting time for service and service outcome (Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006). Due to the minimal available research done on the topic of customer satisfaction factors with regard to different hotel departments as well as employee satisfaction, this review focuses on general customer and employee satisfaction factors in various service industries, on service quality, customer loyalty, and value. As for the employee satisfaction, the literature review was concentrated on studies done before, concerning general job satisfaction factors, positive employee emotions, and favorable outcomes at the workplace (Staw, Sutton, & 7

Pelled, 1994), as well as a study about the impact of hotel size and service type on employee job satisfaction (Mount, & Frye, 2000). This chapter is divided into two main sections: issues in customer satisfaction, and issues in employee satisfaction.

2.1 Issues in customer satisfaction Customer relations are known as of a greater value in the service industries than in the production industry. Nicholls, Gilbert, and Roslow (1998) concentrated their research on measurements of customer satisfaction. Their research adds to the developed knowledge base in hospitality industry by examining the service satisfaction in 15 various industries. Nicholls, Gilbert, and Roslow identify viewpoint differences between supporters of the notion of service quality and proponents of the alternative of service satisfaction. Their research explores the relationship between satisfaction and quality. It also points out the instrument of measurement of customer satisfaction. Taking into consideration the increasing value of time in American culture, this research focused on the immediate service encounter, not on past experiences. The research was accomplished by using personal interviews with service organization customers immediately after their service experience. The sample population included customers who were exiting from their experience of service. The survey that was offered to the customers included 29 statements that required respondents to report their satisfaction degree regarding certain service elements. The statements covered such aspects as service, organizational system, and security. The results from the responses outline the domain elements of the service experience that contributed to customer satisfaction. Research findings from the data demonstrated that “the highest public sector mean rating, 3.69, was less than the lowest private sector mean rating, 3.93” (Nicholls, at. al., 1998, p. 246). According to the statistics from the

8

research, customers’ private sector organizations were rated higher than public sector ones. Customer satisfaction, being “consumers’ reaction to their most recent experience of service,” is an indicator of a company’s success and profit, because the delighted customers usually return and become the best marketing tool for the organization (Nicholls, at. al., 1998, p. 247). The research results can be used by managers of service organizations in identifying their companies. The benefits of measuring customer service in various industries raise of awareness of special challenges in the customer service industry, enhance the use of customer service management, and identification of the best possible practices for quality service. Anderson, Fornell, and Rust (1997) also emphasized the leading role of customer satisfaction and productivity for the company’s success. Their research stresses that companies need to excel in both customer satisfaction and productivity, in other words in “quality” and “quantity,” in order to gain business growth, positive word of mouth about the company, and as an increase in the company’s overall profitability and image. The objective of the research is to find out whether there are situations with tradeoffs between customer satisfaction and productivity, its purpose being an examination of the relationships between customer satisfaction and productivity. The literature review on this topic represents two opposite view points, one school stating that customer satisfaction and productivity are compatible since improvements in customer satisfaction can result in less handling of returns and complaint management, and at the same time lower the costs of future transactions, and the second school stating that increasing customer satisfaction results in growing costs due to the improvement of product attributes.

9

During the research of Anderson et. al., the empirical hypothesis was formed to analyze measures of customer satisfaction, productivity, and profits, stating that the association between changes in customer satisfaction and productivity “should be more negative for services than goods”, and “the interaction and probability should be more negative (…) for service than for goods”. The Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) was used to measure these variables. The research included an analysis of major competitor companies in such industries as airlines, banking, basic foods, charter travel, gas stations, department stores and many others that share 70 percent of the market. SCSB used a computer–aided telephone survey method to find the sampling group of customers for each company. The respondents were selected based on their recent usage of company’s product or service. The questionnaire included 10-point scales to collect multiple measures. SCSB also measured the Return of Investment (ROI) and labor productivity for each company. The outcomes of the research show the association between satisfaction and productivity for goods as positive, and significant at (0.94), while the association between satisfaction and productivity for services turned out to be negative and significant at (10.81). The findings of the research indicate that “service exhibits ‘tradeoffs’, while goods do not”. A 1% increase in both customer satisfaction and productivity should be associated with 0.356% increase in ROI for goods, but only 0.22% increase for service. The research proves that tradeoffs are more likely for services rather than for goods. The research done by Pizam and Ellis in 1999 entitled “Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises,” identifies and analyzes various concepts of customer satisfaction, and also furnishes organizations with relevant methods of value measurement of customer satisfaction. The research also analyses global issues and main cultural differences in

10

customer satisfaction. This research resulted in the development of nine distinct theories of customer satisfaction. Most of these theories “are based on cognitive psychology, some have received moderate attention, while other theories have been introduced without any empirical research” (p.327). The theories that were developed by consumer behaviorists have been applied by researchers (Barsky, 1992; Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Saleh & Ryan, 1991; Ekinci & Riley, 1998) in lodging areas, in restaurant spheres (Dube et al., 1994; Bojanic and Rosen, 1994; Lee & Hing, 1995; Oh & Jeong ,1996), foodservice industries (Almanza et al., 1994), and tourism (Pizam & Milman, 1993; Danaher & Arweiler, 1996; Ryan & Cliff, 1997; Hudson & Shepard, 1998) (cited in Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327). Customer satisfaction measurement serves two roles for organization; it provides information and also enables communication with customers. Lewis and Chambers give a mathematical depiction of overall customer satisfaction. The research points out that regional, cultural and other cross-cultural aspects have to be taken in consideration in measuring customer satisfaction (Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.335). Parasuraman (1985, as cited in Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327) concludes that service quality should be measured by the formula (Q=P-E), P- being the customers’ perception scores, and E- being the customers’ expectation scores. The higher the positive score (P), the greater the positive amount of service quality (Q), or vice versa (Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.330). According to the research results, the satisfaction with the hospitality experience is the total sum of satisfactions with the individual elements of all the products and services that the company offers (Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327). Overall, the process of monitoring, analyzing, and measuring of customer satisfaction is beneficial to any hospitality enterprise, and results in the company’s positive image and good reputation for recommendations that influence the repeat purchase and/or customer return.

11

Kandampully and Suhartanto’s research (2003) was focused on customer loyalty as the dominant factor of success of business. Identifying loyalty as “positive long –term relationship between service provider and customer,” (p.7) this research indicates that loyalty extends beyond customer satisfaction and image, addressing the issues of customer return and friend recommendation. Thus, there is a tendency now that companies try to perceive both customer satisfaction and image to build the best long-term strategy (Selnes, 1993, cited in Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003, p.9). Regression analysis was used for analyzing data collected from five different chain hotels in New Zealand. Two hundred thirty seven guests received a questionnaire and a cover letter through the reception desk during the check-in procedure, where 158 surveys were returned, while 106 (45%) surveys were used for the research. The 0.7 Cronbach’s alpha value as a cut – off proved the reliability of the test. As for the validity, the regression analysis was an appropriate method for testing three hypotheses: H1: That the holistic and attributes dimension of hotel image is positively related to customer loyalty . H2: That customer satisfaction with reception, housekeeping, food and beverage, and price is positively related to customer loyalty. H3: That hotel image and customer satisfaction with hotel performance significantly explain the variance in customer loyalty. (Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003, p.13) The findings indicate that various departments of hotel operations, as well as price factors have a different importance for the hotel guests. The research findings suggest that the image of the hotel, as well as customer satisfaction including housekeeping, food and beverage 12

department, reception, and pricing are the most important factors in custom loyalty determination. Convenience and accessibility are also named as relevant factors in guest return decisions. According to research findings, housekeeping is considered to be the most significant factor in determining customer loyalty for the hotel chains. The research concludes that customer loyalty is a very time-specific and non-permanent factor, which is why it requires continuous and consistent investment. Therefore, maintaining and developing customer loyalty is a key factor for long-term success of any hotel management. Matzler, Renzl, and Rothenberger, (2006) examined the relationship between quality, satisfaction, and price as central criteria that determine the purchasing and post-purchasing process which has been theoretically and empirically studied by many researchers (Kano, 1984; Anderson et al., 1994; Fornell, 1992; Yeung & Ennew, 2000; Keaveny 1995; Varki & Colgate, 2001; Oh, 2003; Baumgartner, 2002 and others cited in Matzler, Renzl, & Rothenberger, 2006, p. 179-196). This research is dedicated to the finding of “drivers of service and price satisfaction, and the impact of service and price satisfaction on loyalty” (Matzler, et. al., 2006, p.179). The authors of the research imply that both quality and price as perceived by the customers need to be measured by hotel managers. The present study investigates different approaches, stating that “price is a stronger driver of customer value than quality,” and is easy to evaluate comparing to quality, while others argue that quality has a stronger impact on guest satisfaction (Matzler, et. al., 2006, p.181). Another issue that was investigated in the present research was cultural influence on satisfaction and loyalty. The data for the study was taken from the Austrian Guest Satisfaction Barometer, which was to measure guest satisfaction with 25 hotels and their services, price, and loyalty and provided the participating hotels with benchmarking data (Matzler, et. al., 2006, p.183). The standardized self-administered questionnaire for hotel guests

13

has been used as a research data collection method. The questionnaire consisted of 26 items which were to measure various aspects of a service on a 5 – point scale; loyalty in terms of the intention to recommend the hotel to others was measured on a 5 point scale also with 5 representing “yes, for sure,” and 1 - representing “no, definitely not.” (Matzler, et. al.,, 2006, p.184). Price and service satisfaction were measured using a 100% scale (0%-completely dissatisfied, 100%-completely satisfied). Overall 1,555 questionnaires were completed. The results statistically proved that the drivers of price and service satisfaction are not the same. According to research, the price satisfaction was also very much influenced by the service dimensions; thus, both service and price satisfaction significantly impact loyalty (R^2=.76). The research had several findings: first, the relative importance of service dimensions for overall service satisfaction differs from their importance for price satisfaction. Second, price satisfaction has a stronger impact on loyalty than service satisfaction. Third, the finding is relating to cultural differences, as it assumes that the guests’ nationalities are a strong moderator of the relationships investigated in this study (Matzler, et. al., 2006, 191).

2.2 Cultural value Tsaur, Lin, and Wu’s conducted the research “Cultural differences of service quality and behavioral intention in tourist hotels” in 2005. With increasing global competition, the understanding of the cultural influences of service becomes an important issue for service companies (Tsaur, et. al., 2005, p. 43). The hotels were chosen as an example for the present research because they offer individual services for tourists form all over the world. Some researchers (Winsted, 1997; Donthu & Yoo, 1998; Mattila, 1999; Furrer, Liu and Sirakumar, 2000 cited in Tsaur, et. al., 2005, p. 43) studied the relationships between culture and service

14

quality in hotel industries. However, it is important to mention that very little research has been done “regarding the cultural influences on service quality and behavioral intention” (Tsaur, Lin, & Wu, 2005, p. 43). The purpose of the 2005 study is an explanation of the role of culture in the relationship between the quality of service and the inattention of the service provider staff. Based on the literature review, the research indicates that culture is a crucial point that influences perceived service quality and staff behavior. For the study, 282 international travelers departing from CKS Airport in Taiwan were selected by using a simple sampling approach. The sample included tourists from 26 countries that represent three cultural group clusters similar to the cultural groupings of European, Asian, and English Heritage (Tsaur, Lin, & Wu, 2005, p. 48). The respondents were asked to complete a questionnaire while they were waiting for the plane’s departure. The survey consisted of a questionnaire designed to measure the perceptions of tourists with regard to service quality and staff behavior. A SERVQUAL scale was also used in the study to measure the difference between customers’ expectations and performance. The results of the research indicated that in contrast to Asian and European groups, tourists from English Heritage cultures perceived better service quality regarding tangibles, reliability, assurance, and empathy, but there was no significant variation among these three groups considering the “responsiveness” (Tsaur, Lin, & Wu, 2005, p. 58). The results of the research supported previous findings by Mattila, 1999; Furrer et. al., 2000; and Donthu and Yoo, 1998 cited in Tsaur, et. al., 2005, p. 58), who concluded that European and English Heritage groups would expect empathy, attention, and care about them from the hotel service provider,

15

and demand a high level of service quality (Tsaur, et. al., 2005, p. 58). The findings of the research are very useful for the hospitality managers in dealing with culturally diverse clients, and helpful in the improvement of the customers’ perceived service quality. Another research study that concentrates on the role of culture being the main category that influences customer satisfaction with various pricing policies was done by Mattila and Sunmee in 2006 who investigated the topic of “A cross-cultural comparison of perceived fairness and satisfaction in the context of hotel room pricing.” With globalization and international trade development, the number of businessmen, as well as leisure travelers is increasing fast. There have been many previous studies in social psychology (Fiske et al., 1998 cited in Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.146) that proved that “psychological processes are culturally contingent.” Also, previous research on this topic demonstrated the difference in customer expectations of Western and Asian consumers. Thus, most consumer behavior research is based on theories developed in Western societies (e.g., Maheswaran and Shavitt, 2000 cited in Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.146). That is why there is not enough knowledge about cross- cultural generalizability of customer behavior theories (Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.147). The goal of Mattila and Sunmee’s research is to examine cross-cultural differences in East-Asian and American consumers’ perceptions of fairness regarding hotel room pricing (Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.147). Taking into consideration that most hotels use differential pricing as a form of revenue management, the present study was determined to find how different outcomes of price (as worse, same, or better price) and price information influence fairness and customer satisfaction of people from the U.S. as an example of a Western individualistic culture, and people from South Korea as an example of an Eastern collective culture (Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.147).

16

A quasi-experimental design of (2 culture: American, Korean) x (3 outcome: better, same, worse) x (2 information present, absent) was used as a method of study. Two hundred eighty nine American and 302 South Korean travelers who were waiting for a plane in Washington, DC and in South Korea airports were chosen as the subjects of study, 63% of the total participants being male. The respondents were frequent users of hotels, as 43% responded that they had stayed in a hotel over six times during the past year, while 39% stayed more than six times, though for leisure travelers the figure was lower (Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.149). The survey with hypothetical scenario questions was used as the research instrument, translated in both languages. The researchers manipulated the price perceptions of the customers by indicating a price that was better, same or worse than either the price they paid during their last visit to the hotel, or the price that was given to another customer. They crossed the three levels of outcome with two levels hotel’s pricing policy information. A seven-point Likert scale was used to measure satisfaction with the reservation process, the Pearson correlation coefficient being 0.64. The research findings indicate that U.S. consumers “preferred equitable outcomes in pricing to either better or worse outcomes” (p.152). In other words, Americans, due to their individualistic orientation, are less influenced by information explaining price changes. Korean consumers, because of their group harmony orientation rather than individual interest, “gave relatively low fairness and satisfaction ratings regardless of the outcome” (p.152). In their research, Iglesias and Guillen (2004) differentiate the concepts of perceived value and customer satisfaction, showing that they are not synonymous. They claim that being an intangible product, service itself is simultaneously characterized, and therefore it is very difficult

17

to measure customer satisfaction and perceived value separately. The research focuses on the assumption that customer satisfaction is positively affected by perceived quality of received service, while perceived prices do not have the same huge impact on customer satisfaction. The restaurants in Northeast Spain were chosen as research sites. The hotel and restaurant sector was chosen for Iglesias and Guillen’s research, because it produces 80 percent of the Spanish Gross Domestic Product, and plays a leading role in the Spanish economy (Iglesias & Guillen, 2004, p.375). The empirical work was based on a survey database prepared in 1997, employing a non-probabilistic procedure, and obtaining 156 valid surveys. The participants of the survey were 60 % females and 40 % males with university education, the mean age of 35, and an income level around EUR 1,500. The variables were measured through a ten-point interval scale, where 1 represented “very low”, and 10 ”very high” with respect to the opinion stated about total perceived price, value and satisfaction. The results of the comparison of the means indicates that the total perceived price does not have a considerable impact on customer satisfaction levels, whereas quality does. This research has a great importance for restaurant management, because is shows that customer satisfaction must be taken into account while implementing various policies of customer satisfaction. The research also underlines that there is a high level of variability in restaurant service, which is why the level of service quality and customer satisfaction may vary tremendously form one customer to another, as well as from one employee to another. Research indicates that in order to offer quality service to satisfy their customers, restaurant managers have to hire qualified personnel, and empower them to make decisions when it comes to special customer demands and preferences, for example the manner they want a dish to be cooked. Of further importance for restaurant management is the knowledge of the reasons that lead

18

customers to require the services from the specific restaurant. Among the most common reasons are family celebrations, leisure, and time. Discussing time issue, optimization of the customer waiting time is a fundamental task for all businesses that provide services to customers, especially the hospitality industry. Researchers Butcher and Heffernan (2006) investigated specific aspects of waiting time that can help in providing more cost-effective outcomes for companies. Their research concentrates on the assumption that “social regard plays a mediating role between the length of customer wait, friendly and apologetic employee behaviors and service outcomes such as repeat visit intentions” (p.35). This research accumulates many opinions on this topic, including an overview of diverse literature. The main focus of the literature is on customer relation research in the service management and hospitality field, as well as the field of social psychology.

2.3 Waiting time Many researchers examined the relationship between waiting time and customer satisfaction. For example, Davis and Vollman, 1990 (cited in Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.35) studied the conditions of time of the day, of the week, and location in the terms of waiting time and degree of satisfaction. Further, Honric (1984) and Maister (1985) suggested managerial actions related to perceived length of customer waiting time (cited in Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.35). Jones and Dent (1994) discovered that smiling faces and apologies to customers make the waiting more bearable (cited in Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.36); Boshoff and Leong (1998) found that a personal apology is strongly related to customer satisfaction (cited in Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.37).

19

Four hypotheses were stated for the Butcher and Heffernan’s research study: H1: Perceived wait length will be positively associated with repeat visit intentions and word of mouth. H2: An apology will positively influence service outcomes, such as repeat visit intentions and word of mouth in the wait situation. H3: Friendly employee behavior will moderate the impact of a long wait on service outcome measures, such as repeat visit interactions and word of mouth. H4: Wait perception, an apology and employee friendliness will positively affect social regard. (Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.40) A 2x2x2 between-subject experimental design was used as a research method to test the hypotheses. One hundred fifty one first-year students of an Australian University were randomly selected as a convenience sample for the present research, including 38.9% males. Written vignettes were developed for the study for the café settings. Among the dependent variables that were manipulated were the “actual length of wait duration friendliness of service employee, and whether an apology was offered to the customer by the service employee” (p.41). The dependent variable was the word of the mouth. Both independent and dependent variables were measured using a seven-point Likert scale. Each questionnaire contained a vignette and twenty-five questions based on the activities in a vignette. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) (2 actual wait length x 2 friendly service x 2 apology) was used to illustrate the difference in rating of the dependent measure of social regard (Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.43).

20

The research had two main findings. The first finding stated that social regard plays a main role in repeat purchase and word of mouth. The second finding showed that the actual length of wait time had a direct impact on social regard, and was moderated by friendly employee behavior and apology for slow service (Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.48).

2.4 Issues in employee satisfaction According to The Conference Board press release (2005), 50% of all Americans are satisfied with their jobs, which indicate a 10% decline from 1995. But in these 50% only 14% are “very satisfied” (U.S. job satisfaction keeps falling, The Conference Board reports today, 2005). The sample size for this report is five thousand U.S. households which were contacted by TNS, which is a leading marketing information company. This information pointed out that one quarter of American employees are showing up to work only to pick up a paycheck. The largest decline in job satisfaction, from 60.9% to 49.2% was among workers of 35-44 years of age. As for the income perspective, the household with the income of $25,000 to $35,000 had the biggest decline in job satisfaction. Employees were mostly dissatisfied with promotion policies and bonus plans. Wages were also rated as poor, only 33.5% were satisfied with their pay (2005). Syptak, Marsland, and Ulmer (1999) in their study “Job satisfaction: Putting Theory into Practice” stated that employee satisfaction and retention have been a research topic for many years. In the 1950s, Herzberg developed the theory that includes two components of job satisfaction: motivation and so called “hygiene.” According to Herzberg, motivation “create satisfaction by fulfilling individuals’ needs for meaning and personal growth”, for example achievement, recognition and advancement (Syptak, Marsland, & Ulmer, 1999, p.2). Hygiene factors can not motivate people, but they can minimize dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors include

21

policies, supervision, salary, and working conditions. Hygiene issues have to be taken into consideration in order to create favorable environment for employee satisfaction and motivation. The customers’ perceptions of the service quality and their satisfaction with the service mainly depend on the interaction with the employee. Wangeheim, Evanschitzky, and Wunderlich (2007) conducted a study that analyzed the relationships between employee and customer satisfaction. Different researchers (Berhnardt, et al., 2002, Koys 2001, Ryan et al. 1996, and Tornow & Wiley, 1991 cited in Wangeheim, Evanschitzky, and Wunderlich, 2007, p. 690) proved that there is a positive association between employee and customer satisfaction. Harter et. al. found support that there is a positive link between employee and customer satisfaction by conducting a meta- analysis of 7,939 business units in 36 companies (Wangeheim, Evanschitzky, & Wunderlich, 2007 p.691). Tornow and Wiley (1991), Bernhardt et al. (1996), and Koys (2001) state that there is a strong correlation between employee attitudes and customer satisfaction in automobile finance and restaurant chain sectors (cited in Wangeheim, Evanschitzky, & Wunderlich, 2007, p.691). Data for Wangeheim, Evanschitzky, and Wunderlich’s research was collected from customers and employees of a European retail chain in the Do-it-Yourself (DIY) market (p.692). A pre-test was conducted in 2001, and resulted in 53,645 customer and 1,659 employee questionnaires at 99 outlets. LISREL 8.54 was used for the purpose of analysis. According to the research findings, perceived quality and perceived price had the largest effect on customer satisfaction, but employee job satisfaction was also proven to be a statistically significant factor. Moreover, the correlation analysis of cashiers’(.172), with p<.05 and storeroom workers’(.162) with p<.05 scores of work satisfaction and customer satisfaction scores

22

with the service proved that employee job satisfaction is related to customer satisfaction, even for the employees who do not have direct contact with customers. Staw, Sutton, and Pelled (1994) conducted a cross- subject study in psychology, sociology and organizational behavior that proved that positive emotions help employees to obtain favorable outcomes at work. The data for this study was collected by Michigan’s Survey Research Center at two times, separated by 18 to 20 months. The total number of participants for both periods of time was 272 employees (152-men, 120 women), with the mean age 37.58. The data was collected both times at a hospital and two manufacturers automobile accessories in the Midwest Predictor. Dependent and control variables were used for the study. Positive emotion at workplace was a predictor variable. As for the dependent variable, it included two measures of work achievement such as supervisor evaluation and pay at time, and two measures of the employee’s social environment (supervisor and coworker social support) (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994, p.60). Age, education, gender, and rated intelligence were controlled variables in this study. The findings of Staw, Sutton, and Pelled’s study found that employees with positive emotions will have more favorable outcomes in their work. The following predicted relationships were supported by the research: 1) employees who had positive emotions in the workplace received more favorable supervisor evaluation and had a greater pay increase in 18 months 2) employees with greater positive emotions at time one had a better supervisor and coworker support at time two, enriching the overall organizational supportive social contest The other finding was that the relationship between job enrichment and positive emotion was considered to be not significant.

23

Mount and Frye’s research (2000) examines employee satisfaction issue from the prospective of hotel size and service type. Segmentation is considered to be a standard for the corporate development in the hospitality industry. The leading hotel companies buy, sell, and create new brands for specific target markets constantly. Robert Shaw stated that eight largest hotel companies controlled 66 brands in 1999 (cited in Mount, & Frye, 2000, p. 60). The hotel organization structure is different for extended stay, limited service and full-service type of hotel service. This research focuses on the job satisfaction of hotel employees from 52 hotel properties operated by private hotel company. Fifty two properties included 22 full-service hotels, 17 limited services, and 13 extended stay hotels in 22 states. The research objective was to determine whether hotel size and type has an impact on employees’ job satisfaction. 2,102 questionnaires were received, while 1,991 were used for the research. Individual response rate of the various hotels was between 36% and 100%. Mount and Frye found that job satisfaction was positive related to customer satisfaction among resort employees, cruise ship employees, and fast service restaurant employees. Moreover, satisfaction was found as negatively related to turnover. Independent sample t-tests were used to measure the difference in satisfaction between different hotel service types. The findings of this research show that there are no relationships between the employee satisfaction, and the hotel size, but there is a significant relationship between employee satisfaction and the type of the hotel service, and employees of the limited service hotels are more satisfied than full- service ones (p. 65).

24

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to identify customer and employee levels of satisfaction in the lodging industry, and also to define most significant factors of both employee and customer satisfaction, as well as to examine the relationships between customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction. This chapter will discuss the sample of the study, its description, instrument, data collection, and data analysis procedures.

3.1 Description of the Sample This study was conducted using data collected at a resort on the East Coast. This resort is considered to be one of the finest community resorts in the World. There are three different hotels in this resort family, in order not to name them; they will be called the A Hotel, the B Hotel, and the Rental Cottages for the research purposes. The A Hotel is a very famous hotel in the industry; it was a recipient of many awards in its nearly 80-year history. A Hotel has a "boutique" style, and it is represented by 156 rooms, including 56 beachfront options. The A Hotel also includes the new 65,000-square-foot spa and the Beach Club. The Spa has a salon, a workout center, and indoor squash courts just to name a few. Among other recreational activities that the A Hotel offers are golf, tennis, horseback riding, yacht cruises, and shooting lessons. The B Hotel is a 40-room golf clubhouse. The B Hotel is famous for featuring three championship golf courses. The Cottage Rentals Department of the resort enables to rent one-third of about 500 homes and 44 condominiums. The cottages vary from 3 to 9 bedrooms homes. Typical minimum rental time for the Cottages is one week, even though 3 days are possible in some cases.

25

The sample of study is represented by 267 customers, 171 of which stayed in the A Hotel and 96 stayed in the B Hotel. The sample size was determined by 50 guests from the A Hotel property who were interviewed per month, and 105 guests from B Hotel property were interviewed during the quarter period. Employee Satisfaction Surveys were distributed to all level employees in all the departments of the resort during October 2003. The exact number of employees who completed the survey was not available for the researcher.

3.2 Instrument The instruments used in this study were designed in a form of the customer and employee satisfaction questionnaire. The employee satisfaction survey was developed by the human resources department of the resort, while the customer satisfaction questionnaire was created by the outside consulting agency. The customer satisfaction questionnaire contains 52 statements total. The first 11 items on the questionnaire are copyrighted from consulting firm survey, while 41 others are unique to this particular resort setting. The customer satisfaction questionnaire is represented by the 6 following areas: dining experience; golfing experience; spa experience; beach club experience; experience with facilities/activities; and guest problems. The questionnaire statements are graded on the five–point Likert scale, with 1 rating “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.” The employee satisfaction survey consists of 12 facets of satisfaction which are: the company; vision/mission/values; interact; your job; your department; physical work environment; communications; leadership, supervision and management effectiveness; teamwork; pay, opportunity, and benefits; career development and training; quality; and demographic information. The questionnaire consists of 89 questions represented by 86

26

statements and 3 multiple choice questions that address demographics. The 86 statements questionnaire includes both a five–point Likert scale, and a 6 point –point Likert scale to better understand the factors that mostly affect employee satisfaction.

3.3 Data collection procedure Customer and employee satisfaction data were provided by the company. Employee satisfaction survey was done by the company in October 2003. As for the customer satisfaction, the data was restricted to the report that was presented by the outside consulting agency in November 2004. Researcher does not have information about the validity and reliability of either survey. The customer satisfaction survey was done in the form of a 10-minute telephone interview with the guests who stayed at the resort 30 days prior to the survey. The list of the guests was provided by the resort to the consulting agency. The list was broken down by the facility that the guests used during their stay and/or other relevant guest segmentations. Permission was granted by SIU Human Subjects Committee to conduct the study in this resort setting (Appendix A).

3.4 Data preparation and statistical procedures SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 15.0 was used to enter, code data, and analyze data. Customer satisfaction data were provided in the form of report, with questions and percentages for the certain small areas and imported into SPSS. For the customer satisfaction analysis, the main departments and services were grouped together by the researcher and mean scores for the distinct areas were calculated to better

27

understand the most important customer satisfaction factors based on the data obtained from the company. For the employee satisfaction, the data were grouped by the A and B hotel and the researcher did the pair comparison of two properties of the resort. Also, top positive and top negative employee satisfaction factors were found, and main areas and/or departments that had best results and most difficulties were determined based on the data from the company. Mean scores were calculated for 12 facets of the employee satisfaction. Correlation coefficient (Pearson r) was calculated to determine if there is a relationship in customer satisfaction of the two hotels in the Resort setting.

28

CHAPTER 4 DATA PRESENTATION 4.1 Results The purpose of this study was to identify customer and employee satisfaction factors and levels of satisfaction in two hotel properties of the Resort on the East Coast. The participants of the study were customers, who stayed at the resort in September, October, and November 2004, and the employees of the resort of October, 2003. The customers’ responses to a questionnaire (Appendix B) regarding their satisfaction levels with various areas of the two hotel properties were used to determine results of this study. The customer satisfaction questionnaire was constructed by the consulting agency. The employees’ responses to a questionnaire (Appendix C) regarding their job satisfaction within 12 areas of satisfaction were also used in order to determine results of this research study. The employee satisfaction survey was created by the human resources department of the resort.

4.2 Research Sample With the assistance of the Human Resources department of the resort the data were sent to the researcher via email in the form of the Excel tables for the customer satisfaction questionnaire, wich included the mean scores of satisfaction with certain areas of the two hotel properties. The employee satisfaction data were also sent as to the researcher in the form of Excel tables with the mean percentages of the employees’ satisfaction. The customer satisfaction survey was represented by 52 statements within 6 areas of customer experience at the resort such as dining experience, golfing experience, experience with spa, beach club experience, experience with facilities/activities, and last but not least guest

29

problems. The list of participants is represented by 267 customers, where 171 customers stayed in the A Hotel and 96 stayed in the B Hotel during the period of September, October, and November 2004. Of there, fifty customers were interviewed in a month period from the A Hotel, and 105 customers were interviewed in the same quarter period from B Hotel. The customer satisfaction survey was conducted in the form of a telephone interview (about 10 minutes) with the customers who stayed at the resort 30 days prior to the survey. The list of the guests was provided by the resort to the consulting company, and was divided by the facility at which customers used during their stay. The survey statements were graded on the five–point Likert scale, with 5 rating “strongly agree” to 1 rating “strongly disagree.” In attempt to better understand the most and the least important customer satisfaction factors in two hotel properties of the Resort on the East Cost, the researcher did a rank order transformation of the customer satisfaction data for the A and B Hotels. Forty nine of the 52 statements were common in two hotel properties. Three satisfaction factors that were available only for one of two hotels were not taken into consideration in this study. These factors are satisfaction with tennis, satisfaction with the charter fishing, and satisfaction with junior staff activities. Table 1 represents the top 10 customer satisfaction factors out of 49 available in the Hotel A. The statements were graded on a five –point Likert scale, with 5- rating “strongly agree,” to 1 - rating “strongly disagree” (See Table 1). One factor (satisfaction with the shooting school) received the highest customer rating equal to 5.0.

30

Table 1. Top 10 customer satisfaction factors in Hotel A ______________________________________________________________________________ Satisfaction factor Mean Score Satisfaction with the shooting school

5.0

The pool cleanliness

4.92

Always treated with respect

4.90

The staff being attentive

4.89

The bell man/butler service

4.84

Always treated fairly

4.76

The recreational activities being fun

4.76

Satisfaction with the transportation services

4.76

The overall experience at check-in

4.75

The overall reservation process

4.75

(n=171) Note: The higher the score the greater the agreement. Table 2 indicates the 10 customer satisfaction factors that were highly rated by the customers of the Hotel B (See Table 2). Two customer satisfaction factors (the beach being clean and satisfaction with the shooting school) received 100% satisfaction score of 5.0. Three items were tied at 4.89: always delivers personalized service, the overall experience at check-in, and the overall experience with housekeeping.

31

Table 2. Top 10 customer satisfaction factors in Hotel B ______________________________________________________________________________ Satisfaction factor

Mean Score

______________________________________________________________________________ The beach being clean

5.0

Satisfaction with the shooting school

5.0

Satisfaction with the concierge service

4.96

Always treated with respect

4.95

Likelihood to recommend

4.93

Always treated fairly

4.92

Always delivers personalized service

4.89

The overall experience at check-in

4.89

The overall experience with housekeeping

4.89

Always count on a fair/sat. resolution 4.86 ______________________________________________________________________________ (n=96) Note: The higher the score the greater the agreement. By looking at the descriptive information from the tables 1 and 2, and also by comparing the top 10 mean scores and statements of two hotel properties, there were 4 similar factors for both hotel properties. These factors were satisfaction with the shooting school, always treated with respect, always treated fairly and the overall experience at check-in. Satisfaction with the shooting school received a perfect (5.0) satisfaction mean score in the Hotels A and B. Three other common statements were slightly higher ranked in Hotel B.

32

Table 3 indicates 10 customer satisfaction factors of the Hotel A that received the lowest customer satisfaction scores. The statement, is the finest resort in the world, was considered as the least satisfying with a mean score of 3.56. Table 3. Lowest 10 customer satisfaction factors in Hotel A ______________________________________________________________________________ Satisfaction factor

Mean Score

______________________________________________________________________________ Is the finest resort in the world 3.56 Can't Imagine a world without

3.60

Is the most unique resort I have ever visited

3.73

Satisfaction with problem handling

4.00

The overall dining experience being top class in the world

4.02

Is a place where kids can learn values, traditions, and manners

4.07

The overall spa experience being top class in the world

4.09

Intent to repurchase/continue to use

4.17

Overall, how satisfied were you with the treatment received at the spa

4.22

Satisfaction with the spa 4.25 ______________________________________________________________________________ (n=171 per month) Note: The higher the score the greater the agreement. Ten lowest customer satisfaction factors of the Hotel B are represented in Table 4. The least mean number of satisfaction (3.4) was for satisfaction with problem handling factor.

33

Table 4. Lowest 10 customer satisfaction factors in Hotel B ______________________________________________________________________________ Satisfaction factor

Mean Score

______________________________________________________________________________ Satisfaction with problem handling

3.40

Can't imagine a world without

3.50

Is the most unique resort I have ever visited

3.76

Is the finest resort in the world

3.87

Overall, how satisfied were you with the treatment received at the spa

3.90

The overall spa experience being top class in the world

3.92

The overall dining experience being top class in the world

4.12

Is the perfect place to spend quality family time

4.14

Is a place where kids can learn values, traditions, and manners

4.25

Satisfaction with the spa

4.30

______________________________________________________________________________ (n=96) Note: The higher the score the greater the agreement.

Nine similar factors out of 10 were ranked as least satisfying in both of the hotels. Satisfaction with the problem resolution, spa, dining experience, as well as the resort being the best and most unique one in the world were rated low in both of the hotels. The range score between the highest and the lowest customer satisfaction rating for the A Hotel is (1.44), while for B Hotel the range score is (1.6). The B Hotel seems to be more satisfying in terms of customer satisfaction ratings, even though the range between the most and least satisfying aspect of customer service is 0.16 mean scores higher than in the Hotel A. As for

34

the overall customer satisfaction in two hotels, the overall customer satisfaction for the Hotel A is 4.5 (90%), and for the Hotel B is 4.58 (91.6%). Another way to look at this data is presented in Figure 1. The bar graph easily identifies "satisfaction with problem handling" as the statement with the greatest difference (1.6) between both hotels. The statement with the greatest agreement (.75) between both hotels was "satisfaction with the spa."

Figure 1. Lowest 9 Customer Satisfaction Factors in A and B Hotel To better identify the satisfaction factors, four areas were selected by the researcher for further analysis: staff, room divisions, recreation, and conflict resolution. For both satisfaction with staff and satisfaction with room divisions 8 statements were identified; for the satisfaction with recreation 10 statements were identified by the researcher; and for the satisfaction with conflict resolution 4 statements were identified in order to define the areas that have the highest and lowest level of satisfaction based on the customers’ responses to the questionnaire (See Table 5). 35

Two areas such as satisfaction with Food and Beverage and satisfaction with Other factors were not taken into consideration for this research. The mean scores were calculated for each of four designated areas. Satisfaction with Room Divisions received the highest overall mean scores (4.64-for Hotel A, and 4.83- for Hotel B), while Conflict Resolution area received the lowest satisfaction scores for both of the Hotels A and B (4.51- for Hotel A, 4.48- for Hotel B). Satisfaction with Staff was rated a little lower than Satisfaction with Room Divisions, being given the second place with the scores (4.67- Hotel A, and 4.74- for Hotel B) in the overall rating of four research areas. Guest Satisfaction with Recreation was ranked as the third area with the mean scores of (4.54- for Hotel A, and 4.52-for Hotel B). Table 5. Customer satisfaction factors grouping in 4 major areas ______________________________________________________________________________ Area of Satisfaction Satisfaction factor Mean Score Hotel A Hotel B ______________________________________________________________________________ Staff Employees are perfect examples of genuine

4.68

4.77

Always delivers personalized service

4.64

4.89

Employees are great at anticipating my needs

4.51

4.68

The staff being attentive

4.52

4.66

The staff being knowledgeable

4.65

4.60

The staff being courteous

4.58

4.73

The staff being attentive

4.89

4.60

Always treated with respect

4.90

4.95

4.67

4.74

Southern hospitality

Overall Mean Score for the Staff Satisfaction

______________________________________________________________________________

36

Table 5 (continued) ______________________________________________________________________________ Room Divisions The reservation process

4.67

4.68

The overall experience at check-in

4.75

4.89

The bell man/butler service

4.84

4.82

The overall experience with your room or suite

4.53

4.83

The overall experience with housekeeping

4.55

4.89

The overall experience at checkout

4.54

4.85

The overall reservation process

4.75

4.75

Satisfaction with the concierge service

4.73

4.96

4.64

4.83

Overall Mean Score for the Room Divisions Satisfaction

______________________________________________________________________________ Recreation The overall golf experience being top class

4.39

4.46

The overall quality of the course

4.71

4.70

The caddie being helpful

4.36

4.75

Satisfaction with the spa

4.25

4.30

The overall spa experience being top class

4.09

3.92

4.22

3.90

The pool cleanliness

4.92

4.78

The recreational activities being fun

4.76

4.67

Satisfaction with the stables or horseback riding

4.67

4.67

Satisfaction with the shooting school

5.00

5.00

in the world

in the world Overall, how satisfied were you with the treatment received at the spa

Overall Mean Score for the Recreation Satisfaction

4.54

4.52

______________________________________________________________________________

37

Table 5 (continued) Conflict Resolution Satisfaction with problem handling

4.00

3.40

Always count on a fair/sat. resolution

4.69

3.86

Always treated fairly

4.76

4.92

Always delivers on promises

4.60

3.74

4.51

4.48

Overall Mean Score for the Conflict Resolution

______________________________________________________________________________ (n=171 for the Hotel A, and n=96 for the Hotel B) Another part of this research contains finding Employee Satisfaction levels at the same resort on the East Coast. The employee satisfaction survey which was developed by the human resources department of the resort was distributed to all level employees throughout the resort during October 2003. The number of employees who completed the survey was not available for the researcher. The survey includes of 12 facets of satisfaction: the company; vision/mission/values; interact; your job; your department; physical work environment; communications; leadership, supervision and management effectiveness; teamwork; pay, opportunity, and benefits; career development and training; quality; and also demographic information. The questionnaire included 89 questions, with 86 statements and 3 multiple choice questions addressing demographics. The 86 statements questionnaire includes both a five–point Likert scale, and a 6 point –point Likert scale to better understand the factors that mostly affect employee satisfaction. For employee satisfaction, the data available for the researcher were grouped based on 12 employee satisfaction facets, and the mean percentage scores of the all the positive, negative, and not able to assess employees’ responses were calculated (See Table 6). Figure 2 presents this data in bar graph format.

38

Table 6. Overall employee satisfaction facets of the Resort on the East Coast ______________________________________________________________________________ Facets of Satisfaction Positive Negative Total Total % % ______________________________________________________________________________ The Company

67.2

12.7

Vision/Mission/Values

55.6

15.8

Interact

44.0

25.7

Your job

57.0

10.5

Your Department

81.1

3.7

Physical Work environment

69.1

11.9

Communications

53.4

20.0

Leadership, Supervision, and

58.3

18.1

Teamwork

66.1

15.2

Pay, Opportunity, and Benefits

55.4

14.9

Career Development and Training

61.5

15.9

Quality

60.2

18.9

Management Effectiveness

______________________________________________________________________________ (n-not provided) Note: The remaining percent falls into the neither satisfied nor dissatisfied area

39

Quality Career Development and Training Pay, Opportunity, and Benefits Teamw ork Leadership, Supervision, and MNGT Effectiveness Communications Physical Work environment Your Department Your job Interact Vision/Mission/Values The Company 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Negative Total % Positive Total %

Figure 2. 12 Employee Satisfaction Facets As for the demographic information, 60.4%-males, and 39.6%-females participated in the employee satisfaction survey, 14.0% respondents preferred not to answer to the gender question. Among those employees, 16.9% - employees were employed less than one year, 48.5% - were employed from one to five years, 15.1% - were employed from six to ten years, 8.3% - for eleven to fifteen years, 4.6% - for sixteen to nineteen years, and 6.7% - for over twenty years, while 12.0% - preferred not to answer this question. Satisfaction with Your Department received the highest positive total percentage mean score of 81.1%, and the lowest negative total percentage score of 3.7%, while satisfaction with the Interact program implemented by the resort received the lowest positive mean percentage score of 44.0%, and the highest negative means percentage score of 25.7%. Satisfaction with the Physical Work environment received a second place with a positive satisfaction percentage score

40

of 69.1% and negative percentage score of 11.9%. The third place received the facet satisfaction with the Company, being given 67.2% - positive total mean percentage score, and 12.7% negative total mean percentage score. Also, 10 top positive and 10 top negative employee satisfaction response questions were found (See Tables 7 and 8). Based on Table 7, satisfaction with your job, was represented by three questions in the top 10 positive questions, satisfaction with leadership was represented by two questions, and satisfaction with communications, with company, with your department, with vision/mission, and with quality were represented by one question. Based on Table eight, 10 top negative satisfaction questions, the facet satisfaction with vision/mission was represented by three questions, satisfaction with interact, with quality, and leadership by two, and satisfaction with communications by one question. Comparing the data of the overall means of the employee satisfaction facets, and the 10 top and bottom question responses, there was found a difference between the 12 satisfaction facets ratings and 10 top and bottom questions represented by the areas. The areas such as satisfaction with your job and satisfaction with leadership were represented by three and two questions in the 10 positive questions, but based on the overall employee satisfaction facet mean scores, those areas were on the 8th (satisfaction with your job) and 7th (satisfaction with leadership) places in the overall ratings. Satisfaction with your department, which was ranked as the number one among all 12 employee satisfaction facets, was represented in the top 10 positive questions just by one question. On the contrary, comparing the bottom ratings, the satisfaction with the Interact program, received the lowest customer satisfaction percentage (44.0%), and also was represented by two questions in the top 10 negative satisfaction questions. Vision/mission satisfaction area was represented by three questions, so it took the first place in

41

the top 10 negative satisfaction questions, while it was ranked as the ninth in the overall employee satisfaction facets with a 55.6% score. Table 7. Top 10 positive employee satisfaction response questions ______________________________________________________________________________ Question Frequency, (%) I am proud of the work I do

91.3

I have a good understanding of our overall company vision

90.4

I like the kind of work I do

86.5

How Sat. are you with the leadership provided by: Chairman / CEO

86.3

I enjoy the work I do

86.2

How Sat. are you with the leadership provided by: President

84.4

How would you rate the overall quality of work done in your department

82.9

I would recommend Sea Island as a place to work to friends

81.9

How would you rate the level of customer service (internal or external)

81.1

provided by your department We are recognized as the finest resort and resort community

80.3

in the world by our: Guests ______________________________________________________________________________ (n-not provided)

42

Table 8. Top 10 negative employee satisfaction response questions ______________________________________________________________________________ Question Frequency, (%) My department has enough of the following to do quality work: Staff

38.7

To what extent do you feel KRA's have been an effective means

34.9

of defining your responsibilities We offer our employees: Performance Recognition

34.1

We offer our employees: Open Communication

32.8

We offer our employees: Advancement Opportunities

31.5

Most employees feel free to voice their opinions openly at the resort

31.5

My department has enough of the following to do quality work: Equipment

30.9

To what extent does the Interact program help you to: Feel successful

30.5

To what extent is your immediate supervisor / manager good at: Giving you regular feedback on your performance

29.6

Keeping you informed about management actions and/or decisions

29.4

______________________________________________________________________________ (n-not provided) 4.3 Statistical analysis The Spearman's rho correlation coefficient was calculated by the researcher in order to see if there was significant relationship between customer satisfaction factors in two hotel properties. In order to define the Spearman's rho correlation, the researcher assigned the similar numbers to all the satisfaction statements of both Hotel A and B, and then did the rank order procedure in Excel in the way that the statement and the mean score were tight together (See Appendix D). Using Appendix D, the researcher determined the ranks of all 47 statements in both Hotel Properties A and B, calculated the Rank Difference (D) which was 0 (that means that

43

the rank order was determined correctly), and the Squared Rank Difference (D^2) which was 5852. The formula

was used to calculate the Spearman's rho correlation coefficient. Six statements out of 47 were equally ranked by the Hotel A and B customers. As for the top 5 common ratings, Hotel A and B had just two similar satisfaction statements (satisfaction with the shooting school and always treated with respect). The other tendency is at the bottom 5 common ratings, four out of five satisfaction statements were both low ranked in two hotel properties. Those statements are: is the finest resort in the world, can't imagine a world without, is the most unique resort I have ever visited, and satisfaction with problem handling. The strong positive relationship of (r=0.66) was found between the Hotel A and B of the resort on the East Coast and customer satisfaction factors. Those areas that were ranked high by the customers of the Hotel A were also highly ranked by the Hotel B customers. Table 9 represents the calculations that were done by the researcher to determine the Spearman's rho correlation coefficient. The Spearman's rho coefficient test was also run in the SPSS at the 0.01 significance level to verify the researcher’s rating and mathematical calculations.

44

Table 9. Spearman's rho correlation coefficient calculation ______________________________________________________________________________ Ranks Hotel A 1

Hotel B 2

Rank Difference (D) -1

The pool cleanliness

2

16

-14

196

Always treated with respect

3

4

-1

1

The staff being attentive

4

34

-30

900

The bell man/butler service

5

14

-9

81

Always treated fairly

6

6

0

0

The recreational activities being fun

7

30

-23

529

services

8

36

-28

784

The overall experience at check-in

9

8

1

1

The overall reservation process

10

21

-11

121

Satisfaction with the concierge service

11

3

8

64

The overall quality of the course

12

26

-14

196

Likelihood to recommend

13

5

8

64

Always count on a fair/sat. resolution

14

10

4

16

genuine Southern hospitality

15

18

-3

9

The beach being clean

16

1

15

225

The reservation process

17

29

-12

144

horseback riding

18

31

-13

169

The staff being knowledgeable

19

33

-14

196

Overall satisfaction

20

17

3

9

Is a name I can always trust

21

12

9

81

Always delivers personalized service

22

7

15

225

23

25

-2

4

Statements Satisfaction with the shooting school

Squared Difference (D^2) 1

Satisfaction with the transportation

Employees are perfect examples of

Satisfaction with the stables or

The overall experience with resort facilities

45

Table 9 (continued)  Perfect for me

24

23

1

1

Always delivers on promises

25

22

3

9

Feel proud

26

15

11

121

The staff being courteous

27

24

3

9

housekeeping

28

9

19

361

The overall experience at checkout

29

11

18

324

or suite

30

13

17

289

The staff being attentive

31

32

-1

1

32

28

4

16

33

19

14

196

34

40

-6

36

class in the world

35

35

0

0

The caddie being helpful

36

20

16

256

The food quality

37

37

0

0

Satisfaction with the spa

38

38

0

0

the treatment received at the spa

39

43

-4

16

Intent to repurchase/continue to use

40

27

13

169

41

42

-1

1

42

39

3

9

The overall experience with

The overall experience with your room

Employees are great at anticipating my needs Is a place where I can always relax and disconnect from day to day problems Is the perfect place to spend quality family time The overall golf experience being top

Overall, how satisfied were you with

The overall spa experience being top class in the world Is a place where kids can learn values, traditions, and manners

46

Table 9 (continued)  The overall dining experience being top class in the world

43

41

2

4

Satisfaction with problem handling

44

47

-3

9

visited

45

45

0

0

Can't Imagine a world without

46

46

0

0

Is the finest resort in the world

47

44

3

9

0

5852

Is the most unique resort I have ever

Total Sum

______________________________________________________________________________ (n=47) p<.01 A Person’s correlation coefficient was also run on the relationship between the hotel property and customer satisfaction levels of the resort on the East Coast. A 0.01 significance level was also set for the test purposes. Much like the Spearman's rho correlation coefficient, the strong positive association was found between two hotel properties and satisfaction statements. The Person’s correlation coefficient was (0.843). Paired sample t-test was run in order to determine if there was a significant difference in customer satisfaction in two hotels A and B based on the customer’s responses to the questionnaire. The t equal to (-2.5), and the probability of (0.016) were found. Like in the previous two tests, there was found to be statistical significant difference between the Hotel A and B customer satisfaction statements. There is a statistical significant difference between customer satisfaction levels in the Hotel A and B, as the p-value (0.016) is less than 0.05 (See Table 10).

47

Table 10. Paired Samples Test Hotel A and Hotel B ______________________________________________________________________________ Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean t df Sig. (2-tailed) -.07787

.21267

.03102

-2.510

46

.016

______________________________________________________________________________ (n=47)

48

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY

The major purpose of this study was to identify customer and employee satisfaction levels in the lodging industry by the example of two hotel properties of a resort on the East Coast, and also to define most significant factors of the customer and employee satisfaction. This study included 267 customers. The exact number of employees who participated was unknown. The customer satisfaction survey was constructed and administered by a consulting agency, via telephone with customers who stayed at the resort 30 days prior to the survey. Customers indicated satisfaction/dissatisfaction levels with six areas at the resort. Top 10 and lowest 10 customer satisfaction factors were determined for both hotels A and B. Also, four areas were selected for the customer satisfaction analysis: staff, room divisions, recreation, and conflict resolution. Satisfaction with Room Divisions received the highest overall mean scores (4.64-for Hotel A, and 4.83- for Hotel B), while Conflict Resolution area received the lowest satisfaction scores for both of the Hotels A and B (4.51- for Hotel A, 4.48- for Hotel B). Satisfaction with Staff was ranked slightly lower than Satisfaction with Room Divisions, being given the second place in the overall rating of four research areas. Customer Satisfaction with Recreation was ranked as the third area. The range score between the highest and the lowest customer satisfaction rating for Hotel A was found to be 1.44, and for Hotel B 1.6. As for the overall customer satisfaction in two hotels, the overall customer satisfaction for the Hotel A was 4.5 (90%), and for the Hotel B was 4.58 (91.6%).

49

There was a strong positive relationship found between Hotel A and Hotel B in customer satisfaction factors. Those areas that were ranked high by the customers of the Hotel A were also highly ranked by the Hotel B customers. There is a statistical significant difference between customer satisfaction levels in the Hotel A and B. The employee satisfaction questionnaire was created and administered by the human resources department of the resort. The employees’ responded satisfaction/dissatisfaction regarding their job in twelve areas of satisfaction which were: the company; vision/mission/values; interact; your job; your department; physical work environment; communications; leadership, supervision and management effectiveness; teamwork; pay, opportunity, and benefits; career development and training; quality; and demographic information. For employee satisfaction determination, the mean percentage scores of all positive and negative employees’ responses was calculated and grouped based on 12 employee satisfaction facets. Satisfaction with Your Department received the highest positive total percentage mean score of 81.1%, and the lowest negative total percentage score of 3.7%. Satisfaction with the Interact program implemented by the resort received the lowest positive mean percentage score of 44.0%, and the highest negative means percentage score of 25.7%. Satisfaction with the Physical Work environment received a second place with a positive satisfaction percentage score of 69.1%. Satisfaction with the Company, being given 67.2% - positive total mean percentage score, scored third. The 10 top positive and 10 bottom negative employee satisfaction response questions were identified. There was a difference between the 12 satisfaction facets ratings and 10 top and

50

bottom questions represented by the areas. Satisfaction with your department facet, which was ranked as the number one among all 12 employee satisfaction facets, was represented in the top 10 positive questions just by one question.

5.1 Conclusions As in previous studies’, this study used interviews with the customers after their service experience to report their satisfaction degree regarding various aspects of service and organizational system; similar to Nicholls, Gilbert, and Roslow (1998) research. The findings of this study, satisfaction with the hospitality experience is the total sum of satisfactions with several individual elements of all the services that the company offers is similar to the Pizam and Ellis research results of 1999. In this study it was found that the overall customer satisfaction for the Hotel A is 4.5 (90%), and for the Hotel B is 4.58 (91.6%), which is the mean score of six areas of the customer experience. This findings of this study is also comparable to Kandampully and Suhartanto’s (2003) research who found that satisfaction with housekeeping is the most significant factor to determine customer loyalty. This study found that Satisfaction with Room Divisions area, which includes housekeeping, received the highest overall mean scores for both of the hotels. Findings by Butcher and Heffernan (2006) showed that the actual length of wait time had a direct impact on social regard, and was moderated by friendly employee behavior and apology for slow service. There is a similar relationship in this study to Boshoff and Leong (1998) who found that a personal apology is strongly related to customer satisfaction. This research, revealed the area of Conflict Resolution received the lowest customer satisfaction scores for both of the Hotels (4.51- for Hotel A, 4.48- for Hotel B).

51

As for the employee satisfaction, according to The Conference Board reports today (2005), employees were mostly dissatisfied with promotion policies and bonus plans. This study found that Pay, Opportunity, and Benefits facet was ranked as number 10 among the 12 employee satisfaction facets. Staw, Sutton, and Pelled (1994) conducted a cross- subject study in psychology, sociology and organizational behavior that indicated employees with positive emotions will have more favorable outcomes in their work. In this study Satisfaction with the Physical Work environment was ranked second by the resort employees among the 12 employee satisfaction facets.

5.2 Discussion Customer and employee satisfaction factors are highly discussed topics today both in theory and practice. They may become even more important in the near future. Pizam and Ellis (1999) stated more than 15,000 academic and trade articles have been published on customer satisfaction. Very few studies analyze customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction factors in the hotel industry, particularly in the resorts on the East Coast. That is why this research findings may be valuable for future research. Today companies need to excel in both customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction to gain: positive reputation; business growth; increase profitability; image; work atmosphere; and loyal employees. As Holmund and Kock (1996) proved the cost of attracting new customers is five times higher than keeping the existing ones (cited in Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003, p.4), the knowledge of customers’ expectations has become essential for companies because it influences

52

the repetition of purchases and word of the mouth recommendations. Reichheld and Sasser’s research (1990) found that 25-28 percent profit increase can be produced by 5 percent increase in customer loyalty. This research may have practical value for hotel managers by providing them with both high and low satisfaction ratings by customers and employee. This research may assist hospitality managers to better understand customer and employee satisfaction factors. Better understanding of these factors, hotel managers may be able to make organizational and operational changes to increase the loyalty of existing and prospective customers, improve recruitment and training for employees, and motivate personnel. These results may be used by hotel managers to identify their hotel’s strengths and weaknesses, threats and opportunities for future improvement. The analysis of customer satisfaction factors may benefit customer satisfaction for various hotel departments. The analysis of employee satisfaction levels may raise the awareness of special challenges in particular departments for providing customer service, and highlight issues in personnel training. By comparing customer satisfaction from this study, Nicholls (1998) study, and Anderson, Fornell, and Rust (1997), we may hypothesize that customer satisfaction plays a leading role in productivity and company’s success, as the satisfied customers is the best marketing tool for the organization. Managers should take into consideration the benefits of measuring customer satisfaction within different areas of the hotel, as Kandampully and Suhartanto’s study (2003) stated, various departments of hotel operations have a different importance for the hotel customers. Hospitality managers should also take note of a key finding in this study: customer satisfaction with problem resolution. This study found dining experience being lowly rated by

53

the resort customers. Based on the findings of Boshoff and Leong (1998), (cited in Butcher & Heffernan, 2006, p.37), friendly employee behavior and apology for slow service, is strongly related to customer satisfaction. Thus, the constant improvement of the customer’s experience with the food and beverage department is essential for all hospitality businesses. Data collected by employees could not be categorized by the department, thus in this resort we may infer the low performance of the employees in Food and Beverage department. In analyzing employee satisfaction factors in this study we found high satisfaction with individual job performance and the department. Employees were motivated by their current position, but hygiene factors such as wages, benefits, and promotional opportunities were rated low by the employees, and received tenth place among 12 employee satisfaction areas. Finding of this study may also assist managers for creating better environment for employee satisfaction and motivation. Since salary is one of hygiene factors according to Herzberg cited in Syptak, Marsland, and Ulmer (1999), both motivation and hygiene factors have to be carefully monitored by the management. Among the recommendations for this resort property would be to continue maintaining the high level of customer and employee satisfaction. This may be attained by continuing the same level of exceptional service by the Room Division department, however, customers’ dining experience, and customer problem resolution are in need of improvement. The food and beverage department should evaluate service areas such as restaurants, banquets, room service, lounges and bars independently in order to identify which operational area causes problems regarding customer satisfaction. As for the guests’ problems resolutions, the management should reconsider the current policies and procedures. Management should empower associates who are in constant contact

54

with the guests. Roll call meetings and regular training should focus on different scenarios to educating employees on problem solving to retain customers’ loyalty. Regarding employee satisfaction, 35% of the work force in this resort have been employed from six to over twenty years, indicating a high level of commitment. However, wages, opportunities, and benefits ranked as one of the lowest employee satisfaction facets. The recommendation would be to discuss the employees’ performance, goals, and career paths in the organization, and investigate techniques to stimulate and motivate personnel. It is imperative that future research continue to examine customer and employee satisfaction factors in the hospitality industry, so that the hotel and resort management can be more knowledgeable and better prepared to satisfy both the existing and future customers and employees.

5.3 Recommendations The findings and conclusions of this study lead to the following recommendations to improve the strategic position of the resort examined and to help future research on this topic.

Recommendations for Future Research: 1. A similar study should be conducted of customers and employees of resorts in the different geographic areas (West Coast, Midwest, North East) to identify satisfaction factors specific to the geographic territory. 2. A follow-up study after implementing changes should be conducted at this resort for comparative analysis to identify improvements. 3. Future study should be conducted using the instrument created by the researcher, instead of using the company’s data.

55

4. A similar study could be conducted in different hotel categories, i.e., extended stay, limited service. 5. Future research should be conducted that measures the relationship between customer and employee satisfaction in the resort setting. 6. Future research should be conducted to examine overall demographic differences in customer and employee satisfaction. 7. Future research should investigate the cultural difference in both customer and employee satisfaction in the resort setting. 8. Further research should be conducted to better understand the role of price in customer satisfaction at the resort customers. 9. Further research should be conducted to examine in particular, customer satisfaction with all segments of the Food and Beverage Department. 10. Further research should investigate return customer satisfaction levels. 11. Further research should be conducted to measures employee satisfaction and turnover in the resort.  

56

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. W, Fornell, C. & Rust, R.T. (1997). Customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability: differences between goods and services. Marketing Science, 16 (2), 129145. [Electronic version] Retrieved March, 26, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=4&sid=d7dd5bd3-b437-4bda-bcc3acf958b8516b%40sessionmgr7 Butcher, K. & Heffernan, T. (2006). Social regard: a link between waiting for service and service outcome. Hospitality Management, 25 (1), 34-53. [Electronic version] Retrieved March, 26, 2008 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBH4FH4V2D1&_user=1412102&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C00005 2645&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1412102&md5=7d732d310b86facb6024ad fde2452366 Free Management Library. (1997-2008). Retrieved April 12, 2008 from http://www.managementhelp.org/prsn_wll/job_stfy.htm Iglesias, M. P. & Guillen, M. J. Y. (2004). Perceived quality and price: Their impact on the satisfaction of restaurant customers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(6), 373-379. Kandampully, J. & Suhartanto, D. (2003). The role of customer satisfaction and image in gaining customer loyalty in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 10 (1,2), 3-25. 57

Mattila, A. S. & Sunmee, C. (2006). A cross-cultural comparison of perceived fairness and satisfaction in the context of hotel room pricing. Hospitality Management, 25, 146153. Matzler, K., Renzl, B. & Rothenberger, S. (2006). Measuring the relative importance of service dimensions in the formation of price satisfaction and service satisfaction: A case study in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6 (3), 179-196. Mount, D. J., & Frye, W. D. (2000). The impact of hotel size and service type on employee job satisfaction. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism. 24(1), 60-68 Nasution, H. N., & Mavondo, F.T, (2008) Customer value in the hospitality industry: What managers believe they deliver and what customer experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 204-213. Nicholls, J. A.F., Gilbert, G. R. & Roslow, S. (1998). Parsimonious measurement of customer satisfaction with personal service and the service setting. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15 (3), 239-253. Pizam, A. & Ellis, T. (1999). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises. Journal of Contemporary Hospitality management, 11(7), 326-339 Shoemaker, S. and Lewis, R.C. (1999). Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality marketing. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 345-370. Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I. & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotions and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization science. 5(1), 51-71.

58

Syptak, J. M., Marsland, W., Ulmer, D. (1999). Job satisfaction: Putting Theory into practice. American Family Physician. Retrieved April, 20, 2008 from http://www.aafp.org/fpm/991000fm/26.html Tsaur, S.-H., Lin, C.-T. & Wu, C.-S. (2005). Cultural differences of service quality and behavioral intention in tourist hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 13 (1), 34-53. [Electronic version] Retrieved March, 21, 2008 from The Need for Employee Counseling (2006). Retrieved April 12, 2008 from http://www.azete.com/preview/47504 U.S. job satisfaction keeps falling, The conference board reports today. (2005). Retrieved April, 20, 2008 from http://www.conferenceboard.org/utilities/pressDetail.cfm?press_ID=2582 Wangeheim, F., Evanschitzky, H., and Wunderlich, M. (2007). Does the employee –customer satisfaction link hold for all employee groups. Journal of Business Research. 60(7), 690697. Retrieved April, 20, 2008 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7S-4NHM6SH1&_user=1412102&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000052 645&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1412102&md5=5ceb8f114f74a1d6010cc37f 8b2c0270

59

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE

CUSTOMER STISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE During the telephone interview customers were asked their level of agreement with each of the following statements Strongly Agree (SA)=5

Agree (A)=4

Neural (N)=3

Disagree (D)=2

Strongly Disagree (SD) = 1

SA A

N

D SD

1) Overall satisfaction

5

4

3

2

1

2) Intent to repurchase/continue to use

5

4

3

2

1

3) Likelihood to recommend

5

4

3

2

1

4) Can't Imagine a world without

5

4

3

2

1

5) Perfect for me

5

4

3

2

1

6) Always treated with respect

5

4

3

2

1

7) Feel proud

5

4

3

2

1

8) Always count on a fair/sat. resolution

5

4

3

2

1

9) Always treated fairly

5

4

3

2

1

10) Always delivers on promises

5

4

3

2

1

11) Is a name I can always trust

5

4

3

2

1

12) Employees are perfect examples of genuine Southern hospitality

5

4

3

2

1

13) Is the perfect place to spend quality family time

5

4

3

2

1

62

14) Is the most unique resort I have ever visited

5

4

3

2

15) Is a place where kids can learn values, traditions, and manners

5

4

3

2

1 1

16) Is a place where I can always relax and disconnect from day to day problems

5

4

3

2

1

17) Always delivers personalized service

5

4

3

2

1

18) Employees are great at anticipating my needs

5

4

3

2

1

19) Is the finest resort in the world

5

4

3

2

1

20) The reservation process

5

4

3

2

1

21) The overall experience at check-in

5

4

3

2 1

22) The bell man/butler service

5

4

3

2

1

23) The overall experience with your room or suite

5

4

3

2

1

24) The overall experience with housekeeping

5

4

3

2

1

25) The overall experience with resort facilities

5

4

3

2

1

26) The overall experience at checkout

5

4

3

2 1

27) The overall golf experience being top class in the world

5

4

3

2

1

28) The overall quality of the course

5

4

3

2

1

29) The caddie being helpful

5

4

3

2

1

30) The overall dining experience being top class in the world

5

4

3

2

1

63

31) The overall reservation process

5

4

3

2

1

32) The food quality

5

4

3

2

1

33) The staff being attentive

5

4

3

2 1

34) The staff being knowledgeable

5

4

3

2 1

35) Satisfaction with the spa

5

4

3

2

1

36) The overall spa experience being top class in the world

5

4

3

2

1

37) The staff being courteous

5

4

3

2

1

38) Overall, how satisfied were you with the treatment received at the spa

5

4

3

2

1

39) The pool cleanliness

5

4

3

2

1

40) The staff being attentive

5

4

3

2

1

41) The recreational activities being fun

5

4

3

2 1

42) The beach being clean

5

4

3

2 1

43) Satisfaction with tennis

5

4

3

2

1

44) Satisfaction with the stables or horseback riding

5

4

3

2

1

45) Satisfaction with the shooting school

5

4

3

2

1

46) Satisfaction with the charter fishing

5

4

3

2

1

47) Satisfaction with the transportation services

5

4

3

2

1

48) Satisfaction with the junior staff activities

5

4

3

2

1

64

49) Satisfaction with the concierge service

5

4

3

2

1

50) Satisfaction with problem handling

5

4

3

2 1

51) Problem incidence

1-20%

20-40% 40-60%

60-80% 80-100%

52) Problem resolved to your satisfaction

1-20%

20-40% 40-60%

60-80%

65

80-100%

APPENDIX

B

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY This is a survey of the ideas and opinions of employees of the Resort on the East Coast. Through this questionnaire we hope to identify and evaluate areas of employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction to be used in developing programs and practices throughout the Resort.

What you say in this questionnaire is completely confidential. The survey information will be processed and the answer sheets destroyed. Any report or presentation that is made of the results will be in the form of a statistical summary. We have no interest in the identification of individuals.

Whether the results of this study give a true picture depends upon whether you answer the way you really feel. There are no right or wrong answers. The usefulness of the survey in making the Resort on the East Coast a better place to work depends upon the frankness and care with which you answer the questions.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. The survey is divided into 12 sections: a. The Company b. Vision/Mission/Values c. Interact d. Your job e. Your Department f. Physical Work environment g. Communications h. Leadership, Supervision, and Management Effectiveness i. Teamwork j. Pay, Opportunity, and Benefits k. Career Development and Training l. Quality m. Demographic Information 2. Please answer the questions in order and be sure to answer all of the questions that you can. 3. Read all questions carefully. Make sure you are marking the response that accurately reflects your feelings. 4. Please feel free to write any comments or explanations which you like; they will be used.

67

5. By “immediate supervisor/manager” in this questionnaire, we mean the person you report to and who conducts your performance evaluation interviews. 6. Since the survey has been set up for administration without an answer sheet, you should circle the number that is closest to your opinions.

68

SURVEY OVERALL COMPANY

Neither

1.

Considering everything, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Resort at the present time?

Satisfied

Satisfied

1

2

Changed for the Better

2.

3.

4.

5.

Overall, considering what the Resort was like 6 years ago, would you say the Resort has: Overall, considering the events that have occurred at the Resort, would you say that the company has:

How would you rate the Resort as a company to work for compared with other companies you know about? How would you rate your department as a department to work for compared to other departments you know about?

Very

Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

Very

3

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

4

5

Cannot Assess/ Does Not Apply

Stayed the Same

Changed for the Worse

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

One of the Best

Above Average

Average

Below Average

One of the Worst

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Certainly

Probably

Not Sure

Probably not

Certainly not

69

6.

7.

8.

If you have your own way, will you be working for the Resort two years from now?

I would recommend the Resort as a place to work to friends.

How do you rate the Resort in providing job security?

1

2

3

4

5

Definitely

Probably

Not Sure

Probably not

Definitely not

1

2

3

4

5

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

1

2

3

4

5

70

VISION/MISSION From your own experience, to what extent do you feel the Resort lives up to each of the following:

9.

10.

11.

12.

To a Very Great Extent

To a Great Extent

To Some Extent

To a Little Extent

To No Extent

Assess

Cannot

We are recognized as the finest resort and resort community in the world by our: a.

Employees

1

2

3

4

5

6

b.

Members

1

2

3

4

5

6

c.

Guests

1

2

3

4

5

6

d.

Industry

1

2

3

4

5

6

We exceed expectations of our: a.

Guests

1

2

3

4

5

6

b.

Members

1

2

3

4

5

6

We offer the finest in terms of:

1

2

3

4

5

6

a.

Staffing

1

2

3

4

5

6

b.

Facilities

1

2

3

4

5

6

c.

Cuisine

1

2

3

4

5

6

a. Above average compensation

1

2

3

4

5

6

b. Job Security

1

2

3

4

5

6

c. Advancement Opportunities

1

2

3

4

5

6

We offer our employees:

71

13.

14.

d. Performance Recognition

1

2

3

4

5

6

e. Open Communication

1

2

3

4

5

6

To a Very Great Extent

To a Great Extent

To Some Extent

To a Little Extent

To no Extent

Assess

a. Planned Development

1

2

3

4

5

6

b. Improved Quality of Life

1

2

3

4

5

6

a. Benevolence

1

2

3

4

5

6

b. Commitment

1

2

3

4

5

6

c. Compassion

1

2

3

4

5

6

d. Fairness

1

2

3

4

5

6

e. Family

1

2

3

4

5

6

f.

1

2

3

4

5

6

g. Quality

1

2

3

4

5

6

h. Reliability

1

2

3

4

5

6

i.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cannot

For our community, we provide:

To what extent do you think the leadership of the Resort lives up to each of the following Corporate Values:

Integrity

Teamwork

72

INTERACT

15.

To a Very Great Extent

To a Great Extent

To Some Extent

To a Little Extent

To No Extent

Cannot Assess

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

a. Define your job goals

1

2

3

4

5

6

b. Allow for open communication with your supervisor

1

2

3

4

5

6

c. Improve performance through constructive feedback

1

2

3

4

5

6

d. Help you understand your role in achieving the company’s vision

1

2

3

4

5

6

e. Feel successful

1

2

3

4

5

6

f.

Improve your individual performance

1

2

3

4

5

6

g. Improve your department’s performance

1

2

3

4

5

6

h. Improve the Resort’s performance

1

2

3

4

5

6

Strongly

Cannot Assess

Overall, to what extent do you feel the InterAct program has been an effective performance management tool?

16.

To what extent do you feel KRA’s have been an effective means of defining your responsibilities?

17.

To what extent does the InterAct program help you to:

Neither Agree Nor Disagree

Strongly Agree Agree

Disagree

Disagree

i.

I have a clear understanding of the InterAct process.

1

2

3

4

5

6

j.

I have performance conversations with my supervisor on a regular basis.

1

2

3

4

5

6

73

YOUR JOB

18.

19.

20.

21.

Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?

I like the kind of work I do.

The amount of work I am expected to do on my job is:

Over and above the normal workweek, how much additional time have you been spending on your work? (Make an average estimate covering about the last 6 months).

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

Far too Much

Too Much

About Right

Too Little

Far to Little

1

2

3

4

5

None

2 to 5 hours a Week

6 to 10 Hours

11 to 15 Hours

1

2

3

4

5

Satisfied

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Very Satisfied

74

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

16 or More Hours

22.

23.

How satisfied are you with the extent to which your job leaves sufficient time for your personal or family life.

1

2

3

4

5

I feel a great deal of pressure to do this

I feel quite a bit of pressure

I feel some pressure

I feel a little pressure

I feel no pressure at all to do this

1

2

3

4

5

On the job do you feel any pressure for increasing the work you do above what you think is reasonable?

Listed below are a series of statements. Please indicate the extent to which you personally agree or disagree with each of these statements. SELECT ONLY ONE ENTRY PER LINE.

Neither Strongly

Agree Nor Disagree

Strongly Agree Agree

Disagree

Disagree

24.

My work gives me a feeling of accomplishment

1

2

3

4

5

25.

I have enough information to do my job well.

1

2

3

4

5

Neither

Satisfied

26.

27.

Strongly

Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

Very Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your work?

1

2

3

4

5

How satisfied are you with the recognition you get when you do a good job?

1

2

3

4

5

75

Neither Strongly

Agree Nor Disagree

Strongly Agree Agree

28.

Conditions in my job allow me to be as productive as I can be.

29.

I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways to do things.

Disagree

Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

30.

I am proud of the work I do.

1

2

3

4

5

31.

I enjoy the work I do.

1

2

3

4

5

Of No Concern or Interest to Me/Does Not Apply

32.

I have opportunities to plan how my work gets done.

Always

Usually

Sometimes

Seldom

Never

1

2

3

4

5

6

YOUR DEPARTMENT

33.

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

1

2

3

4

5

How would you rate the level of customer service (internal or external) provided by your department?

76

PHYSICAL WORK ENVIRONMENT Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

Very

34.

Satisfied

Satisfied

1

2

How satisfied are you at present with your physical working conditions (heat, noise, light, cleanliness, space, ventilation, etc.)?

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

3

4

5

Very

Very

35.

How would you rate the safety conditions where you work?

Good

Good

Average

Poor

Poor

1

2

3

4

5

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

Very

36.

Satisfied

Satisfied

1

2

How satisfied are you at present with your personal security at your department/location?

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

3

4

5

COMMUNICATIONS Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Agree

37.

1

I have a good understanding of our overall company vision.

77

2

Strongly Disagree

3

4

5

38.

To a Very Great Extent

To a Great Extent

To Some Extent

To a Little Extent

To No Extent

Cannot Assess

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

a. Seeking the opinions and suggestions of employees.

1

2

3

4

5

6

b. Acting on the opinions and suggestions of employees.

1

2

3

4

5

6

To what extent do you feel the DSQ (Delivering Service Quality) has been: a. An effective communications vehicle b. Helping the Resort to move towards achieving the company vision

39.

The Resort does a good job of:

Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Agree

40.

Most employees feel free to voice their opinions openly at the Resort.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Very

41.

Strongly Agree

Cannot Assess/ Does Not Apply

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Cannot Access

Please tell us how satisfied you are with the following: a. The timeliness of communications from your supervisor b.

The accuracy of communications from your

78

supervisor c.

The timeliness of communications from senior management of the Resort

d.

The accuracy of communications from senior management of the Resort

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Agree

42.

43.

There is an easy way to voice my ideas and opinions in the Resort so that they are considered.

Strongly Agree

Cannot Assess/ Does Not Apply

1

2

3

4

5

6

a. The way my pay is determined

1

2

3

4

5

6

b. My benefits

1

2

3

4

5

6

c. Financial performance of the company

1

2

3

4

5

6

d. The way my performance is evaluated.

1

2

3

4

5

6

The Resort does a good job of providing information on:

LEADERSHIP, SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

How satisfied are you with the leadership provided by:

Partly Satisfied/ Partly Dissatisfied

Very

79

Very Dissatisfied

Cannot Assess

Satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

44.

Chairman / CEO

1

2

3

4

5

6

45.

President

1

2

3

4

5

6

46.

Senior Vice Presidents / Vice Presidents

1

2

3

4

5

6

47.

Directors

1

2

3

4

5

6

48.

Your immediate supervisor or manager

1

2

3

4

5

6

Very

Very

49.

Good

Good

Average

Poor

Poor

1

2

3

4

5

Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate manager / supervisor?

To what extent is your immediate supervisor/ manager good at:

To A Very Great Extent

To A Great Extent

To Some Extent

To A Little Extent

Cannot Assess/ Does Not Apply To No Extent

50.

Applying Human Resources policies and procedures fairly.

1

2

3

4

5

6

51.

Helping people solve workrelated conflicts.

1

2

3

4

5

6

52.

Giving you regular feedback on your performance.

1

2

3

4

5

6

54.

Encouraging teamwork.

1

2

3

4

5

6

55.

Keeping you informed about management actions and/or decisions.

1

2

3

4

5

6

To A Very

80

Cannot Assess/ Does

Great Extent

56.

Helping you to “make time” to participate in learning and development activities.

57.

Encouraging internal customer service (for example, to other departments).

58.

Encouraging good customer service to our guests and members.

To A Great Extent

To Some Extent

To A Little Extent

Not Apply To No Extent

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Very

Very

59.

Please rate the kind of job that your immediate supervisor / manager is doing in treating employees with respect and dignity.

Good

Good

Average

Poor

Poor

1

2

3

4

5

81

TEAM WORK Neither Strongly Agree

60.

The people I work with cooperate to get the job done.

61.

Communication between my department and others at the Resort is good.

62.

63.

When disagreements or conflicts occur between different departments at the Resort we work together to resolve them. In my department, we help each other when there are problems.

Agree

Agree Nor Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

82

Strongly

Cannot Assess/ Does Not Apply

PAY, OPPORTUNITY, AND BENEFITS

Very

64.

Very

Good

Good

Average

Poor

Poor

1

2

3

4

5

About the Same

Slightly Lower

Much Lower

3

4

5

How do you rate the amount of pay you get for your job?

Much Higher Higher

65.

In comparison with people in similar jobs in other companies, I feel my pay is:

1

2

Very

66.

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Poor

1

2

3

4

5

How do you rate your total compensation package (salary, benefits)?

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

Very

67.

Satisfied

Satisfied

1

2

How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job at the Resort?

Strongly Agree

Dissatisfied

3

I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills at the Resort.

1

83

4

Neither Agree Nor Agree Agree

68.

Very Dissatisfied

2

5

Strongly Disagree Disagree

3

4

5

Poor

Very Poor

Cannot Assess/ Does Not Apply

3

4

5

6

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

c. Vacation

1

2

3

4

5

6

d. Personal Leave

1

2

3

4

5

6

e. Retirement

1

2

3

4

5

6

f.

1

2

3

4

5

6

g. Life Insurance

1

2

3

4

5

6

h. Long Term Disability

1

2

3

4

5

6

i.

Prescription Drugs

1

2

3

4

5

6

j.

Flexible Spending

1

2

3

4

5

6

Very Good

Good

Fair

1

2

a. Medical

1

b. Dental

69.

How do you rate your total Benefits program?

70.

How do you rate the following benefits:

401 K

84

CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING

Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

1

2

3

Very

71.

How satisfied are you with the training you received for your current job?

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

4

5

Agree

Agree Nor Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Cannot Assess / Does Not Apply

Neither Strongly

The Resort does a good job of:

Strongly Agree

72.

Providing the training I need to do my job well.

1

2

3

4

5

6

73.

Insisting on continuous employee development.

1

2

3

4

5

6

74.

Providing opportunities for personal growth and development (transfers, promotions, etc.).

1

2

3

4

5

6

Neither

Agree

75.

Strongly

Agree Nor Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Disagree

Cannot Assess/ Does Not Apply

Employees at the Resort receive fair consideration for promotion or other career opportunities regardless of: a. Cultural background

1

2

3

4

5

6

b. Gender (Male/Female)

1

2

3

4

5

6

85

76.

The Resort does a good job of clearly defining the skills I need in order to be successful.

1

2

3

4

5

6

QUALITY

Very

Very

77.

Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Poor

1

2

3

4

5

How would you rate the overall quality of work done in your department?

Neither

Agree

78.

79.

80.

Senior Executives show by their actions that quality is a top priority in the Resort.

Strongly

Agree Nor Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

a. Staff

1

2

3

4

5

b. Finances

1

2

3

4

5

c. Equipment

1

2

3

4

5

d. Supplies

1

2

3

4

5

When choices have to be made, my immediate manager/supervisor usually places quality above other business objectives (production, schedules, budgets, etc.) My department has enough of the following to do quality work:

86

Neither Strongly

Agree Nor Disagree

Strongly Agree Agree

Disagree

Disagree

81.

There is close cooperation among departments to achieve quality.

1

2

3

4

5

82.

I have the authority to make decisions that improve the quality of my work.

1

2

3

4

5

83.

Individuals are recognized for their contributions to quality.

1

2

3

4

5

84.

I feel valued as an employee of the Resort.

1

2

3

4

5

Neither

Agree

85.

86.

My department uses feedback from other departments to improve the quality of our work. I have received the training I need to do a quality job.

87

Strongly

Agree Nor Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Disagree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (Optional)

The information which you provide in answering these questions is completely confidential.

If you feel that any of these items are going to be used to identify you, do not answer them.

Responses to these questions will not be included in local management reports.

87.

Are you a. Male b. Female

88. How long have you been employed by the Resort? a. Less than 1 year b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years d. 11-15 years e. 16 or more years f. 20 years+ 89.

I have confidence that the results of this survey will be used constructively by my management. a. Strongly agree b. Agree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Disagree e. Strongly disagree

88

               

APPENDIX C

Rank order of the customer satisfaction statements in the Hotel A and B  

Rank #

Question # Hotel A

1

44

2

39

3

6

4

40

5

22

6

9

7

41

Hotel A Statements Satisfaction with the shooting school The pool cleanliness Always treated with respect The staff being attentive The bell man/butler service Always treated fairly The recreational activities being fun

45

Satisfaction with the transportation services

8

9

21

10

31

11

46

12

28

13

3

14

8

The overall experience at check-in The overall reservation process Satisfaction with the concierge service The overall quality of the course Likelihood to recommend Always count on a fair/sat. resolution

Mean Score Hotel A

Question # Hotel B

5.00

42

4.92

44

4.90

46

4.89

6

4.84

3

4.76

9

4.76

4.76

Mean Score Hotel B 5.00 5.00 4.96 4.95 4.93

17

Always treated fairly Always delivers personalized service

4.89

21

The overall experience at checkin

4.89

4.75

24

4.75

8

4.73

26

4.71

11

4.69

23

4.69

22

90

Hotel B Statements The beach being clean Satisfaction with the shooting school Satisfaction with the concierge service Always treated with respect Likelihood to recommend

The overall experience with housekeeping Always count on a fair/sat. resolution The overall experience at checkout Is a name I can always trust The overall experience with your room or suite The bell man/butler service

4.92

4.89 4.86

4.85 4.83

4.83 4.82

15

12

16

42

17

20

Employees are perfect examples of genuine Southern hospitality The beach being clean The reservation process

43

Satisfaction with the stables or horseback riding

18

4.68

7

Feel proud

4.79

4.68

39

The pool cleanliness

4.78

4.67

1

4.77

4.67

12

Overall satisfaction Employees are perfect examples of genuine Southern hospitality

4.77

4.64

29

11

Overall satisfaction Is a name I can always trust

4.64

31

Is a place where I can always relax and disconnect from day to day problems The caddie being helpful The overall reservation process

17

Always delivers personalized service

4.64

10

Always delivers on promises

23

25

The overall experience with resort facilities

4.62

5

24

5

Perfect for me

4.60

37

25

10

Always delivers on promises

4.60

25

26

7

Feel proud

4.59

28

The overall experience with resort facilities The overall quality of the course

37

The staff being courteous

2

Intent to repurchase/continue to use

4.69

24

The overall experience with housekeeping

18

Employees are great at anticipating my needs

4.68

19

34

20

1

21

22

27

28

The staff being knowledgeable

4.65

16

4.58

4.55

91

Perfect for me The staff being courteous

4.75 4.75 4.75

4.74

4.73 4.73

4.72 4.70

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

26

The overall experience at checkout

4.54

23

The overall experience with your room or suite

4.53

The recreational activities being fun

4.67

4.67

The staff being attentive

4.52

43

18

Employees are great at anticipating my needs

4.51

33

The staff being attentive

4.66

16

Is a place where I can always relax and disconnect from day to day problems

34

The staff being knowledgeable

4.60

13

Is the perfect place to spend quality family time

40

The staff being attentive

4.60

27

The overall golf experience being top class in the world

29 32

38

35

38

Overall, how satisfied were you with the treatment received at the spa

2

Intent to repurchase/continue to use

36

The overall spa experience being top class in the world

41

41

33

36 37

40

4.68

Satisfaction with the stables or horseback riding

The caddie being helpful The food quality Satisfaction with the spa

39

20

The reservation process

4.44

4.39

4.39

27

4.36 4.25

45 32

4.25

35

The overall golf experience being top class in the world Satisfaction with the transportation services The food quality Satisfaction with the spa

15

Is a place where kids can learn values, traditions, and manners

4.25

13

Is the perfect place to spend quality family time

4.14

30

The overall dining experience being top class in the world

4.12

4.22

4.17

4.09

92

4.46

4.40 4.39 4.30

42

15

43

30

44

47

45

14

46

4

47

19

Is a place where kids can learn values, traditions, and manners The overall dining experience being top class in the world Satisfaction with problem handling Is the most unique resort I have ever visited Can't Imagine a world without Is the finest resort in the world

4.07

36

4.02

38

4.00

19

3.73

14

3.60

4

3.56

47

                   

93

The overall spa experience being top class in the world Overall, how satisfied were you with the treatment received at the spa Is the finest resort in the world Is the most unique resort I have ever visited Can't Imagine a world without Satisfaction with problem handling

3.92

3.90 3.87

3.76 3.50 3.40

VITA Graduate School Southern Illinois University Ksenia A. Novikova

Date of Birth: July 11, 1985

820 West Freeman, apt. #319 Carbondale, IL 62901 Voronezh State University Bachelor of Arts in Management, June 2006 Special Honors and Awards: Illinois Park Recreation Association Student Scholarship, January, 2008 Southern Illinois Park and Recreation Association Scholarship, November, 2007 Thesis Title: A Study of Customer Satisfaction Factors and Employee Satisfaction in the Hospitality Industry Major Professor: Dr. Regina Glover

94