66
● ● ●
Organizational culture in the casual dining restaurant industry
67 ● ● ● ●
behavioral, cognitive, and an emotional process” (p. 111).
Organizational culture is defined by Davidson (2003) as “the shared beliefs and values that are passed on to all within the organization” (p. 206). Employee perspective with regard to the organization has been shown to have positive effects on the success of the organization. Having employees with the right attitude will enhance the probability for success in any company in any industry (Davidson). Firms with a strong sense of customer orientation have also shown greater levels of customer satisfaction (Schneider & Bowen, 1993).
Due to its labor-intensive nature and the high level of interaction between customers and employees, the hospital- ity industry has a greater likelihood of being impacted by its employees’ actions than other industries (Davidson, 2003).
Therefore, developing an appropriate organizational culture should be a critical component in the success of a restaurant.
In 2002, Ogbonna and Harris investigated organizational culture in an international five star hotel, a national four- star hotel, and two national restaurants and wine bars in the United Kingdom. This study, conducted between 1999 and 2000, observed the organizations’ cultures and the effects of forced changes in culture on the organization. The research- ers wanted to see if an organizational change in culture could be used as a management tool to enhance operations. One of the implications of this study related to turnover in the hospi- tality industry. The study questioned how high levels of turn- over affected the overall organizational culture. After a year of research, primarily through interviews with employees and management, the researchers concluded that indoctrination with a specific culture would have a positive impact on the organization. However, the employees that turn over quickly, which are common in this industry, never acclimated to the culture (Ogbonna & Harris, 2002).
Another study by Michael Davidson (2003) examined the linkage between organizational climate and service quality in the hotel industry. Results showed a high correlation between organizational climate and performance. Davidson states, “The culture and climate shape not only employee actions but also their commitment to a service ethic. It is this commitment to service that is of paramount importance if customer satisfaction is to be achieved” (p. 211). The model he postulates discusses organizational culture as the glue between organizational cli- mate, HR practices, and service quality (Davidson, 2003).
Research has helped in the development of empirically tested typologies that would assist in defining different types of organizational cultures that exist. The Competing Values
68
● ● ●
Framework adapted by Cameron and Quinn (1999), shows a complete evaluation of different culture types. There are four culture types which exist in this typology, including: (a) Clan Culture Type, (b) Adhocracy Culture Type, (c) Market Culture Type, and (d) Hierarchy Culture Type. These culture types are defined as follows, appearing alphabetically:
Adhocracy culture type
This culture breeds a sense of entrepreneurship. The work- place has a sense of urgency in a highly dynamic environment, where creativity is at the forefront (Cameron & Quinn, 1999;
Creque, 2003). Such an organizational culture exists in many advertising firms, high-tech software companies, and certain sectors of academia.
Clan culture type
Clan type culture can be defined simply as a “family-type organization” (Cameron & Quinn, 1999, p. 36). This type of cul- ture incorporates a sense of “we” in the organization instead of
“I.” Clan culture has a high level of autonomy, which is indica- tive of an organic type of organization. The development of a humane work environment and an environment of loyalty, commitment, and participation is paramount in this type of culture. Examples of such an organization abound in the hos- pitality industry where so-called Mom and Pop operations still flourish, although decreasingly so.
Hierarchy culture type
This culture type dates back to the work of Max Weber during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The characteristics of the hierarchal organization include a very distinct authoritarian structure. It is a culture high on rules and regulations, distinct lines of communication and accountability. Maintaining tight control and smooth operations are important in this type of culture. The rules and policies are believed to hold the organi- zation together and increase levels of efficiency and effec- tiveness (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Creque, 2003). Arguably, all corporations are pyramid-shaped, hierarchical, and even autocratic structures. The larger they are, the more tyrannical their systems become, where the majority of people essentially mimic what is said and done above them in the organizational hierarchy (Alexakis, Platt, & Tesone, 2006).
Organizational culture in the casual dining restaurant industry
69 ● ● ● ●
Market culture type
The word market concerns itself with the external market envi- ronment. This type of culture orientation is goal focused, geared towards market superiority, and highly competitive in nature (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Creque, 2003). Microsoft Corporation is an extreme example of a market culture type. The people who run the company are highly class conscious who see them- selves engaged in some kind of bitter class struggle reminiscent of several crude Marxists yesteryear (Couey & Karliner, 1998).
Clan focus
After reviewing the literature, it would seem that a clan cul- ture type would be most representative of what the restaurant industry would want to accomplish. The level of cohesive- ness, teamwork, fun and high levels of energy are attributes that draw a “fit” to what restaurants are trying to accomplish from a culture standpoint (Berta, 2002). The ability to build loyalty among customers and build bonded relationships in order to grow business is essential to future success (Bowen &
Shoemaker, 2003). Cameron and Quinn (1999) state that the clan culture type emphasizes the building of customer “part- nerships.” Most restaurants would seek to establish those types of relationships with customers in order to promote loy- alty. Figure 4.1 depicts these culture types and illustrates the relationships that exist.
Figure 4.1 was adapted from Cameron and Freeman (1991);
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983); Deshpande, Farley, and Webster (1993); Denison and Spreitzer (1991); Cameron and Quinn (1999); Obenchain (2002); Creque (2003).
Service quality
Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1992) break service into three catego- ries: (a) physical qualities (visible components), (b) interactive service (actual performance of the service), and (c) corporate quality (image). The intangible nature of the construct of ser- vice quality makes it difficult to properly measure and ana- lyze (Oh & Parks, 1997; Parasuraman, Zeithalm, & Berry, 1985;
Seidman, 2001). The leading researchers in service quality and those primarily responsible for creating the first instru- ment to measure this construct are Parasuraman, Zeithalm, et al. (1985, 1988), (Parasuraman, Berry, et al. 1991a, 1991b). In 1985, Parasuraman et al. identified ten measurable dimensions
70
● ● ●
of service quality. Further research (Parasuraman et al., 1988) identified levels of overlap among some of the dimensions identified earlier in 1985. They therefore merged the ten dimensions into five: (a) tangibles: facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel; (b) reliability: ability to perform the promised service; (c) responsiveness: willingness to provide the service promptly; (d) assurance: knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence;
(e) empathy: caring, individualized attention the firm pro- vides its customers (Parasuraman et al., 1988). The instrument developed to measure this construct was called SERVQUAL.
The SERVQUAL model analyzes the level of service quality by evaluating the gaps between customers’ expectations and perceptions of service. The smaller the gaps, the higher the level of service quality (Kivela, Inbakaran, & Reece, 1999).
SERVQUAL has been validated and tested in a variety of Figure 4.1
A model of organizational culture types
ORGANIC PROCESSES (flexibility, spontaneity)
HUMAN RELATIONS MODEL OPEN SYSTEMS MODEL Type: CLAN
DOMINANT ATTRIBUTES Cohesiveness, participation, teamwork, sense of family BONDING: Loyalty, tradition interpersonal cohesion
STRATEGIC EMPHASES: Toward developing human resources, commitment, moral
Type: ADHOCRACY DOMINANT ATTRIBUTES Entrepreneurship, creativity, adaptability
BONDING: Entrepreneurship, risk flexibility STRATEGIC EMPHASES: Toward innovation, growth, new
resources
INTERNAL MAINTENANCE (smoothing activities, integration)
INTERNAL POSITIONING (competition, differentiation) TYPE: HIERARCHY
DOMINANT ATTRIBUTES Order, rules & regulations, uniformity
BONDING: Rules, policies, and procedures
STRATEGIC EMPHASES: Toward stability, predictability, smooth operations
TYPE: MARKET
DOMINANT ATTRIBUTES Competitiveness, goal achievement
BONDING: Goal orientation production, competition
STRATEGIC EMPHASES: Toward competitive advantage and
market superiority
INTERNAL PROCESS MODEL RATIONAL GOAL MODEL MECHANISTIC PROCESSES (control, order, stability)
Organizational culture in the casual dining restaurant industry
71 ● ● ● ●
industries including banks, credit card companies, repairs and maintenance firms and long distance telephone compa- nies (Parasuraman, Zeithalm, et al., 1988; Parasuraman, Berry, et al., 1991a, 1991b). Babakus and Mangold studied hospital ser- vices in 1991 and research in hospitality using this instrument has been conducted by Saleh and Ryan (1991), Bojanic and Rosen (1994), Seidman (2001). Although altered by subsequent researchers, the SERVQUAL instrument has maintained the fundamental five dimensions and has had high levels reliabil- ity and validity throughout all tests (Seidman, 2001).
In 1990, Knutson, Stevens, Wullaert, Patton, and Yokoyama, modified Parasuraman et al.’s (1988) original instrument to cre- ate a more appropriate measure for the hotel industry. With a factor analysis of the original 36-item scale of SERVQUAL, 10 of the 36 items did not add to the measurement and were dropped (Knutson et al., 1990). The new 26-item scale measuring lodg- ing service quality was called LODGSERV, and again utilized the core five dimensions used by SERVQUAL. Measuring this new instrument across the five dimensions showed that, as in the original instrument, SERVQUAL, the reliability factor was the highest ranking of all. The remaining factors were ranked in the following descending order of relative importance to lodging guests: assurance, responsiveness, tangibles, and empa- thy (Stevens et al., 1995). LODGSERV was tested both domesti- cally and internationally and proved reliable across cultures.
In 1995, three of the same researchers that developed LODGSERV, Stevens, Knutson, and Patton, developed DINESERV, originally a 40-item scale used to measure what should happen during a restaurant dining experience. After factor analysis of the 40 items, a final 29-item scale was devel- oped. DINESERV was tested in a multitude of different types of restaurants, including both quick service and full service res- taurants. The new instrument proved valid, and again results concurred with the dimensionality findings of SERVQUAL. As with LODGSERV, the reliability dimension ranked the high- est in importance to guests dining at restaurants. The remain- ing rankings of dimensions varied from LODGSERV, with tangibles ranking the next most important. The remaining dimensions ranked as follows: assurance, responsiveness, and empathy (Stevens et al., 1995).
Behavioral intentions
Consumers who are dissatisfied with a service experience may take a variety of different actions. They can voice their opinion
72
● ● ●
to management, they can say nothing and just not return to that organization, or they can continue patronizing the organi- zation and not say anything (Susskind, 2002). In an early study of customer retention, Rosenberg and Czepiel (1983) stated that organizations spend a lot of time and money in finding new customers. However, once the organization has the cus- tomers, it does not do enough to keep them. Bill Marriott of Marriott Hotels has been quoted as saying that it costs the Marriott company an average of ten marketing dollars to attract a new customer, and just one dollar in “special efforts”
to get them to return to the hotel (Stevens et al., 1995).
The study of behavioral patterns and responses can be traced to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) who state that behavior can be predicted from intentions that correspond to a cer- tain behavior (Baker & Crompton, 2000). Research demon- strated that a dissatisfied customer could tell an average of 10–20 other people (Brown & Reingen, 1987; Shaw-Ching Liu, Furrer, & Sudharshan, 2001; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaren, 1996). Other studies report that people discuss both positive and negative experiences (Susskind, 2002). Ultimately, it has been found that the economic impact of customer retention is incredibly significant from a profitability position. The defin- ing study was conducted by Reichheld and Sasser (1990) who showed that a 5% increase in customer retention equated to a net present value increase of 25–125% in profitability (Bowen &
Chen, 2001; Reicheld & Sasser, 1990; Shaw-Ching Liu et al., 2001). From a restaurateur’s perspective, if the organization is to increase its guest return rate from 76% to 81%, profits would more than likely double (Stevens et al., 1995).
In 1996, Zeithalm et al. showed that behavioral intentions are intervening variables between service quality and financial gain or loss of an organization. This study postulated that a posi- tive level of service quality would create favorable behavioral intentions. This behavior increases the probability that custom- ers’ relationship to the organization will be strengthened and return patronage will occur. Conversely, low levels of service quality will create unfavorable behavioral intentions, which in turn will decrease relationships with organizations and could cause patrons to not return to the business (Alexandris, Dimitriadis, & Markata, 2002; Zeithalm et al., 1996).
Zeithalm et al. (1996) developed the Behavioral Intentions Battery, to help measure customer’s intentions to defect or return. The final framework included the following five- dimension model (Bloemer, deRuyter, & Wetzels et al., 1999).
The dimensions were as follows: (1) loyalty to company, (2) propensity to switch, (3) willingness to pay more, (4) external
Organizational culture in the casual dining restaurant industry
73 ● ● ● ●
response to a problem, and (5) internal response to a prob- lem (Alexandris et al., 2002; Bloemer et al., 1999; Zeithalm and Bitner, 2000). Subsequent research found some variation to Zeithalmet al.’s original dimensions (Bloemer et al., 1999). The Bloemeret al. study found that there were different dimensions that were important in predicting behavior including, repur- chase intentions, word-of-mouth communication, price sensi- tivity and complaining behavior (Shaw-Ching Liu et al., 2001).
The relationships between service quality and behavioral intentions were also found to differ across a variety of indus- tries (Alexandris et al., 2002; Athanassopoulos, Gounaris, &
Stathakopoulos, 2001; Shaw-Ching Liu et al., 2001). The researchers found varied levels of importance with regard to the intentions dimensions across industries. For example, in the entertainment industry, behavioral intentions were highly weighted by responsiveness and tangibles, whereas in the food industry, it was assurance and empathy (Alexandris et al., 2002). The Alexandris et al. study of the hotel sector in north- ern Greece found that the tangible factors of service quality did not affect the intention factors. Other research has also shown that the tangibles were not significant in determining behav- ioral intentions in some industries (Zeithalm & Bitner, 2000;
Alexandriset al., 2002). One reason posited by Alexandris et al.
for this effect is that in the hospitality industry today tangible factors have become a prerequisite, and have become expected by customers (Alexandris et al., 2002).
Although some variations of the dimensions have been found across studies, the overall reliability and validity of Zeithalm et al.’s (1996) model is clearly indicated. The theo- retical model has been supported in all studies conducted since 1996 with its inception (Bloemer et al., 1999; Baker &
Crompton, 2000; Zeithalm & Bitner, 2000; Athanassopoulos et al., 2001; Shaw-Ching Liu et al., 2001; Alexandris et al., 2002).