The dimensions and impacts of organizati

The Dimensions and Impacts of Organizational Culture on Employee Job Satisfaction and Intent to Remain in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry in Turkey Mustafa Tepeci University of Me

The Dimensions and Impacts of Organizational Culture on Employee Job Satisfaction and Intent to Remain in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry in

Turkey

Mustafa Tepeci

University of Mersin

Received (in revised form): June 2005

Abstract

The purpose of this study was (i) to adapt the hospitality industry culture profile (HICP)—

an instrument to assess organizational culture in hospitality organizations, which is developed in the United States — and determine the dimensions of organizational culture in the hospitality and tourism industry in Turkey and (ii) to investigate the impacts of culture dimensions on employees’ job satisfaction and intent to remain with the organization The data were collected from 174 junior and senior hospitality and tourism management students Factor analysis yielded

a seven-factor organizational culture dimensions, including combined (1) Honesty and People Orientation, (2) Team Orientation, (3) Innovation, (4) Valuing Customers or Service Quality, (5) Employee Development, (6) Results Orientation and (7) Fair Compensation The proposed Attention to Detail factor did not emerge as a dimension The organizational culture dimension

of Team Orientation, Honesty and People Orientation and Employee Development were influential in explaining employee satisfaction and intent to remain The Turkish version of the HICP instrument is psychometrically highly similar to the original English version of the scale, and may be used in different cultures The HICP should be further tested with diverse samples in order to improve its reliability, validity and applicability

Keywords: Organizational Culture, Measurement of Organizational Culture, Hospitality

and Tourism Industry, Employee Satisfaction, Intent to Remain

INTRODUCTION

Organizational culture has long been acknowledged to be an important element of organizations’ success The superior performance of “strong culture” organizations has been ascribed to their use of socialization, reward systems, communication and other techniques to emphasize specific core values that when shared by most employees are thought to perform such crucial functions as forming a collective identity and prescribing acceptable and unacceptable behaviors (Barney, 1986; Kemp & Dwyer, 2001) For instance, Schneider and Bowen (1995) assert that, particularly in service organizations such as hospitality where workers interact on their own with customers, culture should serve as a guide for employees' behavior, and is likely

to be a vital component in the standards of delivery of service to customers

A well-developed corporate culture can be a management tool for increasing service quality and staff productivity (Brown & Harris, 1997) Better performing companies share a set

of cultural values which focus on quality and customers, encourage workplace motivation and teamwork, give employees freedom in meeting customer demands, and embrace innovation and creativity (Siehl, 1992) They consistently provide a higher quality service and products because

of a shared set of cultural values that are clearly articulated throughout their organizations

Surprisingly, very little empirical culture research has been conducted in the hospitality industry (NCS and National Food Service Security Council, 1999; Kemp & Dwyer, 2001; Tidball, 1988; Woods, 1989) despite the fact that organizational culture is more important in service organizations than manufacturing firms (Schneider & Bowen, 1995; Siehl, 1992) Woods (1989) states hospitality organizations have a specific cultural context, including cultural norms, such as long working hours and low pay, and they differ from manufacturing organizations because it is more difficult to control quality and employees in service firms than

in manufacturing

Very limited culture studies were conducted in the hospitality and tourism industry in Turkey, too (Altunay, 1999) There is no reliable and valid quantitative survey tool available to collect data from hospitality industry employees to assess organizational culture Thus, the purpose of this study is twofold First, an instrument to assess organizational culture in hospitality and tourism organizations — the hospitality industry culture profile (HICP) — was adapted and dimensions of culture were determined Then, the instrument was used to measure the role of organizational culture on hospitality and tourism industry employees’ job satisfaction and intent to remain

The following literature review examines definition and conceptualization, outcomes and measurement of organizational culture Then, a review of organizational culture in the hospitality and tourism industry is presented The literature review section concludes with a review of the individual outcomes assessed in this study

LITERATURE REVIEW

Schein (1985) emphasized the importance of organizational culture and explained why organizational culture should enjoy a better understanding: the phenomenon is real and affects individuals, organizations and society To benefit from the organizational culture concept, we must first clearly define and conceptualize it and use it in a theoretically appropriate way

Definition and conceptualization of organizational culture

Organizational culture has been defined in several ways Denison (1996:624) describes culture as “the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs, and assumptions held by organizational members.” Culture is a variable endogenous to the organization, guiding the thinking and behavioral styles of members and mediating the way in which the organization responds to environmental stimuli and change (Peters & Waterman, 1982) In short, culture is an organizing concept that encompasses how work is done and how people are selected, developed, managed, and rewarded That is, it is the critical link between strategy and results (Flannery, Hofrichter, & Platten, 1996)

Despite increased research interest and industry discussion about the importance of organizational culture, there is a lack of consensus on exactly what the term means Considerable agreement and overlap do exist, however, regarding the key elements and dimensions of organizational culture, including those of shared meanings, norms, central values and beliefs Rousseau (1990) provided a valuable description of the common elements of culture, ranked

from easily assessable to difficult to assess: artifacts, patterns of behavior, behavioral norms, values and beliefs, and fundamental assumptions

Values and beliefs constitute the primary elements in organizational researchers’ various conceptualizations of culture (Chatman, 1989, 1991; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Schein, 1985, 1996; Vandenberghe, 1999) In this study, organizational culture is defined as the values members of an organization share Many researchers prefer this definition because these commonalities are relatively stable and enduring beliefs that interact with a company’s people and organizational structure to produce patterns of behavior (Chatman, 1991)

Every organization has a set of cultural values, beliefs and assumptions that reflect what the organization is all about According to Schneider and Bowen (1995) the meaning of organizational culture is in terms of intangibles: “The intangibles that bring people to share a common vision of the organization and its goals, that ensure the seamlessness of process that equates to service excellence, and that tie the various functions of organizations together in common purpose” (p.238) For example, service firms differ from manufacturing organizations because it is more difficult to control quality and employees in service firms than in manufacturing (Peters & Waterman, 1982)

Outcomes of organizational culture

Since the early 1980s, several organizational researchers assert that organizational culture profoundly impacts organizational performance (Barney, 1986; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Saffold, 1988) Barney (1986) examined the relationship between organizational culture and sustained superior financial performance A firm's culture can be the source of sustained superior financial performance when three conditions are met First, the organization's culture must be valuable: the culture of the organization should improve the efficiency or effectiveness of the company Second, the culture must be rare: its characteristics and attributes are not common to all competitors Third, it must

be difficult to imitate: the culture of an organization is a source of competitive advantage when it

is not easily copied by competitors The author concludes that under such a relatively narrow set

of conditions (i.e valuable, rare, and difficult to imitate) a firm's culture can hold promise for better financial performance

Kotter and Heskett (1992) assert that organizational cultures can have powerful consequences when they are strong According to the authors an organizational culture is strong when almost all of the members share a set of relatively consistent values and methods of doing business How a strong culture affects performance can be explained in three ways The first way is through goal alignment In a firm with a strong culture, employees tend to behave the same way as other organizational members Second, cultures can increase motivation in employees Shared values and behaviors make people feel good about working for a firm Third, strong cultures can increase performance because they provide structure and control systems without relying on an authoritative management style that can lessen motivation and creativity

Saffold (1988) asserts that the strong culture concept offers a powerful and comprehensive explanation for organizational performance; however, a more sophisticated understanding of the link between culture and performance must be developed It is hard to define or operationalize the meaning of culture strength; strong cultures have been defined in several ways such as coherent, homogenous, fully articulated and highly differentiated, stable and more intense, and thick and widely shared Culture implicitly shapes behavior and help newcomers to socialize

Shared beliefs and meanings and language increase communication among members; thus, culture enables members to work harmoniously and effectively for a common purpose

Culture may have an effect on nonfinancial aspects of performance, such as morale, commitment, and job satisfaction; it may affect financial performance through such variables as productivity and turnover (Siehl & Martin, 1990) Since it is “unwise and misleading to justify studying culture in terms of its links to financial performance” (Siehl & Martin, 1990:242) culture researchers can study employees’ attitudes and behaviors as dependent variables For example, Sheridan (1992) investigated the relationship between organizational culture and the retention rates of employees hired in six public accounting firms Firms that emphasize the interpersonal relationship values were more successful in retaining employees than those firms that emphasize the work task values

Kuşluvan and Karamustafa (2003) summarize the literature on the impacts of organizational culture on employee attitudes and behaviors from both general management and hospitality and tourism research Organizational culture was found to be positively related to such employee attitudes and behaviors as job satisfaction, commitment, empowerment, job involvement, creativity, participation and motivation, and negatively related to stress, job tensions and intent to turnover In the reviewed literature, it was assumed that either organizational culture influences human resource management (HRM) practices or influenced by HRM practices which in turn affect employee attitudes and behaviors and organizational performance Yet, there are some empirical studies cited in Kuşluvan and Karamustafa (2003:471) could not find a relationship between organizational culture and performance

Measurement of organizational culture

The measurement instruments vary according to what elements of culture one assesses Instruments developed to assess work values (culture) include (1) the Survey of Work Values (SWV, Wollack, Goodale, Wijting, & Smith, 1971), (2) the Meaning and Value of Work Scale (MVW, Kazanas, 1978), (3) the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP, O’Reilly et al., 1991), (4) the Comparative Emphasis Scale (CES, Meglino, Ravlin & Adkins, 1989) and (5) the Organizational Values Congruence Scale (OVCS, Enz, 1986)

The OCP has been refined and tested in a range of occupational groups including health care professionals (Vandenberghe, 1999), accountants (Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly et al., 1991), government employees (O’Reilly et al., 1991), and campus recruiters and MBA students (Cable

& Judge, 1997; O’Reilly et al., 1991) It has been validated for its construct validity—stable factor dimensions across samples (Chatman, 1991; Chatman & Jehn, 1994; Vandenberghe, 1999) and for its criterion-related validity—predictive power of employee satisfaction, commitment, intent to stay and turnover (Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Sheridan, 1992) The OCP appears to measure well-grounded constructs (cultural dimensions) that are generalizable or generic across organizational settings better than the other value instruments do

It measures detailed perceptions of the work force on a wide range of elements including innovation, stability, respect for people, outcome orientation, attention to detail, team orientation, and aggressiveness (see Tepeci, 2001 for detailed descriptions of the value instruments).

Tepeci (2001) developed an instrument to assess work values in the hospitality industry based on the OCP The OCP comprises 54 items Tepeci conducted three sets of pilot studies to further reduce the number of items in the questionnaire but to include (1) employee development, (2) fair compensation, (3) valuing customers and (4) honesty and ethics culture dimensions so that front-line employees working in the hospitality industry report their organizational values correctly with less effort and time The final Hospitality Industry Culture

Profile (HICP) instrument includes 36 value items to measure 9 organizational culture value dimensions Adaptation of the HICP instrument section will further detail the instrument

Organizational culture in the hospitality and tourism industry

Gordon (1991) proposed that organizations are founded on industry-based assumptions, and that corporate culture is influenced by the characteristics of the industry in which the company operates If a company's industry-driven assumptions and values are not shared by the organizational members, many of its actions may conflict with the basic requirements of the market it serves, which may hinder the company's survival For example, service organizations have placed emphasis on quality, service, and customer satisfaction as a way of gaining a competitive edge

When we look at successful service and hospitality organizations, such as Disney, Ritz Carlton, and Marriott we notice that they share a set of cultural values that focuses on quality and customers, encourages workplace motivation and teamwork, gives employees freedom in meeting customer demands, embraces innovation and creativity, and requires attention to details

in doing a job (Chung and Schneider, 2003; Miller, 1992; Siehl, 1992)

Woods (1989) investigated five restaurant firms and the culture of the “dinner-house segment” of the restaurant industry He found that a distinct culture exists in this segment of the restaurant industry The organizational values of the “dinner-house segment” of the restaurant industry identified by Woods are (1) employees make a difference in the success or failure of the company, (2) people oriented personality profile fits the industry, (3) the industry requires hard work, (4) burnout is a big problem, (5) teamwork is essential and fun is important, (6) successful employees have energy and a clear sense of direction, (7) training is important for high quality service and (8) managers rise through the industry ranks

A study conducted by NCS and National Food Service Security Council (1999) with 1,400 employees from 11 different fast-food restaurants found eight favorable characteristics of restaurant culture: (1) fairness with employees, (2) caring and empathy (3) employee empowerment, (4) career-development opportunities, (5) equitable pay and benefits, (6) fit between person and job, (7) ethics and honesty, and (8) safe working conditions The study also reports that theft is epidemic in the restaurant industry but companies that establish and communicate positive cultural values can experience a significant reduction in counterproductive behavior and employee theft

Altunay (1999) investigated organizational culture in a five star hotel located in Antalya, Turkey Altunay found that employees reported high levels of communication, cooperation, teamwork and fair management practices But, the employees perceived unfavorable characteristics of the organizational culture as the low levels of participation to decision makings, the lack of socialization programs, the low levels of rewards and the lack of programs for adaptation to the changes

Kyriakidou and Gore (2005) investigated whether best performer small to medium-sized hospitality and tourism enterprises in the UK shared certain cultural values The researchers found that successful hospitality and tourism firms are characterized by an organizational culture that encourages the collaborative setting of missions and strategies, builds the future together linking tightly company and individual development, develops a learning environment and practices teamwork in the workplace

Although Woods (1989) found that restaurant firms encourage promotion from within, many employees view restaurant jobs as temporary because they enter believing the industry offers limited career development and promotional opportunities (Deery & Shaw, 1999) In

addition, the job requires long working hours, weekend work, physically demanding jobs and constant customer contact with often dissatisfied customers Organizational culture can be an important competitive tool to deal with these challenges in hospitality and tourism organizations For instance, Christensen (1988) noted that the cultural values of an organization such as valuing guest service and striving for innovation powerfully influenced employee attitudes and, in return, organizational success and growth Woods (1996) also suggested that culture influences such intangible performance variables as socialization of new employees, employee loyalty to the company, and employees’ positive emotional attachment to the organization Tidball (1988) found that congruence of employee and organizational values increased employee commitment and explained 31 % of the variance on profitability Kemp and Dwyer (2001) investigated organizational culture and its influences on employees of the Regent Hotel, Sydney Such cultural values of guest and employee centered work environment, effective employee relationships, teamwork, and clear promotion and career plans increased creativity, coordination, better problem solving, learning and employee commitment and performance

Individual outcomes

This study uses employee job satisfaction and intent to remain with the organization as outcome measures Job satisfaction is described as an evaluative judgment about one's job that partly results from emotional experiences at work and one's belief structures (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996:2) Job satisfaction is one of the most important areas of study in organizational studies because of the perceived potential economic benefits to employers and associated morale factors for employees Recent studies showed that increased job satisfaction improved organizational performance (George & Brief, 1992; Wright & Staw, 1999) In addition, it is very crucial for service organizations to render quality service to customers, thus resulting in customer satisfaction (Heskett et al., 1994)

Because previous studies showed that turnover affects organization’ bottom line, companies should find ways to positively affect those factors that contribute to lower levels of turnover Assessing actual turnover rates may be more meaningful; however, this requires a longitudinal study Because intent to remain has been previously found to predict actual turnover (O’Reilly et al., 1991), this study assesses individuals’ perceptions of turnover behavior Thus, sometimes the assessment of individuals’ intentions rather than actual behavior may be more meaningful For example, some people may have to stay in an organization for an extended time because the availability of other jobs is limited

Adaptation of the Hospitality Industry Culture Profile (HICP)

This research investigated Turkish version of the HICP Because of the global nature of the hospitality industry (e.g., emphasis on service quality and intensive customer-employee contact),

it is expected that the adapted version of the HICP would assess cultural values in the hospitality and tourism industry in Turkey The instrument first translated into Turkish by a two-person team The objective of this team was to produce translated items that were as free from idiomatic

or dialectical influence as possible Translations were then checked by a-three person team for accuracy as suggested by Hambleton and Bollwark (1991) Back-translation did not occur in a formal fashion

Two research assistants and three assistant professor involved in the translation process Three assistant professor completed their graduate studies (in hospitality management) in the US and have extensive hospitality industry work experience both in the US and in Turkey Research

assistants had good command of English and have extensive hospitality industry work experience in Turkey In the event of discrepancy, the team of translators consulted with one another and chose an alternative wording for the Turkish item that was mutually acceptable During the translation process, attention was paid to use proper Turkish terms so that entry-level hospitality industry employees understand the items in a same way Instructions to participants and format of the survey instrument were also checked by the translation teams

The instrument was reviewed by a small group of 10 hospitality management students to get feedback regarding the readability and clarity of the survey items The students were asked the meanings of each items in the instrument, and they were allowed to explain what they understood The researcher explained what was aimed to measure with each item in the survey Then, small adjustments were made, mostly further explanations, in some of the items together with the students It was made sure that everybody understands the items in the same way

The HICP comprised nine factors with four items to assess each, for a total of 36 value items The organizational culture factors are (1) innovation, (2) results orientation, (3) attention

to detail, (4) team orientation, (5) people orientation, (6) valuing ethics and honesty, (7) Valuing customers or service quality, (8) employee development, and (9) fair compensation The

instrument used a simple rating method with Likert-type scales in which respondents were

simply asked to report how well the value items described their organizations Scales were anchored from “very uncharacteristic” (1) to “very characteristic” (7)

SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION

The data for this study were collected from 174 junior and senior hospitality and tourism management students in the School of Tourism and Hotel Management, at a south-eastern University in Turkey Almost all the students were single (98.9%) and in the ages of 21 to 24 (mean 22.7) Seventy-two percent of the respondents were male; twenty-eight percent of them were female Everyone in the sample had hospitality and tourism industry work experience as a requirement of the major Eighty percent of the students worked in hotels or holiday villages and most of them employed in front desk and food and beverage departments Eleven percent of the students worked in travel agents On average, students worked about 4 years in the hospitality and tourism industry and 1 year with their current (or latest) employers The questionnaire was distributed and collected in class which took about 10 to 15 minutes of the students’ time Participants were asked to fill out the survey for their current job or for the latest job they had Participation was voluntary, and students received course extra-credit

Measures

Dependent variables

This study examines two dependent variables: employee job satisfaction and intent to remain with the organization

Job satisfaction- Job satisfaction was measured using a three-item global satisfaction scale

adapted from Tepeci and Bartlett (2002) An example is “In general, I like working here.” This instrument was translated into Turkish and used by Tepeci and Birdir (2003) In Tepeci and Birdir study the internal consistency of the scale was 7439 Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the three statements by using a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 3=neutral and 5= strongly agree) Alphas were calculated with individual items in each scale deleted Cronbach’s alpha for 3-item overall job satisfaction was 6409 Elimination of the

“In general, I do not like working here” item from the overall satisfaction scale increased the scale reliability to 6978 Overall job satisfaction was calculated as a two-item scale

Intent to remain- Three items intent-to-remain with the organization scale was adapted

from Tepeci and Bartlett (2002) This instrument was translated into Turkish by the researcher Translations were then checked by a research assistant for accuracy The discrepancies were eliminated when mutually accepted wording found An example is “I intend to remain with this organization.” Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the three statements by using a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 3=neutral, 5= strongly agree) Reliability calculations with items deleted again justified elimination of one item from the intent

to remain scale, increasing the scale reliability from 7684 to 8031 The responses to the two items were averaged to obtain a measure of intent to remain with the organization

Independent variables

Dimensions of organizational culture will be determined by factor analysis of the 36-value-items hypothesized to measure 9 factors Then these factors will be used in the regression analysis as independent variables to predict employee job satisfaction and intent to remain with the organization

Other variables

Demographic and organizational variables included gender, age, marital status, industry and organizational tenure, number of hours worked per week, industry segment, department employed, and durations of the operations (seasonal versus year-round open)

RESULTS

Factor analysis

Principal components analysis, with Varimax rotation, was used to assess how the 36 value items were grouped for the organizational culture (factor) dimensions Because 9 of the items were either cross loaded or had low scores (<.40) in the first factor analysis (see these items below Table 1), they were excluded in the second factor analysis to clearly identify the factor structure of organizational culture In the second run, the Keiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of overall sampling adequacy was 0.890, which supported factor analysis of the data (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998) From a scree test, the analysis yielded seven distinct factors with eigenvalues greater than one, and the solution accounted for 71.91% of the total variance among the data

Table 1 presents the item loadings in each factor along with their respective eigenvalue, percent of variance explained and reliability scores Twenty-seven of the 36 value items loaded above 50 on a single factor The proposed Honesty and People Orientation factors combined in the analysis Team Orientation, Innovation, Valuing Customers or Service Quality emerged as predicted with four items each The Employee Development and Results Orientation factors emerged with three items each, and Fair Compensation factor with two items Attention to Detail factor did not emerge; none of the four Attention to Detail items loaded on any other factor With the use of HICP, Attention to Detail factor emerged in three different hospitality industry samples in the United States (Tepeci, 2001; Tepeci, 2002; Tepeci and Bartlett, 2002) Possible reasons include hospitality industry managers promote paying attention to detail in service and

hospitality employees in the US or hospitality industry employees in the US are more trained than their Turkish counterparts in regard to paying attention to every detail in customer service

Table 1 Organizational culture dimensions in the hospitality and tourism industry

loadings value variance alpha

Factor 1: Honesty and People Orientation 10,72 39,717 .8925

5 Respect for individual’s rights .638

33 Working in collaboration with others .843

17 Cooperating with coworkers .792

31 Team atmosphere .709

21 A willingness to experiment 822

28 Creativity .637

Factor 4: Valuing Customers or Service Quality 1,678 6,215 .8598

12 Giving customers what they expect .773

32 Relationship with customers .653

7 Emphasis on service quality 634

23 Advancement opportunities 867

36 Promotion from within .865

30 Personal / career development .678

27 Focus on getting the job done .781

Total variance explained (71.91)

Notes: Principal Component Analysis Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy= 890

Varimax with Kaiser Normalization Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: p=.000 (Chi- Square 3083,76 df=351)

Low loaded items (<.40) Cross-loaded items

3.Training is important 13 Achievement orientation

6 Detail oriented 14 Paying attention to detail

8 Good financial rewards 20 Hard work

22 Accuracy 34 High pay for good performance

35.Empathy for employees

As Table 1 shows, the Honesty and People Orientation factor comprised seven items and explained 39,72% of the variation in the data Team Orientation factor comprised four items and explained 8,07% of the variance Innovation and Valuing Customers factors each emerged with the proposed four items and explained 6,71% and 6,22% of the variance among the data respectively Employee Development and Results Orientation factors comprised three items each and explained 5,02% and 4,05% of the variation in the data respectively Fair Compensation comprised two items and explained 4,22% of the variance

Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) for culture dimensions were generally high (.7915 to 9294), indicating respondents answered these items consistently Alphas were also calculated with each individual item in a scale deleted Elimination of the items did not increase the scale reliability of factors so all items were maintained to form a summated (composite) scale A composite scale represents the multiple aspects of a concept in a single measure and decreases measurement error inherent in all measured variables (Hair et al., 1998:116-117)

The means of organizational culture dimensions

Analysis of the organizational culture factor means provides interesting insights As can be seen from Table 2 and t-tests, five of the seven culture dimensions were significantly different from the neutral point (over 4, 7-point scale; p<.01), indicating these cultural dimensions were characteristics of the hospitality and tourism organizations The organizational culture factor perceived to exist at the highest level was Valuing Customers or Service Quality (x=5.53), and the second highest level was Results Orientation (x=5,34), which would be expected in service businesses Team Orientation (x=4,62), Honesty and People Orientation (x=4,41), and Innovation (x=4,34) factors have lower mean scores than the other two, but they are paramount

in explaining variance in the culture, more or less defining what the culture is about Employee Development and Fair Compensation factors were not significantly different from the neutral point (p>.05), indicating the respondents were neutral for these organizational culture factors

Table 2 Differences of organizational culture factor scores from the mean value of Four

deviation

t-value p-value Valuing Customers/Service Quality 5,53 1,16 17,41 ,000

Honesty and People Orientation 4,41 1,36 3,99 ,000

7-point scales (1=Strongly disagree, 4= neutral, 7=strongly agree)

Apparently, employees perceive that customer service and getting the job done takes precedence over their needs and wants in the hospitality and tourism industry Tepeci (2001; 2002) and Tepeci and Bartlett (2002) found very similar results in their studies with hospitality industry employees in the US Valuing Customers and Results Orientation factors were perceived higher levels as characteristics of organizational culture than other culture factors as are in the current study Employee Development and Fair Compensation factors were slightly