.lx ...
a 3......
. it

1.
.89... .1... .
5.3.5.}...
33-1}!
......3 ....

.

I
s
:4.
.
.Itzvam.
1 .3...
8

..

i. .

353...: i

.7. ....v
I.

... .10.... ...)
.9512... ..
{.11 3 ¢

V ,
..m,
1

.1 .
.5 Am. «2.
.
‘

:2.

...... ...
3.7..“ .w
3 , .
.I]..J§4.....
.\ ad.
2.3.33.9!
Ari-.11....

7— ‘u‘. u 4 ..J '
#1:. right»: ..
”I I

:1
. '32..
:51.
2%.... {It}.
\ 2?!
r {3

.....n.

um”...¥.m..
. I a . .
13.3.31...
. III
.
. 513.35....
51.1.7. 7.
...‘Ju

. 1 ,
1. ti). 1:
....an ......Mv..n t.w.~....d«..§u
3...... . s finiflhr
. .

III «(a
It". .5

:7.)
.21.... ...... .
.... ... 55%
.
..l
... siftiza

\
.53... fi
”m P 3. firing“
. n p . I.
a... :46}? o... ...

. :12.
l .23.... . .
. . \X... .

s 1.1!),
4. 4.19)}.-
9... .

3...).

. Akagwnwi

 

{p.295
.... .. 15‘. .

                                                                                                                      

 

 

LIBRARY 302106 1720

Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Training in the Michigan Lodging Industry:
Role of the Human Capital and Segmented
Labor Market Theories

presented by

Patricia Louise (Click) Janes

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

__EhD__ degree in Nation

and Tourism Resources

I

Major p fessor

Date 5/4/2000

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

_ ... —____- h“
h +~ v ’—

.. v v-—m

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
fig? 3,115 0200i
r I 9.5 W a Lg I;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 mus-p.14

TRAINING IN THE MICHIGAN LODGING INDUSTRY: ROLE OF THE
HUMAN CAPITAL AND SEGMENTED LABOR MARKET THEORIES

By

Patricia Louise (Click) Janes

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

2000

ABSTRACT
TRAINING IN THE MICHIGAN LODGING INDUSTRY: ROLE OF THE
HUMAN CAPITAL AND SEGMENTED LABOR MARKET THEORIES
BY

Patricia Louise (Click) Janes

Labor challenges confront the lodging industry today. Finding people to
work in a seasonal, demanding, and high-turnover industry is especially difficult
with the current low unemployment rate. Training has been identified as a
means to improve labor issues. The purpose of this study was to understand
whether the human capital theory (HCT) or the segmented labor market theory
(SLMT) best represented the training practices and views held by Michigan’s
lodging industry. The study hypotheses focused on (a) understanding the
percentage of properties that provided training and (b) for those properties that
provided training, whether a relationship existed between the amount of training
and property size, percentage of employee turnover, types of employees, and
the value placed on training.

Two hundred eighteen lodging property general managers/owners
completed a questionnaire. Respondents were from small-, medium-, and large-

sized lodging properties.

Based on the findings, the SLMT provided a better framework for
understanding the training practices of Michigan’s lodging industry. Specifically,
the SLMT suggests that employee groups are treated differently and that
property size may influence the amount of training provided. These propositions
held true. Many (67%) lodging properties provided training to hourly and
management employees. And, for those properties that provided training, more
hourly employees were provided training compared to management. However,
when trained, management employees were provided more hours of training.
Different-sized properties provided significantly different amounts of training.
Smaller properties provided less training than medium and large properties.

No significant relationships were observed between respondents’
attitudes toward training and their perceptions of barriers to training and stimuli
that foster training within their establishments. Regardless of the amount of
training provided, respondents valued training for their employees. They also
perceived the barriers to training and the stimuli for training to be similar, even
though managers and owners actually offered quite different amounts of training
to their staff. Training practices differed significantly across property sizes and
employee types, a pattern of training that would be predicted by the segmented

labor market theory.

Copyright by
PATRICIA LOUISE (CLICK) JANES

2000

To my daughters, Katharine and Lauren, who are too young to

understand the contributions they made and the inspiration they provided.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are several people who need to be recognized as they have
supported my efforts to complete this degree for many years. My graduate
committee at Michigan State University was instrumental in providing guidance
throughout my graduate education. They challenged me beyond what I could
ever imagine intellectually. Each committee member made unique contributions
to my education, for which I will be forever grateful. Professor Joe F ridgen, as
chair, and Professors John Beck, Don Holecek, and Jim Bristor guided my
development as a scholar.

My family has unconditionally supported every professional activity I have
undertaken, and this process was no different. My husband, Eric, was my pillar
of emotional and financial support, and did double duty to cover for me on many
occasions. His efforts made this accomplishment easier to achieve. My mom
and dad, Mary Ann and John Click, instilled in me at a very young age the value
of higher education and sacrificed to ensure that their children had the
opportunity to pursue their career goals. They believed and bestowed a value in
me that I hope to pass to my children—that anything is possible and that there
are no barriers to what we can do in this world. And my siblings, Tom, Terry,

and Bill, offered support and assistance, contributing whenever needed.

vi

The faculty, staff, and students of Central Michigan University’s (CMU)
Recreation, Parks, and Leisure Services Administration department contributed
to this dissertation as well. The department financially supported the research
project, the faculty and staff provided their expertise when needed, and the
students volunteered their time to ensure that this research project was
successfully completed. Specifically at CMU, Dr. Felix Famoye was invaluable
as a statistical expert.

Several additional supporters need to be highlighted as they have
contributed to this research process. Travel Michigan and the Michigan Hotel,
Motel, and Resort Association provided assistance with the study, including data
on the sampling frame. In addition, Dr. Daniel Spencer and the Travel, Tourism,
and Recreation Resource Center at Michigan State University provided data that
captured the most comprehensive analysis of Michigan lodging properties.
Without their support for research and continuous learning in the tourism and
lodging industry, this project could not have been completed.

Finally, two people made my words have life: Sue Cooley Miller and

Terry Cusworth. Their editing expertise was critical to this dissertation.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................... xii

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. xv
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...... 1

Introduction .......................................... 1

Statement of the Problem and Purpose ................... 11

Objectives .......................................... 1 1

Assumptions ........................................ 12

Definitions of Terms .................................. 12

ll. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ 14

Introduction ........................................ 14

Utilization of Training ................................. 14

Amount of Training in Organizations ................... 15

Type of Training Conducted .......................... 17

Investments in Training ............................. 20

Factors That Influence Participation in Training ............. 22

Organization Size .................................. 22

Small Business .................................... 26

Employee Position ................................. 27

Value of Training to Both Employers and Employees ...... 29

Employee Turnover ................................ 35

Stimuli and Barriers to Providing Training ............... 38

Summary ........................................ 44

Training Theories .................................... 45

The Human Capital Theory .......................... 46

The Segmented Labor Market Theory .................. 50

The Study Hypotheses ................................ 55

Hypothesis 1 ..................................... 55

Hypothesis 2 ..................................... 56

Hypothesis 3 ..................................... 58

Hypothesis 4 ..................................... 58

viii

IV.

Hypothesis 5 ..................................... 59

Hypothesis 6 ..................................... 60
Hypothesis 7 ..................................... 61
METHODS ......................................... 63
Introduction ......................................... 63
The Study Population and Sampling Frame ................ 63
Study Population .................................. 63
Representative Composition of the Overall Population ..... 65
Sampling Frame ................................... 66
Geographic Representation of Population, TMPD, and
and Sampling Frame ............................. 66
Sampling Process ................................. 69
Geographic Representation of the Sample .............. 73
Instrumentation ...................................... 74
Interviews ........................................ 74
Instrument Development ............................ 76
Final Instrument Development ........................ 78
Response Rates ..................................... 85
Data Collection ...................................... 86
Validity, Reliability, and Nonresponse Measures ............ 89
Validity .......................................... 89
Reliability ........................................ 90
Nonresponse Bias ................................. 91
Data Analysis ....................................... 97
Limitations .......................................... 98
Population and Sample Selection ..................... 98
Questionnaire Design .............................. 99
Communication With Respondents ................... 100
RESULTS ......................................... 101
Introduction ........................................ 101
Description of Respondents, Lodging Properties, and
Property Training Characteristics ..................... 102
Characteristics of Lodging Respondents ............... 102
Lodging Property Characteristics ..................... 105
Lodging Property Training Characteristics .............. 109
Results of Hypotheses Tests .......................... 112
Lodging Properties That Train ....................... 112
Value, Stimulus, and Barrier Scale Comparisons ........ 116
Distribution ...................................... 1 19
Characteristics of Lodging Respondents ............... 120
Characteristics of Lodging Properties ................. 122

Training Spending of Properties That Trained ........... 124

Training Hourly and Management Employees ........... 124
Amount of Training Provided and Attitude Toward
Training ..................................... 131
Amount of Training and Property Size ................. 136
Amount of Training and Employee Turnover ............ 141
Amount of Training and Stimuli and Barriers ............ 143
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................... 147
Summary .......................................... 147
Procedures ...................................... 147
Findings ........................................ 148
Conclusions Drawn From the Hypothesis Tests ............ 150
Lodging Properties That Train (Hypothesis 1) ........... 150
Value, Stimulus, and Barrier Scale Comparisons
(Hypothesis 2) ................................ 152
Training Hourly and Management Employees
(Hypothesis 3) ................................ 154
Attitude and the Amount of Training (Hypothesis 4) ...... 157
Amount of Training and Property Size (Hypothesis 5) ..... 159
Amount of Training and Employee Turnover
(Hypothesis 6) ................................ 161
Amount of Training and Stimuli and Barriers
(Hypothesis 7) ................................ 163
Theoretical Summary ................................ 164
Discussion ......................................... 166
Implications for the Lodging Industry .................. 166
Recommendations for Future Research ............... 173
Conclusions ....................................... 176
Management Training ............................. 177
Variance in the Amount of Training ................... 178
Property Size .................................... 181
Employee Turnover ............................... 184
Final Comments .................................... 185
APPENDICES
A. Interview Questions .................................. 188
8 Findings From Qualitative Interviews .................... 191
C. The Questionnaire .................................. 195
D Mailing Envelope, Cover Letter, and Incentive Card ......... 200

E. Nonresponse Questions .............................. 204
F. Individual Scores for Barrier Scale Items, by Property Size . . . 206

G. Individual Scores for Stimulus Scale Items, by Property Size . . 209

xi

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.10

3.11

3.12

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

LIST OF TABLES

Lodging Population, Travel Michigan Product Database,
and Sampling Frame Distribution, by Property Type ...............

Geographical Distribution of the Population and Sampling Frame . . . .
The Sample Population by Type and Size of Lodging Property ......
The Study Sample by Type and Size of Lodging Property ..........
Geographic Distribution of the Sample and Sample Respondents . . . .
Information on the Pilot Questionnaire Scales ....................
Response Rate by Property Size ..............................
Survey Response by Personalized or Generic Cover Letter .........
Timeline, Protocol, and Overall Response ......................

The Amount of Training Provided by Properties That Provide
Training, as Indicated by Original and Secondary Respondents ......

Original and Secondary Respondents’ Attitudes Toward the Value
of Training ...............................................

Reasons Secondary Respondents Gave for Not Completing the
Questionnaire ............................................

Position and Educational Level of Respondents by Property Size . .
Respondents’ Length of Time in Position and Age by Property Size .
Lodging Property Characteristics by Property Size ...............

Additional Characteristics of Lodging Properties by Property Size . .

xii

64

68

71

72

74

77

86

88

88

94

95

96

. 103

. 104

106

. 108

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

4.17

4.18

4.19

4.20

Training Patterns of Lodging Properties by Property Size .......... 110
Percentage of Properties That Trained Versus Those That Did

Not Train by Property Size .................................. 112
Percentage of Properties Providing Training to Hourly and

Management Employees ................................... 1 13
Amount of Training Provided by Property Size .................. 115
Comparison of Mean Scores of Respondents’ Attitudes Toward

the Value of Training by Property Size ........................ 117
Comparison of Mean Scores on Barrier and Stimulus Scales

by Property Size ......................................... 118
Results of Tests of Normality, Using Log Transformation .......... 119

Length of Time in Position and Age of Respondents From
Properties That Trained .................................... 121

Mean Percentage of Employee Payroll Spent on Training
by Property Size ......................................... 124

Results of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test of the Amount of
Training for Hourly and Management Employees ................ 126

McNemar and Mean Scores for Course Type by Hourly and
Management Employees ................................... 128

Type and Amount of Training Offered to Hourly and Management
Employees .............................................. 1 30

Wilcoxon Test for the Amount of Training Provided to Hourly
and Management Employees in Specific Courses ................ 131

Mean Scores on Respondents’ Attitudes Toward the Value of
Training by Property Size ............................... ~. . . 133

Spearman’s Correlation Matrix of the Value Scales and the
Amount of Training ....................................... 134

Relationship Between Amount of Training and the Value of
Training, by Employee Types ............................... 135

xiii

4.21

4.22

4.23

4.24

4.25

4.26

4.27

4.28

4.29

4.30

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5

F1.

G1.

Relationship Between Amount of Training and the Value of
Training by Property Size and Employee Type .................. 136

Levene’s Test of the Homogeneity of Variance .................. 138

Results of ANOVA of the Log Transformation of the Amount

of Training .............................................. 138
Scheffe Test of Property Size by Amount of Training ............. 140
Average Employee Turnover in Properties That Trained

by Property Size ......................................... 141
Spearman’s Correlation of Employee Turnover and Amount of

Training by Employee Type ................................. 142
Spearman’s Correlation of Employee Turnover and the Amount

of Training by Property Size and Employee Type ................ 143
Mean Scores of Factors That Influenced Training by

Property Size ............................................ 144
Spearman’s Correlation Matrix of Barriers, Stimuli, and the

Amount of Training ....................................... 145
Correlation Between Amount of Training and the Barrier and

Stimulus Scales by Property Size and Employee Type ............ 146
Top Five Barriers for Small, Medium, and Large Properties ........ 168
Top Five Stimuli for Small, Medium, and Large Properties ......... 170
Profile of Small Leading-Edge Lodging Properties That Trained . . . . 179

Profile of Medium Leading—Edge Lodging Properties That Trained . . . 180
Profile of Large Leading-Edge Lodging Properties That Trained . . . . 180

Barriers for Small-, Medium-, and Large-Sized Properties That
Provided Training ........................................ 207

Stimuli for Small-, Medium-, and Large-Sized Properties That
Provided Training ........................................ 210

xiv

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

3.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

LIST OF FIGURES

Model to Explain the SLMT and HCT Practices in Lodging

Properties ............................................... 53
Theoretical Perspective for Those Properties That Do and

Do Not Train ............................................. 57
Geographical Regions of Michigan ............................ 67
Survey Items on Organizational, Employee, and General Value

of Training ............................................... 81
Survey Items on Factors That Influence Training ................. 83

Distribution of Respondents From Properties That Provided

Training by Educational Level ............................... 120
Average Annual Occupancy of Properties That Did and

Did Not Train ............................................ 123
Level of Profitability of Properties That Did and Did Not Train ...... 123

XV

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

The current economy in the United States is considered strong. Some
say it has never been better (Bailey, 1998; Veneri, 1999). For example, in 1999,
the national unemployment rate was the lowest it has been in 30 years, interest
rates were down, lending was up, and consumer confidence was at an all-time
high (Bailey, 1998; Veneri, 1999). Yet despite the positive economic
environment, many businesses have encountered challenges to continued
growth.

Among the threats facing the business and industrial sector are global
competition, rapid changes in technology, and a shrinking, changing labor pool
(Bassi & VanBuren, 1998; Page, 1989; Yakimovicz, 1993). Some have
suggested that the labor pool is so critical that people have emerged as an
organization’s only competitive advantage in business, making recruitment and
retention top concerns (Bailey, 1998; Rosner, 1999; Veneri, 1999). With respect
to recruitment and retention concerns, there has been an increased demand for
well-trained staff, which has been difficult to secure due to a reduction in the

number of skilled individuals (Reese, 1999). Worcester (1999) suggested that,

as the unemployment rate drops and the candidate pool shrinks, employers find
it increasingly difficult to find and retain high-caliber candidates. For example,
this year, 2000, the US. government anticipates there will be 14 million
available workers, for 16 million available jobs. Many of these positions will be
in the service industry (Herman & Eller, 1991 ).

The service industry is largely composed of tourism businesses, of which
the lodging industry represents the foundation type of enterprise (Spotts, 1991).
These same challenges are being experienced by the lodging industry
(Goeldner, 1992; Rowe, 1995). More specifically, labor-force issues are the
most apparent problem facing the industry today (Gillette, 1996; Littlejohn &
Watson, 1990). In a study of 500 hospitality executives, Cline (1997) found that
74% of the respondents predicted that the industry would continue to face labor-
shortage issues. The shortage of quality employees is a critical issue facing the
industry, and the effective recruitment and management of employees is key to
future success (Cline, 1997; Nozar, 1999; Worcester, 1999).

Even though labor issues are apparent in all types of businesses, there
are unique characteristics within the lodging industry that more dramatically
affect labor issues. First, a large portion of the lodging industry is seasonal in
nature. Many properties experience seasonal fluctuations in business that result
in slowing down or closing in particular seasons, which affects the number of
employees needed throughout the year. Second, employee turnover in the
lodging industry is very high, often ranging from 60% to 300% annually. This is

much higher than the average turnover in other businesses, estimated nationally

at approximately 24% (Herman & Eller, 1991; Worcester, 1999). Third, the
majority of lodging organizations are small businesses, employing fewer than 20
workers. And, although 85% of all US. businesses have 20 employees or fewer,
government support tends to go to larger businesses, and the issues of smaller
operations are not given priority (Lynch & Black, 1996). Therefore, the issues
surrounding an industry made up mainly of small businesses are often of low
priority. Given these specific characteristics of the lodging industry, it seems
reasonable to assume that solutions to these labor problems might also be
unique.

One practice has been adopted by many businesses to address the labor
issues of today. The redesign of employment practices has been shown to
address labor-force challenges. It has been noted that effective employment
practices help develop a committed work force (Bassi & VanBuren, 1998;
Gaertner & Nollen, 1989; Olian et al., 1998).

Organizations have used effective employment practices to deal with
labor-force issues. Such practices include recruiting and hiring the best
employees, developing effective leadership that will guide and develop
employees, and providing training to employees. Businesses are recognizing
the value of training as a positive factor in the economic growth of organizations
and the nation (Bailey, 1998; Guthrie & Schwoerer, 1994; Lankard, 1991; Olian
et al., 1998.). Training has been identified as important to businesses, and it has
never before played such a critical role in society (Bergman, 1995; Blackburn 8.

Rosen, 1993; Caudron, 1996). Calvacca (1999) found that many Fortune 500

3

executives agreed that training was a very high priority. Training enables
employers to cope with the aforementioned changes and gain that competitive
advantage through the people they employ (Bassi & VanBuren, 1998; Knoke &
Kalleberg, 1994). According to a study by Watson Wyatt Strategic Rewards,
90% of 614 US. employers indicated that they used training and development
as a way to attract employees (Bailey, 1999). More specifically, businesses
have found that training can not only develop employee skills, self-esteem, job
satisfaction, and wage structures but also provide benefits to the organization,
such as a more dedicated work force, increased productivity, and reduced
turnover (Goodenough & Page, 1993).

Even though training appears to be a solution to labor issues today, not
all organizations provide training. Most research has focused on businesses
with more than 50 employees as those organizations are most likely to provide
training (VanBuren, 1999). Large businesses tend to have more formal
structures, more formal training, and a more educated work force (Jacobs,
Lukens, & Useem; 1996; Knoke & Kalleberg, 1994; Saari, Johnson, McLaughlin,
& Zimmerle, 1988). Many reasons exist why small businesses tend to provide
training less often than large businesses. On the one hand, some small
businesses found that they did not need to train employees (Scott, 1995). On
the other hand, some small businesses considered training important but lacked
time, financial, and other resources, and they had too high a rate of turnover

(Clark, 1994; Doyle, 1994).

Yet, even in organizations that do provide training, not all employees are
provided a training opportunity. The vast amount of research that is available
has described training practices in larger American corporations (Bassi &
VanBuren, 1999; Camevale 8. Camevale, 1994; Industry Report, 1996).
Largely, this research is divided into manufacturing and “other“ or
nonmanufacturing categories. The “other” or nonmanufacturing categories may
include industries such as health care, utilities, transportation, education, and
service. Even when studies focus on a variety of “other” industries, lodging is
often summarized in the “services” category, which may include tourism, legal,
automotive, and other related industries. This merger of industries in the “other”
or service category leaves little understanding of the unique nuances of the
lodging industry. Only a few studies have focused specifically on training in the
lodging industry. Most other research has aggregated all service industries
together, providing limited perspectives on the dynamics of specific service
industries.

As suggested, the available research often includes businesses with 50 to
100 or more employees. VanBuren (1999) indicated that many smaller
businesses tend not to provide training, which leaves training research biased
toward larger organizations. As many lodging organizations have fewer than 50
employees, the industry again is not well represented in the available data.

However, the studies examined do provide an understanding of training
practices. Some findings have suggested that training is (a) generally valued by

both employees and employers (Bergman, 1995; Burke, 1995; Geale, 1995;

Senat, 1992); (b) conducted informally, especially in the lodging industry (Cline,
1997; Conrade, Woods, & Ninemeier, 1994); (c) provided to 40% to 83% of
employees in any one business (Bassi & VanBuren, 1999; Camevale 8.
Camevale, 1994; Goodenough & Page, 1993); and (d) provided to employees
for 21 to 90 hours, on average (Bishop, 1991; Colarelli 8. Montei, 1996; 'I_'r_air_1i_ng,
1996).

The monetary investments made in training ranged from .5% to 4% of the
total employee payroll (Bassi & VanBuren, 1998, 1999; Bergman, 1995; Conrade
et al., 1994; Gordon, 1991). And a variety of factors have been found to
influence training, including the size of the business, the percentage of
employee turnover, and the type of position an employee holds.

Little is known about training in the hospitality (lodging) industry (Conrade
et al., 1994). Herman and Eller (1991) contended that the field has been slow to
see the value of training and has not considered training as a priority because
the industry eliminated it when times were difficult. When comprehensive
training was completed, it usually was conducted on the job and without
guidance. Conrade et al. (1994) found that lodging and service employees were
the least trained workers in the United States.

Bassi and VanBuren (1998) agreed as they investigated training in
nationwide organizations for the American Society of Training and Development
(ASTD). Customer-service organizations were one of nine business categories
studied. The customer-service category consisted of lodging organizations as

well as retail establishments, restaurants, and nonprofessional customer

6

services. The results supported conclusions from previous studies. It was found
that, of the nine business types studied, customer-service organizations spent
the least money on training. For example, across all industries, the amount of
money allocated to training each employee averaged approximately $500. In
contrast, customer-service organizations averaged only $162 per employee.

Evidence suggests, however, that the value of training in service
organizations may be growing. Conrade et al. (1994) sampled more than 400
employees in the hospitality field and determined that both hourly and
management employees found training valuable. One year after their original
study, Bassi and VanBuren (1999b) found that funding training had grown in the
services industry, and no longer did that industry spend the least amount of
money on training. The Center for Hospitality Research Solutions (1998) found
that all-new employees at 228 full-service and luxury hotels received more than
40 hours of training. Due to the limited available data, however, no conclusions
could be drawn regarding training as a solution to labor-force issues in the
lodging industry.

Jafari and Fayos-Sola (1996) thought that training in the tourism industry
was important. They summarized the findings of three national and international
tourism conferences regarding training in the tourism industry. They indicated
that the tourism industry’s success would continue to depend on training the
workforce. Also, a need existed to understand the training commitment of

tourism organizations. More specifically, the authors suggested that the future

must include training and education, as well as collaboration among
government, industry, and educational institutions.

The State of Michigan has begun to address this type of collaboration.
Training is viewed as a method to manage the challenging issues facing
Michigan’s tourism businesses. LaLopa and Holecek (1996) indicated that the
state must improve the quality of the tourism experience to improve Michigan’s
tourism future. One suggested method was to provide a community-based
training program for tourism-business owners. The tourism industry,
government, and training and education institutions in Michigan have begun to
collaborate to improve the quality of the tourism experience by providing training
opportunities for businesses.

As the emphasis of training in lodging organizations appears to continue
to develop, understanding what properties in Michigan do is important. A
lodging property may or may not provide training to employees, and the reasons
for choosing either path may vary greatly. Lodging properties may fail to provide
training because of high turnover or a lack of resources. Conversely, some
lodging properties’ failure to train might be based on perceived need or value to
the organization. Predictably, there are a variety of reasons why lodging
properties decide to train the way they do.

Based on the available literature, it is hypothesized that some lodging
properties, regardless of size, value training highly, provide training to all
employees, and offer training continuously without concern for a current “crisis.”

Conversely, other lodging properties value training for some, but not all,

8

employees. Therefore, they provide training (a) only to those higher-level
individuals with more value to the organization, (b) when there is a problem, and
(c) more often in larger organizations.

Two theories have helped to explain why these hypothesized training
practices may be occurring. The first example in the preceding scenario
represents a lodging property that is explained by the human capital theory,
whereas the second example represents a property practice that is explained by
the segmented labor market theory. An organization can be oriented toward one
or the other theory. Even those properties that do not provide training may also
be oriented to one perspective, depending on the reason for their lack of
training. The theories provide a means of understanding the training practices
of the lodging industry.

One way in which training can be studied is through the human capital
theory (HCT). In introducing the HCT, Becker (1995) proposed a way to
understand that organizations invest in human capital the same way that they
invest in other capital (6.9., new equipment). Becker (1964, 1995) suggested
that human-capital investments come in the form of education and training and
provide value to both the employee and the employer.

Investments in human capital through training have been viewed as a way
to promote individual, corporate, and national economic well being and
prosperity. If both the company and the worker benefit from training, then the

nation does as well. Training can be considered a public good that benefits the

nation through an improved economy and an increased standard of living
(Bergman, 1995; Glance, Hogg, & Huberman, 1997).

The HCT ultimately suggests a way to understand an organization’s
values. However, that theory may view the market as strictly homogeneous and
may not consider that employers provide training unequally to various employee
groups. This difference is addressed by the segmented labor market theory
(SLMT; Tinto, 1981 ). The SLMT suggests that different levels of the workforce
receive differing amounts of training and that those in higher-level positions
receive more training based on their overall value to the organization. Entry-
level positions are more likely to turn over, and investing in this group is not as
advantageous. The skills needed for such positions are generally those
possessed by many people. Conversely, higher-level positions require greater
training due to the more complex nature of those positions. An organization
would more likely provide training to those who will remain at the agency for a
longer period of time, typically those in higher-level positions (Trivelli, 1994;
VanHouse, 1987).

Together, the HCT and SLMT provide a framework for understanding
training in lodging organizations. Training practices in a variety of industries
need to be understood. The unique dynamics of different industries must be
considered when assessing not only the training practices within organizations
but also the factors that influence investments in training. Existing studies
provide a general snapshot of training activities but do not provide information

that is beneficial to particular industries. This is especially true in industries that

10

have smaller businesses, have high employee turnover, and have seasonal
business practices.

Data are not available to help determine what training practices currently
exist in different-sized lodging properties, why some organizations train and
others do not, and what value training has for lodging organizations and their
employees. This research was undertaken to provide a baseline understanding
, of training practices. As a result, it can provide information to identify ways in

which the lodging industry can manage the labor issues of today.

fitement of the Problem and Purpose
There is limited understanding of training practices in the lodging
industry. Although some theoretical explanations exist to help understand
training practices, they have not been used specifically to address training in the
lodging industry. Nor have they been used to understand all of the factors that
influenw training. Hence, the researcher’s purpose in this study was to
determine which theory, the HCT or the SLMT, provides the best explanation of

training practices in Michigan’s lodging industry.

Objectives

To accomplish the purpose stated above, the following specific objectives
were established:

1. Determine whether Michigan lodging properties provide training.

2. Determine what orientation properties have toward training (HCT or

SLMT) .

11

3. Determine why some properties do not provide training (i.e., Do they
value training? Are they stimulated to provide training? Do barriers keep them
from training?)

4. Determine the amount of training provided.

5. Identify the influence property size has on providing training.

6. Determine how employee type influences the amount of training
received.

7. Determine the role that employee turnover plays in providing training.

8. Determine the value that the employee and the organization place on

training.

Assumptions

For the purposes of this investigation, any training-related activity was
assumed to be effective. The effectiveness of individual training programs was
not a consideration in assessing the training practices in Michigan lodging

organizations.

Definitions of Terms
The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in
this dissertation.
Lodging properties include those commercial facilities that rent at least
one room to travelers for overnight accommodations. A property may include
facilities such as hotels, motels, resorts, cabins, cottages, bed and breakfasts,

historic inns, and condominiums (Spotts, 1991).

12

Training is “the transfer of work-related skills, knowledge, or information,”
as identified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employer-Provided Training study
(US. Department of Labor, 1996). The employer and/or the employee may pay
for training, it may be offered at on- or off-work-site locations, and it may be
provided after regular work hours.

Formal training takes place outside of the direct work setting. It has a
defined curriculum and format for training. It may be in the form of classroom,
video, lectures, seminars, and computer-based training that takes place either
on site or off site. Informal training is commonly referred to as on-the-job
training. It may come in the form of individual instruction, observing others, or
training by managers and co-workers (Camevale & Carnevale, 1994; Lynch 8
Black, 1996; US. Department of Labor, 1996).

Barriers and stimuli are considered to be factors that influence training
activities. They either prevent lodging properties from providing training
(barriers) or stimulate properties to develop and provide training (stimuli).
Factors that can be either stimuli or barriers include culture, competition,
turnover, property size, technology, and change. Additional factors that have not

been identified in the literature may relate specifically to the lodging industry.

13

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

In an effort to establish the basis for this dissertation, references are
made to literature on the lodging industry as well as other industries. However,
writings regarding training in the lodging industry are not abundant, and
discussions regarding the unique issues facing the lodging industry are limited.

The review of literature is focused on the following topics: (a) utilization
of training, including amount of training, type of training conducted, and the
investment in training; (b) factors that influence participation in training, including
organizational size, employee position, perceived value of training, employee
turnover, and stimuli and barriers to training; (c) training theories, including the
human capital theory (HCT) and the segmented labor market theory (SLMT);

and (d) the study hypotheses.

Utilization of Training

The amount, type of, and investment in training varies by organization.
Overall, studies have indicated an average of between 40% and 83% of
employees received training in organizations that provided training (Bassi &

VanBuren, 1999; Camevale & Camevale, 1994; Goodenough & Page, 1993).

14

The type and amount of training each employee received varied as well. Studies
indicated that variation existed between no use and very high levels of training.
Some organizations provided one type of training course, and others offered a

variety of training courses.

Mount of Training in Organizations

Studies quantifying the amount of training provided by organizations have
varied greatly, generally based on two issues, formality of training and size of
organization. First, formal training is easier to quantify, and needed information
tends to be easier to access. Second, some studies have suggested that small
organizations do not provide reliable data. Therefore, many studies have
focused on organizations with 50 or more employees (Industry Report, 1996).
Based on these two issues, most studies have focused on formal training in
large organizations.

However, several researchers have attempted to quantify all types of
training. The results indicated the average amount of training to be higher than
indicated in most other research. Two investigators quantified the number of
training hours by both informal and formal methods. Bishop (1991) found that
service employees spent an average of 33 hours in informal training watching
other employees, 5.7 hours in formal training, 35 hours receiving informal
training by management, and 17 hours receiving informal training by co-workers.
Overall, employees received 85 hours of informal and 5.7 hours of formal

training.

15

 

Colarelli and Montei (1996) sampled 53 Michigan organizations that
represented a group similar to industries throughout the United States. The
investigators examined training practices in specific jobs. On average, new
employees received 33 hours of training, both formal and informal. Variations
existed within industries to yield this average. Most other research has focused
on quantifying only formal training.

The American Society of Training and Development’s National Human
Resource Director Executive Survey (1995) indicated that the range in the
amount of training provided was quite broad. Employees received 1 to 15 days
(8 to 120 hours) of training per year.

The amount of training completed by various-sized organizations was
investigated in a US. Department of Labor study (1996). The Bureau of Labor
Statistics completed interviews at 1,000 private nonagricultural organizations.
Organizations with 50 to 99 employees provided 6 hours of formal training,
whereas medium-sized (100 to 499 employees) and large (500 or more
employees) organizations offered 12.1 and 12 hours of formal training,
respectively.

Roughly 3,400 organizations were surveyed by Training Magazine (1996)
to determine the amount of training employees received. The sample included
nonsubscribers and subscribers in organizations with more than 100 employees.
The results indicated that 21 hours of training were given to administrative
employees, 36 hours to production workers, and 37 hours to professionals. No

informal training was considered in the study, and the investigators conceded

16

that that would indeed change the results regarding the amount of training
provided.

Only one study focused on the lodging industry specifically. The Center
of Hospitality Research Solutions (1998) found that new employees of full-
service and luxury hotels received more than 40 hours of training. Continuous
training was provided annually for 8 to 16 hours for front-line employees and for
33 to 40 hours for supervisory/management employees.

Training results in the preceding studies in various industries ranged
greatly. A variance in the amount of training activities appeared to exist in
American organizations. Not all employees received training, and different
employees received varying amounts of training, from a few hours to a couple of
weeks’ worth of training. The amount of training depended on the industry and
the employee’s position. Both informal and formal research methods were used,
but not all studies captured informal training efforts. Regardless of the variance,
the literature indicated that lodging properties were not well represented in the

findings.

Type of Training Conducted

The types of training activities provided by organizations were examined
in five studies. This training was either general or specific. General training
included instruction that might benefit many organizations, such as attitudinal or

general-topic training. Specific training included orientation and job-specific

17

training. The latter type of training resulted in the greatest reward for the agency
sponsoring the training (Becker, 1995).

In the lodging industry, Conrade et al. (1994) found that specific training
was provided more often than general training. Sixty-one percent of all training
money was spent on new-employee orientation. This left 39% of funds for
existing-employee and other training needs.

Camevale and Camevale (1994) found specific training activities were
most common in other organizations, as well. Specifically, computer-related
training was most popular for employees. Other studies found specific training
to be popular with organizations. The Society for Human Resource
Management (1995) member survey focused on the importance and extent of
certain training activities. Members shared their views not only on the extent of
training and development activities that were used, but also the perceived
importance of such activities. Orientation programs appeared to be the most
frequently offered—by 70% of the members. Although specific training was not
identified, beyond orientation, 49% of the respondents said they used training to
keep employees’ skills up to date.

Training Magazine (1996) found different training priorities among
employers. The top three types of training provided were general types of
training courses. Eighty-eight percent of the organizations surveyed indicated
they provided basic computer skills training. This was the most popular type of
training provided. Technical skills and management skills training were the next

most popular, at 85% and 84%, respectively. Specific types of training provided

18

included new-employee orientation, offered by 84% of the respondents, followed
by leadership, computers, performance appraisals, and safety, provided by 73%
to 68% of the respondents. This study highlighted a variety of large-sized
industries, whereas other studies looked more specifically at particular
industries.

Lynch and Black (1996) found that a mix of general and specific training
was provided by a nationally representative sample of private manufacturing and
nonmanufacturing businesses with more than 20 employees. The most p0pular
training activities, conducted by at least 70% of the respondents, included safety
and health, new methods and procedures, and new-worker orientation. Sixty-
two percent to 69% of the organizations provided cross-training, sales/customer
service, line supervisory skills, and executive-development training. The
investigators concurred with other investigations in that the training offerings
differed by type and size of industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer-
Provided Training Study (US. Department of Labor, 1996) found that 67% of all
formal training was specific in nature, relating to job skills. The other 33% was
general training, including communication, employee development, quality, and
safety.

Bassi and VanBuren (1998) found that the most significant issue
organizations faced in training employees was the use of new technologies.
Twenty-five percent of training time was spent on job-specific technical and

computer skills. New-employee orientation, management skills, and computer

19

literacy/applications were the most popular training topics. More than 90% of
the responding organizations provided training in these areas.

The types of training provided by organizations varied by typeof industry
and size of organization. Aside from the factors influencing training, the
popularities of certain content areas were similar. Orientation (specific),
computer (general or specific), and new skills (general or specific) training were

identified as important, yet they varied in perceived priority.

Investments in Training

The actual amount invested in training varied across industries. Only
recently have organizations accounted for their investments in training, so
available data are limited (Bassi & VanBuren, 1998). There are differences
among organizations with regard to their investments in training, ranging from
under .5% of annual employee payroll to over 4% of annual employee payroll.
And the tracking of those investments also varies, where some organizations
keep track of training investments and others do not. Such investments,
however, appear to have increased over time (Calvacca, 1999; Cline, 1997).

Conrade et al. (1994) found that, in the lodging industry, 51% of more
than 400 properties surveyed had a line item in their budgets for training. Only
26% of those with a budget identified informal, on-the-job training in the budget.
The investigators concluded that most informal training was an extraordinary

expense or simply was not accounted for.

20

Training Magazine’s Industry Report (1996) indicated that $59.8 billion
was spent on formal training activities in the United States in 1995. That figure
did not include informal activities, which were thought to represent a majority of
overall training endeavors. The investigation indicated that an average of
between $300 and $550 per employee was spent on training in the United
States. Yet the study revealed that not all employees received training.

Often the amount spent on training has been expressed in terms of a
percentage of the total payroll. Some researchers have indicated that the
average organization spent 1l2% to 4% of its payroll on training-related activities
(Bassi & VanBuren, 1998; Bergman, 1995; Gordon, 1991). Conrade et al.
(1994) found that 62% of the lodging organizations they surveyed spent even
less than that—between .5% and 1% of their payroll-on training. Fifteen percent
spent less than .5%. The American Society of Training and Development (1995)
studied Fortune 500 companies’ investments in training and concluded that 29%
spent less than .5% of their payrolls on training, 29% spent .5 to 1.5%, and 21%
spent 1.6% to 3.5%. Bassi (1996) and Bassi and VanBuren (1999) found that
the average total training expenditure was 1.8% of payroll. Those businesses
considered leading training-oriented firms allocated 4.4% of their payrolls to
training.

Overall, the amount of training, the type of training, and the investments
made in training varied across industries and studies. Limited findings in the
lodging/service industry suggest that (a) 40 to 90 hours of training were

provided, both informally and formally (Bishop, 1991; Center for Hospitality

21

Research Solutions, 1998); (b) specific training was provided more often in the
lodging industry (Conrade et al., 1994); and (c) 51% of lodging properties
studied included a line item in their budgets for training; for 62% of the
properties, this figure represented .5% to 1% of the employee payroll (Conrade

et al., 1994).

Factors That Influence Participation in Training

Most training literature has focused on understanding the practices of
those organizations that provide training. Hence, large organizations are
frequently studied. However, not all organizations provide training. Some small
organizations have identified a lack of need or a lack of resources as the reason
why this may occur (Clark, 1994; Doyle, 1994; Scott, 1995; Educating the Small
Busingss, 1994). Because the lodging industry largely consists of smaller-sized
organizations, literature regarding the lodging industry is not well represented.

In the general training literature, several factors have been identified that
may additionally influence an organization’s participation in training activities.
Five factors that contribute to possible variances in providing training include
(a) as previously indicated, organizational size, (b) small business, (c) employee
position, (d) perceived value of training, (e) employee turnover, and (f) stimuli

and barriers to training. These are discussed in the following pages.

r anization ize
A disparity exists among organizations regarding use of training.

Regardless of the perceived value of training to employees and employers, a

22

variety of factors influence the investment in human capital. The differences in
training use, based on an organization’s size, have been studied extensively. In
general, studies describing large organizations refer to those with a greater
number of employees, whereas small organizations have fewer employees.
And, although there is no specific guide as to the number of employees in each
size category, the relationship remains the same.

Saari et al. (1988) surveyed a group of small to large US. corporations to
examine the influence of organizational size on training activities. Results
indicated that size did have an influence on training use. Specifically, (a) larger
organizations were found to conduct more needs assessments, (b) larger
organizations used formal training methods more often than did smaller
organizations, and (c) organizations with 1,000 or more employees offered
formal management training, whereas smaller organizations did not.

Bishop (1991) found a curvilinear relationship between organizational
size and training use. The largest and smallest organizations in the sample
provided the greatest amount of training.

Knoke and Kalleberg ( 1994) stated that large organizations provided
more training due to formalized job structures, internal labor markets, and an
organizational culture that supported training. Evaluating data from the National
Organizations Survey, they assessed 688 organizations regarding training-
related issues. They found that larger organizations provided more training than

did smaller organizations.

23

Overall, the percentage of organizations providing formal training
increases as the size of the organization increases. Camevale and Camevale
(1994) indicated that large organizations invested in greater amounts of formal
training than did small organizations. Nineteen percent of employers with fewer
than 25 employees had formal training, 26% of firms with 25 to 99 employees
had formal training, 36% of companies with 100 to 499 employees had formal
training, and 44% of organizations with 55 or more employees had formal
training. When the authors assessed the types of businesses responding, they

found that “business and repair services,” which included entertainment and

recreational services, provided only 7.2% of their employees with formal training.

Even in small organizations, size has been found to influence training
activity. Scott (1995) found that, in small businesses in San Diego, California,
the larger the small business firm, the greater the perceived need for training. In
addition, the larger small-business firms were the most likely to already provide
training.

Jacobs et al. (1996) conducted follow-up studies to the Knoke and
Kalleberg (1994) research and found similar results. They contacted 727
employers to determine employees’ access to workplace training. Larger
companies with formalized hierarchies and internal resources, such as
employment systems, were more likely than smaller companies to provide
training to employees.

Lynch and Black (1996) agreed with most of the research findings

indicating that organizational size plays a role in the amount of training an

24

organization provides. In a study of almost 3,000 small to large firms, they
discovered that small firms (fewer than 100 employees) were much less likely to
provide formal training programs than were large firms (more than 100
employees). The authors were unable to determine the reason for this, but they
found other factors related to the use of formal training. For example, employers
who had adopted sophisticated change initiatives (e.g., total quality
management [TQM], benchmarking) were more likely to have formal training.
Also, organizations that made larger capital investments (as a percentage of
total employees) and those that hired a more educated work force were more
likely to provide formal training. The authors concluded that these findings might
suggest that training in organizations was a complement to, versus a substitute
for, other investments in physical and human capital.

Conversely, Colarelli and Montei (1996) discovered that size was not a
factor influencing the amount of training or use of formal training. Organizational
size was, however, associated with training quality (use of needs assessments).
The larger organizations used needs assessments more often.

Although there have been varying results, the majority of studies have
indicated that a relationship existed between size of organization and amount of
training conducted. The larger the organization, the more likely it was to provide

training.

25

Small Business

Small-sized businesses have been found to have barriers that exist to
providing training. A hearing before the Subcommittee on Development of Rural
Enterprises, Exports and the Environment of the Committee on Small Business
(Educating the Small Business, 1994) addressed small business development.
Specifically, testimony centered on the need to educate the work force. One
barrier emerged regarding the challenges small businesses face in providing
education and training to employees: Small businesses could not afford training
for their employees. It was suggested that the government provide incentives for
small businesses to invest in human capital, just as they offer incentives for
investments in technology and equipment purchases.

Other studies have supported this view of funding. Clark (1994)
conducted a study of 20 small businesses in San Diego, California. Through a
survey, the investigator found that the businesses were aware of the need for
training and development. Barriers to providing training included lack of time
and scarcity of resources. Factors that influenced small businesses to train
included regulations, safety issues, and customer service. A year later, Scott
(1995) studied San Diego organizations with fewer than 100 employees.
Responses were obtained from 721 organizations representing a variety of
industries. Fifty-nine percent of the companies indicated a need for training.
Results varied by industry type. Seventy-six percent of the organizations that
did not see a need for training indicated that the employees were already trained

and that funding was the largest barrier to training.

26

Some small businesses experience high levels of turnover, which
influences the amount of training provided. Doyle (1994) indicated that the
restaurant industry may not provide formal training due to high staff turnover.

He speculated that if a restaurant provided training, the employees’ wages would
be lower than those in other types of industries because of the need to recover
the training costs.

Severalfactors appear to explain why smaller organizations are less likely
to provide training. The investment in high-tumover industries is too costly, the
funding for training is not available, employers perceive that the workforce does
not need training, and there might be a lack of training resources. Whether
there is a perceived lack of a need for training or the resources are not
available, it appears that smaller organizations are less likely than large ones to

provide training.

Employee Position

In the literature it is well established that there is a relationship between
the availability of training and the position of the employee. These conclusions
from previous studies suggest that management employees are more likely to
receive training. The SLMT suggests that this would be the case as
management employees are a more valued resource than lower-level employees
(Tinto, 1983). This appeared to be a likely explanation in many studies.

Researchers began to assess the different amounts of training provided

to employees in varying positions several years ago. Medoff (1982) studied a

27

longitudinal data set from the Survey of Adult Education between 1969 and
1978. Organizations appeared to provide more training for advanced
managerial/professional employees (9.7%), as compared to other employee
groups, such as other white-collar (3.6%), skilled blue—collar (4.1%), and
unskilled blue-collar (1.2%) employees.

Jackson, Schuler, and Rivero (1989) surveyed human resource managers
in 267 US. companies to identify training use. The questionnaire requested
information regarding the organizations’ training practices. In general, both
manufacturing and service organizations provided low levels of training to
employees. Not all employees received training. In general, managers received
more training than did hourly employees. Camevale and Camevale (1994) also
found that the amount of training increased as the number of managerial and
technical positions increased. The increase in training tended to favor more
highly skilled workers.

Scott (1995) found that, in small organizations, the types of positions
reported to receive formal training were supervisors/managers, service and
sales, and paraprofessional/skilled technical employees, ranging between 45.2%
and 47.1% of all employees. Further, 44.1% of clerical employees were
provided training, whereas just 9.3% of unskilled laborers and 11.5% of semi-
skilled laborers received training. I

The American Society for Training and Development, National Human
Resource Director Executive Survey (1995) and the Training Magazine Industry

Report (1996) studies yielded similar results. They indicated that administrative

28

employees received less training than professional employees. However, in
assessing the amount of resources provided to each employee group, it was
found that line employees received 38% of the training resources, followed by
supervisors/managers (29%), professional and technical employees (28%), and
top-level executives (8%). It appears that the amount of training received by
various employee groups varied and that the importance of understanding the

variation still exists.

Value of Training to Both Emploverflnd Employees

As Mellan (1988) noted, the benefits of training to both the employer and
the employee have been documented. However, the available literature on the
value of training to both employees and employers is limited in that not all types
of training have been evaluated. Lewis and Thomhill (1994) found that the
majority (85%) of British employers failed to try to measure the effect of training.
They expressed concern about the challenge of how to measure effects
precisely. Yet, even though the value of training has not always been measured
due to the aforementioned issues, some investigators have addressed the value
of training to employers and employees.

Value of tra_ining to employers. The employer's attitude toward training
influences the amount of training within an organization. Salinger (1973)
conducted case studies of three federal agencies to understand attitudes toward
training and training practices within these agencies. Using both questionnaires

and interviews, Salinger found that training was not a priority to top

29

management. Some employees had difficulty being released from their positions
to attend training, little planning was done for training, and the benefits of
training were unclear. Even though employees were fairly satisfied with the
training and development they received, they were more negative than the
supervisors regarding the usefulness of training for future development.

As Salinger (1973) discovered, some employers might not have a positive
attitude about training because the benefits of completing training are unclear.
Becker (1995) explained that the value of human-capital investments for the
organization included lower turnover and higher productivity. A variety of
investigators have noted these as well as other benefits. Also, employers who
provided training appeared to gain a greater sense of employee commitment
(Conrade et al., 1994; Payne, 1996; Senat, 1992).

In a study of 313 middle-management editors from large corporate daily
newspapers, Senat (1992) found that trained editors were more committed than
those editors who had not received training. This commitment, however, did not
indicate their intention to stay at the job. No differences in intention existed
between trained and untrained employees. Bergman (1995) corroborated these
findings, adding that trained employees were more likely to stay in the field.
Employees who were more valued by the organization had greater value in the
organization, which resulted in increased worker loyalty.

Payne (1996) found similar results in a qualitative study regarding the

value of employee-development programs in various-sized firms in the United

30

Kingdom. He determined that the benefits of employee-development programs
(e.g., training) included improved motivation and employee commitment.

In the lodging and tourism field, a few studies have focused on the value
of training to employers. In a study of hotel personnel, Conrade et al. (1994)
found that management’s perceptions of training were based primarily on
experience. Identified in the investigation were factors that were influenced by
training. The most frequently noted responses included wnsistent service
delivery (99%), employee knowledge (97%), repeat business (96%),
management knowledge (95%), employee skill (94%), and profit (94%). Lodging
employees viewed training as beneficial, with 93% of respondents stating that
training would “encourage them to stay at a property.” Further, 63% indicated
the possibility of leaving an organization if they were not involved in long-term
training. Hotel employees stated that training could reduce that turnover. Hotel
managers regarded the value of training as high. However, the investigators
found the investment in and use of training to be quite low.

Geale (1995) completed a survey of British tourism, social service, and
chemical organizations. He surveyed and interviewed the agencies with respect
to their concern for training and accreditation. Results indicated that
organizations benefited from training in a variety of ways, including increased
productivity, employee motivation, industrial relations, management style, and
the formation of a learning organization.

Other hospitality executives worldwide have agreed with these results. In

Cline’s (1997) study of 500 international hospitality executives, respondents

31

stated that exposure to training was one of four areas that could improve
employee satisfaction. In general, the literature indicated that training provided
benefits to employers in terms of productivity, motivation,'and commitment, thus
supporting Becker’s views on the HCT.

Value to of training to employees. In one investigation, employees rated
the importance of training (for their jobs) higher than their employers did (Jacobs
et al., 1996). Value of training to employees differed from the value
organizations received from training. Training was important to employees for a
variety of other reasons.

Becker's (1964, 1995) HCT contends that the investment in human capital
has rewards for the employee, including higher wages, greater job satisfaction,
and an enhanced view of oneself. Freeman (1978) supported the contention
that training affects job satisfaction, in a study of 149 4-H leaders. Specifically,
lack of training contributed to job dissatisfaction, whereas personal growth
(through training) contributed to job satisfaction.

In a study of manufacturing firms, Gaertner and Nollen (1989) found that
employees” psychological commitment was stronger if they were considered to
be resources that were developed, rather than resources that were bought and
sold. In an assessment of several psychological commitment variables, the
investigators found that internal mobility, training, and employment security
resulted in greater commitment in communication, supervisory relations, and

participation variables.

32

Other investigators have agreed with these findings. Geale (1995)
concluded that individual benefits from training included career advancement,
mobility, job security, pride, job satisfaction, and personal fulfillment. Bergman
(1995) added that increased income and greater self-esteem resulted from
training. Through this development process, employees became more valuable
to the organization and to themselves (Doyle, 1994).

Anderson, Fredrickson, and Dybiec (1995) indicated that most of the 146
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources employees they surveyed found
value in training. Results of one precourse survey and three postcourse surveys
showed that employees thought their knowledge base had increased and that
they were more competent and professional as a result of training. Barriers to
applying the training did exist for the trainees on both personal and
organizational levels. Employees thought that barriers to applying the learned
skills were apparent and that these barriers could affect their performance.

Burke (1995) studied employees of a large professional-services firm.
More than 1,600 employees responded to an e-mail questionnaire regarding the
organization’s training practices and the effect of their training initiatives. Burke
found that employees who participated in training viewed the organization more
positively than those who did not participate. Participating employees reported
greater job satisfaction and were less likely to change jobs.

mesing views. Not all research has indicated strictly positive effects
from training efforts. Miller (1990) used an experimental design to study the A

value of training for municipal employees completing a training program. The

33

program focused on several topics, including communication, telephone
etiquette, stress, and delegation. Miller found that the training had no effect on
employees’ attitudes or behaviors toward training. The investigator questioned
the validity of these results. Attitude had been assessed through the course
content, and Miller speculated that the nonexistence of a relationship might have
been a result of other factors. There might have been barriers to implementing
training content once attendees returned to the job, and their attitudes toward
training might have been different if the barriers were removed.

Some researchers suggested that other barriers might exist. Yakomovicz
(1993) studied 42 female small-business owners in Houston, Texas. Training
was valued more often by younger owners of smaller companies. Those who
had owned companies for at least 20 years were least likely to agree that past
training had been successful. The investigator did not specifically address why
these owners held such a view. The results indicated that owners and managers
might not have consistent perceptions about the value of training. Forrester
(1995) also found this to be true. Two-thirds of respondents from 1,974 British
retail establishments indicated that training had little or no effect on job
performance.

Payne (1996) discovered that, although there were benefits of training for
both employees and employers, the value was not identical for everyone. The
less-skilled and less-educated employees had more to gain from training than

did more skilled and better-educated employees.

34

Most researchers have concurred that positive outcomes accrue for
employees who received training. These outcomes included greater job
satisfaction, personal fulfillment, wages, job competence/professionalism, and
job commitment. Investigators whose results did not support these findings
might have evaluated the content of the training program rather than the overall

effect of training.

Employee Turnover

In 1991, the national average for employee turnover in organizations was
24% (Herman & Eller, 1991). In the lodging industry, turnover has been
estimated much higher than that, which is a major concern for the industry
(Worcester, 1999). The influence of turnover in nontourism organizations has
been well documented in the literature. However, studies assessing the effect of
turnover in high-tumover industries are not prevalent.

It has been suggested that turnover may be a factor that influences
training. Two different relationships between training and turnover were
suggested in the literature. First, organizations’ training efforts could reduce
turnover within an organization. Although some people have questioned this
relationship, most investigators have found that training can reduce turnover.
Vaughan and Berryman (1989) summarized the research papers and
discussions at a conference on employer-sponsored training; they concluded

that trained workers were less likely than untrained employees to quit their jobs.

35

 

The HCT also suggests this to be true. As organizations provide more specific
training, they are less likely to experience high turnover (Becker, 1995).

Second, some writers have suggested that the level of turnover in an
organization may be a predeterrninant for investing in training. Organizations
with high turnover are less likely to invest in training because they will not have
long-terrn employees to take advantage of the training. This position is in
accordance with the SLMT.

The influence of training on turnover. Supporting Becker’s view of the
relationship between employee turnover and training, Salipante and Goodman
(1976) sampled unemployed people to assess the effect of training and
counseling on employee retention. They found that the type of training
provided—specific versus general-played a role in the retention of employees.
The more training time that was spent on job skills (specific), the higher the rate
of retention. However, whether or not a firm offered training did not appear to
affect retention. The specific type of training affected the retention of the
employees.

Other investigators have found that training directly influenced employee
turnover. Wanous, Stumpf, and Bedrosian (1979) sampled organizations that
used a state employment agency. Smaller organizations were included in the
study because Fortune 500 companies are less likely to use this type of service.
The investigators looked at several variables that could influence new-employee

turnover. Pay, job training, and length of training accounted for variances in

voluntary and involuntary turnover. Wanous et al. concluded that job training
was a more effective predictor of job survival than was job performance.

Ferris and Urban (1984) found similar results with regard to supervisor
training. They sampled U.S. oil—company supervisors who were enrolled in
entry-level supervisory training. The researchers found that turnover rates for
supervisors who had been trained in supervisory skills were lower than for those
who had not received such training.

Not all research has supported a relationship between training and .
employee turnover. Bishop (1991) found that there was no significant
relationship between training length or training intensity and job turnover.
However, use of formal or informal training had a significant effect on turnover.
Specifically, organizations that used formal training more often had higher
turnover than those that used informal training methods. Other organizations
reaped the benefit of an organization’s providing formal training because more
employees left the organizations where they received that type of training.

The influence of high employer turnover on traflg. Not only does
training influence turnover, but it also appears that turnover influences
investments in training. Bishop (1991) found that the amount of employee
turnover could be a factor determining whether or not an organization provides
training. The investigator suggested that large organizations used training more
frequently due to lower turnover effects.

These findings were supported in a study by Colarelli and Montei (1996),

who assessed training and turnover in organizations. The researchers found

37

that there was a negative relationship between turnover and amount of training
received. Organizations with high turnover provided less training than those
with lower turnover. In addition, there was a negative correlation between
turnover and formal training. Organizations with high employee turnover were
less likely to provide formal training.

In the Survey of Employer-Provided Training (US. Department of Labor,
1996), the same relationship was found. Organizations with the middle amount
of employee turnover provided the most training. Organizations with low
turnover provided 7.2 hours of formal training, whereas those with medium and
high turnover provided 12.5 and 10.8 hours, respectively. Lynch and Black
(1996) also found that organizations with higher employee turnover were less
likely to provide most types of training.

Turnover appears to have a relationship with training in a variety of ways;
however, researchers have not totally agreed on the nature of the relationship.
Training is generally predicted to decrease turnover, yet those organizations
with high turnover might be less likely than others to provide training. Thus,
there is a need to assess training in particular industries, specifically, those with

high turnover rates.

Stimuli and Bagriers to Providing Training
Three specific stimuli and barriers to providing training were identified in

the literature. Factors that either keep an organization from or stimulate it to

38

provide training include organizational change, organizational culture, and
technology.

Qrganizational change. Although organizational change as a factor that
influences training activities was not addressed significantly in the literature, a
few researchers have detected a possible relationship between organizational
change and training. Weinstein and Kochan (as cited in Locke, Kochan, &
Piore, 1995) suggested that as organizations change (e.g., structures,
specialization, arid so on), there is a need for higher-skill training. This training
is needed to build employees’ technical, behavioral, and computer skills. The
changing work environment requires more cross-functional and problem-solving
skills, necessitating significant investments in human capital.

In two studies, training and change initiatives were addressed specifically.
Kappleman and Prybutok (1995) studied workers at 52 newly acquired bank
branches to determine their attitudes and behavior during an information-system
change that affected the organization’s TQM process. Worker empowerment
was found to be a critical element in the success of the change initiative.
Although training was not a direct contributor to the success of the TQM
program, it did aid in providing motivational outcomes in terms of employees’ job
satisfaction. The investigators speculated that training might have assisted in
worker understanding, but they indicated that that variable was not specifically
examined.

Lynch and Black (1996) found that organizations that adopted some of

the components of a high-performance work system (e.g., TQM or

39

benchmarking) were likely to have formal training programs. These were the
only organizational practices and characteristics studied that had an association
with training. Organizational change is occurring in many organizations, and
although it is not well established as a factor that influences training activities, it
is important to consider.

Qrganizational culture. Organization culture may have an influence on
training. Anderson et al. (1995) indicated that barriers to implementing training
included (a) the attitudes of managers regarding the perceived importance of
training and (b) something or someone blocking implementation of new skills
back on the job. Mulder (1996) suggested that training has not been traditionally
considered an important component of an organization’s operation. It has been
viewed as a staff benefit as opposed to a necessity. Some organizations’ lack of
training support has resulted in organizational cultures that are not supportive of
training.

Managers’ attitudes toward training affect the perceived need for training.
Ford and Noe (1987) surveyed more than 500 lower- and mid-level managers of
a manufacturing company. They found that managers with negative attitudes
toward training reported less of a need for training than did those with positive
attitudes.

Mathieu, Tannenbaum, and Salas (1992) surveyed 106 clerical
. employees to assess their attitudes toward training effectiveness and found
similar results. The investigators discovered that employees with high training

motivation indicated greater learning. Those employees who achieved the best

40

results were motivated to do well and reacted positively to the program.
Employees who were not mandated to attend also were more positive about
training.

Guthrie and Schwoerer (1994) found similar results. They surveyed
management employees of a public state employer in the Midwest to assess
training needs and perceptions. The 380 employees who indicated that their
managers were less supportive of training also viewed training as having less
utility for them. The investigators also found a negative relationship between
education and perceived utility. That is, managers who had completed higher
levels of education viewed training as less useful.

Management attitude also appears to be a factor affecting training
internationally. Forrester’s (1995) study of retail employees in Britain suggested
that store managers’ attitudes influenced the value employees gave to training.
Organizations that were more supportive of training efforts tended to have
employees who placed greater value on training activities.

Studies also have been undertaken to assess the effect of pretraining
motivation on the transference of training. Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, and
Kudisch (1995) looked at 967 managers and supervisors employed in a state
government facility. They studied the factors that influenced effective training
programs. Employee attitudes and beliefs were measured through a
questionnaire. Findings indicated that the reputation of the training course,
incentives, organizational commitment, and supervisor/top-management support

of training influenced pretraining motivation. Managers perceived that the

41

 

transference of training was influenced by pretraining motivation, as well as
subordinate, peer, and supervisor support of the training back at the work site.

Erwin’s (1996) findings agreed with those of Facteau et al. The
investigator conducted a survey .of the effect of a training course in two different
organizations in which participants completed the same training program. Erwin
found that participants from both organizations retained the knowledge and skills
they had learned in training. However, those from the organization with a more
relaxed culture exhibited greater support for training and showed significantly
higher levels of transference of training.

Payne (1996) concurred with these findings. He discovered that an
organization’s environment could affect the benefits of training. Employees were
found to resist training if they had a negative attitude toward the company; in
such cases, training was viewed as an imposition. Conant (1996) further found
that managers had varying levels of support for training and that a relationship
existed between the level of management and the value placed on formal
training.

Managers represent the culture of an organization to employees. Several
writers have suggested that managers’ attitudes affect the attitudes of training
participants, as well. The culture of an organization can influence not only
whether training is offered, but also the success of that training.

Technplogy. The used technology and its influence on training have
received increased attention as technology has become a more frequent

training-course offering. The literature indicated that many organizations have

42

 

increased the emphasis on computer training for their employees. This is often
mentioned as the most frequently offered training content area. Human-capital
theorists have supported this suggestion, as well (Becker, 1995; Mincer, 1989).
Increases in technological changes in an industry raise the percentage of
educated workers; therefore, a greater investment in human capital is needed
(Mincer, 1989). This change in priority of training-content areas indicates the
potential influence that technology has on training.

Findings from a study by Mellan (1988) indicated that technology affected
the policies and procedures of training. Technology was bringing about change
in organizations as it forced businesses to adapt their training practices.
Mellan’s 18-member sample from Edmonton, Alberta, businesses represented all
sizes of organizations and a variety of staff levels. The findings were considered
limited because of the small sample size; however, they did indicate a potential
positive influence of technology on training. Dedoussis (1995) supported these
findings when he assessed the effect of relocating firms to another country. The
researcher found that the introduction of new technologies positively influenced
the use of training in Japanese firms relocated to Australia.

Colarelli and Montei (1996) had similar findings in their study of mid-
Michigan organizations. They found that technological complexity correlated
positively with the amount of training. This indicated that, the more complex
technology was at the workplace, the more training was conducted. The

investigators further noted that technology may affect the degree to which

43

organizations use training. Technology could diminish the need for existing
skills and place greater emphasis on the need for new skills.

Technology may play an important role in understanding what factors
influence an organization’s use of training. There is some evidence supporting
the concept that more advanced technology requires the workforce to possess

different skills. Training is a way to develop the needed skills.

Summary

A variety of factors influence an organization to train. Change, culture,
and technology may not encompass all of the factors influencing the training
decision. However, these three areas should be considered in an effort to
understand training practices. These same factors need to be reviewed in
regard to the lodging industry because it is not well represented in featured
studies. It is important to understand what factors influence the industry’s
decision to train.

Although the lodging industry is not represented in the literature
discussing organizational size, employee position, employee turnover, and
factors that influence training (stimuli and barriers), studies from other industries
have focused on the relationship of these factors to training. These studies
have indicated that (a) the size of the organization affects the amount of training
conducted; (b) training favors higher-skilledlmanagement employees as they are
provided more training; (c) turnover is lowered with training, yet high turnover

may be a reason organizations do not provide training; and (d) organizational

44

change, culture, and technology may stimulate an organization to provide
training.

The present research is centered on understanding the value of training
for organizations and employees. In general, in the lodging industry, training is
viewed as valuable, even though participation in training is quite low. In the
lodging industry, training is provided to increase profit, improve productivity, and
increase employee motivation, satisfaction, and retention (Cline, 1997; Conrade
et al., 1994; Geale, 1995). The values associated with training for employees
include increased skill/knowledge, career advancement, job security, increased
pride, and personal fulfillment (Conrade et al., 1994; Geale, 1995).

Two theories have been identified to help explain the training practices in
the lodging industry. The SLMT and the HCT provide a framework to

understand the varying training activities that exist in all organizations.

Training Theories
Two theories suggest why variance exists among properties that do not
provide training, those that provide certain types of training, and those that
wholly invest in training. This continuum of training activity, from no training to a
climate of perpetual training, is suggested by the human capital theory (HCT)
and the segmented labor market theory (SLMT). Each theory is explained in the
ensuing paragraphs, followed by an application of the particular theories to the

lodging industry.

45

The uman a ital Theo

The HCT is based on the premise that investments in human capital
(employees) provide returns for both employees and employers, as well as
society at large (Sweetland, 1996). Human-capital investments may be made in
a variety of forms, such as education, health care, training, and job experience
(Becker, 1995; Blaug, 1976; Wykstra, 1971 ). Becker suggested that human-
capital investments come in a. variety of forms; however, he considered training
and education as the most important of these investments.

Early theorists suggested that human capital helped explain why workers
with more education, training, and job experience had higher wages. An
increase in wages was believed to be associated with training, which served to
directly increase worker productivity (Blaug, 1976; Weiss, 1995). The HCT was
expanded in 1964 to explain other issues, such as turnover, gender differences
in wages, and human-resource practices, when Becker introduced the full theory
(Becker, 1964; England, 1982; Hill, 1995).

According. to the HCT, an organization may invest in general or specific
human capital. General human-capital investments are valued by many
businesses because anyone would benefit from hiring a person who received
such training. For example, employee motivational development and business
writing are considered general human-capital investments. These general .
investments are presumed to increase the productivity of workers,both in firms
providing training and in those hiring trained individuals (Becker, 1995; Weiss,

1995).

46

Specific human-capital investments are firm specific and are used
primarily by the organization sponsoring the training. An example would be a
tool-and-die firm providing a company orientation or job-specific training to an
employee. The tool-and-die firm providing the training benefits from higher
productivity because the training content is organization specific (Becker, 1995;
Weiss, 1995). Firms providing specific training reap greater rewards than those
that do not provide such training. Therefore, most organizations provide a
greater variety of specific training as opposed to the more general training
offerings.

The competitive nature of the marketplace may determine the amount of
general or specific training a firm provides. A noncompetitive job market will
enable an organization to lose little productivity to other agencies. Therefore,
there is little risk in developing general or specific training for employees. In
general, monopolistic organizations tend to invest more heavily in all types of
training. It is an incentive for firms to invest in human capital when they realize
that the monopolistic environment gives them the greatest rewards for all types
of investments. In a largely competitive environment, fewer specific training
investments are made (Becker, 1995).

Human-capital theorists predict that, in a market where there is intense
competition by individuals for available jobs, potential or current employees
would pay the costs of their training and the firm would incur none of the costs.
Teachers in the 19805 provide a good example of this situation. The pressures

of a competitive labor market forced teachers to incur the costs of extra training

47

to develop their skills and seek an advantage in keeping their jobs or in the
hiring process (Wykstra, 1971).

In a more typical, neutral environment, a firm that trains employees
partially wastes its capital expenditure to train them (especially with general
investments) because employees may leave and other businesses may find
value in the skills they have been taught. Employees with specific training have
less incentive to leave a firm, and the firm has more incentive to keep those
employees. Therefore, turnover is least likely in organizations that provide
extensive amounts of specific training.

Investigators have found that turnover decreased as workers received
more specific human-capital investments (Dubas, 1990; Mincer & Higuchi, 1988;
Weiss, 1995). Becker (1995) and Mincer and Higuchi contended that training
investments in Japanese employees were greater than in the US. and that job
turnover was less common in Japan. Additional investments bonded employees
to employers through on-the-job learning and training, which in turn reduced the
likelihood of turnover. Yet, a study by Levine (1993) did not support the HCT as
an explanation for turnover. The investigator found no support for a relationship
between training and turnover.

The HCT has been used to explain wage and turnover investments in
training, as well as other human resource issues. These other human-resource-
related studies provide a view of how the theory can be expanded. Shaffer
(1994) used the HCT as a framework to understand organizational support of

employee volunteer efforts. The investigator hypothesized and supported the

48

notion that agencies that financially support human-capital investments (e.g.,
training) also support the volunteer efforts of their employees. Organizations
indicated that supporting volunteer efforts also developed employee skill, a form
of general training.

Vlfinters (1996) studied the tie of human capital to the organizational
adoption ’of life-balance innovations. Life-balance innovations are benefits
provided to employees while they engage in work- and non-work-related
activities such as flex time or compressed work weeks. These innovations are
concerned with the “whole person.” Nine hundred fifty Fortune 500 and Fortune
Service 500 organizations were surveyed to identify their life-balance
innovations. Although there was only an 18% response rate, no meaningful
differences were found between responding and nonresponding organizations in
terms of sales volume, number of employees, or reputation. Service and labor-
intensive organizations were more likely to have life-balance innovations, and
those organizations that spent more money on training were more likely to
provide such innovations.

Further, Winters asked firms to clarify the reasons they were likely to
invest in life-balance innovations. The results indicated that organizations were
more likely to invest in such innovations in an effort to (a) meet employees’ work
and family needs, (b) recruit and retain good employees, and (c) improve
business and productivity. All three of these reasons support the concept of

human capital as both employees and employers reap the rewards of training.

49

Although the HCT was created to explain wage issues, it has been used
in many research studies to explain other organizational practices, as well.
Investments in human capital are made because the return to an organization
exceeds the cost of investing (Doyle, 1994). The HCT provides an
understanding of how this relationship works in several different areas. The
theory has been used in a variety of ways to explain why some organizations
invest differently in training. These ways include (a) wages, (b) competition,

(c) turnover, (d) productivity, (a) type of training offered (general versus
specific), and (f) human resource initiatives. Doyle concluded that more specific
explanations are needed to better understand why some organizations invest in
human capital and others do not. Therefore, the HCT can assist in explaining
why organizations do or do not invest in human capital, and it can provide an

explanation for the relationship between training and other variables.

The Segmented Labor Market Theom

The HCT has not always been viewed as providing a thorough
assessment of training practices. Tinto (1981) viewed the HCT as a framework
for a homogeneous employment market. It fails to consider that people operate
in different labor markets. The SLMT helps to provide an understanding of an
organization’s investment in training, considering the differences within a labor
market.

The SLMT has been used to explain the association between the labor
market structure and labor market outcomes. It is an attempt to explain

differences in earnings and occupations. The theory states that the labor market

50

is divided into two sectors or employee groups and that differences exist within
each employee group. The two sectors are called primary/upper and secondary!
lower markets (Trivelli, 1994; VanHouse, 1987).

The primary labor market is important to production, and this market
includes skilled employees. Employers focus on keeping employees in this
labor market and on trying to develop worker attachment. Training and
experience are therefore valued in this segment. Conversely, the secondary
labor market needs less skill and has higher turnover. As a result, this labor
market receives less training and education (VanHouse, 1987). Trivelli (1994)
added that upper-tier (primary) jobs require greater skill and education. The
higher the tier, the more likely it is that fewer persons will have the skills
necessary for that tier. Demand for these employees is greater. Lower
(secondary) tiers require skills that many people possess and are comprised of
tasks that many people can perform. Therefore, less pay and value are attached
to these positions. Many service jobs include lower-tier employees. The SLMT
may provide additional insights into the investments made in service
organizations (Trivelli, 1994).

The SLMT helps to explain wage differences among employees. In a
survey of librarians, VanHouse (1987) concluded, by dividing industries or
occupations into two or more sectors and testing for differences in wage
equations, that a segmented labor market indeed exists and that primary
markets tend to pay more 'and provide more education and training

opportunities. This would increase future earning potential.

51

Because the HCT alone did not account for differences in training, Trivelli
(1994) found that the HCT and SLMT together provided useful models to identify
the factors that influenced training investments in organizations. Trivellil found,
in a study of supported employment for mentally disabled people, that the HCT
and SLMT did not explain the study outcomes. Wage, level of education, and
number of hours worked were found not to be related to job retention. Employer
support, however, was found to have a significant relationship to retention. The
investigator concluded that the theoretical frameworks were essential to
understanding differences in organizations. Regardless of the outcome, they
proved helpful in understanding other markets and industries. It is unclear,
however, which theory was the better predictor of the factors that influenced
training practices in organizations.

The SLMT provides an opportunity for understanding whether employee
groups receive different amounts of training. Using the SLMT in combination
with the HCT, variables can be addressed to understand training practices,
factors that influence training, and the value placed on training.

The theoretical training model (Figure 2.1) can be used to illustrate how
training is suggested in each theory. Regardless of whether an organization
provides training or not, the theories suggest a path toward either the HCT or the
SLMT. In the case of the HCT, organizations generally value. They are not
influenced by organizational size, types of employees, or stimuli. They offer a

variety of courses aimed at both specific and general skill development.

52

THEORETICAL TRAINING MODEL

 

Segmented Labor Market Theory (SLMT)
E I I] .. Q! I l' l'

- Smaller hotels would provide
less training because the type and
number of employees differ

employees but not for all

- The higher the turnover in an
organization, the less likely training
would be provided because the
focus is on employees with higher
skills and longevity

- Specific types of courses would
be offered to employees because
organizations react to current

problemsrtrainr'ng needs only

 

 

 

1*

 

PROPERTIES , . . .

- Training would be provided to - Opportunities for trarnrng are

. THAT .
employee groups drfferently, PROVIDE provrded equally to all employees
because higher skilled employees regardless of position
are more valued and they receive TRAINING
more training
- Employers would perceive - Employers would find training
training to be good for some 3* 4* valuable for all employees

 
 
  
 

PROPERTIES THAT DO NOT TRAIN

Human Capital Theory (HCT)

- Employers would provide training
regardless of the property size

- Organizations with higher turnover
would provide more training because
organizations that provide training
have lower turnover

- Specific and general courses would
be offered to employees regularly, notr
based on a cun'ent problem/need

 

 

 

 

2*

 

 

* Hypothetical Examples of both SLMT and HCT oriented properties

Hypothetical Example SLMT #1:
Small lodging property does not train, sees
little value in training employees (including
self) since employees do not need training;
may view training as not worthwhile.
Should training occur it may be for a legal
issue.

Hypothetical Example SLMT #3:

A large-sized property in a competitive
environment provides training to
management employees primarily based
on job-specific duties such as coaching/
counseling, hiring, and maintenance. This
property experiences high turnover and
provides training to only management

employees because longevity is an issue.

Hypothetical Example HCT #2:

A small sized property values training for
employees; however, employers lack
resources (funding and expertise) to provide
training. Should these barriers be eliminated,
training may occur.

Hypothetical Example HCT #4:
Medium-sized property experiences high
turnover and provides more specific training
to employees to reduce the employee
turnover in the organization. The property is
in a noncompetitive environment providing a
range of training opportunities for both hourly
and management employees, including job-
specific and general types of training
courses.

Figure 2.1: Model to explain the SLMT and HCT practices in lodging properties.

53

The amount of training may vary in organizations with a human-capital
orientation. However, barriers mayexist in the form of resources, expertise,
funding, and so on, that keep organizations from training. These organizations
want to train'but are restricted for a variety of reasons. Hence, even
organizations that do not provide training can have a human-capital orientation.

Conversely, organizations that value training less or for only some
employees provide training to employee groups differently, are influenced by the
size of the organization, train less often in higher-turnover situations, offer
specific types of training, and are stimulated to provide training by various
influences. These types of organization are explained by the SLMT. Their
orientation differs from the HCT. Organizations that do not provide training may
also be oriented to the SLMT as they do not train because of perceived lack of
need.

Figure 2.1 further indicates how this model would be hypothetically
described using lodging properties.

Even though organizations may decide to provide training or not to
provide training, an understanding of their orientation to training can be obtained
from the HCT and SLMT. Literature regarding training in the lodging industry is
limited. Thus, in an effort to understand the orientation of the industry and
address the labor issues that currently prevail, research exploring the value

placed on training, the factors that influence training participation, and the

training patterns of those that train must be completed.

The Study Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to determine which theory, the HCT or the

SLMT, provides the best explanation of training practices in Michigan’s lodging
industry. This section outlines the study hypotheses and likely results based on

what the HCT and SLMT suggest or reasonably predict.

chi

There is no difference in the percentages of properties providing training,
by (a) property size and (b) employee type.

Understanding the number of properties that provide training was the
foundational issue in this study. Training may or may not be provided in all
organizations, and it is important to determine what percentage of the properties
in the lodging industry do provide training. In addition, certain employee groups
may not be provided training at all properties that train; therefore, determining
whether this is occurring is important. It must therefore be determined whether
all properties provide training, in any size category and to all employee types.
Then a determination will be made regarding the number of properties that are
included in further hypotheses.

The HCT generally suggests that all organizations will provide training
because training is important to individuals, businesses, and society. Further,
the theory suggests that hourly and management employees will be provided
training opportunities regardless of the size of property.

Conversely, the SLMT suggests that management employees will receive

more training because they have more value to the organization. In addition,

55

small organizations may not provide training because there are few skilled
employees in these types of properties.

In each theory it is assumed that training occurs at properties. Those
properties not providing training may still, however, be inclined toward one

theory or the other, depending on the reasons why they do not provide training.

Hymthesis 2

There is no difference in the value, barrier, or stimulus scale scores

between various-sized properties that provide training and those that do

not provide training.

It is important to understand respondents’ perceptions of the values of
training, and the factors that stimulate or keep (barriers) lodging properties from
providing training. Comparing the properties that do train to those that do not
train will provide an understanding of the likelihood that those properties that do
not train are inclined to follow an HCT or a SLMT approach to training should
they one day decide to provide training.

In general, a low stimulus or barrier scale score indicates that there are
few factors that influence a property toward training or keep it away from
training. A high score indicates that a variety of factors influence a property’s
training activities. Stimuli may include anything from customer and employee
feedback to Mobil/AAA ratings. Barriers may include anything from cost-to
resources. Similarly, a low value scale score indicates that a property places

little value on training, whereas a high value scale score indicates that a

property places a high value on training.

If a lower value is placed on training by those properties that do not train
and the stimuli scores are lower, then the SLMT provides a framework for
understanding what is occurring in the lodging industry. In this case, the barrier
scores could be higher or lower with few implications. However, if the value is
the same as or higher than the value for those that provide training, then the
HCT better explains why organizations do not train. In this case, the barrier
scores would be higher, and the stimuli scores would be lower. It therefore
becomes imperative to understand the barriers experienced by these properties
to providing training because these properties may find training valuable but the
barriers too great to overcome. A summary of the expected outcomes for each

theoretical perspective is provided in Figure 2.2.

HCT—DO PROVIDE TRAINING HCT-DO NOT PROVIDE TRAINING
High value scales High value scales

Low stimulus scales Low stimulus scales

High or low barrier scales High barrier scales because something

is keeping properties from training

SLMT-DO PROVIDE TRAINING SLMT-DO NOT PROVIDE TRAINING
Low value scales . Low value scales
High stimulus scales (because Low stimulus scales (because
that is why properties provide properties do not provide training)
training) -
High or low barrier scales High or low barrier scales

Figure 2.2: Theoretical perspective for those properties that do and do not
provide training.

57

Hymthesis 3

For those properties that provide training, there is no difference in the

amount of training provided and the types of training courses offered, by

(a) employee type and (b) property size.

It was considered valuable to understand the amount of training, the types
of training courses, and the investments made in training employees in
Michigan’s lodging industry. Both hourly and management employees were
assessed separately to determine whether employees were provided training
differently, based on their employment status.

The HCT suggests that no difference will be found between employee
groups with regard to the amount of training or the types of training courses
offered. Training was expected to be valued equally across employee
categories in an organization that supports human capital, although the HCT
does not specifically indicate that this will occur. Such a finding would represent
new ground from which the HCT can be applied.

Conversely, the SLMT indicates that a difference will exist between

employee groups. If such a difference is found to exist, these results would

confirm the SLMT.

Hyppthesis 4

For those properties that provide training, there is no relationship
between the amount of training provided and the attitudes of lodging
general managers/owners toward the value of training, by (a) employee
type and (b) property size.

This hypothesis addresses the value placed on training by assessing the

attitudes of general managers/owners toward training. The HCT indicates that

58

em;
ben

HC'

est;
bus

asl

this

trail

amc
HC‘

36

employers have a positive attitude toward training, finding it necessary and
beneficial for both employees and employers. These findings would confirm the
HCT and support literature indicating that various values ascribed to both
employers and employees regarding training do, in fact, exist.

The SLMT suggests that employers perceive training as good for some
employees, but not equally important for all. Because not all employees may
receive training, the SLMT would not be as positive toward the value of training

for employees.

Hypothesis 5

For those properties that provide training, there is no significant

difference among various sizes of lodging properties with regard to the

amount of training provided, by employee type.

This hypothesis is intended to extend previous researchers’ efforts to
establish size as a factor that may influence the amount of training completed by
businesses. The extension to the lodging industry could represent new territory
as few studies have focused on organizations with small numbers of employees.

Neither the HCT nor the SLMT specifically addresses the substance of
this hypothesis. Other researchers have found size to influence the amount of
training received, but the theories have not been used to explain why this
occurs. These theories may be used to help explain the effect of size on the
amount of training, which would represent new ground for both of them. The

HCT would suggest that the amount of training will be similar across

organization sizes. Conversely, the SLMT would suggest that size may affect

59

the amount of training conducted in an organization because property size also
influences the number and types of employees in an organization. The SLMT
would suggest that, the larger the organization, the more need there is for skilled
employees and hence the significantly more training provided than in smaller

properties.

Hymthesis 6

For those properties that provide training, there is no relationship

between the amount of training provided and employee turnover in

lodging properties, by (a) employee type and (b) property size.

As suggested in the literature, two types of relationships exist between
turnover and training. The first relationship suggests that low employee turnover
may be the result of training. The second relationship suggests that high-
tumover organizations provide less training. This hypothesis was designed to
aid in understanding the relationship between these two variables in lodging
organizations.

The HCT suggests that a relationship exists between training and low
turnover. The issue of turnover is suggested in the HCT, and Becker (1995)
contended that organizations that train have lower employee turnover. Such a
finding in this study would support the HCT.

The SLMT does not indicate a specific relationship between these two
variables. However, high turnover in an organization would negatively affect the

amount of training provided. Those organizations with high turnover would not

provide as much training because their priority lies with employees with higher

60

skill and longevity. Because turnover is high, training should not be provided
because less-skilled employees tend to leave an organization.

The second relationship (high-tumover organizations provide less
training) has not been studied using either theory. It is reasonable to suggest,
however, that the HCT would indicate that high turnover is a reason
organizations become human-capital oriented and provide more training. The
SLMT would suggest that high turnover is not a reason to provide training
because less-skilled employees leave organizations more often, and thus they

should be given less training.

Hypothesis 7

For those properties that provide training, there is no relationship
between the amount of training provided and the various stimuli and
barriers that influence training activities, by (a) employee type and

(b) property size.

A variety of factors have been shown to influence the amount of training
provided by organizations. Some of these factors have shown a clear
relationship, whereas other relationships have not been delineated. Various
factors have been translated into stimuli and barriers toward training, which will
provide an understanding of the factors that influence training in the lodging
industry.

The HCT would suggest that barriers may or may not affect an
organization’s training. However, stimuli may or may not influence a developed

training agenda. Conversely, the SLMT would suggest that training will be

influenced by stimuli because “problems” would more likely be the reason SLMT

61

organizations train. Barriers may or may not affect training that is provided by

organizations oriented to the SLMT.

62

CHAPTER III
METHODS

Introduction

The procedures used in the investigation are described in this chapter.
The chapter is divided into seven sections: (a) study population and sampling
frame (b) instrumentation; (c) response rates and representative nature of the
population and sample; (d) data collection; (e) validity, reliability, and
nonresponse measures; (f) data analysis; and (g) limitations. The data are
described in the first three sections. The research methodology is explained in
the next three sections. In the final section, limitations in the research

methodology are summarized.

Mtudv Population and Sinplingjm

Study Population

The study population included general managers/owners of hotels,
motels, resorts, cabins, and cottages in Michigan. Several sources were
contacted to estimate the size of the population, as well as to determine the
sampling frame. To identify population size, an inventory of lodging properties in
Michigan was obtained. Spotts (1991) indicated, from a 1986 data set, that
there were 3,489 lodging properties in Michigan. These lodging properties

9

63

included 59% hotels and motels, 36% cabins and cottages, 5% bed and

breakfasts and historic inns, and less than 1% condominiums (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Lodging population, Travel Michigan Product Database (TMPD),
and sampling frame distribution, by property type.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lodging Populations TMPDb Sampling Frame
Property Type
y as Ll % u %
Hotels/motels 2,162 67 1,193 52 1,193 67
Resorts/cablns 710 22 589 26 589 33
ere, condo, etc. 402° 12 509° 22 . - -
Overall total 3,274 101d 2,291 100 1,782 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Figures in this column are from Spencer (1999).

bFigures in this column are from the Travel Michigan Product Database
(TMPD) (1999).

°The lodging population excludes historic inns in the B/B category,
whereas the TMPD includes historic inns in the BIB category. Historic inns are
accounted for in the hotel/motel category under Lodging Population.

dTotal does not equal 100% due to rounding errors.

Spotts (1991) indicated that securing a comprehensive list of Michigan
lodging properties was difficult and that the current database omitted many
properties. However, Wall (1998) and Klingeman (1999), of the Michigan Hotel,
Motel, and Resort Association (MHMRA), indicated that they had no updated
data since 1986. Spencer (1999) was completing a more recent inventory of
lodging pr0perties in Michigan. Preliminary findings indicated that the 3,274
lodging properties fell into similar categories as in the 1986 study. Results

indicated that 67% of the inventory were hotels and motels; 22% were resorts,

64

cabins, and cottages; and 12% were bed and breakfasts and condominiums
(Table 3.1). As the published data were 13 years old, the more recent
representation of the current supply was used in this study.

Although an inventory existed, a database listing properties by name and
address was not available. Therefore, a database that included as many lodging
properties as possible was solicited for this study. Two such databases existed.
Wall (1998) reported that the MHMRA membership database contained
approximately 540 lodging properties. He recommended using a different data
source that provided a larger sample. The second database was obtained from
Michigan’s state travel office, Travel Michigan. Their database provided a more
comprehensive list of current information on Michigan lodging properties.
Marabate (1998) and Foutts (1999) indicated that the Travel Michigan Product
Database (TMPD) is the most complete source of information on Michigan’s
lodging properties. That database includes 2,291 properties. Based on these

findings, the TMPD was selected as the study population.

Representative Composition of the Overall Powlation

Of the 2,291 lodging properties in the study population, 52% were hotels
and motels; 26% were resorts, cabins, or cottages; and 22% were bed and
breakfasts, historic inns, home/condominium rentals, or rooming/boarding
houses (Table 3.1). The most recent unpublished data by Spencer (1999)
showed a similar ratio of property types as in the TMPD database. More than
half of both databases consisted of hotels and motels, representing 66% of the
data by Spencer (1999) and 52% of the data published by the TMPD. Slight
differences existed in the percentages of resorts, cabins, and cottages—22% and

65

26%, respectively, in the two databases. Bed and breakfasts and condominiums
comprised 12% and 22%, respectively, of the database totals. Although the total
number of lodging properties differed by almost 1,000 properties between the

two databases, the ratio of different types of properties remained similar.

Sampling Frame

Those properties that were more likely to employ staff and have more
complex operations were included in this study because the objective of this
research could not be fulfilled without lodging operations that were more
complex in nature. The sampling frame comprised those properties listed as
hotels, motels, resorts, cabins, or cottages. Foutts (1999) indicated that the
cabins and cottages segment included resorts. Therefore, resorts were included
in this study. Properties in the bed and breakfast, historic inn, and condominium
category were not used in this study. Overall, 1,782 properties fit this sampling
frame. The distribution by categories in the sampling frame is similar to the
distribution of the total lodging population. The lodging population, TMPD, and

sampling frame are summarized in Table 3.1.

geographic Representation of Population,
TMPD, and Sampling Frame

To help ensure the representative nature of the sample population,

 

geographic comparisons also were made. The state of Michigan was separated
into four geographic areas to investigate the distribution of properties, comparing
the sample to the database and population. Michigan was separated into the

Upper Peninsula, northern Michigan, southwest Michigan, and southeast

66

Michigan. Figure 3.1 shows the geographical distribution of Michigan counties

by region.

Upper
Peninsula

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

we

 

a... Northern

 

 

 

 

II‘l

 

MI] Michigan

 

 

 

Southwest

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan

(7...

 

 

A”

 

I T"
...H“
a. ”Jae-Ir

 

 

 

 

#
I II-
can

 

 

 

 

Kah-
um

 

um-
um
”h” m

 

 

Southeast

 

 

\U
Bum
C80

 

is;

 

Im"

 

Michigan

Lona-o

 

 

 

Figure 3.1: Geographical regions of Michigan.

67

According to Spencer’s (1999) unpublished data, there were 3,274
commercial lodging properties in Michigan. Excluding the bed/breakfast and
condominium categories, 2,872 properties remained. This figure included hotels
and motels, cabins and cottages, and major resorts. More properties were
located in northern Michigan than any other area in Michigan. Northern
Michigan was followed by southeast Michigan, the Upper Peninsula, and finally,
southwest Michigan (Table 3.2). The 1,782 properties in the TMPD sampling
frame were distributed similarly among the four geographic areas. Forty-one
percent of the sampling frame was from the northern area of Michigan, 25% from
the Upper Peninsula, 20% from the southeastern area, and 14% from the

southwestern area (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2: Geographic distribution of the population and sampling frame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lodging Population Sampling Frame
Geographic Area
N % N %
Northern Michigan 1,112 39 727 41
Southeast Michigan 788 27 357 20
Upper Peninsula 570 20 443 25
Southwest Michigan 402 14 255 14
Total 2,872 100 1,782 100

 

 

 

 

There appeared to be a small difference in the number of properties
represented in the Upper Peninsula and southeast portions of Michigan. The
geographic distribution of the sampling frame indicated that the Upper Peninsula

was slightly overrepresented and the southeast was slightly underrepresented in

68

the sampling frame. This difference indicated that the TMPD did not include as

many southeast Michigan properties as did the overall population.

Sampling Process

In an effort to determine the sampling process, qualitative interviews were
conducted with 15 Michigan lodging property general managers/owners. Those
selected were drawn from hotel, motel, and resort properties in each of the four
regions in Michigan. General managers/owners from different-sized properties
were interviewed, as well. These qualitative interviews were conducted through
telephone and face-to-face contact. A subjective, nonprobability sampling
method was used to determine which general managers/owners to interview.
Those interviewed were personal contacts and random contacts through local
Convention and Visitor Bureau referrals. The issues discussed with this pilot
sample included (a) the amount and type of training, (b) their attitudes toward
training, (c) the barriers that kept them from training, and (d) the factors that
influenced their decision to train (see Appendix A). Results were summarized
and are presented in Appendix B.

Confirmed by the interview findings, the sample was stratified by two
variables, type of property and property size (number of guest rooms). The type
of property included hotel/motel or resort, and cabin/cottage. The property size
was divided into small (1 to 35 guest rooms), medium (36 to 100 guest rooms),
and large (more than 100 guest rooms) properties. The interviews confirmed

enough variation in responses to warrant the categorization into small, medium,

69

and large properties. Wall (1998) supported that the breakdown of properties
resembles the membership categories of the MHMRA

In addition, Morrison’s (1998) research on the descriptors of small
properties in the lodging industry stressed the need to be sensitive to the
characteristics of various property sectors. Smaller properties tend to (a) have
less formal structures (a flattened organizational chart), (b) employ fewer staff,
(c) be managed by an independent or small group, (d) often be managed by
hands-on owners, and (e) have general jobs that include a combination of tasks
(Lattin, 1989; Morrison, 1998). Even though small properties have these
differences, some researchers have indicated that small properties are difficult to
identify because they are diverse in size and variety (Morrison, 1998; Ogden,
1998). Lodging-property literature has addressed the categorization of
properties by a number of variables because properties vary greatly in
organizational structure. These variables have included location, type of
property, room rate, product or service features, and the number of guest rooms
(Rompf, 1994).

Number of guest rooms was determined to be the variable used to
distinguish property sizes in this study. A variety of means have been used to
determine the number of guest rooms that distinguish a category of lodging
properties, and little agreement exists in the results. Small properties have from
8 to 24 guest rooms (Kalt, 1971; Morrison, 1998), 39 or fewer guest rooms
(Glancey 8. Pettigrew, 1997), 50 or fewer guest rooms (Lee-Ross, 1998), or

fewer than 100 guest rooms (Rompf, 1994). The average is anywhere from 9 to

70

27 guest rooms (Lee-Ross, 1998). Kalt (1971) suggested that larger properties
average 84 to 120 guest rooms.

With these noted discrepancies among investigators in categorizing
lodging properties, consideration was given to these authors, the interview
findings, and an interview with the Michigan Hotel, Motel, and Resort
Association to determine the breakdown of the number of guest rooms into
small, medium, and large property sizes. The small properties do have fewer
employees and more managers/owners, who complete more general tasks in
their positions. Medium-sized properties tend to have more specialization of
jobs, be affiliated with management companies/franchises, and have more
employees, whereas large properties tend to have a large number of employees
in specialized jobs, complex operating structures, and belong to management
companies. The final study population, broken down by type and size of the

property, is summarized in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: The sample population by type and size of lodging property.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Size of Property
Type of Property
Small ([1) Medium (p) Large (Q) Total
Hotels/motels 683 274 236 1,193
Resorts, cabins/cottages 556 16 17 589
Total sample population 1,239 290 253 1,782

 

 

 

 

The sample size for the study was based on an anticipated 50% response

rate, the findings of the interviews, and the desire to carry out statistical

71

 

analyses at the .05 level of significance. As a result, 300 small, 166 medium,
and 167 large properties were sampled. Based on interview findings, it was
decided to oversample small properties. The owners/general managers who
were interviewed suggested that small properties were not only hard to reach
due to seasonal closings, but also would be less likely to participate in the study.
It appeared that they did not hire many employees, and therefore did not
conduct as much training as the larger properties. Six hundred thirty-three
lodging property general managers/owners across various sizes and types of
properties were included in the sample. Table 3.4 depicts the study sample, by

type and size of lodging property.

Table 3.4: The study sample by type and size of lodging property.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Size of Property
Type of Property
Small ([1) Medium (p) Large (g) Total
Hotels/motels 150 150 150 450
Resorts, cabins/cottages 150 16 17 183
Total sample 300 166 167 633

 

 

 

 

 

Three steps were taken to identify the actual properties to be included in
the sample. First, those completing a qualitative interview were excluded from
the study population. Second, the database appeared to have some
duplications within the categories; therefore, every attempt was made to
eliminate the duplicated properties. Third, a stratified random sampling process

was used to secure the sample in each property-size category. A random start

72

was selected, and every pth property (the number varied due to population- and
sample-size differences) was selected for inclusion in the sample, based on 300
small-sized properties, 166 medium-sized properties, and 167 large-sized
properties.

Once the first sample was selected, telephone contact was made with
each property to verify (a) the name and address of the property, (b) the size of
the property, (c) the name of the general manager/owner, and (d) general
manager/owner support in completing the forthcoming questionnaire. Properties
were excluded from the sample if they (a) asked not to be sent a questionnaire,
(b) were no longer in business, and/or (c) did not answer the telephone. Contact
was made with all the properties through personal telephone contact or leaving a
message on telephone answering machines.

This effort fell short in reaching the intended number of properties for the
sample. Therefore, a second sample was obtained from the remaining
properties in the sampling frame. Telephone contact again was made until the

desired sample size was reached.

Sepgraphip Representation of the Sample

The sample taken from the sampling frame, as well as the sample
respondents, was similar to the distribution of the population and the sampling
frame, as noted earlier in discussing Table 3.1. Slight differences existed
among the four geographical areas, but these differences were inconsequential

(Table 3.5).

73

 

Ta

 

UNI

QUE

qua

Table 3.5: Geographic distribution of the sample and sample respondents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ Sample Respondents

. Geographic Area p % p %
Upper Peninsula 138 22 55 25
Northern Michigan 219 36 86 40
Southwest Michigan 91 15 ' 24 11
Southeast Michigan 168 27 52 24
Total 616 100 217 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The geographical distribution of the population, sampling frame, sample,
and respondents varied only slightly. The respondents appeared to be slightly
underrepresented in southeast and southwest Michigan. They were slightly
overrepresented in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. These
differences, however, were very similar to differences in the distribution of the
population. Therefore, respondents were considered to be a representative

sample of the population in terms of geography.

Instrumentation
A questionnaire was used in this study. The development of the
questionnaire was completed through literature analysis and the aforementioned

qualitative interviews.

Interviews
To understand the industry’s practices, a framework needed to be

developed to understand the factors that influenced training. Comparisons could

74

not be made to other industries because of the unique characteristics of the
lodging industry. A framework to understand these unique factors was found in
a study by Sorg, Fardig, Lange, and Koch (1984), who used a technique for
uncovering factors that work for or against an issue. This process was formatted
around Kurt Lewin’s force-field analysis technique, which identifies the forces
that cause resistance to completing an activity and shows how change can be
successful. To incorporate the force-field analysis process, the interviews
included open- and closed-ended interview questions that focused on
understanding the factors that influence an organization to train. Specifically,
the influence that various barriers and stimuli had on the amount of training
conducted was investigated.

Findings from the interviews indicated that several factors influenced
lodging properties. These included factors that stimulated the properties to train,
such as customer feedback, competition, AAA/Mobil ratings, franchise
relationships, employee/management feedback, recruitment, and retention.
Factors that were barriers to training included business demands, size of the
operation, resources (time and money), expertise, and seasonality (Appendix B).

In addition, questions were asked regarding the amount of training and
value placed on training. In general, respondents from all sizes of properties
viewed training as valuable. Those from large properties indicated training to be
a top priority, whereas the medium properties were slightly less likely to place
this type of emphasis on training, and small properties were much less likely to

place this type of emphasis on training. Most smaller properties relied on on-

75

tr:

Iii

prr

Ins
\

W8

rel:
Plo
sen
Don
ma:
On I

We:

the-job (informal) training, whereas medium and large properties tended to offer
both formal and informal training. Large properties offered the most formal
training beyond an orientation program (Appendix B).

Respondents from the small properties tended to view their current
training practices as appropriate for their employees, whereas those from the
medium and large properties wanted to provide more training. Cost was the
most apparent reason why medium properties did not conduct more training.
Respondents from the large properties said time, practicality, and business
demands were the reasons why more training was not occurring. Respondents
from the medium properties indicated that they trained employees for slightly
more hours than did the large properties. Both the medium and large properties

provided at least twice as much training as the small properties (Appendix B).

Instrument Development

Pilot test. From the interviews and literature review, a pilot questionnaire
was designed. It was administered to 30 individuals, 11 of whom included
lodging property owners/general managers from all sizes of properties. The
remaining pilot sample included lodging training consultants, lodging association
professionals, university faculty, and dissertation committee members. The pilot
sample was instructed to complete the questionnaire and comment on any
portion of the instrument that they found difficult to answer. Eight of 11 general
managers/owners responded, and 21 people overall completed and commented
on the instrument. They identified ways to improve the quality of the content and

presentation of the instrument.

76

Five sets of scales from the instrument were evaluated. In these scales
respondents were asked about their attitudes toward training and the factors that '
influenced training. Five of the eight questionnaires completed by the pilot
sample were used because three respondents did not complete the
questionnaire adequately. At least one response each from a small, medium,
and large property was included in the final analysis.

To assess the reliability of the scales used in the questionnaire, reliability
coefficients were calculated from the responses of general managers/owners.
Reliability coefficients of .70 or greater were considered indicative of adequate
reliability as the items in the scales were considered to be tightly connected
(Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1992).

Two of the five scales (organizational value and stimuli to training) had
alpha values of .79 and .97, respectively. Alpha values for the remaining three
scales (organizational value of training, general value of training, and barriers to

training) could not be determined due to the small sample size (Table 3.6).

Table 3.6: Description of the pilot questionnaire scales.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale
Organizational Employee General Stimuli to Barriers to
Value Value Value Training Training
No. of questions 10 1 1 7 10 10
Mean 2.7 - - 2.4 _.
24 1.4 - — .25 -
I! 5 — ... 4 ..
Range 1 .2-4.2 - - 1 .75-3.25 -
Reliability .79 - - .97 —

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

es':

ma

frer
rea
que
the

feel

has
Tne
inst

was

Results indicated that two of the scales, as written, were within the
established guidelines. Based on the pilot feedback, however, changes were
made to the questions.

Respondents recommended changes in each of the scales. The most
frequent suggestions centered on changing the wording of questions and
rearranging the order of questions. Other feedback included eliminating
questions, adding questions, and moving a question to another scale. Many of
these suggestions were accepted, and the instrument was modified to reflect this

feedback. These changes were made to improve all scale reliability scores.

Final Instrument Development

The survey questionnaire, designed for mail distribution, was developed
based on information gained from the interviews and the reviewed literature.
The development of the questionnaire involved several processes. No existing
instrument addressed similar objectives; therefore, each questionnaire section
was developed with the following specific considerations.

Perceived value of training. The value of training was categorized into
three areas: organizational value, employee value, and general value. The
HCT and SLMT along with various studies on training were considered in
creating the statements for the instrument. A Likert—type scale (ranging from
Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) was used to elicit participants” responses

to positively and negatively worded value statements.

78

IE

is
su
on

tirr

more
altar

trairlil

The final 13 items in the organizational value scale were based primarily
on studies using the HCT and other research conducted on the value of training
to organizations. Senat (1992), Conrade et al. (1994), Geale (1995), Payne
(1996), and Cline (1997) indicated that several advantages exist for an
organization that provides training. These advantages include employee
retention, reduced turnover, positive employee attitude, increased employee
productivity, and increased organizational profitability. In addition, a few of the
items were based on suggestions made during the pilot study; these concerned
such things as guest satisfaction and guest revenue. Some items were based
on comments made in the interviews, such as the value placed on training when
times are difficult.

The 11-item employee value scale was partially designed from studies
based on the HCT and SLMT. More specifically, the HCT suggests that
employees earn higher wages if they have received training. The SLMT
indicates that training may be more valued for one employee group than
another. Questions were designed to address both of these issues. Freeman
(1978), Gaertner and Nollen (1989), Geale (1995), and Payne (1996) provided
the framework for many of the questions relating to the value employees receive
from training. Their findings suggested that employees who are trained are
more committed and satisfied. Employees also develop their skills and self-
awareness based on training. Overall, they are better employees and view

training positively. The findings from the interviews suggested that training is

79

earli
in lh

Bloc

also a reason employees consider one company over another, and this question
was also added to the scale.

The seven questions in the general value scale were largely designed
from studies based on the HCT and other research. These questions referenced
literature that suggested training was worthWhile, valuable, and necessary
(Bailey, 1998; Bergman, 1995; Caudron, 1996; Guthrie & Schwoerer, 1994).
Some of the research findings did not fit into either organizational or employee
value category. Therefore, the general value category was created to represent
these findings.

Overall, information gained from the literature, interviews, and the pilot
study was used in developing the instrument for this research. Each scale in
this section included at least one question that was positively worded and one
that was negatively worded (Figure 3.2).

Factors that influence training. The qualitative interviews, described
earlier, served as a means for studying the various factors that influence training
in the lodging industry, specifically. The literature was reviewed during this
process, and additional training influences were identified.

The factors that influence training generally fell into one of two categories:
(a) those that stimulate organizations to train and (b) those that keep
organizations from training. Both stimuli and barriers were identified and placed
into two scales, Which represented the factors that influenced properties to train

or not to train.

80

SA

A25.
Il27.
A28.
429.
A30.
All,

Figllr

 

Please circle your response to these statements regarding your view of training using the

following scale.

SA 8 Strongly Agree A I Agree N = Neutral D = Disagree SD 8 Strongly Disagree

ORGANIZATIONAL VALUE

A1. When times are tough, money spent on training

is one of the first Items to be cut.
A2. Trained employees have greater job satisfaction.
A3. Training reduces employee turnover.
A4. Training is an expense rather than an investment.
A5. Training can improve employee productivity.
A6. Customers view training positively.
A7. Training has no impact on organizational profit.
A8. Training has no effect on employee attitude.
A9. Training is a top priority in my organization.
A10. Training positively impacts guest revenue.
A11. Trained employees have less job satisfaction.
A12. Training increases guest satisfaction.
A13. l have seen no organizational improvements as

a result of training.

EMPLOYEE VALUE

A14. Employees view training positively.

A15. Employees who participate in training are more
committed to the organization.

A16. Training builds employee skills.

A17. Front line employees have more to gain from
training than management employees.

A18. Employees are satisfied with the amount of
training they receive.

A19. Employees benefit from receiving training.

A20. Training improves employee self-awareness.

A21. Training does not affect employee work quality.

A22. Trained employees receive higher wages.

A23. Organizations that train are more attractive to
new employees.

A24. Training does not build employee skills

GENERAL TRAINING VALQE
A25. Training programs are worthwhile.

A28. Training programs have no impact on tumover.

A27. Training programs are necessary.

A28. With additional resources I would train more.

A29. On-the-job training (working alongside an
employee) is the most beneficial type of training.

A30. Training is a luxury.

A31. Training programs are unnecessary.

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

SA

SA

SA
SA

SA

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

SA
SA

SA
SA
SA
SA

SA
SA
SA

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

>> >>>>> > >> >

>>> >>>>

Z 222222222222

22 22222 Z 22 Z

222 2222

U) mmmmmmmmmmmm

(DU) (0010,0303 (I) (DU) (0

corner manna)

SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD

SD

SD
SD

SD

SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD
SD

SD
SD
SD
SD

SD
SD
SD

 

Figure 3.2: Survey items on organizational, employee, and general value of

training.

81

WBIE
(Kai
Mon
199i

58W

cusl
lrai:
wer
qua
ml”.
the

the

lie

18

The factors identified as barriers and stimuli with reference to the HCT
were competition and turnover. Further research on the influence of change
(Kappleman & Prybutok, 1995; Lynch & Black, 1996), technology (Colarelli &
Montei, 1996; Mellan, 1988), and turnover (Bishop, 1991; Colarelli & Montei,
1996; Lynch & Black, 1996; Wanous et al., 1979) was used in developing
several questions.

Additional factors discovered during the interviews included recruitment,
customer feedback, cost, AAA/Mobil ratings, business demands, usefulness of
training, franchise relationships, expertise, and seasonality. Other questions
were based on suggestions made in the pilot study; these included lack of
qualified trainers and space, and employee and management feedback. In
combination, the information gathered from the interviews, the pilot study, and
the literature review was used in developing the barrier and stimulus items for
the questionnaire(Figure 3.3).

Respondents were asked two open-ended questions to elaborate on the
barriers and stimuli to providing training. These questions, as well as the entire
questionnaire, may be found in Appendix C.

Surrent training practices. Closed- and open-ended questions were used
to investigate the amount and type of training conducted by lodging properties.
Several methods have been used in previous studies to determine this
information. One frequently used technique is simply to ask respondents to
identify the amount of training provided to employees during a specific time
frame, ranging from a few months to a year (Bishop, 1991; Colarelli & Montei,

1996). During the interviews, it became clear that lodging properties most often

82

 

To what extent would each of the following factors be considered barriers to your
providing employee training.

Amount of Influence

 

no barrier high barrier
81. High employee turnover
82. Poor profits
83. Seasonality of my property
84. Lack of training expertise
85. Cost of training
86. Lack of time
87. Organization does not value training
88. Lack of need (employees are skilled)
89. High business demands
B10. Usefulness of training
B11. Lack of qualified trainers
812. Lack of training space
813. Other

Ad-sA-L-t—Ld—Itd-L-l—A
NNNNNNNNNNNNN
uuuwwuwuwwwwu
A#&#&#«bn§h¥-§#¥
mmmmmmmmmmmmu

 

How much has or would each of the following factors
stimulate your decision to provide employee training.

Amount of Influence

no stimulus -------- high stimulus

816. The introduction or advancement

of technology at the property 1 2 3 4 5
B17. Improved profitability/performance 1 2 3 4 5
818. Increased competition 1 2 3 4 5
819. Change(s) at the property 1 2 3 4 5
820. Change(s) within the industry 1 2 3 4 5
821. High employee turnover 1 2 3 4 5
822. Existing in-house expertise 1 2 3 4 5
823. Existing resources 1 2 3 4 5
824. Owner/franchise/corporate mandates 1 2 3 4 5
825. Difficulty recruiting employees 1 2 3 4 5
828. Lack of skill in employees 1 2 3 4 5
827. AAA/Mobil ratings 1 2 3 4 5
828. Customer feedback/expectations 1 2 3 4 5
829. Poor performance/profitability 1 2 3 4 5
830. Employee/management feedback 1 2 3 4 5
831. Other 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

Figure 3.3: Survey items on factors that influence training.

83

ar

err
ha
Me
am

ma

pro
lie:
the
Dru
Van

and

IESp
gene
IIIEfa

I0 Ira

provided training early in an employee’s tenure. However, business demands
sometimes kept employees from receiving some training until after several
months of employment. Respondents therefore were asked to indicate the
amount of training provided to new employees in their first year of employment.

Taking this question one step further, the SLMT suggests that different
employee groups receive different amounts of training, and several researchers
have found that to be true (Camevale & Camevale, 1994; Jackson et al., 1989;
Medoff, 1982; Scott, 1995). In this study, respondents were asked to specify the
amount of training received by two different employee groups: front line and
management employees.

Additional data were solicited regarding the types of training courses
provided to employees. This list of courses was largely derived from the
literature and confirmed during the interviews. Respondents indicated whether
the training was completed formally or informally and by what type of training
provider. These response choices were obtained from studies by Bassi and
VanBuren (1998), Camevale and Carnevale (1994), Lynch and Black (1996),
and Training Magazine (1996). (See questionnaire, Appendix C.)

Demographic information. Twenty-six items in the instrument concerned
respondents’ personal characteristics, lodging property characteristics, and
general training practices at the property. Questions developed from the
literature regarding training practices concerned the amount of money allocated

to training, the person responsible for training, and whether training was a

84

budgetary line item (Bassi 8 VanBuren, 1998; Bergman, 1995; Conrade et al.,
1994; Gordon, 1991).

One important question concerned the size of the property. Saari et al.
(1988), Camevale and Camevale (1994), Scott (9195), Jacobs et al. (1996), and
Lynch and Black (1996) found a relationship between the size of an organization
and the amount of training conducted. This question was asked in addition to
several others regarding general property characteristics. Other questions
concerned occupancy percentage, profitability, size of corporation, franchise
affiliation, percentage of employee turnover, geographic location, type of
property, types of guests served, seasonality, and the number of employees by
season. These questions were derived mainly from property interviews and pilot
study feedback.

It also was important to understand the personal characteristics of the
respondents themselves. Thus, they were asked to indicate their current
position, length of time in their current position, age, and educational level.
Questions in all three areas were designed to gain insights into the relationship

these variables had to training. (See questionnaire, Appendix C.)

W

Of the 633 properties included in the sample, 616 were included in the
final sample population. During the return of each of the three mailings, five
address duplications were discovered and 12 questionnaires were returned due

to ‘no such address” or “forwarding address unknown,” resulting in 616

85

pr:

QUES

properties that were available for sampling. Two hundred eighty-six small, 164
medium, and 166 large properties were contacted. The overall response rate
was 35%. Large properties responded more often than small or medium
properties. Large properties had a 39% response rate, whereas small and
medium properties had response rates of 36% and 31%, respectively. The

response rate by size of property is summarized in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7: Response rate by property size.

 

Property Size

 

Small Medium Large Missing‘I Total

 

n/N%nIN%n/N%n/N%QI_N%

 

Response

rate 102/286 36 511164 31 64/166 39 1l1 100 218/616 35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'One respondent blacked out the questionnaire size code. Hence, this
property was the only one that could not be placed in a size category.

Data Sollection

Dillman (1978) suggested that an investigator should address four areas
to encourage a higher response in survey research. Respondents should (a) be
provided a reward for completing the questionnaire, (b) be sent correspondence
by first-class mail, (c) have a trusted relationship with the investigator, and
(d) not incur any associated costs. The researcher addressed these issues in
the data-collection process by (a) offering respondents an opportunity to win a
conference attendance and to receive the study results; (b) sending the

questionnaire by first-class mail; (c) personally contacting respondents to

86

introduce the questionnaire, asking permission to send a questionnaire, and
thanking them for their assistance; and (d) ensuring no cost to respondents
through support from Travel Michigan, the MHMRA, Michigan State University,
and Central Michigan University.

Dillman (1978) indicated that the Total Design Method for mail survey
research included first-class postage, postage-paid return envelopes, postcard
reminders, and follow-up mailings to nonrespondents. Dillman recommended
using certified mail for the third mailing to nonrespondents to increase the total
response. These steps were followed with one exception. The certified-mail
recommendation was not used due to a poor response rate in the first two
mailings and budget constraints.

The following protocol was followed to collect the data and secure the
highest number of possible responses. By first-class mail, the study sample was
sent a cover letter, a questionnaire, a first-class retum-addressed, stamped
envelope, and an incentive postcard. A copy of each of these items is included
in Appendix D. A chance in a drawing for a complimentary conference
attendance, donated by the MHMRA, was provided to encourage respondents to
complete the questionnaire. Respondents could also request a copy of the
study findings. In addition, every attempt was made to personalize each letter
with the name of the general manager/owner. However, not all names were
accessible or provided. General managers/owners whose names were not
identified were sent a generic “Dear General Manager or Owner" letter. Results

indicated that personalized letters were responded to more often than generic

87

let

rel

Ta

lEIT

que

for 1

W8“

Tabi

\MQEEMEQ

letters-38% and 21%, respectively. The influence of personalization on the

return rate is shown in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8: Survey response by personalized or generic cover letter.

 

Property Size

 

Cover Letter Small Medium Large Total

 

nib! 95 M! 99 Mr! 95 M4. 96

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personalized 89/206 43 441147 30 63/165 36 197l516 38
Generic 13/80 16 7/17 41 1/1 100 21/98 21
Total 102/286 36 51l164 31 64/166 39 218/616 35

 

 

Approximately two weeks after the initial mailing, each general manager]
owner was sent a reminder postcard. Three separate mailings were conducted;
reminder postcards were sent only after the first two mailings of the
questionnaire. Table 3.9 indicates the timeline, protocol, and overall response
for each mailing. Respondents, duplicate mailings, or addressees unknown

were eliminated from subsequent mailings.

Table 3.9: Timeline, protocol, and overall response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Timeline Protocol Response Rate

p/Mailing %

March 3, 1999 First mailing 120/633 19
March 9, 1999 Reminder postcard

March 23, 1999 Second mailing 54/505 11
April 3, 1999 Reminder postcard

April 28, 1999 Third mailing 44/451 10

Total response 218/616 35

 

88

 

sub
Cor
the

Pro!

vali
inic

mes

Ihrc
vali:
inst

W88

9051
Obie

Wen

COW

IIIEI';

As each questionnaire was returned, the responses were logged by code;
subsequent mailings did not include those who had previously responded. '
Confidentiality was maintained throughout the process as the investigator was

the only one to match the code to the actual name of the respondent and the

PVOPGW-

Validity, Reliability. and Nonresponse Measures

 

Babbie (1995) indicated that several techniques could be used to verify
validity and reliability in research efforts. Validity indicates whether the
information measured is what is intended to be measured, whereas reliability

means that the same processes would yield similar results.

yet—"cm!

Face, criterion-related, construct, and content validity can be addressed
through a number of processes (Babble, 1995). Two types of validity (face
validity and content validity) were addressed in this study to ensure that both the
instrumentation and the data-collection process were measuring what the study
was intended to measure.

Face validity was addressed through pilot testing the questionnaire to
ensure that the measurements made sense and that the questions would not be
objectionable to potential respondents. All comments made by pilot respondents
were taken into consideration as modifications were made to the instrument.

Content validity was addressed to ensure that a breadth of issues was
covered in the instrument used in this study. Interviews, a pilot study, and a

literature review were instrumental in ensuring content validity. Each of these

89

procedures provided additional insights that were helpful in confirming that the

instrument covered all related issues.

Reliabilig

Several techniques can be used to ensure similar results with repeated
measurements. Babbie (1995) suggested that research workers could cause
measurement unreliability. Research-worker reliability was addressed in two
ways in this study. First, only the investigator conducted interviews. Second,
two trained workers coded the questionnaires. One person was assigned and
trained to complete the coding of responses before data entry, whereas the
other worker was trained to enter the data. Random verification of coding of
questionnaire responses as well as data entry was conducted on 10% of the
completed questionnaires, with no apparent errors.

Reliability of scales. Reliability coefficients (alpha) were determined for
sets of items in five different scales to predict the reliability of the sets of items,
which represented one general measure. Before determining the alpha for each
subscale, negatively worded statements were recoded to reflect a positive
direction on the scale. Scales with reliability coefficients of .70 or greater were
considered reliable as the scale items were considered to be interrelated
(Frankfort-Nachmias 8 Nachnias, 1992). Alpha scores from .65 to .90 were
evident in the five scales created in this study.

Reliability coefficients for the scales were as follows: (a) 13-item
Organizational Value scale, alpha = .82; (b) 11-item Employee Value scale,
alpha = .74; and (c) 7-item General Training Value scale, alpha = .65. To
improve the reliability of the General Training Value scale, eliminating the lowest

90

 

(hr

V6

(0

SC

?

pn
p0

an

Co

(Fr

correlated item improved the alpha to only .71. Given this small improvement,
the item was left in the scale. The scale results indicated that internal
consistency existed, and a general measure could be obtained by combining the
various items in the scales.

Reliability coefficients were determined for both the barrier and stimuli
scales. With 12 and 15 items, respectively, both scales had adequate reliability
(coefficients = .81 and .91, respectively). These coefficients indicated that each

scale was internally consistent, and each was used as a separate measure.

Nonresponse Bias
Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias (1992) indicated that the most

prevalent error in survey research is nonresponse error. This occurs when
potential respondents fail to respond. If responses differ between respondents
and nonrespondents on key variables, potential bias exists. To determine
whether bias exists, data must be collected from a sample of nonrespondents.
Comparisons are then made between respondents and nonrespondents
(Frankfort-Nachmias 8 Nachmias, 1992).

One hundred fifty initial survey nonrespondents were contacted through
telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, and mail questionnaires. Fifty
properties in each of the three size categories were randomly selected fora
follow-up investigation. First, telephone contact was attempted. lf potential
respondents could not be contacted, they were sent a questionnaire by facsimile
machine or by first-class mail, along with a postage-paid retum-addressed
envelope. A copy of the nonresponse questionnaire is included in Appendix E.
Of the original 150 nonrespondents, 30 completed and returned questionnaires,

91

representing a 20% response rate. This group of 30 will be referred to as the
secondary respondents. Forty-three percent of the secondary respondents were
from small properties (13/30), 33% were from medium properties (10/30), and
23% were from large properties (7/30).

Several variables were compared between the groups of original and
secondary respondents. The secondary-respondents group responded similarly
to the original respondent group when asked about the amount of training
provided. Seventy-percent of the secondary respondents and 67% of the .
original respondents indicated that they conducted training. More than half of
the small properties represented in both the original (55%) and secondary (54%)
respondent groups did not conduct training. Most secondary respondents from
medium (90%) and large (100%) properties indicated that those properties
trained their employees. Similarly, the original respondent group reported that
moSt medium (84%) and large (87%) properties provided training.

The amount of training differed between the original and secondary
respondent groups. Moreover, the overall variance within each group (ad) in the
amount of training was large, ranging from 215 hours (original respondents) to
275 hours (secondary respondents). Mean number of hours of training for
hourly employees ranged from 56 hours (secondary respondents) to 93 hours
(original respondents). Management training ranged from 120 hours (original
respondents) to 215 hours (secondary respondents). Overall, training ranged
from 188 hours (original respondents) to 271 hours (secondary respondents).
This large variance may be explained in three ways. First, some properties may

be true training leaders, providing a great deal more training than other

92

 

pi
0C

I8

ac
CIl.

i8

recs
allril
num
And

Small

properties of similar sizes. A second explanation may be that respondents did
not provide accurate data. Finally, the small sample size of secondary
respondents may have influenced the mean scores and variance.

In an effort to address this variance, two analyses were conducted in
addition to the mean amount of training provided. The median score was used,
due to the noneffect toward extreme values (Blalock, 1979, p. 59). Blalock
recommended using a median score when extreme cases skew the data set. In
this study, the median scores more closely matched, at 43 and 56 hours of
training for hourly workers by secondary and original respondents, respectively.
The median amounts of training for management were 110 by secondary and 83
by original respondents. Finally, the overall total median hours of training were
157 by secondary respondents and 119 by original respondents. Therefore, a
set of central tendency measures was presented to include a mean and median
(Table 3.10).

Even though the amounts of training varied, the pattern of training
appeared similar when comparing the amounts of hourly and management
training. The patterns between both groups were similar in that management
received more training than did hourly employees. This difference may be
attributed to the small sample of secondary respondents, as well as the small
number of large properties responding. Large properties provided more training.
And with fewer large properties represented, the median score was likely to be

smaller (Table 3.10).

93

 

Table 3.10: The amount of training provided by properties that provide training,
as indicated by original and secondary respondents.

 

 

 

 

Amount of Training 3 Mean sq Median Range
Hourty Emmoyfi
Secondary respondent totals 16 56 33 43 8-120
Respondent totals 127 93 102 56 1482
Management Employees
Secondary respondent totals 16 215 264 110 40—960
Respondent totals 79 120 113 83 2-464
prrall Amount of Training
Secondary respondent totals 16 271 275 157 16-1 .040
Respondent totals 134 188 215 119 2.5-992

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The secondary respondents’ properties were just as likely to provide
training, but not with the same intensity, as the properties of those who initially
responded. Bias might not exist, however, due to the underrepresentation of
large properties among the secondary respondents.

Properties that provided training had higher turnover rates than those that
did not, for both the original and secondary respondent groups. Secondary
respondents’ properties that trained averaged a 60% turnover rate. Only two
respondents in the secondary group whose properties did not train responded to
the question about staff turnover. Those two properties averaged a 20% annual
turnover rate. Similarly, the original respondent group reported a 37% annual
staff turnover rate in facilities that provided training and a 21% turnover rate in
facilities that did not provide training. For both groups, properties that trained
employees had a higher annual staff turnover rate. Even though the percentage

of employee turnover varied, the pattern was the same between those that

94

 

If:

 

trained and those that did not train. Properties that trained had higher turnover
than those that did not train. The variance in intensity again might be
attributable to the lower number of large properties responding.

Six final questions were asked to investigate the original and secondary
respondents’ attitudes toward the organizational, employee, and general values
of training. As shown in Table 3.11, the mean scores of secondary and original

respondents varied by, at most, .4 points. Questions that received high and low

scores from the original respondents evidenced a similar pattern for secondary

respondents.

Table 3.11: Original and secondary respondents’ attitudes toward the value of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

training.
Secondary Respondents Original Respondents
Value Subscale
9 Mean g 9 Mean _s_d_
Organizational Value
1. Trained employees have greaterjob
satisfaction. 22 4.7 .48 142 4.5 .57
2. When times are tough, money spent
on training Is one of the first items to 21 2.8 1.10 142 3.2 1.20
be cut.
Employee Value
1. Training does not build employee
skill? 21 4.4 .75 144 4.4 .73
2. Employees are satisfied with the
amount of training they receive. 22 3.3 1.10 139 3.2 .71
General Value
1. Training programs are unnecessary/EI 22 4.2 1.10 142 4.5 .74
2. On-the-job training is the most bene-
ficlal type of training. 22 4.2 .92 143 3.9 .81

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The higher the score, the more in agreement the respondent was with

the question.

IiThis question was recoded to reflect a positive response scaling.

95

 

 

the

i8

8F

0U

the

we

be:

sec

at

T

 

euflfiflflflflflflmw ..\

Each question was tested using an independent-samples t-test to
determine whether a significant difference existed between the scores of the two
respondent groups. No significant difference was found between the secondary
and original respondents.

The final question was asked only of the secondary respondents. It
concerned the reasons why they had not responded to the original
questionnaire. The secondary respondents indicated one or two reasons for
their initial lack of response. Themost frequently given of the 42 responses
were “I am too busy” (7 responses) and “We do not have any employees
besides the owners at the property” (7 responses). The comments from the
secondary respondents are summarized in Table 3.12.

Table 3.12: Reasons secondary respondents gave for not completing the
questionnaire.

 

 

Reason

I3

 

I am too busy.

 

We do not have any employees besides owners at this property.

 

My demands at the property are too great (to participate).

 

I did not receive the questionnaire.

 

The questionnaire was too long.

 

We do not conduct training at this property.

 

I am not interested in learning about training practices.

 

I do not remember.

 

(empress-mags:

Other: I thought I filled it out, don't like doing questionnaires, name
misspelled, and new management

 

Total responses

&
N

 

 

 

 

The results from the nonresponse test are not definitive. However, four
conclusions can be drawn from these results. First, the number of properties
providing training was similar between the original and secondary respondents.
Second, the amount of training was similar in pattern but varied in intensity
between the original and secondary respondent groups. Third, employee
turnover as reported by the original and seCondary respondents suggested a
similar pattern with varying intensity. Finally, the most commonly reported
reasons for not participating in the original study related to high business
demands, a limited number of employees, and the absence of training. Overall,
the response patterns of the secondary respondents appeared to be similar to
those of the original respondents. These findings suggest that, if a bias exists, it

is likely to be small.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
Version 9 (SPSS, 1999). All of the 218 returned questionnaires were considered
usable; however, several from the small-property category were incomplete.
Those questionnaires were included only if a question was completely
answered.

The sample’s demographic, property, and training characteristics were
described using means, frequencies, and percentages. In addition, chi square,
Kendall’s tau-b, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted on nominal

and ordinal variables to identify whether relationships existed between property

97

aze
coHe

Uahi

issur

“nth

used

for ids

Wpecr
mcon

IOIiger

alldlo

 

these 5

as no i

 

size and certain characteristics. Data derived from the sample were analyzed
collectively, as well as separately by property size and by those properties that

trained. This was necessary to answer the study hypotheses.

Limitations
A number of limitations were identified that relate to methodological
issues in this study. Three categories of limitations are discussed in this section:
limitations of (a) population and sample selection, (b) questionnaire design, and

(c) communication to respondents.

Population and Sample Selection

 

Not all of Michigan’s lodging properties were included in the database
used in selecting the sample. However, the source used was the best available
for identifying Michigan’s current lodging properties.

The sample was derived from the Travel Michigan database, described by
type of property (hotel or resort) and by property size. Some duplications and
incorrect information were evident. Some properties in the database were no
longer in existence. Efforts were made to eliminate the duplicated properties
and to verify information through telephone contact with the sample. Although
these efforts were undertaken, 14 properties in the sample were later identified

as no longer being in business or as having duplicate addresses.

98

uestionnaire esi n

Two limitations were apparent regarding the questionnaire design. First,
because of a typographical error, the Likert scale values did not match the
response guide listed above the scales. The scale read SA, A, N, S, and SD for
strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree (see Figure 3.2).
The 'S” should have been a “D.” Several respondents indicated the error and
hand-wrote changes on their returned questionnaires. For those who did not
make the change on the scale, it was concluded that, because the scale
followed a logical sequence and the directions showed the progression of
responses, they also answered with this order in mind. Once the error was
identified in the first mailing, subsequent mailings indicated that the error
existed.

Second, respondents were not asked simply whether they conducted
training or not. The section in which respondents were asked to indicate the
amount of training they provided to hourly and management employees should
have included an overall question about whether they did any training for the
particular employee groups. It was concluded that, if the other sections of the
questionnaire were completed and the amount-of-training section was left blank,
the property did not train that employee type. If the overall question had been
asked, any doubt as to the likelihood that someone might have chosen not to

answer that section would have been removed.

99

 

o
O
3
:a

l

limiter
emplo
proper
busine
trainin
reSpor
were c
The 52

they c

 

communication Vtfith Resmndents

Directions should have specified that respondents from properties with
limited numbers of employees should consider the operating owners as
employees, as well. In the first mailing, several respondents from small
properties returned the questionnaire, indicating that they had a family-run
business and did not hire any employees; therefore, they did not conduct any
training. In subsequent mailings, an attempt was made to explain to
respondents that they should consider themselves as employees, and there
were other questions to answer beyond the amount of training they conducted.
The second and third mailings, however, also included respondents who thought

they could not answer the questionnaire.

100

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

W

In this study the researcher assessed which theory, the HCT or the SLMT,
provided the best explanation for the value placed on training, the factors that
influenced training, and the training practices used in Michigan’s lodging
industry. The results from this investigation are presented in the following
sections. The first section provides respondent profiles, lodging property
descriptions, and property training characteristics. The second section contains
the results of the hypothesis tests, which concern (a) differences in the
percentages of properties providing training, by property size and employee
type; (b) differences in the value, barrier, and stimuli scales between properties
that provide training and those that do not provide training; (c) differences in the
amount of training provided and the types of courses offered for both hourly and
management employees; (d) the relationship between respondents’ attitudes
toward training and the amount of training provided; (e) differences among
various sizes of lodging properties in the amount of training provided; (f) the

relationship between the amount of training provided and employee turnover;

101

and (g) the relationship between the amount of training provided and various
stimuli and barriers that influence training.
Description of Resppndents, Lodging Properties,
arLPrppertv TraininLCharacteristics
h r ri ti f od in Res ondents

Several variables were used to describe the personal characteristics of
the responding general managers/owners. These included position title,
educational level, age, and length of time in their position. The respondents
were split among general managers, owners, and other positions. As can be
seen in Table 4.1, 48% of the respondents were general managers, 42% were
owners, and 10% were in the “other” category. Eighty-three percent of
respondents from small properties were owners, whereas more than 70% of
respondents from medium and large properties were general managers. The
respondents’ educational levels also varied. Fifty-two percent of the
respondents had at least a bachelor’s degree. Large properties had more
respondents with at least a bachelor's degree (70%) than did medium (51 %) and
small (39%) properties (Table 4.1).

Chi-square analysis was carried out to compare the relationship between
property size and educational level. Educational level was classified into three
categories, ensuring that at least five responses would be in each category. The
categories were high school/some college, associate’s/bachelor’s degree, and
some graduate school/master’s degree. The category “other“ was eliminated

from the analysis. Results indicated that a significant relationship existed

102

between property size and educational level; the chi-square value was 16.97,
which was significant at .002. As the property size increased, the educational

level of the respondents also increased.

Table 4.1: Position and educational level of respondents by property size.

 

 

 

 

 

Property Size
Total
Small Medium Large
3 % p % p % p %
Position
General manager 10 14 34 72 42 71 86 48
Owner 60 83 10 21 4 7 74 42
Other 2 3 3 6 13 22 18 10
Total 72 100 47 99" 59 100 178 100
Educational Level
High school 21 30 4 9 1 2 26 15
Some college 12 17 13 29 7 13 32 19
Associate’s degree 10 14 5 1 1 8 15 23 14
Bachelor's degree 13 18 17 38 26 49 56 33
Some graduate school 6 9 3 7 3 6 12 7
Master‘s degree 8 1 1 4 8 15 18 1 1
Other 1 1 1 2 - - 2 1
Total 71 100 45 100 53 100 169 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”Does not total 100% due to rounding error.

Respondents had held their positions for an average of 8.8 years.
Respondents from small properties had held their positions the longest—11.4
years. Respondents from medium and small properties averaged 7.8 and 6.2

Years in their positions, respectively (Table 4.2).
As shown in Table 4.2, the average age of the respondents was 44 years.

Those from large properties were the youngest, averaging slightly more than 39

103

ye:
yea

yea

Tal

 

and
Plot:
(E =
i"13c
0f hc
hOmr
Semi
stint
shall

not dl

years of age (39.1 years). Respondents from medium properties averaged 41.6
years of age, and those from small properties were the oldest, averaging 49.5

years of age.

Table 4.2: Respondents’ length of time in position and age by property size.

 

 

 

 

 

Property Size
Total
Small Medium Large
Length of Time in Ppsition
p 78 48 58 184
Mean no. of years in position 11.4 7.8 6.2 8.8
_sg 9.4 7.3 6.7 8.4
692
p 76 48 61 185
Mean age, in years 49.5 41.6 39.1 44.0
sq 10.2 10.6 8.7 10.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘A significant relationship was found between property size and both age
and length of time in position. Using an ANOVA comparing the age and
property-size variables, the results indicated a significant difference at p < .000
(E = 20.9, g = 2). Propertysize was compared to the log of the length-of-time-
in-position variable. For the variable, length of time in position, there was a lack
of homogeneity of variance. A log transformation was used to create
homogeneity in the variance. The difference between the two variables was
significant at p < .000 (E = 8.1, Q: = 2). Tukey’s post hoc test indicated that
significant differences existed only between small and medium properties and
small and large properties in both analyses. Medium and large properties did

not differ significantly from each other.

104

Lodginc

season.
and frat
properti
were sn
36 and
rooms).

1
Mali
OCCUpa:
the time
67%. ‘l
Season

1
each ye
Medium
menth

I
prOperrl
seam”,
MedrUm

”096m.

Lod in Pro haracteristics

Property characteristics refer to the property’s size, occupancy,
seasonality, employees, guest type, property type, profitability, corporate status,
and franchise affiliation. This information provided an overview of the types of
properties represented in the survey. Of the properties represented, 47% (102)
were small (between 1 and 35 guest rooms), 24% (51) were medium (between
36 and 100 guest rooms), and 29% (64) were large (more than 100 guest
rooms).

Table 4.3 indicates that the average annual occupancy rate of all lodging
properties in the study was 62%. Small properties had the lowest annual
occupancy rate (57%). Medium properties were occupied an average of 64% of
the time, and large properties reported an average annual occupancy rate of
67%. The annual occupancy rate was based on the length of each property's
season.

The properties included in the survey were open an average of 11 months
each year. Small properties were open an average of 10 months per year.
Medium and large properties remained open for a longer period annually (11.5
months and 11.8 months, respectively) (Table 4.3).

The number of employees also varied with size of property. Small
properties had the lowest average number of employees in peak and off-peak
seasons. An average of 7 employees was reported during peak season.
Medium properties reported an average of 29 staff members, and large

properties employed an average of 139 staff members.

105

prr

Ta

I3: I I2? I IS: I)?

rel

 

”Sinc

al/alr

The type of clientele at the properties also varied by property size. Small

properties had a larger percentage of pleasure travelers (85%) than did the

medium (61%) and large (41%) properties (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3: Lodging property characteristics by property size.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Size
Total
Small Medium Large
Average Annual Occupancy
3 66 40 55 161
Percentage occupancy 57 64 67 62
sq 22.2 12.4 12.3 17.6
Months Qpen
g 77 49 62 188
Number of months 10.0 11.5 11.8 11.0
sg 3 1.7 1.0 2.3
Ave. No. of Peak Employees
3 75 49 62 186
No. of employees 7 29 139 57
sg 12.3 27.4 180 120
Ave. No. of Off-PaalpErpplovees
_r_1_ 72 49 60 181
No. of employees 3 17 100 39
as 6.9 16.2 123 83
Percent of Pleasure Travelers
g 80 45 57 182
Percentage pleasure travelers 85 61 41 65
sg 9.6 25.1 20.8 28.6

 

 

A significant relationship was observed between occupancy rate and size,
using Kendall’s tau-b. Occupancy was significant, with a probability of.005 and

a value of .180. The larger the property, the greater the occupancy rate.

106

sen
accr
of ti

thel

hcni
tang

pr Op

desti
repo.
tans

Ithe

(18%

The types of properties responding ranged from “rooms only" to “full-
service hotels' and “resorts.' Small properties had the most “rooms only'
accommodations, with 42% of their total falling into this category. More than half
of the medium-size properties were “rooms with breakfast,” and more than half of
the large properties were “full-service hotels."

As shown in Table 4.4, most properties were profitable. Respondents
from half of the small properties, 77% of the medium properties, and 75% of the
large properties indicated that they had shown a profit the preceding year. Small
properties were the least profitable; 17% had lost money the preceding year.

Overall, 46% of the properties reported an equal distribution of
destination and transient-type travelers. Forty-four percent of the properties
reported more destination/long-term types of travelers, and 9% reported more
transient/short-stay types of travelers. Small properties had more destination-
type travelers (62%), and large properties had more transient-type travelers
(18%).

Respondents were asked to identify the size of the corporation with which
their properties were affiliated. Responses ranged from independent
corporations (1 property) to small (2 to 10 properties), medium (11 to 100
properties), and large (more than 100 properties) corporations. More than half
(63%) of the total respondents’ properties were independent corporations.
Eighty-one percent of these properties were small properties. The large
properties were more likely to be associated with a larger corporation. In

addition to being part of a large corporation, large properties also had the most

107

ranch:
medhu

tanchi

Tabka«

 

franchise affiliations. Sixty-two percent of the large properties, 59% of the

medium properties, and only 3% of the small properties had some type of

franchise affiliation.

Table 4.4: Additional characteristics of lodging properties by property size.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Size
Total
Small Medium Large
_r_l_ % g % p % p %
Promrty Tyg
Rooms only 32 42 5 19 5 8 42 22
Full-service hotel 1 1 8 16 33 52 42 22
Rooms with breakfast 5 7 27 55 14 22 46 24
Full-service resort 9 12 3 6 6 10 18 10
Rooms/restaurant 4 5 4 8 4 6 12 6
Other 26 34 2 4 1 2 29 15
Total 77 101"I 50 99‘ 63 100 189 99‘I
Level of Profitability
Lost money 13 17 2 5 4 7 19 11
Broke even 26 34 8 19 11 18 45 25
Made a profit 38 50 33 77 45 75 116 64
Total 77 1018 43 101 60 100 180 100
Guest Tym
Destination 49 62 16 33 19 30 84 44
Transient 4 5 3 6 11 18 18 9
Equal mixture 26 33 30 61 21 51 88 46
Total 79 100 49 100 51 99a 190 99'
Size of Cogppration
Independent (1 property) 63 81 27 55 21 34 1 1 1 59
Small (2-10 properties) 13 17 16 33 18 29 47 25
Medium (11-100 properties) 2 3 2 4 10 16 14 7
Large (more than 100 prop.) - — 4 8 13 21 17 9
Total 7a 1013 49 100 62 100 189 100
Franchise Affiliate
Yes 2 3 26 59 38 62 66 38
No 67 97 18 41 23 38 108 62
Total 69 100 44 100 71 100 174 100

 

 

“Does not total 100% due to rounding error.

108

 

58'

but

im;

ind

to t
pro
res;
indi
For
40°r
larg
the

dun‘

Were
R85)
plOp

Lod in Pro Trainin haracteristics

The training practices of the respondents’ properties were addressed in
several ways. Training practices included training responsibility, training
budget, importance of training, and training priority.

Most often, the general manager/owner was responsible for planning and
implementing training at the property. Seventy-four percent of the respondents
indicated this person as the individual responsible for training.

Most respondents (93%) indicated that training was 'important/valuable”
to their business. One hundred percent of respondents from medium and large
properties indicated that training was important, whereas only 82% of
respondents from small properties agreed. Only 6% of the respondents
indicated training to be less of a priority today than it was three years ago.
Forty-four percent of the respondents said it was more of a priority now, and
40% said it was a stable priority. Sixty-two percent of the respondents from
large properties found training to be more of a priority today. More than half of
the respondents from small properties thought training had remained stable
during the past three years.

A total of 63% of the respondents indicated that, if the barriers to training
were reduced or eliminated, their properties would provide more training.
Respondents from more of the large properties than the medium and small
properties indicated they would provide more training-80%, 70%, and 42%,

respectively, if barriers were reduced or eliminated (Table 4.5).

109

Table

DIOpe

and h

Table 4.5: Training patterns of lodging properties by property size.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Size
Total
Small Medium Large
p % g % g % p %
BQget Line Item
Yes 3 4 9 19 19 32 31 17
No 68 91 36 77 38 63 142 78
Unknown 4 5 2 4 3 5 9 5
Total 75 100 47 100 60 100 182 100
Resppnsible for Training
General manager/owner 59 83 36 84 33 57 128 74
Operation management 6 9 5 12 9 16 20 12
Human resources 1 1 - - 9 16 10 6
Training manager 1 1 - - 3 5 4 2
Corporate office - - 1 2 1 2 2 1
Other 3 6 1 2 3 5 8 5
Total 71 100 43 100 59 101a 172 100
Training lmmrtance to Business
Is 42 82 44 100 44 100 128 93
Is not 9 18 - - - - 9 7
Total 51 100 44 100 44 100 137 100
Trainir_1g Priority Today
Less 8 12 1 2 1 2 10 6
More 11 16 28 58 39 62 78 44
Stable 37 54 18 38 16 25 71 40
Not able to respond 12 18 1 2 7 11 20 11
Total 68 100 49 100 63 100 179 101’
If Barriers Reduced Would Train
More 26 42 33 70 48 80 107 63
Same 36 58 14 30 12 20 62 37
Less - - - - - - - -
Total 62 100 47 100 60 100 169 100

 

”Does not total 100% due to rounding error.

Overall, comparing the results by property size, respondents from small

properties tended to be owners, were older, had been in their positions longer,

and had less formal education. Small properties were usually “rooms only’

110

 

opt
cpr

prc

in t
cps
of a
the

lrai

prc
The
nun
fell

Cha
Pen
Imp.
ledl
Sma

prep

operations that were more likely to be independent, nonfranchise, and seasonal
operations located in northern and Upper Michigan. Respondents from small
properties tended to view training as important and more of a stable priority
today, and that view would remain the same if barriers were reduced.

Respondents from large properties tended to be younger, more educated,
in their positions for less time, and general managers. Large properties were
open longer each year, tended to have more franchise affiliations, and were part
of a larger corporation. The training characteristics at large properties indicated
that they were more likely to have a line item in their budget for training, to view
training as important, and to provide more training if barriers were reduced.

Medium-sized properties fell somewhere in the middle of small and large
properties in all three areas: property, training, and respondent characteristics.
The property characteristics (occupancy, number of months open, average
number of employees, number of franchise affiliations, and size of corporation)
fell in between the small and large properties. Medium properties’ training
characteristics fell in between those of small and large properties in the areas of
percentage of payroll spent on training, training budgets, views of training
importance, and whether training would be provided more often if barriers were
reduced. Respondents from medium properties also were in between those from
small and large properties in terms of average age, level of education, and
length of time in position.

The preceding results included all respondents and their respective

properties. Yet the focus of this study was primarily on gaining a better

111

under
chaptr

propel
the rel

trainin

sectior

includr

map

the ren
Pl0perr

large p

Table 4

Train
Tole

 

understanding of those properties that provide training. The remainder of this
chapter focuses on the study hypotheses. Two hypotheses focus on both
properties that provide training and those that do not provide training, whereas
the remaining five study hypotheses reflect only those properties that provide

training.

Results of vaotheses Tests
The results of the hypotheses tests are presented in the following seven
sections, one for each hypothesis. The findings for each hypothesis are

included in its respective section, and are discussed more fully in Chapter V.

Lodging Properties That Train

Null Hyppthesis 1: There is no difference in the percentages of properties
providing training, by (a) employee type and (b) property size.

Of the 218 properties represented in the study, 67% conducted training;
the remaining 33% did not conduct any training. More than half of the small
properties did not conduct training, whereas 16% of the medium and 13% of the

large properties did not conduct any training (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6: Percentage of properties that trained versus those that did not train

 

 

 

 

by property size.
Property Size
. . . . Total
Tralnlng Actwrty Small Medium Large

8 % g % g % g 96

Do not train 55 54 8 16 8 13 72 33
Train 47 46 43 84 56 88 146 67
Total 102 100 51 100 64 1013 218 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Does not total 100% due to rounding error.

112

Of the 146 properties that conducted training, not all provided it to both
hourly and management employees. Hourly-employee training was provided at
92% of the properties, whereas 66% of the properties provided management

training (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7: Percentage of properties providing training to hourly and manage-

 

 

 

ment employees.
Properties That Trained
Employee Type
[1 %
Hourly 135 92
Management 96a 66
Both hourly and management 146 100

 

 

 

 

 

aOverlap occurred because some respondents trained both hourly and
management employees.

Even though more hourly than management employees received training,
when they were trained, management employees were provided more training.
Among those properties that trained, the average amount of training provided to
hourly and management employees was 93 hours and 120 hours, respectively.
The standard deviation showed that a large variance existed in individual
scores; therefore, a range of practices was adopted by lodging properties. The
standard deviation for hourly employees was 102 hours, and for management
employees it was 113 hours.

These means and standard deviations were larger before the elimination
of outlier/extreme responses. The scores were influenced by some respondents

indicating they provided hourly and management employees more than 500

113

houn

prorr

houn

figun
dhec
ident
mane
houn
Thus
coHer
butr
mnel

boum

Scone
“Ups
mana
hOUflj
Wash
Manes

Ihe me

hours of training during the first year of employment. Respondents from nine
properties indicated that they provided employees collectively more than 1,000
hours of training during the first year of employment.

Based on findings from the interviews and the literature review, these
figures were extremely high for the industry. The researcher contacted the
directors of training from two national lodging chains, who indicated difficulty in
identifying an exact average amount of training provided to hourly and
management employees. However, both indicated that estimations beyond 500
hours would appear to be an overinflation (Barnish, 2000; Sweeney, 2000).
Thus, scores beyond 500 hours for either hourly or management employees (or
collectively 1,000 hours) were treated as extreme scores, not a result of chance
but interpreted as respondents’ overinflating the number of hours identified. The
nine responses were, therefore, excluded from the data, and the number of
hours reported reflects these omissions.

With a large variance in the number of hours still apparent, the median
score also was used in examining the results. The median scores for only those
properties that trained were 56 hours for hourly employees and 83 hours for
management employees. The median score for small properties’ training of
hourly employees was 28 hours. Yet the median score for medium properties
was higher than that for large properties—90 and 71 hours, respectively.
Management training showed a similar relationship between property sizes, as

the median score for small properties was 32 hours. Medium properties again

114

 

 

 

provided more management training than did large properties-146 and 91 hours,

respectively (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8: Amount of training provided by property size.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Size
Total
Small Medium Large
Amount of Training (Hourly)
p 36 42 49 127
Mean 39 122 . 109 93
g 62 109 106 102
Median 28 90 71 56
Range 1-363 16-480 3-482 1-482
Amount of Tpaining (Management)
p 22 24 33 79
Mean 57 172 124 120
sg 72 120 1 1 1 1 13
Median 32 146 91 83
Range 2-328 20-464 4-456 2-464
Amount of Trainin verall
g 43 43 48 134
Mean ' 70 292 201 188
s_d_ 118 259 189 215
Median 40 210 148 119
Range 25-720 19-992 3859 25—992

 

 

 

 

The medians present a more realistic view of the middle score from those
respondents that provided training. The large variances were minimized, and a
more realistic view of the amount of training conducted was reflected.

Null Hypothesis 1 was rejected. As previously indicated, not all lodging
properties provided training. And, for those that did provide training, a larger

percentage of hourly than management employees were given training

115

 

oppor
trainil
evide
trainil
findir
that c

slimu

<
2!.
C
m

I

viewe
flbpe
SIZE, l
Store
COmpi
organ

eXiste

Slight]:
IiOI Ira

barrliar

opportunities. Management employees, however, were provided more hours of
training when they were trained. Regardless of these relationships, it was
evident that lodging properties did differ and that not all properties provided
training. Even though some properties provided training and others did not,
findings concerning the differences between properties that trained and those
that did not train with regard to the values toward training and factors that

stimulate or keep a property from training need to be examined.

Value, Stimulus, and Barrier ScaLe Comparisons

Null Hypothesis; There is no difference in the value, barrier, or stimulus
scale scores between various-sized properties that provide training and
those that do not provide training.

In general, respondents from those properties that provided training
viewed each of the three value scales more positively than did respondents from
properties that did not train (Table 4.9). When the data were viewed by property
size, most scores followed this same pattern for all three scales. Two sets of
scores were identical for properties that did and did not train. However, when
compared by the independent samples t-test, only the overall scores for
organizational and general value of training indicated a significant difference
existed. By property size, no significant difference was found.

Overall, total scores representing the barrier and stimulus scales showed
slightly higher scores for properties that trained as compared to those that did

not train. This indicates that those properties that provided training viewed

barriers and stimuli more positively. When the properties were separated into

116

Table 4.9: Comparison of mean scores of respondents’ attitudes toward the
value of training by property size.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Scales
Property Size Those That Train Those That Do Not Train Overall
5 Mean sg p Mean sg t-Score p
Oygl angatlpnal yalue
Small 46 4.0 .42 27 3.9 .49 -1 .2 .251
Medium 43 4.2 .41 7 4.2 .46 .096 .924
Large 54 4.3 .43 8 4.1 .60 -1 .2 .251
Total 143 4.2 .44 42 4.0 .52 -2.5 .014‘
Emmm Value
Small 46 3.9 .35 23 3.8 .42 -1 .1 .297
Medium 43 4.0 .41 7 4.0 .28 -2.2 .829
Large 55 4.0 .38 8 3.9 .55 - .51 .611
Total 144 4.0 .38 38 3.9 .43 -1 .5 .099
General Value
Small 46 4.0 .45 24 3.8 .35 -1.0 .318
Medium 43 4.2 .47 7 4.1 .49 - .58 .563
Large 55 4.2 .42 8 4.2 .67 - .08 .940
Total 144 4.1 .46 39 4.0 .47 -2.0 .047'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nota: The higher the score, the more valued training was to respondents
(1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).

*Significant at the .05 level.

size categories, this pattern was not as strong. The properties that trained had
slightly higher total scores on the barrier and stimulus scales than did properties
that did not train. This indicated that respondents from properties that provided
training viewed barriers and stimuli more positively. When all properties-were
separated into size categories, this pattern was not as strong. The three sizes of
properties that trained and did not train had identical scores on the barrier scale.

There was more of a difference on the stimulus scale between those that trained

117

anr

ind
sig

trai

Tal

, I

IS"

 

Exis

trail

that
ThU:

and did not train, with at least a .1 point difference. When compared using the

independent samples t-test, the barrier and stimulus scales did not differ

significantly between the properties that provided training and those that did not

train (Table 4.10).

Table 4.10: Comparison of mean scores on barrier and stimulus scales by

 

 

 

 

 

 

property size.
Scale Scores
Property Size Those That Train Those That Do Not Train Overall
p Mean _sp 1; Mean g g-Score p

Barrier Scale
Small 46 2.4 .83 23 2.4 .92 -.14 .893
Medium 42 2.4 .56 7 2.4 .85 -.16 .875
Large 55 2.5 .61 8 2.5 .69 -.34 .738
Total 143 2.5 .67 38 2.4 .85 -.46 .647

S imulus Scal
Small 45. 3.4 .77 22 3.2 1.10 - .88 .386
Medium 42 3.7 .56 6 3.5 .41 -1.10 .263
Large 54 3.6 .54 8 3.5 .73 - .80 .425
Total 141 3.6 .64 36 3.3 .95 -1.80 .076

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The null hypothesis was not rejected for all scales. Not enough evidence

existed to suggest that a difference existed between properties that provided

training and those that did not provide training. Further, no difference appeared

to exist in the scale scores for the value of training or the barriers and stimuli

that affect training between properties that trained and those that did not train.

Thus, overall, Null Hypothesis 2 could not be rejected.

118

 

The remaining hypotheses concern only those properties that provided
training. The following section provides a rationale as to the statistics used in
testing the remaining hypotheses, as well as indicating the characteristics of

these respondents and the properties they represented.

Distribution

.w- .—.'

To assess the use of parametric statistics, the distributions of only those
properties that provided training were analyzed. The data for those properties
that provided training were not normally distributed, even when the log of the
amount-of-training variable was taken. The amount of training overall was
measured using Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s test of normality because more than 50
cases were included in each variable. Probabilities of less than .05 were
obtained in all instances, indicating that the data were not normally distributed.

Table 4.11 provides a summary of the normality-test results.

Table 4.11: Results of tests of normality, using log transformation.

 

 

 

 

 

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Employee Type
Statistic _d_f Signif.
Hourly .108 70 .041
Management .125 70 .009
Total .125 70 .008

 

 

 

 

 

 

After normalizing the data by log transformation, parametric statistics still
could not have been used. Nonparametric statistics would have to be used

because an assumption of many parametric statistics is that the data are

119

distributed normally. Therefore, for those analyses requiring a normal
distribution of the data, nonparametric statistics were used. Nonparametric
statistics make few, if any, assumptions regarding the population distribution and
are appropriate for use with nominal or ordinal scales. They are not as sensitive
as parametric tests as nonparametric procedures ”are more likely to fail in
detecting a real difference between two treatments” (Gravetter 8 Wallnau, 1996,

p. 548).

Sharacteristics of Lodging Respondents
More than 50% of respondents whose properties provided training had at
least a bachelor’s degree, whereas only 35% of those from properties that did

not train had that level of education (Figure 4.1).

 

Some College Some Graduate
High School Bachelor’s Master's
Educational Level

00 Not Train

I Train

Figure 4.1: Distribution of respondents from properties that provided training
by educational level.

 

120

For those properties that provided training, the difference between
educational level and property size was significant. Using chi-square analysis,
the educational level variable was reclassified into high school/college,
associate/bachelor, and graduate/master categories. A p < .020 with a value of
11.65 indicated that a significant relationship existed. For those properties that
provided training, the educational level of respondents increased as property
size increased.

The respondents from properties that trained were younger and had been
in their positions a shorter amount of time. They had held their positions an
average of 8.1 years, compared to 10.9 years for those respondents whose
properties did not train. Respondents from properties that trained averaged just
over 42 years of age; their counterparts at properties that did not train averaged

just over 49 years of age (Table 4.12).

Table 4.12: Length of time in position and age of respondents from properties
that trained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time in Position

Property Size
p Mean Years sq
Small 45 10.4 8.7
Medium 42 7.9 7.7
Large 51 6.2 6.6
Total 138 8.1 7.8

Age

3 Mean Years _sg
Small 46 48.8 9.6
Medium 42 40.7 10.0
Large 54 38.4 8.8
Total 139 42.5 10.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

121

Analyzing only those respondents whose properties provided training
indicated that both age of respondent and length of time in position differed
significantly with regard to property size. An ANOVA determined that age was
significant at p < .000 (E = 16.1, if = 2). Both small and medium and small and
large properties were significantly different; however, medium and large
properties were not different. Length of time in position was significantly
different at p = .027 (_E = 3.69, at = 2). Only small and large properties showed
this significance. Yakimovicz (1993) found similar results in female small-
business owners; those who valued training were younger and had been with

their companies a shorter time.

Sharacteristics _OLLodqing Properties

The percentage occupancy rate of properties that trained was greater
than that of properties that did not train-63% and 59%, respectively (Figure 4.2).
This pattern was evident in small properties. However, medium and large
properties that did not train had slightly higher occupancy rates. These rates,
however, were based on a limited sample size (5 properties). No significant
relationships existed using Kendall’s tau-b between occupancy percentage and
property size. Although these percentages increased, that increase was not
significant (p = .066, g = .137).

In addition to averaging higher occupancy rates, properties that trained
also were more often profitable. A greater percentage of respondents from
properties that trained (67%) indicated profitability than those from properties
that did not train (57%) (Figure 4.3). The relationship between profitability and

property size again indicated a significant difference (p = .030, g = .172). As

122

property size increased, the likelihood of a property's being more profitable

increased as well.

 

 

 

 

Small Medium Large Total
Property Size
I Trained Did Not Train

Figure 4.2: Average annual occupancy of properties that did and did not train.

 

Lost Money Broke Even Made Money
Level of Profitability

- Trained

 

Did Not Train

Figure 4.3: Level of profitability of properties that did and did not train.

123

Trainin endin of Pro eltiss That Trained

Properties that provided training spent, on average, 3.9% of their
employee payroll on training activities. Medium-sized properties spent the most,
at 4.5%, whereas large and small properties spent 3.7% and 3.5%, respectively
(Table 4.13).

Table 4.13: Mean percentage of employee payroll spent on training by
property size.

 

 

Property Size 9 Mean % of Payroll a
Small 31 3.5 3.8
Medium 25 4.5 3.1
Large 28 3.7 3.2

Overall 84 3.9 3.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The patterns and characteristics presented furnished a view of the
properties that trained and compared these properties with those that did not
train. Providing training is an assumption made by both theories as they are
based on training as a fundamental issue. Henceforth, all data for the remaining

hypotheses pertain only to those properties that trained.

Training Hourly and Management Employees

 

Null Hypothesis 3: For those properties that provide training, there is no

difference in the amount of training provided and the types of training

courses offered, by (a) employee type and (b) property size.

Hypothesis 3 was investigated by analyzing the questionnaire results in
two ways. The amount of training provided to hourly and management

employees and the types of courses provided to hourly and management

124

employees were evaluated. Each analysis is discussed separately in the
following sections.

Mount of training. The analysis of amount of training for hourly and
management employees was conducted using a nonparametric test, the two-
related-samples Wilcoxon signed ranks test. The Wilcoxon test does not require
data to be normally distributed, but the dependent variable should be continuous
(Gravetter 8 Wallnau, 1996, p. 611; SPSS Base, 9.0, 1999, p. 367). This test
was used to evaluate the difference between two treatments when a repeated-
measures study was involved. Two responses were compared within the same
case. The absolute values of the differences were then ranked and compared.
The magnitudes of the differences in scores are reported.

As previously indicated in Table 4.7, more lodging properties provided
training to hourly employees than to management employees. Hourly
employees were provided training by 92% of the properties that provided
training, whereas management training was provided by 66% of those
properties. Yet, as identified in Table 4.8, management employees were
provided more hours of training than hourly employees. The median for hourly
employees was 56 hours, whereas management employees received 83 hours
of training.

The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was conducted to identify whether a
significant difference existed between hourly and management employees in
terms of the amount of training they received. Results indicated that the amount
of training was significantly different for hourly and management employees (p <

.000). By property size, medium and large properties differed significantly in the

125

amount of training provided to both hourly and management employees (Table
4.14). As a result, a significant difference existed overall. Management
employees averaged significantly more time in courses when they were trained,
but they were not provided training as often as hourly employees.

Table 4.14: Results of the Wilcoxon signed ranks test of the amount of training
for hourly and management employees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Median Hours of Training Houriy 8 Management Comparison

Size Hourly Management 11 g p
Small 28 32 15 ~12 .235
Medium 90 146 24 -2.7 .007"
Large 71 91 31 -2.9 .004"
Total 56 83 70 -4.1 .000"

 

 

'Significant at the .01 level.

The hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the amount
of training provided to hourly and management employees was rejected.

Results of the Wilcoxon signed ranks test indicated that a significant difference
in the amount of training provided existed between hourly and management
employees in those properties that conducted training.

Training courses provided. The second portion of Hypothesis 3 relates to
the types of training courses offered for hourly and management employees.
Two separate analyses were completed. The first concerned whether a
significant difference existed in the types of courses offered. The second
analysis concerned whether a significant difference existed in the amount of
training provided in each course offering. One simply addressed whether a type

of course was even offered, whereas the other determined whether the amount

126

of time spent in the course was significantly different for hourly and management
employees.

The first analysis was conducted using the nonparametric two-related-
samples McNemar test. This test is used to compare the distributions of two
variables where nominal dichotomous variables are used. The McNemar test
identifies changes in responses when questions are asked twice in each case.
Binary information was appropriate to use as this test compared the initial and
final responses (SPSS Base, 9.0, 1999, p. 367).

Respondents were asked whether any of seven course offerings were
provided to either management or hourly employees. These course offerings fell
into both general and specific categories. The general courses included
customer service, safety, maintenance, computers, and teamwork training.
Specific courses included job-specific and orientation training. Analysis was
conducted comparing whether hourly and management employees received the
same type of training.

Types of trainingourses. Comparisons were made with identical types
of courses that were offered to both hourly and management employees.
Respondents indicated Yes (1) if they provided that type of training and No (2) if
they did not provide that training. Direct comparisons of identical course titles
were completed using the McNemar test. Courses that were unique to
management employees were excluded from the analysis. In assessing all the
properties that trained, it was found that hourly employees were more likely to
receive training than management employees. The lower the score, the more

likely a property was to provide that type of training. Only one course varied

127

 

fror

mai

Tat

Jot

On'

Cu:

8 I
T. \
N

from this pattern. Both employee groups received training equally as often in a

maintenance course (Table 4.15).

Table 4. 15: McNemar and mean scores for course type by hourly and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

management employees.
Course Type _r_t_ Mean g p p-value

Job-specific

Hourly 146 1 .1 3 .34

Management 146 1.40 .49

Comparison 146 .000“
Orientation

Hourly 146 1 .15 .36

Management 146 1.45 .50

Comparison 146 .000'
Customer service

Hourly 146 1.19 .40

Management 146 1.39 .49

Comparison 146 .000"
Safety

Hourly 146 1 .28 .45

Management 146 1.50 .50

Comparison 146 .000*
Maintenance

Hourly 146 1.59 .49

Management 146 1.59 .49

Comparison 146 1.000
Computer

Hourly 146 1.45 .50

Management 146 1 .51 .50

Comparison 146 .243
Teamwork

Hourly 146 1.38 .49

Management 146 1 .56 .50

Comparison 146 .001'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: 1 = yes, 2 = no.

*Significant at the .01 level.

128

To test the significance of the findings, these data were used to conduct
the McNemar test. For five of the seven course types in this hypothesis, a
significant difference was found (p value .001 or lower) when analyzed with the
McNemar test. Specifically, hourly and management employees did not equally
receive job-specific, orientation, customer service, safety, and teamwork training.
Typically, hourly employees were more likely to receive the training. With
regard to maintenance and computer training, no significant differences were
found between groups. Hourly and management employees were provided the
same opportunities for maintenance training (Table 4.15).

This analysis compared whether training was offered to each employee
group. Overall, the hypothesis was rejected because five of seven course
offerings were significantly different across property size.

However, this hypothesis could be tested analyzing the amount cf training
provided to each employee group for each course offering. One additional
analysis was conducted to compare the course type to the amount of training
conducted in each course. A Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used.

Ampant of trainingprovidgd in each course offeriaq. The total number of
employee training hours was compared between groups in each course offering.
The number of properties that provided training and the amount they provided
varied by type of course. For example, although 117 properties conducted job-
specific training to hourly employees, only 76 properties provided job-specific
training to management employees. Therefore, of those properties that trained,

more provided hourly employees with job-specific training, whereas

129

1“

tr

T}

'Ta

Sal
Ma

Tea

 

hOUh
SeVel

EXNU

approximately 40% fewer provided job-specific training to management

employees.

Hourly employees were provided training at more properties in each

course. However, When management employees did receive training, they

averaged more hours for each course than did hourly employees (Table 4.16).

Overall, management employees received a higher average number of hours of

training when they were trained. The number of properties, type of employee

(hourly versus management), and type of training provided are summarized in

Table 4.16.

Table 4.16: Type and amount of training offered to hourly and management

 

 

 

 

 

employees.
Amount of Training

Type of Training Those That Train-Hourly Those That Train-Management

p Mean _sp [1 Mean _sg
Job-specific 117 39 38 76 61 64
Orientation 117 9 14 78 17 27
Customer service 99 28 42 79 38 66
Safety 94 11 21 88 12 21
Maintenance 55 20 32 55 18 37
Computer 67 27 31 59 42 74
Teamwork 69 23 42 56 47 140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hours in courses by hourly and management employees. The number of

hours provided to hourly and management employees was compared for the

seven courses offered. Courses unique to management employees were

excluded. Lodging properties showed a significant difference between the

130

 

amount of training for hourly and management employees in five of seven
courses. No significant differences between groups were found with respect to
maintenance and computer training courses. Median hours of training are
provided, based on the Wilcoxon test using median scores in the analysis (Table

4.17).

Table 4.17: Wilcoxon test for the amount of training provided to hourly and

. management employees in specific courses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Median Hours of Training Wilcoxon Test
Course
Hourly Management p z_ p
Job-specific 24 40 67 -3.2 .001“
Orientation 4 6 69 -3.0 .002“
Customer service 10 12 62 -3.2 .001”
Safety 3 6 56 -3.0 .002“
Maintenance 5 8 35 -1 .0 .306
Computer 16 16 46 -1 .4 .163
Teamwork 8 8 43 -2.4 .016‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level. ”Significant at the .01 level.

Therefore, the second part of Hypothesis 3 was rejected because there
were significant differences in the amount of training hourly and management
employees received in five of seven courses. Overall, the hypothesis that no
significant difference existed between the type of training provided to hourly and
management employees was rejected by two separate analyses.

Amount of Iraining Provided and
Attitude Toward Training

Null Hypothesis 4: For those properties that provide training, there is no

relationship between the amount of training provided and the attitudes of

lodging general managers/owners toward the value of training, by (a)
employee type and (b) property size.

131

Three categories were created to separate the various values of training
into related areas. The value of training was divided into. employee value,
organization value, and general value. As previously indicated, each of these
three scales had reliability coefficients between .65 and .81. With appropriate
internal consistency, the items listed in each subgroup were combined to
indicate a general measure of attitude in each area. The mean score for each
scale was used as the independent variable. The relationship between this
independent variable and the dependent variable, amount of training, was
investigated.

Spearman’s correlation was used to analyze these data. Spearman’s test
is used to analyze ranked data using ordinal scales or when interval or ratio
scales are used but ranking data is preferred if “the process of ranking will
eliminate a huge differenCe between one extreme score and the rest of the data
points” (Gravetter 8 Wallnau, 1996, p. 519). Because the data set had a large
variance and known outliers, Spearman’s was the appropriate test to use.

Assessing only those properties that provided training overall, the general
measure assigned to the organizational value of training was viewed most
positively, with a mean score of 4.2. A score close to 5 indicates a respondent
strongly agreed with the positively worded value statement. Employee and
general training value scales received scores of 4.0 and 4.1, respectively.
Results followed a similar pattern with various-sized properties. Respondents
from medium and large properties viewed the general measures more positively

than did those from smaller properties. Medium and large properties had the

132

same mean scores on the employee value (4.0) and general value (4.2) scales

(Table 4.18).

Table 4.18: Mean scores on respondents’ attitudes toward the value of

 

 

 

 

 

training by property size.
Value Scale Score
Value Scale/Property Size
[1 Mean as
r n' i nal Value
Small 46 4.0 .42
Medium 43 4.2 .41
Large 54 4.3 .43
Total 143 4.2 .44
Employee Value
Small 46 3.9 .35
Medium 43 4.0 .41
Large 55 4.0 .38
Total 144 4.0 .38
general Value
Small 46 4.0 .45
Medium 43 4.2 .47
Large 55 4.2 .42
Total 144 4.1 .46

 

 

 

 

 

 

l_\l_oie_: The higher the score, the more valued training was to respondents.

1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree.

Each value scale was correlated with the amount of training. All three
scales had positive correlations with amount of training. Only the organizational
scale correlated significantly with amount of training (5 = .225; Table 4.19).

While significant, this is a moderate relationship, suggesting that as managers’
and owners’ organizational attitudes about training increase, so does the amount
of training offered within their businesses. All three scales were significantly

correlated with each other, with 5 values above .6 in each case. This suggests

133

 

Sir
er
en

ho

that there is overlap in the content covered by each of the three scales (Table

4.19).

Table 4.19: Spearman’s correlation matrix of the value scales and the amount

 

 

 

 

 

 

of training.
Value Scale
Amount of
Training Organizational Employee General
Value Value Value
Amount of training -
Organizatlonal value .225' --
Employee value .150 .701‘ ~-
General value .165 .691' .857' --

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .01 level.

Overall scores improved in properties that trained; however, only one
scale exhibited a significant relationship with the overall amount of training
provided. The organizational value scale was positively and significantly related
to the overall amount of training. Therefore, the more valuable someone
reported training to be for the organization, the greater the amount of training
their organization provided. Further, as the organizational value of training
increased, the amount of hourly-employee training increased, and as the
employee value of training increased, the amount of hourly and management
training increased. In addition, the employee value scale was positively and
significantly related to the amount of training for hourly and management
employees. Therefore, the more valuable someone reported training to be for
' employees, the greater the amount of training their organization provided for
hourly and management employees (Table 4.20).

134

Table 4.20: Relationship between amount of training and the value of training,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by employee type.
Value Scale
Employee Type Organizational . Employee General
0 I 2 D. I 2 n I: 2
Hourty 126 .234 .008” 127 .210 .018‘ 127 .150 .093
Management 77 .195 .089 , 78 .288 .011‘ 78 .204 .073
Total 132 .225 .009“ 133 .150 .085 133 .165 .057

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level. ”Significant at the .01 level.

Only three significant relationships appeared when the data were
analyzed according to property size. Two of the three relationships were in
medium-sized properties. The remaining significance was for management
training in large properties with the employee value of training. The employee
value scales showed a positive correlation of .356 (p = .042). This indicated
that, as the employee value scale score increased, the amount of training for
management employees in large properties also increased. A relationship
existed between medium-sized properties and the amount of hourly-employee
training and both the organizational value and general value scales. The
organizational value scale had a positive correlation of .440 with the amount of
training for hourly employees (p = .004). The general value scale had a positive
correlation of .383 with the amount of training for hourly employees (p = .012).
Both indicated that, as the organizational and general value scale scores

increased, the amount of training also increased for hourly employees in

135

 

medium-sized properties. No significant relationship existed in small properties

(Table 4.21).

Table 4.21: Correlation between amount of training and the value of training
by property size and employee type.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Scale
Employee Typel Organizational Employee General
Property Size
8 I Q 8 I 2 .0 E 9

Hourly

Small 36 .082 .833 36 .062 .719 36 .050 .770

Medium 42 .440 .004” 42 .282 .070 42 .383 .012‘

Large 48 .085 .568 49 .214 .140 49 -.102 .488
Management

Small 21 .196 .394 21 .057 .807 21 -.038 .872

Medium 24 -.152 .477 24 -.001 .997 24 .265 .210

Large 32 .137 .456 33 .356 .042" 33 .073 .687
Total

Small 42 -.007 .968 42 -.080 .616 42 -.086 .589

Medium 43 .225 .148 43 .1 17 .458 43 .260 .092

Large 47 .099 .507 48 .234 .110 48 -.007 .965

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level. “Significant at the .01 level.

The relationship between the amount of training and respondents’
attitudes was weak. Only three of nine possible relationships showed any
significance. The hypothesis that no relationship existed between the amount of

training and the attitudes of general managers/owners was not rejected.

Amount of Training and Property Size
Null Hyppthesis 5: For those properties that provide training, there is no

significant difference among various sizes of lodging properties with
regard to the amount of training provided, by employee type.

136

A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine
differences between the independent variable, property size, and the dependent
variable, amount of training provided. Property size was defined in terms of the
number of guest rooms at a property. Size was separated into three categories:
small, medium, and large properties. The ratio of the between-group variance to
the within-group variance, represented by the E statistic, indicates whether a
difference exists between subgroup means. Three assumptions exist when
using an ANOVA. First, independent observations need to exist. Second, the
population from which the sample was selected must be normal. Third, the
population must have homogeneity of variance (Gravetter 8 Wallnau, 1996,

p. 407). Gravetter and Wallnau indicated that “ordinarily, research has not been
overly concerned with the assumption of normality, especially when large
samples are used, unless there are strong reasons to suspect the assumption
has not been satisfied. The assumption of homogeneity of variance is an
important one” (p. 407). i

The assumption of homogeneity of variance can be influenced by data
that are not normally distributed. Therefore, to obtain homogeneity of variance
scores that were acceptable, the data needed tobe normally distributed. The
log transformation of the amount of training was used in this analysis.

Results indicated that the scores of those properties that trained were
similar to each other, to the desired value of greater than .05. A score greater
than .05 indicated that the hypothesis of equal variances was rejected. If the
value was less than .05, it was not rejected (SPSS Base, 9.0, 1999). Levene’s

test was used to determine whether equal variances existed (Table 4.22).

137

 

Table 4.22: Levene’s test of the homogeneity of variance.

 

 

 

Employee Type Probability-Those That Train
Hourly .216
Management .1658
Total .042

 

 

 

8Values of < .05-not rejected.

As reported, the homogeneity of variance indicated significance values for
hourly, management, and total training of .216, .165, and .042, respectively.
Although the total-hours variable did not show a p value less than .05, the
ANOVA results indicated that a significant relationship existed.

A significant difference was found between the amount of training
provided and property size. Means for hourly, management, and total training
were significantly different at the .05 significance level, with p values of .000,
.000, and .000, respectively (Table 4.23). These findings confirmed that there
was a significant difference in the amount of training in different-sized properties

overall, and specifically for hourly and management employees.

Table 4.23: Results of ANOVA of the log transformation of the amount of

 

 

training.
Employee Type E _d_f1 _d_fz Signif.
Hourly 21.0 2 124 .000"
Management 1 1 .3 2 76 .000"
Total 28.0 2 131 .000"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .01 level.

138

In an ANOVA, conclusions regarding rejecting a null hypothesis do not
indicate whether a difference exists between two specific treatments. Post hoc
tests are used to identify whether a difference exists between the means of each
of the treatments studied. Treatments are compared, two at a time, to identify
whether differences exist in each possible scenario (Gravetter 8 Wallnau, 1996,
p'. 402).

To further identify whether a relationship existed for each of the size
categories, Scheffe tests were used to identify the differences in means between
individual subgroups of lodging categories. Specifically, Scheffe’s test was used
to determine whether a significant difference existed between small and medium,
medium and large, and small and large properties. This test adjusts for Type I
errors as they become more likely when making multiple pairwise comparisons
(Gravetter 8 Wallnau, 1996). The Scheffe test disclosed which size categories
differed from one another in terms of the amount of training, at the 95%
confidence level. This test is one of the more conservative post hoc tests as it
attempts to reduce the risk of Type I errors (Gravetter 8 Wallnau, 1996, p. 404).

The overall amount of training differed significantly when comparing small
and medium properties and small and large properties. No difference existed
between medium and large properties in the overall amount of training. Small
properties differed from both medium and large properties in terms of the amount
of training for hourly employees. Small and medium and small and large
properties also differed significantly in terms of the number of hours of training

for management employees (Table 4.24).

139

Te

C_F_h_Sh
—S|WL

 

sig

he

80

80

DH

is:

”It

Ira

be

Tej

Table 4.24: Scheffe test of property size by amount of training.

 

 

 

 

Meana and Amount of Training

Scheffe Test Hourly Management Total
Small properties ' 3.0 a,b 3.3 a,b 3.4 a,b
Medium properties 4.4 a 4.9 a 5.2 a
Large properties 4.2 b 4.4 b 4.9 b
Overall mean 3.9 4.2 4.5
E 21.0 ' 11.3 28.0
N, 127 79 1 34
Signif. .000 .000 .000

 

 

 

 

 

 

aMean scores are based on the log of the amount-of-training variable.

bWhere the letters in a column are the same (a or b), there was a
significant difference between those two sizes of properties.

Assessing the median amount of training conducted, small properties
trained hourly employees 28 hours, medium properties trained them 90 hours,
and large properties trained them 71 hours (see Table 4.8). Management
employees received more training than hourly employees in all three sizes of
properties—32, 146, and 91 hours for small, medium, and large properties,
respectively.

Overall, small properties generally were significantly different from
medium and large properties in the amount of training provided. Further,
training of both hourly and management employees differed significantly
between small properties and both medium and large properties. Thus, the
hypothesis regarding amount of training in various-sized lodging properties was

rejected because a significant difference was found in the amount of training

140

rrx
N 5“

en

provided for both hourly and management employees. Property size was a

factor in the amount of training an organization provided.

Amount of Training and Employee Turnover
Null Hypothesis 6: For those properties that provide training, there is no
relationship between the amount of training provided and employee
turnover in lodging properties, by (a) employee type and (b) property size.
Spearman’s correlation was used to determine whether a relationship
existed between the dependent variable, amount of training provided, and the
independent variable, employee turnover. Employee turnover was reported as
an annual percentage.
The annual percentage of turnover at properties that trained was 37%. In
those properties that provided training, small properties had lower turnover rates

than did medium and large properties—21%, 31%, and 56%, respectively (Table

4.25).

Table 4.25: Average employee turnover in properties that trained by property

 

 

 

size.
Annual Employee Turnover (%)—
Property Size Those That Train

11 Mean % a
Small 39 21 24
Medium 38 31 , 25
Large 45 56 48
Annual turnover 122 37 38

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the mean scores indicate, as the property size increased, the

employee turnover rate also increased. In general, if a property was more likely

141

.I

~ It

Sig

th.

We

to train, it also reported a higher employee turnover rate. This was evident in
the relationship between amount of training overall and employee turnover,
which was .277 (p = .033). Those properties with higher turnover provided more
hours of training (Table 4.26).

When the total amount of training was separated into hourly-employee
and management training, a significant difference relationship was found
between management training and employee turnover, which was .295
(p = .015). Therefore, as management training increased, the amount of
employee turnover also increased. The amount of hourly training did not show
a significant relationship with turnover, with a correlation of .171 (p = .080)

(Table 4.26).

Table 4.26: Spearman’s correlation of employee turnover and amount of

 

 

training by employee type.
Employee Type [1 g p
Hourly 106 .171 .080
Management 67 .295 .015*
Total 112 .277 .003”

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level. “Significant at the .01 level.

An analysis of the correlations by property size indicated that no
significant relationship existed for hourly, management, or overall training. Even
though a significant relationship existed overall with management and total
training, when the properties were broken into size categories the relationship

was no longer significant (Table 4.27).

142

 

Table 4.27: Spearman’s correlation of employee turnover and the amount of
training by property size and employee type.

 

 

 

 

Property Size
al Medl m e
Employee Type Sm ' u Larg
.0 I i2 .0 I 9 n I 2
Hourly 30 .058 .788 37 .097 .569 39 -.089 .677
Management 20 .149 .531 20 -.192 .417 27 .250 .208
Total 38 .237 .165 38 -.199 .230 38 .188 .313

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although evidence suggested that a significant difference existed in the
amount of training for management and overall, hourly, management, and
overall training indicated no significant relationship existed between employee
turnover and the three sizes of properties. Therefore, there was not enough

evidence to support rejecting Null Hypothesis 6.

Amount of Training and Stimuli and Barriers

Null Hypothesis 7: For those properties that provide training, there is no

relationship between the amount of training provided and the various

stimuli and barriers that influence training activities, by (a) employee type
and (b) property size.

Scales were created to represent the various factors that influence
training activities. These were identified as the stimulus and barrier scales. As
previously indicated, the general measures representing the factors were
reliable, with reliability coefficients of .81 and .91 for barriers and stimuli,
respectively. To determine whether a relationship existed between the
independent variables and the dependent variable, amount of training provided,

Spearman’s correlation again was used with each factor and scale.

143

Although the scores for all three sizes of properties were similar, scores
on the barrier scale revealed that respondents from large properties viewed
barriers slightly more positively than did their counterparts from small and
medium properties, at 2.5, 2.4, and 2.4, respectively. Conversely, respondents
from medium-sized properties viewed stimuli more positively, with a mean score
of 3.7. Respondents from large properties had a mean score of 3.6, whereas

those from small properties had a mean score of 3.4 (Table 4.28).

Table 4.28: Mean scores of factors that influenced training by property size.

 

 

 

 

Scale/ Scale Scores—Those That Train
Property Size n Mean fl
Barrier Scale

Small 46 2.4 .83
Medium 42 2.4 .56
Large 55 2.5 .61
Total overall 143 2.5 .67

Stimulus Scale
Small 45 3.4 .77
Medium 42 3.7 .56
Large _ 54 3.6 .54
Total overall 141 3.6 .64

 

 

 

 

 

 

The stimulus scale had a positive correlation with the amount of training,
whereas the barrier scale had a negative correlation with the amount of training.
Only the stimulus scale correlated significantly with amount of training (I: = .206;
Table 4.29). While significant, this was a moderate relationship, suggesting that
as managers and owners indicated stimuli as a higher factor that influenced

training, the amount of training offered within their business also increased.

144

Correlations between the two scales appeared to be low. This confirmed the

validity of the scales’ being separate measures (Table 4.29).

Table 4.29: Spearman’s correlation matrix of barriers, stimuli, and the amount

 

 

 

 

of training.
Amount of Training Barriers Stimuli
Amount of training ---
Barriers -.01 1 ~—
Stimuli .206" -.022 ---

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

Although no significant relationships appeared to exist between the
barrier scale overall and the amount of training provided, one significant
relationship was found between the stimulus scale overall and the total amount
of training, with a positive correlation of .206 (p = .019). Therefore, as
respondents indicated various stimuli influenced training, the more likely they
were to train employees overall (Table 4.30).

Both barrier and stimulus scales had significant relationships with amount
of training for medium-sized properties overall. Barriers had a negative
correlation, whereas stimuli had a positive correlation. This indicated that, as
barrier scores were reduced for medium-sized properties, the amount of training
increased across employee types. When stimulus influences increased, the
amount of training increased in medium-sized properties across employee types.
More specifically, the amount of training for hourly workers increased as

stimulus scale scores increased. As the influences of stimuli increased, hourly

145

 

IIA I

 

rel

am

rel;

workers’ training also increased in medium-sized properties. In small and large
properties, there was no significant relationship between amount of training and

barrier or stimulus scale scores (Table 4.30).

Table 4.30: Correlation between amount of training and the barrier and
stimulus scales by property size and employee type.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale! Property Hourty Management Total
3"" n r 2 9. r a n r 9
Barrier
Small 38 .187 .278 21 .281 .218 42 .224 .154
Medium 41 -.278 .078 24 -.138 .527 42 -.351 .022"
Large 49 .041 .778 33 -.169 .346 48 .062 .674
Total 126 -.057 .530 78 -.038 .741 132 -.o11 .902
Stimulus
Small 35 .098 .577 20 .388 .093 41 .176 .272
Medium 41 .437 .004“ 23 .175 .424 42 .359 .020“
Large 48 -.074 .616 33 .020 .913 47 -.042 .780
Total 124 .171 .058 76 .189 .101 130 .208 .019*

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

M'Significant at the .01 level.

Although some support to reject the null hypothesis existed, the

relationships were weak. Few significant relationships existed. Overall, the

amount of training and the stimulus and barrier scales showed no significant

relationships. Therefore, Null Hypothesis 7 was not rejected.

146

 

 

littl
chi
exl

an:

prc

dra

an

Mi

V8
far

We

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Although training literature is readily available in a variety of industries,
little evidence exists regarding training in the lodging industry specifically. This
chapter is focused on which theory, the HCT or the SLMT, provides the best
explanation of the value placed on training, the factors that influence training,
and the training practices of Michigan lodging properties.

This chapter is divided into five sections. In the first two sections, the
procedures and findings are summarized. Section three addresses conclusions
drawn from the hypothesis tests. A discussion of lodging industry implications
and future research is highlighted in the fourth section. Section five contains

concluding statements.

Mm

Procedures

In an effort to understand the training beliefs, values, and practices of
Michigan’s lodging industry, both qualitative interviews and a questionnaire were
completed. Lodging property general managers/owners were interviewed to
verify the relevance of training literature to the lodging industry and to uncover
factors that influenced training initiatives. Fifteen general managers/owners

were interviewed regarding their training practices and views. From these

147

 

inte
qur
cot
hur

WBI

a 0
COT.
ma

QUE

che
36c
Pro
10(
led
8dr
Ihe

Ciel

Inc
Ian

Sig

interviews and a thorough literature review, the researcher developed a
questionnaire. A population sample of 1,782 hotels, motels, resorts, cabins, and
cottages was identified from the Travel Michigan Product Database. Six
hundred thirty-three general managers/owners of Michigan lodging properties
were sent a questionnaire; 616 were considered to have usable addresses.

A pilot-tested and revised questionnaire was sent via first-class mail with
a cover letter, postage-paid return envelope, and incentive card. Three
complete mailings were conducted with reminder postcards after the first two
mailings. Thirty-five percent (218 out of 616) of those sampled responded to the

questionnaire.

Findings

A profile of the lodging general managers/owners and property
characteristics was completed for the entire data set. Of the 218 respondents,
36% were from small properties (1 to 35 rooms), 31% were from medium-sized
properties (36 to 100 rooms), and 39% were from large properties (more than
100 rooms). An analysis by property size indicated that the educational level of
lodging general managers/owners increased as the property size increased. In
addition, both the average length of time general managers/owners had held
their current positions and the average age of the general managers/owners
decreased as the property size increased.

The lodging-property characteristics indicated that, as a property
increased in size, it was, on average, open longer, more likely to belong to a
large-size corporation, and to have some type of franchise affiliation. A
significant relationship existed between occupancy and profitability, as well. As

148

properties became larger, they were more profitable and enjoyed higher
occupancy rates.

Analysis was completed on only those properties that provided training.
The respondent, property, and training characteristics were profiled. The
characteristics of properties that provided training differed from those of
properties that did not provide training. General managers/owners at properties
that provided training were significantly more educated, younger, and had been
at the properties a shorter time than those at properties that did not provide
training. Further, the properties that trained averaged higher occupancy and
were also more likely to indicate that they “made money.”

The property training characteristics were summarized, and the results
indicated that, on average, 3.9% of annual payroll was spent on training. It
appeared that, as the properties decreased in size, the amount spent on training
also decreased. This finding indicates that these lodging properties spent more
on training than other researchers have reported. Many studies have indicated
that an investment from 1/2% to 4% of annual payroll is more the norm (ASTD,
1995; Bassi 8 VanBuren, 1988; Bergman, 1995; Dedoussis, 1995).
Respondents from thirty-one percent of the properties indicated that more than
5% was spent on training. This differed from a study of the lodging industry by
Conrade et al. (1994), who found that 61% of lodging organizations invested
between 1l2% and 1% of annual payroll in training.

When so much money was dedicated to training, it was notable that only
17% of all properties had training as a budget line item. As property size

increased, the likelihood of having training as a budget line item also increased.

149

Other research on the lodging industry has found that more properties had
training as a budget line item. Conrade et al. (1994) found that more than 50%
of lodging properties included training as a line item in the budget.

Ninety-three percent of the general managers/owners indicated that
training was important/valuable to their business. More than half of the medium
and large properties indicated that training is more of a priority today than it was
three years ago, yet only 16% of small properties indicated this to be so.

The respondent, property, and training characteristics were summarized
before the analyses of the hypotheses. The seven hypotheses are discussed

separately in the following section.

Sonclusions Drawn From the Hypothesis Tests

 

Lodging Pr0perties That Train
(Hypothesis 1)

Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the percentages of properties
providing training, by (a) employee type and (b) property size.

This hypothesis was rejected. The hypothesis focused on whether all
lodging properties provided training. It was found that 67% of the respondents’
properties conducted some form of training. The majority of those that did not
train fell into the small-size-property category. This finding supported the notion
that many investigations have focused on larger organizations, which are more
likely to provide training (VanBuren, 1999).

An analysis of who receives training revealed that, of those properties
that did train, 92% trained hourly employees and 66% trained management

employees. Previous researchers have indicated that more than half of all

150

 

thi

Stu

employees in US. and European organizations receive training (Bassi 8
VanBuren, 1998; Goodenough 8 Page, 1993).

The amount of training conducted by those properties that provided
training varied by property size. Overall, employees were provided 119 hours of
training. For those properties that trained, the median amount of training was 56
hours for hourly employees and 83 hours for management employees. Medium-
sized properties provided the most training-90 and 146 hours for hourly and
management employees, respectively. Large properties followed, with 71 and
91 hours for hourly and management employees, respectively. Small properties
trained hourly employees for 28 hours and management employees for 32
hours.

Management employees received more hours of training in each of the
property-size categories than did hourly employees. Past research has
supported this finding (Camevale 8 Carnevale, 1994; Jackson et al., 1989;
Medoff, 1982; Scott, 1995). The lodging industry appears to provide more
training than many organizations. As suggested in the literature, organizations
provided employees 21 to 90 hours of training (Bishop, 1991; Colarelli 8 Montei,
1996; Training Magazine, 1996). Some studies have indicated that reports of
the amount of training conducted may be incomplete because organizations
failed to measure the amount of informal training conducted (Bassi 8 VanBuren,
1998; Conrade et al., 1994). Both formal and informal training were quantified in
this study.

The findings regarding general training practices relate to the theories

studied in this research project. The human capital theory would suggest that all

151

organizations provide training to employees, but as the findings from this study
suggest, not all lodging properties provide training. Further, property size and
employee type would not be variables that influence a property to train or not.
Therefore, regardless of property size and type of employee, properties would
provide training. This was not verified by the findings. Management and hourly
employees received different amounts of training, and the percentages of these
employee groups who were trained varied.

The segmented labor market theory specifically suggests that
management employees receive more training because they have more value to
the organization. Further, property size influences the amount of training
conducted because smaller properties would be less likely to hire a number of
skilled employees. The few employees who are needed would be hourly by
nature and have skills that many people would possess. The results supported
these suggested outcomes. The SLMT helps to explain why lodging properties
provide more hours of training to management employees. The theory also
helps to explain why larger properties provide more training than smaller
properties.

Value Stimulus and Barrier Scale
Somparisons (Hypothesis 2)

 

Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the value, barrier, or stimulus

scale scores between various-sized properties that provide training and

those that do not provide training.

This hypothesis was not rejected. Although both the HCT and the SLMT
generally suggest that training should occur, the theories can also be used to

explain the likelihood that properties would train. It was therefore useful to

152

determine why some properties did not provide training. The findings indicated
that, for the five scales compared, the properties that did not provide training
were not significantly different from those that did provide training.

The HCT suggests that properties that do not provide training may indeed
do so for several reasons. The first possibility is that, even though they do not
provide training, they find high value in training. The second possibility is that
the various factors that simulate a property to train are low, and the factors that
act as barriers to providing training are high, indicating that these organizations
are restricted from training due to a great number of barriers that exist. In this
case, if a property found a way in which to remove the barriers, it would be
inclined to provide training in a manner in which the HCT would suggest. These
findings suggest that properties in this study that did not train did not place
significantly lower value on training, were not significantly less stimulated to
provide training, and were not significantly different regarding the barriers to
training. Therefore, because no significant difference exists, the HCT does little
to explain the training attitudes of properties that do not provide training.

Because the SLMT suggests that properties that train are influenced by
various stimuli, this pattern would hold true with those properties that do not
provide training. The SLMT also suggests that properties that do not provide
training would find training to be of less value and the factors that act as barriers
to training could be either high or low. In this case, properties may not value
training highly, but should they decide to train, it would most likely be for a
stimulus such as a legal mandate. These findings suggest that properties that

do not train generally are not significantly different from properties that provide

153

training. This suggests that the SLMT would not provide a framework to
understand the beliefs of those properties that currently do not provide training.
Although the HCT and the SLMT have been used to understand the
practices related to organizations that provide training, in this study, evidence
suggests that the theories do not clearly explain why organizations do not
provide training and the likelihood that they will provide training in the future.
Both theories are better equipped to address the practices of those properties
that provide training, and the remaining five hypotheses were tested only with

data from the properties that provided training.

Training Hourly and Management
Employees (Hypothesis 3)

Hypothesis 3: For those properties that provide training, there is no
difference in the amount of training provided and the types of training
courses offered, by (a) employee type and (b) property size.

This hypothesis was separated into two sections for discussion of each
part of the hypothesis. The amount of training and types of training courses
offered to hourly and management employees will be discussed.

The first part of the hypothesis suggested that no difference existed in the
amount of training provided to hourly and management employees. This was
rejected. For those properties that trained both hourly and management
employees, management employees received significantly more training, as
suggested by the SLMT. More specifically, the theory was supported in medium-

sized properties. Small and large properties showed no significant difference at

the .05 level.

154

The SLMT was addressed specifically in this hypothesis. The theory
suggests that employee groups with less needed skills and higher turnover rates
are trained less than those employees with more perceived value to the
organization. Comparing the training received by hourly and management
employees offered support for this theoretical perspective in the lodging
industry.

Support for the SLMT was once again evident in the second part of the
hypothesis. In this section, each particular course offering was analyzed. In five
of seven courses, there was a significant difference between the training of
management and hourly employees. Assessing the amount of training given to
each employee group, by course, showed that a significant difference existed
between the two groups. Management received more training in five of the
seven courses compared.

The HCT suggests that the balance of training various employee groups
would be more equal. Only small properties showed this type of relationship.
For those that trained, small properties had median scores of 28 and 32 hours of
training for hourly and management employees, respectively. Medium and large
properties exhibited quite a difference between hourly and management
employees and did not appear in support of the theory.

Becker (1995) contended that specific types of training courses have the
greatest reward for the organization providing training. In times of high I
competition, firms are less likely to provide beneficial general training programs,
such as attitudinal or general-topic training and are more likely to provide

specific types of training programs such as orientation or job-specific training.

155

Literature suggests that both general and specific types of training are provided
in organizations. However, the lodging industry provided mostly specific types of
training.

Hourly employees received specific training most often, including job-
specific and orientation training, at 67% and 56% of the properties, respectively.
Thirty-six percent of lodging properties provided management with specific
training in the form of job-specific and orientation training. Research on training
has suggested that employers provided orientation training most often to
employees, with many writers indicating at least 70% of organizations provided
this type of training (Bassi & VanBuren, 1998; Lynch & Black, 1995; Society for
Human Resource Management, 1995; Training Magazin_e, 1996). This was also
found in the lodging industry. Of those properties that trained hourly employees,
80% (1 171146) of those employees received orientation training, whereas 95%
(76/80) of management employees received this type of training.

Of properties that trained, general training courses in the form of
computer, teamwork, and customer service training were provided by 46%
(671146), 47% (691146), and 68% (991146) of properties, respectively.
(Properties could respond to more than one course; therefore, the total of all
courses exceeds the sample size.) Whereas management employees received
customer service training at 99% (79/80) of properties that provided training,
computer and teamwork training were provided by 74% (59l80) and 70% (56180)
of properties, respectively.

The different amounts of training provided to management and hourly

employees offers support for the SLMT. For those properties that provided

156

training to both hourly and management employees, management decisions
about who received training fell in line with the SLMT. As in other industries,
upper-level staff received the most training.

The HCT was not confirmed. Tinto (1981) viewed human capital as a
homogeneous market with no specific employee submarkets. In this study, a
homogeneous market was not found. Management and hourly employees were
treated differently. The HCT suggests that training should be provided equally
in any organization. Management received more hours of training than hourly
employees in every significant course. Nor does the HCT address the finding
that more hourly employees received training than did management employees.
Here again, it appears that training decisions are segmented in some way.
Given the data and findings from this study, lodging properties did not support
this theory in their management decisions.

Overall, the SLMT was supported based on the results for this hypothesis
test. Employees were treated differently in the lodging industry, with
management being provided more hours of training when they were trained. As
noted, less than 40% of the properties provided training for management

employees.

Attitude and the Amognt of Training
(Hypothesis 4)

Hypothesis 4: For those properties that provide training, there is no

relationship between the amount of training provided and the attitudes of

lodging general managers/owners toward the value of training, by

(a) employee type and (b) property size.

This null hypothesis was not rejected because only three of a possible
nine relationships were significant for the value scales, more specifically,

157

between training and the value that managers/owners attributed to training.
Across all comparisons by property size, only 3 of 27 comparisons showed a
significant relationship between these variables.

The literature indicated that there was value to both the employer and the
employee when training was provided. A lack of training contributed to job
dissatisfaction. Conversely, training improved supervisory relations,
communication, job satisfaction, and commitment (Anderson et al., 1995;
Bonsutto, 1993; Burke, 1995; Freeman, 1978; Gaertner & Nollen, 1989; Geale,
1995; Payne, 1996; Senat, 1992). Employers have found that training added to
productivity and profitability. Specifically in the lodging industry, consistent
serviw delivery, employee skill and knowledge, repeat business, and profit were
the positive outcomes of training (Bergman, 1995; Conrade et al., 1994; Doyle,
1994; Lankard, 1991).

The findings from the analysis of three scales supported these
conclusions. Property general managers and owners indicated that they valued
training for the organization and the employee. However, the amount of training
did not increase or decrease in unison with value scores. Therefore, the value
of training was generally the same, regardless of the amount of training
provided.

The HCT suggests that both employees and employers have a positive
view of training as these investments provide returns for both employees and
employers (Becker, 1995; Sweetland, 1996). Even though the amount of

training did not increase as the value of training increased, general managers

158

and owners did find training important and valuable. General managers/owners
had high scores on the value scales. These results suggest that the HCT
provides a framework to understand the value of training. Regardless of
whether 1 hour or 500 hours of training were provided, the attitudes toward
training remained similar.

The SLMT suggests that employers perceive training to be good for some
but not for all employees. The results for this hypothesis indicated that the
SLMT did not help to explain the value placed on training in Michigan’s lodging
industry. The value scales did not suggest whether one part of the organization
would find greater rewards from training than another. Therefore, the results

and findings did not lend support to the SLMT.

Amount of Training and Property Size
(Hypothesis 5)

Hypothesis 5: For those properties that provide training, there is no
significant difference among various sizes of lodging properties with
regard to the amount of training provided, by employee type.

This hypothesis was rejected. A significant difference was evident among
the various sizes of lodging properties in the amount of training they provided.
The larger the property, the more training that was provided.

Although Bishop (1991) found a curvilinear relationship between
organizational size and training, with the smallest and largest organizations
providing the most training, and Colarelli and Montei (1996) found that

organizational size did not influence the amount of training, several others have

supported the findings of this research. Size has been found to have a

159

relationship with the amount of training provided (Camevale 8. Camevale, 1994;
Jacobs et al., 1996; Knoke & Kalleberg, 1994; Saari et al., 1988). Specifically,
larger organizations were more likely to have a perceived need for training and
were more likely to provide more training (Scott, 1995).

Both the HCT and the SLMT offer little insight into the role of property
size and the amount of training. The HCT, however, suggests that, regardless of
size, organizations will have similar proportional investments in training. The
SLMT suggests the opposite view. Size may influence the amount of training
conducted because size affects the number and types of employees in an
organization. Properties with fewer employees may have simpler job tasks, and
those employees, therefore, receive less training.

These findings supported the SLMT as a significant difference existed
between the amount of training provided and the size of the lodging property. In
hourly, management, and overall training, significant differences existed
between small and medium and small and large properties. However, no
significant difference was found between medium and large properties in hourly,
management, or overall training. Although property size affected the amount of
training, once properties reached between medium and large size, this
significant difference no longer existed. The SLMT provides a framework for
understanding property size and the amount of training conducted because size

of property influences the type and number of employees.

160

mount 53 Training and Employee Turnover
(Hymthesis 6)

Hyppthesis 6: For those properties that provide training, there is no
relationship between the amount of training provided and employee
turnover in lodging properties, by (a) employee type and (b) property size.

This null hypothesis was not rejected. Two positive relationships between
turnover and the overall amount of training were significant; however, no other
significant relationship was found when the analysis was conducted by property
size. Separated by property size, none of nine possible relationships indicated
significance. This evidence was not enough to suggest rejecting the hypothesis.

The literature regarding turnover indicated two relationships between
turnover and training. First, it was suggested that training influences turnover in
organizations. Second, an organization’s turnover may be a predeterminant for
investing in training.

Several researchers have investigated the relationship between turnover
and training in organizations. Most have found that turnover was reduced when
organizations provided training. Some found the opposite to be true. Salipante
and Goodman (1976) discovered that offering training alone had no effect on
employee retention. However, the more specific the training received (job skills),
the higher the retention. Bishop (1991) also found no relationship between job
turnover and training intensity or length of training.

Many other investigators, however, have found a significant relationship

between training and turnover. Turnover has been found to have a negative

correlation with training. Providing training resulted in lower turnover because

161

training was a predictor of longevity, separation, and long-term commitment
(Conrade et al., 1994; Vaughan 8. Berryman, 1989; Wanous et al., 1979).

The findings from this study indicated that, in many instances, no
relationship existed between turnover and the amount of training. When a
significant relationship was found, that relationship was positive. Turnover was
found to be significantly higher in properties that provided overall training. And
individually in small, medium, and large properties there were no significant
relationships between turnover and amount of training.

The HCT indicates that organizations with higher specific training
experience lower turnover. This theory was not supported by the results of the
present study even though the lodging industry provides mostly specific types of
training. No relationships existed by property size; therefore, there is not
enough evidence that the lodging industry practices could be explained by the
HOT.

The SLMT suggests that high turnover in an organization will negatively
affect the amount of training provided. Those organizations with higher turnover
would not provide as much training because their priority lies with employees
who are more inclined to be with the organization a longer period of time.
Results of the present study did not support this notion. Training overall was
found to have a significant positive relationship with turnover.

Neither theory explained the relationship of turnover to the amount of
training in lodging properties. These results were contrary to some of the

literature.

162

Amppnt of Training and Stimuli and Barriers
(Hymthesis 7)

Hypothesis 7: For those properties that train, there is no relationship
between the amount of training provided and the various stimuli and
barriers that influence training activities, by (a) employee type and

(b) property size.

The null hypothesis was not rejected. Two scales representing a general
measure for several factors that influence training were grouped as stimulus and
barrier scales. No significant relationship was found between stimuli and
barriers, and the amount of overall training provided.

The stimulus and barrier scales were constructed using information
obtained from the literature, interviews, and pilot-study feedback. Four factors
were developed specifically from the literature: competition, change,
technology, and culture. Becker (1995) found that organizations that had little
competition invested more heavily in training. Lynch and Black (1996) found
that, as organizations changed, the need for higher skill training existed. The
more technological advancement a company had, the more likely the
organization was to train employees (Colarelli & Montei, 1996; Dedoussis, 1995;
Mellan, 1988). And the more positively leadership viewed training, the more
employees viewed it positively as well (Facteau et al., 1995; Ford 8 Noe, 1987;
Guthrie & Schoerer, 1994).

The HCT and SLMT only make suggestions as to the effects of various
factors that influence training. The HCT suggests that both barriers and stimuli

may or may not affect an organization's training practices. Conversely, the

SLMT would support the same relationship with barriers, but it would not react

163

the same way to stimuli. This is so because the SLMT suggests properties
provide training as a reaction to various stimuli. The more factors stimulate a
property to train, the more training would occur.

The barrier scales did not have a significant relationship with the amount
of training. However, the stimulus scale and the total amount of training showed
a positive correlation. Analyzing each factor by property size indicated that a
relationship existed in medium-sized properties. Training of hourly employees in
medium-sized properties showed a significant relationship with the stimulus and
barrier scales overall. Therefore, respondents from the medium-sized properties
that trained employees indicated that various stimuli and barriers influenced
training overall.

Although several variables have been found to have a relationship with
training, the stimulus/barrier scales showed that a weak relationship existed.
Both the HCT and the SLMT support these findings. The theories help address
the fact that the scales were not shown to have a relationship with the amount of

training.

Theoretical Summary

The researcher’s intention in this study was to determine which theory,
the HCT or the SLMT, best explains the training practices of Michigan’s lodging
industry. Both theories contributed to understanding the training practices of
Michigan’s lodging industry.

The SLMT, however, provided a better framework for explaining training

practices of the Michigan lodging industry. The SLMT suggests that employee

164

groups receive training differentially, and this was confirmed in the lodging
industry. As evident in the related results, different employee groups did not
receive training equally. When training was offered, management employees
received more training than hourly employees. Results further indicated that the
amount of training was influenced by property size. As property size increased,
so also did the amount of training provided to employees.

One of these relationships was clearly stated in the theory (employee
groups do not receive training equally), whereas the other was only suggested.
This indicates that the SLMT may be expanded to include other issues, such as
property size, in future theoretical studies.

Of these related results, the differences noted between various-sized
properties was the most significant conclusion from the study. Different-sized
properties had varying employee demands, and the amount of training provided
increased as the property size increased. This finding is supported by the SLMT
and represents new ground from which to apply the theory.

Even though it is suggested that the SLMT provided a better framework to
understand the training practices in the lodging industry, the HCT also made
contributions to understanding the value placed on training. The related results
indicated that respondents had a positive view of training, regardless of the
amount of training they conducted. This finding is explained through the HCT.
However, the actual practices of Michigan’s lodging industry contradicted other
human-capital propositions. The HCT did not help explain the issues relating to

the amount of training and employee turnover, the difference in training for

165

hourly and management employees, or the influence of property size. The HCT
would suggest that organizations with higher specific training have lower
turnover. In the Michigan lodging industry, there is no evidence of such a
relationship between turnover and training. Properties in this study provided
training to diverse employee groups differently, and not all employees received
training. The amount of training increased as the property size increased.
Therefore, even though lodging managers’lowners’ attitudes did not change
depending on the amount of training they provided, a difference did exist related
to their training practices. Therefore, the HCT does not appear to apply well to
training practices in the lodging industry. The SLMT furnished a better view of
how general managers/owners in Michigan’s lodging industry behaved with

regard to training practices.

Discussion

Implications for the Lodging Industgy

Based on the findings and the conclusions drawn from this study, several
implications are important for the lodging industry to consider. As suggested in
Chapter I, the increased interest in training has stemmed from the need to
improve the labor situation for employers. The following comments focus on
what the industry can do to improve this situation. Eight suggestions are
outlined below.

1. The lodging-industry respondents stated that they valued training and
that training was important; they spent more on training than most other

businesses (when they did it) and provided more hours of training than most

166

 

otI

pr

rec

on
Th

en:

fr0l

SLll

tho
the
hig
lOp
lSSI
adc
emI

leir

other businesses (when they did it). Yet, one-third of all properties did not
provide training and, even in those that did provide training, not all employees
received training. If organizations are to commit to providing training, they must
start at the top of the organization. Managers who do not receive training may
not support training for hourly employees. As this is only one possible reason
why organizations do not provide training, it is important that the industry reflect
on the reasons why properties of various sizes do or do not provide training.
This type of analysis will help determine what might need to be done to
encourage the industry to become more human-capital oriented, and how to do
it. Otherwise, the industry may not focus on the true issues that keep a property
from training. The top barriers to training for each size of property are
summarized in Table 5.1. Scores for individual barriers are provided in
Appendix F.

Similar to what Clark (1994) found, respondents from all properties
thought a lack of time was the number-one barrier to training. Also included in
the top five barriers for all sizes of properties were high employee turnover and
high business demands. Medium and large properties had identical lists of the
top five barriers, whereas poor profits and seasonality tended to be bigger
issues for small properties (Table 5.1). This implies that the industry must
address the unique nature of the lodging industry, which is plagued with:
employee turnover and time restraints due to business demands. This

reinforces the need to identify ways in which employee turnover can be reduced,

167

as well as exploring ways in which training can be added to an already

demanding industry.

Table 5.1: Top five barriers for small, medium, and large properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Size/Barrier 3 Mean8 SQ
mall
Lack of time 46 3'0b 1.4
High employee turnover 46 2.7b 1.4
Poor profits 46 2.7b 1.3
Seasonality of my property 46 2.7b 1.4
High business demands 44 2.5b 1.2
Lack of qualified trainers 46 2.5 1.5
Medium
Lack of time 42 3. 1.2
High business demands 42 2‘8b 1.2
High employee turnover 42 2.8 1.3
Cost of training 42 2.7 1.1
Lack of qualified trainers 42 2.5 1.4
Large
Lack of time 55 3.4b 1.1
High employee turnover 54 3.1 b 1.2
High business demands 55 3.1 1.0
Cost of training 55 2.8 1.1
Lack of qualified trainers
verall

Lack of time 143 3.2 1.2
High employee turnover 142 2.9 1.3
High business demands 141 2.8b 1.1
Cost of training 143 2.6b 1.1
Poor profits 143 2.6b 1.2
Lack of qualified trainers 141 2.6 1.3

 

aScores closer to 5 indicate a higher barrier.

bIndicates a tie score.

168

 

In addition, identifying those factors that stimulate a property to train can
help indicate what continued steps may need to take place to encourage
training. Items that stimulated a property to train were similar across size
categories. Customer, employee, and management feedback; poor
performance/profitability; and lack of skill in employees were reasons why
properties were stimulated to train. The top stimuli for each size of property are
summarized in Table 5.2. Scores for all individual stimuli are identified in
Appendix G.

These results imply the need for continued communication with customers
and employees. Hence, it is important to have customer and employee feedback
mechanisms, such as understanding satisfaction through a questionnaire or
conducting a needs assessment through a focus group. In addition, assisting
properties with training when performance has dropped may also be necessary.

Because training is viewed as important and valuable by lodging
properties yet not all of them provide training, it is critical that steps be taken to
ensure that training can be conducted. The lodging industry must therefore
address these factors that influence training, by property size, and develop
strategies to overcome the barriers and reinforce stimuli. This has initially been
completed in this study. Steps can now be taken locally, regionally, and at the
state level to eliminate barriers and reinforce stimuli. Additional steps can be
taken to confirm these findings with individual properties and identify action
steps for specific properties to provide training. Identifying how the barriers can
be removed and how properties might be influenced toward training is an

important consideration for the industry.

169

Table 5.2: Top five stimuli for small, medium, and large properties.

 

 

 

 

 

Property Size/Stimulus g Meana SO
mall I:
Customer feedback/expectations 44 4.0b .87
Improved profitability/performance 45 4.0 .80
Employee/management feedback 42 3.9 1.00
Poor profitability/performance 44 3.8 1.10
Lack of skill in employees 44 3.7 1 00
Medium b
Improved performance/profitability 42 4.1 b .88
Lack of skill in employees 42 4.1 b .72
Customer feedback/expectations 41 4.1 88
Poor performance/profitability 41 3. 86
Employee/management feedback 40 3.8b .82
Introduction/advancement of technology 41 3.8b 1.10
Increased competition 42 3.8.3 1.00
Change(s) at the property 41 3'8b .82
Change(s) within the industry 42 3.8 .96
Large
Customer feedback/expectations 53 4.3) .72
Lack of skill in employees 54 4.0b .90
Poor performance/profitability 52 4.0b 1.00
Employee/management feedback 54 4.0b .93
Change(s) at the property 53 3.8b .83
Introduction/advancement of technology 54 3.8 1.10
verall

Customer feedback/expectations 137 4.?b .82
Lack of skill in employees 140 3.9b .90
Improved performance/profitability 141 3.9b .95
Employee/management feedback 1 36 3.9b .94
Poor profitability/performance 137 3.9 .99

 

 

 

 

 

 

aScores closer to 5 indicate a higher barrier.

bIndicates a tie score.

2. The influence of property size on the amount of training conducted
should be an issue in the lodging industry. As suggested in Chapter I, large

businesses are more often provided resources than smaller organizations.

170

However, the needs of smaller properties cannot be ignored. More than half of
all small properties did not provide or participate in training. Conferences
specializing in the training needs of smaller lodging properties should be
conducted in various regions around the state. Because resource issues,
including time, qualified trainers, poor profits, and high business demands, were
reported for these properties, government support from state training and
development offices should be considered. Although smaller properties
employed fewer staff than did large properties, they do represent a large portion
of the properties in the state. Two-thirds of the total number of properties in this
study's sampling frame fell into the small-property category.

3. To facilitate the communication to small, medium, and large
properties, a more thorough database of lodging properties must be created. No
clear means of communication to these separate or collective groups exists.
About one-sixth of the entire lodging population in Michigan belongs to the
MHMRA. Therefore, the majority of properties are not affiliated with an
association that can support and address their needs.

4. The value of training needs to be clearly communicated to lodging
properties that may be reluctant to provide training to employees. This could be
done through publications or presentations at conferences. These findings
indicated that, overall, most respondents indicated that training was the same or
more of a priority than it was three years ago. When asked why the change
toward more training today, the most popular open-ended responses centered
on staff recruitment, desire for guest satisfaction/excellence, changes in guest

demands, higher turnover, greater competition, low unemployment rate, and the

171

need for greater employee job satisfaction (for retention). The most popular
responses related to labor issues. These and other training findings need to be
shared with those who have yet to develop training practices at their properties.

5. In general, respondents thought labor, guest, and competitive issues
were the most frequently stated reasons they needed more training today.
However, fewer respondents indicated a concern for employee satisfaction.
Concern for employees, as much as external guests, should be addressed if
lodging properties are to survive in today’s labor market. Employee satisfaction
studies should be completed, and steps to improve employee satisfaction must
be taken at the property level.

6. An indication of the commitment to training by properties is the
addition of training as a budget line item. Very few properties indicated training
in their budgets specifically, yet properties allocated an average of about 4% of
their payrolls to training activities. Properties must begin to commit to training as
an item for which funds are a requirement, not a luxury. Therefore, training
should be a line item in property budgets. This would indicate a greater
commitment to training as funds would be allocated ahead of time. Training
must become mandatory, just as a uniform for an employee or a smile for a
guest would be.

7. Benchmarking has allowed organizations to assess their practices in
relation to other similar organizations. This comparison provides organizations
with more relevant information as the data are from organizations that are similar
in size and characteristics. This information provides an opportunity to see the

effect of organizational decisions. Individual properties can benchmark their

172

training practices against other similar lodging properties. Properties can begin
to assess their level of training compared to other properties in similar size
categories in the lodging industry. This self-assessment can provide properties
with an understanding of the effect that training has had on several other
properties by assessing the results of this study.

8. Because the conclusions of this study are not clear regarding'the
influence employee turnover has on providing training, the industry must better
understand the factors that influence employee turnover. Further analysis is
needed to identify how training specifically influences turnover in lodging
properties. Such analysis might include extensive research on a few properties
to understand factors that specifically influence employee turnover (i.e.,
supervision, scheduling, and benefit issues).

To address the labor issues of today, the industry must be motivated to
provide employee training. Steps must be taken collectively by the industry to
make this a reality. Human capital must be a top concern for the industry, and
practices must begin to mirror what the industry says it values. The
aforementioned recommendations should be addressed by the lodging industry

to make this a reality.

Recommendations for Future Research

Reflecting on the study literature, methodology, limitations, findings,
conclusions, and implications for the industry, the following recommendations
are related to future research. Nine suggestions are outlined below.

1. To continue to address the unique components of various-sized
properties, this study should be replicated by property size specifically and

173

expanded to address why these practices occur. An investigation addressing a
specific size of property could help address why medium-sized properties
provided more training than small and large properties or why small properties
provided the least training—specifically, what factors influence a property to
provide training.

2. Properties that do and do not conduct training should be further
studied to understand how training and a lack of training influence both the
property's business results and the employee’s attitude toward the organization.
Further, understanding why such decisions and priorities were made and why
training was or was not worth conducting will help the industry understand the
impact of training. These findings could further identify why specific
organizations do or do not offer training.

3. Employees’ impressions regarding what they think of training, how
they value training, and how training affects what they do should also be studied.
Results from this study could be analyzed and compared to the findings of
employees’ views to address how training is or is not valuable to organizations
and employees.

4. To improve training, further investigation into why training is
conducted but also what specifically should be done to improve training should
be undertaken. Respondents could then respond to a list of barriers in terms of
what might be done to reduce them. In addition, properties could indicate how
they might reinforce the factors that stimulate them to train.

5. The existing data should be analyzed to determine the type of training

conducted, the methods used in training, and the providers of training. These

174

data will be helpful in identifying training protocols and resources in the lodging
industry.

6. The effectiveness of training needs to be studied. In this study, it was
assumed that all training was considered effective. However, this assumption
might or might not be true. Employees could be sampled to determine the effect
of training content, delivery techniques, and formalfinformal training methods.
Organizations should be studied to identify the type of formal evaluation of
training that currently is being completed and why they did or did not complete a
formal evaluation of their training efforts. This would isolate the value of training
and the effect on the organization more specifically.

7. Other tourism industries should be studied. Lodging does not
represent the entire tourism field. The unique elements of restaurants,
attractions, retail establishments, and recreation facilities could be analyzed to
make generalizations about the industry or identify unique elements within
related businesses that experience the same unique dimensions of high
employee turnover, seasonality, and an industry comprising a large number of
small businesses.

8. The attitude, stimulus, and barrier scales developed in this
dissertation should be used in other studies attempting to learn about training.
All five scales were reliable and found to be helpful in succinctly identifying
training issues in the lodging industry. An additional analysis would be to
identify individual factors in the scales (i.e., competition and customer feedback)

to thoroughly assess their specific influence on the amount of training. An

175

example would be to determine whether customer feedback specifically had a
relationship with the amount of training provided.

9. Finally, the applications of the SLMT and the HCT should be further
expanded to address the orientation of organizations with training and
nontraining activities. One of the future areas for research should include other
types of human-capital investments. The lodging industry needs to be
investigated more thoroughly with regard to the value placed on human capital
collectively. Separating hourly and management employees may continue to
provide unique insight as to the employee group that is emphasized in an
organization. In addition, specific research regarding employee benefits, wages,
and quality of work life would be beneficial as training is only one of the ways
human capital is valued by an organization. Understanding the value placed on
human capital in the lodging industry in a variety of ways is necessary to deal

effectively with labor issues today and in the future.

Conclpsions

The Michigan lodging industry resembles the training practices of other
nontourism industries in several ways. They provide training to employees (a) at
almost 70% of the properties; (b) with mostly informal methods; (c) unequally,
providing training opportunities more often to hourly employees, yet allowing
managers more training time in courses; (d) from 28 to 146 hours in their first
year of employment, and (e) they value training for employees and employers.

However, several unique conditions exist in the lodging industry as well.
Lodging properties (a) provide management employees fewer opportunities to
train than they do hourly employees; (b) vary greatly in the amount of training

176

they provide within and across property-size categories; (c) exhibit distinct
differences in the amount of training, value of training, and the factors that
influence training between small and both medium and large properties; and

(d) have more training in higher-turnover properties. Conclusions can be drawn

from each of these unique conditions.

Management Training

Management employees were trained for longer periods of time, but fewer
were provided opportunities for training than hourly employees. Slightly more
than one-third of all management employees were provided training in lodging
properties, whereas twice as many hourly employees were provided training.
This suggests that respondents from Michigan’s lodging industry either believed
management already had the skills needed to perform in their roles or they did
not value training for managers as much as for front-line employees. This
finding is of great concern if either case is true. Several studies have not only
indicated the importance of providing training to all employees, but some have
suggested the influence management has on the success of employee training.
Some have suggested that, the less managers value training, the less
employees value it, as well (Facteau et al., 1995; Ford & Noe, 1987; Guthrie &
Schoerer, 1994). If organizations do not provide training for managers, it may
be difficult for managers to support employee training. And managers who do
not believe training is valuable may not support training for employees. In
addition, if managers are not provided the tools to do their jobs successfully,
they may create an environment that employees will leave. Even if general
managers/owners of properties believe managers possess needed skills, there

177

is still property-level training that acclimates managers to the culture of the
organization. This is frequently done through orientation training. Management
employees cannot be ignored as they are the leaders for employees. Their
knowledge, skills, and abilities need to be developed to ensure that their

employees have the opportunity to work with a skilled professional.

Variance in the Amount of Training

The large variance in the number of hours provided for training
employees indicated that some members of the industry did not train at all or
provided very few hours, and that another part of the industry trained a great
deal. This large variance is a concern. Employees who are untrained may leave
the industry and speak poorly of the quality of work life. In an effort to identify
the value of training to organizations that have an interest in developing training,
profiles of those properties that train were created. This is similar to how Bassi
and Van Buren (1998, 1999) profiled leading-edge firms to provide a model to
other organizations striving to develop a training system. The amount of training
was compared to several variables, including occupancy, profitability, employee
turnover, and amount of payroll spent on training. In each property-size
category, the 25% of properties that trained the most, the middle 50%, and the
25% that trained the least were analyzed. In general, small and medium-sized
properties providing the middle amount of training achieved the best scores.
These properties achieved higher occupancy and indicated they were more

often profitable.

178

Small properties in the middle 50% trained an average of 43 hours and

spent an average of 3.2% of payroll on training. They achieved higher

occupancy rates, and were more often profitable. However, they did not achieve

the lowest employee turnover (Table 5.3).

Table 5.3: Profile of small leading-edge lodging properties that trained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Top 25% Mlddle 50% Bottom 25%
Variable

9 Score $2 9 Score _s_p _11 Score SQ
Mean # hours of training 11 187 191 21 43 22 11 5 2.8
Mean occupancy (96) 11 55 18 17 61 20 9 55 23
Mean profitabilitya 11 2.2 .75 21 2.6 .6 11 2.3 .8
Mean employee turnover 9 24 25 16 28 26 11 13 20
(96)
Mean % of payroll spent on 8 5 4.3 11 3.2 3.2 8 2.4 3.6
training

 

a1 = low, 3 = high.

Medium-sized properties also maximized their value in training in the

middle 50% of respondents. Higher occupancy rates and more-often-profitable

properties trained an average of 222 hours. They also spent the least amount

on training, at 3.8% of annual payroll. These middle properties, however, had a

higher employee turnover percentage than did either the properties that trained

more or those that trained less (Table 5.4).

179

 

Table 5.4: Profile of medium leading-edge lodging properties that trained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Top 25% Middle 50% Bottom 25%
Variable

9 Score §_E_) _n Score gt; 9' Score S_D
Mean # hours of training 11 666 195 21 222 81 11 49 31
Mean occupancy (96) 9 54 15 19 68 8 7 66 12
Mean profitability, 10 2.6 .7 19 2.8 4 9 2.6 .73
Mean employee turnover 9 27 38 19 34 19 10 28 23
(96)
Mean % of payroll spent on 6 5.6 3.2 12 3.8 2.6 7 4.9 4
training

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a1 = low, 3 = high.

Among large properties, those that spent the most time on training reaped
the greatest rewards. The average number of hours spent on training averaged
441; these properties had higher occupancy and lower employee turnover, and

they were more profitable (Table 5.5).

Table 5.5: Profile of large leading-edge lodging properties that trained.

 

 

 

 

 

Top 25% Middle 50% Bottom 25%
Variable
11 Score S_D 9 Score §Q 9 Score §Q
Mean # hours of training 12 441 232 24 160 45 12 44 27
Mean occupancy (96) 11 67 13 22 65 10 10 66 17
Mean profitability“ 12 2.8 62 22 2.6 .5 11 2.7 .e

 

Mean employee turnover 11 59 39 19 61 49 8 57 69
(96)

Mean%of payroll spent on 7 4.3 3.0 12 3.2 2.7 7 4.4 4.0
training

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“1 = low, 3 = high.

180

 

ro iz

Some might argue that small properties do not hire as many staff, or may
not have as many complex operations, which may be the reason that smaller
properties do not train as much as larger properties do. However, small
properties represented 69% of the sampling frame in this study, and they
represent a great number of properties in Michigan’s lodging industry overall.
Understanding their practices is important to the industry.

Small properties had several differences from medium and large
properties in terms of respondent characteristics, property characteristics, and
training practices, including:

1. Respondents from small properties were significantly different on
several demographic descriptors from their counterparts from medium and large
properties. They had been in their positions longer, were older, and had less
formal education. This may indicate that the leaders from small properties who
responded did not believe they needed to learn anything more, as they had been
doing their jobs for a long time. Scott (1995) supported this contention. Also, a
smaller operation requires an owner to be a “jack of all trades,” but on a much
smaller scale. Many owners Operate the facility alone and do not think they
need any additional training. During the interviews and pilot-study work, small
property owners appeared tired of the business demands. Many indicated their
interest In selling the property because the struggle to keep the business afloat
was overwhelming and exhausting.

2. Respondents from small properties were less likely to provide training;

more than half did not provide any training. Yet, most respondents from small

181

properties agreed that training was valuable and important. This indicated that
the properties had barriers to providing training, such as a lack of resources,
funding, or perceived need for training (Clark, 1994; Scott, 1995; Subcommittee
on Development, 1994). Although the findings represent only a few properties,
they highlight potential issues with small-property management and ownership.

3. Small properties had lower scores on several variables, including
attitude toward training, amount of training, percentage trained, and amount of
payroll spent on training. This suggested that respondents from small properties
did not see as much of a need for training, or they had barriers to providing
training that had not been overcome.

In general, respondents from small properties thought they currently
trained an appropriate amount and, unlike medium and large properties, thought
their situations _had not changed in the past three years. Because small
properties experienced lower turnover than medium and large properties, they
found little pressure to develop new ways to operate their businesses.

Small properties had unique beliefs, values, and practices. They were
significantly different from medium and large properties in several areas, and
hence they should be addressed separately.

Medium and large properties resembled each other more closely
regarding values, beliefs, and practices. Investigation of the demographic
characteristics of respondents showed that, as the property became larger, the
more educated and younger the general managers were, and the less time they
had been in their positions. Also, the properties had higher occupancy, were

more often profitable, and had higher turnover as they became larger. Medium

182

and large properties had similar scores regarding attitude toward training, and
they did not differ significantly in the amount of training provided. Medium
properties exhibited differences in the following areas:

1. As medium properties provided more training, they experienced
significantly lower turnover.

2. Medium properties’ median number of hours of training was greater
than that of large properties. Like their counterparts at small properties,
employees of medium properties were responsible for a broad range of tasks.
Medium-sized properties may train more due to a similar environment.
Employees at large properties tended to specialize in one area, possibly in one
job. In medium-sized properties, employees may be needed at the front desk,
restaurant, and housekeeping all in one day. They may need additional training
to perform each of these roles. As a result, all employees would need additional
training.

3. Medium-sized properties were the only size category to provide
significantly different amounts of training to management and hourly employees.
Management employees may need to master a variety of positions. Medium
properties also provided significantly more hours in five of seven course
offerings than either small or large properties provided.

4. Medium-sized properties were the only ones whose size had a
significant relationship with the stimulus and barrier scales. This may suggest
that medium-sized properties were more susceptible to various factors that
influence properties to train or not to train. Smaller properties have simpler

operations, larger properties have more specialized operations, and medium-

183

sized properties have more complexity and do not have available resources to
specialize. Thus, employees in medium-sized properties must become skilled at
a variety of positions.

Although medium and large properties were found to be similar in several
ways, it is important to understand the unique differences of medium properties.
And although turnover in medium properties was reduced as more training was

conducted, this is not always the case.

Employee Turnover

The issue of employee turnover in this study is intriguing. Most literature
suggests either that no relationship exists between turnover and the amount of
training or that a significant relationship exists, with increased training resulting
in lower turnover. Cline (1997) found in the hospitality industry that training was
one of the most important ways to improve employee satisfaction and ultimately
employee turnover. Although this relationship was found to be true for medium
properties, small properties showed just the opposite relationship. And large
properties showed a positive and negative relationship between employee
turnover and hourly and management training, respectively.

In general, in Michigan’s lodging industry, properties with higher turnover
provided more training. The open-ended comments provided insight into this
issue. Respondents were asked why they thought training was or was not
important/valuable to their business. Ninety-three percent of the respondents
indicated that training was important/valuable to their business; the more
frequent responses included: (a) fewer problems with customer satisfaction;

(b) improved productivity, morale, and profitability; (c) reduced turnover, and

184

(d) employee job satisfaction and pride. Therefore, respondents indicated that
training was valuable and that reducing turnover was a reason why they trained.
There are two possible explanations for these findings. First, those properties
with high turnover trained more in an effort to reduce turnover. Second, turnover
at the properties was higher before the introduction of training, and the current
figures reflected an improved turnover percentage. However, there was still a
positive relationship with the amount of training conducted.

These four conclusions regarding management training, the amount of
training, property size, and turnover represent the significant findings in this
study. In addition, several concluding thoughts regarding the findings and

discussion are shared in the following section.

FinaLComme_n_t_s_

Overall, this study provided an opportunity to explore the training
practices of Michigan’s lodging industry. Little research has been conducted on
training in this industry, and none was identified that used a theoretical approach
to understanding what was occurring. With expanding labor-force issues in the
forefront, the lodging industry must address ways in which it may become more
human-capital oriented. If the industry is to be a competitive employer or even
an employer of choice, steps must be taken to continue to develop as an
industry concerned with the development of its most important resource, people.
Several properties have adopted these human-capital approaches, but,
collectively, the industry has not reached its full potential. Until the entire
industry addresses this issue and becomes more human-capital oriented, it may
be plagued as an industry that does not value investments in people. Even

185

though some properties are human-capital oriented, their practices will be
overshadowed by the majority.

One final observation relates to the difficulty of gaining support from the
industry to conduct this research. As respondents reported, the lodging industry
has very high business demands, which may prohibit the industry’s participating
in similar research and future developmental practices. Many lodging property
owners/general managers were reluctant to participate in the study interviews,
pilot work, and ultimately filling out the questionnaire.

Overall, the lodging industry is a difficult one to understand. Business
demands may be so significant that many industry leaders are unable to look
beyond the day-to-day challenges they face. Obviously, many respondents
were willing to contribute the time and energy necessary to look at the industry
overall; however, this represented a small percentage of the industry.
Cooperation from the industry is critical if developing a progressive, competitive
industry is desired.

Research is one of the means by which collective practices can be
assessed and efforts can be made toward improving the overall industry. A
current issue of concern in the lodging industry centers on the management of
people, and, unless an understanding of current practices exists, proactive
assistance cannot be provided. The labor issues of today are apparent, and
changes must be made to continue to develop the lodging industry into a
human-capitaI-oriented system that values continual training for all employees.

The industry collectively must continue to develop its greatest asset, people.

186

APPENDICES

187

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

188

Interviews with Lodging General Managers
Dissertation

SITE: GM: # rooms Date:

Goal: to understand how training is valued and used in lodging organizations and to better understand
what influences training activities.

Today purpose: to ask you questions regarding your training practices and help to write a questionnaire
that will be sent to a sample of lodging general managers.

1. What kind of training do you provide (formal vs. informal)?

2. Could you quantify the amount by hours for managers versus hourly
employees? Does the amount differ? Why?

3. In an ideal world would the amount of training you provide be different?

4. What barriers exist to reach that goal?

5. What pushes you to do the training you do? Why do you train?

189

10.

ll.

12.

13.

How important is training to the overall organization?

Why do you or don’t you train?

What does your training investment do for the organization?

What challenges are you facing as an organization?

Low high
How would you assess your level of competition? 1 2 3 4 5

How would you assess your profitability (reaching goals) 1 2 3 4 5

How would you assess employee turnover? 1 2 3 4 5

Final question: would you be willing to complete a “draft” questionnaire as
part of a pilot study??

190

APPENDIX B

FINDINGS FROM QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS

191

Summary of Findings
General Manager/Owner Interviews
Training in Michigan Lodging Organizations
January - March, 1999

Small Sized Properties (1-35 rooms): five interviews

All respondents conduct one on one and on-the-job training for hourly and
non-owner/management employees.

None of the respondents provide formal training.
Average time spent training 1 day to 2 weeks.

Most respondents felt they currently conducted the ideal amount of training
and no additional resources were therefore needed.

Most respondents found value in training.

Stimuli to training included insuring standards were met, consistency, and
customer expectations.

Barriers to providing training included low numbers of employees,
seasonality, size of the operation, and resources.

The current environment is competitive for employees and for business.
Strategies for dealing with this competition include higher pay and getting
family/friends to participate in the business seasonally.

Many expressed dissatisfaction with the industry. They appeared tired of the
operation. Some indicated a desire to sell their properties.

Employees were viewed as having more general skills in a simple operation.

192

Medium Sized Properties (36-100 rooms): five interviews

0 The quantity of training conducted in medium sized properties appears to be
similar and sometimes greater than large sized properties. Training averages a
few days to a few weeks.

0 Respondents suggested a variety of training takes place, mostly informal.
Some formal training is provided but barriers keep properties from providing
more.

0 All respondents valued training and found it to be important to their
operations.

0 Each expressed a desire to complete more training.

0 Ideally, training would include outside professionals due to a lack of internal
skill in training.

0 There appears to be a relationship between the amount of training in a
medium sized property and franchise affiliation. Those with franchise
agreements were required to conduct more training than those independent
properties.

0 Those properties that conducted some type of evaluation process appeared to
train more often. The evaluation data provided a means to focus training
goals and develop skills in needed areas.

- Barriers to completing training included resources, expertise, and business
demands.

0 Stimuli to training were evaluation results, guest feedback, competition, and
franchise relationships.

193

Large Sized Properties (over 100 rooms): five interviews

Most respondents indicated providing formal training and informal training to
employees.

Most popular delivery method is on-the-job training averaging 1 day to 1
week.

Formal training is provided in the form of an orientation at each property. A
few provided a variety of additional formal training programs.

Each property indicated they would provide more training if the barriers were
removed.

All properties not only valued training but felt it was one of the most
important parts of their business.

Most had at least part of a person solely responsible for training. Some assign
this to an operation manager and others have a dedicated training staff
member.

The future plans for training are the most advanced for any other sized
pr0perties. Properties have plans in place to further develop training
programs.

Barriers included time, practicality, business demands, and cost (but not as
apparent as in medium sized properties).

Stimuli included the quest for guest satisfaction, recruiting and retaining
employees, making it a part of the organizational culture, 4 star rating
(Mobil/AAA), reduced complaints, employee turnover, and a change in
employee skills (employees today do not have the service skills of employees
historically).

194

APPENDIX C

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

195

am m z < <m @558. ..6 ......o. a

3 35566.95 .666..§.§u.6 6.. =8... 2:... . .2...
mm m Z < <m 65.66....8 .36» 336.65 9558... .~_<.
am m z < <m 6.5.66.5...“ 66.. who. 26.. 39.6.65... 6058... ._ 2
am m 2 < <m 62.26. .36.... 3666.5 53.5.66 9558... .c.<
Om m Z < <m 65.66.6696 a... 5 5.6.... 66. a m. 9558... .6...
am m 2 < <w 66.5.3 8.3.an =6 .66.... 6: «8. «558... .w<
Om m 2 < <m .....62. 326.555.».6 :6 .6695 6.. 3.. 9558... ...<
Om m 2 < <m 5.9.536 M558. 35> 8656.30 .w<
cm m Z < (m 5.3.2.66... 8.3.6.5 2.6.6.... :8 ....558... .3.
Om m 2 < (m ..eoE.mo>5 .... =6... .28 62.698 :6 m. “.558... .v<
Om m Z < (m ..o>6E=. 3.6.656 86:66. ”558... .m<
am m Z < (m 65.3.5.8 66.. .366... 62... «ooze—66.6 .858... .9.
mm m Z < . <m ....u on 6. 266.. .8... 2....6 2.6 a.

.558. ..6 .62.. .666... ...wao. o... 3.5. 62.3 ..<

 

was; 69.26.26.595
3.855 $9.66... I QM 625.35 I Q .3362 I Z 3.3x I V 68%-x A3666... I ......

6.66.. u6.36..6\6$ «6......
«56.6.6.6 36.... Sea 36.669... 566.686... 6.8... 6. 3666...». .36... 6.6.6.... 8.6.6...

 

UZ.Z.<~=. EC ZO—hsaumma— .< ZO—hbmm

 

......cuvccou 6.. ...3 66.3.6.6..5 o... 6.... gas?
a. 65.3.6.5... $6.... 5.3%. o... 5 0.3.6.5... 6. .6368 66.. 8.265.866
...... 95.6.9666 ..m 66.26.6u6666. .6 3.6.6... 6.6%.... 6. 5:36 £66.86» 66
«636666... 6.6.. 6.. {63... 66661.6» 6.. 3.5.56 68366 .53... 6.463265. 6... 6.966
6. to§u 66 6.. 6.9.6.66.» a... .3 66.6.5666 6.3.666 .66. 62.56.6666 3 666 «6.6.6..
6565.532... 5... ..6 3.66.2. o... .6 h. .25. .66» ..6 3.65:. 8-2 £868.65?
8.666. .....6 6.66.... 666 .66....6 m. .665 36> $82.6... waive. .56.. .6
36.88.. 9558. 2.. 9.6.8.9. 66.35.85 66.6.6 6. 25. main. .6. :6» 366......

 

mZO—P§.Z<U~.O UZfiX—Ot— Z<U=.U=>. Z. ”OZ—7.73:.

662.69%... a... sea a... ...... Sussex... ea. 56. 22:...

66......52 66w...u.2 66......6..2
.5 U 52:62 D can...o.2....$. 0 .33....6m O .32....6m 0
66.6666. 6.666566% .36..

 

.656 O 63.3.... D 63... D .8... O

 

56666.6. «63662.6 66.66.64

«558. 2:8. 2.. .66.... 0 m558. «no. 0 M558. 6.6... 0
666.6623.

6,6666%... 96.. .66 6.... 63x. 3:6... 6.: 665 3.6.36.6. b.6666. 6.6.5
.656 0

«558. ....3 8266235 6.. a... 0 «558. 895.66..» 0
36.668. ”558. 86.6... 0 ”558. 3.6666... 0
«.36 «62.6. «6.6.6.6 6.. 6.66 656666§65 .866 3.66.69.336. .666:

 

.686: .8» 0
6.6.63.6 unausk 6 .... b.3666 his

:60 o. 6». o: 0

.8863... 66. .26. 65.86366 69... 0
6.6.62.6... 8... C 65.86966 .6566... 0
68.6066... 2-8 65.86966 :85. 0
3.666... . 366. 5:2... 866666665 0
. . . 6... .... 668... 6663 a...
_
.859... .\. 8636... .x.
5.4.6.96... 986.36 .329. 6.6.36.6 9.6 26.66.36 .336 666.666 .26:

 

 

.832. as 5.65.86 ...3 .o 23%. .38 0
.686886.8§.8a!3saa.§.§ 3356.5365266 0
.8.- u... 5 86.23 on: ....a... 2.6 an... 86... a3 65.3.58. 68.3.63 66.35.36 0
.«666 «6666. 6.56... 66.6

....66. 66% n66.66.§6\6 6%. 65 36.66666 :66 .65 866 65 .32...»

 

.656 0 2866.8. 6 ....3 «.666. D

:68. 66.28 ...... 0 ...:6 56.33... 3:65.666 ....3 «6.66. 0
.86.. 36:8 ...... 0 366 2.36. O
.«666 «6666. .9666...» M6366. 6.6% 86.68.66 .36 .66. 666 a... «62.0

.656 0 8....6 2866.66 0 .6936... M558. 0
86.663. 5.8.... 0 808635.... «66.8666 0 .2565» 0
«5.86666 6... ..6\w6..6..66 «6.668% ..6.\63.=.66&.ua 3.6.6 .... 65:

.30

.35

.nND

.NNQ

..NQ

.30

6.0

.w.o

....D

6.0

196

 

 

 

 

 

6.66666 A...66...& .... 6666.... ..6A3666. ......E6. .65: 6663.61.66 36.66.4666...

 

63:... site... 6.. .6 .........a=....\.........S 25......6. 66.... 66.36.: 3:66 ......5 .6...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

197

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«.686 «56...... 6.6% 686666 ..6A6...62 36.. .n. m .35 0
”6.6.6.: 6.8. 02.5.... 0 «5.3-6826660 O
G . m 6. 6m. $558. ..6 .6666... 2:8 2.. 6.5.6... 0 «at... n.
m56.8. 6.65 66.3... D .
«666.666.8665.— 0
. . 6.66... 66... 6666566666666. 666.: «6.2.6... 366.366.. 6. 666.666.. .3663 .6. m ...-86...... 25.. 0
1.638665. 0
n v n N . .2..O .... . m.
n v n N . 88... «6.58.? .36.. .NE 3.2.6.69 D
n v n N . 62...... 35.3.. ..o .63. _ .6 3:33.: 6
n v m m . 3.58:6 365.com: .65
n v n N _ €56.66 365...... ..w... do 6...... D
n v m N _ .62.... a. 822.5. 82. .o .2... .... 3.5. ......3 6
... v n N . m558. 33> .6: 866 65.66.6690 .8
n v . ~ _ 2...... .63 .... 3.33.5 a
a v n n . «56.8.... .30 .3 3..
n v n N _ 8.9.093 ”3...; ..o 6.63 .3. can: . KC - Ede: we. a a... 0
n v n N . .0366... a... ..6 b.3633». .mm.
n v n m _ 3:6... .66.. .3 .336 . .33...
. 8......3 5.5.3.1... .....3...
... M v n N . .268... 8.3.qu 5.: 5 ...-3.361. ...-532.8%... «...-2.. a. :2. .... ... 6.38..
66.253 Q .3 Lumga 02 6.366.659 536566.355.— N. .68. a... 6:36; 86...... .6 on».
00:25:— ..O .§OE< .-8_-33IU ...-63.6616 5 68.8.6 «.66. ...-6 562.0 .6»- .3»
866; -.I_ 82.]; a... :6 .62.. 6 856.686 .36—flan..-
. 866.856 IF. p.661 um 16.. ..6 a 66...; no» 86......
”55.6% $63.35..» ufimfigfisk 3°... 3 b.6363 no.5... 6;. 62.6.: aunt: £6.59: ..6 6.26::
66.66.6666 66 86.66.\M§..6..6\65\6 £666 366... 8.6.6.6 .66... 6. h .o 3333.... has... .6 .... 23...... a. .38.... ...} eh
2.. 52...»..— 36656... on. 6.3.6...
m~§~¢¢<fl UZ—Z—éh .mU

 

. 666.68% 365M666... 8.6.66
. fig... .368 .6 «56...... 36.66.86. 6. 63.6.6 66.6.5.8 :6 66.363 8.66.85 66......6Q A6 .06.. .66... 366.66.? 236.66
66.5666 .66... :6 .6: 6.56. {666 66:66.6... 6.56.6. 6... .636 66.3.36 6.6% 669.6636 2.5 6698.566 86.66386... 66x. at..=..6....\6 666.36... 6.6 .3666... .685 6... 6.66.66...
.66.. .6... «:63 2.. .... 35.6 666.5... 6... 6.6.66 62....» 6:6 6.6.5.6... {666 6666 6.36...

 

mmm>O~EEm PZEEEU<Z<E

 

07:253.. mUZm—DJMZ— P<=F amp—USE .m— ZOr—Umm

 

...»...6 5.5.5 .... 2.8..» 39......83 ...»...o. .5... 55.5..»
5.3.... 5.9. 3......» .... 5 $535.55. M553. »».... 5.39.3.3...» 39¢. NU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.315 0
183.38.. 0
8.2.3.5 D
333...»: 0
beam 0
8.).»- solos-U O
not-.385 0
.58... a... _u
an - :6 - ...-o:
.386 3a.;
8.33.... sea-tic
......eavfu ...-3.5.343 3.8... a. a... 2.. ..
SEES-GU is»?! al.-9| «. .838». 3a.». -3......
33.3.8.0 3.2.305 .8.— »a. a. 93.81» .0 2.». a»: ...».U da-
893 IT. 83>l> 9.5.. a»: no .8... .3» n 8.3:?» 2......
3.09.8...» I5 ...-ea nu a»... an a»... no» 82...».
no.5»... oa. ... seal- unto». 65...... ..o ...-......»
.0 3.0—.39... but}. .0 on. 83...:— na 3.5.... ...». oh
3. 9.32 3.85».- 3. £3...»-
. .U
...-:553Q 55.2. ...-...»?

»M....».6 33.5....» .... 55.6.5 .»..c\».»... $0.53.. .... .9... .9... M55.....? .55....
2... 63355..» 55.2. .....\M..............? 5.35.5... 55.5.... 65.. 2.. 33......

 

mmm>0ur=zm >A¢DO=

 

.»..........5.8.... ...... 3:35.55» ...»E»M5.5.. 5.5.5..» »..u 5.325.530
6.6.5.6.. 35...... 2.. 89...... M55.....? .....55. 2...? »M....»>.. ..».55....»

.... 55.6... 36.585 .... 5.35M ...»...S. M553. ...... 39.55..» 5...... 96.. .5.

.\. 5...... 3.8».- ...»...»Mu....... »... ».».5..8 69.55..» 5...... »... ».... 39.5 39.55..»
55?: ..s. 5...... ES. 8.83.»: 53.3.»... 2.128 88..

 

many—BE.— UZ—Z—(flh film—11:0 "U ZOE-0mm

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

.2 . .... M5595? 5.5.... 2.. .... 5.3...» .... 54......» u... 5.5.5... . .mm:

.0 =o_.»»m S cm one»... .38.». o. o...» .02 D

6.8.. 8.... ...». o... c. 33.0.... .... via... v2.55». 3.. .u
.0». 83» 8.... 33 .. 5.... .33. bro... a ..o 20E m. 0
6m» «.8» 8.... was .. 5.... .35. 5.8.... a ..o 3». m. 0

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

cocoacs uO .::OE<

. . (5.85.... ...... ... M559... .68

 

.25 ..mm

gusto». .EE»M§E.»»..oEEm dam

b.....s...8...»»§=..o...».. .2... .amm

22.88.55.833». 3829.0 ...mm.

as... _soz.<<< .8

"8.2.5... 5 =3... .2... ......

393......» 9.2.5». big-En. .mg

8.3:»... 8805058235....»50 .vmm

88:8». mag-.5. .mmm

8...»...8 830..-... 9.2.0.5.... .Nmm

35...... 8.3.5..» :3: ..S

has... 2.. 55:, 30.55 ......

5.2.0... 2.. ... GYM—.20 .o . m

3222.58 .532»... .m . m

oucacco...»...b.._..u._-.o... 3.6.5:. ... . a
5.2.2.. o... ... .3285». ..o

...»Eoocgva .o 5.82.2.5 2.... .o . m.

5.35....- ..M.... ...--333...- n.............. ....

.5553. 33.55..» 5.... a... ... 5553‘ 59. 5555...

Eo.»..\M5a.5.a\»....? ......» 5...... .... ...... 5...... ......

 

EDS—Pm Uzi—<1...

198

 

«($20 5183 5 982% 33.339: 8E2 ES: .mmuéfifio
$.33 .33. agave o: 3 ”SEMEQESES «2.3.6.: 3.3: £32m 3:8 33% .mo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.345 0
Jyoti-o... D
.52—.80 O
8.38.12 0
9.5 D
33.8. hflossu O
secs-8.5 D
J... 3:8... can 0
£5 . KG . ...-e:
..an sons-O
8:333. cos-tic
.3333: ago-EzgfioIh—d .330! a. 3... on. a.
858-60 haunts-2.72 .330.- 5 12:82 «it; 3......
33.283 3.2.5810 .8; on. a. 3.2.“. no on». e: :85 a».
030; IT. 33>!» 358 June so .8... .3...» - 8.3.5:» but...
3333.9 I8 E3. Ha {as In at... .8» 085....
:39: 3. .0 seal- 09.8». 633.... 3 8.838
... 3:33... 932:. 2.. 33...... .. .23... ...: eh
.... $.83 33...... .... 28%...
..U
563qu $.33 36.63

kukab 335:.» .3 £3.83 .ugo\2u£ .32..qu 3 be: bx: «533%. :3ch
2: .3291...» .933 .8\u=.~=.3§\o sufizoumficu c5383 6&6 2t unfiis

 

 

5.35323: 3.5 .3.\ 3291.5 28.59235 Vétécu 93 uSBLumoxuonO
.23....3 38.29 2: 988: M:.E.§:\o 3.8.5» 2%.? wuss—u 338.28

.8 03.63 695.6% 3 $32» 3:9. «553. 3.6 39835» A53: 26: 3g

\w 5.3 3.52. EuEuuucuE us 335:8 6991.5 5.3 2: 93 39A§ .8993...»
gains... .26 A33 Eon Bxaofia «éézxi. £158 38E

 

many—Ega— UZ—Z—dJ—b 5.75%:an ”0 20:0”;

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

.0 538m 9 cu 833 .388. 9 3% .oz

.930» 025 .3. 05 £ 3:35 .5 938m .5525: an:
6? ago» 82. 83 g 55 have. biota a ..o 82: g
6mm 38» 08.: 33 g 55 .33. £32.. a ho amo— g

VQVVVVVVV?V'¢VVVV

MMMMHMMMMMMMMMMM
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

852:5 ..o EzoE<

a: . . S MSSEQO «9.5.3 2: E 52.52.. .3 94.65 2: 2:953 x .mm:

0000

. . .5quch .ai B MREELK .Nmm

 

.850 ._ B
30330.. .coEowacaExooaoEEm .onm

b=BaEEgBo§EOtK .8.— an:
acozsuogxokunavua 3:835 .mmm
“mass :82}: .Em
”.093.an E :3...” ..o “.23 .03
3&2qu 9.3.52 bingo .nmm
moan—BE 38oEo£umEu=§to§O .3».
88:82 9.336 .nmm
omEonxo 8:275 mczgxm .mmm
..26EB 99$.an .3: ..nm
.332: 2.. 55? 303.20 58
Eugen 05 .a 35:20 .Em
nausea—=8 3329:. d _ m
85::0..B&b=3£cofi 3855. .5 _ a
5.2.8.. 2: 5 3205.8. .3
22:00:93 .5 523.555 2:. .o _ m

.3385 :3: .-..-.Izi..- «332.5. a:

$55.5 35.855 £393 2 55.3% 39‘. g
fiafie\u§!&3\u€\c 53 2:9: 3 :5 5:5 as:

 

EDS—Pm UZ_Z_<~=.

198

565.5 0 a: D 8» 0
«M5505 35:05 0.5 tang 05.00% u 0305 36A 9Q

 

..\o .5356 M559: .6 503. 50595 558.? 50003 05 03:53

«a .bgumoi 05 3 035.002
50.855 003150 55.56 05 03.530 .0055 550.800. 35.53%

I

.5508. «00‘s.? «55% 0.099350%. .6555 09000.8 05 03.52%

06.800. «00% M555 303.585.? 05.5.: 03:96 05 03.503

 

 

09.20 ca... 0.8009: 09.20 0...:
n v n N _
.3255 N5 00.35 05 5 0.455... 5:555:2255. 255.5. 05 05.555
:250n800 if 8808:. cozzoafioo o:
n v m N _
05:05

N5 53 05 5 0.02293 0050 5...: 5.550%.03} 35 5.9a 0355.3

E0... 0 0.00:. 0 :30 8.2.. 0 .93.: .8. O
.05—BE N N 5.8a 05 5 .9231 05 3 5.538503% 50.05 05 03.503

.2502 Euauxw 035:2
500% 5000 0.5.3.: 5&0 0... 5028.5 u5wn5 0.5.5
o\.. .Atukogm w5wh5 05.\0 0MS=00L0Q Autumauuc 52.56 0M3? V

0050 0 8.30.0 E0308 0 32.0» 2868» 069. O

8&0“. who—0:03 O 8&0“. 0.30080 O 09:00 0:5... 0 30:00. :9: 0
«00.03590 55305005 ~95 3.053:

0.60% .0MV

0.5.8.: 0.500% 50.5.3.5 5 0.55% 59505

.050 0 00:30 0 homage .805» 0 0658.5

.20

.30

.20

NR.

.20

6.2

.oO

.wD

SD

.00

.no

.mD

.ND

..D

..o.:.~0u\u5un5 .3ng 39A M55503; 9500.010 M535~o\05 0003590 0803

 

 

 

 

 

ZO—F<Z~—O.mz_ U—IA—EUO—Zmn "G 20:.me

Om
am
am

CV.
Om
Om
Om

Gm
Om

Om
Om
Om
Om
Ow

Gm

Om
Gm

Om

a. . . . ugsuue

0.0.0595 A5 2 0305c§§5i5 «0:: 0505.0» .522 v.5 \ .5 «553.5

WWW

WWWW

WWWWW WW

W

WW

2222 222

Z 22 Z 22222 22

<<<< (<<

< << < <<<<< <<

(m 5800005: 80 0.68on «SEEP
<w 8.33. a .... wise...
<m $558. 00 25 36:23 .35 05 2 €03.95

:0 030 «:83 95025 mega: no...0._.-=0

<v. .009: 5.5 2.53 _ 32:33.. _a—EEEE 5.3
<m 503000: 20 mEEMEQ 9:58...
(m .0965... :o 003:: o: 022 mEEwoa wsfiflb
<m 0.23.203 80 mica we???

 

m3<> 022.55 €10.20. o.

<m “=3... 093.080 2.3 8: A0.020 9:50;.
<m 6093380 30:
2 02.0050 05:. 000 E0: .05 22.32090

(m down? 00:3: 0:003 0.00.3380 EVE—E.
<m 5:03.. 0.83 00.3350 60...? 8: moo—0 9:50;.
<w 305330.030 098360 «96.5.5 wet—3:.
(m 9:52. 3.380.. :50.— Eocon mooonEm
<m 63000. >05 MEEE.
..o 0.525 05 55 00:38 000 8033.5

(m 600.3350 8050355 :05 95:0...
82... Eam 2 0.5:. 02:. 0028380 0:: =80“.

<m «:50 093.95 8:3 90.59:.
<m doc—«£590 0.: 9 08:89:00
89: 000 met—:5 3 0:33:02. 2.3 0.093.qu

<m 502ng 9:50.: 303 m00»o_nEm

 

DJ<> HB>C~EZG

.~n<

. _ m<
6m<

5N<
.x~<
KN<
.oN<
.n~<

.vm<

.m~<
.NN<
. _ N<
.om<
.o_<

.w_<

.:<
.o_<

.n_<
.v_<

08%:an Ash—35a. u QM. 03300.3 I Q 2302 I 2 0009s I V 033‘ $355“. I Va.

199

APPENDIX D

MAILING ENVELOPE, COVER LETTER, AND INCENTIVE CARD

200

 

 

 

dauananaaa
=_:::=_.__ _:_________.:__ no

8»? $952 .2885 ..s.
:3 «.958 .922 9.8

.o:_ .w._._._
352. 505$ .22

 

88» $953 c5891 .3
E: 3:56 Ems: 8mm
waSfifquEmQ

 

201

   

164315 NTRAL
22%-it‘ll}: mm umvusn‘v
March 2, 1999
Ms. Patricia Janes
Consultant
LITE, Inc.

3540 Mineral Springs Trail
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858

Dear Ms. Janes:

In the past three weeks you may have received a call indicating that a questionnaire, inquiring into your employee
training practices, would be forthcoming. Enclosed is the questionnaire that is designed to investigate the training
practices of Michigan's lodging industry. With your assistance, the answers provided will help 1) determine the amount
of training lodging properties provide, 2) understand the value placed on training by general managers, and 3) assess
factors which influence training decisions. Please complete the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed stamped
envelope provided.

Travel Michigan, the Michigan Hotel, Motel, and Resort Association (MHM&RA), Michigan State University, and
Central Michigan University have partnered to support this study. These organizations hope that you will help quantify
the training practices and issues within the state of Michigan. As part of my doctoral studies at Michigan State
University, I hope to assist lodging organizations across the state address their training needs. I believe the data will be
useful for you and your organization as it will provide you an opportunity to I) compare your training practices against
the practices of other lodging organizations with similar characteristics, 2) assess the training needs within your
geographic area, and 3) identify strategies for developing training systems.

Your name can be entered into a drawing for one paid conference attendance to the 1999 MHM&RA annual
conference, April 12, 1999 at the Amway Grand Plaza. This award has been provided by MHM&RA. Simply
indicate on the enclosed card that you would like to be entered in the drawing. You do not have to complete the
questionnaire to be included in the drawing.

Thank you for your assistance and support of this research study. Your responses, regardless of the property size and
employee number, are beneficial to the future of our industry. You may have been asked to complete a similar
questionnaire this past month. However, this study addresses separate issues and is not related to another study that
looked at industry needs related to Michigan's Virtual Tourism University. Your responses will remain confidential and
should only take approximately 15-20 minutes for a medium sized property. Please respond within one week. If you
have any questions please contact me at (517) 774-731 1 (daytime).

Sincerely,
Patricia L. Janes
Doctoral Student, Michigan State University

Instructor, Central Michigan University

Enclosure 3540 Mineral Springs Trail Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858
(517) 775-7885 plianes@aol.com (517) 775-7886 (fax)

202

D YES! Enter me in the drawing for the FREE
attendance to the MHllnaRA 1999 Conference
on April 12, 1999 at the Amway Grand Plaza.

Cl YES! Please provide me a summary of the
study findings.

 

Address:

 

 

E-Mall:

 

Please return this in the envelope provided.

203

APPENDIX E

NONRESPONSE QUESTIONS

204

Memorandum

 

To: General Manager/Owner
From: Patty lanes, Michigan State University, doctoral student fax (517) 775-7886
3540 Mineral Springs Trail
Date: September 25, 1999 Mt. Pleasant, Ml 48858
(517) 775-7885
Re: Training study results pljanes@aol.com

 

Several months ago you were mailed a questionnaire designed to understand the training practices in Michigan’s lodging
organizations. The following questions have been sent to you in an effort to verify data collected and ensure the results provide
a complete and thorough understanding of the training activities in various sized pr0perties. Please answer the following
questions and fold, staple, and mail your response in the self addressed stamped form or fax your responses to me. Thank you!
Please respond to the following questions with the directions provided.

1. The number of guest rooms at the property

2. Do you provide employee training (check one)?

0 Yes (if yes, go to question #3)
D No (if no, go to question #5)

3. Estimate, in hours, the amount of training a new hourly employee would receive in his/her first year of service?
hours for an hourly employee

 

4. Estimate, in hours. the amount of training a new management employee would receive in his/her first year of service?
hours for a management employee

 

5. Estimate the annual employee tumover experienced at the property %.
6. Using the scale provided circle your response to the following statements.

5A8 strongly agree, A- agree, .\'- neutral, D= disagree, SD- strongly disagree

a. Trained employees have greater job satisfaction. SA A N D SD
b. When times are tough, money spent on training.

is one of the first items to be cut. SA A N D SD
c. Training does not build employee skill. SA A N D SD
d. Employees are satisfied with the amount of training they receive. SA A N D SD
e. Training programs are unnecessary. SA A N D SD
f. On-the-job training is the most beneficial type of training. SA A N D SD

7. Please check why you were unable to respond to the questionnaire mailed to you titled Training in Michigan Lodging
Organizations (check the one or two that we most critical to your decision).

I am too busy.

My demands at the property are too great.

The questionnaire was too long.

We do not conduct any training at this property.

We do not hire any employees (beside owners) at this property.

I am not interested in learning about training practices.

The questionnaire was not relevant.

We do so much training at the property it is hard to summarize all we do.
Completed a similar training survey earlier.

i did not receive the questionnaire.

1 do not remember.

Other:

Thank you! I appreciate your assistance to ensure the results previously collected were reliable.

000000000000

 

205

APPENDIX F

INDIVIDUAL SCORES FOR BARRIER SCALE ITEMS,
BY PROPERTY SIZE

206

Table F1: Barriers for small-, medium-, and large-sized properties that provided

 

 

 

 

training.

Property Size/Barrier g Mean fl
Small
High employee tumover 46 2.7 1.4
Poor profits 46 2.7 1.3
Seasonality of my property 46 2.7 1.4
Lack of training expertise 46 2.4 1.2
Cost of training 46 2.4 1.1
Lack of time 46 3.0 1.4
Organization does not value training 44 2.2 1.3
Lack of need (employees are skilled) 43 2.2 1.1
High business demands 44 2.5 1.2
Usefulness of training 45 2.1 1.2
Lack of qualified trainers 46 2.5 1.5
Lack of training space 45 1.8 1.2
Medium
High employee turnover 42 2.8 1.3
Poor profits 42 2.4 1.1
Seasonality of my property 42 2.4 1.4
Lack of training expertise 41 2.4 1.1
Cost of training 42 2.7 1.1
Lack of time 42 3.2 1.2
Organization does not value training 42 1.9 1.1
Lack of need (employees are skilled) 42 2.0 1.0
High business demands 42 2.8 1.2
Usefulness of training 42 1.9 1.1
Lack of qualified trainers 42 2.5 1.4
Lack of training space 42 2.0 1.1
mg
High employee turnover 54 3.1 1.2
Poor profits 55 2.6 1.1
Seasonality at my property 54 2.3 1.3
Lack of train ng expertise 55 2.5 1.2
Cost of training 55 2.8 1.1
Lack of time 55 3.4 1.1
Organization does not value training 55 2.1 1.4
Lack of need (employees are skilled) 54 1.9 1.0
High business demands 55 3.1 1.0
usefulness of training 54 1.9 1.0
Lack of qualified trainers 53 2.7 1.1
Lack of training space 54 2.0 1.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

207

Table F1: Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Size/Barrier _r1 Mean SQ
Overall
High employee turnover 142 2.9 1.3
Poor profits 143 2.6 1.2
Seasonality of my property 142 2.4 1.4
Lack of training expertise 142 2.4 1.2
Cost of training 143 2.6 1.1
Lack of time 143 3.2 1.2
Organization does not value training 141 2.1 1.3
Lack of need (employees are skilled) 139 2.0 1.0
High business demands 141 2.8 1.1
Usefulness of training 141 2.9 1.1
Lack of qualified trainers 141 2.6 1.3
Lack of training space 141 2.0 1.1

 

Note: Scores closer to 5 indicate a higher barrier.

208

 

APPENDIX G

INDIVIDUAL SCORES FOR STIMULUS SCALE ITEMS,
BY PROPERTY SIZE

209

Table G1: Stimuli for small-, medium-, and large-sized properties that provided

 

 

 

 

 

 

training.

Property Size/Barrier _r1 Mean g;
M
Introduction or advancement of technology at the property 45 3.4 1.3
Improved profitability/perfonnance 45 4.0 .80
Increased competition 45 3.4 1.2
Change(s) at the property 45 3.4 1.2
Change(s) within the industry 44 3.4 1.1
High employee turnover 45 3.2 1.3
Existing in-house expertise 45 3.2 1.2
Existing resources 43 3.1 ' 1.1
Owner/franchiselcorporate mandates 41 2.8 1.5
Difficulty recruiting employees 43 3.2 1.1
Lack of skill in employees 44 3.7 1.0
AAA/Mobil ratings 43 2.7 1.3
Customer feedback/expectations 44 4.0 .87
Poor periorrnancelprofitability 44 3.8 1.1
Employee/management feedback 42 3.9 1.0
Medium
Introduction or advancement of technology at the property 41 3.8 1.1
Improved profitability/performance 42 4.1 .68
Increased competition 42 3.8 1.0
Change(s) at the property 41 3.8 .82
Change(s) within the industry 42 3.8 .96
High employee turnover 42 3.7 .94
Existing in-house expertise 42 3.6 .69
Existing resources 42 3.6 .94
Owner/franchise/corporate mandates 42 3.5 1.2
Difficulty recruiting employees 42 3.6 .80
Lack of skill in employees 42 4.1 .72
AAA/Mobil ratings 42 3.0 1.3
Customer feedback/expectations 41 4.1 .86
Poor performance/profitability 41 3.9 .86
Employee/management feedback 40 3.8 .82

 

 

 

210

Table G1: Continued.

 

 

 

 

Property Size/Barrier 9 Mean _S_D
Large
Introduction or advancement of technology at the property
Improved profitability/performance
Increased competition
Change(s) at the property
Change(s) within the industry
High employee turnover
Existing in-house expertise
Existing resources
Owner/franchise/corporate mandates
Difficulty recruiting employees
Lack of skill in employees
AAA/Mobil ratings
Customer feedback/expectations
Poor performance/profitability
Employee/management feedback
Overall
Introduction or advancement of technology at the property 140 3.8 1.2
Improved profitability/performance 141 3.9 .95
Increased competition 141 3.6 1.1
Change(s) at the property 139 3.7 .96
Change(s) within the industry 139 3.6 .98
High employee turnover 141 3.5 1.2
Existing in-house expertise 139 3.4 1.0
Existing resources 138 3.3 .97
Ownerlfranchiselcorporate mandates 136 3.3 1.4
Difficulty recruiting employees 139 3.5 1.0
Lack of skill in employees 140 3.9 .90
AAA/Mobile ratings 136 2.8 1.3
Customer feedback/expectations 137 4.2 .62
Poor performance/profitability 137 3.9 .99
Employee/management feedback 136 3.9 .94

 

 

 

 

Note: Scores closer to 5 indicate a higher barrier.

211

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

212

LIST OF REFERENCES

American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). (1995). National
human resource director executive survey. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Anderson, 0., Fredrickson, L., 8 Dybiec, C. (1995). Increasing agency
professionalism and job performance through training: The Minnesota
State Park example. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13
43-57.

 

Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bailey, G. (1998). Training as a recruitment tool. HR Focus 75 7, 11-12.

 

Bamish, S. (2000, February 7). Personal communication.

Bassi, L. (1996). Expenditures on employer provided training. Alexandria, VA:
American Society for Training and Development.

Bassi, L., & VanBuren, M. (1998, January). State of the industry report.
Trainin and Develo ment 52 3-23.

Bassi, L., &VanBuren, M. (1999a, January). Sharpening the leading edge.
Trainin and Develo ment 3 23-33.

Bassi, L., & VanBuren, M. (1999b, January). The 1999 ASTD state of the
industry report. Training and Development (Supplement), pp. 1-27.

Becker, G. (1995). Human capital (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Bergman, T. (1995, Winter). Training: The case for increased investment.
Employment Relations Today, 21, 381 -391.

Bergman, T. (1995). Company Igning A key strategLfor success (Workforce
Brief No. 2). Washington, DC: US. Department of Labor.

213

Bishop, J. (1965). Training and human capital formation. Washington, DC:
Department of Labor, National Center for Research in Vocational
Education, Ohio State University.

Bishop, J. (1991). Qn-the-iob training of new hires. Ithaca: New York State
School of Industrial and labor Relations at Cornell University, Center for
Advanced Human Resource Studies.

Blackburn, R., 8. Rosen, B. (1993). Total quality and human resources
management: Lessons Ieamed from Baldridge Award-winning
companies. Academy of Manggement Executive 7 49-65.

 

Blalock, H. M. (1979). Social statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Blaug, M. (1976). The empirical status of human capital theory: A slightly
jaundiced survey. Journal of _Economic Literatpre. 14. 627-855.

Bonsutto, A. (1993). Increasing iob satisfaction among child care workers
through the training of first-level sppervisors. Unpublished master's

practicum report, Nova University, Florida.

Burke, R. (1995). Benefits of formal training courses within a professional
services firm. Journal of Management Development, 14, 3-13.

Calvacca, L. (1999). The value of employee training. Folio: ThJeMaggine f9_r_
Magazine Managnent. 27(18, Special Sourcebook Issue), 186-193.

Camevale, A., & Camevale, E. (1994, May). Growth patterns in workplace
training. Training and Develogment. 22-33.

Caudron, S. (1996, October). Agenda: Workforce readiness. Personnel
Journal, 75 62-65.

Clark, K (1994, November). Education in the workplace: Bridging the gap.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational
Research Association, Nashville, TN.

Cline, R. (1997). The value of human capital. Lodging Hospitality, 53, 20-22.

Colarelli, 8., & Montei, M. (1996). Some contextual influences on training

utilization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 306-322.

Conant, J. (1996). The manager‘s view of management education and training.
Review of Public Personnel Administration. 16. 23-37.

214

Conrade, 6., Woods, R., 8 Ninemeier, J. (1994). Training in the US. lodging

industry: Perception and reality. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 35, 16-21.

Dedoussis, V. (1995). Simply a question of cultural barriers? The search for
new perspectives in the transfer of Japanese management practices.
Journal of Management Strflies. 3;, 731 -745.

Dillman, D. (1976). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New
York: John Wiley 8 Sons.

Doyle, D. (1994). Developing human capital: The role of the private sector.
Theogy Into Practice, 33, 218-226.

Dubas, K (1990). Human capital theog and sales force turnover. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Drexel University.

Educating the small businessworkforcg (1994). Hearing before the
Subcommittee on Development of Rural Enterprises, Exports and the
Environment of the Committee on Small Business. Washington, DC.

Educational Institute. (1998, August). US. full sprvice deluxe and luxugy hotel
benchmarking study. Florida: Educational Institute of the AH&MA,

Center of Hospitality Research Solutions.

England, P. (1962). The failure of human capital theory to explain occupational
sex segregation. Journal of Human Resources, 17, 359-370.

Eorio, L. (1996). Iprnover. training, and the gender gap in pay. Findings from
a simultaneous equations modeL. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Virginia.

 

Erwin, L. (1996). E9. effect pf corporate culture on the retention of Iegming and
transfe; of training. Unpublished master’s thesis, San Jose State
University.

Facteau, J., Dobbins, 6., Russell, J., Ladd, R., & Kudisch, J. (1995). The
influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pre-
training motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of

Management, 21, 1-25.

Ferris, G., & Urban, T. (1984). Supervisory training and employee turnover.
Group and Organization Stpdies. 9. 481-490.

215

Fitzsimons, P., 8 Peters, M. (1994). Human capital theory and the industry

training strategy in New Zealand. Journal of Education Policy, 9, 245-
266.

Ford, J., 8 Noe, R. (1987). Self-assessed training needs: The effects of
attitudes toward training, managerial level, and function. Personnel

Psychology, 40, 39-53.

Forrester, K (1995). Training mattprs: Vocational education and training in the
retail sector. Leeds, England: Leeds University, Department of Adult and

Continuing Education.
Foutts, S. (1999, January 10 8 July 12). Personal communication.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C., 8 Nachmias, D. (1992). Research methods in the
social sciences. New York: St. Martins Press.

Freeman, W. (1978). Managing for mtivation: Herzberg's motivation hygiene
theogy and its application td 4-H leadership (National Intern Report,
National 4-H Foundation). Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation.

Gaertner, K, 8 Nollen,S. (1969). Career experiences, perceptions of
employment practices, and psychological commitment to the organization.
Human ReLations. 42. 975-991.

Geale, J. (1995). Accreditation of employee development. Lancaster, England:
Lancaster University, Department of Continuing Education.

Gillette, B. (1996). Labor pains. Hotel and Motel Management. 211.24-25.

Glance, N., Hogg, T., 8 Huberman, B. (1997). Training and turnover in the
evolution of organizations. Organization Science, 8, 84-96.

Glancey, K, 8 Pettigrew, M. (1997). Entrepreneurship in the small hotel sector.
International Journal of Contemporafy Hospitality Management, 9, 21-24.

Goeldner, C. (1992). Trends in North American tourism. American Behavioral

Scientist, 36, 144-154.

Goodenough, R., 8 Page, S. (1993). Planning for tourism education and
training in the 1990's: Bridging the gap between industry and education.
Journal of Geographv in Himer Education 17, 57-73.

 

Gordon, J. (1991). Measuring the “goodness” of training. Training, 26, 19-25.

216

Gravetter, F. J., 8 Wallnau, L. B. (1996). Statistics for the behavioral sciences.
Minneapolis: West Publishing.

Guthrie, J., 8 Schwoerer, C. (1994). Individual and contextual influences on

self-assessed training needs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15,
405-422.

Herman, F., 8 Eller, M. (1991). Training for hospitality. Training and
Ogvglopment, 55, 5562.

Hill, E. (1995). Labor market effects of women’s post-schooI-age training.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 49 136-149.

 

Jackson, S., Schuler, R., 8 Rivero, J. (1969). Organizational characteristics as
predictors of personnel practices. geysonnel Psychology. 12, 727-786.

Jacobs, J., Lukens, M., 8 Useem, M. (1996). Organizational, job, and individual
determinants of workplace training: Evidence from the national

organization survey. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 159-176.

Jafari, J., 8 Fayos, Sola, E. (1996). Human resources development and quality
tourism: A multi-conferenoe report. Annals of Tourism Research 23
228-231.

 

Jones, P. (1990). A profile for management development and training. Journal
of European Industrial Trgining. 14. 7-12.

Kalt, N. (1971). Introduction to the hoswglity indu_strv. Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merrill.

 

Kappleman, L., 8 Prybutok, V. (1995). Empowerment, motivation, training and
TQM program implementation success. Industrial Management, 37, 12-
15.

Klingeman, H. (1999, July 9). Personal communication.

Knoke, D., 8KaIIeberg,A (1994). Job training in US. organizations. American
Sociological Review, 59, 537-546.

LaLopa, J., 8 Holecek, D. (1996). A community-based service quality training

program. Journal for Quality and Participation, 19(5), 48.

Lankard, B. (1991). Worksite training (ERIC Digest No. 109). Washington, DC:
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Columbus: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education.

217

Lattin, G. (1989). The 0 in and food servi indust . East Lansing, MI:
Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Motel Association.

Lee-Ross, D. (1998). Comment: Australia and the small to medium-sized hotel

sector. International Journal of Oontemporapy Hospitality Management,
fl. 177-179.

Levine, D. (1993). Worth waiting for? Delayed compensation, training, and
turnover in the United States and Japan. Journal of Labor Economics, 1,
724-752.

Lewis, P., 8 Thomhill, A. (1994). The evolution of training: An organizational
culture approach. Journal of European Industrial Training. 18. 25-32.

Littlejohn, D., 8 Watson, 8. (1990). Management development approaches for
the 1990's. Journal of European Industrial Training. 14. 36-42.

Locke, R., Kochan, T., 8 Piore, M. (Eds). (1995). Employment relations in a
changing world economy. London: MIT Press.

Lynch, L., 8 Black, S. (1996). Beyond the incidence of training: Evidence from
a national employer survey. Washington, DC: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement. Philadelphia: National Center on the
Educational Quality of the Workforce.

Marabate, R. (1996, January 9). Personal communication.

Mathieu, J., Tannenbaum, S., 8 Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and
situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness.

Academy of Management Journal, 35, 826-647.

Medoff, J. (1982). The importance of emplovegponsored iob-related training.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Mellan, J. (1988). Perceptions of company employees on Lechnology and office
techynolodies trginiryqy Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pacific
University, California.

Michael, S., Luthans, F., Odiome, G., Burke, W., 8 Hayden, S. (1981).
Technigues of organizational change. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, S. (1990). Effects of a municipal training program on employee behavior
and attitude. Milo Personnel Management. 19. 429-441.

218

 

Mincer, J. (1969a). pr training: Oosts, returns, and wage profiles. New York:

National Center on Education and Employment. Washington, DC: Office
of Educational Research and Improvement.

Mincer, J. (1989b). Labpr madget eflacts on human capital and on its
adiustment to technological change. New York: Columbia University

Institute on Education and the Economy. Washington, DC: National
Assessment of Vocational Education.

Mincer, J., 8 Higuchi, Y. (1988). Wage structures and labor turnover in the OS.
and in Japan. New York: National Center on Education and Employment.

Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.

Morrison, A. (1998). Small firm statistics: A hotel sector focus. The Services
Industries Journal, 16, 132-142.

Mulder, M. (1996). Training in business and industgt. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA. '

Newstrom, J. (1983, August). The management of unleaming: Exploding the
“clean slate” fallacy. Training and Development Journal 37 36-39.

 

Nozar, R. (1999). ISHC identifies foremost challenges. Hotel and Motel
Management. 214(111. 3-4.

Ogden, S. M. (1996). Comment: Benchmarking and best practice In the small
hotel sector. International Journal of Contemporag Hospitality

Management, 10, 189-190.

Olian, J., Durham, 0., Kristof, A., Brown, K., Pierce, R., 8 Kunder, L. (1998).
Designing management training and development for competitive

advantage: Lessons from the best. Human Resource Planning, 21(1),
20-31.

Page, C. (1989, October). Active training key to retaining valuable employees.
Hotel and Motel Management, 204, 122-123.

Payne, J. (1996). Lifetime learning and job related training: The twin pillars of
employee development. Adults Learning, 7, 256-256.

Perlman, L. (1995). Training, equity and power. The Cogporate Board, 16, 1-4.

219

Pfeffer, J. (1996, Summer). When it comes to “best practices'-why do smart
organizations occasionally do dumb things? Organizational Dmamics,
2S, 33-44.

Reese, S. (1999). Investment in people: Getting your money’s worth from
training. Buainess and Health, 17(7), 26-35.

Rompf, P. (1994). Lodging operating statistics: Overcoming the numbers
game. The Oomell H.R.A. Quarterly, 35, 22-27.

Rosner, B. (1999). Human capital is the center of all business. Workforce
7_6_(4), 40-41.

 

Rowe, M. (1995). The lodging industry at mid-decade: Alook back, a look
forward. Lodging Hospitality, 51, 38-40.

Saari, L., Johnson, T., McLaughlin, S., 8 Zimmerle, D. (1988). A survey of
management training and education practices in US. companies.
Personnel Psychology. 41. 731-743.

Salinger, R. (1973). _Djaincentivea to effectiva employee training and
development. Washington, DC: Civil Service Commission, Training
Management Division.

Salipante, P., 8 Goodman, P. (1976). Training, counseling, and retention of the
hard-core unemployed. ournal ofA lied Ps cholo

Scott, L. (1995). Survey of small businesa training neada San Diego: San
Diego Community College District.

Senat, T. (1992). How management training relates to newspaper editors’
professiogl commitment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Quebec.

Shaffer, K (1994). Managerial perceptions of skill development are enhanced
through volunteer work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Emery

University, Atlanta.

Society for Human Resource Management. (1995). 1995 SHRMICCH survey,
356, part 2 (pp. 11-2). Somerset, NJ: John Wiley 8 Sons.

220

Sorg, S., Fardig, G., Lange, R., 8 Koch, R. (1984). Identification and

description of barriers for the implementation of competency based
vocational education (Final report). Orlando: University of Central

Florida and the Florida State Department of Education.

 

 

Spencer, D. (1999). [Lodging inventory]. Unpublished raw data.

Spotts, D. (1991). Travel and tourism in Michigan: Astatistical profile. East
Lansing: Michigan State University.

SPSS. (1999). SPSS Base 9.0 applications guide. Chicago: SPSS.

Sweeney, K (2000, January 24). Personal communication.

Sweetland, S. (1996). Human capital theory: Foundations of a field of inquiry.
Review of Educational Research. 66. 341 -359.

Tinto, V. (1961 ). Higher education and occupational attainment in segmented
labor markets: Recent evidence from the United States. Higher
Education 10 499-516.

 

W (1996, October). Industry repOrt, pp. 37-71.

Trivelli, L. (1994). Job retention of persons with mental retardation in supported
employment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gallaudet University,

Washington, DC. ‘

 

US. Department of Labor. (1996). Sdrvey of emplovtiprovided training.
Washington, DC: US. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

VanBuren, M. (1999, October 4). Personal communication.

VanHouse, N. (1987). Labor market segmentation and librarian salaries.

Libragy Quarterly, 57, 171-189.

Vaughan, R., 8 Berryman, S. (1989). Employer-sponsoredipaining: CILrent
status, future possibilities. New York: Columbia University. Washington,
DC: National Assessment of Vocational Education.

Veneri, C. (1999). Can occupational labor shortages be identified using
available data? Monthly Labor Review. 122(3), 15-21.

Wall, F. (1996, January 9). Personal communication.

221

Wanous, J., Stumpf, S., 8 Bedrosian, H. (1979). Job survival of new
employees. Personnel Psychology, 32, 651-662.

Weierrnair, K (1995). Structural changes in the tourism industry and the
adaption of occupational and vocational training systems: Problems and
prospects. The Tourist Review 50 11-13.

 

Weiss, A (1995). Human capital vs. signaling explanations of wages. ournal

of Economic Perspectives, 9, 133-154.

WIIpert, B. (1995). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 46,
59-90.

Winters, D. (1996). The adeption of life palance innovations: Two
perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

Woods, R., 8 Macaulay, J. (1989, May). R for turnover: Retention programs
that work. Oprnell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 30, 79-
90.

Worcester, B. (1999). The people problem: Management companies struggle
to attract, train and retrain employees. Hotel and Motel Management,
21_4(4), 36-40.

Wykstra, R. (Ed). (1971). Education and the economics of human capital. New
York: Free Press.

Yakimovicz, A. (1993). Mining attitryjes of women b_usiness owneg): A

Houston cohort. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Association for Adult and Continuing Education, Dallas, TX.

222

 

"‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'