Research Article: 2022 Vol: 25 Issue: 2S
Examining the Impact of Structural Empowerment on Services Quality: The moderating Role of Psychological Empowerment: A Study at 5 Star Hotels in Amman
Sahar Moh’d Abu Bakir, Amman Arab University
Citation Information: Bakir, S.M.A. (2022). Examining the impact of structural empowerment on services quality the moderating role of psychological empowerment: A study at 5 star hotels in Amman. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 25(S2), 1-14.
Keywords
Structural Empowerment, Psychological Empowerment, Services Quality (RATER), 5 Star Hotels
Abstract
This study aimed to measure the moderating role of psychological empowerment in the impact of structural empowerment on services quality at 5 star hotels operating in Amman. 14 hotels out of 21 participated in the study. A random sample was selected, consisted of (126) employees from front line staff. The study relied on the questionnaire for collecting the required data and information. The analysis results revealed that there is a statistically significant impact of structural empowerment in terms of (information, resources, opportunity and support) on services quality. The findings the of moderation impact revealed that the psychological empowerment improved the impact of structural empowerment on the quality of hotels services. Based on the results it was recommended to enhance front line employees with sufficient resources, and to equip them with decision making process enablers to guarantee the provision of timely high quality services.
Introduction
Services quality has the interest as the most critical success factor in the hospitality industry in general, and hotels in particular. According to O'Fallon & Rutherford (2011) quality is the core of hotels' success and sustainability. Ho & Chang (2013) commented that in hotels industry customers’ satisfaction and loyalty are rely basically on the innovative capabilities that are reflected in the notion (quality) of the services.
Therefore many researchers highlighted the association between hotels’ services quality and customers’ satisfaction, Minh, et al., (2015); Gumussoy & Koseoglu (2016) found out that services quality has the major role in creating customers demand and satisfaction; these studies concluded that services quality is the harvest of talented human resources efforts.
Hotels are human intensive organizations Domínguez-Falcón, et al., (2016) remarked, qualifications and competencies are essential for high performance, however, if those talents are satisfied, they will perform better and with pleasure as Moh’d (2013) explained.
In the same context Woon & Kahl (2015); Emir, et al., (2018) results implied a positive link between hotels employees’ satisfaction and customers’ satisfaction.
Davidson, et al., (2010) study at four and five star hotels in Australia demonstrated the vital role of employees’ satisfaction as an antecedent for devoting more time and efforts in serving hotels customers. Deeb, et al., (2020); Alown, et al., (2020) conducted their research at the five star hotels operating in Jordan; their findings confirmed the association between hotels’ staff satisfaction and the quality of provided services, and also they confirmed the positive relationship between customers satisfaction and the demand on hotels services.
According to Karim, et al., (2020) Covid–19 created new challenges for hotels management, the pandemic decreased the occupancy rate, and the demand for hotels services has declined rapidly as the number of infected cases increased. Filimonau, et al., (2020) described the pandemic as a crisis that affects the hospitality sector all over the world. They added that within these conditions the role of employees became vital, and at the same time retaining qualified loyal employees became one of the challenges hotels management confronts. According to Hao, et al., (2020) loyal employees in crisis situations are the most valuable assets that will recover the hotels performance after the crisis ended. Hence the search for factors to enhance hotels employees’ satisfaction and loyalty became one of the important topics to hotels management and researchers.
Klidas, et al., in (2007) assumed that (empowerment) will attain hotels employees satisfaction, they surveyed 365 frontline employees working at 16 luxury hotels operating in 7 counties in Europe, their findings implied that empowering employees, and expand their authority in making decisions promoted their satisfaction, which is reflected in better services. Chiang & Jang, (2008); Burke, et al., (2015) stated that empowering hotels employees particularly front line staff is an essential requirement for delighting both employees and customers. Bello & Bello, (2017) study at 5 star hotels in Benin City/Nigeria concluded that structural and psychological empowerment had a positive impact on the hotels services quality. Al-Kahtani, et al., (2021) commented that employee’s empowerment is a motivational tool for high performance in hotels industry.
Accordingly this study aims to assess the impact of structural empowerment on services quality taking into consideration the psychological empowerment as a moderator at five star hotels operating in Amman during Covid- 19 pandemic.
Significance of the Problem
Jordanian Tourism sector has the attention of the government as one of the corner stones in the Jordanians economy. According to the Jordanian Central Bank statistics the sector’s revenue in 2018 reach $ 5 billion with 13.4% contribution in the GDP of the country. In 2019 the revenue increased by 9.9%, reaching $5.4 billion. The sector mostly hires 90000 employees distributed in all the tourism facilities. In spite of these achievements; according to the (Jordanian Ministry of Tourism reports) the desired strategic objectives of 2020-2021 were impossible to be attained due to many factors, mainly the political conditions and instability in the region and recently Covid- 19 pandemic and its unexpected negative impact on the sector. These conditions have led to decrease in the demand on all the hospitality services, particularly five-star hotels. Consequently Jordanian market witnessed hyper competition between tourism organizations, to retain their customers and attract more.
Previous researches proved that there are multilateral causal relationships between hotels’ services quality and customers’ satisfaction, and between employees’ satisfaction (mainly frontline staff) and services quality, and between employees’ satisfaction and customers’ satisfaction. Empowerment (structural and psychological) as proposed by Hewagama, et al., (2019); Woon & Kahl (2015) is likely to influence positively staff satisfaction, their performance, and in return hotels will achieve high quality services.
As mentioned previously this study aims to examine the impact of structural empowerment on services quality in five star hotels in Amman, taking into consideration the influence of psychological empowerment as a moderator variable, from the perception of frontline staff.
Study Hypotheses and Conceptual Model
H1 Five star hotels are engaged in empowering frontline staff.
H2 Frontline staff felt (psychologically) that they are empowered.
H3 There is a statistically significant impact of structural empowerment (Information, Resources, Opportunity, and Support) on services quality.
H4 Psychological (felt) empowerment as a moderator improves the impact of structural empowerment on services quality.
The Conceptual Model
The proposed model displays the types of relationships between the study variables:
The independent (structural empowerment) encompasses the four sub variables (Information, Resources, Opportunity and Support). The dependent variable the (services quality), and the moderator the (Psychological empowerment).
Figure 1: The Conceptual Model of the Study
Theoretical Background & Literature Review
Empowerment
The word (empowerment) to some extent is new; but employees’ involvement in decision making process has its roots in the participative leadership and in Job enrichment. Gibson, et al., (2012) commented that (job enrichment) was introduced by Herzberg in 1968; the concept entailed empowering employees through granting them freedom to select the methods to perform their tasks as long as the intended results will be achieved.
Torrington, et al., (2014) viewed empowerment as the process that covers structural and psychological aspects, through which organizations will be engaged in supporting activities, equipping employees with information and enhance their feelings of power and self-efficacy.
Stewart, et al., (2010); O'Brien (2010) found out that empowerment can be classified into two complementary parts; the first is the organizational activities and procedures which is called (structural empowerment), and the second part is the intrinsic motivation of being empowered employees the (psychological empowerment) which is the outcome of the first type.
Structural Empowerment (SE)
According to Orgambídez-Ramos & Borrego-Alés (2014) structural empowerment was introduced by Kanter in (1979); they commented that in her theory of structural empowerment Kanter defined the concept as “organization’s ability to offer access to information, resources, support and opportunity in the work environment”.
O’Brien (2010) remarked that the four elements of structural empowerment will be activated if employees have power (formal and informal), autonomy, and choice for making decisions.
Information according to Bello & Bello (2017) is the first and the most critical element.
In hotels industry each employee must have information related to his/ her contribution in attaining hotels objectives and their responsibilities in satisfying customers.
Access to resources is crucial either; according to Woon & Kahl (2015) without resources (financial, physical and time) the other three elements of structural empowerment will not be beneficial for effective and efficient performance.
When it comes to opportunity: Chiang & Jang (2008) explained that empowering employees in the hotels sector requires providing employees with fair development chances.
According to Moh’d (2019) for handling work requirements effectively employees had to be equipped with development and learning programs. Within the same context Echebiri et al., (2020) clarified that opportunities cannot be worthwhile if they are not accompanied by support from supervisors, colleagues and top management, although support and the other 3 elements of (SE) have positive impact on individuals and groups’ outcomes, but this impact can be more fruitful with creating the intrinsic feelings of being empowered which is defined as (psychological empowerment) as Spreitzer (1995) mentioned.
Psychological Empowerment (PE)
Spreitzer (1995) introduced psychological empowerment as the intangible part of empowerment that can be formed incrementally when empowered employees perceive themselves owning control over their jobs.
Similar to structural empowerment, according to Spreitzer (1995); Spreitzer, et al., (1999) psychological empowerment is multi-faceted; stands on the combination of 4 dimensions of feelings (meaning, competence, self-determination and finally impact).
Meaning is reflected in employees’ internal satisfaction regarding their good performance. Burke, et al., (2015) commented that meaning refers also to the harmony between employees’ job requirements and roles with their own values, and standards.
Competence: according to Ahadi & Suandi (2014); implied individuals’ belief in their capabilities, and their ability to fulfill tasks with proficiency.
Self-determination: is related to employees feeling of autonomy, particularly when they are free to choose work techniques and procedures (Echebiri et al., 2020).
Impact: represents employees’ perception that his/ her performance is making a positive outcome in the work place. Avant, et al., (2016) deduced that (impact) can be manifested when hotels employees recognized that they can make a difference in the hotel’s achievements.
Services Quality
Services Definition and Characteristics
In accordance to Ennew, et al., (2013) the service is defined as "any activity or benefit one party can offer to another, which is essentially intangible and does not result in ownership".
Heizer & Render (2016) commented that “Services constitute the largest economic sector in postindustrial societies” accordingly this sector has the largest contribution in countries economy. Reid & Sanders (2019) pointed out that the importance of services sector has increased since the eighties of the last century, despite the fact that producing services is more complex than producing goods, business organizations became services production oriented.
In the same context Kotler & Keller (2012) clarified that services have unique features which distinguish them from goods include “Intangibility, Inseparability, Variability, and Perishability, these features made services organizations cautious during the production process, and anxious to be equipped with the necessary capabilities and human skills.
O'Fallon & Rutherford (2011) highlighted the complexity of introducing services in hotels sector where customers vary in their expectations and moods related the services quality, and they have direct contact with the hotels’ staff, where fast response is crucial for attaining customers satisfaction.
Yilmaz (2009) stated that customers satisfaction is decisive in hotels services demand; the services that are not sold in specific period of time will record a loss in the hotel s’ revenue of that period, and can’t be recouped
Services Quality Dimensions
The notion (services quality) has the attention decades ago Lewis, & Booms, (1983); Lehtinen (1983) pointed that Services Quality (SQ), is the results of comparing customers’ Expectations (E) before receiving the service with the Perceived (P) quality after consuming.
While Zeitheml, et al., (1988) connected services quality with consumers’ perceptions of (value) in terms of the level of received benefits in comparison with the paid monetary value for the service.
This disagreement between researchers was on the elements through which these comparisons are conducted. Parasuraman, et al., (1985), (1988) resolved the argument through introducing SERVQUAL model. In its’ beginnings the model was employed to measure services quality by estimating the differences between customers’ Expectations (E) and customers’ Perception (P) within 10 dimensions include “reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, understanding the customer, and tangibles”.
In the ninetieth of the last century the model was modified into 5 dimensions comprised “Reliability, Assurance, Tangibles. Empathy and Responsiveness which were abbreviated (RATER) (Parasuraman et al., 1991).
According to Ennew, et al., (2013) RATER is the most widely used model to evaluate services quality.
Based on the model (SQ)=(P-E) the positive result is an indication that the customers are satisfied while the negative results manifested a problem that necessitates fast interventions and rational decisions.
RATER in Hotels Industry
The acronym RATER was derived from SERVQUAL model, according to Kargari (2018) it is one of the well-established metrics for evaluating hotels services quality. Each letter expressed one element of hotels services quality. Starting and ending with R.
Reliability is defined as the ability of hotels employees to provide services accurately, without mistakes and in a timely manner from the first time. Stefano, et al., (2020) commented that (Reliability) is relied on hotels’ employees creative performance to provide the services not just as promised, but also to exceed customers’ expectations.
Assurance according to Minh, et al., (2015) is reflected in hotel’s employees’ gentleness and their ability to instill confidence while communicating with customers.
Tangibles: within the bounds of (RATER) model is associated with the physical environment where the services are provided. Markovi? & Raspor (2013) illustrated that tangibility can be evaluated by means of the availability and appearance of hotel’s physical facilities, buildings and equipment. According to Yilmaz (2009) this dimension includes also employees’ appearance and their elegant dressing.
Empathy was explained by Shahvali, et al., (2016) as the ability of hotels employees to understand customers’ needs and to react accordingly, showing an individual attention with emotions and care.
The second (R) symbolizes Responsiveness: Al Khattab & Aldehayyat (2011) identified responsiveness as hotels staff willingness to serve internal and external customers effectively. Al-Ababneh (2016) connected responsiveness with fast reliable services without delay.
Ayupp & Chung (2010); Chen & Wu (2017) remarked that RATER model can be used to assess the services quality from the perception of customers and also hotels’’ staff.
Within the same context Stavrinoudis & Simos (2016) were interested in hotels staff perception particularly front line employees in the valuation process of quality.
Hence this study is based on the perspective that quality appraisal and improvement are not established on customers’ feedback only. Employees can also judge the level of quality they provide, and they are able to pinpoint the factors that can motivate them for extraordinary performance.
Methodology
Study’s Population and Sample
According to the 2022-2021/reports of Jordan Hotels Association (JHA) (31) five star hotels are operating in Jordan, the main (21) of these were established in Amman and expanded to the other areas like Dead Sea, Petra, and Aqaba. Marriot Hotel as an example has one branch in each of these areas, while the main is in Amman.
For the purpose of collecting the needed data, the (21) five star hotels operating in Amman were targeted, they are part of a chain that own branches in the other areas.
Due to Covid–19 pandemic, (14) hotels out of the (21) agreed to participate in the survey.
When it comes to the sampling unit, the researcher chose the front line staff, a random sample from the three shifts (A,B, and C) were selected totaling (126) employees.
The justification for targeting specifically frontline staff is due to the nature of their jobs, they are the first contact with hotels’ customers, and have continuous direct communication with them. Hence frontline employees’ responsiveness with courtesy, caring and accuracy is decisive for satisfying customers.
Study Instrument and Measures
To collect the required information and data a 4 parts questionnaire was developed. The first part enclosed the information of the respondents in terms of (gender, age, experience and education).
The other parts were related to the three main variables, the scale of the answers was based on Likert (5 scale) measurement “Strongly agree (5 points), agree (4 points), neutral (3 points), disagree (2 points), and strongly disagree (1 point)”.
The second part was designed to measure respondents perception regarding (structural empowerment) in terms of Information, Resources, Opportunity and Support. ÇAVU? et al., scale (2015) was utilized.
The third part contained 12 questions related to psychological empowerment, Spreitzer (1995) scale was employed to measure (meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact).
While the fourth part was designed to measure employees perception of the service quality “Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, Responsiveness” based on RATER model.
After getting hotels’ management approval the researcher distributed 126 questionnaires to the targeted staff, (117) questionnaires were retrieved, 103 of which were valid for statistical analysis.
The Instrument Reliability
To evaluate the questionnaire’s reliability, Cronbach's alpha measurement for internal consistency was used.
The results of the three main variables were as follows: Structural empowerment (0.89), psychological empowerment (0.881) and services quality (0.902). Compared to the guideline of 0.70 proposed by Sekaran (2003) the results signalized an internal consistency of the study’s questionnaire.
Statistical Analysis Results
Respondents Characteristics
The (103) respondents with valid questionnaires were distributed according to their (Gender, Age, Work experience at hotels, and finally Education. The results show that (78.9%) of the respondents are males, (21.1%) are females. When it comes to age (12.4%) of the respondents were less than 25 years old, (47.8 %) were between 25-35 years old, (32.6%) were between 36-45 years old. While (7.2%) of the respondents were more than 45 years old. For work experience (20.4%) of the respondents had less than 5 years’ experience in the hotels sector, (48.6%) had (5-10) years, whereas (31%) of the respondents had more than 10 years’ experience.
When it comes to education, (84.3%) of the respondents had university degrees (68.4% Bachelor and 15.9% master degrees) most of the respondents had degrees in tourism management or related specializations.
The respondents’ information articulated that hotels’ management realized the critical role of frontline staff, consequently, most of them are above 25 years old, with more than 5 years’ experience in hotels sector and had university degrees.
Descriptive Statistics Results
The arithmetic Mean (M) and the Standard Deviation (SD) were calculated for the answers of the variables questions. The means values of respondents’ agreement were ranked from very low to very high as follows: 1-1.49, (very low) 1.50-2.49, (low) 2.50-3.49(medium) 3.50-4.49 (high) 4.50-5.00 (very high).
Table (1) displays the total means of structural empowerment 4 dimensions,
The total arithmetic means of (information, opportunity and support) are all >3.50 indicated that hotels management devoted time and efforts to equip front line staff with these elements. While (Resources) mean=(3.41) with medium level of respondents’ agreement.
The second section of table (1) displays the computed arithmetic mean of psychological empowerment sub variables.
The total mean of (meaning)=(3.47) and of (impact)=(3.40); these values scored medium level of agreement. While the other 2 dimensions (competence) and (self-determination) recorded high levels of respondents’ agreement (3.56), (3.67) respectively.
The results revealed that the respondents had an intrinsic positive feelings of self-esteem and they believed that they had a moderate contribution in hotels’ performance.
Part 3 in table (1) manifests the total means of respondents’ perception of services quality dimensions.
It is obvious that 4 out of the 5 dimensions of (RATER) had high levels of respondents agreement, (responsiveness) got the highest rank M=(3.94), followed by (reliability) M=(3.92), (assurance) was in the third rank M=(3.76), and empathy had the fourth rank M=3.75. While (Tangibles) had the lowest rank M=3.46.
The results indicated that frontline employees were confident that they are able to respond on time with reliable service as customers were expected, and sometimes they exceed customers’ expectations.
The values of standard deviations in table (1) for all the variables dimensions are less than (1) indicated low variability in the distribution of respondents’ answers regarding the variables questions.
| Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Results |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Study variables | Total Means | level | Total Std. Deviation |
| Independent variable(structural empowerment) | 3.62 | High | |
| Information | 3.89 | High | 0.91 |
| Resources | 3.41 | Medium | 0.85 |
| Opportunity | 3.63 | High | 0.87 |
| Support | 3.54 | High | 0.93 |
| Moderate variable(psychological empowerment) | 3.53 | High | |
| Meaning | 3.47 | Medium | 0.63 |
| Competence | 3.56 | High | 0.67 |
| Self determination | 3.67 | High | 0.62 |
| Impact | 3.46 | Medium | 0.96 |
| Dependent variable(services quality) (RATER) | 3.77 | High | |
| Reliability | 3.92 | High | 0.78 |
| Assurance | 3.76 | High | 0.71 |
| Tangibles | 3.46 | Medium | 0.91 |
| Empathy | 3.75 | High | 0.65 |
| Responsiveness | 3.94 | High | 0.61 |
Testing Hypotheses Results
H1 and H2 Results
To test H1, and H2 one sample t test was computed with confidence interval=(0.05). This test determines if the sample mean is statistically different from a hypothesized population mean. (In this study the test value=(3)) which indicated neutral according to Likert scale. The two hypotheses aimed to test if the 5 star hotels in Amman were engaged in employees structural empowerment (H1), and if this engagement created in employees the feeling of psychological empowerment (H2). The two hypotheses will be accepted in case the calculated t sig value is less than or =0.05. Table (2) shows that t sig values related the four dimensions of structural empowerment are less than 0.05. And also the table shows that t sig values of the four dimensions of psychological empowerment dimensions are less than 0.05.
| Table 2 One Sample T Test Results of H1, H2 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Study’s variables | Test Value=3 95% Confidence Interval | ||
| T | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | |
| Independent variable( structural empowerment) | |||
| Information | 9.669 | 0.000 | 0.87379 |
| Resources | 4.823 | 0.000 | 0.40777 |
| Opportunity | 6.918 | 0.000 | 0.60518 |
| Support | 5.893 | 0.000 | 0.53074 |
| Moderate variable( psychological empowerment) | |||
| Meaning | 7.572 | 0.000 | 0.45955 |
| Competence | 7.634 | 0.000 | 0.49515 |
| Self determination | 11.053 | 0.000 | 0.66667 |
| Impact | 4.174 | 0.000 | 0.39806 |
| N= 103, df=102 | |||
Based on the mentioned rule both hypotheses (H1) and (H2) will be accepted.
H3 Results
This hypothesis aimed to test the (the direct impact) of structural empowerment in terms of (information resources, opportunity and support) on services quality.
To identify this impact multiple regression with sig value=0.05 was calculated.
Table (3) displays the results of the model summary, ANOVA and Coefficient of the regression analysis.
The model summary part shows that the value of R=0.923, indicated that services quality is positively correlated with structural empowerment. The value of R2 (0.852) signalized that 85.2% of the variation in services quality is due to structural empowerment, while 14.8 % is explained by other variables.
In the ANOVA part the value of F=(126.916) at 0.000 sig level which is less than sig value 0.05, indicated that the model of the study is suitable for regression test, and there is an overall impact of structural empowerment on services quality.
The values of t sig in the coefficient part are for all the four dimensions of structural empowerment less than 0.05, which implied that there is a statistically significant impact of all the dimensions on services quality.
Through the values of Beta it is obvious that information has the strongest impact=(0.390) on services quality followed by opportunity (0.303), followed by support (0.188) while resources had the lowest impact on services quality with (0.148) Beta value.
| Table 3 H3 Results |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model Summary | |||||
| R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | |||
| 0.923a | 0.852 | 0.846 | |||
| ANOVA | |||||
| Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. |
| Regression | 32.701 | 4 | 8.175 | 126.916 | .000b |
| Residual | 5.669 | 98 | 0.064 | ||
| Total | 38.37 | 102 | |||
| Coefficient | |||||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | t | Sig. | |
| (Constant) | 1.055 | 0.125 | 8.407 | 0.000 | |
| Information | 0.296 | 0.059 | 0.39 | 4.975 | 0.000 |
| Resources | 0.103 | 0.039 | 0.148 | 2.63 | 0.01 |
| Opportunity | 0.216 | 0.054 | 0.303 | 3.98 | 0.000 |
| Support | 0.138 | 0.061 | 0.188 | 2.265 | 0.026 |
According to the results of B the regression model will take this form
Services quality=1.055+0.296 (information)+0.103 resources+0.216(opportunity)+0.138 (support). Which implied that one unit increase in each dimension (information, resources, opportunity, and support) will raise services quality respectively by (29.6%, 10.3%, 21.6% and 13.8%).
H4 Results (Test of Moderating Effect)
According to Memon, et al., (2019) testing moderation aimed to examine the “variation in the impact the independent variable has on the dependent variable as a function of the moderator”
So that the objective of H4 is to find out if psychological empowerment will improve the impact of structural empowerment on services quality at five star hotels in Amman.
The hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to test H4, where services quality was treated as the dependent variable. The regression test relied on 3 models as follows:
In model (1) the structural empowerment impact was tested.
In model (2) the psychological empowerment impact was tested, while in model (3) the interaction between the two types of empowerment was tested.
The results show that the values of R (the correlation) between services quality and the variables in the 3 models were strong and positive respectively=(0.923), (0.925) and (.0.937) at 0.000 sig, but the results indicated that the interaction between the two types of empowerment had the highest association with services quality compared to the other 2 variables individually.
The values of (R2 change) indicated that the variation in services quality increased with the interaction condition by (0.022) compared with the other 2 models.
The value of t sig, in model (1)=0.000 which indicated that structural empowerment has a statistically significant impact on services quality, while the t sig value of psychological empowerment=(0.195) which indicated that this variable by itself had no statistically significant impact on services quality.
The value of t sig in model (3)=0.000 which means that the interaction between the structural and psychological empowerment had a statistically significant impact on services quality.
According to the results in table (4) H4 will be accepted to confirm that psychological empowerment improved the impact of structural empowerment on services quality.
| Table 4 H4 Results |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models | R Sig | R2 | R2 Change | F change F sig | T T sig |
| Model 1 | 0.923 | 0.852 | 0.852 | 583.581 | 24.157 |
| Structural empowerment (SE) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| Model 2 | 0.925 | 0.855 | 0.002 | 1.703 | 1.305 |
| Psychological empowerment (PE) | 0.000 | 0.195 | 0.195 | ||
| Model 3 | 0.937 | 0.877 | 0.022 | 17.858 | 4.226 |
| Interaction (SE)*(PE) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
Conclusions and Recommendations
Hospitality is a fast-growing sector in Jordan; the sector has the attention of the government due to its contribution in supporting the country’s GNP and in reducing the unemployment level. Five-star hotels (luxury hotels) as part of this sector had the government interest because these hotels are international chains that attract most of the foreign visitors to Jordan. According to (Jordan Hotels Association) the number of 5 star hotels has increased due to the stable environment in Jordan, which creates an opportunity for strategic positioning in the area, especially with the political instability in the neighboring countries. Therefore the competition between 5 star hotels forced these organizations to find out tools to retain current customers and to attract more. From the other hand many researchers tried to identify the main factors that will enhance services quality of these hotels in Jordan, and how can they prosper through the best utilization of hotels employees (Deeb et al., 2020; Alown et al., 2020; Al Rousan, 2011; Al Khattab & Aldehayyat, 2011; AbuKhalifeh & Som, 2015; Al-A babneh, 2016).
Hence this study aimed to highlight the impact of employees Empowerment on services quality at five star hotels in Amman where most of the hotels are operating. 14 hotels participated in the survey, a random sample consisted of front line staff were selected totaling (126) employees.
The study counted on the conception that in addition to customers’ perception, services quality can be evaluated by hotels staff either. Especially those who had long work experience in this sector.
The statistical analysis results showed that the surveyed hotels were aware of the importance of empowerment, and equipped the staff with structural empowerment requirements joined with psychological empowerment facilitators. All the sub variables recorded high scores of respondents’ agreement except (resources), (meaning) and (impact) the 3 sub variables had moderate scales. This implied that front line staff needs to be provided with more resources to be able to participate in decision making and solving problems effectively. When it comes to meaning and impact, the results implied that the front line staff needs more recognition of the influence they had on hotels performance and development.
The results of H3 showed that there was a statistically significant impact of the four dimensions of structural empowerment on services quality.
The study also found that psychological empowerment improves the impact of structural empowerment on the quality level of services provided at 5 star hotels.
The results of the moderation hypothesis are consistent with what was introduced by Ahadi & Suandi (2014), Burke, et al., (2015) which confirmed that structural empowerment must be associated with psychological empowerment in order to achieve the goals of empowerment.
Based on the results it is recommended to give more attention to providing front line employees and other groups of hotels staff with sufficient enablers and autonomy for making decisions and solving problems, particularly in crisis situations.
Since this study was conducted at 5 star hotels, and relied on the front line staff as the study sample, it is recommended for future research to increase the sample size; so that employees from other departments will be involved, as well as conducting future research in other tourism organizations than 5 star hotels.
References
References
AbuKhalifeh, A.N., & Som, A.P.M. (2012). Service quality management in hotel industry: A conceptual framework for food and beverage departments. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(14), 135-141.
Ahadi, S., & Suandi, T. (2014). Structural empowerment and organizational commitment: The mediating role of psychological empowerment in Malaysian Research Universities. Journal Asian Development Studies, 3(1), 44-65.
Al-Ababneh, M.M. (2016). Employees’ perspectives of service quality in hotels. Research in Hospitality Management, 6(2), 189-193.
Al-Kahtani, N., Iqbal, S., Sohail, M., Sheraz, F., Jahan, S., Anwar, B., & Haider, S. (2021). Impact of employee empowerment on organizational commitment through job satisfaction in four and five stars hotel industry. Management Science Letters, 11(311(3), 813-822.
Al- Khattab, S.A., & Aldehayyat, J.S. (2011). Perceptions of service quality in Jordanian hotels. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(7), 226-239.
Alown, B.E., Mohamad, M., & Karim, F. (2020). Structural equation modeling based empirical analysis: Direct and indirect effects of job satisfaction on job performance in Jordanian five-star hotels. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Environment Management, 5(18), 133-151.
Al-Rousan, M.R., & Mohamed, B. (2010). Customer loyalty and the impacts of service quality: The case of five star hotels in Jordan. International journal of human and social sciences, 5(13), 886-892.
Avan, A., Zorlu, Ö., & Baytok, A. (2016). The effect of psychological empowerment on organizational silence in hotels. Journal of Business Research Turk, 8(4), 277- 295.
Ayupp, K., & Chung, T.H. (2010). Empowerment: Hotel employees' perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM), 3(3), 561-575.
Bello, Y.O., & Bello, M.B. (2017). Employees’ empowerment, service quality and customers’ satisfaction in hotel industry. Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, 4(4), 1001-1019.
Burke, R.J., Koyuncu, M., Wolpin, J., Yirik, S., & Koyuncu, K. (2015). Organizational empowerment practices, psychological empowerment and work outcomes among frontline service employees in five-star Turkish Hotels. Effective Executive, 18(1), 42-65.
Çavuş, Ş., Tokmak, C., & Mambetova, N. (2015). Empowerment perceptions of employees in hotel enterprises. Journal of Business Studies, 7(4), 6-23.
Chen, T.J., & Wu, C.M. (2017). Improving the turnover intention of tourist hotel employees: Transformational leadership, leader-member exchange, and psychological contract breach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(7), 1914-1936.
Chiang, C.F., & Jang, S. (2008). The antecedents and consequences of psychological empowerment: The case of Taiwan's hotel companies. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 32(1), 40-61.
Davidson, M.C., Timo, N., & Wang, Y. (2010). How much does labour turnover cost? A case study of Australian four-and five-star hotels. International journal of contemporary hospitality management, 22(4), 451-466.
Deeb, A., Alananzeh, O.A., Tarhini, A., & Masa'deh, R.E. (2020). Factors affecting job performance: The case of Jordanian hotels' kitchen staff. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 6(3), 340-360.
Domínguez-Falcón, C., Martín-Santana, J., & De Saá-Pérez, P. (2016). Human resources management and performance in the hotel industry: The role of the commitment and satisfaction of managers versus supervisors. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(3), 490-515.
Echebiri, C., Amundsen, S., & Engen, M. (2020). Linking structural empowerment to employee-driven innovation: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), 1-18.
Emir, O., Şahin, S., & Arslantürk, Y. (2018). An assessment of the impact of employee satisfaction on customer satisfaction in hotel enterprises. Journal of Business Research-Turk, 10(4), 794-806.
Ennew, C., Waite, N., & Waite, R. (2013). Financial services marketing: An international guide to principles and practice. London, Routledge.
Filimonau, V., Derqui, B., & Matute, J. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and organizational commitment of senior hotel managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 102659.
Gibson, J., Ivancevich., Donnelly, J., & Konopaske, R. (2012). Organizations behavior, structure, processes, (14th Edition), McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gumussoy, C.A., & Koseoglu, B. (2016). The effects of service quality, perceived value and price fairness on hotel customers’ satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 4(9), 523-527.
Hao, F., Xiao, Q., & Chon, K. (2020). COVID-19 and China’s hotel industry: Impacts, a disaster management framework, and post-pandemic agenda. International journal of hospitality management, 90, 102636.
Heizer, J., & Render, B. (2016). Operations management, (6th edition). Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Hewagama, G., Boxall, P., Cheung, G., & Hutchison, A. (2019). Service recovery through empowerment? HRM, employee performance and job satisfaction in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 81, 73-82.
Ho, C.H., & Chang, W.Y. (2013). Key success factor in service innovation of hotel enterprises in Taiwan. Pakistan journal of statistics, 29(5), 725-732.
Kanter R.M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57(4), 65–75.
Kargari, M. (2018). Ranking of performance assessment measures at Tehran hotel by combining DEMATEL, ANP, and SERVQUAL Models under Fuzzy Condition. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1-11.
Karim, W., Haque, A., Anis, Z., & Ulfy, M.A. (2020). The Movement Control Order (MCO) for covid-19 crisis and its impact on tourism and hospitality sector in Malaysia. International Tourism and Hospitality Journal, 3(2), 1-7.
Klidas, A., Van Den Berg, P.T., & Wilderom, C.P. (2007). Managing employee empowerment in luxury hotels in Europe. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(1), 70-88.
Kotler, P., Keller, K.L., Ancarani, F., & Costabile, M. (2014). Marketing management, (14th Edition). New York: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lehtinen, J.R. (1983). Customer oriented service system. Service Management Institute, Finland, Helsinki.
Lewis, R.C., & Booms, B.H. (1983). The marketing aspects of service quality. Emerging perspectives on services marketing, 65(4), 99-107.
Marković, S., & Raspor, J.S. (2013). Exploring the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction in Croatian hotel industry. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 19(2), 149-164.
Memon, M.A., Cheah, J.H., Ramayah, T., Ting, H., Chuah, F., & Cham, T.H. (2019). Moderation analysis: Issues and guidelines. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modelling, 3(1), 1-11.
Minh, N.H., Ha, N.T., Anh, P.C., & Matsui, Y. (2015). Service quality and customer satisfaction: A case study of hotel industry in Vietnam. Asian Social Science, 11(10), 73-85.
Moh’d Abu Bakir, S. (2019). Career path management between the theory and application: Measuring its relationship with satisfying employees’ needs: A study on the Jordanian commercial banks. International Journal of Business and Management, 14(8), 10-24.
Moh'd Futa, S. (2013). The relationship between social responsibility and organizational citizenship behavior in 5 stars hotels operating in Petra city. European Scientific Journal, 9(14), 118-133.
O'Brien, J.L. (2010). Structural empowerment, psychological empowerment and burnout in registered staff nurses working in outpatient dialysis centers (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-Graduate School-Newark).
O'Fallon, M.J., & Rutherford, D.G. (2011). Hotel management and operations, (5th Edition). New Jersey John Wiley &Sons.
Orgambídez-Ramos, A., & Borrego-Alés, Y. (2014). Empowering employees: Structural empowerment as antecedent of job satisfaction in university settings. Psychological Thought, 7(1), 28-36.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie, A.Z., & Leonard L.B. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(Fall), 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie, A.Z., & Leonard L.B. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring), 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67, 420-50.
Raspor, S. (2010). Measuring perceived service quality using SERVQUAL: A case study of the Croatian hotel industry. Management, 5(3), 195-209.
Reid, R.D., & Sanders, N.R. (2019). Operations management: An integrated approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business. John Wiley & Sons USA.
Shahvali, M., Beesley, L., Rahimi, R., & Shahvali, R. (2016). Measuring empathy within hotel employees. Anatolia, 27(2), 237-250.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G.M., De Janasz, S.C., & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 20(4), 511-526.
Stavrinoudis, T.A., & Simos, D. (2016). Factors affecting hotel employees’ perception and attitude toward empowerment. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(4), 416-439.
Stefano, N.M., Zattar, I.C., & Casarotto Filho, N. (2020). Assessment of service quality in the hotel industry: Use of fuzzy hybrid methodologies. UFSM Administration Magazine, 13(1), 40-57.
Stewart, J.G., McNulty, R., Griffin, M.T.Q., & Fitzpatrick, J.J. (2010). Psychological empowerment and structural empowerment among nurse practitioners. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 22(1), 27-34.
Crossref, GoogleScholar, Indexed at
Torrington, D., Taylor, S., & Hall, L. (2014). Human resource management. Financial Times Prentice, New Jersey.
Woon, L., & Kahl, C. (2015). Employment empowerment through human resource department in enriching employee satisfaction: The Hilton way in Malaysia. TEAM Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 12(1), 21-37.
Yilmaz, I. (2009). Measurement of service quality in the hotel industry. Anatolia, 20(2), 375-386.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Received: 19-Oct-2021, Manuscript No. JMIDS-21- 8893; Editor assigned: 22- Oct -2021, PreQC No. JMIDS-21- 8893 (PQ); Reviewed: 06- Nov -2021, QC No. JMIDS-21-8893; Revised: 13-Nov-2021, Manuscript No. JMIDS-21-8893; (R); Published: 19-Nov-2021