A STUDY OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION FACTORS AND EMPLOYEE

SATISFACTION IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY

By

Ksenia Novikova

B.S., Voronezh State University, 2006

A Thesis

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Master of Science in Recreation Degree.

Department of Health Education and Recreation

In the Graduate School

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

May 2009
 UMI Number: 1464981

INFORMATION TO USERS

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

______________________________________________________________

UMI Microform 1464981

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

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

A STUDY OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION FACTORS AND EMPLOYEE

SATISFACTION IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY

By

Ksenia Novikova

A Thesis Submitted in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science

in the field of Recreation

Approved by:

Dr. Regina B. Glover, Chair

Dr. Marjorie Malkin

Dr. T.C. Girard

Graduate School

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

January 28, 2009

 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Ksenia Novikova, for the Masters of Science degree in Recreation Resource Administration,
presented on 28 January 2009, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

TITLE: A STUDY OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION FACTORS AND EMPLOYEE

SATISFACTION IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY

MAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr. Regina B. Glover

The major purpose of this study was to identify customer and employee satisfaction

levels and the most important satisfaction factors in the lodging industry by the example of two

hotel properties of a resort on the East Coast. This study included a sample of 267 customers,

while the exact number of employees was unknown.

The customer satisfaction survey was prepared by the consulting agency. It was

conducted in the form of a 10-minute telephone interview with the customers who stayed at the

resort 30 days prior to the survey. The customers indicated their satisfaction levels with six areas

of the customer experience at the resort such as dining experience, golfing experience,

experience with spa, beach club experience, experience with facilities/activities, and guest

problems experience.

Top 10 and lowest 10 customer satisfaction factors were found for both hotels of the

resort. Four similar factors out of 10 positive ones were found to be in both of the hotel

properties. Nine similar factors out of 10 were ranked as least satisfying in both of the hotels.

The range score between the highest and the lowest customer satisfaction rating for the Hotel A

was found to be 1.44, and for B Hotel 1.6. As for the overall customer satisfaction in two hotels,

the overall customer satisfaction for the Hotel A was 4.5 (90%), and for the Hotel B was 4.58

(91.6%).

i
 To identify the customer satisfaction factors, four areas were selected for the analysis:

staff, room divisions, recreation, and conflict resolution. Satisfaction with Room Divisions

received the highest overall mean scores (4.64-for Hotel A, and 4.83- for Hotel B), while

Conflict Resolution area received the lowest satisfaction scores for both of the Hotels (4.51- for

Hotel A, 4.48- for Hotel B).

The employee satisfaction questionnaire was created by the human resources department

of the resort. The employee satisfaction survey was represented by 12 areas: the company;

vision/mission/values; interact; your job; your department; physical work environment;

communications; leadership, supervision and management effectiveness; teamwork; pay,

opportunity, and benefits; career development and training; quality; and demographic

information. To determine the employee satisfaction levels, the mean percentage scores of all

positive and negative employees responses were calculated. Satisfaction with Your Department

received the highest positive total percentage mean score of 81.1%, while satisfaction with the

Interact program implemented by the resort received the lowest positive mean percentage score

of 44.0%. Similar to customer satisfaction, the 10 top positive and 10 bottom negative employee

satisfaction response questions were identified.

The strong positive relationship (r=0.66) was found between the Hotel A and B of the

resort and customer satisfaction factors. Those areas that were ranked high by the customers of

the Hotel A were also highly ranked by the Hotel B customers. A Persons correlation coefficient

was run on the relationship between the hotel property and customer satisfaction levels. The

strong positive association was found between two hotel properties and satisfaction statements.

Paired sample t-test was also run in order to determine if there was a significant

difference in customer satisfaction in two hotels A and B based on the customers responses to

ii
the questionnaire. The t equal to (-2.5), and the probability of (0.016) were found. There was

found to be statistical significant difference between the Hotel A and B customer satisfaction

statements.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank:

My advisor Dr. Regina Glover for her leadership, support, motivation, hard work and attention to

details throughout this thesis. She played a major role for two years of my graduate school,

investing her energy, and time into my personal and academic growth.

The members of my committee, Dr. Marjorie Malkin and Dr. T.C. Girard for their helpful

comments, patience, and understanding, as well as great classes that I had a chance to take with

their instruction.

I'd like to thank all the faculty members and the administrative staff of the Department of Health

Education and Recreation. They each contributed to my professional development, and helped

me with understanding of the American education system.

I would not have been able to complete my Masters degree without support of my family and

friends. Their confidence in my abilities has been driving me to succeed and accomplish the

goals that I set.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii

Chapter 1Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

The statement of the problem ......................................................................................................... 2

Research questions .......................................................................................................................... 2

Null hypotheses............................................................................................................................... 3

Significance of the study................................................................................................................. 3

Delimitations ................................................................................................................................... 4

Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Definitions....................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2 Literature review ............................................................................................................ 7

Issues in customer satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 8

Cultural value ................................................................................................................................ 14

Waiting time.................................................................................................................................. 19

Issues in employee satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 3Methodology ................................................................................................................ 25

Description of the Sample............................................................................................................. 25

Instrument ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Data collection procedure ............................................................................................................. 27

Data preparation and statistical procedures .................................................................................. 27

v
Chapter 4 Data Presentation.......................................................................................................... 29

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 29

Research Sample ........................................................................................................................... 29

Statistical analysis ......................................................................................................................... 43

Chapter 5Summary ...................................................................................................................... 49

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 51

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 52

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 55

References ..................................................................................................................................... 57

Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 666

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................. 889

VITA ............................................................................................................................................. 94

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Top 10 Customer Satisfaction Factors in A Hotel .......................................................... 31

Table 2. Top 10 Customer Satisfaction Factors in B Hotel .......................................................... 32

Table 3. Lowest 10 Customer Satisfaction Factors in A Hotel..................................................... 33

Table 4. Lowest 10 customer satisfaction factors in B hotel ........................................................ 34

Table 5. Customer satisfaction factors grouping in 4 major areas................................................ 36

Table 6. Overall employee satisfaction facets of the resort on the east coast............................... 39

Table 7. Top 10 positive employee satisfaction response questions ............................................ 42

Table 8. Top 10 negative employee satisfaction response questions........................................... 43

Table 9. Spearman's Rho correlation coefficient calculation ....................................................... 45

Table 10. Paired samples test hotel A and hotel B ....................................................................... 48

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Customer Satisfaction Factors in A and B Hotel36

Figure 2. 12 Employee Satisfaction Facets41

viii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Customer satisfaction is considered to be a key element for a companys success in the

market; a leading criterion in determining the quality of service or product to the customers; and

it is also crucial for organizational survival. Customer satisfaction, loyalty, and the image of the

business, have become the most discussed and relevant topics in research for the service

industry, especially for hotel management theory and practice, being considered as the next

source of competitive advantage (Woodruff, 1997, cited in Nasution, & Mavondo, 2008). The

measurement of customer satisfaction has become an important issue for researchers in service

marketing and hospitality management. According to Drucker, customer satisfaction is, and has

always been, the mission and the purpose of every business (Drucker, 1973, p.79 cited in

Kandampully, J. & Suhartanto, 2003, p. 5). Moreover, it is known that one of the goals of

corporate culture is to retain and satisfy both the current and past customers. Shoemaker and

Lewis (1999) claimed that for many years hospitality enterprises believed in creating as many

new customers as possible as the goal of marketing, while hoteliers thought it is much more

important to satisfy those customers who are on the property; although the real goal was to

continue to find new customers (p. 345).

It has been proven by researchers (Holmund & Kock, 1996, p.289 cited in Kandampully,

& Suhartanto, 2003, p.4) that the cost of attracting new customers is five times higher than

keeping the existing ones. The knowledge of customers expectations is essential for companies

because it influences the repetition of purchases and word of the mouth recommendations.

1
Furthermore, Reichheld and Sassers research (1990) indicates that a profit increase of 25-28

percent can be produced by 5 percent increase in customer loyalty (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990

cited in Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003, p. 4).

Each and every organization starts with the employees, the people who bring the

organization alive and who are responsible for the output. Without the employees the hotel

would be just a structure made of steel, iron, and glass (The Need for Employee Counseling,

2006). Employees are the most important asset the company has. Employee satisfaction levels

can affect the quality of service, and therefore are believed to be related to customer satisfaction

issue in the hospitality service industry, where front line employees have constant interaction

with customers and can affect the overall companys profitability and success.

1.2 The statement of the problem

The primary purpose of this study was to understand customer and employee satisfaction

factors and overall level of satisfaction in the resort setting. More specifically the study

examined the customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction in the lodging industry in two

hotel properties of a resort on the East Coast.

1.3 Research questions

1. What are the most important customer satisfaction factors in a Hotel A and B in a Resort on

the East Coast of the US?

2. What are the biggest problems in customer satisfaction in a Resort on the East Coast by the

example of the Hotel A and Hotel B?

3. What are the employee satisfaction levels in the lodging industry by the example of a Resort

on the East Coast?

2
4. What are the strongest and the weakest areas of employee satisfaction in a Resort on the East

Coast?

5. Is there a relationship between customer satisfaction rankings in two hotel properties of a

Resort on the East Coast based on the customer satisfaction survey?

1.4 Null hypotheses

1. There is no significant difference in customer satisfaction rankings in two properties of a

Resort on the East Coast.

1.5 Significance of the study

The issue emphasized in the present research/study concerning customer satisfaction and

employee satisfaction is of great importance today and expected to be even more important in the

future. The research on the topic of customer satisfaction is increasing along with the importance

of quality in service and production areas. More than 15,000 academic and trade articles have

been published on this topic (Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327). Several conferences and profound

literature review publications have been devoted to the topic of customer satisfaction (Daym

1977; Hunt,1977; LaTour & Peat, 1979; Smart, 1982; Ross, et al., 1987; Barsky, 1992; Oh and

Parks, 1997 cited in Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327).

The research has a practical and economic significance as the growth of service in the

worlds developed economies continues to dominate. Today companies need to excel in both

customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction in order to gain business growth, a positive

reputation, an increase in the companys overall profitability image, work atmosphere, positive

employee attitudes, and behaviors.

3
 Due to increasing competition among the hotel chains, the issue of customer satisfaction

and employee satisfaction becomes relevant both for research and practice. The value of the

study of customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction is increasing along with the importance

of improving quality in hotel service, as well as the significance of reducing turnover and

employee training. The knowledge obtained from this research may have applicability and

practical value for hotel managers toward the development of creative strategies to maintain

existing customer loyalty, increase prospective customers, improve management, and motivate

personnel. The research results could be used by hotel managers in identifying their hotels

strengths and weaknesses. The benefits of measuring customer satisfaction in various hotel

departments raises the awareness of special challenges in the particular departments in providing

service that could better satisfy the customers, enhance the use of customer service management

and personnel training, and identify the best possible practices for quality service, and customer

and employee satisfaction. This study is also important because there have been very few studies

that would analyze customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction in the hotel industry,

particularly in the Resort on the East Coast.

1.6 Delimitations

1. The study was limited to one resort setting on the East Coast.

2. Only 267 customers were used in the study.

3. No information was available for the researcher on the exact number of the employees who

completed the employee satisfaction survey.

4. Data collection for the Employee Satisfaction occurred during the month of October, 2003.

5. Customer Satisfaction Surveys and data for this study were only received from December to

February 2005 and are restricted to the outside agency interpretation.

4
6. The sample for the study was chosen from the guest list who stayed at the resort within 30

days prior to the survey.

1.7 Limitations

1. The results of this study may be generalized to only customers and employees of a small

portion of the lodging industry.

2. There were some differences in lodging facilities between the two hotel properties.

3. Information may not accurately reflect the opinion of the total population.

4. Customer satisfaction data were provided by the outside consulting organization to the resort,

and may not include all factors of customer satisfaction.

5. The employee satisfaction survey designed by the resort human resources may not include all

factors of employee satisfaction.

6. Opinions of the employees might have been influenced by the management.

7. Human error in the transfer of data might have occurred.

8. Validity and reliability of the surveys used was not available to the researcher.

1.8 Definitions

1. Customer satisfaction is a psychological concept that involves the feeling of well-being and

pleasure that results from obtaining what one hopes for and expects from an appealing

product and/or service (WTO, 1985 cited in Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327).

2. Job satisfaction is an employees overall perceived evaluation of the job situation

(Bettencourt & Brown , 1997 cited in Mount, & Frye, 2000).

3. Service loyalty is the degree to which a customer exhibits repeat purchasing behavior from a

service provider, processes a positive attitudinal disposition toward the provider, and

5
 considers using only this provider when a need for this service arises (Kandampully, &

Suhartanto, 2003, p.6).

4. The main areas of the resort setting in this study are represented by Room Divisions,

Recreation, Conflict Resolution, and Staff. The grouping of the existing data into those areas

was done by the researcher.

5. Room Divisions Department of the resort includes reservations, bellman/butler service, front

office, concierge service, and housekeeping. Eight statements regarding Room Divisions

Department area of the customer satisfaction survey were used to describe this term.

6
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter was to provide an overview of the related literature in order

to understand customer satisfaction factors (i.e. pricing, waiting time for service, and satisfaction

factors with different hotel departments) and their relation to employee satisfaction in the

lodging industry. The review of literature contains various sources of information including

recent publications in the following research journals, such as Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Hospitality Management,

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Journal of Consumer

Marketing, Marketing Science.

The review of literature includes such topics as the measurement of customer satisfaction

in hospitality enterprises (Pizam, & Ellis, 1999); the importance of customer satisfaction and

hotel reputation in gaining customer loyalty (Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003); measurement

of customer satisfaction regarding personal service and service setting (Nicholls, Gilbert, &

Roslow, 1998); links between waiting time for service and service outcome (Butcher, &

Heffernan, 2006). Due to the minimal available research done on the topic of customer

satisfaction factors with regard to different hotel departments as well as employee satisfaction,

this review focuses on general customer and employee satisfaction factors in various service

industries, on service quality, customer loyalty, and value. As for the employee satisfaction, the

literature review was concentrated on studies done before, concerning general job satisfaction

factors, positive employee emotions, and favorable outcomes at the workplace (Staw, Sutton, &

7
Pelled, 1994), as well as a study about the impact of hotel size and service type on employee job

satisfaction (Mount, & Frye, 2000). This chapter is divided into two main sections: issues in

customer satisfaction, and issues in employee satisfaction.

2.1 Issues in customer satisfaction

Customer relations are known as of a greater value in the service industries than in the

production industry. Nicholls, Gilbert, and Roslow (1998) concentrated their research on

measurements of customer satisfaction. Their research adds to the developed knowledge base in

hospitality industry by examining the service satisfaction in 15 various industries. Nicholls,

Gilbert, and Roslow identify viewpoint differences between supporters of the notion of service

quality and proponents of the alternative of service satisfaction. Their research explores the

relationship between satisfaction and quality. It also points out the instrument of measurement of

customer satisfaction. Taking into consideration the increasing value of time in American

culture, this research focused on the immediate service encounter, not on past experiences.

The research was accomplished by using personal interviews with service organization

customers immediately after their service experience. The sample population included customers

who were exiting from their experience of service. The survey that was offered to the customers

included 29 statements that required respondents to report their satisfaction degree regarding

certain service elements. The statements covered such aspects as service, organizational system,

and security. The results from the responses outline the domain elements of the service

experience that contributed to customer satisfaction. Research findings from the data

demonstrated that the highest public sector mean rating, 3.69, was less than the lowest private

sector mean rating, 3.93 (Nicholls, at. al., 1998, p. 246). According to the statistics from the

8
research, customers private sector organizations were rated higher than public sector ones.

Customer satisfaction, being consumers reaction to their most recent experience of service, is

an indicator of a companys success and profit, because the delighted customers usually return

and become the best marketing tool for the organization (Nicholls, at. al., 1998, p. 247). The

research results can be used by managers of service organizations in identifying their companies.

The benefits of measuring customer service in various industries raise of awareness of special

challenges in the customer service industry, enhance the use of customer service management,

and identification of the best possible practices for quality service.

Anderson, Fornell, and Rust (1997) also emphasized the leading role of customer

satisfaction and productivity for the companys success. Their research stresses that companies

need to excel in both customer satisfaction and productivity, in other words in quality and

quantity, in order to gain business growth, positive word of mouth about the company, and as

an increase in the companys overall profitability and image.

The objective of the research is to find out whether there are situations with tradeoffs

between customer satisfaction and productivity, its purpose being an examination of the

relationships between customer satisfaction and productivity. The literature review on this topic

represents two opposite view points, one school stating that customer satisfaction and

productivity are compatible since improvements in customer satisfaction can result in less

handling of returns and complaint management, and at the same time lower the costs of future

transactions, and the second school stating that increasing customer satisfaction results in

growing costs due to the improvement of product attributes.

9
 During the research of Anderson et. al., the empirical hypothesis was formed to analyze

measures of customer satisfaction, productivity, and profits, stating that the association between

changes in customer satisfaction and productivity should be more negative for services than

goods, and the interaction and probability should be more negative () for service than for

goods.

The Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) was used to measure these

variables. The research included an analysis of major competitor companies in such industries as

airlines, banking, basic foods, charter travel, gas stations, department stores and many others that

share 70 percent of the market. SCSB used a computeraided telephone survey method to find

the sampling group of customers for each company. The respondents were selected based on

their recent usage of companys product or service. The questionnaire included 10-point scales to

collect multiple measures. SCSB also measured the Return of Investment (ROI) and labor

productivity for each company. The outcomes of the research show the association between

satisfaction and productivity for goods as positive, and significant at (0.94), while the association

between satisfaction and productivity for services turned out to be negative and significant at (-

10.81). The findings of the research indicate that service exhibits tradeoffs, while goods do

not. A 1% increase in both customer satisfaction and productivity should be associated with

0.356% increase in ROI for goods, but only 0.22% increase for service. The research proves that

tradeoffs are more likely for services rather than for goods.

The research done by Pizam and Ellis in 1999 entitled Customer satisfaction and its

measurement in hospitality enterprises, identifies and analyzes various concepts of customer

satisfaction, and also furnishes organizations with relevant methods of value measurement of

customer satisfaction. The research also analyses global issues and main cultural differences in

10
customer satisfaction. This research resulted in the development of nine distinct theories of

customer satisfaction. Most of these theories are based on cognitive psychology, some have

received moderate attention, while other theories have been introduced without any empirical

research (p.327). The theories that were developed by consumer behaviorists have been applied

by researchers (Barsky, 1992; Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Saleh & Ryan, 1991; Ekinci & Riley,

1998) in lodging areas, in restaurant spheres (Dube et al., 1994; Bojanic and Rosen, 1994; Lee &

Hing, 1995; Oh & Jeong ,1996), foodservice industries (Almanza et al., 1994), and tourism

(Pizam & Milman, 1993; Danaher & Arweiler, 1996; Ryan & Cliff, 1997; Hudson & Shepard,

1998) (cited in Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327). Customer satisfaction measurement serves two

roles for organization; it provides information and also enables communication with customers.

Lewis and Chambers give a mathematical depiction of overall customer satisfaction. The

research points out that regional, cultural and other cross-cultural aspects have to be taken in

consideration in measuring customer satisfaction (Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.335).

Parasuraman (1985, as cited in Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327) concludes that service

quality should be measured by the formula (Q=P-E), P- being the customers perception scores,

and E- being the customers expectation scores. The higher the positive score (P), the greater the

positive amount of service quality (Q), or vice versa (Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.330). According to

the research results, the satisfaction with the hospitality experience is the total sum of

satisfactions with the individual elements of all the products and services that the company offers

(Pizam, & Ellis, 1999, p.327). Overall, the process of monitoring, analyzing, and measuring of

customer satisfaction is beneficial to any hospitality enterprise, and results in the companys

positive image and good reputation for recommendations that influence the repeat purchase

and/or customer return.

11
 Kandampully and Suhartantos research (2003) was focused on customer loyalty as the

dominant factor of success of business. Identifying loyalty as positive long term relationship

between service provider and customer, (p.7) this research indicates that loyalty extends beyond

customer satisfaction and image, addressing the issues of customer return and friend

recommendation. Thus, there is a tendency now that companies try to perceive both customer

satisfaction and image to build the best long-term strategy (Selnes, 1993, cited in Kandampully,

& Suhartanto, 2003, p.9).

Regression analysis was used for analyzing data collected from five different chain hotels

in New Zealand. Two hundred thirty seven guests received a questionnaire and a cover letter

through the reception desk during the check-in procedure, where 158 surveys were returned,

while 106 (45%) surveys were used for the research. The 0.7 Cronbachs alpha value as a cut

off proved the reliability of the test. As for the validity, the regression analysis was an

appropriate method for testing three hypotheses:

H1: That the holistic and attributes dimension of hotel image is positively related to

customer loyalty .

H2: That customer satisfaction with reception, housekeeping, food and beverage,

and price is positively related to customer loyalty.

H3: That hotel image and customer satisfaction with hotel performance significantly

explain the variance in customer loyalty. (Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003, p.13)

The findings indicate that various departments of hotel operations, as well as price factors

have a different importance for the hotel guests. The research findings suggest that the image of

the hotel, as well as customer satisfaction including housekeeping, food and beverage

12
department, reception, and pricing are the most important factors in custom loyalty

determination. Convenience and accessibility are also named as relevant factors in guest return

decisions. According to research findings, housekeeping is considered to be the most significant

factor in determining customer loyalty for the hotel chains. The research concludes that customer

loyalty is a very time-specific and non-permanent factor, which is why it requires continuous and

consistent investment. Therefore, maintaining and developing customer loyalty is a key factor for

long-term success of any hotel management.

Matzler, Renzl, and Rothenberger, (2006) examined the relationship between quality,

satisfaction, and price as central criteria that determine the purchasing and post-purchasing

process which has been theoretically and empirically studied by many researchers (Kano, 1984;

Anderson et al., 1994; Fornell, 1992; Yeung & Ennew, 2000; Keaveny 1995; Varki & Colgate,

2001; Oh, 2003; Baumgartner, 2002 and others cited in Matzler, Renzl, & Rothenberger, 2006,

p. 179-196). This research is dedicated to the finding of drivers of service and price satisfaction,

and the impact of service and price satisfaction on loyalty (Matzler, et. al., 2006, p.179). The

authors of the research imply that both quality and price as perceived by the customers need to

be measured by hotel managers. The present study investigates different approaches, stating that

price is a stronger driver of customer value than quality, and is easy to evaluate comparing to

quality, while others argue that quality has a stronger impact on guest satisfaction (Matzler, et.

al., 2006, p.181). Another issue that was investigated in the present research was cultural

influence on satisfaction and loyalty. The data for the study was taken from the Austrian Guest

Satisfaction Barometer, which was to measure guest satisfaction with 25 hotels and their

services, price, and loyalty and provided the participating hotels with benchmarking data

(Matzler, et. al., 2006, p.183). The standardized self-administered questionnaire for hotel guests

13
has been used as a research data collection method. The questionnaire consisted of 26 items

which were to measure various aspects of a service on a 5 point scale; loyalty in terms of the

intention to recommend the hotel to others was measured on a 5 point scale also with 5 -

representing yes, for sure, and 1 - representing no, definitely not. (Matzler, et. al.,, 2006,

p.184). Price and service satisfaction were measured using a 100% scale (0%-completely

dissatisfied, 100%-completely satisfied). Overall 1,555 questionnaires were completed.

The results statistically proved that the drivers of price and service satisfaction are not the

same. According to research, the price satisfaction was also very much influenced by the service

dimensions; thus, both service and price satisfaction significantly impact loyalty (R^2=.76). The

research had several findings: first, the relative importance of service dimensions for overall

service satisfaction differs from their importance for price satisfaction. Second, price satisfaction

has a stronger impact on loyalty than service satisfaction. Third, the finding is relating to cultural

differences, as it assumes that the guests nationalities are a strong moderator of the relationships

investigated in this study (Matzler, et. al., 2006, 191).

2.2 Cultural value

Tsaur, Lin, and Wus conducted the research Cultural differences of service quality and

behavioral intention in tourist hotels in 2005. With increasing global competition, the

understanding of the cultural influences of service becomes an important issue for service

companies (Tsaur, et. al., 2005, p. 43). The hotels were chosen as an example for the present

research because they offer individual services for tourists form all over the world. Some

researchers (Winsted, 1997; Donthu & Yoo, 1998; Mattila, 1999; Furrer, Liu and Sirakumar,

2000 cited in Tsaur, et. al., 2005, p. 43) studied the relationships between culture and service

14
quality in hotel industries. However, it is important to mention that very little research has been

done regarding the cultural influences on service quality and behavioral intention (Tsaur, Lin,

& Wu, 2005, p. 43).

The purpose of the 2005 study is an explanation of the role of culture in the relationship

between the quality of service and the inattention of the service provider staff. Based on the

literature review, the research indicates that culture is a crucial point that influences perceived

service quality and staff behavior.

For the study, 282 international travelers departing from CKS Airport in Taiwan were

selected by using a simple sampling approach. The sample included tourists from 26 countries

that represent three cultural group clusters similar to the cultural groupings of European, Asian,

and English Heritage (Tsaur, Lin, & Wu, 2005, p. 48). The respondents were asked to complete a

questionnaire while they were waiting for the planes departure. The survey consisted of a

questionnaire designed to measure the perceptions of tourists with regard to service quality and

staff behavior. A SERVQUAL scale was also used in the study to measure the difference

between customers expectations and performance.

The results of the research indicated that in contrast to Asian and European groups,

tourists from English Heritage cultures perceived better service quality regarding tangibles,

reliability, assurance, and empathy, but there was no significant variation among these three

groups considering the responsiveness (Tsaur, Lin, & Wu, 2005, p. 58). The results of the

research supported previous findings by Mattila, 1999; Furrer et. al., 2000; and Donthu and Yoo,

1998 cited in Tsaur, et. al., 2005, p. 58), who concluded that European and English Heritage

groups would expect empathy, attention, and care about them from the hotel service provider,

15
and demand a high level of service quality (Tsaur, et. al., 2005, p. 58). The findings of the

research are very useful for the hospitality managers in dealing with culturally diverse clients,

and helpful in the improvement of the customers perceived service quality.

Another research study that concentrates on the role of culture being the main category

that influences customer satisfaction with various pricing policies was done by Mattila and

Sunmee in 2006 who investigated the topic of A cross-cultural comparison of perceived fairness

and satisfaction in the context of hotel room pricing. With globalization and international trade

development, the number of businessmen, as well as leisure travelers is increasing fast. There

have been many previous studies in social psychology (Fiske et al., 1998 cited in Mattila, &

Sunmee, 2006, p.146) that proved that psychological processes are culturally contingent. Also,

previous research on this topic demonstrated the difference in customer expectations of Western

and Asian consumers. Thus, most consumer behavior research is based on theories developed in

Western societies (e.g., Maheswaran and Shavitt, 2000 cited in Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.146).

That is why there is not enough knowledge about cross- cultural generalizability of customer

behavior theories (Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.147).

The goal of Mattila and Sunmees research is to examine cross-cultural differences in

East-Asian and American consumers perceptions of fairness regarding hotel room pricing

(Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.147). Taking into consideration that most hotels use differential

pricing as a form of revenue management, the present study was determined to find how

different outcomes of price (as worse, same, or better price) and price information influence

fairness and customer satisfaction of people from the U.S. as an example of a Western

individualistic culture, and people from South Korea as an example of an Eastern collective

culture (Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.147).

16
 A quasi-experimental design of (2 culture: American, Korean) x (3 outcome: better,

same, worse) x (2 information present, absent) was used as a method of study. Two hundred

eighty nine American and 302 South Korean travelers who were waiting for a plane in

Washington, DC and in South Korea airports were chosen as the subjects of study, 63% of the

total participants being male. The respondents were frequent users of hotels, as 43% responded

that they had stayed in a hotel over six times during the past year, while 39% stayed more than

six times, though for leisure travelers the figure was lower (Mattila, & Sunmee, 2006, p.149).

The survey with hypothetical scenario questions was used as the research instrument, translated

in both languages.

The researchers manipulated the price perceptions of the customers by indicating a price

that was better, same or worse than either the price they paid during their last visit to the hotel, or

the price that was given to another customer. They crossed the three levels of outcome with two

levels hotels pricing policy information. A seven-point Likert scale was used to measure

satisfaction with the reservation process, the Pearson correlation coefficient being 0.64.

The research findings indicate that U.S. consumers preferred equitable outcomes in

pricing to either better or worse outcomes (p.152). In other words, Americans, due to their

individualistic orientation, are less influenced by information explaining price changes. Korean

consumers, because of their group harmony orientation rather than individual interest, gave

relatively low fairness and satisfaction ratings regardless of the outcome (p.152).

In their research, Iglesias and Guillen (2004) differentiate the concepts of perceived value

and customer satisfaction, showing that they are not synonymous. They claim that being an

intangible product, service itself is simultaneously characterized, and therefore it is very difficult

17
to measure customer satisfaction and perceived value separately. The research focuses on the

assumption that customer satisfaction is positively affected by perceived quality of received

service, while perceived prices do not have the same huge impact on customer satisfaction.

The restaurants in Northeast Spain were chosen as research sites. The hotel and restaurant

sector was chosen for Iglesias and Guillens research, because it produces 80 percent of the

Spanish Gross Domestic Product, and plays a leading role in the Spanish economy (Iglesias &

Guillen, 2004, p.375). The empirical work was based on a survey database prepared in 1997,

employing a non-probabilistic procedure, and obtaining 156 valid surveys. The participants of

the survey were 60 % females and 40 % males with university education, the mean age of 35,

and an income level around EUR 1,500. The variables were measured through a ten-point

interval scale, where 1 represented very low, and 10 very high with respect to the opinion

stated about total perceived price, value and satisfaction.

The results of the comparison of the means indicates that the total perceived price does

not have a considerable impact on customer satisfaction levels, whereas quality does. This

research has a great importance for restaurant management, because is shows that customer

satisfaction must be taken into account while implementing various policies of customer

satisfaction. The research also underlines that there is a high level of variability in restaurant

service, which is why the level of service quality and customer satisfaction may vary

tremendously form one customer to another, as well as from one employee to another. Research

indicates that in order to offer quality service to satisfy their customers, restaurant managers have

to hire qualified personnel, and empower them to make decisions when it comes to special

customer demands and preferences, for example the manner they want a dish to be cooked. Of

further importance for restaurant management is the knowledge of the reasons that lead

18
customers to require the services from the specific restaurant. Among the most common reasons

are family celebrations, leisure, and time.

Discussing time issue, optimization of the customer waiting time is a fundamental task

for all businesses that provide services to customers, especially the hospitality industry.

Researchers Butcher and Heffernan (2006) investigated specific aspects of waiting time that can

help in providing more cost-effective outcomes for companies. Their research concentrates on

the assumption that social regard plays a mediating role between the length of customer wait,

friendly and apologetic employee behaviors and service outcomes such as repeat visit intentions

(p.35).

This research accumulates many opinions on this topic, including an overview of diverse

literature. The main focus of the literature is on customer relation research in the service

management and hospitality field, as well as the field of social psychology.

2.3 Waiting time

Many researchers examined the relationship between waiting time and customer

satisfaction. For example, Davis and Vollman, 1990 (cited in Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.35)

studied the conditions of time of the day, of the week, and location in the terms of waiting time

and degree of satisfaction. Further, Honric (1984) and Maister (1985) suggested managerial

actions related to perceived length of customer waiting time (cited in Butcher, & Heffernan,

2006, p.35). Jones and Dent (1994) discovered that smiling faces and apologies to customers

make the waiting more bearable (cited in Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.36); Boshoff and Leong

(1998) found that a personal apology is strongly related to customer satisfaction (cited in

Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.37).

19
 Four hypotheses were stated for the Butcher and Heffernans research study:

H1: Perceived wait length will be positively associated with repeat visit intentions and

word of mouth.

H2: An apology will positively influence service outcomes, such as repeat visit

intentions and word of mouth in the wait situation.

H3: Friendly employee behavior will moderate the impact of a long wait on service

outcome measures, such as repeat visit interactions and word of mouth.

H4: Wait perception, an apology and employee friendliness will positively affect social

regard. (Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.40)

A 2x2x2 between-subject experimental design was used as a research method to test the

hypotheses. One hundred fifty one first-year students of an Australian University were randomly

selected as a convenience sample for the present research, including 38.9% males. Written

vignettes were developed for the study for the caf settings. Among the dependent variables that

were manipulated were the actual length of wait duration friendliness of service employee, and

whether an apology was offered to the customer by the service employee (p.41). The dependent

variable was the word of the mouth. Both independent and dependent variables were measured

using a seven-point Likert scale. Each questionnaire contained a vignette and twenty-five

questions based on the activities in a vignette. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) (2 actual wait

length x 2 friendly service x 2 apology) was used to illustrate the difference in rating of the

dependent measure of social regard (Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.43).

20
 The research had two main findings. The first finding stated that social regard plays a

main role in repeat purchase and word of mouth. The second finding showed that the actual

length of wait time had a direct impact on social regard, and was moderated by friendly

employee behavior and apology for slow service (Butcher, & Heffernan, 2006, p.48).

2.4 Issues in employee satisfaction

According to The Conference Board press release (2005), 50% of all Americans are

satisfied with their jobs, which indicate a 10% decline from 1995. But in these 50% only 14%

are very satisfied (U.S. job satisfaction keeps falling, The Conference Board reports today,

2005). The sample size for this report is five thousand U.S. households which were contacted by

TNS, which is a leading marketing information company. This information pointed out that one

quarter of American employees are showing up to work only to pick up a paycheck. The largest

decline in job satisfaction, from 60.9% to 49.2% was among workers of 35-44 years of age. As

for the income perspective, the household with the income of $25,000 to $35,000 had the biggest

decline in job satisfaction. Employees were mostly dissatisfied with promotion policies and

bonus plans. Wages were also rated as poor, only 33.5% were satisfied with their pay (2005).

Syptak, Marsland, and Ulmer (1999) in their study Job satisfaction: Putting Theory into

Practice stated that employee satisfaction and retention have been a research topic for many

years. In the 1950s, Herzberg developed the theory that includes two components of job

satisfaction: motivation and so called hygiene. According to Herzberg, motivation create

satisfaction by fulfilling individuals needs for meaning and personal growth, for example

achievement, recognition and advancement (Syptak, Marsland, & Ulmer, 1999, p.2). Hygiene

factors can not motivate people, but they can minimize dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors include

21
policies, supervision, salary, and working conditions. Hygiene issues have to be taken into

consideration in order to create favorable environment for employee satisfaction and motivation.

The customers perceptions of the service quality and their satisfaction with the service

mainly depend on the interaction with the employee. Wangeheim, Evanschitzky, and Wunderlich

(2007) conducted a study that analyzed the relationships between employee and customer

satisfaction.

Different researchers (Berhnardt, et al., 2002, Koys 2001, Ryan et al. 1996, and Tornow

& Wiley, 1991 cited in Wangeheim, Evanschitzky, and Wunderlich, 2007, p. 690) proved that

there is a positive association between employee and customer satisfaction. Harter et. al. found

support that there is a positive link between employee and customer satisfaction by conducting a

meta- analysis of 7,939 business units in 36 companies (Wangeheim, Evanschitzky, &

Wunderlich, 2007 p.691). Tornow and Wiley (1991), Bernhardt et al. (1996), and Koys (2001)

state that there is a strong correlation between employee attitudes and customer satisfaction in

automobile finance and restaurant chain sectors (cited in Wangeheim, Evanschitzky, &

Wunderlich, 2007, p.691). Data for Wangeheim, Evanschitzky, and Wunderlichs research was

collected from customers and employees of a European retail chain in the Do-it-Yourself (DIY)

market (p.692). A pre-test was conducted in 2001, and resulted in 53,645 customer and 1,659

employee questionnaires at 99 outlets. LISREL 8.54 was used for the purpose of analysis.

According to the research findings, perceived quality and perceived price had the largest effect

on customer satisfaction, but employee job satisfaction was also proven to be a statistically

significant factor. Moreover, the correlation analysis of cashiers(.172), with p<.05 and

storeroom workers(.162) with p<.05 scores of work satisfaction and customer satisfaction scores

22
with the service proved that employee job satisfaction is related to customer satisfaction, even

for the employees who do not have direct contact with customers.

Staw, Sutton, and Pelled (1994) conducted a cross- subject study in psychology,

sociology and organizational behavior that proved that positive emotions help employees to

obtain favorable outcomes at work. The data for this study was collected by Michigans Survey

Research Center at two times, separated by 18 to 20 months. The total number of participants for

both periods of time was 272 employees (152-men, 120 women), with the mean age 37.58. The

data was collected both times at a hospital and two manufacturers automobile accessories in the

Midwest Predictor. Dependent and control variables were used for the study. Positive emotion at

workplace was a predictor variable. As for the dependent variable, it included two measures of

work achievement such as supervisor evaluation and pay at time, and two measures of the

employees social environment (supervisor and coworker social support) (Staw, Sutton, &

Pelled, 1994, p.60). Age, education, gender, and rated intelligence were controlled variables in

this study. The findings of Staw, Sutton, and Pelleds study found that employees with positive

emotions will have more favorable outcomes in their work. The following predicted relationships

were supported by the research:

1) employees who had positive emotions in the workplace received more favorable

supervisor evaluation and had a greater pay increase in 18 months

2) employees with greater positive emotions at time one had a better supervisor and

coworker support at time two, enriching the overall organizational supportive social

contest

The other finding was that the relationship between job enrichment and positive emotion

was considered to be not significant.

23
 Mount and Fryes research (2000) examines employee satisfaction issue from the

prospective of hotel size and service type. Segmentation is considered to be a standard for the

corporate development in the hospitality industry. The leading hotel companies buy, sell, and

create new brands for specific target markets constantly. Robert Shaw stated that eight largest

hotel companies controlled 66 brands in 1999 (cited in Mount, & Frye, 2000, p. 60). The hotel

organization structure is different for extended stay, limited service and full-service type of hotel

service. This research focuses on the job satisfaction of hotel employees from 52 hotel properties

operated by private hotel company. Fifty two properties included 22 full-service hotels, 17

limited services, and 13 extended stay hotels in 22 states. The research objective was to

determine whether hotel size and type has an impact on employees job satisfaction. 2,102

questionnaires were received, while 1,991 were used for the research. Individual response rate of

the various hotels was between 36% and 100%. Mount and Frye found that job satisfaction was

positive related to customer satisfaction among resort employees, cruise ship employees, and fast

service restaurant employees. Moreover, satisfaction was found as negatively related to turnover.

Independent sample t-tests were used to measure the difference in satisfaction between different

hotel service types. The findings of this research show that there are no relationships between

the employee satisfaction, and the hotel size, but there is a significant relationship between

employee satisfaction and the type of the hotel service, and employees of the limited service

hotels are more satisfied than full- service ones (p. 65).

24
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to identify customer and employee levels of satisfaction in

the lodging industry, and also to define most significant factors of both employee and customer

satisfaction, as well as to examine the relationships between customer satisfaction and employee

satisfaction. This chapter will discuss the sample of the study, its description, instrument, data

collection, and data analysis procedures.

3.1 Description of the Sample

This study was conducted using data collected at a resort on the East Coast. This resort is

considered to be one of the finest community resorts in the World. There are three different

hotels in this resort family, in order not to name them; they will be called the A Hotel, the B

Hotel, and the Rental Cottages for the research purposes. The A Hotel is a very famous hotel in

the industry; it was a recipient of many awards in its nearly 80-year history. A Hotel has a

"boutique" style, and it is represented by 156 rooms, including 56 beachfront options. The A

Hotel also includes the new 65,000-square-foot spa and the Beach Club. The Spa has a salon, a

workout center, and indoor squash courts just to name a few. Among other recreational activities

that the A Hotel offers are golf, tennis, horseback riding, yacht cruises, and shooting lessons. The

B Hotel is a 40-room golf clubhouse. The B Hotel is famous for featuring three championship

golf courses. The Cottage Rentals Department of the resort enables to rent one-third of about 500

homes and 44 condominiums. The cottages vary from 3 to 9 bedrooms homes. Typical

minimum rental time for the Cottages is one week, even though 3 days are possible in some

cases.

25
 The sample of study is represented by 267 customers, 171 of which stayed in the A Hotel

and 96 stayed in the B Hotel. The sample size was determined by 50 guests from the A Hotel

property who were interviewed per month, and 105 guests from B Hotel property were

interviewed during the quarter period. Employee Satisfaction Surveys were distributed to all

level employees in all the departments of the resort during October 2003. The exact number of

employees who completed the survey was not available for the researcher.

3.2 Instrument

The instruments used in this study were designed in a form of the customer and employee

satisfaction questionnaire. The employee satisfaction survey was developed by the human

resources department of the resort, while the customer satisfaction questionnaire was created by

the outside consulting agency.

The customer satisfaction questionnaire contains 52 statements total. The first 11 items

on the questionnaire are copyrighted from consulting firm survey, while 41 others are unique to

this particular resort setting. The customer satisfaction questionnaire is represented by the 6

following areas: dining experience; golfing experience; spa experience; beach club experience;

experience with facilities/activities; and guest problems. The questionnaire statements are graded

on the fivepoint Likert scale, with 1 rating strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree.

The employee satisfaction survey consists of 12 facets of satisfaction which are: the

company; vision/mission/values; interact; your job; your department; physical work

environment; communications; leadership, supervision and management effectiveness;

teamwork; pay, opportunity, and benefits; career development and training; quality; and

demographic information. The questionnaire consists of 89 questions represented by 86

26
statements and 3 multiple choice questions that address demographics. The 86 statements

questionnaire includes both a fivepoint Likert scale, and a 6 point point Likert scale to better

understand the factors that mostly affect employee satisfaction.

3.3 Data collection procedure

Customer and employee satisfaction data were provided by the company. Employee

satisfaction survey was done by the company in October 2003. As for the customer satisfaction,

the data was restricted to the report that was presented by the outside consulting agency in

November 2004. Researcher does not have information about the validity and reliability of

either survey. The customer satisfaction survey was done in the form of a 10-minute telephone

interview with the guests who stayed at the resort 30 days prior to the survey. The list of the

guests was provided by the resort to the consulting agency. The list was broken down by the

facility that the guests used during their stay and/or other relevant guest segmentations.

Permission was granted by SIU Human Subjects Committee to conduct the study in this

resort setting (Appendix A).

3.4 Data preparation and statistical procedures

SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 15.0 was used to enter, code

data, and analyze data.

Customer satisfaction data were provided in the form of report, with questions and

percentages for the certain small areas and imported into SPSS.

For the customer satisfaction analysis, the main departments and services were grouped

together by the researcher and mean scores for the distinct areas were calculated to better

27
understand the most important customer satisfaction factors based on the data obtained from the

company.

For the employee satisfaction, the data were grouped by the A and B hotel and the

researcher did the pair comparison of two properties of the resort. Also, top positive and top

negative employee satisfaction factors were found, and main areas and/or departments that had

best results and most difficulties were determined based on the data from the company. Mean

scores were calculated for 12 facets of the employee satisfaction.

Correlation coefficient (Pearson r) was calculated to determine if there is a relationship in

customer satisfaction of the two hotels in the Resort setting.

28
 CHAPTER 4

DATA PRESENTATION

4.1 Results

The purpose of this study was to identify customer and employee satisfaction factors and

levels of satisfaction in two hotel properties of the Resort on the East Coast. The participants of

the study were customers, who stayed at the resort in September, October, and November 2004,

and the employees of the resort of October, 2003. The customers responses to a questionnaire

(Appendix B) regarding their satisfaction levels with various areas of the two hotel properties

were used to determine results of this study. The customer satisfaction questionnaire was

constructed by the consulting agency. The employees responses to a questionnaire (Appendix

C) regarding their job satisfaction within 12 areas of satisfaction were also used in order to

determine results of this research study. The employee satisfaction survey was created by the

human resources department of the resort.

4.2 Research Sample

With the assistance of the Human Resources department of the resort the data were sent

to the researcher via email in the form of the Excel tables for the customer satisfaction

questionnaire, wich included the mean scores of satisfaction with certain areas of the two hotel

properties. The employee satisfaction data were also sent as to the researcher in the form of

Excel tables with the mean percentages of the employees satisfaction.

The customer satisfaction survey was represented by 52 statements within 6 areas of

customer experience at the resort such as dining experience, golfing experience, experience with

spa, beach club experience, experience with facilities/activities, and last but not least guest

29
problems. The list of participants is represented by 267 customers, where 171 customers stayed

in the A Hotel and 96 stayed in the B Hotel during the period of September, October, and

November 2004. Of there, fifty customers were interviewed in a month period from the A Hotel,

and 105 customers were interviewed in the same quarter period from B Hotel.

The customer satisfaction survey was conducted in the form of a telephone interview

(about 10 minutes) with the customers who stayed at the resort 30 days prior to the survey. The

list of the guests was provided by the resort to the consulting company, and was divided by the

facility at which customers used during their stay. The survey statements were graded on the

fivepoint Likert scale, with 5 rating strongly agree to 1 rating strongly disagree.

In attempt to better understand the most and the least important customer satisfaction

factors in two hotel properties of the Resort on the East Cost, the researcher did a rank order

transformation of the customer satisfaction data for the A and B Hotels. Forty nine of the 52

statements were common in two hotel properties. Three satisfaction factors that were available

only for one of two hotels were not taken into consideration in this study. These factors are

satisfaction with tennis, satisfaction with the charter fishing, and satisfaction with junior staff

activities.

Table 1 represents the top 10 customer satisfaction factors out of 49 available in the Hotel

A. The statements were graded on a five point Likert scale, with 5- rating strongly agree, to 1

- rating strongly disagree (See Table 1). One factor (satisfaction with the shooting school)

received the highest customer rating equal to 5.0.

30
 Table 1. Top 10 customer satisfaction factors in Hotel A
______________________________________________________________________________
Satisfaction factor Mean Score

Satisfaction with the shooting school 5.0

The pool cleanliness 4.92

Always treated with respect 4.90

The staff being attentive 4.89

The bell man/butler service 4.84

Always treated fairly 4.76

The recreational activities being fun 4.76

Satisfaction with the transportation services 4.76

The overall experience at check-in 4.75

The overall reservation process 4.75

(n=171)

Note: The higher the score the greater the agreement.

Table 2 indicates the 10 customer satisfaction factors that were highly rated by the customers of the Hotel

B (See Table 2). Two customer satisfaction factors (the beach being clean and satisfaction with the

shooting school) received 100% satisfaction score of 5.0. Three items were tied at 4.89: always delivers

personalized service, the overall experience at check-in, and the overall experience with housekeeping.

31
 Table 2. Top 10 customer satisfaction factors in Hotel B
______________________________________________________________________________

Satisfaction factor Mean Score

______________________________________________________________________________

The beach being clean 5.0

Satisfaction with the shooting school 5.0

Satisfaction with the concierge service 4.96

Always treated with respect 4.95

Likelihood to recommend 4.93

Always treated fairly 4.92

Always delivers personalized service 4.89

The overall experience at check-in 4.89

The overall experience with housekeeping 4.89

Always count on a fair/sat. resolution 4.86

______________________________________________________________________________

(n=96)

Note: The higher the score the greater the agreement.

By looking at the descriptive information from the tables 1 and 2, and also by comparing

the top 10 mean scores and statements of two hotel properties, there were 4 similar factors for

both hotel properties. These factors were satisfaction with the shooting school, always treated

with respect, always treated fairly and the overall experience at check-in. Satisfaction with the

shooting school received a perfect (5.0) satisfaction mean score in the Hotels A and B. Three

other common statements were slightly higher ranked in Hotel B.

32
 Table 3 indicates 10 customer satisfaction factors of the Hotel A that received the lowest

customer satisfaction scores. The statement, is the finest resort in the world, was considered as

the least satisfying with a mean score of 3.56.

Table 3. Lowest 10 customer satisfaction factors in Hotel A

______________________________________________________________________________
Satisfaction factor Mean Score
______________________________________________________________________________
Is the finest resort in the world 3.56
Can't Imagine a world without 3.60
Is the most unique resort I have ever visited 3.73
Satisfaction with problem handling 4.00
The overall dining experience being top class in the world 4.02
Is a place where kids can learn values, traditions, and manners 4.07
The overall spa experience being top class in the world 4.09
Intent to repurchase/continue to use 4.17
Overall, how satisfied were you with the treatment received at the spa 4.22
Satisfaction with the spa 4.25
______________________________________________________________________________
(n=171 per month)
Note: The higher the score the greater the agreement.

Ten lowest customer satisfaction factors of the Hotel B are represented in Table 4. The least mean

number of satisfaction (3.4) was for satisfaction with problem handling factor.

33
 Table 4. Lowest 10 customer satisfaction factors in Hotel B
______________________________________________________________________________

Satisfaction factor Mean Score

______________________________________________________________________________
Satisfaction with problem handling 3.40
Can't imagine a world without 3.50
Is the most unique resort I have ever visited 3.76
Is the finest resort in the world 3.87
Overall, how satisfied were you with the treatment received at the spa 3.90
The overall spa experience being top class in the world 3.92
The overall dining experience being top class in the world 4.12
Is the perfect place to spend quality family time 4.14
Is a place where kids can learn values, traditions, and manners 4.25
Satisfaction with the spa 4.30
______________________________________________________________________________
(n=96)

Note: The higher the score the greater the agreement.

Nine similar factors out of 10 were ranked as least satisfying in both of the hotels.

Satisfaction with the problem resolution, spa, dining experience, as well as the resort being the

best and most unique one in the world were rated low in both of the hotels.

The range score between the highest and the lowest customer satisfaction rating for the

A Hotel is (1.44), while for B Hotel the range score is (1.6). The B Hotel seems to be more

satisfying in terms of customer satisfaction ratings, even though the range between the most and

least satisfying aspect of customer service is 0.16 mean scores higher than in the Hotel A. As for

34
the overall customer satisfaction in two hotels, the overall customer satisfaction for the Hotel A

is 4.5 (90%), and for the Hotel B is 4.58 (91.6%).

Another way to look at this data is presented in Figure 1. The bar graph easily

identifies "satisfaction with problem handling" as the statement with the greatest difference (1.6)

between both hotels. The statement with the greatest agreement (.75) between both hotels was

"satisfaction with the spa."

Figure 1. Lowest 9 Customer Satisfaction Factors in A and B Hotel

To better identify the satisfaction factors, four areas were selected by the researcher for

further analysis: staff, room divisions, recreation, and conflict resolution. For both satisfaction

with staff and satisfaction with room divisions 8 statements were identified; for the satisfaction

with recreation 10 statements were identified by the researcher; and for the satisfaction with

conflict resolution 4 statements were identified in order to define the areas that have the highest

and lowest level of satisfaction based on the customers responses to the questionnaire (See

Table 5).

35
 Two areas such as satisfaction with Food and Beverage and satisfaction with Other

factors were not taken into consideration for this research. The mean scores were calculated for

each of four designated areas. Satisfaction with Room Divisions received the highest overall

mean scores (4.64-for Hotel A, and 4.83- for Hotel B), while Conflict Resolution area received

the lowest satisfaction scores for both of the Hotels A and B (4.51- for Hotel A, 4.48- for Hotel

B). Satisfaction with Staff was rated a little lower than Satisfaction with Room Divisions, being

given the second place with the scores (4.67- Hotel A, and 4.74- for Hotel B) in the overall rating

of four research areas. Guest Satisfaction with Recreation was ranked as the third area with the

mean scores of (4.54- for Hotel A, and 4.52-for Hotel B).

Table 5. Customer satisfaction factors grouping in 4 major areas

______________________________________________________________________________
Area of Satisfaction Satisfaction factor Mean Score
Hotel A Hotel B
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff
Employees are perfect examples of genuine 4.68 4.77
Southern hospitality
Always delivers personalized service 4.64 4.89
Employees are great at anticipating my needs 4.51 4.68
The staff being attentive 4.52 4.66
The staff being knowledgeable 4.65 4.60
The staff being courteous 4.58 4.73
The staff being attentive 4.89 4.60
Always treated with respect 4.90 4.95
Overall Mean Score for the Staff Satisfaction 4.67 4.74
______________________________________________________________________________

36
 Table 5 (continued)
______________________________________________________________________________
Room Divisions
The reservation process 4.67 4.68
The overall experience at check-in 4.75 4.89
The bell man/butler service 4.84 4.82
The overall experience with your room or suite 4.53 4.83
The overall experience with housekeeping 4.55 4.89
The overall experience at checkout 4.54 4.85
The overall reservation process 4.75 4.75
Satisfaction with the concierge service 4.73 4.96
Overall Mean Score for the Room Divisions Satisfaction 4.64 4.83
______________________________________________________________________________
Recreation
The overall golf experience being top class 4.39 4.46
in the world
The overall quality of the course 4.71 4.70
The caddie being helpful 4.36 4.75
Satisfaction with the spa 4.25 4.30
The overall spa experience being top class 4.09 3.92
in the world
Overall, how satisfied were you with the 4.22 3.90
treatment received at the spa
The pool cleanliness 4.92 4.78
The recreational activities being fun 4.76 4.67
Satisfaction with the stables or horseback riding 4.67 4.67
Satisfaction with the shooting school 5.00 5.00
Overall Mean Score for the Recreation Satisfaction 4.54 4.52
______________________________________________________________________________

37
 Table 5 (continued)
Conflict Resolution
Satisfaction with problem handling 4.00 3.40
Always count on a fair/sat. resolution 4.69 3.86
Always treated fairly 4.76 4.92
Always delivers on promises 4.60 3.74
Overall Mean Score for the Conflict Resolution 4.51 4.48
______________________________________________________________________________
(n=171 for the Hotel A, and n=96 for the Hotel B)
Another part of this research contains finding Employee Satisfaction levels at the same

resort on the East Coast. The employee satisfaction survey which was developed by the human

resources department of the resort was distributed to all level employees throughout the resort

during October 2003. The number of employees who completed the survey was not available for

the researcher. The survey includes of 12 facets of satisfaction: the company;

vision/mission/values; interact; your job; your department; physical work environment;

communications; leadership, supervision and management effectiveness; teamwork; pay,

opportunity, and benefits; career development and training; quality; and also demographic

information. The questionnaire included 89 questions, with 86 statements and 3 multiple choice

questions addressing demographics. The 86 statements questionnaire includes both a fivepoint

Likert scale, and a 6 point point Likert scale to better understand the factors that mostly affect

employee satisfaction.

For employee satisfaction, the data available for the researcher were grouped based on 12

employee satisfaction facets, and the mean percentage scores of the all the positive, negative, and

not able to assess employees responses were calculated (See Table 6). Figure 2 presents this

data in bar graph format.

38
 Table 6. Overall employee satisfaction facets of the Resort on the East Coast
______________________________________________________________________________
Facets of Satisfaction Positive Negative
Total Total
% %
______________________________________________________________________________

The Company 67.2 12.7

Vision/Mission/Values 55.6 15.8
Interact 44.0 25.7
Your job 57.0 10.5
Your Department 81.1 3.7
Physical Work environment 69.1 11.9
Communications 53.4 20.0
Leadership, Supervision, and 58.3 18.1
Management Effectiveness
Teamwork 66.1 15.2
Pay, Opportunity, and Benefits 55.4 14.9
Career Development and Training 61.5 15.9
Quality 60.2 18.9
______________________________________________________________________________
(n-not provided)
Note: The remaining percent falls into the neither satisfied nor dissatisfied area

39
 Quality

Career Development and Training

Pay, Opportunity, and Benefits

Teamw ork

Leadership, Supervision, and MNGT Effectiveness

Communications

Physical Work environment

Your Department

Your job

Interact

Vision/Mission/Values

The Company

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Negative Total %
Positive Total %

Figure 2. 12 Employee Satisfaction Facets

As for the demographic information, 60.4%-males, and 39.6%-females participated in the

employee satisfaction survey, 14.0% respondents preferred not to answer to the gender question.

Among those employees, 16.9% - employees were employed less than one year, 48.5% - were

employed from one to five years, 15.1% - were employed from six to ten years, 8.3% - for eleven

to fifteen years, 4.6% - for sixteen to nineteen years, and 6.7% - for over twenty years, while

12.0% - preferred not to answer this question.

Satisfaction with Your Department received the highest positive total percentage mean

score of 81.1%, and the lowest negative total percentage score of 3.7%, while satisfaction with

the Interact program implemented by the resort received the lowest positive mean percentage

score of 44.0%, and the highest negative means percentage score of 25.7%. Satisfaction with the

Physical Work environment received a second place with a positive satisfaction percentage score

40
of 69.1% and negative percentage score of 11.9%. The third place received the facet satisfaction

with the Company, being given 67.2% - positive total mean percentage score, and 12.7% -

negative total mean percentage score.

Also, 10 top positive and 10 top negative employee satisfaction response questions were

found (See Tables 7 and 8). Based on Table 7, satisfaction with your job, was represented by

three questions in the top 10 positive questions, satisfaction with leadership was represented by

two questions, and satisfaction with communications, with company, with your department, with

vision/mission, and with quality were represented by one question. Based on Table eight, 10 top

negative satisfaction questions, the facet satisfaction with vision/mission was represented by

three questions, satisfaction with interact, with quality, and leadership by two, and satisfaction

with communications by one question.

Comparing the data of the overall means of the employee satisfaction facets, and the 10

top and bottom question responses, there was found a difference between the 12 satisfaction

facets ratings and 10 top and bottom questions represented by the areas. The areas such as

satisfaction with your job and satisfaction with leadership were represented by three and two

questions in the 10 positive questions, but based on the overall employee satisfaction facet mean

scores, those areas were on the 8th (satisfaction with your job) and 7th (satisfaction with

leadership) places in the overall ratings. Satisfaction with your department, which was ranked as

the number one among all 12 employee satisfaction facets, was represented in the top 10 positive

questions just by one question. On the contrary, comparing the bottom ratings, the satisfaction

with the Interact program, received the lowest customer satisfaction percentage (44.0%), and

also was represented by two questions in the top 10 negative satisfaction questions.

Vision/mission satisfaction area was represented by three questions, so it took the first place in

41
the top 10 negative satisfaction questions, while it was ranked as the ninth in the overall

employee satisfaction facets with a 55.6% score.

Table 7. Top 10 positive employee satisfaction response questions

______________________________________________________________________________
Question Frequency, (%)
I am proud of the work I do 91.3
I have a good understanding of our overall company vision 90.4
I like the kind of work I do 86.5
How Sat. are you with the leadership provided by: Chairman / CEO 86.3
I enjoy the work I do 86.2
How Sat. are you with the leadership provided by: President 84.4
How would you rate the overall quality of work done in your department 82.9
I would recommend Sea Island as a place to work to friends 81.9
How would you rate the level of customer service (internal or external) 81.1
provided by your department
We are recognized as the finest resort and resort community 80.3
in the world by our: Guests
______________________________________________________________________________
(n-not provided)

42
 Table 8. Top 10 negative employee satisfaction response questions
______________________________________________________________________________
Question Frequency, (%)
My department has enough of the following to do quality work: Staff 38.7
To what extent do you feel KRA's have been an effective means 34.9
of defining your responsibilities
We offer our employees: Performance Recognition 34.1
We offer our employees: Open Communication 32.8
We offer our employees: Advancement Opportunities 31.5
Most employees feel free to voice their opinions openly at the resort 31.5
My department has enough of the following to do quality work:
Equipment 30.9
To what extent does the Interact program help you to: Feel successful 30.5
To what extent is your immediate supervisor / manager good at:
Giving you regular feedback on your performance 29.6
Keeping you informed about management actions and/or decisions 29.4
______________________________________________________________________________
(n-not provided)

4.3 Statistical analysis

The Spearman's rho correlation coefficient was calculated by the researcher in order to

see if there was significant relationship between customer satisfaction factors in two hotel

properties. In order to define the Spearman's rho correlation, the researcher assigned the similar

numbers to all the satisfaction statements of both Hotel A and B, and then did the rank order

procedure in Excel in the way that the statement and the mean score were tight together (See

Appendix D). Using Appendix D, the researcher determined the ranks of all 47 statements in

both Hotel Properties A and B, calculated the Rank Difference (D) which was 0 (that means that

43
the rank order was determined correctly), and the Squared Rank Difference (D^2) which was

5852. The formula

was used to calculate the Spearman's rho correlation coefficient.

Six statements out of 47 were equally ranked by the Hotel A and B customers. As for the

top 5 common ratings, Hotel A and B had just two similar satisfaction statements (satisfaction

with the shooting school and always treated with respect). The other tendency is at the bottom 5

common ratings, four out of five satisfaction statements were both low ranked in two hotel

properties. Those statements are: is the finest resort in the world, can't imagine a world without,

is the most unique resort I have ever visited, and satisfaction with problem handling. The strong

positive relationship of (r=0.66) was found between the Hotel A and B of the resort on the East

Coast and customer satisfaction factors. Those areas that were ranked high by the customers of

the Hotel A were also highly ranked by the Hotel B customers. Table 9 represents the

calculations that were done by the researcher to determine the Spearman's rho correlation

coefficient. The Spearman's rho coefficient test was also run in the SPSS at the 0.01 significance

level to verify the researchers rating and mathematical calculations.

44
 Table 9. Spearman's rho correlation coefficient calculation
______________________________________________________________________________

Ranks Rank Squared

Statements Hotel Hotel Difference Difference
A B (D) (D^2)
Satisfaction with the shooting school 1 2 -1 1
The pool cleanliness 2 16 -14 196
Always treated with respect 3 4 -1 1
The staff being attentive 4 34 -30 900
The bell man/butler service 5 14 -9 81
Always treated fairly 6 6 0 0
The recreational activities being fun 7 30 -23 529
Satisfaction with the transportation
services 8 36 -28 784
The overall experience at check-in 9 8 1 1
The overall reservation process 10 21 -11 121
Satisfaction with the concierge service 11 3 8 64
The overall quality of the course 12 26 -14 196
Likelihood to recommend 13 5 8 64
Always count on a fair/sat. resolution 14 10 4 16
Employees are perfect examples of
genuine Southern hospitality 15 18 -3 9
The beach being clean 16 1 15 225
The reservation process 17 29 -12 144
Satisfaction with the stables or
horseback riding 18 31 -13 169
The staff being knowledgeable 19 33 -14 196
Overall satisfaction 20 17 3 9
Is a name I can always trust 21 12 9 81
Always delivers personalized service 22 7 15 225
The overall experience with resort
facilities 23 25 -2 4

45
 Table 9 (continued)

Perfect for me 24 23 1 1
Always delivers on promises 25 22 3 9
Feel proud 26 15 11 121
The staff being courteous 27 24 3 9
The overall experience with
housekeeping 28 9 19 361
The overall experience at checkout 29 11 18 324
The overall experience with your room
or suite 30 13 17 289
The staff being attentive 31 32 -1 1
Employees are great at anticipating my
needs 32 28 4 16
Is a place where I can always relax and
disconnect from day to day problems 33 19 14 196
Is the perfect place to spend quality
family time 34 40 -6 36
The overall golf experience being top
class in the world 35 35 0 0
The caddie being helpful 36 20 16 256
The food quality 37 37 0 0
Satisfaction with the spa 38 38 0 0
Overall, how satisfied were you with
the treatment received at the spa 39 43 -4 16
Intent to repurchase/continue to use 40 27 13 169
The overall spa experience being top
class in the world 41 42 -1 1
Is a place where kids can learn values,
traditions, and manners 42 39 3 9

46
 Table 9 (continued)

The overall dining experience being

top class in the world 43 41 2 4

Satisfaction with problem handling 44 47 -3 9

Is the most unique resort I have ever
visited 45 45 0 0
Can't Imagine a world without 46 46 0 0
Is the finest resort in the world 47 44 3 9
Total Sum 0 5852
______________________________________________________________________________
(n=47) p<.01
A Persons correlation coefficient was also run on the relationship between the hotel

property and customer satisfaction levels of the resort on the East Coast. A 0.01 significance

level was also set for the test purposes. Much like the Spearman's rho correlation coefficient, the

strong positive association was found between two hotel properties and satisfaction statements.

The Persons correlation coefficient was (0.843).

Paired sample t-test was run in order to determine if there was a significant difference in

customer satisfaction in two hotels A and B based on the customers responses to the

questionnaire. The t equal to (-2.5), and the probability of (0.016) were found. Like in the

previous two tests, there was found to be statistical significant difference between the Hotel A

and B customer satisfaction statements. There is a statistical significant difference between

customer satisfaction levels in the Hotel A and B, as the p-value (0.016) is less than 0.05 (See

Table 10).

47
 Table 10. Paired Samples Test Hotel A and Hotel B
______________________________________________________________________________
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean t df Sig. (2-tailed)

-.07787 .21267 .03102 -2.510 46 .016

______________________________________________________________________________
(n=47)

48
 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY

The major purpose of this study was to identify customer and employee satisfaction

levels in the lodging industry by the example of two hotel properties of a resort on the East

Coast, and also to define most significant factors of the customer and employee satisfaction. This

study included 267 customers. The exact number of employees who participated was unknown.

The customer satisfaction survey was constructed and administered by a consulting

agency, via telephone with customers who stayed at the resort 30 days prior to the survey.

Customers indicated satisfaction/dissatisfaction levels with six areas at the resort.

Top 10 and lowest 10 customer satisfaction factors were determined for both hotels A

and B. Also, four areas were selected for the customer satisfaction analysis: staff, room

divisions, recreation, and conflict resolution. Satisfaction with Room Divisions received the

highest overall mean scores (4.64-for Hotel A, and 4.83- for Hotel B), while Conflict Resolution

area received the lowest satisfaction scores for both of the Hotels A and B (4.51- for Hotel A,

4.48- for Hotel B). Satisfaction with Staff was ranked slightly lower than Satisfaction with Room

Divisions, being given the second place in the overall rating of four research areas. Customer

Satisfaction with Recreation was ranked as the third area.

The range score between the highest and the lowest customer satisfaction rating for

Hotel A was found to be 1.44, and for Hotel B 1.6. As for the overall customer satisfaction in

two hotels, the overall customer satisfaction for the Hotel A was 4.5 (90%), and for the Hotel B

was 4.58 (91.6%).

49
 There was a strong positive relationship found between Hotel A and Hotel B in customer

satisfaction factors. Those areas that were ranked high by the customers of the Hotel A were also

highly ranked by the Hotel B customers. There is a statistical significant difference between

customer satisfaction levels in the Hotel A and B.

The employee satisfaction questionnaire was created and administered by the human

resources department of the resort. The employees responded satisfaction/dissatisfaction

regarding their job in twelve areas of satisfaction which were: the company;

vision/mission/values; interact; your job; your department; physical work environment;

communications; leadership, supervision and management effectiveness; teamwork; pay,

opportunity, and benefits; career development and training; quality; and demographic

information.

For employee satisfaction determination, the mean percentage scores of all positive and

negative employees responses was calculated and grouped based on 12 employee satisfaction

facets. Satisfaction with Your Department received the highest positive total percentage mean

score of 81.1%, and the lowest negative total percentage score of 3.7%. Satisfaction with the

Interact program implemented by the resort received the lowest positive mean percentage score

of 44.0%, and the highest negative means percentage score of 25.7%. Satisfaction with the

Physical Work environment received a second place with a positive satisfaction percentage score

of 69.1%. Satisfaction with the Company, being given 67.2% - positive total mean percentage

score, scored third.

The 10 top positive and 10 bottom negative employee satisfaction response questions

were identified. There was a difference between the 12 satisfaction facets ratings and 10 top and

50
bottom questions represented by the areas. Satisfaction with your department facet, which was

ranked as the number one among all 12 employee satisfaction facets, was represented in the top

10 positive questions just by one question.

5.1 Conclusions

As in previous studies, this study used interviews with the customers after their service

experience to report their satisfaction degree regarding various aspects of service and

organizational system; similar to Nicholls, Gilbert, and Roslow (1998) research.

The findings of this study, satisfaction with the hospitality experience is the total sum of

satisfactions with several individual elements of all the services that the company offers is

similar to the Pizam and Ellis research results of 1999. In this study it was found that the overall

customer satisfaction for the Hotel A is 4.5 (90%), and for the Hotel B is 4.58 (91.6%), which is

the mean score of six areas of the customer experience.

This findings of this study is also comparable to Kandampully and Suhartantos (2003)

research who found that satisfaction with housekeeping is the most significant factor to

determine customer loyalty. This study found that Satisfaction with Room Divisions area, which

includes housekeeping, received the highest overall mean scores for both of the hotels.

Findings by Butcher and Heffernan (2006) showed that the actual length of wait time had

a direct impact on social regard, and was moderated by friendly employee behavior and apology

for slow service. There is a similar relationship in this study to Boshoff and Leong (1998) who

found that a personal apology is strongly related to customer satisfaction. This research, revealed

the area of Conflict Resolution received the lowest customer satisfaction scores for both of the

Hotels (4.51- for Hotel A, 4.48- for Hotel B).

51
 As for the employee satisfaction, according to The Conference Board reports today

(2005), employees were mostly dissatisfied with promotion policies and bonus plans. This study

found that Pay, Opportunity, and Benefits facet was ranked as number 10 among the 12

employee satisfaction facets.

Staw, Sutton, and Pelled (1994) conducted a cross- subject study in psychology,

sociology and organizational behavior that indicated employees with positive emotions will have

more favorable outcomes in their work. In this study Satisfaction with the Physical Work

environment was ranked second by the resort employees among the 12 employee satisfaction

facets.

5.2 Discussion

Customer and employee satisfaction factors are highly discussed topics today both in

theory and practice. They may become even more important in the near future. Pizam and Ellis

(1999) stated more than 15,000 academic and trade articles have been published on customer

satisfaction. Very few studies analyze customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction factors in

the hotel industry, particularly in the resorts on the East Coast. That is why this research findings

may be valuable for future research.

Today companies need to excel in both customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction

to gain: positive reputation; business growth; increase profitability; image; work atmosphere;

and loyal employees.

As Holmund and Kock (1996) proved the cost of attracting new customers is five times

higher than keeping the existing ones (cited in Kandampully, & Suhartanto, 2003, p.4), the

knowledge of customers expectations has become essential for companies because it influences

52
the repetition of purchases and word of the mouth recommendations. Reichheld and Sassers

research (1990) found that 25-28 percent profit increase can be produced by 5 percent increase in

customer loyalty.

This research may have practical value for hotel managers by providing them with both

high and low satisfaction ratings by customers and employee. This research may assist

hospitality managers to better understand customer and employee satisfaction factors. Better

understanding of these factors, hotel managers may be able to make organizational and

operational changes to increase the loyalty of existing and prospective customers, improve

recruitment and training for employees, and motivate personnel.

These results may be used by hotel managers to identify their hotels strengths and

weaknesses, threats and opportunities for future improvement. The analysis of customer

satisfaction factors may benefit customer satisfaction for various hotel departments. The analysis

of employee satisfaction levels may raise the awareness of special challenges in particular

departments for providing customer service, and highlight issues in personnel training.

By comparing customer satisfaction from this study, Nicholls (1998) study, and

Anderson, Fornell, and Rust (1997), we may hypothesize that customer satisfaction plays a

leading role in productivity and companys success, as the satisfied customers is the best

marketing tool for the organization. Managers should take into consideration the benefits of

measuring customer satisfaction within different areas of the hotel, as Kandampully and

Suhartantos study (2003) stated, various departments of hotel operations have a different

importance for the hotel customers.

Hospitality managers should also take note of a key finding in this study: customer

satisfaction with problem resolution. This study found dining experience being lowly rated by

53
the resort customers. Based on the findings of Boshoff and Leong (1998), (cited in Butcher &

Heffernan, 2006, p.37), friendly employee behavior and apology for slow service, is strongly

related to customer satisfaction. Thus, the constant improvement of the customers experience

with the food and beverage department is essential for all hospitality businesses.

Data collected by employees could not be categorized by the department, thus in this

resort we may infer the low performance of the employees in Food and Beverage department. In

analyzing employee satisfaction factors in this study we found high satisfaction with individual

job performance and the department. Employees were motivated by their current position, but

hygiene factors such as wages, benefits, and promotional opportunities were rated low by the

employees, and received tenth place among 12 employee satisfaction areas. Finding of this study

may also assist managers for creating better environment for employee satisfaction and

motivation. Since salary is one of hygiene factors according to Herzberg cited in Syptak,

Marsland, and Ulmer (1999), both motivation and hygiene factors have to be carefully monitored

by the management.

Among the recommendations for this resort property would be to continue maintaining

the high level of customer and employee satisfaction. This may be attained by continuing the

same level of exceptional service by the Room Division department, however, customers dining

experience, and customer problem resolution are in need of improvement.

The food and beverage department should evaluate service areas such as restaurants,

banquets, room service, lounges and bars independently in order to identify which operational

area causes problems regarding customer satisfaction.

As for the guests problems resolutions, the management should reconsider the current

policies and procedures. Management should empower associates who are in constant contact

54
with the guests. Roll call meetings and regular training should focus on different scenarios to

educating employees on problem solving to retain customers loyalty.

Regarding employee satisfaction, 35% of the work force in this resort have been

employed from six to over twenty years, indicating a high level of commitment. However,

wages, opportunities, and benefits ranked as one of the lowest employee satisfaction facets. The

recommendation would be to discuss the employees performance, goals, and career paths in the

organization, and investigate techniques to stimulate and motivate personnel.

It is imperative that future research continue to examine customer and employee

satisfaction factors in the hospitality industry, so that the hotel and resort management can be

more knowledgeable and better prepared to satisfy both the existing and future customers and

employees.

5.3 Recommendations

The findings and conclusions of this study lead to the following recommendations to

improve the strategic position of the resort examined and to help future research on this topic.

Recommendations for Future Research:

1. A similar study should be conducted of customers and employees of resorts in the

different geographic areas (West Coast, Midwest, North East) to identify satisfaction

factors specific to the geographic territory.

2. A follow-up study after implementing changes should be conducted at this resort for

comparative analysis to identify improvements.

3. Future study should be conducted using the instrument created by the researcher, instead

of using the companys data.

55
 4. A similar study could be conducted in different hotel categories, i.e., extended stay,

limited service.

5. Future research should be conducted that measures the relationship between customer

and employee satisfaction in the resort setting.

6. Future research should be conducted to examine overall demographic differences in

customer and employee satisfaction.

7. Future research should investigate the cultural difference in both customer and employee

satisfaction in the resort setting.

8. Further research should be conducted to better understand the role of price in customer

satisfaction at the resort customers.

9. Further research should be conducted to examine in particular, customer satisfaction with

all segments of the Food and Beverage Department.

10. Further research should investigate return customer satisfaction levels.

11. Further research should be conducted to measures employee satisfaction and turnover in

the resort.

56
 REFERENCES

Anderson, E. W, Fornell, C. & Rust, R.T. (1997). Customer satisfaction, productivity, and

profitability: differences between goods and services. Marketing Science, 16 (2), 129-

145. [Electronic version] Retrieved March, 26, 2008 from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=4&sid=d7dd5bd3-b437-4bda-bcc3-

acf958b8516b%40sessionmgr7

Butcher, K. & Heffernan, T. (2006). Social regard: a link between waiting for service and service

outcome. Hospitality Management, 25 (1), 34-53. [Electronic version] Retrieved March,

26, 2008 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBH-

4FH4V2D-

1&_user=1412102&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C00005

2645&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1412102&md5=7d732d310b86facb6024ad

fde2452366

Free Management Library. (1997-2008). Retrieved April 12, 2008 from

http://www.managementhelp.org/prsn_wll/job_stfy.htm

Iglesias, M. P. & Guillen, M. J. Y. (2004). Perceived quality and price: Their impact on the

satisfaction of restaurant customers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, 16(6), 373-379.

Kandampully, J. & Suhartanto, D. (2003). The role of customer satisfaction and image in gaining

customer loyalty in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 10

(1,2), 3-25.

57
Mattila, A. S. & Sunmee, C. (2006). A cross-cultural comparison of perceived fairness and

satisfaction in the context of hotel room pricing. Hospitality Management, 25, 146-

153.

Matzler, K., Renzl, B. & Rothenberger, S. (2006). Measuring the relative importance of service

dimensions in the formation of price satisfaction and service satisfaction: A case study

in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6 (3), 179-196.

Mount, D. J., & Frye, W. D. (2000). The impact of hotel size and service type on employee job

satisfaction. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism. 24(1), 60-68

Nasution, H. N., & Mavondo, F.T, (2008) Customer value in the hospitality industry: What

managers believe they deliver and what customer experience. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 27, 204-213.

Nicholls, J. A.F., Gilbert, G. R. & Roslow, S. (1998). Parsimonious measurement of customer

satisfaction with personal service and the service setting. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 15 (3), 239-253.

Pizam, A. & Ellis, T. (1999). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality

enterprises. Journal of Contemporary Hospitality management, 11(7), 326-339

Shoemaker, S. and Lewis, R.C. (1999). Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality marketing.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 345-370.

Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I. & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotions and favorable

outcomes at the workplace. Organization science. 5(1), 51-71.

58
Syptak, J. M., Marsland, W., Ulmer, D. (1999). Job satisfaction: Putting Theory into practice.

American Family Physician. Retrieved April, 20, 2008 from

http://www.aafp.org/fpm/991000fm/26.html

Tsaur, S.-H., Lin, C.-T. & Wu, C.-S. (2005). Cultural differences of service quality and

behavioral intention in tourist hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 13

(1), 34-53. [Electronic version] Retrieved March, 21, 2008 from

The Need for Employee Counseling (2006). Retrieved April 12, 2008 from

http://www.azete.com/preview/47504

U.S. job satisfaction keeps falling, The conference board reports today. (2005). Retrieved April,

20, 2008 from http://www.conference-

board.org/utilities/pressDetail.cfm?press_ID=2582

Wangeheim, F., Evanschitzky, H., and Wunderlich, M. (2007). Does the employee customer

satisfaction link hold for all employee groups. Journal of Business Research. 60(7), 690-

697. Retrieved April, 20, 2008 from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7S-4NHM6SH-

1&_user=1412102&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000052

645&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1412102&md5=5ceb8f114f74a1d6010cc37f

8b2c0270

59
APPENDICES
 APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE
 CUSTOMER STISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

During the telephone interview customers were asked their level of agreement with each of the
following statements

Strongly Agree (SA)=5 Agree (A)=4 Neural (N)=3 Disagree (D)=2 Strongly Disagree (SD) = 1

SA A N D SD

1) Overall satisfaction 5 4 3 2 1

2) Intent to repurchase/continue to use 5 4 3 2 1

3) Likelihood to recommend 5 4 3 2 1

4) Can't Imagine a world without 5 4 3 2 1

5) Perfect for me 5 4 3 2 1

6) Always treated with respect 5 4 3 2 1

7) Feel proud 5 4 3 2 1

8) Always count on a fair/sat. resolution 5 4 3 2 1

9) Always treated fairly 5 4 3 2 1

10) Always delivers on promises 5 4 3 2 1

11) Is a name I can always trust 5 4 3 2 1

12) Employees are perfect examples of genuine Southern hospitality 5 4 3 2 1

13) Is the perfect place to spend quality family time 5 4 3 2 1

62
14) Is the most unique resort I have ever visited 5 4 3 2 1

15) Is a place where kids can learn values, traditions, and manners 5 4 3 2 1

16) Is a place where I can always relax and disconnect

from day to day problems 5 4 3 2 1

17) Always delivers personalized service 5 4 3 2 1

18) Employees are great at anticipating my needs 5 4 3 2 1

19) Is the finest resort in the world 5 4 3 2 1

20) The reservation process 5 4 3 2 1

21) The overall experience at check-in 5 4 3 2 1

22) The bell man/butler service 5 4 3 2 1

23) The overall experience with your room or suite 5 4 3 2 1

24) The overall experience with housekeeping 5 4 3 2 1

25) The overall experience with resort facilities 5 4 3 2 1

26) The overall experience at checkout 5 4 3 2 1

27) The overall golf experience being top class in the world 5 4 3 2 1

28) The overall quality of the course 5 4 3 2 1

29) The caddie being helpful 5 4 3 2 1

30) The overall dining experience being top class in the world 5 4 3 2 1

63
31) The overall reservation process 5 4 3 2 1

32) The food quality 5 4 3 2 1

33) The staff being attentive 5 4 3 2 1

34) The staff being knowledgeable 5 4 3 2 1

35) Satisfaction with the spa 5 4 3 2 1

36) The overall spa experience being top class in the world 5 4 3 2 1

37) The staff being courteous 5 4 3 2 1

38) Overall, how satisfied were you with the treatment received at the spa 5 4 3 2 1

39) The pool cleanliness 5 4 3 2 1

40) The staff being attentive 5 4 3 2 1

41) The recreational activities being fun 5 4 3 2 1

42) The beach being clean 5 4 3 2 1

43) Satisfaction with tennis 5 4 3 2 1

44) Satisfaction with the stables or horseback riding 5 4 3 2 1

45) Satisfaction with the shooting school 5 4 3 2 1

46) Satisfaction with the charter fishing 5 4 3 2 1

47) Satisfaction with the transportation services 5 4 3 2 1

48) Satisfaction with the junior staff activities 5 4 3 2 1

64
49) Satisfaction with the concierge service 5 4 3 2 1

50) Satisfaction with problem handling 5 4 3 2 1

51) Problem incidence 1-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%

52) Problem resolved to your satisfaction 1-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%

65
APPENDIX B
 EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY
This is a survey of the ideas and opinions of employees of the Resort on the East Coast.

Through this questionnaire we hope to identify and evaluate areas of employee satisfaction and
dissatisfaction to be used in developing programs and practices throughout the Resort.

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

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

INSTRUCTIONS

1. The survey is divided into 12 sections:

a. The Company
b. Vision/Mission/Values
c. Interact
d. Your job
e. Your Department
f. Physical Work environment
g. Communications
h. Leadership, Supervision, and Management Effectiveness
i. Teamwork
j. Pay, Opportunity, and Benefits
k. Career Development and Training
l. Quality
m. Demographic Information

2. Please answer the questions in order and be sure to answer all of the questions that you can.
3. Read all questions carefully. Make sure you are marking the response that accurately reflects your
feelings.
4. Please feel free to write any comments or explanations which you like; they will be used.

67
5. By immediate supervisor/manager in this questionnaire, we mean the person you report to and who
conducts your performance evaluation interviews.
6. Since the survey has been set up for administration without an answer sheet, you should circle the
number that is closest to your opinions.

68
 SURVEY
OVERALL COMPANY

Neither

Very Satisfied Nor Very

Dissatisfied
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

1. Considering everything, how would

you rate your overall satisfaction
with the Resort at the present time? 1 2 3 4 5

Changed Cannot
for the Assess/ Does
Better Stayed Changed for Not Apply
the Same the Worse

2. Overall, considering what the Resort

was like 6 years ago, would you say
the Resort has: 1 2 3 4

3. Overall, considering the events that

have occurred at the Resort, would 1 2 3 4
you say that the company has:
One of Above Below One of the
Average
the Best Average Average Worst

4. How would you rate the Resort as

a company to work for compared
with other companies you know 1 2 3 4 5
about?
5. How would you rate your
department as a department to
work for compared to other 1 2 3 4 5
departments you know about?

Probably Certainly
Certainly Probably Not Sure
not not

69
6. If you have your own way, will
you be working for the Resort two
years from now? 1 2 3 4 5

Probably Definitely
Definitely Probably Not Sure
not not

7. I would recommend the Resort as a 1 2 3 4 5

place to work to friends.

Very
Good Fair Poor Very Poor
good

8. How do you rate the Resort in 1 2 3 4 5

providing job security?

70
 VISION/MISSION

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

To a
Very To a To a Cannot
Great Great To Some Little To No
Extent Extent Extent Extent Extent Assess

9. We are recognized as the finest resort and

resort community in the world by our:
a. Employees 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Members 1 2 3 4 5 6

c. Guests 1 2 3 4 5 6

d. Industry 1 2 3 4 5 6

10. We exceed expectations of our:

a. Guests 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Members 1 2 3 4 5 6

11. We offer the finest in terms of: 1 2 3 4 5 6

a. Staffing 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6

c. Cuisine 1 2 3 4 5 6

12. We offer our employees:

a. Above average compensation 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Job Security 1 2 3 4 5 6

c. Advancement Opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6

71
 d. Performance Recognition 1 2 3 4 5 6

e. Open Communication 1 2 3 4 5 6

To a
Very To a To a Cannot
Great Great To Some Little To no
Extent Extent Extent Extent Extent Assess

13. For our community, we provide:

a. Planned Development 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Improved Quality of Life 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. To what extent do you think the leadership

of the Resort lives up to each of the
following Corporate Values:
a. Benevolence 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Commitment 1 2 3 4 5 6

c. Compassion 1 2 3 4 5 6

d. Fairness 1 2 3 4 5 6

e. Family 1 2 3 4 5 6

f. Integrity 1 2 3 4 5 6

g. Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6

h. Reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6

i. Teamwork 1 2 3 4 5 6

72
 INTERACT
To a
Very To a To a
Great Great To Some Little To No Cannot
Extent Extent Extent Extent Extent Assess

15. Overall, to what extent do you feel the

InterAct program has been an effective
performance management tool? 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. To what extent do you feel KRAs have 1 2 3 4 5 6

been an effective means of defining your
responsibilities?
17. To what extent does the InterAct program
help you to:
a. Define your job goals 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Allow for open communication with 1 2 3 4 5 6

your supervisor
c. Improve performance through 1 2 3 4 5 6
constructive feedback
d. Help you understand your role in 1 2 3 4 5 6
achieving the companys vision
e. Feel successful 1 2 3 4 5 6

f. Improve your individual 1 2 3 4 5 6

performance
g. Improve your departments 1 2 3 4 5 6
performance
h. Improve the Resorts performance 1 2 3 4 5 6

Neither

Strongly Agree Nor Strongly Cannot

Agree Disagree Assess
Agree Disagree Disagree

i. I have a clear understanding of the 1 2 3 4 5 6

InterAct process.
j. I have performance conversations 1 2 3 4 5 6
with my supervisor on a regular
basis.

73
 YOUR JOB

Neither
Satisfied
Very nor Very
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

18. Considering everything, 1 2 3 4 5

how satisfied are you with
your job?

Neither
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree nor Disagree
Agree Disagree
Disagree

19. I like the kind of work I do. 1 2 3 4 5

Far too Too About Far to

Too Little
Much Much Right Little

20. The amount of work I am 1 2 3 4 5

expected to do on my job is:

2 to 5 16 or More
6 to 10 11 to 15
None hours a Hours
Hours Hours
Week

21. Over and above the normal

workweek, how much
additional time have you
1 2 3 4 5
been spending on your
work? (Make an average
estimate covering about the
last 6 months).
Neither
Satisfied
Very nor Very
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

74
 22. How satisfied are you with
the extent to which your job 1 2 3 4 5
leaves sufficient time for
your personal or family life.
I feel a
great I feel I feel no
I feel a
deal of quite a I feel some pressure at
little
pressure bit of pressure all to do
pressure
to do pressure this
this

23. On the job do you feel any

pressure for increasing the 1 2 3 4 5
work you do above what
you think is reasonable?

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

Neither

Strongly Agree Nor Strongly

Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree Disagree

24. My work gives me a feeling of 1 2 3 4 5

accomplishment
25. I have enough information to do my 1 2 3 4 5
job well.

Neither

Very Satisfied Nor Strongly

Satisfied Dissatisfied
Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

26. How satisfied are you with your

involvement in decisions that affect
your work? 1 2 3 4 5

27. How satisfied are you with the

recognition you get when you do a
good job? 1 2 3 4 5

75
 Neither

Strongly Agree Nor Strongly

Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree Disagree

28. Conditions in my job allow me to be 1 2 3 4 5

as productive as I can be.
29. I feel encouraged to come up with
new and better ways to do things.
1 2 3 4 5

30. I am proud of the work I do. 1 2 3 4 5

31. I enjoy the work I do. 1 2 3 4 5

Of No Concern
or Interest to
Me/Does

Not Apply

Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

32. I have opportunities to plan how my 1 2 3 4 5 6

work gets done.

YOUR DEPARTMENT

Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

33. How would you rate the level of

customer service (internal or external)
provided by your department? 1 2 3 4 5

76
 PHYSICAL WORK ENVIRONMENT

Neither
Satisfied Nor
Very Dissatisfied Very
Dissatisfied
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied

34. How satisfied are you at present with

your physical working conditions (heat,
noise, light, cleanliness, space, 1 2 3 4 5
ventilation, etc.)?

Very Very

Good Good Average Poor Poor

35. How would you rate the safety 1 2 3 4 5

conditions where you work?

Neither
Satisfied Nor
Very Dissatisfied Very
Dissatisfied
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied

36. How satisfied are you at present with

1 2 3 4 5
your personal security at your
department/location?

COMMUNICATIONS

Partly Agree/
Partly
Strongly Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree

37. I have a good understanding of our 1 2 3 4 5

overall company vision.

77
 To a Very To a To a
Great Great To Some Little To No Cannot
Extent Extent Extent Extent Extent Assess

38. To what extent do you feel the DSQ

(Delivering Service Quality) has been:
a. An effective communications 1 2 3 4 5 6
vehicle
b. Helping the Resort to move
1 2 3 4 5 6
towards achieving the company
vision
39. The Resort does a good job of:

a. Seeking the opinions and 1 2 3 4 5 6

suggestions of employees.
b. Acting on the opinions and 1 2 3 4 5 6
suggestions of employees.
Cannot
Assess/
Partly Agree/ Does Not
Partly Apply
Strongly Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree
Agree Disagree

40. Most employees feel free to voice 1 2 3 4 5 6

their opinions openly at the Resort.

Neither
Very Satisfied Very
Nor Cannot
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Access

41. Please tell us how satisfied you are

with the following:
a. The timeliness of 1 2 3 4 5 6
communications from your
supervisor
b. The accuracy of 1 2 3 4 5 6
communications from your

78
 supervisor
c. The timeliness of
1 2 3 4 5 6
communications from senior
management of the Resort
d. The accuracy of
1 2 3 4 5 6
communications from senior
management of the Resort
Cannot
Assess/
Partly Agree/ Does Not
Partly Apply
Strongly Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree
Agree Disagree

42. There is an easy way to voice my

ideas and opinions in the Resort so
that they are considered. 1 2 3 4 5 6

43. The Resort does a good job of

providing information on:
a. The way my pay is
1 2 3 4 5 6
determined

b. My benefits 1 2 3 4 5 6

c. Financial performance of the 1 2 3 4 5 6

company
d. The way my performance is 1 2 3 4 5 6
evaluated.

LEADERSHIP, SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT

EFFECTIVENESS

How satisfied are you with the Partly

leadership provided by: Satisfied/

Partly Very Cannot

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Assess

79
 Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied

44. Chairman / CEO 1 2 3 4 5 6

45. President 1 2 3 4 5 6

46. Senior Vice Presidents / 1 2 3 4 5 6

Vice Presidents
47. Directors 1 2 3 4 5 6

48. Your immediate supervisor 1 2 3 4 5 6

or manager

Very Very

Good Good Average Poor Poor

49. Overall, how good a job do you feel

is being done by your immediate
manager / supervisor? 1 2 3 4 5

To A Cannot
Very Assess/ Does
To what extent is your immediate supervisor/ Great To A To A Not Apply
Extent Great Little
manager good at: Extent To Some Extent To No
Extent Extent

50. Applying Human Resources 1 2 3 4 5 6

policies and procedures fairly.
51. Helping people solve work- 1 2 3 4 5 6
related conflicts.
52. Giving you regular feedback on 1 2 3 4 5 6
your performance.
54. Encouraging teamwork. 1 2 3 4 5 6

55. Keeping you informed about

1 2 3 4 5 6
management actions and/or
decisions.

To A Cannot
Very Assess/ Does

80
 Great To A To A Not Apply
Extent Great Little
Extent To Some Extent To No
Extent Extent

56. Helping you to make time to

1 2 3 4 5 6
participate in learning and
development activities.
57. Encouraging internal customer
1 2 3 4 5 6
service (for example, to other
departments).
58. Encouraging good customer 1 2 3 4 5 6
service to our guests and
members.

Very Very

Good Good Average Poor Poor

59. Please rate the kind of job that

your immediate supervisor /
manager is doing in treating 1 2 3 4 5
employees with respect and
dignity.

81
 TEAM WORK

Neither Cannot
Assess/
Strongly Agree Strongly Does Not
Agree Nor Apply
Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree

60. The people I work with 1 2 3 4 5 6

cooperate to get the job done.
61. Communication between my
department and others at the
Resort is good. 1 2 3 4 5 6

62. When disagreements or

conflicts occur between
different departments at the 1 2 3 4 5 6
Resort we work together to
resolve them.
63. In my department, we help
1 2 3 4 5 6
each other when there are
problems.

82
 PAY, OPPORTUNITY, AND BENEFITS

Very Very

Good Good Average Poor Poor

64. How do you rate the amount of pay 1 2 3 4 5

you get for your job?

Much About the Slightly Much

Higher Same Lower Lower
Higher

65. In comparison with people in similar

1 2 3 4 5
jobs in other companies, I feel my
pay is:
Very
Very
Good Good Fair Poor Poor

66. How do you rate your total

1 2 3 4 5
compensation package (salary,
benefits)?

Neither
Satisfied Nor
Very Dissatisfied Very
Dissatisfied
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied

67. How satisfied are you with your

1 2 3 4 5
opportunity to get a better job at the
Resort?

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly

Agree Nor Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree

68. I am given a real opportunity to 1 2 3 4 5

improve my skills at the Resort.

83
 Cannot
Very Very Assess/ Does
Good Good Fair Poor Poor Not Apply

69. How do you rate your total 1 2 3 4 5 6

Benefits program?
70. How do you rate the following
benefits:
a. Medical 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Dental 1 2 3 4 5 6

c. Vacation 1 2 3 4 5 6

d. Personal Leave 1 2 3 4 5 6

e. Retirement 1 2 3 4 5 6

f. 401 K 1 2 3 4 5 6

g. Life Insurance 1 2 3 4 5 6

h. Long Term Disability 1 2 3 4 5 6

i. Prescription Drugs 1 2 3 4 5 6

j. Flexible Spending 1 2 3 4 5 6

84
 CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING

Neither
Very Satisfied
Nor Very
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

71. How satisfied are you with the

training you received for your
current job? 1 2 3 4 5

Neither Cannot
Strongly Assess /
Strongly Agree Nor Does Not
The Resort does a good job of: Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Apply

72. Providing the training I need to do 1 2 3 4 5 6

my job well.
73. Insisting on continuous employee 1 2 3 4 5 6
development.
74. Providing opportunities for
personal growth and development
(transfers, promotions, etc.). 1 2 3 4 5 6

Cannot
Assess/
Neither Does Not
Apply
Strongly Agree Nor Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree Disagree

75. Employees at the Resort receive

fair consideration for promotion or
other career opportunities
regardless of:
a. Cultural background 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Gender (Male/Female) 1 2 3 4 5 6

85
76. The Resort does a good job of
clearly defining the skills I need in
order to be successful. 1 2 3 4 5 6

QUALITY

Very Very

Good Good Fair Poor Poor

77. How would you rate the overall

1 2 3 4 5
quality of work done in your
department?

Neither

Strongly Agree Nor Strongly

Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree Disagree

78. Senior Executives show by their

actions that quality is a top priority
in the Resort. 1 2 3 4 5

79. When choices have to be made, my

immediate manager/supervisor
usually places quality above other 1 2 3 4 5
business objectives (production,
schedules, budgets, etc.)
80. My department has enough of the
following to do quality work:
a. Staff 1 2 3 4 5

b. Finances 1 2 3 4 5

c. Equipment 1 2 3 4 5

d. Supplies 1 2 3 4 5

86
 Neither

Strongly Agree Nor Strongly

Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree Disagree

81. There is close cooperation among 1 2 3 4 5

departments to achieve quality.
82. I have the authority to make decisions that 1 2 3 4 5
improve the quality of my work.
83. Individuals are recognized for their 1 2 3 4 5
contributions to quality.
84. I feel valued as an employee of the Resort. 1 2 3 4 5

Neither

Strongly Agree Nor Strongly

Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree Disagree

85. My department uses feedback from other

departments to improve the quality of our
work. 1 2 3 4 5

86. I have received the training I need to do a 1 2 3 4 5

quality job.

87
 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
(Optional)

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

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

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

87. Are you

a. Male
b. Female

88. How long have you been employed by the Resort?

a. Less than 1 year
b. 1-5 years
c. 6-10 years
d. 11-15 years
e. 16 or more years
f. 20 years+

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

88


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

Rank Question Mean Score Question Mean Score

# # Hotel A Hotel A Statements Hotel A # Hotel B Hotel B Statements Hotel B
Satisfaction with The beach being
1 44 the shooting school 5.00 42 clean 5.00
The pool Satisfaction with the
2 39 cleanliness 4.92 44 shooting school 5.00
Always treated with Satisfaction with the
3 6 respect 4.90 46 concierge service 4.96
The staff being Always treated with
4 40 attentive 4.89 6 respect 4.95
The bell man/butler Likelihood to
5 22 service 4.84 3 recommend 4.93
Always treated
6 9 fairly 4.76 9 Always treated fairly 4.92
The recreational Always delivers
7 41 activities being fun 4.76 17 personalized service 4.89
Satisfaction with The overall
the transportation experience at check-
8 45 services 4.76 21 in 4.89
The overall The overall
experience at experience with
9 21 check-in 4.75 24 housekeeping 4.89
The overall Always count on a
10 31 reservation process 4.75 8 fair/sat. resolution 4.86
Satisfaction with The overall
the concierge experience at
11 46 service 4.73 26 checkout 4.85
The overall quality Is a name I can
12 28 of the course 4.71 11 always trust 4.83
The overall
Likelihood to experience with your
13 3 recommend 4.69 23 room or suite 4.83
Always count on a The bell man/butler
14 8 fair/sat. resolution 4.69 22 service 4.82

90
 Employees are
perfect examples of
genuine Southern
15 12 hospitality 4.68 7 Feel proud 4.79
The beach being
16 42 clean 4.68 39 The pool cleanliness 4.78
The reservation
17 20 process 4.67 1 Overall satisfaction 4.77
Employees are
Satisfaction with perfect examples of
the stables or genuine Southern
18 43 horseback riding 4.67 12 hospitality 4.77
Is a place where I can
always relax and
The staff being disconnect from day
19 34 knowledgeable 4.65 16 to day problems 4.75
The caddie being
20 1 Overall satisfaction 4.64 29 helpful 4.75
Is a name I can The overall
21 11 always trust 4.64 31 reservation process 4.75
Always delivers
personalized Always delivers on
22 17 service 4.64 10 promises 4.74
The overall
experience with
23 25 resort facilities 4.62 5 Perfect for me 4.73
The staff being
24 5 Perfect for me 4.60 37 courteous 4.73
The overall
Always delivers on experience with
25 10 promises 4.60 25 resort facilities 4.72
The overall quality of
26 7 Feel proud 4.59 28 the course 4.70
Intent to
The staff being repurchase/continue
27 37 courteous 4.58 2 to use 4.69
The overall Employees are great
experience with at anticipating my
28 24 housekeeping 4.55 18 needs 4.68

91
 The overall
experience at The reservation
29 26 checkout 4.54 20 process 4.68
The overall
experience with The recreational
30 23 your room or suite 4.53 41 activities being fun 4.67
Satisfaction with the
The staff being stables or horseback
31 33 attentive 4.52 43 riding 4.67
Employees are
great at anticipating The staff being
32 18 my needs 4.51 33 attentive 4.66
Is a place where I
can always relax
and disconnect
from day to day The staff being
33 16 problems 4.44 34 knowledgeable 4.60
Is the perfect place
to spend quality The staff being
34 13 family time 4.39 40 attentive 4.60
The overall golf
experience being The overall golf
top class in the experience being top
35 27 world 4.39 27 class in the world 4.46
Satisfaction with the
The caddie being transportation
36 29 helpful 4.36 45 services 4.40
37 32 The food quality 4.25 32 The food quality 4.39
Satisfaction with Satisfaction with the
38 35 the spa 4.25 35 spa 4.30
Overall, how Is a place where kids
satisfied were you can learn values,
with the treatment traditions, and
39 38 received at the spa 4.22 15 manners 4.25
Intent to Is the perfect place to
repurchase/continue spend quality family
40 2 to use 4.17 13 time 4.14
The overall spa
experience being The overall dining
top class in the experience being top
41 36 world 4.09 30 class in the world 4.12

92
 Is a place where
kids can learn The overall spa
values, traditions, experience being top
42 15 and manners 4.07 36 class in the world 3.92
The overall dining Overall, how
experience being satisfied were you
top class in the with the treatment
43 30 world 4.02 38 received at the spa 3.90
Satisfaction with Is the finest resort in
44 47 problem handling 4.00 19 the world 3.87
Is the most unique Is the most unique
resort I have ever resort I have ever
45 14 visited 3.73 14 visited 3.76
Can't Imagine a Can't Imagine a
46 4 world without 3.60 4 world without 3.50
Is the finest resort Satisfaction with
47 19 in the world 3.56 47 problem handling 3.40

93
 VITA
Graduate School
Southern Illinois University

Ksenia A. Novikova Date of Birth: July 11, 1985

820 West Freeman, apt. #319

Carbondale, IL 62901

Voronezh State University

Bachelor of Arts in Management, June 2006

Special Honors and Awards:

Illinois Park Recreation Association Student Scholarship, January, 2008
Southern Illinois Park and Recreation Association Scholarship, November, 2007

Thesis Title: A Study of Customer Satisfaction Factors and Employee Satisfaction in the
Hospitality Industry

Major Professor: Dr. Regina Glover

94