Employee Proactivity in Hotels Undergoing Organizational Change and Development

Ateneo de Manila University Archīum Ateneo

Psychology Department Faculty Publications Psychology Department

10-2017

Employee proactivity in hotels undergoing organizational change and development

Alfred Presbitero Deakin University

Mendiola Teng-Calleja Ateneo de Manila University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://archium.ateneo.edu/psychology-faculty-pubs

Part of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation Presbitero, A., & Teng-Calleja, M. (2017). Employee proactivity in hotels undergoing organizational change and development. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 16(4), 401-421.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology Department at Archīum Ateneo. It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychology Department Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Archīum Ateneo. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism

ISSN: 1533-2845 (Print) 1533-2853 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

Employee proactivity in hotels undergoing organizational change and development

Alfred Presbitero & Mendiola Teng-Calleja

To cite this article: Alfred Presbitero & Mendiola Teng-Calleja (2017) Employee proactivity in hotels undergoing organizational change and development, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 16:4, 401-421, DOI: 10.1080/15332845.2017.1266873 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2017.1266873

Published online: 01 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 438

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whrh20 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 2017, VOL. 16, NO. 4, 401–421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2017.1266873

Employee proactivity in hotels undergoing organizational change and development

Alfred Presbiteroa and Mendiola Teng-Callejab aDepartment of Management, Deakin Business School, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia; bDepartment of Psychology, Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Drawing from self-regulation and goal-regulation theories, this Employee proactivity; hotel; study focuses on employee proactivity in the context of a hotel leader vision; organizational that is undergoing change and development. Two hundred climate for innovation; twenty eight employees from a hotel undergoing restructuring organization development and change in Australia took part in this study. A survey instrument was developed and the data obtained from the survey were analyzed. Results show that employee proactive envisioning, employee proactive planning, and employee proactive enacting are positively and signiﬁcantly interrelated. In addition, results show that organizational climate for innovation and leader vision are positively and signiﬁcantly related to employee proactive envisioning and serve as situational correlates of employee proactivity. Implications for human resource management, particularly in the hotel industry, are discussed.

Introduction Employees in the hotel industry require soft skills, such as communication skills, self-management skills, leadership skills, among others (Weber, Crawford, Lee, & Dennison, 2013). These soft skills are necessary for them to effectively manage the needs and demands of their clients and customers. These soft skills are also important when the hotel is undergoing substantial organizational change and development. Organizational change and development has been deﬁned as “a set of behavioral science-based theories, values, strategies, and techniques aimed at the planned change of the organizational work setting for the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving organizational performance, through the alteration of organizational members’ on-the-job behaviors” (Porras & Robertson, 1992, p. 723). In the organizational change and development process, employees are seen as change agents, and as such, they should have the capacity to

CONTACT Alfred Presbitero [email protected] Lecturer, Department of Management, Deakin Business School, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, 3125 Melbourne, Australia. *This article has not been published and has not been submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 402 A. PRESBITERO AND M. TENG-CALLEJA strategically manage organizational change at different levels (Barratt-Pugh & Bahn, 2015). Employees through their active participation and involvement can contribute significantly to the success of any change efforts (Greiner, 1967). When employees participate, they tend to be involved and they develop an ownership of the organizational change process (Dunphy & Griffiths, 2002; Emery & Emery, 1993). This ownership then leads to a high level of commitment and engagement allowing employees to persist despite the challenges associated with organization development and change. Openness to change is an employee-level characteristic that contributes to the success of any organizational change initiatives (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004). Open- ness to change suggests receptivity and a welcoming attitude towards change efforts in organizations. Trust is another critical attribute of an employee that is relevant to the organizational change process. Trust allows vulnerability among organizational members which can facilitate the willingness to support whatever course of action is required to reach the change objectives (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Another employee-level attribute that can influence and assist the organizational change process is proactivity. Proactivity is defined as “taking initiative in improving current circumstances; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions” (Crant, 2000, p. 436). Parker, Williams, and Turner (2006) asserted that proactivity, as an individual- level construct, is self-initiated and involves future-oriented actions that aim to change and improve oneself, the situation or the context where one is in. Grant and Ashford (2008) further viewed proactivity as a process that involves anticipat- ing, planning, and striving to change. Drawing on self-regulatory theory, Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, and Hagger-Johnson (2012) elaborated on proactivity propos- ing that proactivity involves the mechanisms of proactive envisioning, proactive planning, and proactive enacting. However, to date, very little is known in terms of the relationship between proactive envisioning and proactive planning (both are viewed to be cognitively activated) and proactive enacting (viewed to be behaviorally manifested). In addition, there is a dearth of empirical investigation focusing on the relationships among proactive processes in the context of hotels undergoing change and development. The purpose of this study was to investigate employee proactivity in the context of hotels undergoing change and development. Organizational change and development is a complex process that requires active participation and engagement of employees. In addition, organizational change and development requires careful planning and implementation strategies for the desired changes to happen. This study looks into employee attributes particularly proactivity as critical in the change process. In doing so, employees with proactive predispositions can be tapped in taking the lead in any organizational change and development initiatives in the hotel industry. In addition, this study looks into situational variables and investigates how they relate to and influence the proactivity of employees. Know- ing these situational variables can lead in setting an organizational climate that is JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 403 conducive and supportive of proactivity among employees in hotels undergoing change and development. Specifically, this study aims to address the following research objectives: 1. To understand the dynamics of proactivity from the perspective of employees in a hotel undergoing organization development and change. 2. To establish the interrelationships among proactive envisioning, proactive planning and proactive enacting of hotel employees. 3. To identify the situational variables such as leader vision and organizational climate for innovation that relate to employee proactivity in the hotel context. 4. To understand the implications of employee proactivity for human resource management in hotels.

Literature review Employee proactivity and organization development and change in hotels Organization development and change in hotels can be challenging. Okumus and Hemmington (1998) found that hotel employees can be resistant to change pre- venting the hotel from continuously improving and developing. There are several reasons why employees become resistant to change, including the uncertainties about the future causing irrational fears (Bovey & Hede, 2001), as well as stress associated with new practices and new ways of doing things (Mulki, Jaramillo, Malholtra, & Locander, 2012). However, hotels need to continuously improve and innovate to keep up with the competition. Hence, proactivity is needed in hotels to improve and change for the better. Proactivity involves taking the initiative to change the status quo which is critical in hotels undergoing substantial change interventions. Change interventions can involve improving or updating the hotel’s organizational structures, processes, or systems and having employees with high levels of proactivity can help achieve all these changes. Several studies have pointed to self-regulation theory as a robust theory to explain proactivity (Brandstatter, Heimbeck, Mazacher, & Frese, 2003; De Vos, De Clippeleer, & Dewilde, 2009; Raabe, Frese, & Beehr, 2007). Self-regulation theory taps into any kind of action that aims to lessen or reduce discrepancies between a perceived aspect of the current self versus the future self (Carver & Scheier, 1998). This theory highlights the process of constantly checking and monitoring one’s action (Carver & Scheier, 2011). Self-regulation theory also asserts that the process of monitoring can bring about the desired behavioral change (Rothman, Baldwin, Hertel, & Fuglestad, 2011). With these assertions, self-regulation theory can provide significant insights into how employee proactivity is viewed in the context of organization development and change. In large-scale organization development and change efforts like in hotels, employees are often times required to change their habits and behaviors, and self-regulation plays a significant role in this process. Self-regulation involves constant monitoring and checking of oneself and 404 A. PRESBITERO AND M. TENG-CALLEJA overriding pre-existing thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to achieve the realization of the desired future self. The constant and relentless inspection of oneself to determine how one achieves incremental changes in his or her behaviors and actions is important for proactivity. Proactivity is a disposition that prompts an individual to take the initiative to change the status quo and for change to happen, constant checking and monitoring has to take place. With high levels of proactivity, an employee can contribute significantly to the overall organizational change by constantly and actively monitoring changes that happen and occur within oneself. The individual change when taken collectively can have a significant result at the organizational level. Another related theory that can explain employee proactivity in the context of organization development and change is goal-regulation theory (Gollwitzer, 1990). The goal-regulation theory suggests that individuals can actively participate in planning for the future and can commit themselves towards the achievement of goals through self-directed engagement in goal generation processes (Gollwitzer & Schaal, 2001). Gollwitzer (1990) identified two main regulatory stages in the goal generation process: the pre-decisional phase and pre-actional phase. The pre-decisional phase involves visualizing and discussing the desired future while pre- actional phase involves preparing for concrete action steps to realize and actualize the desired future. These regulatory stages are also embodied in the proactivity process. Bindl et al. (2012) conceptualized the proactivity process to be going through the stages of proactive envisioning, proactive planning, and proactive enacting. These proactive stages can be argued to be driven by goals. Individuals engage in proactivity because of their goals to change the status quo. Goals can serve as a regulator that can facilitate and enhance an individual’s disposition towards proactivity. In the context of organization development and change, goals are of premium importance. With the foresight of organizational goals that are desirable and beneficial to all, employees can start thinking about how to reach the goals and employee proactive envisioning can be activated.

Employee proactive envisioning and planning Guided by the tenets self-regulation and goal-regulation theories, employee proactive envisioning can be argued to be related to employee proactive planning. Employees who are high in self-regulation (i.e., highly conscious of the discrepancies between the current self and the future self which lead to constant monitoring of one’s actions) are more likely to actively engage in visualizing and exploring all possible scenarios to be able to achieve the desired future. Typically, the visualizing of the future would be manifested in terms of goals that employees would want to achieve. Goals, as mentioned earlier, can prompt employees to be proactive not only in envisioning but also in terms of planning. Employee proactive planning involves constant and active anticipation of all possible action steps, as well as hin- drances, that can bring oneself or the organization to the envisioned goals. JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 405

Employee proactive planning is important to ensure that goals are properly deter- mined, as well as the concrete action plans clearly identiﬁed. Hence, it can be posited that employee proactive envisioning is positively and signiﬁcantly related to employee proactive planning.

Hypothesis 1: Employee proactive envisioning is positively and signiﬁcantly related to employee proactive planning.

Employee proactive planning and enacting Employee proactive planning and enacting could also be argued to be positively and significantly related. Employee proactive planning entails careful identification of concrete actions plans to ensure the achievement and the realization of the envisioned goals. When employees can regulate themselves and have a high need to constantly check their plans vis-a-vis their goals, the likelihood of enacting or exe- cuting a certain behavioral change would be higher. In other words, employees with high levels of proactive planning would also have high levels of proactive enacting. Employee proactive enacting primarily involves active demonstration and manifestation of appropriate actions and behaviors to bring about the envisioned change for oneself or for the organization. Employee proactive enacting is more likely to take place when employees could proactively engage in planning so that the goals set for oneself or one organization could certainly be realized. Hence, it can be posited that employee proactive planning is positively and significantly related to employee proactive enacting.

Hypothesis 2: Employee proactive planning is positively and signiﬁcantly related to employee proactive enacting.

Situational correlates of employee proactivity Organizational climate for innovation Bindl and Parker (2010) asserted that proactivity can be related to situational factors, such as organizational climate. Perceptions of having supportive co-workers relate positively to proactivity at work (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Dutton et al., 1997; Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kant- rowitz, 2001). Kim and Wang (2008) showed that climate of perceived fairness influences those who are more dispositionally proactive to seek feedback from their supervisors. McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, and Turban (2007) likewise found that those who scored high in taking charge at work perceive a strong presence of pro- cedural justice in their organization and have high role breadth self-efficacy beliefs. A recent empirical study show that organizational climate for innovation can influence proactivity particularly proactive envisioning (Montani, Odoardi, & Battis- telli, 2014). While this finding is encouraging, it is not clear theoretically how these two constructs are related. In addition, it is not clear how organizational climate 406 A. PRESBITERO AND M. TENG-CALLEJA for innovation can be related to proactive envisioning, particularly for employees of organizations undergoing development and change. Innovation is critical for the hospitality industry as it pertains to the “intentional introduction and application within a role, group, or organization, of ideas, processes, products, or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization, or wider society” (West & Farr, 1990, p. 9). Given this operationalization of innovation, “organizational climate for innovation” can be viewed as the perception that an organization, such as a hotel, is willing to embrace change and continuously develop new ways or patterns of behaviors. Organizational climate for innovation can also suggest a work environment that is constantly in search of new ways of doing and behaving to achieve new vision or new goals. New visions or new goals can be reg- ulators of motivation (Bandura, 1999) triggering an individual to be proactive particularly in terms of envisioning different scenarios of the future. New goals (proximate as well as distal goals) can influence motivation enabling and prompt- ing an individual to participate actively and work incessantly towards the realization of these goals. In the context of organization development and change, organizational climate for innovation can be argued to relate to employee proactive envisioning. When an organization is viewed to be receptive of organizational changes and puts an emphasis on innovation, this gives a clear signal to employees that imagining and visualizing a better future is desirable. Organizational climate for innovation also prompts employees to be bold and dream of a future that would be favorable and beneficial to all organizational members. Organizational climate for innovation also conveys that the organization is putting premium on new ideas and that employees should not be threatened to put forward a vision of the future no matter how ambitious or grand it may be. With these, it can be posited that organizational climate for innovation is positively and significantly related to employee proactive envisioning in the hotel context.

Hypothesis 3: Organizational climate for innovation is positively and signiﬁcantly related to employee proactive envisioning in the hotel context.

Leader vision Leadership is important in any organization, including hotels. Leadership has been identified as a significant factor related particularly to organization development and change. The style of leadership is found to help shape and create norms in an organization (Klein, Wallis, & Cooke, 2013), which is crucial during times of organizational change. Leader vision is another factor that relates to organization development and change. Leader vision is defined as the expression of an idealized picture of the future based around organizational values (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). This vision of the leader is considered as a catalyst in creating change in any organization (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999), which can also serve as a source of motivation that prompts individuals to action and moves them toward changing their JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 407 behaviors and actions (Berson, Shamir, Avolio, & Popper, 2001; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Given the significance of leader vision in moving individuals and in bringing about change, leader vision is considered as a key component of effective leadership (Weber, 1968). In terms of activating proactivity, Griffin, Parker, and Mason (2010) found that leader vision together with high levels of role breadth self-efficacy increased the adaptive and proactive performance of the employees. Leader vision can drive collective goal-setting in various organizational contexts including the hotel and hospitality industries. Bandura (1991) asserts that most of the human endeavors are directed towards the attainment of group goals and con- certed effort is required from the collective to set goals, plan for them, and work towards their enactment. Goal setting at the collective or group level is considered to be a complex cognitive process. The complex nature of group goal setting is also seen to impact the quality of socio-cognitive functioning within the group or organization. Similarly, goal-regulation suggests that the role of an overarching and superordinate goal which is driven by the leader vision allows organizational members to be involved in goal-generation mechanisms and processes (Gollwitzer, 1990). In the context of organization development and change, leader vision is critical. Leader vision when articulated and conveyed appropriately to employees can relate and yield high levels of employee proactive envisioning. When a leader has a clear vision of where to bring the organization and informs the entire organization accordingly about this vision, employees tend to develop an understanding and appreciation of the future. This understanding and appreciation of the future can be translated into the generation of individual vision and how each one can contribute to the overall vision articulated by the leader. With these, it can be posited that leader vision is positively and significantly related to employee proactive envisioning in the hotel context.

Hypothesis 4: Leader vision is positively and signiﬁcantly related to employee proactive envisioning in the hotel context.

Figure 1 below illustrates the research framework for this study wherein employee proactivity particularly envisioning, planning and enacting are investigated in relation to organizational climate of innovation and leader vision.

Methodology Procedures A survey instrument was developed to test the hypotheses in this study. A pilot testing was initially conducted to test the validity and reliability of the items included in the survey. Graduate students in one university in Australia participated in the pilot testing. After the pilot testing which yielded reliable and valid results, the researchers approached the head of a human resource department (HRD) of a hotel in Australia that underwent organizational change and development. A meeting was held to explain the study and to seek approval to conduct the study. After the consent was 408 A. PRESBITERO AND M. TENG-CALLEJA

Figure 1. Research framework. obtained, sampling strategies were laid out and key informants in the HRD of the hotel were identified. The company was assured of confidentiality and anonymity in the use of data to protect the identity of the organization. The hotel had approximately 1,500 employees at the time of data collection. The hotel had a new chief executive office, and a new set of vision and goals were intro- duced to the organization. As part of these efforts, major changes were imple- mented, including restructuring of the organization to achieve greater efficiency and smoother workflow in hotel operations. In addition, significant changes were done in terms of improving physical facilities and upgrading information and tech- nology infrastructure.

Participants Three hundred hotel employees were identified as potential participants in this study. These employees were randomly identified from across functions and departments in the hotel. They were told that participation in this study was volun- tary and they could opt-out any time. Moreover, they were told that all data col- lected in this study would be de-identified and would remain confidential and anonymous. An online survey was set-up using qualtrics and sent to the e-mail addresses of respondents with the help of the head of HRD. The online survey was administered for 2 weeks with constant reminders.

Measures The survey had ﬁve main sections asking the respondents to assess their level of employee proactive envisioning, employee proactive planning, and employee proactive enacting, as well as the organization’s climate for innovation and leader vision.

Employee proactive envisioning A three-item proactive envisioning scale adapted from Bindl et al. (2012) was used in the study. Slight modifications were made to reflect the organization JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 409 development and change context in the items. Items include “When involved in organizational change, I actively think about the future and how I can contribute to the fulfillment of goals,”“… I actively think about the future and how it would look like,” and “… I actively think about long-term goals and what I can do to help achieve those goals.” Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree); 2 (Disagree); 3 (Neutral); 4 (Agree); and 5 (Strongly Agree).

Employee proactive planning A three-item proactive planning scale adapted from Bindl et al. (2012) was used in the study. Slight modiﬁcations were also made. Items include “When involved in organizational change, I actively go through different scenarios in my head on how to best bring about the change,”“… I actively think about the situation from different angles before deciding how to act out,” and “… I actively get myself into the right mood before trying to make a change or put forward a suggestion.” Respond- ents were asked to indicate their level of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (Strongly disagree); 2 (Disagree); 3 (Neutral); 4 (Agree); and 5 (Strongly Agree).

Employee proactive enacting A three-item proactive enacting scale adapted from Grifﬁnetal.(2007)wasusedinthe study. Slight changes were also made. Items include “When involved in organizational change, I actively take actions to improve the way I do my core tasks,”“… I actively initiate and take the lead in improving the way I do my core tasks,” and “… I actively implement plans to better improve the way I do my core tasks.” Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (Strongly Dis- agree); 2 (Disagree); 3 (Neutral); 4 (Agree); and 5 (Strongly Agree).

Organizational climate for innovation A three-item scale was used to measure organizational climate for innovation. This scale was adapted from Siegel and Kaemmerer (1978). Sample items include “Our organization can be described as open and ﬂexible in adapting to change,” and “People in this organization are always searching for fresh, new ways of looking at problems.” Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree); 2 (Disagree); 3 (Neutral); 4 (Agree); and 5 (Strongly Agree).

Leader vision A three-item scale was used to measure leader vision. This scale was adapted from House (1998). Sample items include “Our leader expresses a clear direction for the future of our organization” and “Our leader creates an exciting and attractive image of where the organization is going.” Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree); 2 (Dis- agree); 3 (Neutral); 4 (Agree); and 5 (Strongly Agree) 410 A. PRESBITERO AND M. TENG-CALLEJA

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and intercorrelations.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

Proactive envisioning 4.12 0.54 (.88) Proactive planning 4.02 0.48 .76ÃÃ (.81) Proactive enacting 4.05 0.46 .67Ã .68ÃÃ (.75) Climate for innovation 3.95 0.52 .68ÃÃ .62ÃÃ .23Ã (.70) Leader vision 4.01 0.62 .56ÃÃ .52Ã .49ÃÃ .61ÃÃ (.78)

Notes. Reliabilities are shown along the diagonal in parentheses. N D 228. Ãp < .05 level; ÃÃp < .01 level.

Results The online survey yielded a total of 242 submitted online surveys (80% response rate). A total of 228 survey responses were utilized for data analysis after removing data with high levels of missing values. Responses were from a variety of functional areas, such as front desk (23%), housekeeping (18%), maintenance (15%), food and beverage (19%), and general administration (25%). Further, 60% of the respondents were females and 40% were males. Almost half (45%) were below 31 years old, 38% were 32 to 47 years old, and the rest (17%) were 48 years old and older. Seventy percent were full-time/monthly paid employees while the remaining (30%) were part-time/hourly paid employees. In terms of rank, 35% were managers and the rest (65%) were support and administrative staff. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to ascertain the convergent and discriminant validities of the factors being investigated in this study. Results show that the model fit indices were acceptable (CFI D 0.98; SRMR D 0.05) for a five-factor model. Both CFI and SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) exceeded the recommended value of greater than 0.96 and less than 0.1 (Bentler, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999) signifying the distinctiveness of the five factors in this study (employee proactive envisioning, employee proactive planning, employee proactive enacting, organizational climate for innovation, and leader vision). All the 15 items loaded significantly (p < .001) onto theoretically relevant factors under investigation in this study. Means, standard deviations, internal reliabilities, and intercorrelations among study variables are reported in Table 1. All measures show high internal reliabilities with coefficient alphas ranging from 0.70 to 0.88. The patterns of correlations were consistent with the hypothesized relationships. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was then conducted using AMOS. Standard- ized path coefficients and the significance of each path are shown in Figure 2.The results of the model generally show that it is very consistent with the data (x2 D 20.10, p < .10; CFI D 0.97; SRMR D 0.06). The CFI and SRMR both exceeded the recommended cut-off points. The covariances were all significant at a D 0.05.

Hypotheses 1 and 2 It was hypothesized that there would be positive relationships among proactive mechanisms of employee proactive envisioning, employee proactive planning, and JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 411

Figure 2. SEM analysis results. Note. Ãp < .05 level; ÃÃp < .01 level. employee proactive enacting. The result shows that proactive envisioning is positively and significantly related to proactive planning (b D 0.23, p < .05) demonstrating support to Hypothesis 1. This result indicates that when proactive envisioning is high among employees then proactive planning would also be high. In other words, when employees are exhibiting high levels of initiative to visualize the future then employees would also demonstrate high levels of planning and active identification of all possible actions to reach such visions of the future. The result also shows that proactive planning is positively and significantly related to proactive enacting (b D 0.24, p < .05) suggesting support to Hypothesis 2. This indicates that when proactive planning is high among employees then proactive enacting would also be high. On the contrary, when employees exhibit low levels of active anticipation and identification of all possible action steps then employees would also manifest low level of proactive enacting which means that they would not act out actively to work on the plans that have been identified.

Hypotheses 3 and 4 In terms of the situational correlates, it was hypothesized that there would be positive relationships between situational factors (i.e., organizational climate for innovation and leader vision) and proactive envisioning. The result of the analysis shows that organizational climate for innovation is positively and significantly related to proactive envisioning (b D 0.28, p < .05) demonstrating support to Hypothesis 3. This indicates that when there is a high level of organizational climate for innovation (i.e., the organization is perceived to have mechanisms that support innovation) then there would be a high level of proactive envisioning among employees. Organizational climate for innovation conveys that an organization puts high premium on innovative and creative ideas and such a working environment could positively and significantly relates to employees demonstrating high levels of proactive envisioning. Similarly, the result shows that leader vision is positively and significantly related to proactive envisioning (b D 0.13, p < .05) demonstrating support to Hypothesis 4. This result indicates that when there is a high level of leader vision 412 A. PRESBITERO AND M. TENG-CALLEJA in an organization (i.e., leaders have the capability to foresee future opportunities) then there would be a high level of proactive envisioning among employees. On the other hand, when there is an absence of leader vision (i.e., leaders do not have the capability to see future opportunities) then there would be low level of proactive envisioning among employees as well. The results of the SEM analysis are shown in Figure 2.

Discussion Change and development in organizations, such as hotels, can be a complex process that requires active involvement and participation of employees. Employee proactivity is an individual-level attribute that needs to be tapped to ensure that the change objectives are met. Employee proactivity means taking the initiative to change the present state or the status quo.

Interrelationships among employee proactive processes This study took an in-depth look into proactivity of hotel employees by investigating the covert processes that precede the enactment of proactivity in the change process. Research works have focused mainly on the overt process of proactivity (i.e., proactive enacting) and very little is known on the processes that are not as observable and cognitively activated like proactive envisioning and proactive planning. These two processes that were drawn from the self-regulation and goal- regulation theories have immense influence on the enactment of proactivity of employees particularly in hotels undergoing change and development. The finding in this study showing the inter-correlations and significant relationships among employee proactive envisioning, employee proactive planning, and employee proactive enacting is noteworthy as this seems to be the only study to date that empiri- cally investigated the relationships among these variables. The empirical findings in this study confirm previous conceptualizations of the interrelationships among employee proactive envisioning, employee proactive planning, and employee proactive enacting (e.g., Bindl et al., 2012) and highlight that employee proactive enacting, which is behaviorally-oriented, can be related to cognitive mechanisms of employee proactive envisioning and employee proactive planning. These processes when taken into careful consideration can help facilitate and fulfill any change-related objectives of an organization, including hotels. Hotel employees possessing these characteristics are in a better position to challenge the status quo and to contribute significantly towards the achievement of the new goals set by the organization. In addition, hotel employees who are predisposed to proactivity can regulate themselves and can make their actions consistent with what is required to achieve the organizational goals and objectives. However, employee proactive enacting needs to go through the processes of employee proactive envisioning and employee proactive planning. These two mechanisms of proactivity, which are heavily cognitively-driven, have to be triggered and activated. Employee proactive JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 413 envisioning allows an organizational member to take the initiative in visualizing and exploring all possible scenarios to reach the desired future. Once there’s a clear vision of what the future would look like, employee proactive planning can then take place. Employee proactive planning, meanwhile, allows an employee to constantly anticipate all possible action steps, as well as the challenges that may be involved in bringing about and realizing the envisioned goals of the organization. When plans have been actively laid out then the actual implementation could com- mence. Activating these proactive mechanisms among employees is critical particularly in ensuring successful organizational change and development.

Organizational climate for innovation This study also investigated the situational factors that relate to employee proactivity. This study looks specifically into the role of organizational climate for innovation in influencing proactivity particularly employee proactive envisioning. As a situational factor, organizational climate for innovation prompts and provokes perceptions and reactions of organizational members which then lead to proactivity. A hotel that is perceived by employees to have structures and practices that support and encourage innovation would most likely be related and yield to high levels of proactive envisioning among its members. Innovation is an intentional process of development and application of new ideas, insights, processes, or products, and organizations espousing innovation and new ways of doing things can activate among its members the propensity to think out of the box and think through the desired future, hence, activating proactive envisioning among employees. Employee proactive envisioning is critical in the change process as it provides a picture of the desired future which generates and drives high levels of motivation among employees to persevere and take charge of the change process. The results in this study concurs with previous studies highlighting the relationship between overall perception towards the organization vis-a-vis overall employee proactivity (e.g., Bindl & Parker, 2010). The results also confirm the significant relationship specifically between organizational climate for innovation and levels of proactivity among employees (e.g., Baer & Frese, 2003; Montani, Odoardi, & Battistelli, 2014).

Leader vision Leader vision is another situational factor explored in this study. Leader vision is an expression of the leader’s idealized picture of the future that is anchored and deeply rooted into the organizational values and priorities. In this study, support was found for the role of leader vision as a situational factor relating significantly to employee proactive envisioning. Leader vision is an important factor that helps organizational members visualize and imagine what the future would be like for their organization. Leader vision serves as a catalyst that allows employees to put their acts together and participate actively towards the achievement of the vision articulated by the leader. Leader vision may also drive and motivate employees to 414 A. PRESBITERO AND M. TENG-CALLEJA act collectively and help the organization achieve the desired goals and objectives. Leader vision can also inspire and move organizational members towards the achievement of change objectives by tapping into their employee proactive envisioning. Employee proactive envisioning involves taking the initiative to visualize and explore all possible scenarios and when leaders set an example, by demonstrating that they themselves have a clear and solid vision of the future, employees would be empowered to actively engage in visualizing and dreaming for the best possible future for the organization. Leader vision also relates to envisioning among employees allowing them to see for themselves a vision and their individual roles in the fulfillment of such a vision. These findings validate earlier studies demonstrating the direct link between vision of organizational leaders and proactivity among employees (e.g., Griffin et al., 2010). Findings also concur with previous studies showing the importance of leader vision as a catalyst for change (e.g., Awamleh & Gardner, 1999) which can prompt organization members to change their behaviors (Berson, et al., 2001) and become more bold and proactive particularly in situations of organizational change and development.

Conclusion and implications This study has several practical implications particularly for hotels undergoing change and development. Instituting organization development and change initiatives in hotels can be challenging and can often times bring about the feeling of instability and uncertainty. Some employees can be aversive to change while others can easily embrace change and demonstrate proactive behaviors. Following are some practical suggestions on how to harness and leverage on employee proactivity in service organizations, such as in hotels.

Recognize and tap the potential of proactive employees Employees with high levels of proactivity need to be tapped in taking lead roles in the change process. Supervisors, managers, or department heads could be asked to identify staff members who exhibit high levels of proactivity. For example, in the housekeeping department, the head of housekeeping department could identify and pinpoint staff members who are proactively engaging and participating in the hotel’s programs and they could be given the chance to take part, for instance, in the steering committee that is driving and leading the changes and development in the hotel. These employees would contribute signiﬁcantly in any change initiatives as they are early adapters who can demonstrate that change is possible and achiev- able. They could also regulate themselves including the teams that they are leading or a part of to check constantly as to whether they are on track or getting derailed in achieving the goals set for each individuals, teams, and the entire organization. In the process, they can also be given opportunities to suggest tools and processes for task and goal-achievement monitoring and evaluation, as well as recommended JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 415 strategies to communicate change-related activities and projects that will engage other employees.

Encourage employee proactivity In terms of implications for human resource management, proactivity should be encouraged and should be regarded positively in hotels. Constant communication has to be done, for example, by the HRD or by the members of the top management team to emphasize the importance of employee proactivity in achieving the goals of the hotel. In every employee meeting or corporate event, there should be a constant reminder or a conversation that revolves around proactivity and how it is encouraged. Especially in the very dynamic hotel industry, leaders may consider proactivity as a core value so that everyone in the organization will understand and acknowledge the contribution of these set of attributes and behaviors in bringing about organizational change. Proactivity may also be part of learning and development programs for employees.

Reward employee proactivity Proactivity can also be encouraged by providing some form of incentives to hotel employees who demonstrate proactive behaviors. This could be in the form of monetary rewards for initiative taking. For example, when an employee in the housekeeping section suggested an innovative idea on how to effectively and efﬁ- ciently manage the housekeeping tasks then accompanying rewards have to be given. This is to promote and highlight that proactivity is valued in the organization. Without any incentives or rewards, it would be hard for employees to learn a new skill or a new way of engaging with the organization. In other words, proactivity should be recognized and rewarded so that those employees who are exhibiting high levels of proactivity would be more motivated and can serve as examples to other employees in the organization.

Recruit and select employees high in proactivity Proactivity can also be included as one of the desirable traits and attributes to look for in applicants wanting to join an organization that needs to constantly reinvent itself to keep up with competition, market demands, and trends, such as in the hotel industry. Having this attribute for newly-hired employees can ensure that they can embrace and not become aversive to the changes that may come their way in their new organization. Leveraging and building on this individual-level attribute can signiﬁcantly help the organization achieve its goals and objectives.

Create a supportive work environment Other than having employees with high levels of proactivity, a work climate that is conducive and supportive of organizational innovation should also be developed 416 A. PRESBITERO AND M. TENG-CALLEJA as this can signiﬁcantly relate to proactivity of organizational members as shown in this study. This can be done by having, for example, the HRD or the top management team strongly expressing and articulating that innovation and new ways of doing things (e.g., developing a new guest check-in system or improving a new housekeeping system) are highly valued, desired, and wanted in the organization if not deliberately including proactivity as a core value. A work environment that is open to new ideas, processes, and procedures has to be created. This can also be developed by having feedback systems in hotels, such as “suggestion boxes,” for hotel employees to air out their ideas in a non-confronting and non-threatening manner. Other mechanisms could be organizing activities, such as “innovation lab- oratories or workshops,” where employees with innovative suggestions can discuss their ideas freely with the other employees in the hotel. Another possible way is by hiring supervisors and managers who are freely accepting of ideas from their subordinates. By having supervisors and managers who are open and regard initiative taking positively, employees wouldn’t be threatened to speak out no matter how bizarre or unusual their suggestions might be. Another possibility is for supervisors and managers to allot time for process/systems improvement discussions during team meetings and encourage team members to work on possible solutions to problems encountered by the work team.

Ensure clarity and articulation of leader vision New goals have to be constantly generated and plans on how each employee can contribute towards the achievement of this new goal have to be developed. Knowing how the future would look like can help employees as they regulate their actions and behaviors. Self-regulation can be very helpful in times of organizational change as this allows an employee to constantly and relentlessly inspect oneself in relation to how he achieves his goals vis-a-vis the goals of the organization. Having an organization that is perceived to be open to changes and actively looking for ways to improve its operations and processes can provide a good indication of innovation and can trigger proactivity among the employees. Leader vision also plays a critical role as it is significantly related to proactivity of employees. When leaders can articu- late the vision clearly to the organizational members, proactivity can be activated. Leader vision should be specific and should paint a picture of a desirable future. Leader vision should be tangible and concrete. For example, a leader should not only envision to be the best hotel or the preferred hotel of choice among customers. There has to be clarity on what it means to be the best hotel or the preferred hotel of choice among the customers. Would it be the best in terms of infrastructure and amenities? Would it be the best in terms of service quality? There has to be a clear vision coming from the leaders. Without clarity on where the organization is going or what the organization wants to achieve, proactivity may not be triggered among organizational members. Leader vision can also drive collective goal-setting which is relevant in hotels undergoing change. The leader is not alone in achieving the JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 417 goals for the organization and this has to be constantly communicated to the hotel employees. Top management teams of hotels have to be more aggressive in articulating how their visions for the hotel could impact those who are at the bottom of the organizational ladder. They have to make the connections as to how the visions and the fulfillment of those visions could have significant impact on them regardless of whether they are doing housekeeping chores or attending to the queries of the customers on a day-to-day basis. The leaders have to make the employees realize that they have a role to play and that they are important parts of the organization and without them and their proactive participation and engagement it would be impossible to reach the goals and objectives of the organization.

Measure outcomes of employee proactivity Finally, it is critical to measure the outcomes of employee proactivity, otherwise, the abovementioned efforts (i.e., selecting, rewarding, developing, and creating an environment supportive of employee proactivity) would be futile. Specifically, outcomes, such as employee satisfaction, can be measured. Employee satisfaction is the sense of fulfillment in one’s job or organization. When employees are given the chance to freely engage and actively participate in the change process then high levels of satisfaction towards the organization could be expected. The high levels of satisfaction could then be translated to high levels of individual performance (Judge, Thoreson, Bono, & Pat- ton, 2001) which is critical particularly for service industries such as in hotels. Another outcome of employee proactivity that can be measured is employee engagement. Employee engagement, or the strong sense of absorption and dedication towards one’s organization, has been shown to increase as a function of changes in HR practices, such as rewards system and training and development (Presbitero, forthcoming). Similarly, when employees are given the chance to actively involve themselves in change initiatives and own the change process, the likelihood of employees being absorbed and com- mitting to the task would be higher. When employees are engaged, they are more productive and would exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors, such as staying and sticking with the organization even during bad times. Customer satisfaction is another outcome of employee proactivity that can be measured. Customer satisfaction is critical in service industries, such as in hotels. When employees are proactive and constantly seeking for ways to fulfill the needs of the customers, then satisfaction among them can be guaranteed. Lastly, financial results should also be measured. Financial results are the ultimate manifestations that employee proactivity is bringing about significant impact to an organization. Financial results can be expected when employees constantly and proactively find new ways to innovate and improve services, generating new customers and retaining the current ones.

Limitations and future research While the findings of this study are encouraging, there are some limitations which can potentially be addressed in future research. The study did not measure the 418 A. PRESBITERO AND M. TENG-CALLEJA nature and extent of organization development and change in the hotel. Knowing these information can guide future research in terms of establishing the relationship between the kind and nature of change and the intensity of proactivity required among hotel employees. The study also relied on self-evaluation of proactivity. Future research can look into investigating proactivity from the perspective of other organizational members, such as supervisors or peers. Other ways to measure proactivity other than through survey can also be explored in the future, such as using situational judgment tests or critical incident reports. The study also did not look and investigate change-related outcomes. In future studies, outcomes of the change process can be investigated. These studies can look into the moderating role of proactivity and determine how proactivity can enhance or facilitate the achievement of change-related outcomes. The study also focused on the perception towards innovation at the organizational level. It may be interesting to further investigate how climate for innovation at different levels could influence proactive envisioning. For example, it may be relevant to investigate climate for innovation at the team level and assess how it influences proactive envisioning of the team members. In a similar manner, it would also be interesting to investigate how a supervisor’s disposition towards change and innovation would provoke proactive envisioning among subordinates. In relation to leader vision, it is important to investigate further the kind of leader vision that would be significant especially for employee proactive envisioning. This may require looking into different types and nature of leader vision and see the relationships with proactivity. In addition, it would also be interesting to look into other variables that may interact with leader vision in bringing about proactive envisioning. This can include clarity of leader vision, effectiveness in articulating leader vision, channels used in communicating leader vision, among others. Overall, this study offers some interesting and significant insights particularly on the mechanisms of employee proactivity in the context of a hotel that underwent substantial organizational change and development. However, future research needs to be done in order to further unpack and ascertain the role of employee proactivity in relation to organization development and change processes in the hotel and hospitality industry.

References

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43,23–57. Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345–373. Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations and ﬁrm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68. JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 419

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 1, 154–196. Barratt-Pugh, L., & Bahn, S. (2015). HR strategy during culture change: Building change agency. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(06), 741–754. DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2014.95 Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, and context. Leadership Quarterly, 12,53–73. Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 134–150. Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 372–382. Brandstatter, V., Heimbeck, D., Malzacher, J. T., & Frese, M. (2003). Goals need implementation intention: The model of action phases tested in the applied setting of continuing education. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12,37–59. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2011). Self-regulation of action and affect. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumesiter (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory and applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Chawla, A., & Kelloway, E. K. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. Leader- ship & Organization Development Journal, 25(6), 485–498. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462. DeVos,A.,DeClippeleer,I.,&Dewilde,T.(2009).Proactivecareerbehaviorsandcareer success during early career. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 761–777. Dunphy, D., & Grifﬁths, A. (2002). Corporate strategic change. In M. Warner (Ed.), Interna- tional encyclopedia of business and management (2nd ed.). London, UK: Thomson Learning. Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. (1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Man- agement Journal, 18, 407–425. Emery, F., & Emery, M. (1993). Participative design at the organizational level. In Emery, M. (Ed.), Participative design for participative democracy (2nd ed.). Center for Continuing Edu- cation, Australian National University. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Gollwitzer, P., & B. Schall. (2001). How goals and plans affect action. In J. Collis and S. E. Mes- sick (Eds.), Intelligence and Personality: Bridging the Gap in Theory and Measurement (139–161). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organi- zational Behavior, 28,3–34. Greiner, L. (1967). Patterns of organizational design change. Harvard Business Review, 45, 119–130. 420 A. PRESBITERO AND M. TENG-CALLEJA

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 174–182. House, R. J. (1998). Appendix: Measures and assessments for the charismatic leadership approach: Scales, latent constructs, loadings, Cronbach alphas, interclass correlations. In F. Danserau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches contemporary and alternative (Vol. 24, pp. 23–30). London, UK: JAI Press. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisci- plinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 376–407. Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment: A personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 86, 837–855. Klein, A. S., Wallis, J., & Cooke, R. A. (2013). The impact of leadership styles on organizational culture and firm effectiveness: An empirical study. Journal of Management & Organization, 19(3), 241–254. Kim, T. Y., & Wang, J. (2008). Proactive personality and newcomer feedback seeking: The moderating roles of supervisor feedback and organizational justice. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.), Current Topics in Management (Vol. 13, pp. 91–108). London, UK: Transaction Publishers. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality and efficacy relate to help- ing and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1200–1211. Montani, F., Odoardi, C., & Battistelli, A. (2014). Individual and contextual determinants of innovative work behaviour: Proactive goal generation matters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 645–670. doi:10.111/joop.12066 Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., Malholtra, S., & Locander, W. B. (2012). Reluctant employees and felt stress: The moderating impact of manager decisiveness. Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 77–83. Okumus, F., & Hemmington, N. (1998). Barriers and resistance to change in hotel firms: An investigation at unit level. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(7), 283–288. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652. Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice and research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Presbitero, A. (2017). How changes in human resource management practices influence employee engagement? A longitudinal study in a hotel chain in the Philippines. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 16(1), 56–70. Raabe, B., Frese, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2007). Action regulation theory and career self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 297–311. Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354. JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 421

Rothman, A. J., Baldwin, A. S., Hertel, A. W., & Fuglestad, P. T. (2011). Self-regulation and behavior change: Disentangling behavioral initiation and behavioral maintainance. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumesiter (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory and applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization science, 4(4), 577–594. Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 553–562. Weber, M. (1968). On charisma and institution building. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Weber, M. R., Crawford, A., Lee, J., & Dennison, D. (2013). An exploratory analysis of soft skill competencies needed for the hospitality industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(4), 313–332. West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3–13). Chichester, UK: Wiley.