Chiang 2005

This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]
On: 30 December 2014, At: 06:35

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Journal of Human Resources in

Hospitality & Tourism
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20
The Impact of Employee

Training on Job Satisfaction
and Intention to Stay in the
Hotel Industry
a b
Chun-Fang Chiang , Ki-Joon Back PhD & Deborah
b
D. Canter PhD, RD, LD
a
Hotel, Restaurant, Institution Management and
Dietetics, Kansas State University , Manhattan, KS,
66506, USA
b
HRIMD , Kansas State University , Manhattan, KS,
66506, USA
Published online: 25 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Chun-Fang Chiang , Ki-Joon Back PhD & Deborah D. Canter PhD,
RD, LD (2005) The Impact of Employee Training on Job Satisfaction and Intention to
Stay in the Hotel Industry, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 4:2,
99-118, DOI: 10.1300/J171v04n02_06
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J171v04n02_06
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 06:35 30 December 2014
The Impact
of Employee Training
on Job Satisfaction
and Intention to Stay
in the Hotel Industry
Chun-Fang Chiang
Ki-Joon Back
Deborah D. Canter
ABSTRACT. Training has been found to link with improving job satisfac-
tion and employee intention to stay. The purposes of this research were to
investigate the expectations and perceptions of training quality between ho-
tel managers and employees, and to suggest implications for improving
training quality and increasing training satisfaction, job satisfaction, and in-
tention to stay among employees in the hotel industry. The conceptual
model of this study was developed based on SERVQUAL and the Service-
Profit Chain model. T-test showed that employees perceived low training
quality, which suggested employees were not satisfied with training quality
and that training quality needed improvement. Results of regression analy-
sis showed that training was positively related to training satisfaction and
Chun-Fang Chiang, is a PhD candidate, Hotel, Restaurant, Institution Management,

and Dietetics at Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506 (E-mail: chiang@
humec.ksu.edu).
Ki-Joon Back, PhD, is Assistant Professor of HRIMD at Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS 66506 (E-mail: back@humec.ksu.edu).
Deborah D. Canter, PhD, RD, LD, is Professor and Department Head of HRIMD at
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506 (E-mail: canter@humec.ksu.edu).
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 4(2) 2005
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JHRHT
2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J171v04n02_06 99
100 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM
job satisfaction. Job satisfaction led positively to intention to stay. The indi-
rect effect of training quality on intention to stay was mediated by job satis-
faction. This study suggests more understanding of the importance of
training quality and its consequences, and to pay more attention to em-
ployee training. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document
Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.
com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2005 by The Haworth Press,
Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Employee training, training quality, job satisfaction, in-

tention to stay, hotel
INTRODUCTION
Training has been considered as a path to quality customer service, consis-

tency in job performance and satisfaction, as well as commitment to the orga-
nization (Wesley & Skip, 1999). Generally researchers accept that training
increases employees job satisfaction and length of employment (Conrade &
Woods, 1994; Wesley & Skip, 1999). Training also is an important component
of internal service quality (Burke, 1995; Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser, &
Schlesinger, 1994). Internal service quality in the working environment con-
tributes greatly to employee satisfaction. High employee satisfaction is found
to be linked closely to high employee retention rates (Hallowell, Schlesinger, &
Zornitsky, 1994). Thus, the positive relationships among training, job satis-
faction and intention to stay have been established in general management dis-
cipline (Conrade & Woods, 1994; Heskett et al., 1994; Wesley & Skip, 1999).
Many hotels are well aware of the need for training, and some have taken steps
to improve the quality of their training programs. However, training in the ho-
tel industry is always in need of updating and improvement. Hotel managers
need to know what employees want or expect, and how the hotels training
program is perceived in order to improve the training program. This study at-
tempted to gain insights into employees expectations and perceptions about
training quality, and compare these findings to management perceptions. The
objectives were to investigate any discrepancies between the views of these
two groups and to explore significant relationships among training, employee
satisfaction and intention to stay. Little empirical research has been conducted
on the evaluation of training quality. This lack of research, along with the at-
tention given to the concept of training quality in the hotel industry, was the
impetus for this study.
Chiang, Back, and Canter 101
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Training has been linked to improve self-esteem, reduce turnover, better prod-
uct and service consistency, higher guest satisfaction, reduce business costs, the
use of new technology, greater ability to meet the needs of a target market, im-
prove attitude, more teamwork, greater job satisfaction, and greater organizational
commitment (Wesley & Skip, 1999). A training plan includes determination of
the training site, trainer, training objectives (what is to be learned), instructional
methods, training tools and an evaluation strategy (Tanke, 1990). Training strate-
gies used to improve training include using written job descriptions, employing
skilled trainers, using training manuals and videos as support tools, combining
hands-on training in addition to traditional classroom training and providing em-
ployee feedback through evaluations.
A review of generic business and hospitality articles on training and other re-
sources reveals that experts perceive a strong correlation between training and
many other factors including increased employee job satisfaction and the length
of employment (Conrade & Woods, 1994; Marvin, 1994; Wesley & Skip, 1999).
Training can be viewed as the service provided by the hotel for its internal cus-
tomerstheir employees (Lovelock, 1989). The Service-Profit chain, developed
by Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser and Schlesinger (1994), calibrates the impact
of employee satisfaction, loyalty, and productivity on the value of products and
services delivered. Managers thus can build customer satisfaction and loyalty, and
assess the corresponding impact on profitability and growth. The Service-Profit
chain shows relationships between profitability, customer loyalty, and employee
satisfaction, loyalty, and productivity. Profit and growth are stimulated primarily
by customer loyalty. Loyalty is a direct result of customer satisfaction. Satisfac-
tion is largely influenced by the value of services provided to customers. Value is
created by satisfied, loyal, and productive employees. Employee satisfaction, in
turn, results primarily from high-quality support services and policies that enable
employees to deliver results to customers. The Service-Profit chain points out that
high employee retention is found to be linked closely to high employee satisfac-
tion. Internal quality of a working environment contributes most to employee sat-
isfaction. Training is an important component of internal quality service (Burke,
1995; Hallowell et al., 1994). The positive relationship among training, job satis-
faction and intention to stay has been established (Conrade & Woods, 1994;
Heskett et al., 1994; Wesley & Skip, 1999).
This study focused on employees perception of training quality in the hotel
industry. Perceived service quality is believed to be an elusive and abstract con-
struct. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry (1988) defined perceived quality of a
construct as the gap or difference between perceptions and expectations. Per-
ceptions are defined as judgments of the service organizations performance.
Expectations are desired performance levels, which reflect an attributes im-

portance to a person. Parasuraman et al., (1988) developed the SERVQUAL
Scale, twenty- two statements developed to measure service quality along five
dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and tangibles.

Parasuraman et al., (1988) proposed a model which helps analyze the possible
sources of quality problems through the identification of five discrepancies
between various elements of the basic structure, termed as the quality gaps.
The central focus of the gaps model is the customer gap, the difference be-
tween customer expectations and perceptions. The SERVQUAL concept has
been used extensively cited in the literature, and applied in the hospitality in-
dustry (Bojanic & Rosen, 1994; Getty & Thompson, 1994; Qu & Tsang, 1998;
Saleh & Ryan, 1991). Carmen (1990) found the existence of dimensions in
SERVQUAL and supported the reliability and validity of the measure. In addition,
separate measures of expectations and perceptions allows better understanding
of the dynamics of assessment of service quality over time and provides more ac-
curate diagnostics for improving service shortfalls (Parasuraman et al., 1993).
Although a substantial amount of literature has been written about training,
job satisfaction and turnover in the hotel industry, there has been relatively little
discussion of the relationship between the constructs of training quality and
level of employee satisfaction. Likewise, there has there been no assessment of
the impacts of training quality on subsequent behavioremployee intentions to
stay or leave the job. Service quality and satisfaction are widely recognized as
key influences in the formation of intentions (Taylor & Baker, 1994). Simply
stated, perceived service quality is a form of attitude, a long-term overall evalua-
tion, whereas satisfaction is a transaction-specific measure (Parasuraman et al.,
1988). Many researchers examined the causal order of the relationship between
service quality and satisfaction, and the impact of service quality and satisfac-
tion on behavior intentions (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Cronin & Taylor, 1992;
Taylor & Baker, 1994). Overall satisfaction appears to be a mediator between
service quality and behavioral intention (Taylor & Baker, 1994; Woodside, Frey, &
Daly, 1989). Cronin and Taylor (1992) reported that service quality is an ante-
cedent of satisfaction. Satisfaction has a significant effect on intentions, while
service quality has less effect on intentions than does satisfaction.
METHODOLOGY
Research Model
A survey was designed to elicit the expectations and perceptions about

training from both management and employees. Perspective analysis of re-
sults determined if gaps existed between expectations and perceptions. Figure 1

presents the training quality gaps as following:
Gap 1. The gap between management perceptions of employee expecta-

tions and employee expectations of training program quality.
Gap 2. The gap between employee expectations and employee percep-

tions of the training quality.
Gap 3. The gap between management perceptions of the training quality

and employee perceptions of the training quality.
A research model, Figure 2, was developed to examine the first three links
(internal service quality, employee satisfaction and employee retention) in the
Service-Profit chain. In particular, this study focused on measuring training
quality, adopted from the SERVQUAL concept, and investigated the relation-
ship between training, job satisfaction and intention to stay.
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested:
H1: Management perceptions of employee expectations of training qual-

ity are different from employee expectations of training quality.
H2: Employees expectations of training quality are different from their

actual perceptions.
H3: Management perceptions of the quality of training are different from

employee perceptions of training quality.
H4: Training quality is positively associated with training satisfaction.
H5: Training satisfaction is positively associated with job satisfaction.
H6: Job satisfaction is positively associated with intention to stay.
H7: Training quality is positively associated with job satisfaction.
H8: Training satisfaction is positively associated with intention to stay.
H9: Training quality is positively associated with intention to stay.

FIGURE 1. Training Quality Gaps

Management
Perception
Management
of Employee
Perceptions
Expectations
Gap 1 H1 Gap 3 H3
Employee Gap 2 Employee

Expectations H2 Perceptions
FIGURE 2. Research Model

H7
Training Training Job Intention

Quality Satisfaction Satisfaction to Stay
H4 H5 H6
H8
H9
Sampling and Data Collection Procedure

The sample was drawn from hotels in Kansas and Missouri meeting the fol-
lowing criteria: (1) The hotel was a member of the American Hotel and Lodg-
ing Association state affiliate, (2) Employees had received either formal
training (orientation, lectures) or informal training (on-the-job training). Ho-
tels listed in the American Hotel & Lodging Association were chosen because
this resource provided current, accurate information about the hotels in the
sample. Hotel managers agreeing to participate in the study and their employ-
ees comprised the convenience sample for the study. A letter explaining the
purpose and procedures of the study was sent to the General Manager or Hu-
man Resources director of hotels in Kansas and Missouri meeting the study
criteria. When permission was granted for participation, department managers
within each participating hotel asked supervisors and employees to complete
the research survey. Managers, supervisors and employees in front offices,
food and beverage, and housekeeping departments received a survey packet
including a cover letter describing the research project, the survey, and an en-
velope in which to return the survey to Human Resources director. After
finishing collecting the survey, Human Resources director returned the survey
packages to the researcher.
Questionnaire Development
The researcher developed two different three-part questionnaires, one for man-
agers and one for employees. Part I of the manager survey sought information on
the managers perceptions of employee training expectations, while part II elic-
ited responses relating to the managers perceptions of the quality of employee
training. Part III of the manager survey asked demographic questions including
gender, age, ethnic background, education, department, and employment history.
In the employees questionnaire, Part I asked for responses related to employee
expectations about training. Part II sought reactions to the quality of training the
employees received at the current property. A three-item general training satisfac-
tion, a three-item general job satisfaction scale and a four-item intention to stay
scale were used to assess the respondents training satisfaction, job satisfaction,
and their intention to stay at their current job. Part III was demographic questions.
Questionnaires were adapted from the SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman
et al., 1988). In this study, fifteen statements were adapted from the SERVQUAL
to measure training quality specifically for the hotel industry. Each of the five di-
mensions (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) had 3
statements to assess expectations and perceptions of training quality. Tangibles
assessed physical equipment, materials of training which hotel use, and profes-
sionalism of the trainers. Reliability investigated whether the hotel performs the
training dependably and accurately. Responsiveness assessed if the trainers have
a willingness to help employees and if hotels provide prompt training. Assur-
ance related to the knowledge and courtesy of the trainers and their ability to in-
spire trust and confidence. Empathy examined whether the hotel and trainers
care about employees and meet employees needs. Job satisfaction and intention
to stay items were adapted from other research questionnaires assessing job satis-
faction, organizational commitment and intention to stay (Berg, 1991; Susskind,
Borchgrevink, Kacmar, & Brymer, 2000). The question format in part I and II was
a seven-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
The questionnaire for employees was developed in both English and Spanish.
The questionnaire was translated to Spanish due to the large Hispanic populations
in the hotel industry. The translation was performed by back-translation process.
Back-translation, which compares the original English with the back-translated
English, is a method which can access the quality of translation. The procedures
of back-translation used for this study are as follows. A person translated the origi-
nal English questionnaire into Spanish. A second person, who had not seen the
original English version, translated the questionnaire back to English. Two other
people reviewed these two English versions (original and back-translated version)
to see if the original content of the question was retained. The Spanish version was
then modified and corrected.
Data Analysis
A t-test was used to assess significant mean differences between manage-

ments perceptions of employee expectations and employee expectations, dif-

ference between employee expectations and perceptions, as well as differences
between management perceptions and employee perceptions. Confirmatory
factor analysis was used to confirm the proposed underlying dimensions. A se-
ries of regression analyses was conducted to examine the relationship of training
and job satisfaction as well as relationship of training and intention to stay.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Data Collection
The researcher contacted general managers and/or human resources managers

of hotels in Kansas and Missouri to obtain approval for conducting the research.
An official letter explaining the study purposes, survey instructions and question-
naires was then faxed or mailed to the hotels which had indicated willingness to
participate in the study. Four hotels in Kansas and Missouri participated in the
study, with an average of 300 hotel room per property. The researcher either
mailed the survey packages to the hotel or delivered them in person. The survey
package included the necessary number of questionnaires, blank envelopes and
incentive raffle ticket for a drawing to win $50. The human resource managers
distributed the questionnaires during their staff meeting. Managers, supervisors
and employees from the front office, food and beverage, and housekeeping de-
partments were instructed to put the completed questionnaire in the blank enve-
lope, seal it, and place the sealed enveloped in a box. The box was sealed after at a
predetermined time and the box was returned to the researchers. Each hotel col-
lected data approximately two weeks or three weeks. The total data collection pe-
riod was from September 11 through November 15, 2002. There were some
variations in starting and ending dates for data collection among hotels.
Response Rate
A total of 483 surveys were sent out to 4 participating hotels. Out of a total of
483 surveys, 215 surveys were returned for a response rate of 44.15%. Of the
215 surveys returned, 204 were usable (94.88%) resulting response rate of
42.24%. Eleven surveys were not included with the final analysis because those
respondents did not complete key questions. Considering the difficulty in gain-
ing the hotel participation, and the challenges of survey distribution and collec-
tion, the response rate of 42.24% was considered within acceptable ranges.
Demographic Profile of Respondents
A total of 132 employees (64.71%) and 72 managers/supervisors (35.29%) par-

ticipated in the study. A total of 132 employees, comprised of 61 males and 67 fe-
males, participated in the survey. The majority of respondents reported they had
received training related to their work, while only a few indicated that they received
little or no training. The most common training type was on-the-job training. Some
respondents stated classroom training or video-based training were other types of
training received. TV, computer, booklets, and books were training materials also
used by hotels doing training programs.
Seven-two managers and supervisors participated in the survey, of which
34 were males and 38 were females. On-the-job training was the most com-
mon training type used with employees. Due to the fact that most hotel jobs are
labor-intensive, on-the-job training is the most important and frequently used
training in the hotel industry.
Gap Analysis
The mean of employee expectations on training quality was 5.89 based on

the 7-point scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Overall employee
perception of training was rated 5.44. The highest and lowest ratings were found
in the statements that trainers who are knowledgeable and training materials
which are visually appealing. The mean ratings of employee training satisfac-
tion, job satisfaction and intention to stay were 5.13, 5.85, and 5.74 respectively.
Overall, management perceptions of employee expectations was rated 6.03, and
overall managerial perception of training was 5.67. Both managers and em-
ployees perceptions of training were lower than their expectations. However,
employees rated lower in expectation and perceptions than did managers.
A T-test was used to assess significant mean differences between manage-
ments perceptions of employees expectations and employee expectations and
perceptions. Table 1 illustrates the results. Three gaps (Hypotheses) were tested:
Gap 1. The gap between management perceptions of employee expecta-

tions and employee expectations of training program quality.
Gap 2. The gap between employee expectations and employee percep-

tions of the training quality.
Gap 3. The gap between management perceptions of the training quality

and employee perceptions of the training quality.
In Gap 1, independent samples test was used. Results showed that manage-
ments perceptions of employee expectations of training quality were not sig-
nificantly different from employees expectations of training quality (t(201) =
.73, P value > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.
In Gap 2, a paired samples test was performed. Employees expectations of
training quality and their actual perceptions differed significantly. Employ-
ees perceptions of training quality were significantly lower than employees
expectations (t(128) = 4.87, P value < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was accepted.
In Gap 3, an independent samples test was used. Results indicated that man-
agement perceptions of the quality of training was not significantly different
from employee perceptions of training quality (t(175) = 1.31, P value > .05).
Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
These findings suggested that managers know employees expectations on
training, and managers and employees have similar perceptions of the training
performed in their hotels. However, employees perceptions of training were
significantly lower than that of their expectations. This revealed that training
quality does not reach employees expectations, and training does not satisfy
employees needs. Managers and supervisors must recognize this, and under-
stand that training still has much room for improvement.
Reliability
Prior to confirmatory factor analysis, reliability coefficient alphas were

tested. The alpha values for the 5 dimensions were: tangibles (.84), reliability
TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics
Item M SD Summary of t-test

Training-employee expectation (EE) 5.89 1.34 ME V.S. EE
t (df = 201) = .73
Training-employee perception (EP) 5.44 1.39 P value = 0.47
Training-management perception of
employee expectations (ME) 6.03 1.15 EE V.S. EP
t(df = 129) = 4.87
P value = 0.00
Training-management perception (MP) 5.67 1.38
Employee training satisfaction 5.13 1.60
Employee job satisfaction 5.85 1.31 EP V.S. MP
t (df = 175) = 1.31
Employee intention to stay 5.74 1.37 P value = .19
(.88), responsiveness (.87), assurance (.93), and empathy (.88). The alpha val-
ues for training (TQ), training satisfaction (TS), job satisfaction (JS) and inten-
tion to stay (IS) were .96, .91, .90, .85, respectively. All data coefficients for
the data exceed the minimum standard for reliability of 0.7 recommended by
Nunally (1978) for basic research. Thus, the results indicate that these multi-
ple reasons are highly reliable for measuring each construct (see Table 2).
Dimensionality of Training Quality
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the five-factor structure. The
results of the confirmatory analysis showed that five factors were not con-
firmed since some items did not load on the factors as expected. In addition,
the results of goodness of fit statistics suggest this five-factor construct is not
appropriate. Chi-square value for the measurement model was 238.36 (df =
80, P = 0.000). Then other indicesincluding Goodness-of-fit index (GFI),
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), Normed fit index (NFI), Comparative
fit index (CFI), and Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), indi-
cated GFI = .92; AGFI = .72; NFI = .89; CFI = .92; RMSEA = .12did not fall
within the recommended levels. Therefore, the five-factor construct was not
proved. An exploratory factor analysis was then performed to determine the
appropriate number of factors. The number of factors was determined using a
scree plot and percentage of variance explained. Only one eigenvalue was
greater than 1 and accounted for 67.52% of total variability. The scree plot
demonstrated that the first factor was much larger than subsequent factors in
eigenvalues. Attributes with a factoring loading of .50 or higher were selected,
which indicated that each attribute has a significant correlation with each fac-
tor. Factor loadings of the 15 items to the one factor ranged from .65 to .9 2.
TABLE 2. Reliability
Item
Tangible .84
Reliability .88
Responsibility .87
Assurance .93
Empathy .88
Training Quality (TQ) .96
Training Satisfaction (TS) .91
Job Satisfaction (JS) .90
Intention to Stay (IS) .85
Relationships Among Training Quality, Job Satisfaction,

One of the objectives of this study was to examine the relationships among
training, job satisfaction and intention to stay. The procedures for regression
analyses were as follows: (1) regressing the mediators on the independent
variables; (2) regressing the dependent variables on the independent variables
and (3) regressing the dependent variables on both the independent variables
and mediators (Baron & Kenny, 1986). If the independent variable shows sig-
nificance on the mediator, the mediator shows significance on the dependent
variable, but the independent variable is not significant on the dependent vari-
able, it is suggested that the independent variable has indirect effect on the de-
pendent variable. Table 3 presents the results of the hypothesized relationships.
First, training quality was found to exert a significant positive impact on train-
ing satisfaction (standardized regression coefficients .81, P = .000). Training
satisfaction was found to affect job satisfaction significantly (standardized re-
gression coefficients .65, P = .000). Job satisfaction was a significant predictor
of intention to stay (standardized regression coefficients .82, P = .000). Sec-
ond, the relationships among training quality, training satisfaction and job sat-
isfaction was examined. The effects of training quality and training satisfaction
were also found to affect job satisfaction significantly (standardized regres-
sion coefficient of training quality to job satisfaction was .36, P = .001; stan-
dardized regression coefficient of training satisfaction to job satisfaction was
.37, P = .001). Note that training satisfaction was not a mediator between train-
ing quality and job satisfaction, for training quality was significant when job
satisfaction was regressed on both training quality and training satisfaction.
Third, the relationships-training satisfaction, job satisfaction and intention to
stay was examined, which explained 68% of the variance in intention to stay.
Training satisfaction affected job satisfaction significantly, and job satisfac-
tion influenced intention to stay significantly. When intention to stay was re-
gressed on both training satisfaction and job satisfaction, job satisfaction showed
significance but training satisfaction was not significant. This suggests that job
satisfaction is a mediator between training satisfaction and intention to stay.
Last, regressions of training quality, training satisfaction, job satisfaction and
intention to stay are shown. Training quality and training satisfaction affected
job satisfaction significantly. Training quality influenced intention to stay sig-
nificantly, but training satisfaction did not. However, training quality and train-
ing satisfaction became insignificant when regressed together with job
satisfaction. Only job satisfaction showed significance on intention to stay.
Standardized regression coefficients of training quality to intention to stay was
.08, (P = .90); standardized regression coefficients of training satisfaction to in-
TABLE 3. Regression Analysis Reports
Independent Variable Partial Regression Coefficients

Dependent Variable Unstandardized Standardized t value

Training Quality .94 .81 15.57***
Training Satisfaction
R (adjusted R) = .66 (.66)

Job Satisfaction
R (adjusted R) = .44 (.44)

Training Satisfaction .31 .37 3.42***
Job Satisfaction
R (adjusted R) = .49 (.48)
Job Satisfaction
R (adjusted R) = .43 (.42)

Intention to Stay
R (adjusted R) = .28 (.28)
Training Satisfaction 6.12 .01 .11

Job Satisfaction .86 .83 12.46***
Intention to Stay
R (adjusted R) = .68 (.67)
Job Satisfaction
Intention to Stay .86 .82 16.40***
R (adjusted R) = .68 (.68)

Job Satisfaction
R (adjusted R) = .49 (.48)

Training Satisfaction .21 .24 1.98
Intention to Stay
R (adjusted R) = .35 (.34)
Training Quality .08 .90

Training Satisfaction .06 .62
Job Satisfaction .84 .81 11.31***
Intention to Stay
R (adjusted R) = .68 (.67)
***P < .01

tention to stay was .06, (P = 62); standardized regression coefficients of job

satisfaction to intention to stay was .81, (P = 11.31). The effects of training
quality and training satisfaction on intention to stay was mediated by job satis-
faction. Therefore, Hypotheses 4 to 6 are accepted. Hypothesis 7, that training

quality is positively associated with job satisfaction, is accepted. Hypothesis 8,
that training satisfaction is positively associated with intention to stay, was re-
jected. Job satisfaction is a mediator between training satisfaction and intention
to stay. Hypothesis 9, that training quality is positively associated with intention
to stay, was also rejected. Training quality was found to be an insignificant indi-
rect antecedent of intention to stay. Job satisfaction appeared to be the only sig-
nificantly positive predictor of intention to stay. The effects of training quality
and training satisfaction on intention to stay were completely mediated by job
satisfaction.
DISCUSSIONS
Gap Analysis
The first objective of this study was to identify the existence of gaps be-
tween expectations and perceptions of training quality. Only the gap between
employee expectations and perceptions of the training quality had significant
differences. Neither the gap between management perceptions of employee
expectations and employee expectations of training quality, nor the gap be-
tween employee perceptions and management perceptions regarding training
quality differed significantly. Results showed that management anticipated
employees expectations, and management was aware of their actual training
performance. However, management over-estimated employees expectations
and hotels actual training performance.
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985) suggested service quality percep-
tions result from a comparison of consumer expectations with actual service
performance. This shows the importance of expectation. Expectation explains
how employees judge training quality. Employees also expect quality train-
ing. Knowing what employees expectations are can guide hotel management
in knowing what employees want and how to perform training. Some approaches
for management to understand employees expectations are: does management
focus on training quality? Is there insufficient communication between man-
agement and employees and too many layers between front-line personnel and
top managements? Does management pay more attention to training new em-
ployees, but ignore experienced employees who also need more training? If
the difference of perception and expectation is negative, this does not really
mean satisfaction is present. For instance, only the difference of item EMP22:
schedules training conveniently for employees was negative. In fact, item
EMP 22 was ranked the second lowest of employee perceptions. Therefore,
expectation, perception, and the difference of perception and expectation

should all be considered together.
Employees compare perceptions to the expectation, and performance short
of expectations signals lower quality to employees. The central focus of the
gap model is this gapthe difference between employee expectations and per-
ceptions. Hotel managers need to close this gap to satisfy employees and build
long-term relationships with them. The insignificant gap between manage-
ment perceptions and employee perceptions of training quality suggested that
management had similar perceptions of training performancemanagement
perceptions of training were lower even though management still over-esti-
mated training quality. Quality evaluations are not made on the outcome of a
service; they also involve evaluations of the process of service delivery
(Parasuraman et al., 1985). This implies that the process of training quality
may have some underlying causes behind the gap: not knowing what employ-
ees expect, not performing the right training, not specifying training objec-
tives, or not matching performance to promises. All could cause the gap.
Specifically, the difference between employees perceptions and expecta-
tions of training quality were compared by 15 items (see Table 4, Table 5).
Twelve out of 15 items differed significantly, such as hotel provides training at
the time they scheduled, training is supported by the managers, trainers com-
municate clearly with employees about training procedures, hotel provides ad-
equate training for employees to do their jobs, and hotel uses up-to-date
training tools and materials. These findings supported studies concluding that
lack of communication, unmet employees needs, and lack of support from the
corporate level were three main reasons that employees were not satisfied with
training (Conrade & Woods, 1994; Harris & Bonn, 2000). All these explained
underlying causes behind the gap between employee expectations and perceptions.
The gap may always exist. It may be difficult to close the gap, but it is possi-
ble to minimize the gap. There is always room for improvement in two areas:
more communication between management and employees, and the delivery
process of training programs.
Dimensionality of Training Quality
The second objective of this study was to explore the underlying dimen-
sions of training quality, and to stimulate hotel managers to focus on training
quality and its antecedents and consequences. Reliability analysis (Cronbachs
alpha) was performed to test the reliability and internal consistency of each
TABLE 4. Employees Perceptions of Training Quality
Item M SD
Item 16 Training materials are visually appealing. 5.23 1.50

Item 29 Schedules training conveniently for employees. 5.27 1.60
Item 24 Trainers respond promptly to employees request. 5.32 1.65
Item 21 Trainers evaluate employee performance fairly. 5.33 1.74
Item 19 Hotel provides training at the time they promise it will be offered. 5.34 1.79
Item 20 Training is supported by the managers. 5.38 1.91
Item 17 Hotel uses up-to-date training tools and materials. 5.38 1.64
Item 28 Trainers understand employees needs during training program. 5.39 1.52
Item 26 Trainers communicate clearly with employees about training procedures. 5.43 1.72
Item 25 Hotel provides adequate training for employees to do their jobs. 5.49 1.72
Item 30 Trainers care about employee as a person. 5.50 1.69
Item 22 Hotel provides training as soon as employees hired. 5.54 1.89
Item 18 Trainers are neat and professional. 5.56 1.81
Item 23 Trainers are willing to help employees. 5.62 1.74
Item 27 Trainers are knowledgeable. 5.73 1.59
factor. The results showed that the alpha coefficients for the five factors were
high, ranging from .84 to .93, which indicated good internal consistency among
items within each dimension. Factor analysis was then employed to verify the
dimensionality of the overall scale, yielding one-factor construct. This study
initially assumed that the factor analysis would confirm the five dimensions,
but this did not prove to be the case. Because of high correlation among the
items and the dimensions of service quality, respondents might rate similarly
on items in different dimensions resulting in lack of discriminant validity. In
terms of the relative importance of the five dimensions in predicting overall
training quality, heavy loading existed among three attributes: assurance, re-
sponsiveness and reliability. These three attributes seemed to be the most im-
portant components in measuring training quality. In short, one-factor construct
was the most satisfactory result from examining factor analysis.
Relationships Among Training Quality, Job Satisfaction,

All hypotheses except hypotheses 8 and 9, that training quality directly in-
fluences intention to stay, were accepted. Training quality was positively asso-
ciated with training satisfaction, training satisfaction influenced job satisfaction,
and job satisfaction was significant determinant of intention to stay. Training
quality is a direct antecedent of job satisfaction. However, the direct effect of
training quality on intention to stay was not supported in this study. Training
TABLE 5. The Difference of Employees Perceptions from Expectations of

Training Quality
Item M SD Sig.
Item 4-19 Hotel provides training at the time they promise it will be offered. .78 1.58 .000
Item 5-20 Training is supported by the managers. .74 1.84 .000
Item 11-26 Trainers communicate clearly with employees about training procedures. .65 1.64 .000
Item 6-21 Trainers evaluate employee performance fairly. .61 1.56 .000
Item 12-27 Trainers are knowledgeable. .58 1.59 .000
Item 10-25 Hotel provides adequate training for employees to do their jobs. .58 1.41 .000
Item 2-17 Hotel uses up-to-date training tools and materials. .51 1.43 .000
Item 7-22 Hotel provides training as soon as employees hired. .50 1.79 .002
Item 1-16 Training materials are visually appealing. .46 1.66 .002
Item 3-18 Trainers are neat and professional. .45 1.72 .004
Item 8-23 Trainers are willing to help employees. .41 1.68 .003
Item 13-28 Trainers understand employees needs during training program. .26 1.43 .002
Item 15-30 Trainers care about employee as a person. .23 1.63 .085
Item 9-24 Trainers respond promptly to employees request. .23 1.52 .093
Item 14-29 Schedules training conveniently for employees. .20 2.10 .275
quality influenced intention to stay only through job satisfaction. This result is
consistent with the links of the service-profit chain, in which training (internal
service quality) encourages employee retention through increasing employee
satisfaction. Furthermore, the results supported many studies findings which
concluded that overall satisfaction appears to be a mediator between service
quality and behavioral intention (Taylor & Baker, 1994; Woodside et al.,
1989). Service quality is an antecedent of satisfaction. Satisfaction has a sig-
nificant effect on intentions, while service quality has less effect on intentions
than does satisfaction (Cronin & Taylor, 1992). Therefore, only an indirect ef-
fect of training on intention to stay was mediated by job satisfaction.
Even though training quality only influenced intention to stay indirectly
through job satisfaction, indirect effects should not be ignored. Training qual-
ity was the most important component predicting training satisfaction and job
satisfaction. Training quality enhances training satisfaction and intention to
stay; improving quality of training drives job satisfaction, which in turn, con-
tributes employees intention to stay working in the hotel. In addition, Baker
and Crompton (2000) suggested that perceived quality should be the more
useful measure since quality is under managements control. It is true that it is
easier to manage quality than to manage satisfaction. As a result, training qual-
ity is still important in managing employees intention to stay.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The purposes of this research were to investigate the expectations and percep-
tions of training quality between hotel managers and employees, and to suggest im-
plications for improving training quality and increasing training satisfaction, job
satisfaction, and intention to stay in the hotel industry. The instrument was based on
the SERVQUAL instrument. Data analysis included t-test measuring training qual-
ity, factor analysis confirming the underlying structures, and regression analysis ex-
amining the relationships among training, job satisfaction and intention to stay.
The first objective of this study was to identify the existence of gaps between
expectations and perceptions of training quality. Only the gap between employee
expectations and perceptions of the training quality showed a significant differ-
ence. Neither the gap between management perceptions of employee expecta-
tions and employee expectations of training quality nor the gap between
employee perceptions and management perceptions regarding training quality ex-
isted. The significant gap existing between employee expectations and percep-
tions indicated that employees were not satisfied with training quality. Since
management was able to anticipate employees expectations, and also had similar
perceptions of actual training performance, then the process of training quality
may provide some of the underlying causes behind the gap. These causes may in-
clude inadequate training, lack of support by management, or lack of communica-
tion between management and employees.
The second objective was to develop an applicable instrument to measure
training quality and to examine the dimensionality of training quality. The assess-
ment instrument would help hotel managers know how to improve training qual-
ity by identifying dimensions of training quality. The study did not successfully
confirm the theoretical dimensionality of training quality; one-factor structure
was conducted, which indicated that overall training quality should be considered.
The nature of the unidimensionality of training quality can be further studied. The
instrument demonstrated high reliability among construct scales. Hotels can use
this instrument to evaluate training performance in the hotels.
The desired outcome of this study was to encourage hotel managers to give
training a higher priority. Training quality is a direct antecedent of training
satisfaction and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is a significant determinant of
intention to stay. Training quality only influences intention to stay through job
satisfaction. The significant indirect effects indicated that training quality and
job satisfaction should be managed to raise employee training perceptions and
intention to stay. The results supported findings of several studies that quality
influences intention through satisfaction. Perceived quality should be the
more useful measure since quality is under managements control (Baker &
Crompton, 2000). Both quality and satisfaction should be assessed together to

measure the impact of training quality on intention to stay.
This study contributes more understanding about training quality and its con-
sequencesjob satisfaction and intention to stay. Training devoted to improving

knowledge, skills and attitudes would encourage employees to be more satisfied
with their work and to stay at the hotel. Training quality needed to put more ef-
fort on it. In particular, training quality can be enhanced by knowing employees
needs and expectations, improving communication and support from manage-
ment.
REFERENCES
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
Annuals of Tourism Research 27(3):785-804.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6):1173-82.
Bojanic, D. C., & Rosen, L. D. (1994). Measuring service quality in restaurants: An ap-
plication of the SERVQUAL instrument. Hospitality Research Journal 18(1):3-14.
Burke, R. J. (1995). Management practices, employees satisfaction and perceptions of
quality service. Psychological Reports 77:748-50.
Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing 66(1):33~55.
Conrade, G., & Woods, R. N. (1994). Training in the U.S. lodging industry: Perception
and reality. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly 35(5):16-21.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and
extension. Journal of Marketing 56(3):55-68.
Getty, J. M., & Thompson, K. N. (1994). A procedure for scaling perceptions of lodg-
ing quality. Hospitality Research Journal 18(2):75-96.
Hallowell, R., Schlesinger, L. A., & Zornitsky, J. (1994). Internal service quality, cus-
tomer and job satisfaction: Linkages and implications for management. Human Re-
source Planning 19(2):20-31.
Harris, K. J., & Bonn, M. A. (2000). Training techniques and tools: Evidence from the
foodservice industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 24(3): 320-35.
Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1994).
Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review 71(2):164-74.
Kraut, A. I. (1975). Predicting turnover of employees from measured job attitudes. Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Performance 13:233-43.
Lovelock, C. H. (1989). The interaction of operation and marketing: Their impact on
customers. In D. E. Browen, R. B. Chase, & T. C. Cummings & Associates (Eds.),
Service management effectiveness (pp. 343-368). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marvin, W. R. (1994). From Turnover to Teamwork, (pp. 97-108). New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of ser-
vice quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 49(4):
41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multi-item

scale for measuring consumer perceptions of the service quality. Journal of Retail-
ing 64(1):12~40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1993). Research note: More on im-
proving service quality measurement. Journal of Retailing 69(1):140~7.
Qu, H., & Tsang, N. (1998). Service quality gap in Chinas hotel industry: A study of
tourist perceptions and expectations. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research
22(3):252-67.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry: Us-
ing the SERVQUAL model. The Service Industries Journal 11(3):324-43.
Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the relationships between ser-
vice quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers purchase in-
tentions. Journal of Retailing 70(2):163-78.
Tanke, M. L. (1990). Human Resource Management for the Hospitality Industry,
(pp.155-182). Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers, Inc.
Wesley, S. R., & Skip, S. (1999). Training and its impact on organizational commit-
ment among lodging employees. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 23(2):
176-94.
Woodside, A. G., Frey, L. L., & Daly, R. T. (1989). Linking Service Quality, Customer
Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intention. Journal of Health Care Marketing 9(4):
5~17.
SUBMITTED: November 2004

ACCEPTED: January 2005

Chiang 2005

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Chiang 2005

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]

On: 30 December 2014, At: 06:35

Journal of Human Resources in

The Impact of Employee

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J171v04n02_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Chun-Fang Chiang, is a PhD candidate, Hotel, Restaurant, Institution Management,

KEYWORDS. Employee training, training quality, job satisfaction, in-

Training has been considered as a path to quality customer service, consis-

Expectations are desired performance levels, which reflect an attributes im-

dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and tangibles.

A survey was designed to elicit the expectations and perceptions about

sults determined if gaps existed between expectations and perceptions. Figure 1

Gap 1. The gap between management perceptions of employee expecta-

Gap 2. The gap between employee expectations and employee percep-

Gap 3. The gap between management perceptions of the training quality

The following hypotheses were tested:

H1: Management perceptions of employee expectations of training qual-

H2: Employees expectations of training quality are different from their

H3: Management perceptions of the quality of training are different from

H4: Training quality is positively associated with training satisfaction.

H5: Training satisfaction is positively associated with job satisfaction.

H6: Job satisfaction is positively associated with intention to stay.

H7: Training quality is positively associated with job satisfaction.

H8: Training satisfaction is positively associated with intention to stay.

H9: Training quality is positively associated with intention to stay.

FIGURE 1. Training Quality Gaps

Employee Gap 2 Employee

FIGURE 2. Research Model

Training Training Job Intention

Sampling and Data Collection Procedure

A t-test was used to assess significant mean differences between manage-

ments perceptions of employee expectations and employee expectations, dif-

The researcher contacted general managers and/or human resources managers

Demographic Profile of Respondents

A total of 132 employees (64.71%) and 72 managers/supervisors (35.29%) par-

The mean of employee expectations on training quality was 5.89 based on

Gap 1. The gap between management perceptions of employee expecta-

Gap 2. The gap between employee expectations and employee percep-

Gap 3. The gap between management perceptions of the training quality

Prior to confirmatory factor analysis, reliability coefficient alphas were

TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics

Item M SD Summary of t-test

Dimensionality of Training Quality

Relationships Among Training Quality, Job Satisfaction,

TABLE 3. Regression Analysis Reports

Independent Variable Partial Regression Coefficients

Dependent Variable Unstandardized Standardized t value

Training Quality .63 .67 10.02***

Training Quality .35 .36 3.33***

Training Satisfaction .46 .53 7.10***

Training Satisfaction 6.12 .01 .11

Training Quality .35 .36 3.33***

Training Quality .37 .38 3.04***

Training Quality .08 .90

***P < .01

tention to stay was .06, (P = 62); standardized regression coefficients of job

faction. Therefore, Hypotheses 4 to 6 are accepted. Hypothesis 7, that training

expectation, perception, and the difference of perception and expectation

Dimensionality of Training Quality

TABLE 4. Employees Perceptions of Training Quality

Item 16 Training materials are visually appealing. 5.23 1.50

Relationships Among Training Quality, Job Satisfaction,

TABLE 5. The Difference of Employees Perceptions from Expectations of