See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312310863

Theft in the hotel workplace: Exploring frontline employees perceptions

towards hotel employee theft

Article  in  Tourism and Hospitality Research · October 2018

DOI: 10.1177/1467358416683770

CITATIONS READS

7 1,122

2 authors, including:

Dr. Edmund Goh

Edith Cowan University
50 PUBLICATIONS   250 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Human Trafficking in Tourism and Hospitality Industry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Edmund Goh on 20 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Tourism and Hospitality Research
0(0) 1–14
Theft in the hotel workplace: Exploring ! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
frontline employees’ perceptions sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1467358416683770

towards hotel employee theft journals.sagepub.com/home/thr

Edmund Goh and Sandra Kong

Blue Mountains International Hotel Management School, Torrens University Australia,
Leura, New South Wales, Australia

Abstract
A plethora of studies has investigated theft in the workplace in various industries. However, few studies
investigated the motivations behind hotel employee theft especially among Generation Z undergraduates work-
ing full time as part of their internship. This targeted sample group is pivotal to the hotel industry as they are the
future generation of hotel leaders. These reasons can be attitudinal such as excitement, influenced by fellow
colleagues and perceived ease of committing the theft. To address this research gap, this study utilised the
established theory of planned behaviour to investigate underlying motivations of employee theft behaviour in
the hotel industry. Personal interviews were conducted with 29 hotel management undergraduates who
were doing their internships as full-time hotel employees in various frontline jobs in food and beverage, house-
keeping and front office. Results revealed the adrenaline feeling when committing hotel employee theft as the
key motivator. The most influential social group was colleagues in the same department. The main
perceived difficulty was the grey area of defiant behaviour and what actually constitutes as employee theft.

Keywords
Employee theft, undergraduate students, hospitality and tourism, hotel internships, theory of planned
behaviour

Besides impacting the profit margin of companies,

Introduction
Employee theft is a common and serious problem
across all businesses such as libraries (Holt, 2007);
constructions and buildings (Fadiya et al., 2013);
cargo and freight (Ekwall and Lantz, 2015) and super-
markets (Moorthy et al., 2015) especially in the hos-
pitality industry where employees are exposed to large
amount of cash transactions, fix assets, tangible gifts
and edible food and beverage items (Kennedy, 2016).
According to the Australia Federal Police, employee
theft is estimated to be around AUS$2 billion annually
(James, 2014). This figure is significantly higher in the
United States where employee theft cost businesses an
annual financial loss estimated at USD$200 billion
annually (Niehoff and Paul, 2000). This affects local
businesses and detracts investors from doing business
in an area with the fear of having merchandise stolen
and thus impacts local economic activities (Matti and
Ross, 2016).
this dishonest behaviour has become a delinquent prob-
lem especially among the younger employees (Poulston,
2008). Past studies have reported that employee theft is
most common between the age group of 21–30 year
olds (Hollinger et al., 2010; Krippel et al., 2008), of
male gender (Krippel et al., 2008) and holding a full-
time position (Krippel et al., 2008). The extent of
employee theft is widespread, where up to 75 per cent
of employees have confessed to having engaged in
employee theft during their period of employment
(Robinson and Bennett, 1995), and 95 per cent of com-
panies have reported some form of employee theft or
deviant behaviour that took place within their
Corresponding author:
Edmund Goh, Blue Mountains International Hotel Management
School, Torrens University Australia, 1 Chambers Rd, Leura,
New South Wales 2780, Australia.
Email: edmund.goh@laureate.edu.au
2 Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
organisation (Henie et al., 2005). This prevalent prob-
lem was reported by 61 Hotel General Managers to be
the top five ethical issues faced by hotels (Betsy, 2011).
Given that employee theft tends to occur among
younger demographics (Hollinger et al., 2010; Krippel
et al., 2008), it is imperative that hotel management
institutions recognise this problem among their
Generation Z hotel management students as institutions
play a critical role in embedding ethical values in hotel
students through their curriculum design and study
environment. While HR hotel managers expect hotel
graduates to perform basic business functional skills,
practical duties and possess personal attributes of com-
munication and problem-solving skills (Dawson et al.,
2011), ethical behaviour is one of the most important
aspects valued by the industry (Knani, 2014; Wong and
Chan, 2010). Given the high contact service nature
of hospitality jobs, employees are confronted with eth-
ical dilemmas and temptation to commit workplace
theft in their operational dealings everyday (Harris,
2012; Lee and Tsang, 2013; Yaman and Gurel, 2006).
Maintaining an ethical working climate is important as it
enhances employee satisfaction, reduces turnover
and increases profit margin (Cheng et al., 2013).
In order to close this industry weakness, institutions
have a responsibility to ensure students are employ-
ment ready upon graduation and if this unethical
behaviour can be addressed at the curriculum and
pre-employment level, future hotel employees will be
less likely to conduct theft in hotels. This research
issue and general education/training issue in hospital-
ity and tourism, have received very little attention as
compared to other hospitality and tourism areas. In a
meta-analysis on 2868 hospitality and tourism journal
articles in the top 12 hospitality and tourism journals,
only 2% were categorised as education and training
related (Ballantyne et al., 2009: 150). Researchers
such as Yaman and Gurel (2006) have called for
more conceptual models to investigate ethical behav-
iour in hospitality to contribute to the limited studies
in this area. With limited research attention in ethical
behavioural and hospitality education, no studies have
investigated how hotel management students perceive
hotel workplace theft. Therefore, the objective of this
paper is to employ the established theory of planned
behaviour (TPB) as a research framework to investi-
gate the attitudes of hotel management students
towards hotel workplace theft, important reference
groups that influence their motivation and their per-
ceived control towards committing hotel workplace
theft. The TPB has been chosen to understand hotel
employee theft behaviour as it has been a successful
predictive model of intentions and behaviours (Ajzen,
1991; Armitage and Conner, 2001). This is further
discussed in the theoretical framework section.
Literature review
Hotel management students’ perception
of ethical behaviour
Research in ethical behaviour in the hospitality indus-
try has predominantly focused on professionals and
staffs. For example, hotel frontline employees in food
and beverage tend to be more tolerant of unethical
behaviour as compared to professional hotel employ-
ees such as marketing employees (Wong, 1998).
A healthy ethical working climate correlates positively
with increased job satisfaction and organisational com-
mitment (Kim and Miller, 2008). More importantly,
customers do notice unethical behaviours such as
infringement of guests’ property and benefit at the
expense of guest supplementary services, and have
little tolerance towards unethical behaviour (Wong
and Chan, 2010). Even though business ethics is para-
mount to a company’s success, 81% of hotel managers
report that their hotels do not offer ethics training for
their employees and expect more ethics training for stu-
dents before they enter the workforce (Yeh, 2012).
This shifts the onus on hotel management institutions
to share the responsibility in developing curriculum
and teaching environments to foster ethical behaviour
of hotel management students (Lee and Tsang, 2013).
Few studies (such as Knani, 2014; Weaver et al.,
1997; Yeung and Pine, 2003) have examined the per-
ceptions of hospitality students towards unethical
behaviour. Weaver et al. (1997) reported that hospital-
ity students rated employee theft as one of the uneth-
ical behaviours facing the hospitality industry along
with other unethical issues such as sexual harassment,
population and waste disposal. Similarly, Yeung and
Pine (2003) elicited ethical topics such as theft, dis-
posal of hazardous waste, sexual harassment, leaking
corporate information and acceptance of bribes that
hospitality students felt were important and wanted
to be included in their hospitality ethics curriculum.
Interestingly, studies (Hollinger et al., 2010; Krippel
et al., 2008; Poulston, 2008) have reported younger
hospitality employees to have a higher tendency to
engage in unethical behaviours. Freedman and
Bartholomew (1992) reported hospitality students
under 26 years of age and have no managerial experi-
ence to have significantly higher unethical scores as
compared to other age groups.
Among the unethical behaviours, hospitality
students viewed the act of theft as most unethical, fol-
lowed by sexual harassment, and an attempt to obtain
proprietary information (Stevens, 2001). As can be
seen, most studies (Stevens, 2001; Weaver et al.,
1997; Yeung and Pine, 2003) have reported employee
theft to be the most pertinent issue among unethical
behaviour in the hospitality industry. However,
Goh and Kong
no studies have examined hotel employee theft specif-
ically among hotel management students.
Definition and types of employee theft
One of the most common definitions of employee theft
is ‘the unauthorized taking, control, or transfer of
money and/or property of the formal work organisa-
tion that is perpetrated by an employee during the
course of occupational activity’ (Hollinger and Clark,
1983). Greenberg (1990) extended the definition to
‘any unauthorized appropriation of company property
by employees either for one’s own use or for sale to
another including but not limited to the removal of
products, supplies, materials, funds, data, information
or intellectual property’.
There are many types of employee workplace theft
in hospitality such as removal of cash, inventory,
equipment, free use of facilities, improper use of
employee discounts, fraudulent refunds and unauthor-
ised coupons (Krippel et al., 2008). This is prevalent
in other industries as well such as libraries (Holt,
2007); constructions and buildings (Fadiya et al.,
2013); cargo and freight (Ekwall and Lantz, 2015)
and supermarkets (Moorthy et al., 2015). More
often than not, workplace theft tends to be tangible
in nature such as giving free food or drinks to friends,
making a phone call in a guest room and accepting
monetary tips to specially arrange a room change for
a guest (Knani, 2014; Wong, 1998). Employee theft in
the retail industry is also common and can take many
forms such as giving unauthorised discounts, theft of
cash, theft of merchandise and violation of sick leave
(Ainsworth, 2006). However, researchers have also
reported that employee theft can be intangible through
theft of time (Ainsworth, 2006; Luna-Arocas and
Tang, 2004) such as arriving late to work, leaving
work early (Iverson and Deery, 2001), taking extra
breaks and on the job daydreaming (Henie et al.,
2005). This clearly shows that most of the hospital-
ity businesses have been affected in one way or
another due to employee theft. However, past studies
have shown that there is no one universal definition
of employee theft (Sauser, 2007) and differs from
degrees, consequences, tangibility, items and costs
(Niehoff and Paul, 2000). Furthermore, managers
have used different verbal expressions such as ‘inven-
tory shrinkage’, ‘shortage’, ‘defalcation’, ‘pilferage’
and ‘unaccounted loss’ instead of theft to maintain a
noncriminal company image (Oliphant and Oliphant,
2001). Therefore, it is important to note that this
research combines the various past definitions of
employee theft as any form (tangible or intangible)
of theft committed by employees from employers
knowingly or unknowingly for personal benefit.
3
Reasons for employee theft
The literature on motivations behind employee theft
encompasses a mixture of employer and employee-led
reasons. Employer-led reasons are issues such as
poor orientation programs, unclear HR policies and
management culture. Employee-led reasons derive
from within the employee such as financial problems,
unethical values and thrill-seeking behaviour. The
first employer-led reason is unclear policies about
employee theft. This is important because if employees
are unclear about what constitutes theft in the work-
place, they may be committing theft unknowingly.
Employee theft is more common within the workplace
where there is inadequate training and policies (Tryon
and Kleiner, 1997). In a study of employee theft
behaviour, Poulston (2008) surveyed 534 respondents
(workers and students in Hospitality) and found 33%
of hospitality employees and 25% of hospitality stu-
dents self-reported that they would take pens and left
over food home from their workplace during employ-
ment. One possible explanation for this unclear per-
ception is due to poor communication from
management (Appelbaum et al., 2006) and thus
employees may consider some items too petty to be
considered as theft and do not think they have done
anything wrong when committing employee theft.
An alternative explanation can be seen as the neutral-
isation effect where stealing a little does not hurt the
business (Shigihara, 2013). This explains why some
employees have no feelings of guilt when committing
employee theft (Tryon and Kleiner, 1997). This
assumed knowledge about employee theft creates a cas-
cade of issues, as each employee would have their own
definition of employee theft if not being instructed by
employers. For example, a fast-food employee would
not see eating a few fries while on shift as theft.
A hotel chef could see taking home leftovers as a
given right. A front office staff could see taking hotel
pens home as normal behaviour as these are normally
given to customers free of charge and there is no inven-
tory system to take stock of such items.
This opportunistic behaviour is often triggered
by the window of opportunity provided during the
operational environment (Miethe and McCorkle,
1998) such as customers leaving loose change lying
around when housekeepers clean the room alone or
employees who have unsupervised access to the stock
of their employers may find a unique opportunity for
theft (Sacco and Kennedy, 1996). Mustaine and
Tewksbury (2002) examined 907 college students’
intention to commit workplace theft and found stu-
dent employees who steal have the opportunity to do
so as they handled cash regularly and those who have a
criminal history are more inclined to commit work-
place theft. Interestingly, the opportunistic temptation
4 Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
can also be emotionally triggered by the aesthetic con-
tent of the workplace. Iboro (2011) conducted a study
on 144 employees in industrial organisational and
found that employees reported a higher propensity
to commit theft when organisations have a beautiful
aesthetic environment surrounded with technology as
it gives the perception that the organisation is wealthy.
Kennedy (2015) refers to the employees as guardians
to the workplace and if adequate level of empower-
ment is given, employee theft can be reduced as
there are more eyes on the job to sniff out the dishon-
est employee.
Another reason for theft is employee dissatisfaction
(Litzky et al., 2006). Everton et al. (2007) reported
that employees steal from employers because they
felt ‘slighted’ by their company. This is usually linked
to problems with salary equity, promotional opportu-
nities and working environment (Greenberg, 1990;
Hollinger and Davis, 2006; Tryon and Kleiner,
1997). For example, Geller (1991) reported that
employees in their study conducted petty theft of
food to supplement their low and unfair pay.
Similarly, Betsy (2011) also reported low pay as a
theft reason where hotel employees stole food snacks,
toiletries and toilet papers to compensate their low pay.
Theft by employees with low wages can also perceive
this as a form of compensation or wages in kind
(Hollinger and Davis, 2006). Studies have also
shown that a stressful working environment such as
staff shortages, time constraints, work overload, long
hours and difficult customers can lead to employees
stealing from guests and the company as a form of
economic compensation (Lo and Lamm, 2005).
The ethical and moral compass of employees is yet
another reason for employee theft (Poulston, 2008).
Improving employee satisfaction will help employees
to make ethical decisions when facing ethical dilem-
mas (Zerbe, 2008). This was pointed out by Cheng
et al. (2013) that ethical values enhance hotel employ-
ees’ job satisfaction and turnover, which in turn
reduces workplace theft. The ethical compass of
employees can be influenced by social forces of the
management or other colleagues (Elie-Dit-Cosaque
et al., 2011). The manager’s behaviour can influence
employees’ decision making in theft they will be
tempted to follow the manager’s behaviour and think
it is acceptable (Hatice et al., 2011; Litzky et al.,
2006). This is also known as the moral atmosphere
(Davis et al., 1998) in ethical decision making. If man-
agers tolerated or engaged in workplace theft them-
selves, this will increase employees’ theft intentions
(Greenberg, 1990). For example, Salima et al.
(2010) conducted a study on perceptions of small
crimes and reported that one employee noticed the
manager taking home a rim of paper for private use
so the employee decided to take some paper home for
personal use as well.
Likewise, the unethical behaviour of other employ-
ees and co-workers can motivate employee theft in the
workplace (Kube et al., 2012). Schmidtke (2007)
researched on how colleagues reacted when they saw
other staff stealing from the company. They found that
when the group consensus was low about whether
an unethical behaviour was considered as theft, the
observer was less likely to consider the behaviour as
theft. According to Jones (1991), people care about
the ethical attitudes of other people who are close or
important to them (e.g. friends or peers). If those
important people regard certain misconduct as accept-
able, it may motivate the individuals to accept
the misconduct as well. In other words, if a social con-
sensus guaranteed the rightness of the misconduct,
some people may behave in accordance with the
social consensus (Farrow and Tarrant, 2009; Stott
and Drury, 2004). Tseng and Su (2013) reported
that insurance executives showed a lower level of
unethical decisions when they believed that their
peers saw what other insurance executives did as ser-
ious, unacceptable or wrong. Based on the literature
evidence, further research is required to understand
hotel management students’ perceptions towards
employee workplace theft, including the positive and
negative attitudes, social groups and perceived difficul-
ties towards employee workplace theft.
Understanding employee theft intentions
and research framework
In order to better understand hotel management
students’ perception towards hotel employee theft,
this paper employed an established human decision-
making theory, TPB (Ajzen, 1991) to understand
students’ perception towards hotel employee theft.
The TPB is a rational decision-making model used
to examine the anticipation of a behaviour from behav-
ioural intentions of an individual through their
attitudes, social norms and perceived difficulties
(Ajzen, 1991). Understanding these key motivational
factors can provide an indication of future employee
theft intentions and actual theft behaviours. This has
been empirically proven that TPB variables have a
strong correlation with intentions and behaviour with
an average 47% predictive score (Armitage and
Conner, 2001; Godin and Kok, 1996; Sheeran et al.,
2001). Therefore, TPB can be used to examine a hotel
management student’s attitude towards workplace
theft; their perception of others who are important as
to whether they would support their workplace
Goh and Kong
(subjective norms) and perceived difficulties relevant
to their workplace theft. Utilising the TPB as a research
framework will enable hotel managers to make better
strategic decisions in developing persuasive messages
aimed at reducing hotel employee theft behaviour.
Furthermore, the TPB has been applied successfully
in predicting a variety of behaviours (Ajzen, 1991;
Armitage and Conner, 2001) ranging from alcohol
(Deshpande and Rundle-Thiele, 2011), consumer
behaviour (Malik and Guptha, 2013), crisis manage-
ment (Wang and Ritchie, 2013), non-compliant behav-
iour (Goh, Ritchie, and Wang, 2017), leisure studies
(Sparks and Pan, 2009), school choice (Goh, 2011)
and hospitality education (Goh and Ritchie, 2011).
This behavioural theory has a promising applicabil-
ity in understanding hotel management students’
perceptions of employee workplace theft in relation
to existing literature. These reasons can be categorised
into each of the three independent TPB variables.
Firstly, there are various attitudes that can be asso-
ciated with employee theft in the workplace, such
as acceptable (Poulston, 2008) and fair (Krippel
et al., 2008). With regards to subjective norms,
family (Ainsworth, 2006), co-workers (Kennedy,
2015; Kube et al., 2012), managers (Salima et al.,
2010) and senior executives (Tseng and Su, 2013)
have been reported to be important social groups
that can influence the employee workplace theft. The
last variable of the TPB is the role of perceived behav-
ioural control that may prevent or facilitate students
from committing employee theft. These constraints
can be seen as perceived difficulties such as gaining
access to stocks (Krippel et al., 2008; Sacco and
Kennedy, 1996), internal control systems (Moorthy
et al., 2015) and financial difficulties (Betsy, 2011).
Research gaps and questions
Based on the literature review above, there is a paucity
of studies undertaken into the area of attitudes, social
groups and perceived difficulties behind hotel manage-
ment students’ perceptions towards employee theft in
hotels. This is supported by several calls for research
(Knani, 2014; Yaman and Gurel, 2006) into determin-
ants of ethical behaviour in hospitality. Understanding
perceptions of Generation Z undergraduate hotel stu-
dents is important because they will be future hotel
employees and if appropriate measures can be taken
to change their mindset and attitudes towards hotel
employee theft, it can prevent employee theft in
hotels when they are employed in hotels. Second,
most studies that examined employee theft predomin-
antly explored attitudes and have not looked at key
social influencers and perceived control towards theft
5
in the workplace. Therefore, several research questions
were developed to guide this study.
Research question 1: What are the attitudes and rea-
sons towards employee theft in the workplace?
Research question 2: Who are the important social
groups that influence employee theft in the workplace?
Research question 3: What are the perceived difficul-
ties towards employee theft in the workplace?
Data and methodology
Research design
This study adopted a qualitative paradigm over a quan-
titative research design as this research topic was
exploratory in nature and there has been a major con-
cern of the overdependence on statistics in the early
stages of development of a topic area (Ballantyne et al.,
2009). Furthermore, Knani (2014) highlighted the
overuse of quantitative methods in hospitality ethical
studies and emphasises that ‘We still need qualitative
research that helps define what ethical behaviour is . . .’
(Knani, 2014: 6, line, 47). Therefore, the study uses
an established TPB to assist in the systematic elicit-
ation technique (Goh, 2009, 2010; Goh and Scerri,
2016) to gather information regarding the research
problem of students’ attitudes, key reference groups
and perceived constraints towards employee theft in
hospitality. This study used a single cross-sectional
design to understand students’ perceptions at one
point in time, rather than a longitudinal design that
measures these perceptions over time (Malhotra
et al., 1996). Attitudinal items were identified with
the overall perception towards hotel employee theft,
whereas subjective norms measure influential social
groups, and perceived behavioural control measure
perceived difficulties or constraints.
Sampling
Respondents in this study consisted of Generation Z
(born after 1995) undergraduate students at the Blue
Mountains International Hotel Management School.
The Blue Mountains International Hotel Management
School is located in Leura and Sydney, Australia offer-
ing undergraduate programs in hotel management.
As part of the Bachelor program, all undergraduates
must complete two industry placements. Each indus-
try placement comprises of a minimum 600 working
hours over six months. Students can choose a place-
ment in food and beverage, front office or housekeep-
ing and at the end of their placement complete a
learning portfolio assessment. The industry placement
6 Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
is designed to allow students an opportunity to apply
theoretical and practical concepts in a real working
environment.
A convenience sampling strategy (Jennings, 2001)
was adopted with an invitation to Generation Z stu-
dents who had just completed their first industry
placement in a hotel for six months for a personal
interview. Exposure to the industry placement unit
was considered important as students would have a
taste of work experience in a hotel and thus developing
a stronger base from which they can express informed
opinions. A total of 52 students responded to the invi-
tation, but only 29 interviews were conducted as signs
of data saturation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) started
to emerge after the 25th student interview. More
importantly, the 29 interviews consisted of students
from four different cohorts of students, which provide
more validity and reliability to the results. This sample
size meets the recommended sample size for qualita-
tive TPB studies (n  25, see Ajzen, 1991). Personal
short interviews were used as the primary data collec-
tion method.
Respondents were briefed on the structure of the
interview and permissions were asked for interviews
to be recorded. Each interview session lasted between
10 and 15 minutes and interviews were transcribed
verbatim within 48 hours and checked for accuracy.
All interviews were conducted under full confidential-
ity and information from the interviews was solely for
academic research purposes only. In order to ensure
confidentiality, respondents were told to not mention
their names or student identification number, can
choose not to answer any questions and can leave if
they felt uncomfortable about the topic at any point of
the interview.
Results and discussion
Content analysis was used to analyse the variables
identified from the TPB elicitation study as recom-
mended by Ajzen (1991). First, all interviews were
transcribed verbatim to prepare for data analysis.
Second, the data were explored to identify and develop
a coding system by carefully exploring and reading
through the data to obtain a general sense and key
points and ideas were noted. The data were coded
according to the three categories of the TPB – attitude
items were coded as Att1, Att2, etc; subjective norms
items were coded as SN1, SN2, etc and perceived
difficulties items were coded as PBC1, PBC2, etc.
Third, the data were coded as through content analysis
that identified and systematically coded data to enable
numerical analysis. Fourth, common and similar
answers were grouped together. Fifth, a frequency
count was conducted based on the number of times
a particular item appeared in the data. Lastly, findings
were interpreted based on the qualitative results.
Attitudes towards hotel employee theft
Positive attitudes were factors relating to the benefits
of employee hotel theft. Negative attitudes were seen
disadvantages of employee hotel theft. Through con-
tent analysis, four key attitudes were identified towards
committing employee hotel theft:
– Attitude 1 – adrenaline feeling (n ¼ 29)
– Attitude 2 – supplement low wages (n ¼ 25)
– Attitude 3 – revenge for unfair treatment (n ¼ 18)
– Attitude 4 – why pay when its free mentality (n ¼ 11)
It is important to note that these attitudes were pre-
sented as positive statements. During the interviews,
these attitudes were discussed in terms of the motiv-
ation to commit hotel employee theft. For example,
students who perceived stealing from hotel employers
as compensation for being treated unfairly by their
hotels reported the attitude of ‘revenge for unfair treat-
ment’. Overall, there was strong agreement between
students with regards to common attitudes about
hotel employee theft. The most mentioned motivation
by all 29 respondents was the adrenaline rush and
feeling when committing hotel employee theft. For
example, two students mentioned:
I can imagine it’s very similar to shoplifting when some-
times it’s not about the monetary value. For example, even
some celebrities shoplift and they do so for the kick of it.
(Student 4)
A reason for theft in the workplace is like cheating in exams
where your heart is pounding faster than a train. Not that I
have done it but it’s that feeling of not getting caught.
(Student 14)
The second most mentioned attitude (n ¼ 25) for per-
ception of hotel employee theft was low wages and
salary. Students mentioned that in general the hotel
industry’s wages and salary are much lower than
other industries such as banking and marketing espe-
cially at the entry level and stealing from hotel employ-
ers could be a way to supplement their low income.
For example:
Our pay is $14-$18 per hour. That is pretty low especially
when you have to pay for rent in the city. Therefore, taking
bread and leftovers could help me save on meal expenses.
(Student 5)
In this economy where living costs are high, theft is just
another way to survive. Employees could use that money
to pay for their bus and train tickets. (Student 17)
Goh and Kong
The third most mentioned attitude (n ¼ 18) was the
perception of getting back at the hotel for unfair treat-
ment. This stemmed from the belief that employees
were executing self-justice by getting what they felt
deserved. Some students mentioned:
Some hotel managers are simply exploiting students and
getting them to work long hours and weekends without
overtime pay. Maybe it’s a form of payback and taking
back what they deserved. (Student 2)
My manager keeps our tips, which was meant to be shared
with all floor staff. Some of my colleagues then began
taking bottles of wine and alcohol to compensate their
losses on tips. (Student 13)
I have heard of hotel housekeepers taking much longer
breaks during the cleaning of rooms as they feel unfair
about the short lunch break of 30 mins given during
lunch. (Student 27)
By committing hotel employee theft, some students
(n ¼ 11) believed in the ‘why pay when its free’ men-
tality. Some students mentioned:
Not sure why people are wasting all these good food and
drinks. If nobody wants them, I wouldn’t mind taking
them home. (Student 3)
Some of my room attendant friends were taking things from
the minibar as the customers had pay for them and left it in
the room upon checking out. (Student 17)
I have seen staff members taking bathroom amenities to
stock up in their own bathroom because it’s free.
(Student 26)
In sum, it was evident that attitudes played a pivotal
role in forming perceptions towards employee theft in
hotels because they held strong attitudes that can
eventuate to employee theft.
Subjective norms supporting hotel
employee theft
Five reference groups were identified as important in
students’ perceptions of whether or not to commit
hotel employee theft. These reference groups were:
– Reference Group 1 – other colleagues in same
department (n ¼ 22)
– Reference Group 2 – department managers (n ¼ 19)
– Reference Group 3 – hotel guests (n ¼ 16)
– Reference Group 4 – in-house security (n ¼ 13)
– Reference Group 5 – classmates (n ¼ 9)
Overall, there were a number of social groups
that influence students’ employee theft behaviour in
hotels. The most mentioned social group was
7
‘other colleagues in the same department’. Out of
the 29 respondents interviewed, 22 mentioned ‘other
colleagues from the same department’ who have com-
mitted employee theft to be a strong influence. Some
students mentioned:
Colleagues that work alongside are strong influencers.
Sometimes other colleagues simply follow senior colleagues
as a guide for their actions. For example, at the end of shift,
most of the team will take home any leftovers, why can’t
I do it? (Student 4)
Most of us are followers. Monkey see, monkey do attitude.
If other staff are doing it or can do it, why can’t we? This is
very tempting and if you don’t do it, you feel you are losing
out. (Student 6)
When I was new, I did all the right things. However, after
working there for some time, I started to take home station-
ery items as everyone was doing it. Mostly, pens and note-
pads. I am not sure if this is considered as theft but it’s
pretty tempting as everyone is doing it. (Student 12)
Having a mint or drink while on duty is very normal and
everyone is doing it especially in housekeeping where we
have full access to minibar items. (Student 24)
The second social group identified by most students
was department managers. When deciding to commit
employee theft in hotels, 19 out of 29 respondents
mentioned department managers as an important
social group in supporting their theft behaviour.
Most students reported that if department managers
commit employee theft, there was a very high chance
that they themselves would follow as they see this as an
implicit approval from higher authorities.
Two students mentioned:
On my first day of shift, my manager gave all of us a bottle
of beer from the bar and told us to go hush about it. This is
an indication that this sort of dishonest culture is happening
in the hotel and younger staff members will rely on the
manager’s behaviour as an indication of approval.
(Student 6)
I have seen my manager taking mints and chocolate meant
for hotel guests. I would assume taking small items are fine.
(Student 9)
The third most mentioned (n ¼ 16) social group was
hotel guests. This reference group was important
among students’ perception of employee hotel theft.
Obviously, if hotel guests are ‘allowed’ to remove
items from hotels without paying for them, employees
could perceive this behaviour as acceptable. Some stu-
dents mentioned:
I have noticed missing towels, glasses and hairdryers and
the management allowed this despite knowing about it.
8 Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
Not sure if this is allowed but if the hotel guests can do it,
maybe this is acceptable behaviour. (Student 3)
Working in housekeeping, I have seen mini-bar items
being cleared out by guests and Front Office do not
charge them. We are talking about around $100+
worth of minibar items. Sometimes I don’t understand
why guests are allowed to do that. It’s quite unfair.
(Student 17)
I guess the lines are blurred when it comes to settling mini-
bar disputes. When things go missing from the minibar,
the hotel will give the benefit of the doubt that it’s
the fault of the hotel and normally not charge the
guest. However, I have seen guests drinking the mini-
bar alcohol and throwing the empty bottles in the
housekeeping trolley upon leaving and when I told
Front Office about this, they did nothing about it.
(Student 25)
In-house security was the next most mentioned
(n ¼ 13) social group. This view was expressed
among students to be concerning as these security
guards deliberately allow certain staff members to get
away with it by turning a blind eye. For example, two
students mentioned:
At the end of shifts, there will be some staff members that
never get checked. I am not being judgmental but it’s mostly
the guys from the bar. I have heard rumours that the secur-
ity personnel normally get free drinks while on duty at the
back of house from the guys at the bar. However, we all
know that alcohol and beer are being brought out by these
guys and they normally have weekend parties together.
(Student 2)
I have seen security staff taking stationaries and perfumes
meant for hotel guests. They set a bad example for junior
employees to follow. (Student 24)
Another mentioned social group (n ¼ 9) was classmates.
This social group was influential in motivating/demoti-
vating students towards committing employee hotel
theft. For example, two students mentioned:
When we return from our internship, we talk about our
work experience and share stories. Some of the students
told me that they managed to save money by sneaking
into the staff canteen to have free meals during their day
offs. (Student 10)
Some of my classmates have told me that it’s OK to have a
drink or two while on duty. (Student 15)
It was evident that subjective norms played an import-
ant role in forming perceptions for students to commit
employee theft in hotels because the opinions of
important others influenced whether to commit
employee theft.
Perceived behavioural control towards hotel
employee theft
Regarding control beliefs, some students indicated
that as much as they would like the idea of a perfect
non-employee theft environment in hotels, there were
some difficulties outside their control that could
motivate them to commit theft in hotels. Four control
beliefs were identified as factors that motivated them
to commit hotel employee theft. These were:
– Perceived behavioural control 1 – knowledge about
defiant action (n ¼ 21)
– Perceived behavioural control 2 – job security
(n ¼ 15)
– Perceived behavioural control 3 – job stress level
(n ¼ 11)
– Perceived behavioural control 4 – hotel security
enforcement (n ¼ 6)
In most cases where students perceived possible
employee hotel theft, it was because they were
unsure if certain actions were seen as theft acts were
seen as wrong and limited knowledge and clarification
could be an external factor beyond their control. The
most mentioned (n ¼ 21) external factor was the lack/
unclear knowledge about which actions or items con-
stituted to employee theft in hotels. Some of the stu-
dents mentioned:
Sometimes it is difficult to know if taking certain items are
seen as theft. For example, I normally keep the hotel pen
and take it home, or take the mints from meetings. If you
consider this as theft, then I think it’s a small issue and we
should be clearly informed as everyone do it. (Student 2)
There are many things that hotel employees do in hotels that
could be seen as theft but it is unclear especially when these
are not covered during orientation sessions. For example,
using of facebook during work time. Is this theft of time?
Or what about having giving your friends discounts?
(Student 14)
Sometimes the situation is unclear especially when everyone
else is doing it. At the end of my restaurant shifts, a few of
us normally have a couple of drinks at the back of house.
This seems to be quite normal especially when our team
leader is also drinking with us. (Student 21)
The second most mentioned (n ¼ 15) perceived diffi-
culty was job security. A majority of respondents
expressed the possibility of employee theft due to the
lack of job security. For example, two students
mentioned:
No names mentioned but I know of friends who take food
and drinks home because they feel insecure about their job
Goh and Kong
and feel that there’s nothing to lose if they get fired.
(Student 5)
I have seen floor staff stealing tips from the tilt on their last
day of work. Obviously, he knew he was leaving anyway
and wasn’t afraid of getting caught. (Student 17)
The level of stress associated with the job was the third
most mentioned (n ¼ 11) perceived difficulty students
mentioned when committing employee theft. For
example, two students mentioned:
Sometimes hotel employees would have a drink or two
during their shifts to calm themselves to relieve stress. My
team leader always has a beer from the bar before and after
his shift. (Student 8)
This is a pretty intense industry and sometimes it can be
stressful. If you can’t handle your stress well, some employ-
ees could resort to stealing to make them feel better. I used to
have a workmate who was always on smoke breaks every
hour because he was so stressed about working in the kit-
chen. I feel this is unfair because I don’t smoke and there-
fore work harder than him. I feel his pay should be deducted
as he is stealing time from the hotel. (Student 29)
The last perceived barrier limiting employee theft
behaviour was hotel security enforcement. Students
mentioned the lack of in-house security presence as a
motivating factor towards theft. For example, two stu-
dents mentioned:
Sometimes during the weekends and holidays when there
are lots of functions and high occupancy in the hotel, the
security is stretched and pays less attention towards the
staff. This could be seen as a good window of opportunity
for some staff to steal things. (Student 4)
The security seems to be very relaxed at my hotel.
Sometimes they don’t even check your bag when you
leave the hotel at the end of shift. Some of my colleagues
take a gamble and bring out alcohol hoping that they will
not be searched. (Student 12)
The perceived behavioural control variable of the
TPB was relevant for the majority of the students
who suggested they could commit employee theft,
given the barriers and obstacles facing them. The
perceived behavioural control factor was effective in
identifying the reasons for intentions to commit
employee theft and provided insights to certain hotel
improvements such as increased security, better clarity
regarding prohibited actions and items that were con-
sidered theft that could prevent employee theft.
The above results elicited various reasons of
students’ motivation to commit employee theft. The
feeling of adrenaline was found to be the most fre-
quently mentioned reason for employee theft taking
9
place in hotels. Although this reason has not been
reported specifically in hotel employee theft, the
search for thrill and excitement in theft is commonly
reported in car theft and robbery (Copes, 2003;
Hochstetler, 2001; Jacobs et al., 2003; Lopez, 2008).
Similarly, Burt and Simons (2013) reported respond-
ents who committed theft displayed thrill-seeking
attributes and getting excitement out of the theft
experience. As reported by Matsueda et al. (2006),
respondents felt like an adrenaline rush and were
more satisfied with this feeling over than the actual
monetary value of the theft. In shoplifting literature,
this adrenaline rush is referred to as sensation seeking
behaviour (Hansen and Breivik, 2001).
The second and third most mentioned possibilities
of hotel employee theft were due to low wages and
revenge for unfair treatment. This is in support of
Hart (2008) who reported perceived unfairness
among employees to be a major reason for employee
theft. Similarly, Hollinger et al. (2010) reported
fast-food restaurant employees engaged in counterpro-
ductive activities and theft such as giving food away
and eating on the job as they felt that they have put in
efforts above or beyond their job performance, but
did not received any recognition from their employer
so they decide to steal from their workplace and try
to restore the balance of their unfairness. Their study
also reported that employee theft due to perceived
employer unfairness was a by-product regardless
of age or tenure with the company. Interestingly,
Greenberg (2002) conducted an experiment where
subjects were underpaid for completing a job and
were given an opportunity to steal from a bowl of pen-
nies placed in the room together with them. Her find-
ings reported subjects who did not undergo the ethics
orientation program stole from the company as a way
to compensate their perceived unfairness and rationa-
lised this behaviour acceptable under these conditions.
This is common among employees who received a
lower pay or treated unfairly in their job (Hart, 2008).
The next most mentioned reasons for employee theft
in hotels were the perception of why pay when it’s free
mentality. Although the notion of the free mentality
has not been previously reported in hotel employee
theft studies, studies in deviant behaviour in non-
compliant behaviour in national parks have referred
this as the ‘tragedy of commons’ behaviour
(Gramann et al., 1992) where an individual possesses
somewhat of a ‘self-maximising’ (Hardin, 1968) atti-
tude to acquire benefits for the individual at the
expense of the majority. Therefore, one could argue
that in relation to hotel employee theft, subjects
could be stealing to satisfy their personal benefits in
order not to lose out at the expense of the greater
majority of the employees and employers.
10
With regards to reference groups, the role of col-
leagues working in the same department was seen
as the strongest reference group that students looked
to in supporting their possibility of committing hotel
employee theft. This is very similar to situational inter-
pretation (Manning, 1999) commonly discussed in
non-compliant behavioural studies of visitors in
national parks. One explanation of this ‘monkey see,
monkey do’ copying behaviour is rationalisation
(Cressey, 1953; Rothwell and Hawdon, 2008) where
students alter and rationalise their normal behaviour
based on the behaviour of other colleagues. For exam-
ple, seeing other colleagues taking alcohol home from
the hotel bar may encourage other visitors to adopt a
rationale ‘if they can do it, why can’t we’ mentality.
Past studies on employee theft such as Schmidtke
(2007) have also argued that social norms are import-
ant in understanding employee theft behaviour as
observers of employee theft are less likely to report
and more likely to imitate the theft behaviour of co-
workers. This study also elicited other reference
groups that were not previous reported in hotel
employee theft studies, which included important
social groups of department managers, hotel guests,
in-house security and classmates. This rationalising
copying behaviour suggested that normative influence
could have a major impact on hotel employee theft
decisions.
In relation to perceived difficulties towards hotel
employee theft, knowledge about the defiant action
itself was the most frequently stated perceived diffi-
culty factor that reduced students’ intentions to
commit hotel employee theft. One of the main stu-
dents’ response to this was that in most cases, they
themselves did not know if their actions were con-
sidered as hotel employee theft as no one told them
they could not do it. This is similar to Appelbaum
et al. (2006) who reported managers assuming that
employees have basic common sense to distinguish
right from wrong and know what is employee theft.
This is often a misguided conception and employees
need to have clear directions and communication
about company rules and regulations against theft
and dishonesty in the workplace. This assumed know-
ledge about employee theft is then hard to manage, as
each employee would have his or her own definition of
employee theft.
The present study also identified job security as
another perceived difficulty faced by employees when
committing theft. The lack of job security is beyond
the employee’s control and past studies have sup-
ported this view where employees are more likely to
commit theft, absenteeism and counterproductive
activities if they are not committed, lack ownership,
young and unsure about their future with the company
Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
(Poulston, 2008). This study also identified an inter-
esting difficulty about job stress, which students men-
tioned as a possible motivating factor to commit
employee theft to relieve stress. This is somewhat simi-
lar to Lopez (2008) who reported that delinquents
found theft as a way to escape from the harsh realities
of the society.
Conclusion
This paper has contributed to the paucity of employee
theft among hotel management students. The main
purpose of this exploratory study was to identify motiv-
ational attitudes, social groups and perceived difficulties
of Gen Z undergraduate hotel management students
towards committing employee theft in hotels. The
TPB served as a useful and systematic framework in
structuring this exploratory study. In summary, results
from this paper identified four attitudes; five important
reference groups and four perceived difficulties students
have towards the perception of committing hotel
employee theft. Results strongly suggest the need for
institutions to include topics covering employee theft,
ethical and moral behaviour as part of their course cur-
riculum to better prepare them for employment and
preventive measures against employee theft in the
future. It is also important to work closely with hotels
to understand the new trends and policies in managing
employee theft. One important new finding is the role
of stress as a perceived difficulty that students feel
uncontrollable and motivates employee theft as a way
to relieve job stress. Schools will have to promote relax-
ation techniques and work life balance as a healthy way
of life.
Industry implications
Our research recommends a couple of strategies to
prevent employee theft and maximise ethical
behaviour in future hotel employment. Firstly, as
most students perceived employee theft to be exciting
and adrenaline rushing, educators and practitioners
must emphasise the importance of breaking the
law when committing employee theft and the conse-
quences for employee theft. It is also important to help
these students experience excitement in different ways
such as through fieldtrips to sky diving or even bungee
jumping.
Furthermore, it is recommended that students’
expectations be managed before entering into the
hotel industry. It is important to explain the job
descriptions, pay structure, working hours and condi-
tions of life in hotels to set realistic student expect-
ations about their future employment. As reflected in
the interviews, most students felt that employee theft
Goh and Kong
could help to supplement their low wages and com-
pensate unfair treatment. Obviously, there seems to
be a misconception about being a student and
actual employment conditions in a hotel. This will
allow students to have a clearer objective and be men-
tally prepared for their future employment in hotels.
Schools should also invite past alumni students to
share their work experience with new students to
give them an insight and reality check as they have
been through the employment process.
In relation to social groups, schools and hotels will
need to work closely to educate students and employ-
ees about employee theft and discourage them through
job empowerment, enrichment and career progression
pathways. Obviously, the most influential social group
in motivating students to commit employee theft is
other colleagues in the same department. There
needs to be a strong crackdown at the departmental
level from department heads through close monitoring
and mentoring of staff especially the younger ones.
With regards to overcoming constraints, it is recom-
mended that all students and future hotel employees
undergo a compulsory orientation session that covers
ethical responsibility and zero tolerance to employee
theft in the workplace. There should also be short pro-
fessional development courses that new and existing
staff must complete to ensure that they are educated
correctly about employee theft.
Another perceived difficulty that students expressed
was about the lack of job security that could be seen as
motivation to commit employee theft, as there is noth-
ing for them to lose as they are on a short contract.
One way to resolve this is to engage in professional
development activities and career progression planning
strategies to show that the company is concerned
about their career path and is helping them to achieve
their long-term career objectives. It is also recom-
mended that all hotels work together to develop a data-
base to share information about theft and unethical
behaviour to detect and take precautionary measures
to educate new staff members with past theft history.
Limitations and future research
Results and conclusions from this study must be trea-
ted with caution. First, the exploratory nature of this
study serves as a limitation. This sees the limitation of
using students from one institution rather than mul-
tiple institutions to assemble the sample group.
For example, students from other schools may have
different educational and work experiences and pos-
sess different types of attitudes, different social
groups (such as family) and perceived difficulties that
could influence their perceptions about hotel employee
theft. Thus, results must not be generalised for the
11
entire population. Therefore, one future area of
research is to use the qualitative items to develop a
quantitative survey and conduct further statistical
tests to quantify the exploratory results before they
can be generalised. The sample also needs to include
students from other disciplines such as accounting,
marketing or law to reduce subjectivity and biasness
towards a single discipline of students. Lastly, future
research is also required into other motivational or
emotional factors such as stress, personality and age
to explore if demographics and other external factors
could have an impact on employee theft behaviour
in hotels.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Ainsworth B (2006) Retail employee theft: A theory of planned
behaviour perspective. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management 34(11): 802–816.
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.
Armitage CJ and Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned
behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social
Psychology 40: 471–499.
Appelbaum SH, Cottin J, Pare R and Shapiro B (2006) Employee
theft: From behavioural causation and prevention to managerial
detection and remedies. Journal of American Academy of Business,
Cambridge 9(2): 175–182.
Ballantyne R, Packer J and Axelsen M (2009) Trends in tourism
research. Annals of Tourism Research 36(1): 149–152.
Betsy S (2011) Hotel managers identify ethical problems: A survey
of their concerns. Hospitality Review 29(2): 22–36.
Burt C and Simons R (2013) Self control, thrill seeking, and crime.
Criminal Justice and Behaviour 40(11): 1326–1348.
Cheng P, Yang T, Wan C, et al. (2013) Ethical contexts and
employee job responses in the hotel industry: The roles of
work values and perceived organizational support. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 34: 108–115.
Copes H (2003) Streetlife and the rewards of autotheft. Deviant
Behaviour 24: 309–332.
Cressey DR (1953) Other People’s Money: A Study in the Social
Psychology of Embezzlement. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Davis M, Johnson N and Ohmer D (1998) Issue-contingent effects
on ethical decision making: A cross cultural comparison. Journal
of Business Ethics 17(4): 373–384.
Dawson M, Abbott J and Shoemaker S (2011) The hospitality
culture scale: A measure of organizational culture and personal
attributes. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30(2):
290–300.
Deshpande S and Rundle-Thiele S (2011) Segmenting and target-
ing American university students to promote responsible alcohol
12
use: A case for applying social marketing principles. Health
Marketing Quarterly 28(4): 287–303.
Ekwall D and Lantz B (2015) Cargo theft at non-secure parking
locations. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management 43(3): 204–220.
Elie-Dit-Cosaque C, Pallud J and Kalika M (2011) The influence of
individual, contextual, and social factors on perceived behavioural
control of information technology: A field theory approach.
Journal of Management Information Systems 28(3): 201–234.
Everton W, Jolton J and Mastrangelo P (2007) Be nice and fair or
else: Understanding reasons for employees’ deviant behaviours.
Journal of Management Development 26(2): 117–131.
Fadiya O, Georgakis P, Chinyio E, et al. (2013) Analysing the
perceptions of UK building contractors on the contributors to
the cost of construction plant theft. Journal of Financial
Management of Property and Construction 18(2): 128–141.
Farrow V and Tarrant M (2009) Weight-based discrimination, body
dissatisfaction and emotional eating: The role of perceived social
consensus. Psychology and Health 24(9): 1021–1034.
Freedman A and Bartholomew S (1992) Students’ perceptions
of ethical issues in the hospitality and tourism industry.
Hospitality Research Journal 15(2): 41–50.
Geller N (1991) Rule out fraud and theft: Controlling your food
service operation. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly 32(4): 55–65.
Glaser B and Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing
Company.
Godin G and Kok G (1996) The theory of planned behaviour: A
review of its applications to health related behaviours. American
Journal of Health Promotion 11(2): 87–98.
Goh E (2009) Public education and parents: Eliciting salient
beliefs using the theory of planned behaviour as a qualitative
research framework. International Review on Public and
Nonprofit Marketing 6(2): 99–108.
Goh E (2010) Understanding the heritage tourist market segment.
International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing 1(3):
257–270.
Goh E (2011) Predicting parental intentions behind public school
selection using the theory of planned behaviour. International
Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 8(2): 97–110.
Goh E and Ritchie B (2011) Using the theory of planned behaviour
to understand student attitudes and constraints toward attending
fieldtrips. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism 11(2):
179–194.
Goh E, Ritchie B and Wang J (2017) Non-compliance in national
parks: An extension of the theory of planned behavior model
with pro-environmental values. Tourism Management 59:
123–127.
Goh E and Scerri M (2016) I study accounting because I have to:
An exploratory study of hospitality students’ attitudes towards
accounting education. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Education 28(2): 85–94.
Gramann J, Christensen H and Vander Stoep G (1992) Indirect
management to protect cultural and natural resources:
Research, ethics and social policy. In: Christensen H, Johnson
D and Brroks M (eds) Vandalism: Research, Prevention, and Social
Policy Management. Portland, Oregon: US Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, pp. 251–264.
Greenberg J (1990) Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment
inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied
Psychology 75(5): 561–568.
Greenberg J (2002) Who stole the money, and when? Individual and
situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 89(1): 985–1003.
Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
Hansen E and Breivik G (2001) Sensation seeking as a predictor of
positive and negative risk behaviour among adolescents.
Personality and Individual Differences 30(4): 627–640.
Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:
1243–1248.
Harris C (2012) Ripping off tourists: An empirical evaluation of
tourists’ perceptions and service worker (mis)behaviour. Annals
of Tourism Research 39(2): 1070–1093.
Hart KM (2008) Not wanted: Thieves. HR Magazine 119–123.
Hatice G, Meryem A and Sabah B (2011) Ethical approaches and
their application in hotel managers’ decision making. An
International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism 6(1): 84–104.
Henie C, Giacalone R and Jurkiewicz C (2005) The role of ethical
ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics 56(3):
219–230.
Hochstetler A (2001) Opportunities and decisions: Interactional
dynamics in robbery and burglary groups. Criminology 39:
737–763.
Hollinger R and Clark J (1983) Theft by Employees. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Hollinger R and Davis J (2006) Employee theft and staff dishonesty.
The Handbook of Security. New York: Palgrave Macmillian,
pp. 203–228.
Hollinger R, Slora K and Terris W (2010) Deviance in the fast-food
restaurant: Correlates of employee theft, altruism, and counter-
productivity. Deviant Behaviour 13(2): 155–184.
Holt G (2007) Theft by library staff. The Bottom Line 20(2): 85–93.
Iboro F (2011) Perceived psycho emotional influence of aesthetics,
affluence and environmental sophistication on employees’ theft
behaviours in the workplace. IFE Psychologia 19(1): 1–15.
Iverson D and Deery J (2001) Understanding the personological
basis of employee withdrawal: The influence of affective dispos-
ition on employee tardiness, early departure and absenteeism.
Journal of Applied Psychology 86(5): 856–866.
Jacobs B, Volkan T and Wright W (2003) Carjacking, street life and
offender motivation. British Journal of Criminology 43: 673–688.
James C (2014) ‘‘Is it OK to steal at work?’’ Sydney Morning
Herald. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/
managing/is-it-ok-tosteal-at-work20140827-3dm8s.html
(accessed 28 February 2014).
Jennings G (2001) Tourism Research. Brisbane: John Wiley.
Jones M (1991) Ethical decision making by individuals in organiza-
tions: An issue contingent model. Academy of Management
Review 16(2): 366–395.
Kennedy J (2015) Sharing the keys to the kingdom: Responding to
employee theft by empowering employees to be guardians, place
managers, and handlers. Journal of Crime and Justice 1(1): 1–16.
Kennedy J (2016) Shedding light on employee theft’s dark figure:
A typology of employee theft non-reporting rationalizations.
Organization Management Journal 13(1): 49–60.
Kim Y and Miller G (2008) Perceptions of the ethical climate in the
Korean tourism industry. Journal of Business Ethics 82(4): 941–954.
Knani M (2014) Ethics in the hospitality industry: Review
and research agenda. International Journal of Business and
Management 9(3): 1–8.
Krippel G, Henderson L, Keene M, et al. (2008) Employee theft
and the Coastal South Carolina hospitality industry: Incidence,
detection, and response (Survey Results 2000, 2005). Tourism
and Hospitality Research 8(3): 226–238.
Kube S, Puppe C and Marechal M (2012) The currency of reci-
procity: Gift exchange in the workplace. American Economic
Review 102(4): 1644–1662.
Lee S and Tsang K (2013) Perceptions of tourism and hotel man-
agement students on ethics in the workplace. Journal of Teaching
in Travel and Tourism 13(3): 228–250.
Goh and Kong
Litzky B, Eddleston K and Kidder D (2006) The good, the bad, and
the misguided: How managers inadvertently encourage deviant
behaviours. The Academy of Management 20(1): 91–103.
Lo K and Lamm F (2005) Occupational stress in the hospitality
industry: An employment relations perspective. New Zealand
Journal of Employment Relations 30(1): 23–47.
Lopez V (2008) Understanding adolescent property crime using
a delinquent vents perspective. Deviant Behaviour 29(7):
581–610.
Luna-Arocas R and Tang T (2004) The love of money, satisfaction,
and the protestant work ethic: Money profiles among university
professors in the USA and Spain. Journal of Business Ethics 50:
329–354.
Malhotra N, Agarwal J and Peterson M (1996) Methodological
issues in cross-cultural marketing research: A state of the art
review. International Marketing Review 13(5): 7–43.
Malik G and Guptha A (2013) An empirical study on behavioural
intent of consumers in online shopping. Business Perspectives and
Research 2(1): 13–26.
Manning R (1999) Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research
for Satisfaction, 2nd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University
Press.
Matsueda R, Kreager D and Huizinga D (2006) Deterring delin-
quents: A rational choice model of theft and violence. American
Sociological Review 71(1): 95–122.
Matti J and Ross A (2016) Does crime affect entrepreneurship? A
discussion of the current literature. Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Public Policy 5(3): 1–31.
Miethe D and McCorkle R (1998) Crime Profiles: The Anatomy of
Dangerous Persons, Places, and Situations. Los Angeles: Roxbury
Publishing Company.
Moorthy K, Seetharaman A, Jaffar N, et al. (2015) Employee per-
ceptions of workplace theft behaviour: A study among supermar-
ket retail employees in Malaysia. Ethics and Behavior 25(1):
61–85.
Mustaine E and Tewksbury R (2002) Workplace theft: An analysis
of student employee offenders and job attributes. American
Journal of Criminal Justice 27(1): 111–127.
Niehoff B and Paul R (2000) Causes of employee theft and strate-
gies that HR managers can use for prevention. Human Resource
Management 39(1): 51–61.
Oliphant B and Oliphant G (2001) Using a behaviour based method
to identify and reduce employee theft. International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management 29(10): 442–451.
Poulston J (2008) Rationales for employee theft in hospitality:
Excuses, excuses. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management 15(1): 49–58.
Robinson S and Bennett R (1995) A typology of deviant workplace
behaviours: A multidimensional scaling study. The Academy of
Management Journal 38(2): 555–572.
Rothwell V and Hawdon J (2008) Science, individualism, and atti-
tudes toward deviance: The influence of modernization and
rationalization. Deviant Behavior 29(3): 253–274.
Sacco V and Kennedy W (1996) The Criminal Event: An Introduction
to Criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Salima D, Jan R and Arthur V (2010) The perception of small
crime. European Journal of Political Economy 27: 749–763.
Sauser J (2007) Employee theft: Who, how, why, and what can be
done. SAM Advanced Management Journal 72(3): 13–25.
Schmidtke J (2007) The relationship between social norm consen-
sus, perceived similarity, and observer reactions to coworker
theft. Human Resource Management 46(4): 561–582.
Sheeran P, Norman P and Conner M (2001) Can the theory of
planned behavior explain patterns of health behavior change?
Health Psychology 20(1): 12–19.
13
Shigihara A (2013) It’s only stealing a little a lot: Techniques of
neutralization for theft among restaurant workers. Deviant
Behaviour 34(6): 494–512.
Sparks B and Pan G (2009) Chinese outbound tourists:
Understanding their attitudes, constraints and use of informa-
tion sources. Tourism Management 30: 483–494.
Stevens B (2001) Hospitality ethics: Responses from human
resource directors and students to seven ethical scenarios.
Journal of Business Ethics 30: 233–242.
Stott C and Drury J (2004) The importance of social structure and
social interaction in stereotype consensus and content: Is the
whole greater than the sum of its parts? European Journal of
Social Psychology 34(1): 11–23.
Tryon G and Kleiner B (1997) How to investigate alleged employee
theft properly. Managerial Auditing Journal 12(1): 19–22.
Tseng L and Su W (2013) Customer orientation, social consensus
and insurance salespeople’s tolerance of customer insurance
frauds. The International Journal of Bank Marketing 31(1): 38–55.
Wang J and Ritchie B (2013) Understanding accommodation man-
agers’ crisis planning intention: An application of the theory of
planned behaviour. Tourism Management 33(5): 1057–1067.
Weaver P, Choi J and Kaufman T (1997) Question wording
and response bias: Students’ perceptions of ethical issues in the
hospitality and tourism industry. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Education 9(2): 21–26.
Wong A and Chan A (2010) Understanding the leadership percep-
tions of staff in China’s hotel industry: Integrating the macro and
micro aspects of leadership contexts. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 29(3): 437–447.
Wong S (1998) Staff job-related ethics of hotel employees in Hong
Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 10(3): 107–115.
Yaman R and Gurel E (2006) Ethical ideologies of tourism mar-
keters. Annals of Tourism Research 33(2): 470–489.
Yeh R (2012) Hotel general managers’ perceptions of business ethics
education: Implication for hospitality educators, professionals,
and students. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and
Tourism 11(1): 72–86.
Yeung S and Pine R (2003) Designing a hospitality ethics course
content from the students’ perspective. Journal of Teaching in
Travel and Tourism 3(2): 19–33.
Zerbe W (2008) Feelings about ethical decisions: The emotions of
moral residue. Research on Emotion in Organizations 4: 109–129.
Author Biographies
Edmund Goh is head of Academic Studies, Blue
Mountains International Hotel Management School,
Torrens University Australia. He sees research as a
pivotal nexus to bridge the gap between academia
and industry. His research interests include: employee
theft, heritage tourism, qualitative research methods,
consumer decision-making, non-compliant behaviour,
and tourism and hospitality education pedagogy. He
has published in journals such as Tourism
Management, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Environmental Education
Research, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Education, Journal of Teaching for Travel and
Tourism Education, International Review on Public
and Non Profit Marketing, International Journal of
14
Public Policy, and International Journal of Leisure and
Tourism Marketing.
Sandra Kong is Food and Beverage lecturer, Blue
Mountains International Hotel Management School,
Torrens University Australia. She has worked in the
hospitality industry for more than 10 years and
View publication stats
Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
lectures in the Food and Beverage Undergraduate
units. She has a Master of Business Administration
(Marketing) from Glion University, Switzerland and
a Bachelors of Business from University of New
England. Her research interests include: Hospitality
management, talent management, consumer misbeha-
viour, and experiential learning pedagogy.