job satisfaction of hotel room attendants by swee …

JOB SATISFACTION OF HOTEL ROOM ATTENDANTS

by

SWEE HUA GOH, B.S.

A THESIS

IN

RESTAURANT, HOTEL, AND INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

HOME ECONOMICS

Approved

Accepted

December, 1989

hc "^0 6

f^O.^O TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF FIGURES vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1 Housekeeping Department 1 Justification Of The Problem 2 Statement of Problem 4 Hypotheses 4 Limitations of the Study 5 Definition of Terms 5 Organization of the Study 7

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 9 Abilities and Needs 9 Turnover 13 Incentives and Recognition 17 Coping with Hospitality Labor

Shortage 19 Summary 24

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 26 Questionnaire 2 6 Selection of Samples 28 Procedures 28 Data Analysis 28

Percentile score 29 Analysis of variance 29

IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDING 31 Interpretation of Percentile

Scores 31 Intrinsic 31 Extrinsic 3 3 Working conditions and

co-workers 3 5 Demographic Breakdown of Sample

Characteristics 35 Analysis of Variance 68

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 76 Summary 76 Conclusion 78 Suggestion for Further Survey 79

11

REFERENCES 81

APPENDICES 84 A. PERMISSION TO USE QUESTIONNAIRE 84 B. QUESTIONNAIRES 90 C. LETTER TO HOTELS 93 D. ITEMS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE 95

111

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Employee Turnover Rate by Department in 17 Selected Hotels 15

2.2 Reported Causes of Employee Turnover in 17 Selected Hotels 16

4.1 Percentile Responses by Hotel Housekeepers to Items in the Intrinsic Motivation Scale 32

4.2 Percentile Responses by Hotel Housekeepers to Items in the Extrinsic Motivation Scale 34

4.3 Percentile Responses by Hotel Housekeepers to Items Concerning Working Conditions and Co-workers 3 6

4.4 Percentile of Responses in the Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey 38

4.5 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 1 - Being able to keep busy all the time 38

4.6 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 2 - The chance to work alone on the job 40

4.7 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 3 - The chance to do different things from time to time 41

4.8 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 4 - The chance to be "somebody" in the community 42

4.9 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 5 - The way my boss handles his/her employees 44

4.10 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 9 - The chance to do things for other people 45

IV

4.11 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 6 - The competence of my supervisor in making decisions 47

4.12 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 7 - Being able to do things that don't go against my conscience 48

4.13 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 8 - The way my job provides steady employment 49

4.14 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 10 - The chance to tell other people what to do 51

4.15 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 11 - The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities 53

4.16 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 12 - The way my company policies are put into practice 54

4.17 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 15 - The freedom to use my own judgment 57

4.18 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 13 - My pay and the amount of work I do 58

4.19 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 14 - The chance for advancement on this job 60

4.20 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 16 - The chance to try my own methods of doing the job 61

4.21 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 17 - The working conditions 63

4.22 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 18 - The way my co-workers get along with each other 64

4.2 3 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 19 - The praise I get for doing a good job 66

4.24 Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 20 - The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job 67

4.25 Analysis of Variance of Differences Between Gender and Job Satisfaction of Hotel Housekeepers 71

4.26 Analysis of Variance of Difference Between the Education Levels and Job Satisfaction of Hotel Housekeepers 72

4.27 Analysis of Variance of Difference Between the Age Groups of Respondents and Job Satisfaction of Hotel Housekeepers 75

4.28 Analysis of Variance of Difference Between the Average Room Rates and Job Satisfaction for Hotel Housekeepers 77

VI

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Inception of the Work Personality 10

2.2 Individualization of the Work Personality 11

Vll

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Housekeeping Department

Hotels and motels have regarded housekeeping as one

of the minor operations of a hotel, a necessary evil in

running a lodging property (Zbaeren, 1983). Without the

housekeeping department the hotel would have dirty,

unmade rooms to offer to the public which would cause

guests to disappear and profits to dwindle.

The lodging industry has become more aware of the

housekeeping department and has realized that

housekeepers are valued employees. Duties of

housekeepers include keeping rooms clean, making beds,

cleaning bathrooms, replacing linens, dusting furniture

and vacuuming. This makes every guest who comes into a

room feel as if he were the most important person to stay

there. Housekeepers are responsible for upholding

quality room standards and the reputation of the hotel.

However, housekeepers are traditionally low on the

pay scale and the job often lacks prestige. Also, the

housekeeping department frequently experiences a high

turnover rate. Hotel management should plan to emphasize

the housekeeping area by training and retaining

housekeepers and by searching for ways to make the

housekeeper feel more respected. Employees need personal

dignity and a feeling of being important to the success

of the operation. A mark of a good manager would be to

hire good employees and keep them.

Justification of the Problem

The nature of the lodging industry is a labor-

intensive one. The availability of employees to work in

the housekeeping department depends on the number in the

labor force and people willing to perform these jobs.

The United States Bureau of Census examined employment,

by function, in the lodging industry. In 1982 the

housekeepers represented one-quarter of the total

employees hired in the hospitality industry (Hiemstra and

Kruel, 1986).

The hospitality industry recruits much of its labor

force within the 16 to 24 age group.

The U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics expects annual shrinkage in this age group: 2.4 percent for men and 2.2 percent for women through 1990; then 1.2 percent for both sexes between 1990 and 1995. (Leposky, 1987, p. 25)

The U.S. Department of Labor in New York predicted a

decline in young workers from 30 percent of the total

labor force in 1985 to 16 percent in the year 2000

(Leposky, 1987). This indicates a very acute shortage of

labor in the year 2000.

The supply of people available to perform

housekeeping jobs is decreasing as educational levels

rise and the number of entry-level personnel declines due

to changing demographics (Hiemstra and Kruel, 1986). An

increase in educational levels will decrease the number

of people available and willing to work in the unskilled

job market.

Between 1972 and 1982, the annual rate of increase

in number of hotel rooms averaged 1.6 percent annually.

This rate tripled to 4.5 percent annually between 1982 to

1985 (Hiemstra and Kruel, 1986). This increase in the

number of rooms has led to a demand for more

housekeepers.

The average room rates between the mid-1930's and the mid-1950's changed little, while occupancy rates fluctuated dramatically. Rates rose moderately through the early 1960's, but occupancies dropped as a result of sizable additions to supply. Unfavorable economic conditions during the late 1960's and early 1970's were reflected in lower occupancies but not in room rates. Increased demand during the mid to late 1970's boosted occupancies and was accompanied by a continued rise in room rates. (Greenberg, 1985, pp. 10-11)

The number of rooms sold depends upon economic and

demographic growth as well as price (Greenberg, 1985).

The number of employees needed per room, depended on the

level and type of service provided. High rate (over

$60.00 per night) demands a greater level of service.

Room rates and lodging demand has resulted in an increase

in the number of employees per room (Hiemstra and Kruel,

1986).

In the labor intensive hospitality industry, jobs

like making beds and cleaning bathrooms have been

impossible to automate. The rapid growth rate of the

hospitality industry demands more people to work in entry

level, semi-skilled positions while the labor supply

decreases. Attracting and keeping good housekeepers will

be essential for hotels.

Statement of Problem

Hotels are now faced with the problems of labor

shortage and turnover in housekeeping. A study of the

individual housekeeper's job satisfaction would aid

management in gaining an insight on why a housekeeper

remains on the job.

Hypotheses

1. There is no significant and measurable

relationship between a housekeeper's job

satisfaction and level of activity on the job.



satisfaction and company policies and

practices.



satisfaction and level of compensation.


relationship in a housekeeper's job

satisfaction and working conditions.

Limitations of the Study

This research was limited to the housekeepers of 18

hotels in the Dallas and Houston area. A second

limitation was that the participants might be unable or

unwilling to answer some of questions presented on the

research instrument due to misinterpretation of the

question or fear or reprisal by management.

Definition of Terms

In order to clearly understand the problem the

following terms are operationally defined.

Ability: Physical or mental power to perform.

Achievement: Accomplishment.

Company Policies and Practices: The rules and

regulations of the work place.

Efficiency: The smoothness of the operation and

ability to solve on-the-job problems accordingly.

Extrinsic: External, beyond the control of the

person when relating to their job situation.

Hospitality Industry: The entire establishment in

the practicing of entertainment of visitors with

kindness.

Housekeeper: Employee in the hospitality industry

responsible for keeping the rooms and hotel clean.

Houseman: Employee who works for Housekeeping;

responsible for heavy cleaning jobs, lifting, and

moving (Tucker and Schneider, 1982).

Incentive: Something inciting one to action or

effort.

Intrinsic: Inherent, part of the nature of a person

related to their job satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction: The individual's evaluation of

stimuli in the work environment with reference to

their effectiveness in reinforcing his behavior

(Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964).

Labor Turnover: The percentage of total employees

hired in a month or the percentage of employees

leaving in a month.

M.S.O.: Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire used

to measure the ability requirements in work and the

reinforcers available in the work environment.

Productivity: Output of goods or services per hour

of labor (Kast and Rosenzweig, 1985).

Reinforcer: Specifications of the reinforcement

values of classes of stimulus conditions (Dawis,

England and Lofquist, 1964).

Skill: The techniques, the approaches and the

styles of translating knowledge into actions or

practice.

Training: The process of acquiring and developing

skills, knowledge and attitudes through

instructional activities.

Work Adjustment: The process by which the

individual (with his unique set of abilities and

needs) acts, reacts and comes to term with his work

environment (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964).

Organization of the Study

This study is organized as follows: Chapter I

includes the introduction, the justification of the

problem, the statement of the problem, hypotheses, the

limitation of the study and the definitions of

operational terms within the study.

Chapter II presents the review of related literature

and research pertinent to the problem under the study.

Chapter III describes the methods and procedures

used to obtain and analyze the data.

Chapter IV presents the data obtained, the

statistical analysis of the data and the findings.

8

Chapter V includes the summary, conclusions and

recommendations based on the findings of Chapter IV.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Abilities and Needs

It has long been recognized that people need more

than just food, air, water and a job to satisfy life's

needs. These needs change with time, technology and

environment as an individual grows and acquires new

abilities and new needs for life (Dawis, England and

Lofquist, 1964). Individuals discover that their

abilities and capabilities go hand in hand with their

needs.

Self-realization and feeling of personal accomplis-

ment can be considered positive personal satisfaction in

the workplace (Lundberg and Armatas, 1979). It is

important for an individual to have meaningful work and

stay on the job. Consequently, the environment must

match an individual's work personality.

The theory of work adjustment is a study of how well an individual's abilities correspond to the ability requirements of the job which will predict the satisfactoriness of his work and how well his needs correspond to the reinforcers available in the work environment which will predict his satisfaction with his work. (Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2) (Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1964)

"A Theory of Human Motivation" by A.H. Maslow,

recognized the hierarchy of five basic needs of humans.

1 0

U)

0) - H 4J -rH .—1 -rH

;^

(U u c 0) CP

- H .—1 r H

0) 4J

c - H

r H fl M 0) c Q) CP

g.l

(U

r H (fl

X) t-l (U >

CM

^H 0)

o • H >-l 0) b 3 c n

. H nj

• H 4-1

<n a n

T

c o

- H 4-)

a, (U u M 0) Q. 1 e u o

I M

i n

. H lO

u -H t-l (U

. H o

VO

c o

-H 4-)

m c

- H

i-l

o o o u o 4-)

o e r~

> 1 4-) - H M 1 ' 4-1 X fl) -rt M a) ry c

• H M-i

0 0

(1) w -n n <fl

> i 4-1 - H

> • H J-) (fl 01 ^ u

i H

tj<

Q>

r. n

- H CO M QJ t-l 0 . X 0)

(1) () c fl)

T) r. (1) a, (I)

T) r

• H

OM

> i i-) 0)

- H U (fl > ro

CO

(1) • H 4-1 - H . H • H

X) (fl

4-1

o (IJ to p

T

CO

p 4-) (0 4-) CO

r H <TJ

- H

o o CO

LO

> i 4.) - H t-l P u (1) CO

(

(0

> > 1 4J - H r-{ - H

^ - H CO C o a, 10 0) u r

> i

u c 01

T3 C Q) U. <U

TJ

C o - H 4-1 • H

c CP

o u (U t-l

CO

> i 4-1 - H

> - H 4-1 U (fl

<T>

. H fl

• H 4-)

c Q) 4-)

o eu

CO 14 0) u M O

4-1

c - H 0) PS

(U j : : 4-)

c - H

4-1

c <u fc c o M

-H > c w

4-1 0) CO

<u >

- H 4-) - H

e - H t-l

P4

CO 0)

- H 4J • H 1—1 - H

^ < 4-1 O

0) >

- H 4-) • H

c rT> o o

i H

c o

• H 4-1

a 0) u >-< 0) (X

CM

t-l O 4J

o fc m

tp

• H to

• H 4-> C 0) 4-1 O

CLj

an

d

CO t-l (1) o M O

4-1 C

• H (U DS

k 4-1

c (U b Q) U (-1

Re

info

0) n 4-1

c rH

4-» C 0) 6

c o M

• H

> c w

4-1 (U

CO

(U > - H 4-1 • H

e - H t-l

C»j

CO

-d Q) 0) z 4-1

o

4->

c 0) b n) > 0)

- H

j : :

» 0)

r H

D>

0)

C o

- H 4J C (U 4-1 4J (0

CM

c o

- H 4-1

o 0)

4-1 4-1

m n

0)

<

o o u

CO I

0) l-l

CO

c o o. CO 0) oc

r H (0 "H p 0) (fl

-O CO -H •H C 4-) > o c -r-i x: cu Q) t J 4-1 CO 4-> C -H OJ o

M 3 Pi P4

4-) u -H

> 1

o Q)

JC tn ^^

< c w o

•H -p

> 1 -p

-p

(A

0 *M c o (A

0)

o

0)

-p

o

o >

c •H

o >^

Ti

c in

•H

:3 -P w

-P o

c c

•H

c rH en c

•H

Q

C O

•H -P -P

a c :S

u c H (n

3 o •H

CN]

• o - P TJ fd < -p

•H

u o

0)

u

•H «W ft, Q

•H

(0

Q)

11

H 3 4) <0 i^ 4->

H e " !

0

c

ID <«

n i H

• 0 U lU

z

^ ^

•^ V

" t ^ e

•^•s s - H e " " y -H >< 0 ^ en w

1—

OS

< Tl <U (U

z

c -H Q)

t4 < : o 3

nc

c

(U M P CO <0 0) i :

•a g, m " ^

0)

m U CM

r H

4-) 0) 'J^ CP

73 — c w

i H

o J c ^ " u w 2^ Q) < t-l

• • CO

4-1

c H

o 04

> 1

-P TJ

Work Personali

Studies in

wis, England an

Q) fO fO ^ 4J Q 4J 0 ^

in (M Q)

o c ^ C -H S

Individualizatio

rk Adjustment, M

ehabilitation:

64)

0 « (r> 12 H

OO rH • «M fd ^

CN 0 C -P o w

Q) > i -H -H V^ 5H 4-> !3 ^ 0 <d tr t7« 0) 0 <4H

•H 4:: 0 O P»4 tH > iJ

12

They were

1. The physiological needs of hunger and thirst.

2. Safety needs of clothing, shelter and

protection from attack which contribute to

physical safety, thereby preserving and

reinforcing the satisfaction of physiological

drives.

3. Affection needs: Need for affection and love is

best described as the need to belong, not only

as a wanted member of the family unit, but also

as a member of other relatively small groups,

such as work groups.

4. Esteem needs, such as the need for self-

respect, for accomplishment and for

achievement.

5. Self-actualization needs are the capstone of

the hierarchy of needs, is the self-

fulfillment. Physiological, safety, affection

and esteem needs must reach a minimal

satisfaction before complete self-actualization

(Sisk, 1977).

Recognizing human abilities and needs can help

management understand their employees better, thus

increasing productivity and work quality.

13

Turnover

Labor turnover, as defined by the U.S. Department of

Labor, was either the percentage of total employees hired

in a month or the percentage of total employees leaving

in a month (Lundberg and Armatas, 1979). In the

hospitality industry, the employee turnover rate was

considered high when the average three-year turnover rate

was greater than 75 percent and also when a department

turnover rate exceeded the mean for all departments

within the hotels (Wasmuth and Davis, 1983). A high

turnover rate meant that more money and time would be

spent in interviewing, hiring and training new employees.

This would not only increase the labor cost but would

also interfere with the smooth and efficient operation of

an organization. It is estimated that each incident of

employee turnover cost $2,500 (Wasmuth and Davis, 1983).

Studies have demonstrated that high turnover was a

measure of organizational productivity and was the result

of employee alienation, as well as "symptomatic of a

variety of personnel problems" (Wasmuth and Davis, 1983).

Fleishman and Harris noted that turnover was found to be

particularly high in those departments where supervisors

were viewed as being inconsiderate of employees' needs

(Wasmuth and Davis, 1983). Bass and Ryterband, in their

studies covering a range of workers in different types of

organizations, found that turnover was higher when

14

overall job dissatisfaction was higher (Wasmuth and

Davis, 1983).

In regard to the satisfaction, Ross and Zander— in the study of relationship between need— satisfaction and turnover—have shown that there are two different types of reasons for leaving a job: 1. the job itself does not satisfy employee needs, and 2. the job prevents employees from receiving satisfaction from other sources (e.g., satisfaction from involvement with family and community). (Wasmuth and Davis, 1983, p. 15)

Turnover is a by-product of a series of complicated

interactions between an individual and the organization.

There are no easy solutions.

Wasmuth and Davis, of Cornell University, researched

the cost, causes, and management of turnover in five

different departments of 17 individual hotels in the U.S.

as shown in Table 2.1.

Housekeeping was one of the departments studied. It

was found that nine hotels, of the 17 studied, had

continuously high turnover in the Housekeeping

Department, in many cases exceeding 100 percent annually.

From their studies, working conditions led the list of

important factors related to turnover, followed by

quality of supervision and linkages with other

departments.

As illustrated in Table 2.2, managers also reported

that wages, selection and training, career opportunities

and upper level management support had some bearing on

turnover.

15

Table 2.1

Employee Turnover Rate by Department in 17 Selected Hotels

Departments: Number of Hotels

Dept: Ac. E. F&B F.O. Hskg

High turnover remained high 0 0 5 1 High turnover decreased 2 0 1 1 Low turnover increased 0 0 0 0 Low turnover remained low 4 6 0 4

5 1 0 0

Group two: Four hotels with moderate turnover High turnover remained high 0 0 1 3 2 High turnover decreased 1 0 3 0 2 Low turnover increased 0 0 0 0 0 Low turnover remained low 3 4 0 1 0

Group three: Seven hotels with low turnover High turnover remained high 1 1 1 3 2 High turnover decreased 0 1 3 3 1 Low turnover increased 1 2 0 0 0 Low turnover remained low 5 3 3 1 4

Summary of all 17 hotels High turnover remained high 1 1 High turnover decreased 3 1 Low turnover increased 1 2 Low turnover remained low 12 13

7 7 0 3

7 4 0 6

9 4 0 4

Dept Ac F&B Hskg

Departments: Accounting; Food and Beverages-Housekeeping;

E = Engineering; F.O. = Front Office;

Source: The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, May, 1983, p. 17.

Table 2.2

Reported Causes of Employee Turnover in 17 Selected Hotels

16

Perceived major causes Percent of Managers Citing Dept: Ac. E. F&B. F.O. Hskg

Code Descriptive Title

A8 Bl B2 B3 B4 B5 B9 BIO C7

Quality of work force Pay and benefits 21% Working conditions 12 Quality of supervision 12 Better offers 24 Low Status 12 Lack of upward mobility 6 Low job security Transients -

—

12% 6 —

12 —

—

—

^

29% 41 47 76 18 24 18 6

29

18% 41 29 29 53 —

—

—

18

29% 41 47 59 6

47 29 6

47

Dept = Departments: Ac = Accounting; F&B = Food and Beverages; Hskg = Housekeeping;

E = Engineering; F.O. = Front Office;

Coding (A,B,C) used to categories the perceived reasons for employee turnover: A = Employer not satisfied with employee: Dismissal B = Employee not satisfied with employer: Quitting C = Independent reasons: Termination or resignation

Questions found in the three broad categories: A8 = Question 8 in A category: Poor quality of the work

force (can't find good help) Bl = Question 1 in B category: Insufficient pay or

fringe benefits B2 = Question 2 in B category: Dissatisfied with

working conditions:location, hours, etc. B3 = Question 3 in B category: Poor quality of

supervision B4 = Question 4 in B category: Better offer, move to a

better job B5 = Question 5 in B category: Personal adjustment to

work situation, grievances B9 = Question 9 in B category: Dead end, no chance for

promotion BIO = Question 10 in B category: Job insecurity C7 = Question 7 in C (resignation) category: Relocation

from area

Source: The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, May, 1983. P.15.

17

Incentives and Recognition

Managers are aware of the importance of the

housekeeper and are putting more emphasis on hiring,

training, motivating and retaining good workers. Hotels

are giving the housekeeper respect by emphasizing the

job's importance and making room attendants realize their

status.

If you, as a manager, give the person dignity, show them you respect them and let them know how important they are to the operation, you can improve the quality of their work and retain workers. (Stoner, 1987, pp. 86-87)

Other successful housekeeping plans, through

training techniques and incentives, retain quality people

and may even transform a few not-so-dedicated workers

into good staff members (Bell, 1988).

The 51 housekeepers at the Crescent Hotel, Phoenix,

Arizona, were encouraged to share ideas for making the

guests' stay more enjoyable. "This was an open-minded

policy which was open to employees' suggestions and

ideas" (Stoner, 1987, p. 87). Employee participation and

ideas were an incentive in the job itself, management was

listening to them and using their ideas, which gave the

employees a sense of contribution to the job and made the

job more challenging.

Most hotels have monthly awards programs for their

best employees. At the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Boston,

18

five of the best employees are picked each month to be on

the Five Star Team.

In Nashville, 12 lodging properties gathered to pool

ideals and have some light fun while they competed in

their Third Annual World Series of Housekeeping

competition. First place team was awarded $100 and a

plaque designating them as the best housekeeping team in

Nashville. This was used as an added incentive to

motivate the staff (Fisher, 1988).

Awards and recognition programs used to reward

diligent employees are a tremendous motivator. "It

fosters a positive attitude about service, performance,

ability and going the extra mile," explained David R

Conrad (Leposky, 1987).

Promotion from within can be important in persuading

employeees to stay on the job. When they can see that

their supervisor was once in their position, it is

encouragement for them to stay with the hotel.

Cross-training personnel to function where they are

needed, whether in food and beverage, housekeeping or in

the kitchen, would be helpful for housekeepers. This

allows them to learn new skills and interact with other

departments.

Adequate wages, basic benefits, such as health

insurance and sick leave, and vacations that meet

employees' personal security needs can allow them to

19

concentrate on their jobs. These would help attract and

retain good employees.

Another way to retain workers would be providing

proper in-service education and training in safety,

handling of equipment, proper use of chemicals and how to

react in times of emergency. With proper training,

employees' skills would be improved and they would do

well on the job and could advance to a more responsible

position.

Incentives, such as company-wide efforts to promote

employees from within, the simple monthly celebration of

workers' birthdays, rewarding outstanding employees and

guest comment cards could be used by management to retain

workers because these factors tend to increase the

workers' self-esteem.

Coping with Hospitality Labor Shortage

The hospitality industry is faced with a labor

shortage crisis due to the low birth rates of the late

1960's and early 1970's. This will reduce the percentage

of 16- to 24-year-olds in the labor force to 16 percent

in 2000, as compared to 20 percent in 1986 (Slater,

1988) . Higher levels of education, rapid growth of the

hospitality industry and competition from other

industries will further reduce the dwindling supply of

labor resources. The hospitality labor shortage tends to

20

vary according to geography and market. Stiff recruiting

competition was found in the area of the Sunbelt or near

the concentration of high tech industries (Watkin et al.,

1985). To combat this problem, the best solution would

be to look into some other possible sources of labor

supply available in the market and ways to attract them.

Lodging operations are using different techniques to

attract new workers. Some are job advertisements in the

newspaper, followed by fliers and posters placed in

churches, schools, grocery stores, laundromats, bowling

alleys, elevators, libraries or anywhere it would be

read. Others visit with ministers, priests and rabbis to

suggest hospitality opportunities, distribute pencils,

coffee mugs, napkins, placements imprinted with the

hotel's name and the hours that interviews are conducted

(Restaurants & Institutions, 1987).

One Marriott benefit is an employee referral plan.

Employees who recruit their friends for employment with

Marriott get a $50 bonus, or a dinner for two in the

hotel (Leposky, 1987). Other recruitment ideas are to

hire interns from local hospitality schools, feature

teenagers in recruitment advertisements, re-recruit ex-

employees and align the hotel with a local high school by

setting up a work-study program or scholarship program.

21

Housekeeping jobs required very little skill or

experience. Consequently, immigrants from the Middle

East, Haiti, South East Asia, Mexico and Cuba, who can

speak enough English to get by on the job, would be easy

to train to be future housekeepers.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1986 and 2000, nearly six of every ten new entrants into the labor force are expected to be Black, Asian, Cuban or other members of the minority group. Asians and Hispanics are entering the work force at the greatest rate, and Hispanics, especially, seem to be making inroads into the industry's hourly labor force. Their annual growth rate in the labor force, 4.1 percent, is greater than that of any other minority group and more than triple the overall U.S. rate of 1.2 percent. (Slater, 1988, p. 14)

Walt Disney World runs two programs which brings

foreign students to staff the national pavilion at EPCOT

Center's World Showcase (Leposky, 1987).

On November 6, 1986, Congress passed the immigration

Reform and Control Act of 1986. This law stated that

employers can only hire Americans or aliens authorized to

work. Employers could be fined $2,000 or more or risk

imprisonment for breaking the law (Woodward, 1989). The

high employment levels in the hospitality industry and

the immigration policy make it more difficult to fill

entry-level positions. This law did not bother the

personnel director, David R. Conrad of the Ritz-Carlton

Hotel of Boston, "We ask to assure that they're legally

22

in the country as part the employment process" (Leposky,

1987). All employers must now do the same.

It was found by the Department of Labor that females

would enter the labor force at double the rate for males

(Slater, 1988). The pool of female laborers was made up

of young mothers, divorcees or widows, who had spent

their adult lives as housewives and lacked skills or

experience in the working world. A program called

"Transitions" helped to acquaint and train displaced

women to come into the hospitality industry (Leposky,

1987). Employers must try to accommodate the working

mothers who would prefer companies that offered them

family benefits, child care and flexible working hours

and leaves.

The hospitality industry could look into the

unemployed as another source of labor supply. These

unemployed people are trained by private contractors

hired by the government. The Federal Government Funds

flow to the State Government, to the local Private

Industry Council, and then to hire training organizations

which can be private or governmental (Leposky, 1987).

These contractors would be responsible for training the

unemployed and would give them a specific knowledge of

entry-level positions in a hotel and would help to place

graduates in permanent positions at no cost to the hotels

or trainees.

23

According to a March 1986 survey, conducted for the

International Center for Disabled, it was found that two-

thirds of all disabled Americans between the ages of 16

and 64 were not working. Of those who were working, 10

percent worked part time and only one out of every four

worked full time. It was found that many disabled

persons could hold full-time jobs steadily without long

periods of absence (Slater, 1988). Friendly Ice Cream

Corporation hired 1,700 disabled persons, which was

nearly six percent of their 30,000 workers (Slater,

1988) . Employees found that the disabled persons were

dedicated, versatile, showed initiative and were

dependable.

Retirees or older men and women who want to work for

a company often bring experience, a willingness to work

and a high degree of reliability and qualities that are

often hard to find in entry-level candidates. The Labor

Department of Statistics found that men and women of 55

years of age or above made up about 12.5 percent of the

nation's total labor force of 117.8 million in 1986,

141.6 million in the year 2000 (Hayes, 1989). The

question here is how many of these retirees would be

willing, capable and want to work. Unfortunately, it was

found that 90 percent of the senior citizens were not

interested in working (Slater, 1988). The American

Association of Retired Persons published a series of

24

guides to reach, train and manage older workers.

Physical, social and emotional handicaps might hinder the

ability of an older worker to work for the hospitality

industry. Elderly employees were more prompt, efficient,

enthusiastic and service-oriented than many younger

workers.

Perhaps the best answer to the above problem would

be to find out what would attract and retain the best

employees. Management could provide a training program

for the unemployed, a work-study internship for college

students, in-service education, encourage relocation,

stage job fairs, establishing cross-training personnel to

function where they are needed, promote from within and

pay adequate wages with benefits.

Summary

This chapter has reviewed some pertinent research

relevant to this study.

The behavior pattern of individuals contribute to

the analysis of human motivation. Knowing the wants and

needs of the housekeeper would help to understand the

factors leading to the housekeeper's job satisfaction and

also the different forces that would motivate a

housekeeper to stay with the company.

Turnover in housekeeping departments have

traditionally been very high. In an attempt to reduce

25

the turnover rate of housekeeping departments, this job

satisfaction study identified areas of ability

utilization, creativity and working conditions that

would help to better understand some important factors of

a housekeeper's job situation.

Incentives and rewards recognized the housekeeper's

achievement. Improving compensation and social status of

the job would also boost morale. Companies interested

in the well being of their employees used policies and

practices that gave satisfaction to housekeepers and

compensated them at a rate which provided personal

security.

Companies' policies and practices, compensation,

pay, benefits, quality of supervision, working conditions

and employees' job achievement were important factors

which would contribute to individual job satisfaction in

the housekeeping departments. This chapter reviewed the

literature related directly to this study as indicated in

the above summary.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The hospitality industry labor shortage tended to

vary according to geography and market. In a booming

market, such as in the Sunbelt or near a concentration of

high-tech industries, hospitality industry employers face

stiff recruiting challenges. "The shortage is very

serious in Dallas, but not in Detroit" (Watkin et al.,

1985) .

The research sample was taken from hotel house

keepers in Dallas and Houston in July 1988. These two

metropolitan areas were chosen because they are areas

facing labor shortages.

Questionnaire

The Short Form Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire

(MSQ) was designed to study an individual's ability,

corresponding to the ability requirements in work and the

reinforcers available in the work environment that

encouraged an individual to stay with the company. The

Short Form MSQ was developed by Weiss, Dawis, England and

Lofquist of the University of Minnesota, for their Work

Adjustment Project (Appendix A). Permission to use the

26

27

MSQ was obtained in writing by the Vocational Psychology

Research, University of Minnesota (Appendix A).

The Short Form MSQ was used to collect the

housekeepers' responses concerning how satisfied they

were with their present job. The MSQ consisted of 2 0

items. Each item was presented in Likert scale form

allowing five responses of: Very Dissatisfied (VDS);

Dissatisfied (DS); Neither (N); Satisfied (S); Very

Satisfied (VS). The MSQ was also translated to Spanish

to make it available for Spanish-speaking housekeepers

(Appendix B). Gender, age, educational level, job title,

job description, length of time on the job and hotel room

prices were all included in the MSQ.

Directions for the respondents appeared on the first

page of the questionnaire. Item-rating instructions were

repeated at the beginning of the questions. MSQ was a

self-administered form and there was no time limit for

answering it.

The 20 items in the questionnaire (Appendix D) were

divided into three scales:

These were:

Intrinsic scale made up of items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,

9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20; Extrinsic scale, items 3,

8, 10, 12, 15, 19; and General satisfaction scale, items

1 to 20 (Weiss et al., 1964).

28

Selection of Samples

The hotels for this study were selected from the

hotels listed in the Hotel Redbook for Houston and

Dallas. Personal visits and phone calls were made and

letters were mailed to all the selected hotels,

explaining the nature of the study (Appendix C). The MSQ

was presented to the management by mail or personal

visit. The management studied the MSQ and then decided

if this questionnaire was appropriate for the employees.

Calls to over 50 hotels were made to get the management's

permission for the housekeepers to participate in this

study. From this group of 50 hotels, 18 agreed to

participate.

Procedures

The Spanish and English MSQ forms were distributed

to the housekeepers by their supervisor. A completely

sealed box with an opening for completed questionnaires

was provided in the break room. The box was collected

personally by the researcher. Of the 450 forms

distributed, 148 were collected for a return rate of 32.8

percent.

Data Analysis

Response choices of the MSQ forms were weighted in

the following manner:

29

Response Choice Scoring Weight

VDS 2. DS 2 N 3 S 4 VS 5

Percentile score. Frequency distribution shows the

frequency of different values of a single variable. A

ratio is a fraction used to show the magnitude of one

quantity relative to the magnitude of another (Stockton,

1962). A base of 100 or percentile score was used to

show the ratio and the formula used was:

Number of respondents X 100 = Percentage Score.

Total respondents

The frequency responses of each item were computed

under the sample characteristics of gender, education

level, age group and average hotel room rates. Frequency

responses were then used to tabulate the percentile score

of each item. Percentile scores of each item were

analyzed to consider the significance of each item's

demographic responses to job satisfaction.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Analysis of variance

design, one-way ANOVA was used to discover if there were

any statistically differences among the gender,

education, age and price groups to housekeepers' general

job satisfaction, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation

scales. It was used to determine if there was any

statistical difference among two or more means using a

30

probability of 0-05. If a significant difference was

found, the Scheffe multiple range test was used to

discover which two groups were significantly different at

the 0.05 level (Gay, 1981).

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDING

Interpretation of Percentile Scores

Percentage scores were used in this study to compare

the ratio to responses of each question. The advantage

of using the percentage ratio is that small numbers are

easier to compare than large numbers when analyzing the

data.

The percentile scores corresponding to the raw score

for each response choice for each question were

determined.

In interpreting percentile scores, scores of 75 or higher would be taken to represent a high degree of satisfaction; a percentile score of 25 or lower would indicate a low level of satisfaction; and scores in the middle range of percentiles indicate average satisfaction. (Weiss et al., 1964)

Intrinsic. Questions on the intrinsic scale relate

to internal factors impacting job satisfaction.

Responses to items on this scale are presented in Table

4.1. Data suggest that the evaluation of the overall job

situation by housekeepers was satisfactory. Housekeeping

was found to be a very satisfying job (item 1) that was

able to keep the housekeepers active at all times.

Housekeeping has busy hours of working alone that

satisfied the independence (item 2) of the employees

31

Table 4.1

Percentile Responses by Hotel Housekeepers to Items in the Intrinsic Motivation Scale

32

Items VDS DS N VS

Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item

# 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 7 # 8 # 9 #10 #11 #15 #16 #20

6.72 8.21

17.91 18.66 8.21 8.21

10.45 23.13 16.42 30.60 29.85 14.29

0.7 2.99 12.69 17.16 5.22 11.19 9.70

14.93 14.18 6.72

11.19 6.77

7.4 13.43 8.21

11.19 17.16 16.42 10.45 14.93 7.46 9.70 8.96 14.29

38.06 35.82 37.31 33.58 35.82 40.30 36.57 30.60 32.09 38.81 31.34 35.34

47.01 39.55 23.88 19.40 33.58 23.88 32.84 16.42 29.85 14.18 18.66 29.32

Text of items listed above are found in Appendix D

VDS=Very dissatisfied N =Undecided VS =Very satisfied

DS=Dissatisfied S =Satisfied

33

working in that department. This job provided a constant

income for the housekeepers thus permitting security

(item 8). There is nothing morally wrong with being a

housekeeper (item 7), it is a honest and satisfying job

that required very little creativity (item 16) or

responsibility (item 15).

Extrinsic. The extrinsic scale is related to the

external job situation which is beyond the control of the

housekeeper. Responses reported in Table 4.2 deal with

items related to human and technical supervision, company

policies and practices, compensation, advancement and

recognition.

Many of the housekeepers were not happy with the

company's policies and practices in the housekeeping

department (item 13). This might be due to the lack of

attention and training given them by the management.

There was little opportunity to advance in the

housekeeping department, as the skills necessary for

success in the job are not the ones necessary for

promotion (item 14). Item 5 indicated that the human

supervision aspect of the job is very important to the

housekeepers. Michelle Fisher (1987) noted that

housekeepers need proper training so room attendants can

build confidence in their abilities. Housekeeping is a

relatively low paid job with many housekeepers working

part time. About 50 percent (item 13) of the

Table 4.2

Percentile Responses by Hotel Housekeepers to Items in the Extrinsic Motivation Scale

Percentile

34

Items VDS DS N VS

Item Item Item Item Item Item

# 5 # 6 #12 #13 #14 #19

12.69 11.19 23.88 49.25 33.58 14.93

17.91 16.42 17.16 13.43 16.42 15.67

8.21 11.19 8.96 8.96 10.45 7.46

31.34 29.85 38.81 20.15 29.10 32.09

29.85 31.34 11.19 8.21

10.45 29.85



DS=Dissatisfied S =Satisfied

35

housekeepers were very dissatisfied with their company's

compensation.

Between 1958 and 1972, there was a significant decline in the average number of hours worked per week. This decline was due mainly to the increase in share of part-time labor. (Hiemstra and Kruel, 1986)

Working conditions and co-workers. Table 4.3

(items 17 and 18) illustrates that satisfaction with the

work environment is a very important consideration that

contributes to job satisfaction. The studies of Wasmuth

and Davis (1983) stated that working conditions led the

list of important factors related to turnover, followed

by quality of supervision and linkages to other

departments. Cooperation between the co-workers was an

important factor for creating a conducive working

environment that most housekeepers found important.

Demographic Breakdown of Sample Characteristics

This breakdown of sample characteristics helps to

identify how different groups responded to the

questionnaire. The categories include the following:

1. Gender: Male and female.

2. Education level: Grade, high school and college.

3. Age: Under 25, 25-45 and over 45 years old.

4. Average hotel room rates: Under $40.00, $40.01-

$80.00 and $80-01.

36

Table 4.3

Percentile Responses by Hotel Housekeepers to Items Concerning Working

Conditions and Co-Workers

Items VDS DS N S VS

Item #17 21.64 18.66 5.97 29.85 23.88 Item #18 13.43 11.19 12.69 43.28 19.40


VDS=Very dissatisfied DS=Dissatisfied N =Undecided S =Satisfied VS =Very satisfied

37

Housekeeping has traditionally been considered a

woman's job. Approximately 75 percent of respondents

were female and 25 percent male (Table 4.4). The females

were usually housekeepers and males were usually

housemen. Education or training were not important job

requirements for this department. It was found that 62

percent of the housekeepers had a high school education

with the remainder divided equally between grade school

and college educational levels. The findings show that

there were equal numbers of housekeepers in the age group

under 25 years old and 25 to 45 years old, with only 11

percent over 45. Age did not seem to be of importance

for this job. The trend seem to be for fewer

housekeepers over 45.

Housekeeping is a job for employees who are

willing to work hard and like to stay busy all the time.

This job is time-consuming and tedious with little

opportunity for creativity. As is shown in Table 4.5,

being able to keep busy is one of the aspects of the job

that satisfied most housekeepers.

Working alone is common in the housekeeping

department. It requires a mature, responsible person

that can be trusted and left on the job without a

supervisor. Most housekeepers feel that working in the

housekeeping department is a job that calls for

individuals who like to work alone and enjoy solitude.

38

Table 4.4

Percentile of Responses in the Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey

Gender Male Female

Age Under 25 25 - 45 Over 45

Percentage

25 75

44.5 44.5 11

Education Grade High School College

Average Room Under 40.00 40.01-80.00 Above 80.01

Table 4.5

Percentage

19 62 19

Rates 17 36 47

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 1 - Being able to keep

busy all the time

Percentage

VDS DS N VS Num

Gender Male Female

0.00 5.56


5.66 1.89 7.69

Average Room Rates Under 40.00 8.70 40.01-80.00 8.33 Above 80.01 4.76

0.00 1.11

10.00 6.67

40.00 38.89

50.00 47.78

Education Grade 16.67 4.17 High School 2.56 0.00 College 0.00 0.00

0.00 5.13

25.00

33 44 29

33 87 17

4 5 . 8 3 4 7 . 4 4 4 5 . 8 3

0 . 0 0 1 .89 0 . 0 0

5 . 6 6 9 . 4 3 0 . 0 0

2 8 . 3 0 4 7 . 1 7 3 8 . 4 6

6 0 . 3 8 3 9 . 6 2 5 3 . 8 5

0 . 0 0 2 . 0 8 0 . 0 0

8 . 7 0 8 . 3 3 6 . 3 5

3 0 . 4 3 4 3 . 7 5 3 6 . 5 1

5 2 . 1 7 3 7 . 5 0 5 2 . 3 8


30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63

DS =Dissatisfied S =Satisfied Num=Number of respondents

39

Table 4.6 indicated that the trend seems to be that, as

age increases, the housekeeper in general became less

satisfied with the opportunity to work alone but those

working in higher priced hotels were more satisfied.

Housekeeping jobs did not provide an opportunity

for housekeepers to have variety in their jobs. There is

a specific way to do things that the company requires in

order to maintain a consistent service for the customers.

As can be seen in Table 4.7, not all of the housekeepers

were happy with these restrictions. Most males were

hired as housemen with their job varying from day to day.

Consecjuently, this job was more satisfying to the males.

Fifteen respondents (62.5 percent) at the college level

found that they were given the opportunity to do

different things from time to time. This college level

housekeeping might consist of the 50 percent males that

were satisfied with item 3. However, a college-educated

employee might have a higher level of ability and would

be trusted with more jobs. The trend seems to be that

higher educated housekeepers would be trusted with more

jobs.

Responses from item 4 (Table 4.8), the chance to be

"somebody," noted mixed feelings among the housekeepers.

Working and carrying the responsibility to provide a good

image of the hotel caused many of the housekeepers to

feel proud. There seems to be less satisfaction to item

40

Table 4.6

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 2 - The chance to work

alone on the job

Gender Male Female


Age Below 25 25 - 45 Over 45

Average Room Below 4 0 40.01 - 80 Above 80.01

VDS

0.00 7.78

20.83 3.85 0.00

3.77 5.66

15.38

Rates 13.04 12.50 3.17

DS

3.33 3.33

4.17 3.85 0.00

3.77 3.77 0.00

0.00 4.17 3.17

Percentage

N

16.67 12.22

0.00 15.38 20.83

15.09 13.21 23.08

8.70 8.33

19.05

S

43.33 35.56

37.50 35.90 41.67

35.85 37.74 23.08

39.13 39.58 31.75

VS

36.67 41.11

37.50 41.03 37.50

41.51 39.62 38.46

39.13 35.42 42.86

Num

30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



41

Table 4.7

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 3 - The chance to do different things from time to time

Percentage

VDS DS N VS Num

Gender Male Female


Age Below 25 25 - 45 Over 45

Average Room Below 40. 40.01-80. Above 80.

,00 ,00 ,01

6.67 20.00

37.50 14.10 4.17

16.98 16.98 15.38

Rates 17.39 25.00 12.70

6.67 14.44

16.67 11.54 12.50

9.43 15.09 15.38

0.00 6.25

22.22

10.00 7.78

4.17 11.54 4.17

11.32 5.66 7.69

8.70 14.58 3.17

50. 34.

33. 32. 62.

37. 35. 46.

43. 35. 36.

.00

.44

.33

.05

.50

.74

.85

.15

.48

.42

.51

26.67 23.33

8.33 30.77 16.67

24.53 26.42 15.38

30.43 18.75 25-40

30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



42

Table 4.8

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 4 - The chance to be

"somebody" in the community

Percentage

Gender Male Female

VDS

6. 18.

67 89

DS

16. 18.

67 89

N

26. 7. ,67 ,78

S

46. 28.

,67 ,89

VS

3. 25.

,33 ,56

Num

30 90

Education Grade 29.17 37.50 0.00 16.67 16.67 24 High School 14.10 11.54 14.10 35.90 24.36 78 College 16.67 12.50 16.67 45.83 8.33 24


13.21 20.75 7.69

22 15 23

64 09 08

13.21 7.55

23.08

33.96 33.96 30.77

16.98 22.64 15.38

53 53 13

Average Room Rates Below 40.00 21.74 4.35 8.70 34.78 30.43 23 40.01-80.00 27.08 14.58 10.42 22.92 25.00 48 Above 80.01 11.11 23.81 12.70 41.27 11.11 63



43

4 in the grade school levels than in the other education

levels.

Well-respected bosses must earn that status from

their employees (Stoner, 1987). They must show that they

respect the employees by being humane, fair, smart, hard

working, mannerly, even-tempered and praising a job well

done. No employee wants to work with an ill-tempered

boss who does not appreciate or respect the employees.

In Table 4.9 it seems that most housekeepers of all

gender, ages, education and hotel prices were satisfied

with the human supervision of their job.

The housekeeping department is definitely concerned

with service. There is no doubt in the mind of the

housekeepers that there will be opportunities to do

things for other people. Male housekeepers will help the

female housekeepers in moving heavier equipment. Older

housekeepers might find that this is a job that one can

still do well. Employees may discover that a meaningful

life includes sharing and doing things for other people,

providing a purpose in life when all the children are

grown up and gone (Table 4.10). The trend seem to be

that older age groups and higher educated levels

housekeepers were more satisfied with being able to do

things for other people.

44

Table 4.9

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 5 - The way my boss

handles his/her employees

Gender Male Female

VDS

3.33 13.33

Percentage

DS

23.33 16.67

N

3.33 11.11

S

50.00 26.67

VS

20.00 32.22

Num

30 90


Age Under 2 5 25 - 45 Over 45

Average Room Below 40.00 40.01-80.00 Above 80-01

16.67 12.82 0.00

5-66 15.09 15-38

Rates 17.39 16.67 7.94

16. 11. 41.

18. 18. 15.

13. 16. 20.

.67

.54

.67

.87

.87

.38

.04

.67

.63

16, 6. 8.

13. 3.

15.

4. 8. 9.

.67

.41

.33

.21

.77

.38

.35

.33

.52

29. 35. 25.

30. 30. 38.

26, 33, 31.

,17 ,90 ,00

.19

.19

.46

.09

.33

.75

20. 33. 25.

32. 32. 15,

39, 25, 30.

,83 ,33 .00

.08

.08

.38

.13

.00

.16

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



45

Table 4.10

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 9 - The chance to do

things for other people

Percentage

Gender Male Female


Age Under 25 25 -45 Over 45

Average Room Below 40.00 40-01-80. Above 80.

,00 ,01

VDS

10.00 8.89

20.83 7.69 4.17

3.77 15.09 7.69

Rates 13.04 16.67 4.76

DS

0.00 13.33

25.00 7.69 4.17

13.21 9.43 7.69

0.00 8.33

14.29

N

3.33 13.33

4.17 12.82 12.50

13.21 9.43 0.00

4.35 16.67 7.94

S

60. 30.

16. 35. 62.

33. 35. 61.

34, 39, 34,

.00

.00

.67

.90

.50

.96

.85

.54

.78

.58

.92

VS

26. 34.

33. 35. 16.

35. 30. 23.

47. 18. 38.

.67

.44

.33

.90

.67

.85

.19

.08

.83

.75

.10

Num

30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



46

In any job situation, the competency of the

supervisor impacts workers: giving good advice, praising

good work, knowing the job well, treating the employees

fairly, having good manners, being even-tempered, being

hard-working, being smart, understanding personal

problems and appreciating a job well done are some of the

traits that make a good supervisor (Reynolds, Masters and

Moser, 1986). As noted in the Table 4.11, a supervisor's

competency was a source of satisfaction in all the

gender, education levels, age groups and room rates.

Housekeeping is an honorable profession. House

keepers makes an honest living from hard work. As can be

seen in the Table 4.12, most housekeepers in all the

gender, education levels, age groups and hotel room rates

agreed than there is nothing morally wrong with their

jobs.

There are ample jobs available for good reliable

housekeepers. It is a labor-intensive job that has not

been taken over by technology. This job requires very

little skill, experience or training and that suits all

ages, gender and education levels. It provides and will

continue to provide a steady employment for anyone who

wants to work (Table 4.13). The trend seems to be that

the high school and grade school educated housekeeper had

a higher satisfaction in the security provided for in

their job than the college educated.

47

Table 4.11

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 6 - The competence of my

supervisor in making decisions

Percentage

Gender Male Female



Average Room Below 40-00 40-01-80. Above 80-

00 01

VDS

6.67 10.00

16.67 5.13

16.67

3.77 9.43

15.38

Rates 8.70

12.50 11.11

DS

30.00 13.33

8.33 14.10 33.33

16.98 20.75 15.38

21.74 14.58 15.87

N

3.33 13.33

16.67 12.82 4.17

15.09 11.32 7.69

4.35 18.75 7.94

S

26, 30,

37, 34, 12,

32, 28, 30,

17, 29, 34,

.67

.00

.50

.62

.50

.08

.30

.77

.39

.17

.92

VS

33. 33.

20. 33. 33.

32. 30, 30,

47. 25. 30.

,33 ,33

,83 .33 .33

.08

.19

.77

.83

.00

.16

Num

30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



48

Table 4.12

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 7 - Being able to do things

that don't go against my conscience

Percentage

VDS DS N VS Num

Gender Male Female



Average Room Below 40.00 40.01-80.01 Above 80.01

10.00 5.56

12.50 6.41 4.17

3.77 7.55

15.38

Rates 13.04 10.42 4.76

13.33 3.33

0.00 2.56

16.67

7.55 5.66 0.00

4.35 4.17 6.35

26. 12.

12. 14. 29.

16. 13. 23.

17, 18, 15,

.67

.22

.50

.10

.17

.98

.21

.08

.39

.75

.87

26.67 40.00

33.33 41.03 25.00

32.08 37.74 38.46

34.78 39.58 33.33

23, 38,

41. 35. 25.

39, 35, 23,

30. 27. 39.

.33

.89

.67

.90

.00

.62

.8

.08

.43

.08

.68

30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



49

Table 4.13

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 8 - The way my job

provides steady employment

Percentage

Gender Male Female



Average Room Below 40.00 40.01-80. Above 80.

,01 ,01

VDS

0.00 7.78

16.67 5.13 0.00

1.89 9.43 7.69

Rates 13.04 10.42 4.76

DS

16.67 11.11

4.17 7.69

29.17

15.09 9.43 0.00

4.35 18.75 7.94

N

23.33 14.44

12.50 17.95 20.83

15.09 18.87 23.08

17.39 18.75 14.29

S

56. 37,

50. 38, 45,

41. 33. 61.

34. 31. 49.

.67

.78

.00

.46

.83

.51

.96

.54

.78

.25

.21

VS

3. 28.

16. 30. 4.

26. 28. 7.

30, 20, 23,

.33

.89

.67

.77

.17

.42

.30

.69

.43

.83

.81

Num

30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



50

The chance to direct others is small in the

housekeeping department. After initial training,

housekeepers should be able to do a job with little

supervision or direction. As noted in Table 4.14, high

school educated housekeepers express the greatest level

of satisfaction in this area. This might indicate a

perceived opportiinity for advancement to a supervisory

position. High school educated housekeepers also might

be given the chance to train new employees. In Table

4.14, 37.50 percent of the grade school educated

housekeepers are very dissatisfied and probably do not

perceive any possibility of promotion in their job due to

lack of education or confidence. The trend seems to be

that high school educated housekeepers had a higher

satisfaction level than the college or grade school

housekeepers. Table 4.14 also indicated that the age

group of over 45 were less satisfied with the opportunity

to tell other people what to do. At this age group, if

the housekeepers had not advanced by then, they might not

foresee any advancement or authority to tell other people

what to do in the future.

Housekeeping, though crucial to the success of a

hotel's operation, requires little skill or experience.

This job affords almost anyone the opportunity for

gainful employment, thus making use of their abilities.

51

Table 4.14

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 10 - The chance to tell

other people what to do

Percentage

Gender Male Female

VDS

16.67 22.22

DS

20.00 15.56

N

23.33 13.33

S

23.33 33.33

VS

16.67 15.56

Num

30 90



Average Room Below 40-00 40.01-80.00 Above 80.00

37.50 15.38 25.00

22.64 18.87 38.46

Rates 21.74 27.08 20.63

25, 7.

29.

16. 15. 7.

8. 16. 15.

.00

.69

.17

.98

.09

.69

.70

.67

.87

8. 16. 20.

16. 9.

23.

8. 16, 15.

.33

.67

.83

.98

.43

.08

.70

.67

.87

20. 43, 8,

30, 35, 30,

30, 29, 31,

.83

.59

.33

.19

.85

.77

.43

.17

.75

8. 16. 16.

13. 20. 0.

30. 10. 15.

.33

.67

.67

.21

.75

.00

.43

.42

.87

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



52

As noted in Table 4.15, satisfaction and dissatisfaction

with this trait was distributed over all groups. No one

factor affected satisfaction in this area.

Good company policy and practices were important to

most housekeepers. As noted in the Table 4.16, college

educated and grade school workers were more satisfied

with company policies and practices than high school

educated workers. The more educated a person is, the more

knowledgeable or demanding an individual will be. On the

other hand, a grade school level employee might not know

much about company policies and practices and would be

content with what was given to them. Workers over 25

were more satisfied with company policies and practices

than younger workers. Perhaps they had more experience

with many companies and had worked in different job

situations and might better understand company policies

and practices. This may be related to the ability of the

supervisor to handle his/her employees (Table 4.9) or the

competency of the supervisor in making decisions (Table

4.11). In Table 4.16, it can also be seen that a higher

priced hotel has workers more satisfied with company

policy and practices. This may be due to item 8 of Table

4.13 concerning security. There were 49.21 percent of the

employees satisfied with the job security of the company.

It indicated that the higher hotel price group had better

policies and practices.

53

Table 4.15

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 11 - The chance to do

something that makes use of my abilities

Percentage

Gender Male Female




00 01

VDS

16.67 13.33

8.33 15.38 25.00

16.98 13.21 23.08

Rates 26.09 20.83 9.52

DS

13.33 15.56

20.83 8.97

25.00

13.21 16.98 7.69

8.70 14.58 15.87

N

3.33 7.78

16.67 5.13 0.00

7.55 7.55 7.69

0.00 8.33 9.52

S

43, 28,

16, 41, 29,

37, 32, 30,

21. 29, 38.

.33

.89

.67

.03

.17

.74

.08

.77

.74

.17

.10

VS

23, 34,

37, 29, 20,

24, 30. 30.

43, 27, 26,

.33

.44

.50

.49

.83

.53

.19

.77

.48

.08

.98

Num

30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



54

Table 4.16

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 12 - The way my company

policies are put into practice

Percentage

Gender Male Female

VDS

10, 25,

.00

.56

1

26 15

DS

.67

.56

N

13. 8.

[

33 89

S

43. 37.

1

33 78

VS

6. 12.

1

67 22

Num

30 90



Average Room Below 4 0.00 40.01-80.00 Above 80.01

25.00 24.36 8.33

15.09 22.64 38.46

Rates 34.78 27.08 17.46

8.33 12.82 41.67

-

18.87 18.87 7.69

8.70 14.58 22.22

12. 10. 4.

11. 9. 0.

4. 10. 9,

.50

.26

.17

.32

.43

.00

.35

.42

.52

45, 35, 45,

33, 41, 53.

30, 33, 46,

.83

.90

.83

.96

.51

.85

.43

.33

.03

8, 16, 0.

20. 7, 0.

21, 14, 4,

.33

.67

.00

.75

.55

.00

.74

.58

.76

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



56

Housekeepers were not given the opportunity to make

their own decisions as to how hard they like to work and

how much time and effort they were willing to put into

their job. These were all judgmental decisions that

individual housekeepers would make when given the

opportunity to work alone and without much supervision.

In Table 4.17, male and high school educated housekeepers

reported high levels of satisfaction with this freedom.

Grade school educated housekeepers probably were not

allowed to deviate from the company's rules and

regulations and felt a high level of dissatisfaction

without the freedom to use their own judgment. College

educated workers probably felt that they were not given

the opportunity to use their creativity. Companies have

set standards of rules and regulations to use when

cleaning rooms (Tucker, 1986), which does not provide the

housekeepers much opportunity to use their own judgment.

The trends in Table 4.17 seem to be that high

school educated housekeepers were more satisfied with the

opportunity to use their judgment, while grade and

college educated did not find it so.

Analyzing Table 4.18, it was found that male and

female housekeepers of all ages, education and hotel room

rates were significantly dissatisfied with their pay.

Traditionally, housekeeping is a very low-paying job with

very little salary satisfaction. It seems that the trend

57

Table 4.17

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 15 - The freedom to

use my own judgment

Percentage

Gender Male Female

VDS

30. 28.

00 89

DS

13. 5.

33 56

N

3. 11,

,33 .11

S

50. 36.

,00 ,67

VS

3. 17.

.33

.78

Num

30 90




45.83 21.79 41.67

32.08 26.42 30.77

Rates 26.09 39.58 25.40

12, 3. 8,

7, 5,

15,

4, 2,

11,

.50

.85

.33

.55

.66

.38

.35

.08

.11

0, 10, 16,

5, 11, 7,

13, 12, 6.

.00

.26

.67

.66

.32

.69

.04

.50

.35

20. 50. 25,

37, 45, 30,

30, 31, 47,

.83

.00

.00

.74

.28

.77

.43

.25

.62

20, 14, 8,

16. 11. 15.

26. 14. 9,

.83

.10 ,33

,98 .32 .38

.09

.58

.52

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



58

Table 4.18

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 13 - My pay and the

amount of work I do

Percentage

Gender Male Female

VDS

33.33 55.56

DS

16.67 12.22

N

30.00 2.22

S

13.33 22.22

VS

6.67 7.78

Num

30 90

Education Grade 66.67 16.67 0.00 8.33 8.33 24 High School 43.59 8.97 7.69 28.21 11.54 78 College 50.00 20.83 20.83 8.33 0.00 24

Age Under 25 25 -45 over 45

43 52 53

40 83 85

11.32 13.21 23.08

7.55 9.43 15.38

24.53 16.98 7.69

13.21 7.55 0.00

53 53 13

Average Room Rates Below 40.00 47.83 13.04 0.00 17.39 21.74 23 40.01-80.00 52.08 6.25 8.33 25-00 8.33 48 Above 80.01 47.62 19.05 12.70 17.46 3.17 63



59

of dissatisfaction with the pay to the amount of work

done was in the order of grade school, high school and

college educated levels housekeepers, as age increased

housekeepers were more dissatisfied with their pay check.

Table 4.19 indicated that there is little

advancement in the housekeeping department due to the

nature of the job which calls for only basic skills and

few job variations. Promotion is limited to a few

supervisory positions and it is unlikely to be promoted

to other departments that require different skills and

experience. College educated employees found that

advancement is dimmed with competition from college

graduates with no one reporting high satisfaction in this

area. Females were less satisfied than males, with grade

school educated workers more dissatisfied than house

keepers with higher educational levels. The trend seems

to be that as the housekeeper gets older, the less

opportunity for advancement.

Male housekeepers' jobs often have more flexibility

and opportunity to perform tasks in their own way. This

is reflected in the higher satisfaction reported in Table

4.20. Grade school educated housekeepers were much more

dissatisfied in this area. It is likely that they are

required to perform their tasks in the manner specified

by the company with little chance of creativity or

60

Table 4.19

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 14 - The chances for

advancement on this job

Gender Male Female




,00 ,01

VDS

23.33 36.67

54.17 29.49 25.00

35.85 32.08 23.08

Rates 34.78 45.83 23.81

Percentage

DS

13.33 16.67

20.83 10.26 33.33

9.43 18.87 38.46

4.35 6.25

28.57

N

20.00 7.78

0.00 10.26 16.67

7.55 13.21 7.69

8.70 6.25

14.29

S

40. 26,

16, 34, 25,

32, 24, 30,

30, 27. 30.

.00

.67

.67

.62

.00

.08

.53

.77

.43

.08

.16

VS

3. 12.

8. 15. 0.

15. 11. 0.

21. 14. 3.

.33

.22

.33

.38

.00

.09

.32

.00

.74

.58

.17

Num

30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



61

Table 4.20

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 16 - The chance to try my

own methods of doing the job

Percentage

VDS DS N VS Num

Gender Male Female

20.00 30.00

23.33 8.89

6.67 11.11

43.33 28.89

6.67 21.11

30 90




45.83 21.79 29.17

26.42 32.08 23.08

Rates 26.09 39.58 23.81

4, 8,

25,

11, 13, 15,

8, 6,

15,

.17

.97

.00

.32

.21

.38

.70

.25

.87

4, 10. 12,

5, 7, 7.

8, 10, 7,

.17

.26

.50

.66

.55

.69

.70

.42

.94

29, 37, 20,

30, 32. 46.

30. 29, 33,

.17

.18

.83

.19

.08

.15

.43

.17

.33

16, 21, 12,

26, 15, 7,

26. 14. 19,

.67

.79

.50

.42

.09

.69

.09

.58

.05

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



62

judgment. There seems to be a trend that the higher the

hotel price the less chance for housekeepers to do things

their own way.

Hotel rooms are usually comfortable, providing an

environment and ambiance suitable for the customers and

definitely suitable for the employees. In the lower room

rate hotels, 43.48 percent of the housekeepers were not

happy with their working conditions (Table 4.21). This

might be because the hotel was too small and the cheaper

room rates attract undesirable, messier customers. This

dissatisfaction might also be due to poor back-of-the

house conditions or heavier work loads in the lower

priced hotels. The trend has been that the higher the

room rates the more satisfied the housekeepers were with

the working conditions.

It is impossible to be satisfied in an environment

full of enemies and criticism from co-workers. Attention

and good will of co-workers are important if a person is

to be happy and want to work for a company. Being seen

together, wearing the same uniform and doing the same

jobs builds a sense of belonging and pride as reported in

Table 4.22. Satisfaction with co-workers was rated

higher by female high school and college educated workers

and those in lower priced hotels. This sense of

community and comraderie provides satisfaction that might

be lacking in other areas of the job.

63

Table 4.21

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 17 - The working conditions

Percentage

Gender Male Female



-


00 01

VDS

16.67 20.00

12.50 20.51 16.67

15.09 26.42 7.69

Rates 43.48 22.92 12.70

DS

33.33 16.67

25.00 10.26 41.67

16.98 16.98 23.08

8.70 14.58 25.40

N

3.33 7.78

8.33 5.13 8.33

7.55 7.55 0.00

0.00 14.58 1.59

S

40. 25.

12. 37. 29.

28, 32, 46,

21. 25. 36.

,00 ,56

.50

.18

.17

.30

.08

.15

.74

.00

.51

VS

6. 30.

41, 26, 4.

32. 16. 23.

26. 22, 23,

.67

.00

.67

.92

.17

.08

.98

.08

.09

.92

.81

Num

30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



64

Table 4.22

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 18 - The way my co-workers

get along with each other

Percentage

VDS DS N VS Num

Gender Male Female

3.33 15.56

23.33 8.89

26.67 10.00

33.33 44.44

13.33 21.11

30 90




16.67 14.10 4.17

13.21 13.21 15.38

Rates 13.04 14.58 12.70

4, 7,

25,

15, 9, 0,

8, 12, 11,

.17

.69

.00

.09

.43

.00

.70

.50

.11

25, 7,

20,

11, 9,

46,

8, 12, 14,

.00

.69

.83

.32

.43

.15

.70

.50

.29

29. 47. 45.

39. 45, 30,

47. 37. 46.

.17

.44

.83

.62

.28

.77

.83

.50

.03

25.00 23.08 4.17

20.75 22.64 7.69

1.74 22.92 15.87

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



65

Every job well done deserves attention and praise

from management. Housekeepers are given the opportunity

to work alone and to see the outcome of their effort.

This gives them a sense of pride especially when praise

is given by the customers or supervisors. Praise given

to a housekeeper might also encourage others to work

harder. A person's hierarchy of needs can be satisfied

by attention from management. It was found that the

college educated group was more satisfied with the

"praise" they received. Workers over 4 5 and housekeepers

in the highest priced hotels were also more satisfied

(Table 4.23). The trend seems to be that as the hotel

prices increase the more satisfied the housekeepers were

with the praise received for a job well done.

Job satisfaction cannot be obtained if a person

feels that he is not accomplishing anything. The feeling

of satisfaction with accomplishment in their job

situation was rated higher by females, at all educational

levels and those over 45 as seen in Table 4.24. The lack

of difference among housekeepers employed at different

price hotels likely indicates that the feeling of

accomplishment would be the same no matter how

expensive the room.

66

Table 4.23

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 19 - The praise I get

for doing a good job

Percentage

Gender Male Female




VDS

10.00 12.22

8.33 16.67 4.17

7.55 15.09 15.38

Rates 34.78 20.83 3.17

DS

23.33 15.56

16.67 12.82 25.00

22.64 15.09 7.69

8.70 14.58 19.05

N

10.00 7.78

12.50 8.97 0.00

5.66 11.32 7.69

0.00 16.67 3.17

S

33.33 32.22

33.33 34.62 29.17

33.96 32.08 46.15

26.09 20.83 42.86

VS

23.33 32.22

29.17 26.92 41.67

30.19 26.42 23.08

30.43 27.08 31.75

Num

30 90

24 78 24

53 53 13

23 48 63



67

Table 4.24

Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction Demographic Survey: Item 20 - The feeling of accom

plishment I get from the job

Percentage

VDS DS N VS Num

Gender Male Female

10.00 11.24

10.00 6.74

26.67 11.24

23.33 40.45

30.00 30.34

30 89




12.50 12.99 12.00

13.21 -9.62 14.29

Rates 21.74 20.83 6.45

16, 2. 8,

5, 9 7,

4, 8, 6,

.67

.60

.00

.66

.62

.14

.35

.33

.45

12. 9,

32,

13. 17, 21.

8. 12, 17.

.50

.09

.00

.21

.31

.43

.70

.50

.74

50, 40, 12,

37. 34, 42,

30, 31. 40.

.00

.26

.00

.74

.62 ,86

.43

.25

.32

8, 35, 36,

30. 28, 14,

34. 27. 29.

.33

.06

.00

.19

.85

.29

.78

.08

.03

24 77 25

53 52 14

23 48 62



68

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

ANOVA is a statistical method of differences among

a set of two or more means. One-way ANOVA was used in

this study to find out if there were any statistically

significant differences among gender, education, age and

average room rates by groups to the housekeeper's general

job satisfaction, extrinsic, and intrinsic motivation

scales. A four-item scale consisted of items 1, 12, 13

and 17, found in the questionnaire. Item 1 is related to

the hypothesis statement 1, which dealt with the house

keeper's job satisfaction and level of activity on the

job. Item 12 was related to the hypothesis statement 2,

of the housekeeper's job satisfaction and the company

policies and practices. Item 13 dealt with the level of

compensation while item 17 related to the working

condition of the housekeeper. Each of the four items was

related to each hypothesis statement. Combining the four

items and using ANOVA statistical differences analysis

allowed study of the effect on job satisfaction by the

different gender, education level, age and hotel price

groups.

The SPSS software program was used to tabulate the

F probability. If the calculated F probability was

greater than .05 than there was no statistical

significant differences. However, if the tabulated F

probability was smaller than the .05 probability, than a

69

significant difference had been demonstrated and the

Scheffe multiple range test was used to differentiate

between two groups.

A reliability analysis was used in this study to

measure the internal consistency of the respondents to

the 2 0 items in the questionnaire. If two items were

used in a study, the measure of the internal consistency

of the respondents will be very unreliable. However,

when the respondents responded to more items, the

reliability score will increase and the measure of the

internal consistency of the respondents will be more

accurate.

It was found that the 20-item general job

satisfaction scale had a very reliable statistical score

while the four items reliability score was slightly below

the acceptable score. Reliable statistical score of

Alpha = 0.85 to .90 is considered statistically

acceptable. The correlation coefficient score of the 2 0-

item general job satisfaction scale was Cronbach's Alpha

= 0.94, while the 11 items of the intrinsic reliability

score was Cronbach's Alpha = 0.91. Cronbach's Alpha =

0.85 was found in the six extrinsic motivation items.

The four-item reliability score was a little smaller than

the acceptable Cronbach's Alpha = 0-85 to 9.0. It is

likely that a larger number of responses would increase

the reliability score.

70

As indicated in Table 4.25, there was no significant

difference between the males and females for general job

satisfaction as a housekeeper. Further analysis was

tabulated to investigate if there were any differences

between the male and female satisfaction levels of

housekeepers in the intrinsic, extrinsic and four item

motivation scales. The result from the ANOVA test was

found to be negative, implying that gender had little to

do with the level of a housekeeper's job satisfaction.

Housekeeping is a job that needs very little skill,

creativity or superiority and that warrants a different

level of job satisfaction among males and females.

Housekeepers who responded had a varied educational

background. The education level was broken down into

grade school (1-8), high school (9-12) and college

levels. As shown in Table 4.26, the high school educated

housekeepers' scores were significantly higher than the

grade school and college educated for general job

satisfaction. Further analysis, using the Schaffe

multiple range test, demonstrated a significant

difference between the grade school and high school

educated but not the high school and college in the

intrinsic motivation scale. This may be because high

school educated employees understood their jobs and

responsibilities more than the grade school educated

71

Table 4.25

Analysis of Variance of Differences Between Gender and Job Satisfaction of

Hotel Housekeepers

General Job Satisfaction Scale:

SOURCE BETWEEN GROUPS WITHIN GROUPS TOTAL

D.F. 1 118 119

Intrinsic Motivation


D.F. 1 118 119

Extrinsic Motivation


Four-Item Scale:


D.F. 1 118 119

D.F. 1 118 119

SUM OF SQUARES

4.4444 38167.4222 38171.8667

Scale: SUM SQUARES

7.8028 12432.5222 12440.3250

Scale: SUM OF SQUARES

5.1361 4740-8556 4745.9917

SUM OF SQUARES

.8028 1916.1889 1916.9917

MEAN SQUARES

.4444 323.4527

MEAN SQUARES

7.8028 105.3604

MEAN SQUARES 5.1361

40.1767

MEAN SQUARES

.8028 16.2389

F RATIO .0137

F RATIO .0741

F RATIO .1278

F RATIO .0494

F PROB. .9069

F PROB. .7860

F PROB. .7213

F PROB. .8244

D.F= Degree of Freedom F 118) greater than .05 probability, there were no significant differences

72

Table 4.26

Analysis of Variance of Difference Between the Education Levels and Job

Satisfaction of Hotel Housekeepers

General Satisfaction


GROUP GRADE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL COLLEGE TOTAL

D.F. 2 123 125

Scale:

COUNT 24 78 24 126

SUM OF SQUARES 2100.7920

40180.6763 42281,4683

MEAN F SQUARES RATIO 1050.3960 3.2154 326.6722

MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION ^ 61.5000^ 21.8831 * 70.7949* 17.4805 ^ 63.4583 15.6566

67.6270 18.3916

F PROB^. .0435*

A.^B(2.123) = 3.21, p < 0.05, Significant Difference = Codes used to indicate the Significant

Difference relationship

Intrinsic Motivation Scale:

SOURCE D.F. BETWEEN GROUPS 2 WITHIN GROUPS 123 TOTAL 125


12824.9679 13648.5397

MEAN SQUARES 411.7859 104.2680

F RATIO 3.9493

F PROB^. 0218*

GROUP COUNT GRADE SCHOOL 24 HIGH SCHOOL 78 COLLEGE 24 TOTAL 12 6

^(2 123) = 3.9493, p < *' ^ ' = Codes used

MEAN STANDARD ^ 34.4583^ '^ 40.5385* * 36.3750

38.5873

DEVIATION 12.6868 9.6506 9.2116

10.4493 0.05, Significant Difference to indicates the Significant

Difference relationship

Extrinsic Motivation Scale:

SOURCE D.F, BETWEEN GROUPS 2 WITHIN GROUPS 123 TOTAL 125


5011.0128 5160.5397

MEAN SQUARES 74.7634 40.7399

F F RATIO PROB, 1.8351.1639

73

Table 4.26 (continued)

Analysis of Variance of Difference Between the Education Levels and Job


Four Item Scale:


D.F. 2 123 125

SUM OF SQUARES

71.9586 2046.6763 2118.6349

MEAN SQUARES 35.9793 16.6396

F F RATIO PROB. 2.1623 .119

D.F= Degree of Freedom (.2 123) q^s^ter than .05 probability, significant differences

there were no

74

While college educated housekeepers found that the job

was very boring and tedious, one with very little

excitement or advancement. No significant difference was

found in the extrinsic motivation scale which might be

because all the housekeepers have the same opinion of

their companies. There were no significant difference in

the four-item scale. This might indicate that

educational background had no effect in the job

satisfaction of the housekeepers. The four items

consisted of activity on the job, company policies and

practices, compensation and working conditions.

The ages of the housekeepers were categorized into

groups of under 25 years old, 25 to 45 years old and over

45 years old. There were no two groups significantly

different between the ages in all four scales, at the

0.05 level. There were no effects of age with regard to

job satisfaction in the general job satisfaction,

intrinsic, extrinsic and four-item motivation scale as in

Table 4.27.

Data were analyzed to determine if there was any

differences in job satisfaction of employees working in a

higher priced hotel rather than a lower or medium priced

hotel. There was no significant difference in the

general job satisfaction of the housekeepers working in a

hotel rate of below $40.00 or $40.01-$80.00 or above

$80.01 price group. The average hotel room rates by

Table 4.27

Analysis of Variance of Difference Between the Age Groups of Respondents and Job


75

General Job Satisfact


D.F. 2 116 118



D.F. 2 116 118



Four Item Scale:


D.F. 2 116 118

D.F. 2 116 118

:ion Scale: SUM OF SQUARES

294.0900 38684.5486 38978.6387


44.2401 12482.5835 12526.8235


89.6126 4800.8244 4890.4370

SUM OF SQUARES

56.0663 1918.5051 1974.5714

MEAN SQUARES 147.0450 333.4875

MEAN SQUARES 22.1200

107.6085

MEAN SQUARES 44.8063 41.3864

MEAN SQUARES 28.0332 16.5388

F RATIO .4409

F RATIO .2056

F RATIO 1.0826

F RATIO 1.6950

F PROB. .6445

F PROB. .8145

F PROB. .3421

F PROB. .1881

D-F= Degree of Freedom F,2 116) greater than .05 probability, there were no significant differences

76

group had no effect whatever on the job satisfaction of

the housekeepers. The same was found for the intrinsic,

extrinsic and four-item motivation scale as seen in Table

4.28. It is likely that housekeeping jobs consist of the

same duties wherever one works.

77

Table 4.28

Analysis of Variance of Difference Between the Average Room Rates and Job

Satisfaction for Hotel Housekeepers

General Satisfaction


D.F. 2 131 133



D.F. 2 131 133



Four Item Scale:


D.F. 2 131 133

D.F. 2 131 133


746.3587 46875.9995 47622.3582


336.2186 15489.5202 15825.7388


28.0491 5554.4658 5582.5149

SUM OF SQUARES

4.1873 2329.0440 2333.2313

MEAN SQUARES 373.1793 357.8321

MEAN SQUARES 168.1093 118.2406

MEAN SQUARES 14.0245 42.4005

MEAN SQUARES 2.0937

17.7790

F RATIO 1.0429

F RATIO 1.4218

F RATIO .3308

F RATIO .1178

F PROB. .3553

F PROB. .2450

F PROB. .7190

F PROB. .8890

D.F= Degree of Freedom C2 131) greater than .05 probability, there were no significant differences

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary

This study was undertaken for the purpose of examining

the job satisfaction of hotel housekeepers with the focus

on determining the individual abilities and job situations

that housekeepers prefer. Demographic breakdown of

gender, education levels, age and hotel price groups were

surveyed to study their effect of job satisfaction.

The target population was selected from listings

obtained through Hotel Redbook. Personal visits and phone

calls were made and letters were mailed to all selected

hotels, explaining the nature of the study. A

(questionnaire form of the Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire was presented to the management by mail or

personal visit. The population for this study were

employees from hotels who gave their permission to allow

their housekeepers to participate. Questionnaires were

distributed to 18 hotels in the Dallas and Houston areas.

One hundred and forty-eight questionnaires were received

which was a 32 percent response rate.

The items represented in the research instrument were

reviewed, summarized, and tabulated using a SPSS software

76

77

program. The resulting data were then presented in a

tabular format utilizing percentile scores and ANOVA.

The percentile scores indicated that the housekeepers

were very dissatisfied with the company's compensation

policy and the lack of responsibility in their job. The

ability to keep them busy on the job was found to be a

very satisfying experience for the housekeepers.

Demographic breakdown of the sample characteristics

found that 75 percent of the housekeeping departments were

female. Sixty-two percent of the housekeepers had a high

school education and 89 percent of the housekeepers were

under the age of 45.

From the results of the statistical analysis, there

were no significance differences between the gender and

age groups in general job satisfaction. The intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation scales indicated that there were no

differences between gender and age in the job situation.

It was found that the high school graduate scored

significantly higher on the general job satisfaction scale

than the grade school or college educated housekeepers.

There was a significant difference between the grade

school and high school education levels but not between

the college and high school levels in the intrinsic

motivation scale. There were no significant differences

between the education level of the extrinsic and four-item

scale.

78

Conclusion

The following conclusions are based on the findings of

this study to determine the important items contributing

to a housekeeper's job satisfaction.

Apparently there was no difference in the job

satisfaction among the males and females. It can be

deduced that gender is not an important issue in the job

situation. Housekeeping is a job that provides security

and demands very little knowledge and experience from both

sexes.

The age of housekeepers had no impact on the level of

job satisfaction. The housekeeping job consists of the

same duties and age group makes no difference to the

general job satisfaction. The trend seem to be that as

age increases the housekeeper becomes less satisfied with

their pay (item 8) and advancement (item 14).

It was found that high school educated housekeepers

had a significantly higher general job satisfaction score

than the grade school and college educated housekeeper.

Grade school educated housekeepers might not have

understood the questions or meaning of the test due to

their lack of education as compared with high school

educated housekeepers. The lack of promotion within the

same education group can be another factor that

contributed to a lower satisfaction score. There seems to

be a trend that high school housekeepers seem to be more

79

satisfied in the area of job authority, compensation,

advancement and responsibility of the housekeeping duties.

There was no significant difference between the college

educated housekeepers and the high school housekeepers in

the intrinsic motivation scale.

The job and responsibilities of the housekeepers will

still be the same in the hospitality industry, no matter

what price the hotels charge. Price level had no effect

on the level of job satisfaction of the housekeepers. In

some large high priced hotels, the housekeeping

departments will be broken down into smaller divisions and

working environments that are compatible to working in

smaller hotels. Thus, working in differently priced

hotels had no effects on the housekeepers' general job

satisfaction. However, the trend seems to be that

housekeepers working for the higher priced hotel had a

higher satisfaction with the company policies and

practices, working conditions, recognition, independence

and achievement.

Suggestion for Further Survey

A continual research into the housekeeper's job

satisfaction should be explored in all hotels and motels

in America and worldwide. A study to compare the

international and domestic job situation that housekeepers

prefer should also be explored. A study of hotels'

80

policies and practices that were acceptable by the

employees can help improve the working conditions. An

understanding of the different housekeeping service levels

recjuired by the international travellers will help

management give better services to their customers.

REFERENCES

"Operators Attack Labor Shortage Problem." Restaurants & Institutions. March 4, 1987: 25.

Bell, D. "Housekeeping Polishing Dusty Reputation." Lodging Hospitality. Feb 1988: 91-93.

Carlson, R., Dawis, R., England, G. and Lofquist, L. The Measurement of Employment Satisfaction. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 1962.

Dawis, R., England, G. and Lofquist, L. A Theory of Work Adjustment. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 1964.

Fisher, M. "Housekeepers Gaining Deserved Respect." Hotel and Motel Management. Nov. 23, 1987: 26+.

Fisher, M. "Competition Brings Glory to Housekeeping Staff." Hotel and Motel Management. Jan. 1988: 2+.

Gay, L. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis & Application. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1981.

Greenberg, C. "Room Rates and Lodging Demand." The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly. Nov. 1985: 10-11.

Hayes, J. "Chasing Older Workers." Nation's Restaurant News. May 22, 1989: F39.

Hiemstra, S.J. and Kruel, L.M. Manpower Resources and Trends in the Lodging Industry: Past and Future. Michigan: Purdue University, July 1986.

Kast, F. and Rosenzweig, J. Organization & Management: A Systems and Contingency Approach. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1985.

Leposky, G. "The Worker Shortage: Tapping New Labor Services." Lodging. March 1987: 23-29; April 1987: 63-68; May 1987: 93-98.

Lundberg, G- and Armatas, J. The Management of People in Hotels. Restaurants and Clubs. 3rd ed. Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1979.

81

82

Mosteller, F., Fienberg, S. and Rourke, R. Beginning Statistics with Data Analysis. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1983: 253-254.

Reynolds, L. , Masters, S. and Moser, C. Labor Economics and Labor Relations. 9th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1986.

Sisk, H. Management & Organization. 3rd ed. Cincinnati South-western Publishing Company, 1977: 378-381.

Slater, D. "Hiring Dilemma Where Will the Workers Come From?" Restaurants USA. Sept. 13, 1988: 13-19.

Spatz, C. and Johnston, J. Basic Statistics Tales of Distributions. 4th ed. California: Brook/Cole Publishing Company, 1989.

Stockton, J. Business Statistics. 2nd ed. Cincinnati: South-western Publishing Company, 1962.

Stoner, C.L. "Housekeeping Managers Come Clean." Lodging Hospitality. Feb. 1987: 86-87.

Tucker, G- "Housekeeping Right Program, Right Image." Lodging. May 1986: 11-12.

Tucker, G. and Schneider, W. The Professional Housekeeper. 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1982.

Wasmuth, W.J. and Davis, S.W. "Managing Employee Turnover." The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly. Feb. 1983: 15-22. Pt. 1 of a series.

and . "Managing Employee Turnover: Why Employees Leave." The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly. May 1983: 11-18. Pt. 2 of a series begun on Feb. 1983.

and . "Strategies for Managing Employee Turnover." The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly. Aug. 1983; 65-75. Pt. 3 of a series begun on Feb. 1983.

Watkin, E., Ivany, L. and Sheehan, P. "Coping With the Hospitality Labor Shortage." Lodging Hospitality. Sept. 1985: 38+.

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R., England, G. and Lofquist, L. Manual for the Minnesota Questionnaire. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 1967.

83

Woodward, T. "The Price of Breaking the 1-9 LAW." Nation's Restaurant News. May 22, 1989: F67.

Zbaeren, C. "Keeping Guest Rooms Clean: Six Major Stumbling Blocks." Hotel and Motel Management. Dec. 14, 1983: 14+.

APPENDIX A

PERMISSION TO USE QUESTIONNAIRE

84

85

PERMISSION TO USE QUESTIONNAIRE

Hua S. Goh 3311 25th Street Lubbock, TX 79410

Work Adjustment Project Industrial Relations Center University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455

Dear Sir/Mdm:

I am a graduate student from Texas Tech University working on my Master's in Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional Management. In order for me to complete my Master's, I am required to do research for my thesis.

I am writing this letter to ask for permission to use the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire - Short-Form, found in the Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (vocational rehabilitation: xxii) by Weiss, Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1967.

My research is on Housekeeper's Job Satisfaction in hotels in Houston and Dallas. The questionnaire will be given to housekeepers to answer and be collected later. I would like to find out why a housekeeper stays on the job and what their reasons are for working for a company (hotel). As a result, I hope to find out how a manager can hire good employees and keep them.

I appreciate your help in this matter and hope to hear from you soon.

Thank you.

Hua S. Goh

86 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES

[^i'[:)nrtrr,Mit o ' P s y c i i o l o i i y

Ell iott Hall 75 East River Road

Vocational Psycholot;v Rcscarcli N620 Elliott Mall "' (612)625-1367

March 17, 1989

Hua S. Goh 3311 25th Street Lubbock, TX 79410

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1989 requesting infornialitMi on the Minncs(Ma Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Enclosed please find an information and registration form. l"*leasc complete ihe form, and have your advisor complete the indicated section. Return ihe form wiih a check made out in the appropriate amount to cover both your purchases and postage and handling. If your use of the MSQ is approved, \c)ur ortler will be shipped the same day as the order is received.

Thapkyou for/contacting Vocational Psychology Research.

Smce/ely yourl

i{j I Tiri_.'^^ <y' j Bill Mandschin ' Assistant Director

87

MINNESOTA SATlSrACl'IO.N QUESTIONNAIRE

QUALIFICATIONS AND REGISTR.\TION FORM (not necessary for Sample Sol)

Please type or print

Please complete the following:

y Master's Degree Doctorate Graduate Student

Specify Field

From (school) T ^ x<^ S " " t e . c ^ V^viiv/-e.t'?> \K-J

Equivalent courscwork or supervised experience: (please describe) ^ys-iVruc^^ — "5£ AV S- V^ H ^ ^ > U > T (Juvag.«'^>^

If the above items do not apply, please attach a statement of your qualifications in assessment and test interpretation with y0u^ordcr^_^ Signature { 1/ ^^\7

Return this completed form withy our check or institutional purchase order.

MSQ ORDER FORiM

MSQ SAMPLE SET Includes 1 MSQ Manual, 1 copy each of the MSQ Long Forms (1977 and 1967 revision) and MSQ Short Form $6.00 each =

MSQ MANUAJL only $4.50 each = ^

QUESTIONNAIRE BOOKLETS (Booklets are not reusable) MSQ Long Forms (minimum order of 30)

30 to 499 copies, $.60 each: 1977 version + 1967 version = @ $0.60 each =

500 or more copies, at $.58 each: 1977 version + 1967 version = @ $0.58 each

MSQ Short Form (minimum order of 50) 50 to 499 conies, $.35 each: MSQ Short Forms (a) $0.35 each = 500 or more copies, $.34 each: MSQ Short Forms @ $0.34 cach....=

Subtotal = Fourth-Class U.S. Mail, Postage and Handling (15% of Subtotal) = First-Class U.S. Mail, Postage and Handling (25% of Subtotal) =

.-"7 ^;

ORDER TOTAL = -^O, ' : . If you do not have an account with Vocational Psychology Research, payment or an official purchase order must accompany this order. Complete as applicable:

Purchase order enclosed purchase order number Check or money order enclosed

Our VPR Account Number is (charges will be added to your monthly bill).

October, 1988

88

DESCRirriON OF STUDY

— •- Tt

X:>^ UcM J

Please attach additional information regarding study if necessary.

Graduate students and others without proper qualifications:

We require the signature of your advisor or other faculty member who is supervising and assisting you in the interpretation of the results from the MSQ. This person must have at least a master's degree in psychology. Please ask them to write a brief statement and sign below.

Sincerely,

rA^K^J lalurel// signature

LYAJA/ l\uif^Ff^/\M please type or prmt name

8 9

VOCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH N620 ELLIOTT HALL, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55455-0344 - PHONE: (612) 625-1367

iflllE „„: CUSTOMER NO C A S H

BILL TO: SHIP TO:

This order has been paid in futl Thank you.

Hua Swee Goh 210 Waterman St al Providence. RI 02906

PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER

DATE SHIP VIA

_f-i-r-s-t—c-la S-&

e r h a L X ORDER DATE

QUANTITY ii'yeo I

0

0

i}5-/-l-6-/-8-9-

r.o.B.

)r- ia-i .n-

TERMS

ITEM NUMBER

9 2 2

S H I P

—Cash S a L e SALESPERSON

-HQ DESCRIPTION

Q M a n u a l ( M o n o g r a p h N o . 2 2 )

i i o p i ng Ch ar ge

'y/ui^tA Ifaa

OUR ORDER NUMBER

_8S7_1_ UNIT PRICE

4 . 5 0

0 . 7 5

S u D t o t a I •^ax

Tot a I _.l

AMOUNT

' . . 5 0

0 . 7 5

5 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 5 . 2 5

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRES

"t"

90

QUESTIONNAIRES ( E n g l i s h v e r s i o n )

to

>

a

2

M

CO

.2 1 ° . « -a o -S o -5 ^ -S a » =3 2 b >«

JO

a. .14

a o

. a

. a •s jS

s -s 3 es B. -S

e " 5 -

o

a 8 S

JS u o

a o

. 5 •S

s I •o o a a

u o

s o

•S

.s

E

s

u

s j i u o {5

• ° E

5" -i -i "g- jj E

.5 o 6 .^ .a c

-o 3 S . ^

o J5

I" O u

oo . 5 •5 o

T3

O o. E u

>-. s

*> 2 a. O

3

a

•S o

OS -S •s o

• o

^ 3 a

2 I -I

2 3

I -o .5

E

u u s

§ 3 •;: 3 -

• a oo .5 •a u E o

.3 u

2. >» Q .

E 8

o • o M 5

o e o

•S TJ

3 >» M

5 s •S E

! f i I

r = • ' ^ • = ^ P H H 2

5 3

s U U

H

E o

S E o

J 3 O

o • S OS

. 5 o

•S o E e % ^ O B

I" :2 & ^ 3

•S o <J

3 •5 • *

OS c o

•2 -

J3 O

•5 E

1 i .3 o

I I

8 OS

o » o

o

E

•3

I-8

=• o • ^ OS «> c M . a

1 1 H H H H H

. O -H M

O

o

e u o "a

g .• s £ 2 1 a c M o a — A CD (0 <=f c •

a k. .1= o

B E

/«^

< z z o CO

c z o H o < CO

< oo

o

(/)

•—< —J

u< —

o

a.

o

o u

<— o 3 >» O M »-> OS

l l _- <« ^t w «

o ^ •I TJ

a C

?.§ o a > *» OS o

a 3 .a o o =*• .a <» rt o» c .5

.9 " cr ? .a -

"° = :3

5 I

o • §••3

o >..

O B o «

J-a

^ s

S . 5 *" -3 ^ o

o ... "

•o o

• o

J3 O

§•

I? o

a.

3 w O .-J

a.

o

o

a

.«.s >»

* 6 2 3 q •" ° rt « •J , , <» o o S>-g •= S

5 •• •• c O

K O

•S • o a 3 X o

. o o

5 a. « 3 O »-« e n

o.

O

S 9 O

3 -^

JS

3 O

3

1^

J-t

JS

o

3 "S

•o

.2 o

, • 3

r : w B M

•3 o >. .. rt "O

5 Ji

M •S t ^

IS' E =

•So

3 O

O J3

OS .5

u •3 OS

. 5

a

3 2 S

^ • 3 3 = ^ O E

a 5 «

Si ^^ 3 a > .a

°coQ

• o - .

>

.t3

1 .a > -S

E

• o « c >-

•g ?

. 3 * 3

E S I o o O. " — c o o o -S - E c " rt S o. 3 - 1 w .2 = 5 e - .a E ? ^

f ^ l :S^cS

o

3 o

o

m o > 5

•o c a

c

CO

•a

O

c E O) k. 3 O >-

o 0 \

o

o a 3

o

C3

OS

2 JZ " r4 M ^

O —

c o E

•a c _ o o

= J8 lli o

10 o

3 3 "

= S o 00

00 c ^ ; ^ o B

C i . - 0

. 5 S

•2 3 —^ 3 O 6 ' " «»

^ 1 = ill o u o

J 3 ^ > »

3

8

-i< c o a y y . 3 <rt ^ : t . 3 <rt u ? u •»

j = 3 . c

c 0 c .2 * .2 i 2 »

: 2 ^ ^

TT «-i VO r » 0 0

9 1

92

QUESTIONNAIRES ( S p a n i s h v e r s i o n )

- 8

I-E 2

•8 S S o (J u

a 2

E u

'E

o

a g s- o

o O J=

3 .8

»> >. >. 3

f E >» ^

•5 8 <3 - 3 " .0 C «

^ -5

i' I i I >• 3

>. O

a s s "? « •;

--K t ' i

i £ •= a

2 S

o •3

- P S

>. 2

•3

8 •a o

•8 3 o

o J= o w e

. 2 3

•3 C

3 •3 B U

>.

a •3 a

k t

a • 3

3 • o k

3 U

n

Q

v. O o

"3 k .

3

*/t

a e

>. aC

55 Z a

a' If

, £ — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ — — — — — — —

a Z Z Z l Z l - - - - - - - Z Z = = Z Z Z Z Z j

zZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2

t«ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z ^ . « / ; _ _ _ ^ ^ „ , . , _ „ _ _ _ ^ ^ ^ ^ _ — — . — "

o

o u o • I < ca

< H u H Z u t/J u a : a.

S z

Cd a£ C3

o C O

O H Z u

2. I I

•3 73 O 2 -3 o

•a

9 o.

3 t

CO

.o rt a u

•3 -3 a

•3 c O

a •a o

T3

8

•3

•3 rt

;3 S 3 E o

E u

8 s

_o

•3

E 2

a E o

-13

u •3

• 3

3 6 •• . a • e 5 s rt Q. tl 3

£ -i - 2 , c

E -S o . 2

8 S

.9

e o 2 3 c

3 rt c 3 rt

• 3 O

tl o rt C

o 3 o-

"a 3

Q. E o

2« 3 ^

b "i o E

J J §• J 8

J3

o . 8 &

CO

•a B

g 3 3 .2 2 2 J J J3

O- -3

5 i o E

.2" o • « c o 3

J " J= 3 o tr

"S 6

j = o

3 Q. O

-S, « "3 rt -^ — .

o "E. c

o

"8 E

.o rt

u •3 •3 -3 •n B 8 .a >. *2

E

a 13 3

& _ 2 s B Q. u» rt u

• 3

u • 3 • 3

•2 B. o

•3 B

o 13 O

a a s

i i .2

o

J5

a

s C >. O

o

J J3 E J J3 J a

W CO . ^ <M n O — CM

a-s B « 0

i i s

1 o .3 g.

• sT

-3 "3

B •— O

•I E i •3 « C i! " - ^

111 > o n 3

o -S a CN — ' S

o CO

z o p < fc-O

< —

c

< z c

oo

CC

a cc

- J f^

z o u

o z

•3 rt

11 §•2

li .2 3 d o ^ §• 3 B •S3 c

.£ 3

I"

"3 .•?

o ^

§ I. C J

I

s 8 B O

B O

E

u

3

w 3

E

. a E "8

. . a. CO u

o 3 cr

3-o

e l 1 O 3

5 . 8

3 eg

.2 — E

> a

a 3 =

o e f 3 (J za

ii 3 3

I M

•3

i; 8

g s 3 U § •=• CO e> K c a..=i

•3 o a -^

CO

3 O

z i s 3 3 : o- >" o

^ S-8, -3 u a

3

. 2 ' o

S 3 c

e a

3 cr

^

3 B " 3

. - OS •« C

i?

C ^ U

^ £ 8 g

3 ^

^1

5 a

•3 I o o

— -3

8 i

3 — " >, O 3

^ 2

w •3 O

T3 a 3 U o B

.2.3

. a 3 3 CS w "

D.

M 3 a 3

- 1 CJ ^

= 0 3-

^1 -J 3 -3

o >« _ •H = o

c - :2

2 B

ti p.

£ o

s B

O "3

s e 1)

•3 rt

•3

B 3 O

O

8

s v>

v> o

B

M CC

c

cc Ui

cc

z cc;

o B

E o

CO T w ; : 3 IJ J L

O ^ .^ ^ ^/l —„ •3 o '

3 2^

to c •

3 - 2

O rn >

o

19

2

eo ^ t~

,, o

"3 ^

_ B

o 3 o £

os

o

- 3

3

Gra

d

M

Mcs

M

An

o

• 3 3

An

os

S. . c E o .2

iJ f 3 -3

1 2 - . S a 5 a 3 o

u

o _

(/>

— ; LU

c Z

• : ^ 1 ^

rt — 3 u

— -3

s

o • 3 a

3 - . (J

C 3

•« ^ . r rt ^

= y 5 *- 2

^ i 1 i i ^ w» - ^ o

C - 3 ; =

T wn ^ r * 3C

93

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO HOTELS

94

LETTER TO HOTELS

>^^/'"/ '^.-,

Texas Tech University C " t i ter for

Rcst.mr.i i i t , H o l d .md Insi i tut ion. i l \1 ,m, i j ;c fnrn i

Box 4 1 7 0 / l u b b o ( k . Icy,is i 'MO') l lbJ / iHOhi :'4J-U)fi8

August 4. 1988

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a graduate student at Texas Tech University, working on my Masters in Restaurant. Hotel and Institutional Management. For my thesis I will be doing research on room attendants' job satisfaction.

As we all know, keeping guestrooms clean is an important job for a hotel. However, housekeeping has been regarded as one of the minor operations of a hotel. It is also considered one of the dirtiest and lowest paying jobs with a high turnover rate. The U.S Bureau of labor statistics expects an annual labor shrinkage of 2.4% for men and 2.2% for women through 1990, implying that the labor intensive hospitality industry will be faced with worker shortage. A study of individual room attendants' job satisfaction will aid management in gaining an insight as to how to attract and retain good room attendants

My research will be using a short job satisfaction questionnaire for the room attendants to fill out. I need approval from the hotel to distribute the questionnaire to the room attandents to fill out during their break time or at home. I will provide a box in the break room for the completed questionnaires.

I appreciate your cooperation. Enclosed is a copy of the questionnaire.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours.

Hua S. Goh Teaching Assistant

APPENDIX D

ITEMS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE

95

96

ITEMS IN QUESTIONNAIRE

The 2 0 items in the questionnaire are:

1. Activity—Being able to keep busy all the time.

2. Independence—The chance to work alone on the job.

3. Variety—The chance to do different things from time to time.

4. Social status—The chance to be "somebody" in the community.

5. Supervision-human relations—The way my boss handles his/her employees.

6. Supervision-technical—The competence of my supervisor in making decisions.

7. Moral values—Being able to do things that don't go against my conscience.

8. Security—The way my job provides steady employment.

9. Social service—The chance to do things for other people.

10. Authority—The chance to tell other people what to do.

11. Ability utilization—The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities

12. Company policies and practices—The way company policies are put into practices.

13. Compensation—My pay and the amount of work I do.

14. Advancement—The chances for advancement on this job.

15. Responsibility—The freedom to use my own j udgment.

16. Creativity—The chance to try my own methods of doing the job.

97

17. Working conditions—The working conditions.

18. Co-Workers—The way my co-workers get along with each other.

19. Recognition—The praise I get for doing a good job-

20. Achievement—the feeling of accomplishment I get from the job. (Weiss et al., 1964)

PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis In partial fulfillment of the

requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University, I agree

that the Library and my major department shall make it freely avail

able for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for

scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or

my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication

of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my

further written permission and that any user may be liable for copy

right infringement.

Disagree (Permission not granted) Agree (Permission granted)

Student's signature Student's signature

Date

/ O / / 6 }J^ Date

job satisfaction of hotel room attendants by swee …

Documents