See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236682122

Managing employee empowerment in

luxury hotels in Europe

Article in International Journal of Service Industry Management March 2007

DOI: 10.1108/09564230710732902

CITATIONS READS

45 805

3 authors, including:

Peter T van den Berg Celeste PM Wilderom

Tilburg University University of Twente
77 PUBLICATIONS 1,017 CITATIONS 119 PUBLICATIONS 2,655 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Human Factors in Implementing eHealth Enabled Integrated Care in Elderly Care

View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Celeste PM Wilderom on 01 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

IJSIM
18,1
70
Received 16 July 2004
Revised 26 July 2006
Accepted 25 September 2006
International Journal of Service
Industry Management
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2007
pp. 70-88
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0956-4233
DOI 10.1108/09564230710732902
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-4233.htm
Managing employee
empowerment in luxury
hotels in Europe
Antonis Klidas
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Tilburg University,
Tilburg, The Netherlands
Peter T. van den Berg
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands, and
Celeste P.M. Wilderom
Department of Information Systems and Change Management,
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to test four potential predictors of the behavior of empowered employees
during the delivery of service to customers.
Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire measuring employees perceptions of training,
performance-related rewards, customer-oriented culture, empowering management style, and
empowered behavior was filled out by 356 frontline employees of 16 luxury hotels in seven
European countries. These statistical analyses removed common-method bias.
Findings Results of regression analyses at the department level showed that two means of
control customer-oriented culture and empowering management style correlated significantly
with empowered behavior.
Research limitations/implications The survey tool would benefit from further refinement.
Creative replications of the survey in different service or hotel settings may benefit service managers,
consultants as well as consumers, ultimately.
Practical implications A direct implication of this studys findings is that in luxury hotel service
settings, enhancement to employee empowerment may be achieved through careful management and
organizational development. If done well, service enhancements may be within reach.
Originality/value In prior research, employee empowerment has been identified as an important
means to increase customer satisfaction. The present study contributes to a greater and more specific
understanding of how employee empowerment can be attained in luxury European hotels.
Keywords Employee behaviour, Empowerment, Hotels, Training, Performance related pay,
Management styles
Paper type Research paper
The study was supported by a grant from the European Commission in the context of the
Training and Mobility of Researchers program, part of the Marie Curie Fellowships. The authors
would like to thank especially the current Editor-in-Chief and the anonymous reviewers for this
journal as well as Professor Bob Ford (University of Central Florida) for their very detailed
comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Introduction Managing
Since, 1980s, industry and academia have shown a growing interest in the concept of employee
employee empowerment. Empowerment is generally seen in the management literature
as the process of delegating or the decentralization of decision-making power (Conger empowerment
and Kanungo, 1988). Empowerment has been widely seen as the missing piece in the
puzzle formed by growing global competition, organizational restructuring, and the
increasing importance of service quality and customer satisfaction (Wilkinson, 2001). 71
From a societal perspective, the concept of empowerment is also said to be aligned with
the progressive democratization of both society and organizations, as it allows workers
some degree of self-determination (Goldsmith et al., 1997). Empowerment has become
especially important for services and hospitality, where frontline employees need the
authority to respond promptly to the individual needs of the increasingly demanding
consumer in increasingly unpredictable service situations (Hartline and Ferrell, 1999).
Such situations typically occur in the upscale sector of the hotel industry, where a
highly demanding clientele and high standards of service quality require empowered
(frontline) employees. It is by no coincidence that much of the research on
empowerment has had the hotel industry as its focus (Brymer, 1991; Parsons, 1995;
Jones et al., 1997; Hales and Klidas, 1998).
In the empowerment debate a question of principal importance to service
management concerns the identification of specific interventions or behaviors that are
needed to effectively implement the concept of empowerment in practice (Bowen and
Lawler, 1992). In this paper, we offer a model for implementing employee
empowerment. We integrate into one conceptual framework the piecemeal theories
of the antecedents of empowered behavior during service delivery. In particular, we
examine the importance of:
.
training;
.
reward practices;
.
organizational culture perceptions; and
.
management style.

Our model is then tested through empirical research carried out among the frontline
employees of 16 upscale properties of an international hotel chain spread across seven
European countries. The cornerstone of our integrated model is that empowerment
does not require management to refrain from controlling employee behavior, but rather
it requires a change in the form of management control that is exercised.
In this paper, we will first define employee empowerment in the context of the
service and hospitality management literatures and delineate the behaviors which
empowered employees are expected to demonstrate. Then we present our
theoretically-grounded model of employee empowerment, which we test empirically
within the 16 luxury European hotels, and discuss it implications for practice.

Empowerment in service and hospitality management

Although the empowerment construct has some conceptual ambiguities (Menon, 2001),
in the service management literature there is mostly unanimity regarding its definition.
Most accounts view empowerment as delegation of decision-making authority and
responsibility (Maxwell, 1997). Empowerment studies typically focus on
IJSIM customer-contacting or frontline employees (Bowen and Lawler, 1992; Gronroos, 2000).
18,1 The goal is oft to control or enhance service quality and customer satisfaction at the
point of service production. Indeed, the contribution of empowerment to service quality
and customer satisfaction has been supported from a variety of perspectives, notably
service recovery (Zemke and Schaaf, 1989; Brown et al., 1996), customer care (Lewis,
1995), total quality management (Baldacchino, 1995), relationship marketing (Evans
72 and Laskin, 1994) and service culture (Gronroos, 1990). The definition of empowerment
used here is devolving decision-making authority and responsibility to frontline
employees for control and enhancement of service quality and customer satisfaction
during service delivery (Klidas, 2001, pp. 34-5).

Empowered behavior
Empowerment requires employees to engage in discretionary behavior, aiming at
meeting or exceeding customers expectations during routine and especially
non-routine service situations. Examples are: bypassing routine procedures or bending
the rules to please customers (Hart et al., 1990); taking immediate action to resolve
customer complaints, even if the complaint is not directly related to their area of
responsibility the so-called complaint ownership (Brymer, 1991); making financial
concessions (e.g. reducing customers bills), so as to pacify complaining customers and
ensure satisfaction (Jones et al., 1997); using creativity and doing whatever it takes to
please guests, even beyond what is expected of them as employees (Lashley, 1997); and,
generally exercising discretion in their dealings with guests (Kelley et al., 1996).
Empowered behavior could entail all or any of the above without referring first to a
higher authority (Parsons, 1995). In short, empowered behavior reflects the
demonstration, by employees, of independent decision making, initiative and
creativity, to enhance customer satisfaction.

Empowerment and control

A critical question is whether or not empowerment requires management to give up
control over the behavior of empowered employees (Wilkinson, 2001). In fact, several
authors contend that this is precisely what is required and even argue that control is
incompatible with empowerment in its true sense (Baum, 1997, p. 111). In an attempt
to address the issue of control over empowered employees behavior, Lashley
(1997, p. 36) argues that empowerment represents a shift in the locus of control from
externally imposed directive control to internally imposed self-control. The question
this raises is: how can management achieve this shift in the locus of control? In
answering this question it is useful to refer to Hales (1993, p. 56) who distinguishes four
forms of managerial control according to their focus (what is being controlled), and the
timing (when control is exercised). More specifically, the four form of managerial
control are:
(1) Ex-ante control. Operating before the event and focusing on inputs in the form
of materials, the knowledge and skills of those carrying out the work.
(2) Concurrent control. Operating during the event and focusing on the processes,
in the form of technical and behavioral methods used for carrying out the work.
(3) Ex-post control. Operating after the event and focusing on outputs in the form of
the material, informational, financial, or other results of the work process.
 (4) Meta control. Operating above the event and focusing on values in the form of Managing
notions of what is important and desirable to be held by those carrying out the employee
work.
empowerment
Proponents of employee empowerment tend to argue for the withdrawal of concurrent
control through direct supervision and rigorous rules and procedures, and at the same
time the reinforcement of the alternative forms of control described above (Hales and 73
Klidas, 1998; Klidas, 2001). Such reinforcement can occur through:
.
Careful employee selection, recruitment and training, as a means of exercising
ex-ante control. The aim is to have empowerable employees and to inculcate in
the work process the skills, knowledge and attitudes conducive to the
development of employee behavior that is acceptable and responsible during
service delivery.
.
Performance-related rewards, as a means of exercising ex-post control. Here, the
aim is to promote and encourage employee responsibility, creativity and
initiative during service delivery.
.
Promote a customer-oriented organizational culture, as a means of exercising
meta control.
.
An empowering management style, which is also a form of meta control, so as to
instill in employees the company values, to shape their attitudes, and to stimulate
the development of desired behaviors during the performance of tasks.

By reinforcing ex-ante, ex-post, and meta control, the locus of control over employee
behavior may progressively shift from external control to self-control. This will occur
as employees apply internalized values, rules and norms of behavior relating to
processes and outputs (Hales, 1993, p. 57), which corresponds to the often-quoted
ownership of the job felt by the empowered employees (Bowen and Lawler, 1992).
A clear recognition that empowerment demands the ceding of concurrent control
through the reinforcing of alternative forms of control comes from Sewel and
Wilkinson (1992, p. 102), who contend that the procedures associated with selection,
socialization and appraisal militate against employees pursuing alternative interests.
Following the same line of thought, Simons (1995) proposes that control in the
empowerment era should occur through a combination of belief systems,
boundary systems, and diagnostic and interactive control, in order to reap the
benefits of employee creativity without jeopardizing organizational interests. The
increasing emphasis in the management literature on the processes of
selection-recruitment, training, performance-related rewards, and the development of
a customer-oriented culture, although not always explicitly linked to empowerment,
does in our own view reflect attempts to secure employee compliance with
organizational goals in the absence of direct or close supervision (see, for an interesting
case study within the field of education, Causon, 2004).

Predictors of employee empowerment

It is argued here that the key to effective employee empowerment lies in the
reinforcement of the alternative forms of control over employee behavior during
service delivery. Therefore, we examine in this research the role in the empowerment
IJSIM process of training (ex-ante control), rewarding (ex-post control), the establishment of a
18,1 customer-oriented organizational culture and management style (meta control).
Training. Training is probably the most frequently used intervention when
considering what is crucial in the implementation of empowerment (Brymer, 1991;
Jones et al., 1997). The aim of training is the development and enhancement of the skills
necessary for employees to be able to handle their increased authority and
74 responsibility effectively and to exercise good judgment (Brymer, 1991). Since,
empowerment gives employees the authority to make financial concessions to
customers, training is necessary in order to avoid too many give aways and other
costly decisions. As noted earlier, training is a means of exercising ex-ante control
over employee behavior, by introducing the necessary skills into the work process
(Hales and Klidas, 1998). The training process further incorporates a system of intense
socialization (induction) and development designed to inculcate employees with
organizational values, and to instill, shape and reinforce appropriate employee
attitudes (Hales, 1994). Effective training generally supports the goal of empowerment
by enhancing morale and motivation, increasing flexibility, reducing staff turnover,
and allowing employees to function independently without the need for constant
supervision (Hope and Muhlemann, 1997). Finally, it fosters in employees feelings of
self-efficacy necessary to initiate their participation in decision making (Conger and
Kanungo, 1988), by imparting the requisite skills and knowledge needed to render such
participation effective. In summary, training enables employees to use their increased
authority responsibly and effectively (Gronroos, 2000).
In the literature one can find a true host of skills, which, it is claimed, should be
instilled in employees in the context of empowerment training (Jones et al., 1997,
p. 545). Emphasis is generally placed on soft skills that are aimed at enhancing
employees competence in customer care, such as interpersonal and communication
skills (Ripley and Ripley, 1992). Training also needs to impart the technical and
professional knowledge and skills necessary for the delivery of quality guest service
(Lewis, 1995). With such skills, employees will develop good judgment, initiative, and
creativity (Lovelock, 1995), and will be able to respond to customers needs and
requests swiftly and with courtesy (Carlzon, 1987). In departments where employees do
not perceive they have the necessary knowledge and skills to master their increased
authority and responsibility, we expect to find lower levels of independent
decision-making and initiative-taking beyond the very routine. Therefore, our H1 is
formulated as follows:
H1. During service delivery, employees of departments with higher levels of
training will exercise a higher degree of empowered behavior.
Performance-related rewards. There is an increasing recognition that traditional
remuneration systems do not reward empowerment. This in turn has shifted the focus
towards performance-related rewards. This shift is based primarily on the idea that
rewards convey a powerful message about what is valued in the organization.
Secondly, performance-related rewards recognize and reinforce personal competencies
and motivate employees to participate in the decision-making process (Spreitzer, 1995).
Thirdly, they encourage employees to exercise responsibility and initiative by
rewarding them for displaying the appropriate behavior (Hartline and Ferrell, 1999).
This has been presented as a form of exercising ex-post control over the service
delivery process, since management can rely on the fact that employees will be Managing
working diligently to meet those goals on which their rewards are based (Simons, employee
1995). An absence of performance-related rewards may lead to employees reluctance
to accept empowerment because of cynicism about their jobs being enlarged in empowerment
assuming a degree of managerial responsibility for the same remuneration (Maxwell,
1997, p. 58). The provision of performance-related rewards is vital in the context of
empowerment, since empowerment increases risk and responsibility for employees, 75
and places increasing demands on them to demonstrate additional skills and discretion
(Goldsmith et al., 1997). It is therefore, possible to argue that in departments where the
available rewards reflect individual performance, employees will demonstrate a higher
degree of empowered behavior. Based on the above we propose our H2:
H2. During service delivery, employees of departments where rewards are
focused on employees individual performance will exercise a higher degree of
empowered behavior.
Customer-oriented culture. An organizations commitment to service quality and
customer satisfaction is reflected in the shared system of beliefs, values, attitudes, and
norms of behavior: a system which has been described as a customer-oriented
culture (Hales, 1994, p. 57) or a service culture (Gronroos, 1990, p. 244). Gronroos
(1990, p. 244) defines such a culture as one:
. . . where an appreciation for good service exists, and where giving good service to internal,
as well as ultimately external, customers is considered a natural way of life and one of the
most important norms by everyone.
A customer-oriented culture is necessary for the development of empowered behavior
during the delivery of service, since it is the ideas, beliefs and values of the firm
[that] influence employees to act in customer-oriented ways (Bowen and Basch, 1992,
p. 212).
The promotion of a customer-oriented culture is posited as a means of exercising
meta control over employee behavior during service delivery. This is because the
internalized company values and the norms with respect to the desired behavior
constitute guidelines for employees when making decisions (Koopman and Wierdsma,
1998). Thus, the locus of meta control over employee behavior is not one that is imposed
externally, through detailed rules and procedures and close supervision. It is one that is
internalized by individual employees, who align their behavior with their
organizations goals to provide quality service and please the customer (Lashley,
1997). This is particularly important in services, where it is harder to control the
quality of service delivered to the customer. As Du Gay and Salaman (1992, p. 621)
argue, traditional bureaucratic control is too overtly oppressive, too alienating and too
inflexible to encourage employees to behave in the subtle ways which customers define
as indicating quality service, and furthermore it may stifle individual spontaneity
and responsiveness (Du Gay and Salaman, 1992, p. 622). They too recommend seeking
to change behavior, values, and attitudes, through cultural change rather than
structural change. Based on the above we expect that empowered behavior will be
higher in departments where the prevailing values stimulate and support actions and
behaviors that enhance service quality and customer satisfaction. We propose the
following hypothesis:
IJSIM H3. During service delivery, employees of departments with higher levels of a
18,1 customer-oriented culture will exercise a higher degree of empowered
behavior.
Empowering management style. Managers and supervisors play a critical role in the
empowerment process. Firstly, they are required to relinquish some of their traditional
authority, in order to allow employees the latitude to make decisions and assume
76 greater responsibility (Carlzon, 1987). They should also encourage employees to use
their decision-making authority (Zemke and Schaaf, 1989) and to trust in their own
abilities, commitment, and judgment (Goldsmith et al., 1997). They need to give
employees guidance on how to use their increased authority (Gronroos, 1990), and
support them in performing their new roles successfully (Randolph, 1995). In order to
demonstrate managements support and provide positive reinforcement, they should
recognize and praise employees who have demonstrated exemplary performance
during service delivery (Brymer, 1991). Burke (1986) argues that intrinsic reward
provided by way of informal, spontaneous and immediate praise upon exemplary
behavior, is likely to be more effective than extrinsic rewards provided by formal
incentive systems, promotions, and the like. In the event of mistakes or incorrect
decisions, managers should not reprimand or penalize employees, but, on the contrary,
praise them for having taken an initiative for service quality and guest satisfaction
(Brymer, 1991). Mistakes should be perceived of as learning opportunities (Randolph,
1995) and managers should seize the opportunity to provide additional guidance and
coaching (Carlzon, 1987). Empowerment requires creating a non-blame culture
wherein well-intentioned mistakes are discussed in a supportive way (Goldsmith et al.,
1997, p. 145). Otherwise, employees will be afraid of assuming responsibility and will
probably avoid the risk of making decisions without prior approval from their
superiors (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997).
As argued here, an empowering management style can be seen as a form of
exercising meta control on the empowered employees during service delivery. It is part
and parcel of their role: to communicate the organizations norms, values and vision to
the employees. Managers behaviors do set guidelines and standards to employees
about the behaviors that are wanted by the organization. Therefore, we propose:
H4. During service delivery, employees of departments with higher levels of an
empowering management style will exercise a higher degree of empowered
behavior.

Method
Sample
The data were collected from 16 hotels of a well-known American-owned international
company, located in seven European countries: Italy, England, Belgium, The
Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and Greece. As already emphasized, hotels operating
in the upscale segment of the industry are typically settings where empowerment is
strongly needed and most likely to be found. We organized a paper-and-pencil survey,
which was targeted at all customer-contact employees working in the front office and
the food and beverage (F&B) departments. For most of the final sample (70 percent),
the completion and collection of questionnaires took place during special sessions
specifically set up for this purpose. During these meetings, one of the authors would
give the employees information about the research objectives, and guidelines for Managing
completing the questionnaire. The rest of the data (i.e. the other 30 percent) were employee
collected by the personnel or training managers of the hotels, and returned to us by
post. In Italy, the research took place simultaneously with the company employee empowerment
survey, which inevitably resulted in a large number of participants, who were not
targeted by this research. We have excluded these employees from the analyses. A total
of 533 questionnaires were returned, which represents an approximate 50 percent 77
response rate. About 74 managers and management trainees who had completed the
questionnaire were excluded from the analyses. Further, 103 respondents with missing
data (48 did not report their job title) were excluded from the sample. The respondents
with missing data did not significantly differ from the remaining sample on sex,
education, and tenure. The number of hotels and frontline employees surveyed per
country are listed in Table I.
The remaining 356 responses cover 14 different job titles, the most common being
waiter (143), receptionist (124), luggage porter (31), and concierge (25). The large
majority of the employees, namely 85 percent, reported having a permanent, full time
contract. The rest had temporary or part-time contracts, or were casual staff. The
average age of respondents was 35.4 years, and the average period with their current
employer was 7.7 years, 72 percent were men, 11 percent had a university degree, 17
percent had non-university higher education, 44 percent had completed further
education or vocational training, and 28 percent had completed only secondary school
or lower stages of school education.
A potentially important issue is the composition of the sample in terms of the
nationalities of the respondents; the sample was quite multicultural with employees
originating from 40 different countries. By far the most multicultural hotels in the
present study were the ones in London, where 63 percent of the respondents were
non-British, followed by the hotels in Brussels, where 29 percent of the respondents
were non-Belgian. In contrast, the hotels in the more southern countries (i.e. Greece,
Italy, and Portugal) appear to lack this multicultural element in their workforce.

Measurement
The main variables in this study were conceived at the departmental level. Hence, we
tested the relationships at that level. After excluding the departments with less than
six participants, the number of cases in our analysis was 25. The mean hotel size was
375 rooms ranging from 216 to 645 rooms.

Country n hotels n respondents

Italy 4 143
England 5 75
Belgium 2 46
Netherlands 2 37 Table I.
Portugal 1 25 Number of hotels and
Sweden 1 20 respondents per country
Greece 1 10 involved in the study
IJSIM Owing to a lack of valid measures applicable to the field of hospitality management, we
18,1 had to construct new measures. The items selected were based on a review of the
relevant research literature (Klidas, 2001). In formulating the items, we followed the
guidelines of Brislin (1986) for the design of translatable items required for
cross-cultural research. The items were all geared for use in the context of the hotel
industry with a focus on the interactions of employees with guests. To avoid confusion,
78 all the scales used a five-point Likert-type format with answer categories ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items we generated were reviewed for
their content and relevance. This was done by one human resource manager of the
hotel company (acting as the liaison for this research) and a university student with
prior working experience in upscale hotels. They were also reviewed by some
knowledgeable members of the academic staff of Tilburg University (The
Netherlands).
Following modifications on the basis of the aforementioned reviews an initial
version of the questionnaire was developed and a pilot-study was conducted to assess
scale validity and reliability, as well as other important issues, such as the respondents
understanding of the questions, questionnaire design and length, and completion time.
This pilot study was conducted among 70 frontline employees of four hotels of a
hotel-company in Crete, Greece. For this purpose the questionnaire was translated by
one of the authors in the Greek language. A thorough evaluation of the results of the
pilot-study led to the final version of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire used for the main part of the research was produced in English.
For use in the various countries except Sweden, where the English version of the
questionnaire was used the questionnaire was translated. Thus, the questionnaire
was translated into Greek, Dutch, French, Italian, and Portuguese. The methodology
for the translation followed the back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1986), with
one native speaker translating from English to the target language, and a second
native speaker back-translating from the target language to English. All the
translators were members of the university academic staff, and were fluent in English.
In addition, the translated and back-translated items were discussed with one of the
authors, resulting in the final translations.
Empowered behavior was defined as the extent to which employees within a
department make independent decisions and take initiatives to enhance service quality
and customer satisfaction. The scale consists of six items, which represent
manifestations of empowered behavior (during service delivery), as derived from the
literature. These are: discretion (I often take initiatives beyond what is expected of me
in order to please customers derived from the Creative Discretion scale by Kelley et al.,
1996), independence (I rely on my own judgment to make most of the decisions
required in my job), complaint ownership (I often take action to resolve a customer
problem, even if this problem is not directly related to my area of responsibility),
financial concessions (If necessary, I make financial concessions to customers, for
example, make small adjustments in their bills, offer them complimentary drinks or
meals, small gifts, etc. in order to deal with a customer complaint or problem), rule
bending (When possible, I bend the rules of the hotel, in order to please customers), and
creativity (In general, I come up with creative ways to please customers). We calculated
the intra-class correlation (ICC), which is the part of the variance explained by the
respondents departments. This value was 0.15, which indicates that aggregation at the
departmental level was allowed. The Cronbach a of the aggregated scores on this scale Managing
was 0.72. employee
Training was operationally defined, using three items, as the extent to which
employees within a department have been trained to independently master their job empowerment
tasks. Because the training policy can vary among departments this variable was
measured at the aggregated level. The items were also derived from the literature and
refer to general competence (I have been trained in this hotel to carry out my job 79
efficiently and I have been sufficiently trained in this hotel to perform to the level that
is required of me) and training in communication skills (I have been trained in this
hotel to communicate effectively with customers). The ICC was 0.12. At the aggregated
level, the scale had a Cronbach a of 0.79.
The performance-related rewards variable was operationally defined as the extent
to which rewards within a department depend on individual performance and
consisted of three items. The items The rewards I receive are determined according to
my own performance and The raises I receive depend on my performance
were derived from Spreitzers (1995, p. 1451) equivalent individual pay for performance
scale. The item In this hotel, the employees who reach high levels of performance
are systematically rewarded refers to the extent that top performers in a hotel are
rewarded in a systematic manner. The focus of the items is on performance in general
as opposed to specific empowered behavior which in hotels includes obviously soft
goals, such as customer orientation, customer service, and so on. Implied here is the
view that empowerment is a means to the end of delivering service quality and
customer satisfaction and not an end in itself. It is therefore, individual performance in
general which needs to be rewarded, which may but not necessarily or exclusively
include empowered behaviors. Again, because the reward practices can vary among
departments this variable was measured at the aggregated level. The ICC of this scale
was 0.13 and the Cronbach a was 0.88.
Customer-oriented culture was operationally defined as the shared perception that
the organizational unit is oriented towards service quality and customer satisfaction.
By focusing on shared perceptions within organizational units the definition is in
accordance with the conceptualization of organizational culture by van den Berg and
Wilderom (2004). This implies that organizational culture should be measured at the
level of organizations or departments. The five items used in this scale represent
important elements of a customer-oriented culture according to the literature, namely,
commitment to service quality (All the staff of this hotel is committed to the provision
of high quality service to customers), effort for customer satisfaction (All staff of this
hotel tries hard to keep every customer satisfied), importance of each customer (The
management of this hotel tells the employees how important the satisfaction of very
single customer is), responsibility for customer satisfaction (The satisfaction of
customers is the responsibility of every employee of this hotel), and the customer
orientation of rules and procedures (The rules and procedures of this hotel facilitate the
provision of high quality service to customers). The ICC was 0.13 and the Cronbach a
of this customer-oriented culture scale was 0.75.
Empowering management style was defined as the extent to which management
style is conducive to employee-empowered behavior. Because employees within the
same department have the same managers we used aggregated management style
scores. The eight items used in this scale represent several leadership elements drawn
IJSIM from the empowerment literature. The item My superiors in general encourage me to
18,1 handle customer problems according to my own judgment measures encouraging of
employees to deal with customer complaints on their own. The items My superiors in
general trust me to handle customer problems on my own, My superiors in general
make me feel confident about my ability to resolve customer problems on my own,
and My superiors in general trust my ability to make decisions in my job aim at
80 measuring a superiors trust in employees. The items My superiors in general support
the decisions I make in my job and My superiors in general support the decisions I
make in my job, even if they do not agree with them measure support for employee
decisions. The item My superiors in general delegate a lot of responsibility to me
measures delegation of responsibility and the item My superiors praise me every
time I take a successful initiative in my job refers to offering recognition. It was
important that, in the formulation of the items in this scale, one refers to employees
superiors in general since in this specific context, it is quite common for employees to
work under various superiors (e.g. front office manager, assistant managers, duty
managers, shift leaders). The ICC was 0.12. At the aggregated level, the scale had a
Cronbach a of 0.84.
Control variables. Since, the services offered by the F&B department are more
standardized, and the service encounters more predictable than in the front office, the
need for empowerment in the F&B department will presumably be lower. This
dichotomy was used as a control variable. Also, hotel size may be related to empowered
behavior and the independent variables. Whereas empowerment is more emphasized
in large hotels, small hotels have fewer hierarchical levels, facilitating employee
empowerment. The number of rooms, as an operationalization of hotel size, was the
second control variable.

Results
The relationships among the aggregated scores may be inflated by the fact that we
used the same raters to assess all variables. To control for this element of common
method variance we followed the suggestions by Ostroff et al. (2002) and split all
departments in two random sub samples. One set of sub samples was used to measure
the level of empowered behavior in each department and the other set was used to
measure the independent variables in each department. The number of participants
was too small to measure the independents in separate sub samples. The correlation of
empowered behavior with training was o.23 (n.s.), with performance-related
rewards 2 0.14 (n.s.), with customer-oriented culture 0.43 ( p , 0.05), and with
empowering management style 0.40 ( p , 0.05). In order to test the hypotheses we
performed four regression analyses entering the control variables and one of
the independent variables. This was done because the independents were measured in
the same set of sub samples, and because the small number of cases (25) did not allow
entering them together in the same analysis. The results are presented in Table II.
They show that after controlling for hotel size and type of department, employee
empowered behavior is not significantly related to training and performance-related
rewards. Employee empowered behavior appeared significantly related to
customer-oriented culture as well as empowering management style. H1 and H2 are
not supported while H3 and H4 are confirmed.
 Managing
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
employee
Controls empowerment
Hotel size 20.21 2 0.22 20.15 2 0.08
F&B/front office 20.14 2 0.17 20.28 2 0.19
Independents
Training 0.18 81
Performance-related rewards 0.12
Customer-oriented culture 0.46 *
Empowering management style 0.37 * Table II.
R2 0.11 0.10 0.28 0.20 Results of regression
analyses on empowered
Notes: *p , 0.05 (one-tailed), the values are standardized b coefficients behavior

Discussion
In our study we examined four antecedents of empowered employee behavior. The
results provide support for the contribution of a customer-oriented culture and an
empowering management style on empowered behavior. Both have been conceived in
the theory as forms of meta control. No support has been offered for the effect of
training and performance-related rewards, which were conceived, respectively, as
forms of ex-ante and ex-post control.
The results of the regression in Model 3 provided support for the contribution of a
customer-oriented culture on empowered behavior. This result is not surprising
considering the overwhelming emphasis of the empowerment literature on the
importance of a customer-oriented culture in stimulating employee empowered
behaviors (Peccei and Rosenthal, 2001). This finding suggests that in stimulating
empowerment, cultural change, in addition to structural change, is likely to lead to the
targeted outcomes. Moreover, interpreting a customer-oriented culture as a form of
meta control, our result suggests that indirect and subtle forms of control may be more
appropriate when empowering employees than traditional, direct control on
employee behavior. In short, employees are more likely to make independent decisions
for the benefit of the customer, when their environment congruent with values
supporting service quality and customer satisfaction.
In the regression analysis of Model 4 the results show a strong relationship between
empowered behavior and an empowering management style. This result is consistent
with the strong emphasis that the empowerment literature places on leadership
attributes in the process of empowerment (Carlzon, 1987; Jones et al., 1997). Indeed, our
study confirms the idea that frontline employees are more likely to exercise empowered
behavior, when they have the encouragement, support, trust and confidence of their
superiors. Such empowering behaviors also provide (directly or indirectly) signals to
employees about what is valued in the organization (meta control) and what
management expects from them, therefore, reducing role ambiguity and role conflict.
Indeed, previous research has demonstrated that role ambiguity and role conflict are
preventing customer-contact employees from undertaking initiatives during the
delivery of service to customers (Hartline and Ferrell, 1999). Viewing empowering
management style as a form of meta control, this result casts doubt on the importance
of concurrent control through direct supervision for effective employee empowerment.
Employees are more likely to engage in empowered behaviors, when managers allow
IJSIM them the latitude for and are supportive of such behaviors. This outcome fits the
18,1 important lesson uncovered recently by Silver et al. (2006, p. 57): Consider making
empowerment a part of a broader strategy, such as leadership, quality, or customer
service focus . . .
Contrary to expectations, the regression analysis of Model 1 has not established a
significant relationship between empowered behavior and training. This result
82 indicates that the training of employees to effectively master the demands of their job
tasks is not decisive as to whether the employees will eventually exercise empowered
behavior. This outcome contradicts the large majority of authors on employee
empowerment who stress the pivotal role of training in the empowerment process
(Hope and Muhlemann, 1997). It may be that training is important in enabling
employees to engage effectively in independent decisions and actions during service
delivery, but whether employees will actually do so depends on other factors. Put
another way, when it comes to empowerment, our results suggest, it is not the
well-trained employees who demonstrate empowered behaviors, but the ones that have
the backing of their managers and a customer-oriented culture. This result may further
imply that training may be an effective ex-ante form of control for introducing ability
to make good decisions in the service delivery process, but not for ensuring willingness
to engage in independent thinking and acting during the service delivery process.
In the regression analysis of Model 2 the variable of performance-related rewards
was not found to be a significant predictor of empowered behavior. This means that
relating rewards to individual performance is not related to the exercise of empowered
behavior. This result does not offer support to those authors who argue against
traditional remuneration systems and support a shift in their orientation toward
individual performance. In addition, the result seems to be contrary to our expectation
that performance-related rewards offer an effective alternative to concurrent control,
by directing employee effort and behaviors toward desirable outcomes, in this case,
empowered behaviors.
An explanation for this unexpected result may be that what constitutes good
employee performance i.e. what is rewarded by management in a systematic
manner is not necessarily restricted to empowered behavior. According to
qualitative information obtained in the context of this particular study (Klidas, 2001);
most hotels had no systematic procedure of rewarding empowered behavior.
An exception is the employee-of-the-month reward schemes, which have, however, a
more symbolic value. Moreover, such rewards are not necessarily restricted to the
exercise of empowered behavior, as they apply equally for the back-office personnel
and they tend to reward exceptional behavior and usually only one occurrence of best
performance. Therefore, in strict terms they cannot be regarded as
performance-related rewards, as employees do not receive them in the context of
their monthly remuneration. Even where managers did report the availability of
incentive rewards, these related almost entirely to up-selling, for example, room-nights
and enrolments in the guest loyalty program (reception) or wine and liquor (F&B
outlets). The expected outcome of the availability of such rewards would, therefore, be
up-selling and not necessarily empowered behavior.
A second explanation for the outcome we obtained from testing H2 relates to the
control paradox (Clegg et al., 2002; Gittell, 2000) associated with empowered behavior.
In particular, the accuracy with which supervisors observe empowered employees at
work is not very high since by definition, empowered employees do not operate under Managing
close supervision or surveillance. In operational service settings, such as the service employee
situations in our hotels, important individual contributions are often both interpersonal
and fleeting and, therefore, hard for the manager involved to notice and evaluate. empowerment
Therefore, the accuracy with which the precise empowerment or performance level of
frontline employees can be established, and on the basis of which they get rewarded,
cannot be high. In other words, in frontline operational settings ex-post managerial 83
controls may be rather weak control mechanisms on which to rely for ensuring that
employees behave in an effectively autonomous way.

Theoretical and practical implications

One of the most important issues in the empowerment debate concerns the way in
which management can implement empowerment in practice (Bowen and Lawler,
1992; Hardy and Leiba-OSullivan, 1998; Hemp, 2002). This study contributes to the
empowerment theory an integrated model for the implementation of empowerment in
practice, which synthesizes the currently piecemeal theory of antecedents of
employee-empowered behavior. Our findings on what is conducive to empowered
behavior point to key interventions in the empowerment process. The results of our
regression analyses indicate that for predicting empowered behavior the factors of
customer-oriented culture and empowering management style are such key
interventions. Conversely, training and performance-related rewards were not found
to be valid predictors of empowered behavior, despite strong theoretical arguments
pointing to the opposite. Especially for the former, our results contradict the
overwhelming and undisputed importance attributed to training in employee
empowerment (Jones et al., 1997).
An important conceptual contribution of our study to the empowerment debate in
service settings is that empowerment is not incompatible with control of employee
behavior, as advocates of empowerment often suggest (Goldsmith et al., 1997;
Sternberg, 1992). On the contrary, on the basis of the earlier presented distinction of
four forms of managerial control, we argue that empowerment merely requires a shift
in the manner by which control of the empowered employees is exercised. The key to
effective empowerment of employees lies in replacing concurrent control by
alternative forms of control of employee behavior. According to our results the most
effective alternative form of control of the empowered employee is meta control,
occurring through reinforcement of a customer-oriented culture and an empowering
management style. Ex-ante control through training and ex-post control through the
establishment of performance-related rewards appear to be less effective alternatives.
These findings have evidently important implications for the management that strives
to empower its workforce. Regarding specifically the processes studied in this research
we recommend the following.
Customer-oriented culture. This study provides evidence for the importance of
a customer-oriented culture in the empowerment process. Management should
consistently strive to institute a culture strongly oriented to service quality
and customer satisfaction. Such reinforcement requires not only the rhetoric of the
companys commitment to the goal of service quality and customer satisfaction, but
also a more specific organizational alignment towards this goal. This should include
organizational policies and practices, systems and procedures and explicit guidelines
IJSIM for people (management and employees). As repeatedly argued in this paper, a
18,1 customer-oriented culture may function as an alternative form of controlling employee
behavior, namely meta control.
Empowering management style. The research findings indicate that management
style is crucial in employee empowerment. Managers willing to empower employees
need to encourage them to make decisions on their own, trust them and support
84 whatever decisions they make, praise them when they succeed and forgive, teach and
coach them when they make a mistake. Failure to align managers behavior with
organizational empowerment programs is bound to create confusion to the employees
and undermine the empowerment process. The importance of empowering
management style points again to the importance of meta control as an alternative
form of control of empowered employees. Employee empowerment requires by
definition that managers withhold from directly controlling employees during service
delivery.
Training. Although our results did not provide empirical support for our
hypothesis, one should not dismiss the value of training when empowering employees.
Training may not determine whether employees will eventually exercise independent
decision making and acting, but it may improve the quality and effectiveness of such
decisions or initiatives once these are taken. Management should incorporate in the
training process courses for enhancing employees communication skills and
presumably additional skills in the areas of decision making, complaint handling
and customer care. Such soft skills will enable them to deal effectively and
independently with non-routine service situations. Furthermore, one should not
underestimate the value of training in shaping employee perceptions about what is
desirable and valued in an organization. In that sense, training may serve as an
effective alternative control mechanism for introducing into the service delivery
process not only the right skills, but also the right attitudes.
The role of selection-recruitment as an additional, ex-ante, control mechanism may
be crucial here as well. Although we have not included selection-recruitment in our
study, one may reasonably expect that the above line of argument with respect to the
role of training holds also for the process of selection-recruitment. Better results may be
achieved, if employees have been selected in advance according to the right,
customer-oriented skills and attitudes. As in the case of training, selection-recruitment
serves also a function of quality control of the inputs in the service delivery process.
Performance-related rewards. Considering that in most of the hotels studied here
performance-related rewards mainly target up-selling, the principal implication for
management may be to align the reward system to the empowerment process by
instituting rewards for excellence in customer care. So far, the hospitality industry has
addressed this need through employee of the month reward schemes, which,
however, have a rather weak symbolic value. Such limited scope fails to fully utilize the
potential of performance-related rewards as an alternative, ex-post, form of control of
employee behavior.

Limitations and further research

An important limitation of our research is the low number of departments we could use
to test our hypotheses. It is possible that significant results, for example, regarding
training and/or performance-related rewards, have been suppressed because of this.
Another limitation of the low N is that we could not test our hypotheses by Managing
simultaneously controlling for the effects of all interventions studied. We cannot know employee
whether our significant results would also be uncovered had we controlled for the
effect of the other interventions. However, one cannot dismiss the value of our findings, empowerment
when entering each intervention separately in the regression analysis.
Future research should also examine the influence of factors that have not been
considered in this paper. Various authors have stressed the need for a flatter 85
organizational structure (Maxwell, 1997), an open internal communication climate
(Jones et al., 1997), and the devolution of organization-related information throughout
the organization and especially to the people at the frontline (Bowen and Lawler, 1992).
The contribution of such factors in the empowerment process is amenable to empirical
(preferably longitudinal) study.
A final point of caution is required in relation to the generalizability of our research
findings. Although the study drew broadly from the service, hospitality, and general
management literatures, the concepts employed and their operationalization have been
entirely oriented to the specific work context of the departments under study in the
upscale sector of the hotel industry. For example, the various empowered employee
behaviors were specific to the nature of the service encounter in the departments of
front office and F&B in luxury hotels. They may also be relevant for smaller
establishments in the lower sector of the industry or even for other service industries,
such as airlines, banks and so forth. The various management variables examined in
the context of the empowerment process might be specific to the resources available in
chain hotels, which are not necessarily available in other organizations (e.g. smaller,
independent establishments). Thus, there are intriguing opportunities for
cross-industry comparisons.
Yet, some of our findings and insights are of wider relevance for other service
industries. For example, the need for an integrated approach in implementing
empowerment is not necessarily exclusive to the specific organizations studied here.
Moreover, we posit a general applicability of our fundamental conceptual notion that
the key to successfully empowering employees is the reinforcement of alternative
forms of control of employee behavior, especially meta control. Of course, public
policy, industry and work contexts will have influence on which alternative forms of
control are more appropriate and effective (Beirne, 2006). In terms of front-line
employee behaviors of upscale hotels located in Europe, this study shows that two
types of meta control customer-oriented culture and management style are quite
crucial. Thus, if managers of luxury hotels want to attract high-paying customers,
they need to ensure employee empowerment in their local enabling contexts or
esprit-des-corps.

References
Baldacchino, G. (1995), Total quality management in a luxury hotel: a critique of practice,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 67-78.
Baum, T. (1997), Making or breaking the tourist experience: the role of human
resource management, in Ryan, C. (Ed.), The Tourist Experience, Cassell, London,
pp. 92-111.
Beirne, M. (2006), Empowerment and Innovation: Managers, Principles and Reflective Practice,
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
IJSIM Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. III (1992), The empowerment of service workers: what, why,
how and when?, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 31-9.
18,1 Bowen, J. and Basch, J. (1992), Strategies for creating customer-oriented organizations, in
Teare, R. and Olsen, M. (Eds), International Hospitality Management: Corporate Strategy
in Practice, Pitman, London, pp. 199-220.
Brislin, R.W. (1986), The wording and translation of research instruments, in Lonner, W.J.
86 and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, Sage, London, pp. 137-64.
Brown, S.W., Cowles, D.L. and Tuten, T.L. (1996), Service recovery: its value and limitations as a
retail strategy, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 32-46.
Brymer, R. (1991), Employee empowerment: a guest-driven leadership strategy, Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 58-68.
Burke, W. (1986), Leadership as empowering others, in Srivastra, S. (Ed.), Executive Power,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 51-77.
Carlzon, J. (1987), Moments of Truth, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Causon, J. (2004), The internal brand: successful cultural change and employee empowerment,
Journal of Change Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 297-307.
Clegg, S.R., da Cunha, V.J. and Cunha, M.P.E. (2002), Management paradoxes: a relational view,
Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 483-503.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-82.
Du Gay, P. and Salaman, G. (1992), The cult[ure] of the customer, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 615-33.
Evans, J. and Laskin, R. (1994), The relationship marketing process: a conceptualization and
application, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 439-52.
Gittell, J.H. (2000), Paradox of coordination and control, California Management Review, Vol. 42
No. 3, pp. 101-7.
Goldsmith, A.L., Nickson, D.P., Sloan, D.H. and Wood, R.C. (1997), Human Resource
Management for Hospitality Services, International Thomson Business Press, London.
Gronroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Gronroos, C. (2000), Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship Management
Approach, Wiley, Chichester.
Hales, C. (1993), Managing through Organization, Routledge, London.
Hales, C. (1994), Internal Marketing as an approach to human resource management: a new
perspective or a metaphor too far?, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 50-71.
Hales, C. and Klidas, A. (1998), Empowerment in five-star hotels: choice, voice or rhetoric?,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 88-95.
Hardy, C. and Leiba-OSullivan, S. (1998), The power behind empowerment: implications for
research and practice, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 451-83.
Hart, C., Heskett, J.L. and Earl Sasser, W. (1990), The profitable art of service recovery,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 148-56.
Hartline, D.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (1999), The management of customer-contact service
employees: an empirical investigation, in Bateson, J.E.G. and Hoffman, K.D. (Eds),
Managing Services Marketing: Texts and Readings, Drysden Press, Orlando, FL,
pp. 226-48.
Hemp, P. (2002), My week as a room-service waiter at the Ritz, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 Managing
No. 6, pp. 50-8.
employee
Hope, C.A. and Muhlemann, A.P. (1997), Service Operations Management, Prentice-Hall, London.
Jones, C., Taylor, G. and Nickson, D. (1997), Whatever it takes? Managing empowered
empowerment
employees and the service encounter in an international hotel chain, Work, Employment
& Society, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 541-54.
Kelley, S.W., Longfellow, T. and Malehorn, J. (1996), Organizational determinants of service 87
employees exercise of routine, creative, and deviant discretion, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 135-57.
Klidas, A. (2001), Employee empowerment in the European hotel industry: meaning, process
and cultural relativity, PhD thesis, Rozenberg, Amsterdam.
Koopman, P.L. and Wierdsma, A.F.M. (1998), Participative management, in Drenth, P.J.D.,
Thierry, H. and De Wolff, C.J. (Eds), Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Volume 3: Personnel Psychology, Psychology Press, Hove, pp. 297-324.
Lashley, C. (1997), Empowering Service Excellence: Beyond the Quick Fix, Cassell, London.
Lewis, B.R. (1995), Customer care in services, in Glynn, W.J. and Barnes, J.G. (Eds),
Understanding Services Management, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 57-88.
Lovelock, C.H. (1995), Managing services: the human factor, in Glynn, W.J. and Barnes, J.G.
(Eds), Understanding Services Management, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 203-43.
Maxwell, G.A. (1997), Empowerment in the UK hospitality industry, in Foley, M. et al. (Eds),
Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Management, Cassell, London, pp. 53-67.
Menon, S.T. (2001), Employee empowerment: an integrative psychological approach, Applied
Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 153-80.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A.J. and Clark, M.A. (2002), Substantive and operational issues of response
bias across levels of analysis: an example of climate-satisfaction relationships, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 355-68.
Parsons, G. (1995), Empowering employees back to the future at Novotel, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 16-21.
Peccei, R. and Rosenthal, P. (2001), Delivering customer-oriented behavior through
empowerment: an empirical test of HRM assumptions, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 831-57.
Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1997), The road to empowerment: seven questions every leader
should consider, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 37-49.
Randolph, A.W. (1995), Navigating the journey to empowerment, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 19-32.
Ripley, R.E. and Ripley, M.J. (1992), Empowerment, the cornerstone of quality: empowering
management in innovative organizations in the 1990s, Management Decision, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 20-43.
Sewel, G. and Wilkinson, B. (1992), Empowerment or emasculation? Shopfloor surveillance in a
total quality organization, in Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (Eds), Reassessing Human
Resource Management, Sage, London, pp. 97-115.
Silver, S., Randolph, W.A. and Seibert, S. (2006), Implementing and sustaining empowerment:
lessons learned from comparison of a for-profit and a nonprofit organization, Journal of
Management Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 47-58.
Simons, R. (1995), Control in an age of empowerment, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 2,
pp. 80-8.
IJSIM Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions,
measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-65.
18,1 Sternberg, L.E. (1992), Empowerment: trust vs control, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 68-72.
van den Berg, P.T. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2004), Defining, measuring, and comparing
organizational cultures, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 53, pp. 570-82.
88 Wilkinson, A. (2001), Empowerment, in Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (Eds), Contemporary
Human Resource Management, Prentice-Hall, Harlow, pp. 336-76.
Zemke, R. and Schaaf, D. (1989), The Service Edge: 101 Companies that Profit from Customer
Care, New American Library, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Antonis Klidas can be contacted at: a.klidas@uvt.nl

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats