The relationship between cultural values and individual work values in the hospitality industry

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the relationshipbetween cultural values and individualwork values. Two-hundred and seventy-sixhospitality management students frommainland China and western Europe weresurveyed and grouped according to theirvalue orientations and multiplediscriminate analysis was used to identifydifferences in work value preferencesbetween the groups. The results indicatedthat a group consisting of mainly Chineseparticipants valued characteristics that havebeen associated with developed Westernnations, and unlike previous studies, bothgroups viewed intrinsic as well as extrinsicwork values as being important. Copyright© 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 9 May 2005; Accepted 15 August 2005

Keywords: cultural values; work values;hospitality management; statistical analysis.

INTRODUCTION

The analysis of human values hasattracted the attention of scholars formany years and has led to the develop-

ment of value typologies (Rokeach, 1973), andunderstandings of the relationship betweenvalues and other constructs such as attitudes

and motivation (Schwartz, 1999), emotionsand decision-making (Dose, 1997). Values havebeen portrayed as beliefs that are experiencedby an individual as standards that instructhow they should function. It is thought thatthey have cognitive, affective and behaviouraldimensions and develop through the influ-ences of culture, society and personality, sothat individuals can meet their needs in asocially accepted manner (Rokeach, 1973).

The reason that values, as opposed to atti-tudes for example, are of interest to academicsis because, unlike attitudes, they do not relateto a particular object or situation, are relativelyfew in number and are stable overtime (Dose,1997). Because of these characteristics, and inlight of increasing tends towards internation-alisation and globalisation, cultural valueshave become an important medium throughwhich differences in customer and employeebehaviour can be understood and managed(Elizur and Koslowsky, 2001; Hofstede, 2001).

Despite the international nature of the hos-pitality industry, both because of the culturalheterogeneity of the work force and the geo-graphical distribution of some segments of theindustry, relatively few studies have examinedthe work values of those who intend to pursuea career in the hospitality industry (Pizam andLewis, 1979; Pizam et al., 1980; Chen et al.,2000). Moreover, there is a distinct absence ofresearch that has focused on the relationshipbetween work values and cultural values in ahospitality context. As such, this study aims torectify this shortfall by reviewing the relevantliterature, identifying appropriate methodsand participants, and finally presenting theresults in a manner the will benefit researchersand practitioners alike.

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 7, 221–229 (2005)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jtr.535

The Relationship between CulturalValues and Individual Work Values in the Hospitality IndustryChristopher White*Hospitality & Tourism, Higher Education, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia

*Correspondence to: Christopher White, CoordinatorHospitality & Tourism, Higher Education, CharlesDarwin University, Darwin, Australia 0909.E-mail. [email protected]

VALUES AND YOUNG PEOPLE

In 1991, a study conducted in Australia(Hartley, 1991) surveyed 132 young adults todetermine what values they viewed as impor-tant. A factor analysis indicated that the 28items used in the scale formed five dimensionsand these were, jobs and security, interpersonal,family relationships, religion and involvementin society. The results that are relevant to thispresent study suggested that having an inter-esting job, a challenging job and developing acareer were more important to males thanfemales, whereas 66% of females comparedwith 57% of males valued planning for a securefuture more importantly than males. Monetaryreward was not an important value.

Hagstrom and Gamberale (1995), citing alongitudinal study conducted in Sweden from1990 to 1993, reported that nearly 2400 seniorhigh school students felt that interesting work,friendly work mates and work that was recog-nised and appreciated, were important charac-teristics of a future job. A closer examination ofthese results indicated that those studying thenatural sciences were more likely to viewintrinsic values, such as interesting work, moreimportantly than those that were involved inwork-related courses, with the latter viewingextrinsic elements such as work conditions asbeing more important.

Research in the USA, which focused specifi-cally on students that had chosen a hospitalitymanagement degree (Pizam and Lewis, 1979),reported that respondents placed a high valueon obtaining a good salary, pleasant workingconditions and a managerial position. Addi-tionally, they valued good relations with supe-riors and co-workers and a desire to be ofassistance to others.

These authors used an inventory of valuesthat was developed in the 1960s to measurework values, known as the Work Values Inven-tory (WVI) (Super, 1970), and this particularmodel was chosen because the reliability andvalidity of the instrument had been extensivelyand thoroughly tested. An interesting observa-tion relating to these results was that thosestudying hospitality management, an area thatoften involves work-related activities as part ofthe curriculum, also placed high importanceon extrinsic values.

Further support for the view that hospitalitymanagement students seek extrinsic outcomesfrom work was provided by research thatfocused on hospitality and business adminis-tration students. The results indicated that afactor labelled working conditions signifi-cantly discriminated between the two groups.That is to say, that the hospitality managementstudents were more likely to value security,economic return and supervisory relationsthan their counterparts (Pizam et al. 1980).

Using a Chinese version of the WVI (Chen etal., 2000) surveyed 311 tourism and hospitalitystudents in Taiwan, and adopting a moresohispcated statistical analysis technique thanthe previous study, identified three distinctclusters within their sample. These theylabelled achievement seekers, income moversand liberal workers and they accounted for28.9, 11.9 and 59.2% of the respondents respec-tively. Common themes that emerged fromthese findings suggested that respondentsvalued having a comfortable work environ-ment, ample leisure time and a fair and rea-sonable supervisor. Results of more recentwork undertaken in Hong Kong on restaurantmanagers converge with these findings (Wongand Chung, 2003).

Taken together, the findings presented aboveindicate that hospitality management studentsfrom the USA and Taiwan are similar to stu-dents in Sweden who have chosen a work-related type course or career, in that extrinsicvalue preferences were deemed more impor-tant than intrinsic preferences such as chal-lenging or interesting work. On the basis ofthese findings, it appears that there may not bea relationship between the work values of hos-pitality career aspirants and national culture,and if this is so, cultural value frameworksmay not be appropriate for examining workrelated constructs such as job motivation ororganisational commitment. Clearly, morework is necessary to enable better understand-ing of these issues and the following researchquestions have been devised to guide the sub-sequent inquiry.

(1) Do hospitality management students frommainland China and western Europe havesignificantly different cultural value orientations?

222 C. White

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 7, 221–229 (2005)

(2) Is there a significance difference in workvalue preferences between hospitality man-agement students with different culturalvalue orientations?

METHODOLOGY

Sample

The characteristics of the sample which partic-ipated in this study can be viewed in Table 1,and all of the respondents were studying hos-pitality management courses in English, atinstitutions in the UK and Europe. The Chinesesample included mainland Chinese only andthe European sample comprised French, SwissGerman, German and Spanish nationals, andthese were aggregated because of the smallnumber of respondents within each national-ity. In all there were 276 (after data screening)respondents with 49% of them Chinese origin,and 71% of the respondents had spent sometime working in the hospitality industry.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire, which was in English,was pilot tested before being sent out and thisprocess led to the refinement of the completioninstructions, and minor modifications to bothscales in the questionnaire. Academics whowere known to the present author and whotaught on hospitality programmes at the insti-tutions, distributed the questionnaires overthree semesters and returned them, as theywere completed, by post.

Participants work values were capturedthrough the WVI, and this was selected

because it had been applied to hospitality man-agement students from different cultures onprevious occasions and had demonstratedstrong reliability and validity (Pizam et al.,1980; Chen et al., 2000). The WVI consists of 45items capturing 15 dimensions of intrinsic andextrinsic work values (see Appendix 1) and afive-point scale accompanied each item.Respondents were requested to rate the impor-tance of each, 1 being unimportant and 5 veryimportant.

In recent times, studies that have focused oncultural values and work usually include, inone form or another, some reference to thework of Geert Hofstede (Hofstede, 1980, 1991),and there are well documented reasons whyhis model has attracted such popularity.Despite this appeal, some authors have raiseddoubts about the robustness of his model(Voronov and Singer, 2002) and these doubtshave prompted the present author to reviewalternative measures.

Other researchers in the area of cross-cultural values have applied the constructs ofindividualism and collectivistism (I-C) whenattempting to understand differences in cul-tural value orientations. These two constructs,which were also identified by Hofstede, haveattracted the attention of scholars from avariety of disciplines since the 1800s (Watsonand Morris, 2002), although the notion thatthese two constructs formed bi-polar oppo-sites, as suggested by Hofstede, has been ques-tioned. Research conducted in 1991 found thatan individual’s private and collective cogni-tions were stored in different memory loca-tions thus constituting separate cognitivestructures (Trafimow et al., 1991).

Further support for the multidimensionalityof the construct was posited by (Triandis,1995), who proposed that there were hori-zontal (emphasising equality) and vertical(emphasising hierarchy) aspects to individual-ism and collectivism and these aspects formedfour distinct cultural patterns; horizontal col-lectivism (HC), vertical collectivism (VC), hor-izontal individualism (HI) and vertical individ-ualism (VI). A description of each of the pat-terns (Singelis et al., 1995) can be found inAppendix 2.

Singelis et al. (1995) developed a 32-itemscale that operationalised the four pattern

Cultural and Individual Work Values 223


Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Age Gender China Western Europe

16–20 Male 15 9Female 26 12

21–25 Male 7 8Female 6 12

26–30 Male 31 49Female 46 52

Above 30 Male 1Female 1 1

Total 133 143

concept. The four subscales exhibited accept-able reliability and construct validity, andmore recent work has further supported thepsychometric properties of this model (White,2005). As such, this model was adopted to capture participant’s cultural value orientations for this study. Each item wasaccompanied by a five-point strongly disagree— strongly agree scale, where 1 was stronglydisagree and 5 strongly agree.

Data analysis

The alpha coefficients for the dimensions wereV-I 0.79, H-C 0.73, V-C 0.67 and H-I 0.78 and,with the exception of V-C, all exceed 0.70 asrecommended by Nunnally (1978). The cohe-siveness of the WVI was confirmed with analpha reading of 0.90. A number of multivari-ate outliers were identified and the extremecases were removed. No further outlying caseswere generated as a result of this precaution.Skewness and kurtosis statistics indicated thatsome departure from normality was to someextent evident in all variables, however, two variables had to be statistically trans-formed so as not to violate the assumption ofnormality.

Multiple discriminate analysis was used toanalyse the data and it was chosen because itidentifies variables that have large differencesbetween the group means, and providesweights that indicate the size of the difference,in a way similar to beta weights in multipleregression (Hair et al., 1998). Discriminateanalysis has an additional benefit of being ableto classify individuals to one group or anotherwith a known probability of error.

Limitations

The convenient nature of the sampling proce-dure, coupled with the fact that the majority of the respondents were under 30, will weakenthe representativness and generalisability ofthe findings. Moreover, as the western European sample comprised four differentnationalities, the findings should be inter-preted cautiously and broadly. Given thelimited amount of research available on thistopic, however, what is generated here will stillbe important for guiding future research and

providing insights into an area that is worthyof much more academic attention.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results from the step-wise procedure dis-played in Table 2 indicate that all of the vari-ables were entered into the analysis andformed one significant discriminate function.The coefficients in the structure matrix signifythat V-I (0.632) had, by a substantial margin,the strongest discriminating power betweenthe groups, followed by V-C and H-C. The H-I pattern will not be considered because of thelow correlations.

The bar charts in Figure 1 visually displaysthe differences between both groups on eachvariable, and in fact portrays the distinct cul-tural profile of each group in terms of the fourcultural patterns. The V-I cultural pattern,which represents a significant proportion ofthe Chinese sample in this study, traditionallyhas been associated with countries such as the USA and France (Singelis et al., 1995) andthis represents a shift among young Chineseaway from the more familiar collectivist orien-tation that has been reported in other studies(Hofstede, 1991; Singelis et al., 1995).

It is important to recognise that the Chineserespondents in this study came from a back-ground that enabled them to study abroad andas such may not be representative of thebroader society. Earlier work relating to valuesand national culture had identified a strongrelationship between affluence and individual-ism (Triandis et al., 1990; Hofstede, 1991) andperhaps demographic variables such as theincome or occupation of significant others,may be better predictors of value orientationsthan the particular cultural background of an

224 C. White


Table 2. Pooled within-groups correlationsbetween discriminating variables and standardisedcanonical discriminate functions.

Structure matrix Group Function

1VI 0.632VC 0.493HC -0.420HI -0.036

individual. A thoughtful insight into the rela-tionship between economic development andchanges in value orientation has been pro-vided by Triandis et al. (1990), who stated,‘Perhaps the drive toward modernizationerodes first those values that connect people,and only after a culture becomes modern canthese values be emphasized again’ (p. 1015).

The second highest discriminating variablewas VC and again this was a stronger charac-teristic for the Chinese than the Europeansample, and previous studies have also associ-ated this pattern with mainland Chinese andother Asian cultures (Triandis et al., 1990; Singelis et al., 1995). When considering the

third discriminate factor, HC, and given thatthere were no significant differences betweenthe groups on HI, it appears that the keyelement separating these groups is the verti-cality aspect.

The Chinese seem more likely to believe thatinequality between individuals within asociety is acceptable whereas the tendency ofthe Europeans towards H-C largely reflects thewelfare state model that has characterisedmuch of western Europe over the past 50 years.At length, and in terms of cultural patterns,there were distinct and significant differencesbetween both groups, with the largest of thesedifferences being V-I followed by V-C and H-C, moreover, as indicated in Table 3, the dis-criminate analysis was able to predict correctgroup membership for 78.3% of the Chineseand western European respondents.

Rather than use nationality as a basis forcomparing work values, it was decided to usethe groups identified by the MDA. Forexample, group one (see Table 3) will fromnow consist of the 111 Chinese and 37 Euro-peans, and group two will consist of 105 Euro-peans and 23 Chinese. This decision was takenbecause of the recognition that values within asociety are unlikely to be homogeneous and that it is probably more appropriate toidentify groups of individuals with similarvalue profiles and use these to further explorerelationships. That being said, it should beremembered that group one does include82.8% of the Chinese sample and group twoincludes 74.9% of the western Europeansample.

Table 4 displays the mean importance rank-ings of the WVS dimensions (see Appendix 1)for both groups and in contrast to the findingspresented in the literature review above, the



West EuropeChina

Mea

n

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

HC

HI

VC

VI

Figure 1. Visual representation of cultural valueprofiles for both groups.

Table 3. Predicted group membership compared with the actual group membership.

Predicted group membership

Nationality China (Group 1) Western Europe (Group 2) Total

Original count China 111 23 134West Europe 37 105 142

Percentage China 82.8 17.2 100.0West Europe 26.1 73.9 100.0

78.3% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

intrinsic achievement value was ranked highlyby both groups. Moreover, creativity, anotherintrinsic value was ranked fourth and sixth forgroups one and two respectively.

Extrinsic values such as way of life, super-visory relations and economic return also fea-tured prominently in the high rankings, asthey have in previous studies, and this mixtureof intrinsic and extrinsic preferences possiblyindicates a change in the kind of individualsthat choose hospitality as a career. Hospitalityhuman resource managers therefore may needto rethink the way they accommodate newemployees and indeed, important lessons maybe obtained from the human resource (HR)practices in other industries, whom for manyyears have been attracting, developing andretaining employees that have a high need forachievement.

The most striking observation arising fromthese findings are the similarities between thetwo groups in terms of what is perceived asbeing important. In contrast to other studiesthat focused on hospitality students, securitywas not an important value for both groups,and this may be a reflection of the socio-economic status of much of the present sample.

The five work-value dimensions that wereidentified as significantly discriminatingbetween the groups can be found in Table 5.The aesthetic and intellectual stimulation

dimensions will not be considered in the subsequent discussion because of the low correlations. The variable with the highest dis-criminating power was variety, with grouptwo finding this aspect of work more impor-tant than group one, which consists mostly ofChinese. The value ‘way of life’ was also moreimportant to group two, whereas group onewere more likely to prefer management typepursuits.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

These findings raise a number of importantissues for managing employees with differentvalue profiles. The notion that individuals canbe categorised according to their broader cul-

226 C. White


Table 4. Work Value Inventory ranking for both groups.

Group 1 Group 2

N Rank N Rank

Achievement 147 1 Way of life 128 1Way of life 147 2 Achievement 128 2Supervisory relations 147 3 Economic return 128 3Creativity 147 4 Supervisory relations 128 4Economic return 147 5 Variety 128 5Associates 147 6 Creativity 128 6Surroundings 147 7 Associates 128 7Independence 147 8 Altruism 128 8Altruism 147 9 Intellectual stimulation 128 9Prestige 146 10 Surroundings 128 10Intellectual stimulation 147 11 Independence 128 11Management 147 12 Security 128 12Security 147 13 Prestige 128 13Variety 147 14 Management 128 14Aesthetic 147 15 Aesthetic 128 15

Table 5. Pooled within-groups correlationsbetween discriminating variables and standardisedcanonical discriminate functions.

Structure Matrix

Work value Function

1Variety 0.463Way of life 0.395Management -0.365Aesthetic -0.280Intellectual stimulation -0.208

tural value orientations and then, as here,further categorised according to their work-values preferences, provide potential opportu-nities across a spectrum of HR practices. Forexample, the management value preference forthe largely Chinese sample may be an artefactof this particular group’s vertical orientationand the acceptance of inequality and polarisa-tion of power. The preference for directing andcontrolling the work of others therefore may bedriven by a need to be at the controlling end ofthat dimension, whereas the more H-C orien-tation of group two does not stimulate thisneed.

When integrating employees from onegroup into a setting that reflects the character-istics of another group, consideration needs tobe given to how prepared both the newemployee and existing employees are to acceptand adjust to the value orientations of others.In this case, those in group two for examplemay be more willing to allow subordinates dis-cretion in decision making, or be more likely tochallenge the decision of a superior than thosewith the value preferences of group one. Suchbehaviours, in an inappropriate setting, couldseriously strain working relationships, andtherefore training and gradual task and roleimmersion strategies should be consideredseriously.

While the means for the way of life value arehigh for both groups, it is significantly moreimportant for group two. At first this findingis rather disconcerting, particularly as theseindividuals have chosen a career in a serviceindustry that relies on vast numbers of semi-skilled and part-time employees, functionscontinually and is highly susceptible to inter-national political changes and pressures. Suchconditions do not usually allow for well struc-tured and organised work patterns, which, as a consequence, can interfere with family,personal and social pursuits, and researchfindings suggest that unsociable working conditions are one of the main reasons forturnover in the hospitality industry (White,2001; Woods, 2002).

There are two possible responses to thisissue. First, employ individuals who do nothold a way of life value as strongly as those inthis study, or at least select those who are lesslikely to want a job that does not interfere with

life outside of work, as those in group one. Thesecond is to think hard about ways the organ-isation can create more stable and predictablework patterns for their employees, particularlyat the supervisory and managerial levels. Flex-ible work times, job sharing and such tech-niques may go some way to addressing thisissue, however, the established and oftendeeply institutionalised schedules, patternsand habits of some countries can complicatethis initiative immensely.

The value dimension that had the strongestdiscriminatory power was variety and this wasmore important for group two. Jobs can bedesigned to incorporate as much, or as little,variety as necessary, and job rotation, jobenlargement and job enrichment are all waysof achieving this outcome. The benefits ofbuilding variety into a job will not only satisfyemployees with such a need, but will alsobenefit the organisation by developing a mul-tiskilled workforce. The important thing toconsider here is the person-job-fit and peoplewho do not value variety should not be con-sidered for jobs that require considerableamounts change.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSFOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study has made a substantial contributionto the body of knowledge relating to humanvalues. Two levels of values were considered,cultural and individual, and two researchquestions were devised to frame the study. Thefirst questioned whether there were differencesin cultural value orientations between westernEuropean and mainland Chinese hospitalitymanagement students, and the findings indi-cated that statistically significant differencesdid exist. The second question was concernedwith whether work values differed betweenthe two groups and it demonstrated that fivevariables significantly discriminated betweenthe two groups, the strongest of which wasvariety.

Additional insights that were generated outof this study indicated that common percep-tions of cultural value orientations may not beas universal as previously thought, as a pre-dominately Chinese sample exhibited valuecharacteristics that more closely resembled



those attributed to developed capitalist coun-tries. These findings supported the view thataffluence and the value of individualism areclosely linked, and that income or occupationmay be a more appropriate independent vari-able than national culture.

Future research could examine the value orientations of members within the samesociety but from different socio-economicbackgrounds. Additionally, longitudinal intergenerational research within developingcommunities or countries may help under-standings of the relationship between wealthaccumulation and changes in value orienta-tions. Future research could also consider abroader range of nationalities and demo-graphic types, and a more rigorous samplingprocedure would strengthen the representa-tiveness and generalisability of future findings.

APPENDIX 1

Creativity: work that permits one to inventnew things, design new products, or developnew ideas.

Management: work that permits one to planand lay out work for others.

Achievement: work that gives one the feelingof accomplishment in doing a job well.

Surroundings: work that is carried out underpleasant conditions; not too hot or too cold,noisy, dirty, etc.

Supervisory relationships: work that is carriedout under a supervisor who is fair and withwhom one can get along.

Way of life: work that permits one to live thekind of life he/she chooses and to be the typeof person he/she wishes to be.

Security: work that provides one with the cer-tainty of having a job even in hard times.

Associates: work that brings one into contactwith fellow workers whom you like.

Aesthetic: work that permits one to makebeautiful things and to contribute beauty to theworld.

Prestige: work that gives one standing in theeyes of others and evokes respect.

Independence: work that permits one to workin his/her own way, as fast or slow as he/shewishes.

Variety: work that provides an opportunity todo different types of tasks.

Economic return: work that pays well andenables one to have things he/she wants.

Altruism: work that enables one to contributeto the welfare of others.

Intellectual stimulation: work that providesopportunity for independent thinking, and forlearning how and why things work.

APPENDIX 2

Horizontial individualism: is a cultural patternwhere an autonomous self is postulated, butthe individual is more or less equal in statuswith others. The self is independent and thesame as the self of others. The personal char-acteristic associated with this dimension hasalso been described as unique

Horizonalial collectivism: is a cultural patternin which the individual sees the self as anaspect of an in-group. That is, the self ismerged with the members of the in-group, allof whom are extremely similar to each other.Equality is the essence of this pattern.

Vertical individualism: is a cultural pattern inwhich an autonomous self is postulated, butindividuals see each other as different, andinequality is expected. The self is independentand different from the self of others. Competi-tion is an important aspect of this pattern.

Vertical collectivism: is a cultural pattern inwhich the individual sees the self as an aspectof an in-group, but the members of the groupare different from each other, some havingmore status than others. The self is interde-pendent and different from the self of others.Serving and sacrificing for the in-group is animportant aspect of this pattern.

REFERENCES

Chen J, Chu K, Wu W. 2000. Tourism student’s per-ceptions of work values: a case of Taiwanese uni-versities. International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management 12(6): 360–365.

228 C. White


Dose J. 1997. Work values: an integrative frame-work and illustrative application to organisa-tional socialisation. Journal of Occupational andOrganisational Psychology 70(3): 219–240.

Elizur D, Koslowsky M. 2001. Values and organisa-tional commitment. International Journal of Man-power 22(7): 593–599.

Hagstrom T, Gamberale F. 1995. Young peopleswork motivation and value orientation. Journal ofAdolescence 18: 475–490.

Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W. 1998. Mul-tivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall:London.

Hartley R. 1991. To Work or Not to Work: Women,Work and Family Responsibilities. Australian Insti-tute of Family Studies: Melbourne.

Hofstede G. 1980. Cultures Consequences: Interna-tional Differences in Work Related Values. Sage:London.

Hofstede G. 1991. Cultures and Organisations: Soft-ware of the Mind. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Hofstede G. 2001. Cultures Consequences: ComparingValues, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisationsacross Nations. Sage: London.

Nunnally JC. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn.McGraw-Hill: New York.

Pizam A, Lewis R. 1979. Work values of hospitalitystudents. Journal of Hospitality Education 3(1):5–16.

Pizam A, Reichel A, Neuman Y. 1980. The motiva-tional profile and work values of hospitality stu-dents. The Journal of Hospitality Education 4(1):25–38.

Rokeach M. 1973. The nature of human values. FreePress: NewYork.

Schwartz S. 1999. A theory of cultural values andsome implications for work. Applied Psychology:An International Review 48(1): 23–47.

Singelis T, Triandis H, Bhawuk D, Gelfand M. 1995.Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individu-alism and collectivism: a theoretical and mea-surement refinement. Cross Cultural Research29(3): 240–275.

Super D. 1970. The Work Values Inventory.Houghton-Mifflin: Boston.

Trafimow D, Triandis H, Goto S. 1991. Some tests ofthe distinction between the private and collectiveself. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology60: 649–655.

Triandis H. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism.Westview: Boulder, CO.

Triandis H, McCusker C, Hui H. 1990. Multimethodprobes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(5):1006–1020.

Voronov M, Singer J. 2002. The myth of individual-ism — collectivism: a critical review. The Journalof Social Psychology 142(4): 461–480.

Watson P, Morris R. 2002. Individualist collectivistvalues: hypotheses suggested by Alexis de Toc-queville. The Journal of Psychology 136(3): 263–271.

White C. 2001. Managing hospitality humanresources: the role of commitment. HospitalityReview 3(2): 16–24.

White CJ. 2005. Further support for the reliabilityand construct validity of the horizontal and ver-tical, individualism and collectivism framework.Management Research News 28(1): 77–80.

Wong C-K, Chung K-H. 2003. Work values ofChinese food service managers. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management15(2): 66–75.

Woods R. 2002. Managing Hospitality HumanResources. Educational Institute American Hoteland Lodging Association: Michigan.



The relationship between cultural values and individual work values in the hospitality industry

Documents

Transcript of The relationship between cultural values and individual work values in the hospitality industry