Influence of National Culture and Balanced Organizational Culture on the Hotel Industry's Performance

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

International

Journal

of

Hospitality

Management

j o ur na l h o me pa g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j h o s m a n

Discussion

paper

Inﬂuence

of

national

culture

and

balanced

organizational

culture

on

the

hotel

industry’s

performance

Alireza

Nazarian

a,∗

_,

_Peter

_Atkinson

b

_,

_Pantea

_Foroudi

c

a_Business_School_University_of_Roehampton,_Queen’s_Building_232,_Southlands_College,_Roehampton_Lane,_London,_SW15_5PU,_UK b_Brunel_Business_School,_Brunel_University_London,_Kingston_Lane,_Uxbridge,_Middlesex,_UB8_3PH,_UK

c_Business_School,_Middlesex_University_London,_Middlesex_University_Hendon_Campus,_The_Burroughs,_London,_NW4_4BT,_UK

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received3September2016

Receivedinrevisedform24January2017 Accepted27January2017

Availableonline9February2017

Keywords:

Culturaldimensions

Balancedorganisationalculture Performance

Hotelmanagement

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thisstudyinvestigatestheroleofnationalcultureandbalancedorganisationalcultureinorganisational performance.Hotelmanagementrequiresflexibilityandcustomerresponsivenesstodealwith increas-inglydemandingcustomersandcompetitivenessofthemarket.Studiesoftheinfluenceofcultureon performanceinhotelmanagementhavenotyetrevealedthespecificimpactofnationalcultureand balancedorganisationalcultureonorganisationalperformance.Weusetheconceptofbalanced organ-isationalculturewhichpositsthatpolyrationalorganisationsaremoreresponsivetomarketchanges andmoreinnovative.Dataweregatheredfrom96hotelsinLondon,UK,andwereanalysedusing struc-turalequationmodelling.Ourfindingsshowthatthenationalcultureofhotelemployeesinfluences balancedorganisationalculturewhich,inturn,influencesperformance.Thisstudycontributesto exist-ingunderstandingoffactorsaffectingperformance,pointstowardsfurtherresearch,helpspractitioners bydemonstratingtheimportanceoftakingnationalcultureintoaccountandindicatestheimportance ofachievingbalancedorganisationalculture.

1. Introduction

Weexaminetherolesofnationalcultureandbalanced organ-isational culture in the hotel industry, which are key factors inﬂuencingperformance.Thisstudyaddressesaproblemwhich managersfaceinanyindustrywhosecustomershaveglobalised standardsofexpectation,whichistoidentifywhatfactorshavean impactonorganisationalperformance.Forthelastthreedecades organisationalscholarshavebeenconcernedwithculturebecause theybelieveorganisationalcultureaffectsperformance(Leeand Yu, 2004). However, it is generally acknowledged that culture worksonanumberofdifferentlevelsandtheorganisationallevel isonlyone(Pizam,1993).Inthecontextofglobalisedindustries itisrelevantformanagers,especiallythoseofmulti-national cor-porationsoperatingindifferentregions,tobeawareoftheeffect ofnationalculture.Thisstudyextendspreviousstudieswhichhave shownthatorganisationalcultureaffectsperformance(Prajogoand McDermott,2011; Lee and Yu, 2004)and that national culture

∗Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:alireza.nazarian@roehampton.ac.uk(A.Nazarian),

peter.atkinson@brunel.ac.uk(P.Atkinson),p.foroudi@mdx.ac.uk(P.Foroudi).

affectsorganisationalculture(Houseetal.,2004;Nazarianetal., 2014).

Thehospitalityindustryhasanumberoflargeplayersthat oper-ategloballysettingexpectationsinthemarketasawholefortheir customers,manyofwhomtravelglobally(Teare1993;Hsiehand Tsai,2009).Also,theindustryhasalargenumberof internation-allymobile personnel who have to adjust todifferent cultures (LiandTse,1998;Devineetal.,2007).Additionally,managersin theindustryexperiencedifferentoperating conditionsin differ-entcountriesgivingrisetotheparadoxofhow muchofalocal approachshouldbetakenversushowmuchfromtheindustry’s globalexperience(Jones1999;BrothertonandAdler,1999;Jones andMcCleary,2004).Forthesereasons,weinvestigatetheeffect ofnationalcultureonorganisationalcultureandsubsequentlyon organisationalperformanceinthehotelindustry.Wearguethatthe nationalcultureofhotelemployeesinfluencestheorganisational culturewhich,inturn,influencesperformanceand,thus,thereis anindirectinfluenceofnationalcultureonperformance.

2. Researchapproach

Nostudiestodatehaveinvestigatedtherelationshipbetween national culture,organisationalculture and performance inthe hotel industry(Tajeddiniand Trueman, 2008).Previousstudies,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.01.003

(2)

thatwerenotindustryspeciﬁc,haveinvestigated theimpactof organisationalcultureonperformance(KotterandHeskett,1992) andtheimpactofnationalcultureoneffectiveness(Nazarianetal., 2014).Chenetal.(2012)arguethatmoststudiesofhotel manage-mentthatinvestigatenationalcultureincross-culturalstudieshave comparednationalcultures inrelationtovariousorganisational levelissuessuchasfranchisingoperationsorpricingstrategy. How-ever,thereisalackofresearchontheimpactofnationalculture onotherculturallevels,includingorganisationalculture(Groseschl andDoherty,2000;Chenetal.,2012).

Thelocationwherethedataweregatheredforthisstudyisone wherethereisalargehotelsectorandalargenumberofboth inter-nalandinternationalcustomers.Thepossiblecomplicationofthe respondentsnotnecessarilyoriginatinginthelocationwherethe dataweregatheredisovercomebygatheringdataonnational cul-tureattheindividuallevel(DorfmanandHowell,1988)sothatit istheeffectoftheindividuals’ownnationalculture,whateverthat maybe,thatisbeingmeasured.Thedataforthestudywere col-lectedfrommanagersandemployeesof98hotelsinLondon,UK. Respondentswereaskedtocompleteaquestionnairewithitemson nationalculture,thecurrentstateoftheirorganisations’cultures andaspectsoftheirorganisations’performancerelatedto organisa-tionaleffectiveness,learningandgrowthandcustomerorientation.

3. Theoreticalbackground

Havingidentiﬁed theproblem,thenexttaskwastoidentify suitableapproachesfornationalculture,organisationalcultureand performancethatwouldaiditsinvestigation.Thecriterionfor mak-ingthechoicewastheutilityoftheapproachforansweringthe researchquestion.

Inthecontextofthisstudy,itisimportantnottobeseducedby thedictionarydeﬁnitionofthewordsthatareusedtodescribethe constructs.Forexample,whenHofstede(1980)andSchein(2010)

usetheword“culture”theydonotmeanthesamething,though theremaybesomeoverlapintheirmeanings.Itisunnecessaryto attemptformaldefinitionsoftheseterms;instead,itissafetosay thattheyaredefinedbytheiractualuse.Thusforexample,what Hofstedemeansbycultureisultimatelydefinedbythemeaning attachedbyrespondentstothequestionsinhissurveyinstruments andthesamegoesfortheotherconstructsthatweuse;fora discus-sionofthisprobleminthecaseofperformanceseeLebasandEuske (2007).Therefore,weshallnotattemptdefinitionsbutuse well-knownconstructsthatarefamiliartoacademicsandpractitioners alike.

3.1. Nationalculture

Thoughculturescholarssharenopreciseagreementonwhat ismeantbytheterm“culture”thereisageneralagreementthat culture works at different levels (Pizam, 1993). The generally acknowledgedlevelsarenational,organisational,industry, profes-sional(occupational)andindividual(Chenetal.,2012).Hofstede believesthatthenationallevelisthemostfundamentalandisat theheartoftheprimarysocialisationprocessinearlychildhood (Hofstedeetal.,2010)givingpeopletheirvaluesandbeliefs.This viewoftherelationshipbetweenthenationalandtheother lev-elsofcultureisatacitassumptionformostculturescholars.This study,therefore,takesnationalculturetobethecontextforthe otherconstructs.

Thus,itistobeexpectedthatnationalculturehasanoticeable effectonthebehaviourofemployeesandanumberofstudies con-ﬁrmthis.Pizam(1993)showsthatnationalculturehasagreater effectthanindustrialcultureonthebehaviourofhotelmanagers. AsimilarconclusionwasdrawnbyMerritt(2000)inastudyof

airlinepilots.Testa(2007)showedthatnationalculturaldiversity hasanimpactontherelationshipbetweenmanagersand subordi-natesinthehospitalityindustry.However,GerhartandFang(2005)

concludedthatthereisacaseforamorenuancedview.Intheir

meta-analyticalstudyoftherelationshipbetweennationalculture andmanagementpracticestheyconcludedthatthestrengthofthe effectofnationalculturevariedwithotherfactors,notably organi-sationalculture.

Thereare anumber of versionsof thenationalculture con-structthatcouldbeusedforresearch(Chenetal.,2012).Thebest knownareHofstede’swithuptosixdimensionsandtheGLOBE sur-veywithninedimensions.Becausealargenumberofdimensions wouldmakethestudytoocomplexandbecauseitisanapproach thatisthoroughlytestedandwidelyunderstood,itwasdecided to use Hofstede’soriginal four dimensions of national culture: power distance,individualism,uncertainty avoidance and mas-culinity/femininity.Hofstede’sapproachhasbeencriticised(Jones, 2007;McCoyet al.,2005;McSweney,2002), however,it isstill recognisedasusefulandhasbeenrecentlyappliedinstudiesof thehospitalityindustry(ReisingerandCrotts,2010).Mostofthe criticismsofHofstede’sstudyhavebeenaimedatitsmethodology whichisnotemployedinthisresearch(McSweney,2002;McCoy etal.,2005).Theremainderofthecriticismshavebeendirectedat theinterdependentnatureofthedimensionswhichisnot signiﬁ-cantforthisstudy(DorfmanandHowell,1988;Alietal.,2008).

3.2. Organisationalculture

Since the evolution of the concept of organisational culture in themid-twentiethcentury,this concept hasbeendeﬁnedin manyways;however,whatallthesedeﬁnitionshaveincommonis thatorganisationalcultureconsistsofvalues,beliefsand assump-tionswhicharesharedorcommunicatedamongmembers(Schein, 2010),guidebehaviourandfacilitatesharedmeaning(Alvesson, 2013;Denison,1996).

Scholarshaveinvestigatedtheimpactoforganisationalculture onperformance.WilsonandBates(2003)arguethatastrong organ-isationalcultureplaystherolesofreliablecompassandpowerful leverthatcanguideorganisationalmembers’behaviour.According toBarney(1991)organisationalcultureisthemainresourcethat organisationshavetomaintaintheircompetitiveadvantageand manystudieshaveinvestigatedtheimpactoforganisational cul-tureonorganisationalperformance (SinclairandSinclair,2009). Theexistingliteratureimpliesthatthereisarelationshipbetween organisationalcultureandorganisationalperformance(Kempand Dwyer,2001).Althoughtherearedifferentconceptualisationsof organisational culture, this study adopts the competing values framework(CVF)becauseitmaybeusedtorevealtherelationship betweenorganisationalcultureandorganisationalperformanceor effectiveness(Gregoryetal.,2009;CameronandQuinn,2011).

CVF was developed to measure organisational effectiveness (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983); however, later CVF became a multi-purposeinstrument(QuinnandSpreitzer,1991;Cameron andFreeman,1991)whichenablesresearcherstomeasureboth organisationalcultureand organisationaleffectiveness (Gregory et al., 2009). Two axes are employed to distinguish between fourmainorganisationalcultures;theseaxes,ordimensions,are internal/externalandstability/ﬂexibility.Theinternal/externalaxis indicates how much organisations concentrate on internal fac-torssuchasemployeesatisfactionorexternalfactorssuchasthe abilitytofunctionwellinacompetitiveenvironment(Quinnand Rohrbaugh,1983).Ontheotherhand,thestability/ﬂexibilityaxis indicateshowmuchorganisationsareconcernedwithconsistent patternsofbehaviourorallowingemployeestousetheirinitiative (QuinnandRohrbaugh,1983).Thesetwoaxescreateaquadrant representingfourdistinctorganisationalculturetypes:clan,

(3)

adhoc-racy,marketandhierarchy(CameronandQuinn,2011).Cameron andQuinn(2011)arguethatallorganisationsalwayshaveallthese fourcultures,thoughindifferentproportions,andthesame organ-isationcan have different proportions at different times. Thus, ﬁndingthemost appropriate balancebetweenthe fourculture typesisessentialforoptimalorganisationalmanagement.

AccordingtoCVF,organisationalcultureis a combination of characteristicssuch as team working; innovationand risk tak-ing(TajeddiniandTrueman,2008;TajeddiniandTrueman,2012); orientationtomarket responsivenessand customer satisfaction (Deshpandeetal.,1993)orhavingadeﬁnitestructureof author-itywithcontroloverwork-ﬂows,similartoWeber’sideal-typeof bureaucracy(CameronandQuinn,2011).

CVFisnotmerelyaclassiﬁcationoforganisationalculturesbut alsogivesinsight intohowtheculturetypesinteractand com-binewitheachother.Quinn(1988)recommendsthatorganisations that have balanced cultures witha strongpresence of all four organisationalculturetypeshaveanadvantageinarapidly chang-ing environment. A balanced culture provides theorganisation withabroadspreadofviewpointsandvalueswhichenablesitto respondtodifferentconditionsandchangingcustomer require-ments(Gregory et al., 2009).A recent study by Hartnell et al. (2011)indicatesthatCVFculturetypeswhicharediagonally oppo-siteeachotherinthequadrantdonotcompetebutco-existand worktogether(p.687).Therefore,itisimportantfororganisations tohaveaculturethatcanaccommodateallfourculturetypes.He furtherarguesthatsuccessfulorganisationsareonesthatcan man-agethesecontradictoryculturetypesandcreateacombinedculture thatmeetstheirneeds.

Forthesereasons,inthisstudytheorganisationalculture con-structconsistsof clusteringthefour CVForganisationalculture typesand seeingit in termsof balancedorganisationalculture. Theconceptofbalancedorganisationalcultureassumesthat organ-isations are more responsive to their environments, especially tounexpected changes, ifthey are ableto operatein different combinationsof partsof thequadrant as requiredby changing circumstances(Quinn1988;Gregoryetal.,2009).

3.3. Organisationalperformance

Organisationalperformanceis asigniﬁcantconcernfor man-agersbecauseitallowsthemtoassessthesuccessofelementsof theorganisationalstrategyinobjectiveterms.Althoughscholars tendtousethetermseffectivenessandperformance interchange-ably(eg.PfefferandSutton,1999;Werther etal.,1995;Sellani, 1994), effectiveness is often used to represent organisational potentialswhereas performance measuresoutcomes.According toHenri (2004) organisational effectiveness and organisational performancehave evolvedin parallelfromthesame needsbut effectivenessexaminestheresourcesandprocessesfroman inter-nalstandpoint and performance includesperspectives which a rangeofstakeholdersmightﬁndofinteresttothem.

Performancehascometosignifyasetofmeasuresof organisa-tionalactivitythatareofinteresttoarangeofstakeholders.Inthis studyitisconnectedtotheuseofthetermbyKaplanandNorton whoseconstructwasdevelopedasastrategictoolformeasuring thesuccessofmanagerialstrategies (KaplanandNorton, 1996). Priortothe1990sperformancewasusuallyconceivedofaspurely concernedwithaccountancymeasures(Otely,2007)butwiththe growingpopularityofstakeholdertheory(Freeman,1984)a differ-entkindofmeasurewasrequired.Thus,KaplanandNorton’smodel ofperformanceincludesdifferentperspectivesontheorganisation andspeciﬁcallyincludesthecustomers’perspective.

KaplanandNorton(1992)devisedandpromotedthebalanced scorecardasameansformanagerstofocusonwhattheyneedtodo toachievestrategicobjectives.Itisameansoftakingasnapshotof

indicatorsofprogress.Theresultsofthebalancedscorecardhave tobeinterpretedbydecisionmakersinaparticularcontextand accordingtotheirperceptionofcausalrelationships(Kaplanand Norton,1996;LebasandEuske,2007).

Anumberofobjectionshavebeenraisedtothebalanced score-cardapproach.Acommonobjectionisthatitfailstoaddressthe needsofemployeesandsuppliers(Neelyetal.,2007).Norreklit (2000) points out that the four different perspectives of the balancedscorecardareassumedtohaveamutuallycausal relation-ship.Itisassumedthat:themeasuresoforganisationallearning and growth drivethe measures of internal business processes whichdrivethemeasuresofthecustomerperspectivewhich,in turn,drivetheﬁnancialmeasures(KaplanandNorton,1996;p.31;

Norreklit,2000).However,theserelationshipsdonotnecessarily hold.Despitetheseobjectionsthebalancedscorecardcontinuesto beausefulbroadmeasureofperformance(Antonsen,2014;Hoque, 2014).

In this study a simplified version of thebalanced scorecard approachisusedwhichleavesoutmeasuresoffinancial perfor-mance.Thisaspectwasnotincludedbecauseofthedifficultyin collectingthisdatafromemployeeswho wouldnot necessarily haveaccesstoit.However,ourapproachincludesorganisational members’perceptionsof:customers’perception,internalbusiness processes(effectiveness)andlearningandgrowth.

4. Conceptualframeworkandresearchhypotheses

The conceptual framework shown in Fig. 1 shows the link betweenwell-establishedconstructs of Hofstede’snational cul-ture(individualism, power distance,uncertainty avoidance and masculinity)(1980)asmeasuredbyDorfmanandHowell(1988), organisationalcultureasmeasuredbyCameronandQuinn(2011)

and organisational performance as measured by Kaplan and Norton’sBalancedScorecard(1996).

Theparticipantsinthisstudyworkinanindustrywhichforms aninternationalnetworkandpersonnelaretypicallymobileoften movingfromcountrytocountrytobroadentheirexperience.For thisreason,itwasdecidedtocollectdataaboutnationalculture attheindividuallevelsinceitwouldnotmatterwhetherornot theindividualrespondenthadbeenformedbythesamenational cultureasanotherrespondentinthesamelocation(Dorfmanand Howell,1988).

It is assumed that national culture is the context in which organisationalcultureiscreatedandthat organisationalculture is the context in which organisational performance is created. Thus,nationalculturemusthaveaneffectonorganisational per-formance and organisational culture mediates the relationship between national culture and organisational performance. The relationshipsbetweenthethreeconstructsareshowninFig.1.

4.1. Nationalculturedimensionsandorganisationalculture

Studiesof organisational culturein hotel management have investigated its effect on different aspects of the industry.

HemmingtonandKing(2000)lookedatissuessuchashowtomatch organisationalculturewithoperationalproximity,orhow adopt-ingamixofserviceandprojectmanagementculturecouldimprove hotelefﬁciency(SinclairandSinclair,2009).BrownellandJameson (1996)foundthatorganisationalcultureaffectsemployees’ under-standingof theservice concept.Organisationalculturecanbea majordriverforhotelmanagementstrategyformationwhich ulti-matelyhasanimpactonorganisationalperformance(Kempand Dwyer,2001).

Organisationscholarshaveinvestigatedhownationalculture impactsdifferentaspectsoforganisations.Hofstedeetal.(2010)

(4)

Fig.1.Therelationshipbetweenthethreeconstructs.

arguesthatnationalcultureisstableandmainlyconcernedwith basicvalueswhereasorganisationalcultureisrelatedtopractices thataresharedbymembersandthereforeitiseasiertochange andmanagethem.Kilduff(1993)demonstratesthatmembersofan organisationwhohaveadifferentnationalitytotheorganisation modifytheexistingculturalpatternstocreateaspecificcultural routinethatalignswiththeirownculture.Thisclearlyindicatesthat peoplewithculturaldifferenceswouldunderstandand,therefore, reacttothesameorganisationalproblemindifferentways accord-ingtotheirinterpretationofit.Thisdifferencesometimesmeans thattheyignore,modify,orevenbend,somerulesandprocedures (Jermieretal.,1991)whichcansometimescreateconflictanda neg-ativeimpactiftheyareevaluatedaccordingtotheorganisation’s originalculturalvalues(Gregory,1983).InthestudyofIranian pri-vatesectororganisationsNazarianetal.(2014)foundthatthere wasasignificantrelationshipbetweennationalculturedimensions andmarketcultureinmediumsizedorganisationswhereasinlarge sizedorganisationsnationalculturedimensionshavearelationship withhierarchyculture.AccordingtoChenetal.(2012),dueto dif-ferencesinnationalcultures,andwiththeinfluenceofglobalisation onpeople’stravelhabits,preferencesandworkingbehaviour,itis essentialthatculturalstudiesmoves towardsaglobalapproach andinvestigatestheimpactofnationalcultureonorganisational cultures.

Therefore,basedonwhathasbeendiscussedthesehypotheses areproposed:

H1. Thereisarelationshipbetweentheindividualisticdimension ofnationalcultureandbalancedorganisationalculture

H2. Thereisarelationshipbetweenpowerdistanceandbalanced organisationalculture

H3. Thereisarelationshipbetweenuncertainlyavoidanceand balancedorganisationalculture

H4. Thereisa relationshipbetweenmasculinityand balanced organisationalculture

4.2. Organisationalcultureandperformanceinhotel

management

Anumberofstudieshaveuseddifferentversionsof organisa-tionalcultureand organisationalperformancetoinvestigatethe relationshipbetweenthetwo.ThestudiesbyGordonandDiTomaso (1992)andDenisonandMishra(1995)foundthathavingastrong cultureispositivelyassociatedwithshort-termﬁnancial perfor-mance.Ontheotherhand,KotterandHeskett(1992)foundthat havingan“adaptivevalues”culturecansigniﬁcantlyimprove per-formanceinthelong-runcomparedtotheshort-term.LeeandYu (2004)investigatedtherelationshipsbetweentheorganisational culturetypesofSingaporeanorganisationsandfoundthatthe cul-turalstrengthoforganisationswasoftenrelatedtoorganisational performance.Theyalsofoundthatthoseculturalelementsthat dis-tinguishorganisationsfromeachotherhaveapositiveimpacton

organisationalperformance.Furthermore,inastudyof96 busi-nessesintheSwisshotelindustry,TajeddiniandTrueman(2012), foundthatthenationalculturaldimensionsadoptedforthatstudy (powerdistance,long-termorientationandindividualism) were positivelyassociatedwithinnovationandcustomerorientationas wellasbothinnovationandcustomerorientationhavingpositive associationwithorganisationalperformance.Theyalsofoundthat, similartoChen’s(2011)studiesoftheTaiwanesehotelindustry, havingthecustomerasthemainfocushelpstoachievelong-term proﬁtability.Theirresultsarealignedwithpreviousstudiesthat viewcustomerorientationaspartofoverallorganisationalculture andarguethatinordertoachievelong-termorganisational per-formance thereisa needfor establishingmarketculturewhich requires recruitinga well-qualiﬁed and experienced workforce (Deshpandeetal.,1993).

Additionally,anumberofstudieshaveusedCVFtoinvestigate therelationshipbetweenorganisationalcultureandperformance.

Deshpande et al. (1993) studied the impact of organisational culture, innovation and customer orientation on organisational performance in 50 Japanese ﬁrms, using organisational culture types derived from CVF, and found that market culture has a major impact onorganisational performance creating the best results because of its emphasis on competitive advantage and market superiority, whereas hierarchy culture contributes to unsatisfactoryorganisationalperformancebecauseitemphasises bureaucracy. Furthermore, they argue that because adhocracy emphasisesinnovationandrisktakingitisnormallyexpectedto providebetterorganisationalperformancecomparedwithclan cul-ture.Inarecentstudyontherelationshipbetweenorganisational cultureandorganisationalperformance,PrajogoandMcDermott (2011) examineda sampleof 194middle and senior managers ofAustralianﬁrmsandfoundthatamongallfourculturaltypes onlyadhocracy(developmental)culturewasastrongpredicatorof performance.

Thestudiestodateindicatethatnoneoftheorganisational cul-turetypesaloneislikelytoprovideorganisationswithallthevalues andapproachesthattheyneedtorespondtotheirdynamic envi-ronmentandachievehighperformance.Therefore,thishypothesis isproposed:

H5. Balancedorganisationalcultureispositivelyassociatedwith organisationalperformanceinhotelmanagement.

5. Methods

A questionnaire wasdesigned containing 61 items. Thereis aninitialsectioncontaining5itemsconcerningthedemographic and background dataof the respondent. The nextsection con-tains22 itemsconcernedwithnational cultureandthese were taken directly from Dorfman and Howell’s (1988) instrument. Thefollowingsectioncontains24itemsconcernedwithbalanced organisationalculturewhichisamodiﬁedversionofCameronand Quinn’s(2011)instrument.Theﬁnalsectioncontains10items

(5)

con-Table1

Demographicproﬁle(UKN=236).

Age N % Under25 32 13.6 25–34 74 31.4 35–44 58 24.6 45–54 50 21.2 55andOver 22 9.3 Gender Female 163 69.1 Male 73 30.9

Companysize(No.ofEmployees)

1–9Employees 9 3.8 10–49Employees 14 5.9 50–249Employees 39 16.5 250PlusEmployees 174 73.7 CurrentPosition ChiefExecutive 1 0.4 SeniorManager 18 7.6 MiddleManager 34 14.4 JuniorManager 68 28.8

Professional(nomanagement) 115 48.7

cernedwithorganisationalperformanceandthesewereadopted fromKaplanandNorton’s(1996)conceptofthebalancedscorecard.

5.1. Datacollection

Theformulatedhypotheseswereexaminedviaasampleofhotel employeesandmanagersfromLondon,UK.Thestudywas con-ductedusingconveniencesampling(McDanielandGates,2006). ThisdatawascollectedbetweenAugust2015andJanuary2016. 980questionnairesweresenttoemployeeandmanager partici-pantsfromwhich236usablequestionnaireswerereturned and analysed.

Thesurveyconsistedofquestionsreferring tomanagersand employees’perceptionsoftheimpactofthenationalcultureand organisationcultureonorganisationalperformance.Thedatawere collectedbyemailandtheface-to-facemethod,and,toincrease the sample size and to make sure that the sample included themostknowledgeableinformants,non-probability‘snowballing’ wasusedasadistributionmethodbyaskinginitialinformantsto suggestotherswhocouldofferfurtherinsights(Goodman,1961).

Asummaryof thedemographiccharacteristicsareshown in

Table1.Themajorityoftherespondentswerefemale(69.1%),the largestagegroupwasbetween25and34(31.4%)andahigh pro-portionwereprofessionals(48%).73%ofthedatawerecollected fromhotelswithmorethan250employees.

5.2. Measurement

Measurement for the constructs of interest was based on establishedscalesfrompreviousresearch,proven tobe statisti-callysound(Churchill,1999;Hairetal.,2006).Thequestionnaire contains foursections, 1) demographics,2) national culture,3) organisationalculture,and4)organisationalperformance.

National culture was measured through four constructs: (i) power distance, (ii) individualism/collectivism, (iii) uncertainty avoidance,andmasculinity/femininityusingDorfmanandHowell’s (1988)scale.Thebalancedorganisationalculturescalewasadopted fromCVF(CameronandQuinn,2011;QuinnandSpreitzer,1991) whichwastestedbyfourconstructs(clanculture,adhocracy cul-ture,marketculture,hierarchyculture).Kalliathetal.(1999)tested thisinstrumenttocheckwhetherthereisanysocialdesirabilitybias

relatedtoitandfoundthatthereisa“littleornosocialdesirability bias”(p.1182).Inordertocreateascaleforeachdomainaninitial reliabilitytestwascarriedoutandthenitemsoftheCVFdomain wereaveragedtocreateascalescore.Nationalandbalanced organ-isationalcultureweremeasuredbyusingseven-pointLikert-type scalerangingfrom(1)stronglydisagreeto(7)stronglyagree.

Theinstrumentformeasuringorganisationalperformancewas adaptedfromKaplanandNorton’s(1996)balancedscorecard.In thisstudytheauthorsdecidedtoignorethefinancialperformance aspectforthree reasons1) itwasnot possibletoget anyhard financial data, 2)the respondentsmay not have access to this informationand (3)theauthorsbelievethata question regard-ingfinancialperformancewouldnotprovidevaluableinformation ontherealityofthefinancialstatusofthecompany.SinceKaplan andNortonseethefinancialmeasuresofthebalancedscorecardas beingattheendofthecausalchainwhereoneofthefour perspec-tivesdrivesthenext(KaplanandNorton,1996),itwasassumedthat acoherentandaccuraterepresentationcouldbegainedwithout thisinformation.

Therefore,the10questionsthatmeasuredtheorganisational performancewerebased onthethree constructs ofKaplanand Norton(1996):1)customerorientation,2)organisational effective-nessand3)learningandgrowth.Organisationalperformancewas measuredusingafive-pointLikertratingscalerangingfrom(1) “entirelyunfulfilled”to(5)“entirelyfulfilled”.Table2showsthe domainoftheconstructinextantliterature.

5.3. Constructvalidity

Thepreliminarymeasuresweresubjectedtoaseriesoffactor andreliabilityanalysesaspreliminarytestsoftheirperformance withintheentiresample.TheAndersonandGerbing(1988) two-stageprocedurewasfollowed. First,exploratoryfactor analyses were run for each set of constructs which attained the theo-reticallyexpectedfactorsolutions.Atthisstage,thepreliminary measuresweresubjectedtoaseriesoffactorandreliability anal-ysesaspreliminaryexaminationsoftheirperformancewithinthe entiresample.Table3providesdescriptiveinformationforthe con-structsofinterest.Weexaminedcompositereliabilityorconstruct reliability,which measurestheinternal consistencyofthe indi-cators,showingtheextenttowhich theyindicate thecommon latentconstruct.Compositereliability ofallmeasuresexceeded 0.94andsuggestedasatisfactorylevelofreliability(Bagozziand Yi,1988;Hairetal.,2006).Thescaleswerewellabovethe com-monlyacceptedrequirementsforreliabilitytests(0.707through 806>0.70)(Hairetal.,2006Nunnally,1978).Therefore,composite reliability(rho)canbethebettercoefﬁcientbecauseitisbasedon acongenericassumption.

Exploratoryfactoranalysis(EFA)wasemployedtoanalyse inter-relationshipsbetweenlargenumbersofvariables, andtodeﬁne suchvariablesintermsoftheircommonunderlyingfactors(Hair etal.,2006).Initially,56itemsrelatingtotheresearchconstructs wereexaminedusingEFAtocontributetoninetheoretically estab-lishedconstructs. Cronbach’salphameasurestheconsistencyof eachcomponentwithitsrelevantitems(Nunnally,1978)andthe resultsforeach factor(0.824through0.944)conﬁrmedthatthe itemsineachfactorwereinternallyconsistent(Nunnally,1978).

TabachnickandFidell(2007)recommendthattheuseofEFAto determinethefactorstructureofmeasures,examineinternal reli-abilityanddiscoverunderlyingstructuresinrelativelylargesetsof variables.EFAwasrunseparatelyforthetwosetsofquestionnaires. EFAanalysisdeterminesthedimensionalityofasetofvariables tospeciﬁcallytestwhetheronefactorcanaccountforthebulkof thecommonvarianceinaset(TabachnickandFidell2007).KMO’s measureofsamplingadequacy(0.780>0.6)suggeststhatthe rela-tionshipbetweenitemsisstatisticallysigniﬁcantandissuitablefor

(6)

Table2

Thedomainanditemsofconstructinextantliterature.

NationalCulture

PowerDistance(PDI) DorfmanandHowell(1988);

Hofstede(2001)

PDI1 Itisimportanttohavejobrequirementsandinstructionsspelledoutindetailsothatemployeesalwaysknowwhattheyareexpectedtodo.

PDI2 Managersexpectemployeestocloselyfollowinstructionsandprocedures.

PDI3 Rulesandregulationsareimportantbecausetheyinformemployeeswhattheorganisationexpectsofthem.

PDI4 Standardoperatingproceduresarehelpfultoemployeesonthejob.

PDI5 Instructionsforoperationsareimportantforemployeesonthejob.

PDI6 Groupwelfareismoreimportantthanindividualrewards.

Individualism/Collectivism(IDV)

IDV1 Groupsuccessismoreimportantthanindividualsuccess.

IDV2 Beingacceptedbythemembersofyourworkgroupisveryimportant.

IDV3 Employeesshouldonlypursuetheirgoalsafterconsideringthewelfareofthegroup.

IDV4 Managersshouldencouragegrouployaltyevenifindividualgoalssuffer.

IDV5 Individualsmaybeexpectedtogiveuptheirgoalsinordertobeneﬁtgroupsuccess.

UncertaintyAvoidance(UAI)

UAI1 Managersshouldmakemostdecisionswithoutconsultingsubordinates.

UAI2 Itisfrequentlynecessaryforamanagertouseauthorityandpowerwhendealingwithsubordinates.

UAI3 Managersshouldseldomaskfortheopinionsofemployees.

UAI4 Managersshouldavoidoff-the-jobsocialcontactswithemployees.

UAI5 Employeesshouldnotdisagreewithmanagementdecisions.

Masculinity/Femininity(MAS)

MAS1 Managersshouldnotdelegateimportanttaskstoemployees.

MAS2 Meetingsareusuallyrunmoreeffectivelywhentheyarechairedbyaman.

MAS3 Itismoreimportantformentohaveaprofessionalcareerthanitisforwomentohaveaprofessionalcareer.

MAS4 Menusuallysolveproblemswithlogicalanalysis;womenusuallysolveproblemswithintuition.

MAS5 Solvingorganisationalproblemsusuallyrequiresanactiveforcibleapproachwhichistypicalofmen.

MAS6 Itispreferabletohaveamaninahighlevelpositionratherthanawoman. OrganisationalCulture

CameronandQuinn (2011);Kalliathetal. (1999);Quinnand Spreitzer(1991)

CLA1 Thecompanyisapersonalplace,itislikeanextendedfamily,Peopleseemtosharealotofthemselves.

CLA2 Theleadershipinthecompanyisgenerallyconsideredtoexemplifymentoring,facilitating,ornurturing.

CLA3 Themanagementstyleinthecompanyischaracterizedbyteamwork,consensusandparticipation.

CLA4 The‘glue’thatholdsthecompanytogetherisloyaltyandmutualtrust.Commitmenttothecompanyrunshigh.

CLA5 Thecompanyemphasiseshumandevelopment.Hightrust,opennessandparticipationpersist.

CLA6 Thecompanydeﬁnessuccessonthebasisofthedevelopmentofhumanresources,teamwork,employeecommitmentandconcernforpeople.

Adhoc1 Thecompanyisadynamicentrepreneurialplace.Peoplearewillingtosticktheirnecksoutandtakerisks.

Adhoc2 Theleadershipinthecompanyisgenerallyconsideredtoexemplifyentrepreneurship,innovating,orrisk-taking.

Adhoc3 Themanagementstyleinthecompanyischaracterizedbyindividualrisk-taking,innovation,freedomanduniqueness.

Adhoc4 The‘glue’thatholdsthecompanytogetheriscommitmenttoinnovationanddevelopment.Thereisanemphasisonbeingonthecuttingedge.

Adhoc5 Thecompanyemphasisesacquiringnewresourcesandcreatingnewchallenges.Tryingnewthingsandprospectingforopportunitiesare valued.

Adhoc6 Thecompanydeﬁnessuccessonthebasisofhavingunique,orthenewest,products.Itisaproductleaderandinnovator.

Mark1 Thecompanyisresultsorientated.Amajorconcerniswithgettingthejobdone.Peopleareverycompetitiveandachievementorientated.

Mark2 Theleadershipinthecompanyisgenerallyconsideredtoexemplifyano-nonsense,aggressive,results-orientatedfocus.

Mark3 Themanagementstyleinthecompanyischaracterizedbyhard-drivingcompetitiveness,highdemandsandachievement.

Mark4 The‘glue’thatholdsthecompanytogetheristheemphasisonachievementandgoalaccomplishment.

Mark5 Thecompanyemphasisescompetitiveactionsandachievement.Hittingstretchtargetsandwinninginthemarketplacearedominant.

Mark6 Thecompanydeﬁnessuccessonthebasisofwinninginthemarketplaceandoutpacingthecompetition.Competitivemarketleadershipis thekey.

Hierar1 Thecompanyisacontrolledandstructuredplace.Formalproceduresgenerallygovernwhatpeopledo.

Hierar2 Theleadershipinthecompanyisgenerallyconsideredtoexemplifyco-coordinating,organizing,andsmooth-runningefﬁciency.

Hierar3 Themanagementstyleinthecompanyischaracterizedbysecurityofemployment,conformity,predictabilityandstabilityinrelationships.

Hierar4 The‘glue’thatholdsthecompanytogetherisformalrulesandpolicies.Maintainingasmooth-runningcompanyisimportant.

Hierar5 Thecompanyemphasisespermanenceandstability.Efﬁciency,controlandsmoothoperationsareimportant.

Hierar6 Thecompanydeﬁnessuccessonthebasisofefﬁciency.Dependabledelivery,smoothschedulingandlow-costproductionarecritical. OrganisationalPerformance(OP)

OP1 Customerorientation KaplanandNorton(1996)

OP2 Customerretention

OP3 Marketshare

OP4 Predictingfuture

OP5 Evaluatingalternativesbasedonmorerelevantinformation

OP6 Avoidingproblemareas

OP7 Improvingshorttermperformance

OP8 Improvinglongtermperformance

OP9 Introductionofnewproducts

OP10 Manufacturinglearning

EFAtoprovideaparsimonioussetoffactors(TabachnickandFidell, 2007).FollowingHairetal.’s(2006)recommendations,Bartlett’s testofSphericityindicatesthatthecorrelationamongthe mea-surementitemsishigherthan0.3andaresuitableforEFA.Table5

revealstherotatedcomponentmatrixofthescaleforwhichthe resultsshowthattheitemsloadedonninefactors(0.706through 0.875)satisﬁedtheminimumcriteriaforfactorloadings(Hairetal.,

2006).TheresultsofEFAillustratethattheitemsﬁtwithinthe theoreticalfactorstructures.

Theconﬁrmatoryfactoranalysis(CFA)wasconductedtoallowa stricterassessmentofconstructuni-dimensionality;the examina-tionofeachsubsetofitemswasinternallyconsistentandvalidated theconstructsonthebasisofthemeasurementmodels(Anderson andGerbing,1988).Inaseriesofanalyses,thecorrelationbetween eachpairoflatentvariableswasconstrainedto1.Ineverycase,the

(7)

Table3

Factorloadings,descriptivestatisticsandreliabilities.

UK

Constructs Items Factorloading Mean StdDev

PowerDistance Cronbach’salpha@0.898

PDI1 0.832 2.31 1.186 Constructreliability0.805

PDI3 0.812 2.01 1.263 AVE0.831

Itemdeleted (PDI2)lowreliability

PDI4 0.765 2.36 1.161

PDI5 0.863 2.19 1.126

PDI6 0.859 2.03 1.143

Individualism/Collectivism Cronbach’salpha@0.824

IDV1 0.802 3.52 0.961 Constructreliability0.759

IDV2 0.870 3.62 0.962 AVE0.623

Itemdeleted(IDV3)Cross-loadedandlow reliability

IDV4 0.718 3.17 1.053

IDV5 0.760 2.98 1.113

UncertaintyAvoidance Cronbach’salpha@0.916

UAI1 0.831 4.59 0.730 Constructreliability0.804

UAI2 0.829 4.33 0.827 AVE0.671

UAI3 0.832 4.33 0.846

UAI4 0.792 4.44 0.851

UAI5 0.810 4.19 0.884

Masculinity/Femininity Cronbach’salpha@0.944

MAS1 0.875 1.67 1.271 Constructreliability0.806

MAS2 0.799 1.51 1.154 AVE0.694

Itemdeleted(MAS6)lowreliability

MAS3 0.814 1.94 1.194

MAS4 0.828 1.94 1.158

MAS5 0.848 1.81 1.225

ClanCulture Cronbach’salpha@0.856

Cla3 0.841 4.77 1.502 Constructreliability0.707

Cla4 0.829 4.75 1.625 AVE0.650

Itemsdeleted(Clan1,Clan2,Clan6) Cross-loadedandlowreliability

Cla5 0.746 4.46 1.580

AdhocracyCulture Cronbach’salpha@0.882

Adhocracy1 0.820 4.00 1.469 Constructreliability0.762

Adhocracy2 0.789 4.31 1.408 AVE0.640

Adhocracy3 0.838 4.13 1.431 Itemsdeleted(Adhocracy5,Adhocracy6)

Cross-loaded

Adhocracy4 0.751 4.24 1.344

MarketCulture Cronbach’salpha@0.834

Market1 0.753 4.89 1.400 Constructreliability0.754

Market2 0.800 4.04 1.433 AVE0.090

Itemsdeleted(Market5,Market6)low reliability

Market3 0.798 4.44 1.384

Market4 0.706 4.71 1.360

HierarchyCulture Cronbach’salpha@0.849

Hierarchy1 0.801 4.53 1.430 Constructreliability0.754

Hierarchy2 0.717 4.48 1.348 AVE0.757

Hierarchy4 0.781 4.49 1.404 Itemsdeleted(Hierarchy3,Hierarchy6)low

reliability

Hierarchy5 0.759 4.59 1.335

OrganisationalPerformance Cronbach’salpha@0.921

OP4 0.838 3.24 1.058 Constructreliability0.801

OP5 0.856 3.21 1.005 AVE0.812

OP6 0.834 3.06 1.084 Itemsdeleted(OP2,OP10)lowreliabilityand

(OP1,OP3)Cross-loadedHierarchy3, Hierarchy6

OP7 0.804 3.39 1.060

OP8 0.826 3.19 1.075

OP9 0.715 3.35 1.141

Table4

Correlationmatrixfortheconstructs.

UAI IDV PDI MAS OC OP Age Gender CompanySize CurrentPosition

UncertaintyAvoidance(UAI) 1

Individualism/Collectivism(IDV) 0.236** ₁

PowerDistance(PDI) 0.018 0.267** ₁

Masculinity/Femininity(MAS) 0.342** _0.210** _0.350** ₁

BalancedOrganisationalCulture(OC) 0.353** _0.127* ₋_0.038 _0.179** ₁

OrganisationalPerformance(OP) 0.389** _0.173** _0.102 _0.504** _0.222* ₁

Gender 0.010 0.155* _0.050 _0.299** _0.006 _0.190** ₁

Age 0.057 −0.010 0.101 −0.157* _0.110 ₋_0.199** ₋_0.088 ₁

CompanySize −0.027 −0.112 −0.203** ₋_0.245** _0.054 ₋_0.114 _0.037 _0.221** ₁

CurrentPosition −0.007 −0.007 0.064 −0.016 0.005 0.101 0.032 −0.067 0.089 1

** _Correlation_is_signiﬁcant_at_the_0.01_level_(1-tailed). * _Correlation_is_signiﬁcant_at_the_0.05_level_(1-tailed).

(8)

Table5

Resultsofhypothesistesting.

HYPOTHESESRELATIONSHIPS

Estimate S.E C.R p

H1 PowerDistance --> Org.Culture 0.362 0.097 3.732 ***

H2 Individualism/Collectivism --> Org.Culture 0.511 0.189 2.700 0.007

H3 Uncertaintyavoidance --> Org.Culture 0.778 0.131 5.936 ***

H4 Masculinity/Femininity --> Org.Culture −0.122 0.075 −1.638 0.101

H5 Org.Culture --> Org.Performance 0.140 0.050 2.773 0.006

constraintsignificantlyworsenedthemodelfit(Dx2.10;df1–41; p1–40:01)(AndersonandGerbing,1988).Inaddition,thevariance extractedforeachconstructwascomparedtothesquareofeach off-diagonalvaluewithinthePhi-matrixforthatconstruct(Fornell andLarcker,1981).Inallcases,thevarianceextractedexceeded thePhiestimates,suggestingthateachsetofitemsrepresentsa distinctunderlyingconcept.ThisresearchappliedPearson’s corre-lationsmatrixatthe0.01significancelevel(2-tailed)todetermine thelinearityandmulti-collinearityoftheconstructs;itfoundthat themajorityoftheindependentvariablesconsiderablypositively correlatedtothedependentvariables(Table4)andthemajorityof variableswerelinearwitheachother.

Followingthatstep,thestructuralmodelfitthrough goodness-of-fit indices was tested by application of analysis of moment structureusingAMOS16.0forWindowssoftwaretorunthemodel totest thehypotheses byusing all available observations. The modelfitwasevaluatedforoverallfitnessbyreferringtothefit indices(Byrne,2001;TabachnickandFidell,2007;Hairetal.,2006). Therefore,theCFIandRMSEAprovidesufficientunique informa-tiontoevaluateamodel(Hairetal.,2006).Basedonthecriteria,

GarverandMentzer(1999)recommendthatthecomparativefit index (CFI) (0.900>0.90) indicatesgood fit and theroot mean squaredapproximationoferror(RMSEA)0.061<0.08isan incre-mentalindexthatevaluatesthefitofamodelwiththenullbaseline model(Hairetal.,2006).CFIisconsideredasanimprovedversion oftheNFIindex(Hairetal.,2006;TabachnickandFidell,2007). TheTucker-Lewisindex(TLI),alsoknownasthenon-normedfit index(NNFI),comparesthe␹2_value_of_the_model_with_that_of_the

independentmodelandtakesdegreesoffreedomforthemodel intoconsideration(Byrne,2001;Hairetal.,2006;Tabachnickand Fidell,2007).So,themeasurementmodelofthesethreefactorswas nomologicallyvalid(SteenkampandvanTrijp,1991).Additionally, theincrementalfitindex(IFI),andTucker-Lewisindex(TLI)were 0.901and0.901respectively,greaterthanthesuggested thresh-oldof0.90(Hairetal.,2006),andeachcriteriaoffitthusindicated thattheproposedmeasurementmodel’sfitwasacceptableSince thesemeasuresmeanitisdifficulttoprovideafavourablefitfor themodel,theseresultscanonlybeadditionalinformation.

5.4. Hypothesistesting

Hypotheses1–4areconcernedwiththerelationshipsbetween thefournationalculturedimensionsandbalancedorganisational culture. In summary, the correlation coefﬁcients, presented in

Table4,suggestthatthenationalculturedimensions,apartfrom powerdistance,showpositivecorrelationwithorganisational cul-ture;however,theregression pathanalysisshows thatthere is a relationship between powerdistance and balanced organisa-tionalculturebutitshowsnorelationshipbetweenmasculinity andorganisationalculture.

Hypothesis1isconcernedwiththerelationshipbetweenpower distance and balanced organisational culture. According tothe standardisedparameterestimates,which areshown inTable5, theregressionpathbetweenpowerdistanceandorganisation

cul-tureshowsasigniﬁcantrelationshipbetweenthesetwovariables (ˇ=0.362,t=3.732).So,thishypothesisisfullysupported.

Hypothesis 2 is concerned with the relationship between individualism/collectivism and balanced organisational culture. According to Table 5, the regression path between individu-alism/collectivism and organisation culture shows a signiﬁcant relationshipbetweenthesetwovariables(_ˇ=0.511,t=2.700).So, thishypothesisisfullysupported.

Hypothesis3isconcernedwiththerelationshipbetween uncer-taintyavoidanceandbalancedorganisationalculture.Accordingto

Table5,theregressionpathbetweenuncertaintyavoidanceand organisationcultureshowsasigniﬁcantrelationshipbetweenthese twovariables(ˇ=0.778,t=5.936).So,thishypothesisisfully sup-ported.

Hypothesis4isconcernedwiththerelationshipbetween mas-culinity/femininityandbalancedorganisationalculture.According toTable 5, theregression path betweenmasculinity/femininity andorganisationcultureshowsnosigniﬁcantrelationshipbetween these two variables (ˇ=0–0.122, t=−1.638, p=0.101). So, this hypothesisisrejected.

Hypothesis5isconcernedwiththerelationshipbetween bal-ancedorganisationalcultureandperformance.Ourﬁndingsshow that balanced organisational culture positively correlates with organisationalperformance,whichisconsistentwiththeextant lit-erature.TheregressionpathanalysisinTable5showsthattheeffect oforganisationcultureonorganisationperformanceisstatistically signiﬁcant(ˇ=0.140,t=2.773)and,therefore,this hypothesisis fullysupported(Fig.2).

6. Discussionandimplication

Thehospitalityindustryhasbecomeglobalisedanditis expe-riencingthesamechallenges asotherglobalised industries.For itsmanagersnotleastamongthesechallengesistounderstand theimpactofnationalcultureandorganisationalcultureonthe performanceof theorganisation.SincetheUKis onethemajor touristdestinationsoftheworld,theUKhotelindustrycan pro-videarichunderstandingofthisphenomenon.Thisstudyexamines theserelationshipsintheUKcontextandrevealssomeexpected andsomeunexpectedresults.

Theaimofthisresearchistoinvestigatetheimpactof Hofst-ede’sfournationalculturedimensionsonbalancedorganisational cultureandtheimpactofbalancedorganisationalcultureon per-formanceinthehotelindustryintheUK.Ourﬁndingsindicatethat threeofthefourdimensionsofnationalculturethatweretesteddo haveaneffectonbalancedorganisationalculture,butmasculinity doesnot.Thisgenerallyindicatestheimportanceoftheimpactof nationalcultureonorganisationalcultureand,inturnon, organisa-tionalperformance.Thisresultwasexpectedfrompreviousstudies (Hofstede,2001).However, accordingtoHofstedetheUKhasa nationalculturewhichhasamoderatelyhighscoreonmasculinity leadingtotheexpectationthatBritishpeopletendtobe competi-tiveanddrivenbyachievement(Hofstedeetal.,2010).Sothelackof arelationshipbetweenmasculinityandorganisationcultureinthe UKhotelindustryisunexpected.Thereisnoobviousexplanationfor

(9)

Fig.2.Validatedstructuralmodel.

thisﬁndinganditrequiresfurtherresearchtogainunderstanding ofit.

Accordingtopreviousstudies(TajeddiniandTrueman,2012; Deshpandé and Webster, 1989), the hotel industry believes in putting customers’ needs and wants ﬁrst in order to achieve highorganisationalperformanceandwewouldexpectthistobe trueof theUKaswell.Becausethehotelindustry isvery com-petitive,companies are successfulwhen they are ableto meet theircustomers’needsbasedonanunderstandingofthoseneeds. However,ourﬁndingssuggestthathotel managersalsoneedto consideremployee’svaluesandbeliefsandtheircontributionto higherperformance.Therefore,theimportanceofemployeeson thefront linethataredealingwithcustomersbecomes evident (Chen,2011).InastudyofSwisshotelmanagement,Tajeddiniand Trueman(2012)foundthatthereisastrongrelationshipbetween thenationalculturedimensions(uncertaintyavoidance, individ-ualism,short-term/long-termorientation)andtheorganisational cultureelementsofinnovativenessandmarketorientationand per-formance.Therefore,involvingemployeesindecisionmakingby empoweringthem,whichisconsistentwithUKnationalculture characterizedbyhigh individualism,low uncertainly avoidance andlowpowerdistance,couldbethemajorfactorforsuccessfully enhancingorganisationalperformanceinthiscontext.

However,inthecorrelationanalysisit issigniﬁcantthatthe resultscontradicttheregressionanalysisinthatpowerdistance shows nocorrelationwith organisationalculture. Thisresult is notconsistentwithexpectationsfortheUK whichis acountry thatscoreslow onpowerdistance(Hofstede,1980).It couldbe explained,attheorganisationallevel,ifthereisahighdegreeof powerdistanceinternallyamongmanagersandemployeesthere maybeafailuretocreateabalancedorganisationalculture.Such asituationwouldhaveanegativeimpactonorganisational per-formance(Yilmazetal.,2005)because,inordertoachievehigher performance,organisationsneedbothinformalandformal com-munication,whereasorganisationswithahighdegreeofpower distancenormallysufferfromalackofinformalcommunication. Theresultsofourstudyareconsistentwiththeresultsofastudy byAyounandMoreo(2008)oftheimpactofpowerdistanceonthe businessstrategydevelopmentoftophotelorganisationsinfour countries(Malaysia,Thailand,TurkeyandUSA)whichfoundthat, despitetheexpectationthatcountrieswithlowscoresonpower distancewouldhaveaparticipativeapproachtomanagement,it foundthereverse:thatcountrieswithhighpowerdistancehave amoreparticipativeapproach.Thesecontradictoryﬁndingsneed furtherinvestigationtounderstandtheinconsistencyandtogain deeperinsightintothenatureofpowerdistanceandother dimen-sionsofnationalcultureintheUKcontext,perhapswithalarger sampleandwithdatafromotherindustries.

Thereare a number of particular pressures in this industry thatcreatetheneed fora ﬂexibleorganisationalculture:(1) as wellascustomersfromdifferentbackgroundstheemployeesalso comefromdifferentbackgrounds;(2)theyhavetoberesponsive toexternalstakeholders,includingtheircustomers,andinternal

stakeholders, and (3) they alsohave tobe responsiveto rapid changes inthe marketplace (Giorgiet al.,2015; Laesser etal., 2014).Therefore,fororganisationstosucceedinthehotelindustry theyneedabalancedorganisationalculturewhichisadaptableand responsivetoachangingenvironment(Gregoryetal.,2009).These ﬁndingsconﬁrmpreviousstudiesoforganisationalcultureand per-formanceindifferentcountries,suchasSwitzerland,thatindicate theimpactof marketand customerorientation, aselementsof organisationalculture,onorganisationalperformance(Kessapidou andVarsakelis,2002;TajeddiniandTrueman,2012).

TheUKnationalculture,accordingtoHofstede’sproﬁle(1980), mightbeexpectedtoproduceaconducivecontextforgood organ-isational performance:it scoreslow onpower distance, which empowersemployeesandencouragesinvolvementgivingthema feelingofbelonging;itscoreshighonindividualism,which encour-agesindividualresponsibilityandinnovation;italsoscoreshigh onmasculinity/femininity,which indicatesa highlevelof com-mitment to work and drive for success and, it scores low on uncertainty avoidance, indicating that employeeswill be more likely totrynewideasratherthan insistingontraditional pro-ceduresthus potentially making the organisationmore market orientated(Hofstedeetal.,2010).So,thiscombinationofnational culturescorescouldbeexpectedtoproduceabalanced organisa-tionalculturewhichiscompetitiveandinnovative(Gregoryetal., 2009;CameronandQuinn,2011)andcontributetoorganisational performance(TajeddiniandTrueman,2012).

Ourfindingsconfirmthatthereisarelationshipbetween bal-ancedorganisationalcultureandperformance.Thisisconsistent withGregory etal. (2009)which suggeststhat an organisation requiresnotonlyastrongorganisationalculturebutalsoonethat hasabalanceofallfourculturetypeswhichallowsflexibilityin thinking.Inthehotelindustrybeingresponsivetoachanging envi-ronmentrequiresmanagerstobeflexible,innovativeandcustomer orientated(Deshpandeetal.,1993;Yilmazetal.,2005).Thus,our findingsindicatethatifhospitalitymanagersimplementabalanced organisationalculturewhichcreatesaflexibleenvironmentthat maybereadilymodifiedtomeetchangingcustomerneeds,a sus-tainablecompetitiveadvantagemaybeachievedwhich,inturn, enhancesorganisationalperformance(Ottenbacher,2007; Orfila-SintesandMattssona,2009).

Itisalsoafactorinthehotelindustrythatitisdealingwitha globalisedmarketforcustomersandemployeessohotelmanagers mustbeawareoftheeffectsofnationalcultureontheir organisa-tions.Thisstudyshowsthatnationalcultureimpactsthebalanced organisationalculturewhich,inturn,impactsperformance.Thus, hotelmanagersmusttakethisfactorintoaccountwhentryingto managetheorganisationalculture.

Thus,this researchaddstoexisting knowledgeintwo ways, ﬁrstly,bydemonstratingtheeffectofnationalcultureonbalanced organisationalcultureand,secondly,bydemonstratingtheeffectof balancedorganisationalcultureonperformanceinthehotel indus-try.Although,theeffectofbalancedorganisationalcultureonother organisationalfactorshasbeeninvestigatedbyQuinn(1988),no

(10)

previousinvestigationhasbeenundertakenofthefactorsaffecting balancedorganisationalculture.Ourstudyofthehotelindustryis consistentwiththeresultsofGregoryetal.(2009)whichexamined therelationshipbetweenorganisationalcultureandperformance ingeneralandintroducesbalancedorganisationalcultureasa sig-niﬁcantfactorintothediscussionofthisrelationship.

7. Limitationsandfurtherstudy

Thisstudywasconductedusing96hotelsand236respondents. Reliabilityoftheresultswouldbeimprovedbyhavingalarger sam-plesize.Additionally,withawiderrangeofhotelsincludedinthe surveycomparisonscouldbemadebetweenresultsfrom differ-entcategoriesofhotel,forexample,sizeorchaincomparedwith independents.

Thisstudyshowsthatthereisarelationshipbetweenthethree constructsexaminedbutthedatawasonlygatheredinone loca-tion.Tofurtherstudytheserelationshipsotherlocations,nationally and internationally, shouldbeincluded and comparisonsmade betweenthedatafromdifferentlocations.Comparisonsbetween datagatheredindifferentcountriespotentiallywouldbe informa-tive.

Our studyshowsanunexpected lackofcorrelation between thepowerdistancedimensionofnationalcultureand balanced organisationalculture.AyounandMoreo(2008)alsofoundthat therelationshipbetweenpowerdistanceandbusinessstrategywas unexpectedwhichindicatesthatthisdimensionisproblematicin somewayandfurtherresearchshouldbecarriedouttoinvestigate it.

Ourstudyalsoshows asurprisinglackofeffectof masculin-ityonbalancedorganisationalculture.AccordingtoHofstedeetal. (2010),amoderatetohighlevelofmasculinitymakesfora ten-dencytocompetitivenesswhichwould beexpectedtoenhance performance.Furtherstudyshouldbeundertakenindifferent loca-tionstodiscoverifthisresultispeculiartothelocationofourstudy andtogaindeeperinsightintothisrelationship.

Additionalfurtherstudyshouldincluderesearchonthedirect impact of national culture onorganisational performance. This knowledgewouldbeofimmediatebeneﬁttohotelmanagers.

Anotherareathatwasbeyondthescopeofthisstudyisa com-parisonbetweennationalcultureandperformanceformanagers andemployees.Itispossiblethatthetwogroupsmayshow differ-entresults.

References

Ali,M.,Brooks,L.,AlShawi,S.,2008.CultureandIS:ACriticismofPredeﬁned CulturalArchetypesStudies.AMCIS.

Alvesson,M.,2013.UnderstandingOrganizationalCulture,2nded.Sage PublicationsLtd,London.

Anderson,J.C.,Gerbing,D.W.,1988.Structuralequationmodelinginpractice:a reviewandrecommendedtwo-stepapproach.Psychol.Bull.103(3),411–423.

Antonsen,Y.,2014.ThedownsideoftheBalancedScorecard:acasestudyfrom Norway.Scand.J.Manag.30(1),40–50.

Ayoun,B.,Moreo,P.,2008.Doesnationalcultureaffecthotelmanagers’approach tobusinessstrategy?Int.J.Cont.Hosp.Manag.20(1),7–18.

Bagozzi,R.,Yi,Y.,1988.Ontheevaluationofstructuralequationmodels.J.Acad. Mark.Sci.16(1),74–94.

Barney,J.,1991.Firmresourcesandsustainedcompetitiveadvantage.J.Manage. 17(1),99–120.

Brotherton,B.,Adler,G.,1999.Anintegrativeapproachtoenhancingcustomer valueandcorporateperformanceintheinternationalhotelindustry.Hosp. Manag.18(3),261–272.

Brownell,J.,Jameson,D.,1996.Gettingqualityoutonthestreet:acaseofshow andtell.CornellHotelRestaur.Adm.Q.37(1),28–33.

Byrne,B.M.,2001.StructuralEquationModellingwithAMOS.LawrenceErlbaum Associates,NewJersey,US.

Cameron,K.,Freeman,S.,1991.Culturalcongruence,strengthandtype: relationshipstoeffectiveness.Res.Organ.Chang.Dev.5,23–58.

Cameron,K.S.,Quinn,R.E.,2011.DiagnosingandChangingOrganizationalCulture: BasedontheCompetingValuesFramework.Jossey-Bass,SanFrancisco,CA.

Chen,W.J.,2011.Innovationinhotelservices:Cultureandpersonality.Int.J.Hosp. Manage.30(1),64–72.

Chen,R.X.Y.,Cheung,C.,Law,R.,2012.Areviewoftheliteratureoncultureinhotel managementresearch:whatisthefuture?Int.J.Hosp.Manag.31(1),52–65.

Churchill,G.A.,1999.MarketingResearch:MethodologicalFoundations.The DrydenPress,Chicago,IL.

Denison,D.R.,Mishra,A.K.,1995.Towardatheoryoforganizationalcultureand effectiveness.Organ.Sci.6(2),204–223.

Denison,D.R.,1996.Whatisthedifferencebetweenorganizationalcultureand organizationalclimate?anative’spointofviewonadecadeofparadigm.Acad. Manag.Rev.21(July(3)),619–654.

Deshpandé,R.,Webster,F.E.,1989.Organizationalcultureandmarketing:deﬁning theresearchagenda.J.Mark.53(January),3–15.

Deshpande,R.,Farley,J.U.,Webster,F.E.,1993.Corporateculture,customer orientation,andinnovativenessinJapaneseFirms:AQuadradAnalysis.J.Mark. 57(1),23–37.

Devine,F.,Baum,T.,Hearns,N.,Devine,A.,2007.Internationaljournalof contemporaryhospitalitymanagementmanagingculturaldiversity: opportunitiesandchallengesforNorthernIrelandhoteliers.Int.J.Contemp. Hosp.Manag.19(2),120–132.

Dorfman,P.W.,Howell,J.P.,1988.Dimensionsofnationalcultureandeffective leadershippatternshofstede:revisited.Adv.Int.Comp.Manag.3,127–150.

Fornell,C.,Larcker,D.F.,1981.Evaluatingstructuralequationmodelswith unobservablevariablesandmeasurementerror.J.Mark.Res.18(1),39–50.

Freeman,R.E.,1984.StrategicManagement:AStakeholderApproach.Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge,MA.

Garver,M.,Mentzer,J.,1999.Logisticsresearchmethods:employingstructural equationmodelingtotestforconstructvalidity.J.Bus.Logist.20(1),33–57.

Gerhart,B.,Fang,M.,2005.Nationalcultureandhumanresourcemanagement: assumptionsandevidence.Int.J.Hum.Resour.Manag.16(1),971–986.

Giorgi,S.,Lockwood,C.,Glynn,M.A.,2015.Themanyfacesofculture:making senseof30yearsofresearchoncultureinorganizationstudies.Acad.Manag. Ann.9(1),1–54.

Goodman,L.A.,1961.Snowballsampling.Ann.Math.Stat.32(1),148–170.

Gordon,G.G.,DiTomaso,N.,1992.Predictingcorporateperformancefrom organizationalculture.J.Manag.Stud.29(6),783–798.

Gregory,B.T.,Harris,S.G.,Armenakis,A.A.,Shook,C.L.,2009.Organizationalculture andeffectiveness:astudyofvalues,attitudes,andorganizationaloutcomes.J. Bus.Res.62(7),673–679.

Gregory,L.,1983.Native-viewparadigms:multipleculturesandcultureconﬂicts inorganizations.Adm.Sci.Q.28,359–376.

Groseschl,S.,Doherty,L.,2000.Conceptualisingculture.CrossCult.Manag.Int.J.7 (4),12–17.

Hair,J.F.,Tatham,R.L.,Anderson,R.E.,Black,W.,2006.MultivariateDataAnalysis. PearsonPrenticeHall,UpperSaddleRiver,NJ.

Hartnell,C.A.,Ou,A.Y.,Kinicki,A.,2011.Organizationalcultureandorganizational effectiveness:ameta-analyticinvestigationofthecompetingvalues framework’stheoreticalsuppositions.J.Appl.Psychol.96(4),677–694.

Hemmington,N.,King,C.,2000.Keydimensionsofoutsourcinghotelfoodand beverageservices.Int.J.Contemp.Hosp.Manag.12(4),256–261.

Henri,J.F.,2004.Performancemeasurementandorganizationaleffectiveness: Bridgingthegap.ManagFinance,1–47.

Hofstede,G.,2001.Culture’sConsequences,2nded.SagePublicationsInc, ThousandOaks,Ca.

Hofstede,G.,Hofstede,G.J.,Minkov,M.,2010.CulturesandOrganizations: SoftwareoftheMind.McGraw-HillInternational(UK)Ltd,Maidenhead,UK.

Hofstede,G.,1980.Motivation,leadership,andorganization:doAmericantheories applyabroad?Organ.Dyn.9(1),42–63.

Hoque,Z.,2014.20yearsofstudiesonthebalancedscorecard:trends,

accomplishments,gapsandopportunitiesforfutureresearch.Br.Account.Rev. 46(1),33–59.

House,R.J.,Hanges,P.J.,Ruiz-Quintanilla,S.A.,Dorfman,P.W.,Gupta,V.,2004.

CulturalInﬂuencesonLeadershipandOrganizations.ProjectGlobeSage Publications,ThousandOaks,CA.

Hsieh,A.-T.,Tsai,C.W.,2009.Doesnationalculturereallymatter?Hotelservice perceptionsbyTaiwanandAmericantourists.Int.J.Cult.Tour.Hosp.Res.3(1), 54–69.

Jermier,J.M.,SlocumJr,J.W.,Fry,L.W.,Gaines,J.,1991.Organizationalsubcultures inasoftbureaucracy:resistancebehindthemythandfacadeofanofﬁcial culture.Organ.Sci.2(2),170–194.

Jones,D.L.,McCleary,K.W.,2004.Amodelforassessingculturalimpactson internationalbuyer-sellerrelationshipsforkeyaccountsofhotelcompanies.J. Hosp.Tour.Res.28(4),425–443.

Jones,P.,1999.Operationalissuesandtrendsinthehospitalityindustry.Int.J. Hosp.Manag.18(4),427–442.

Jones,M.L.,2007.Hofstede–culturallyquestionable?OxfordBus.Econ.Conf., 24–26.

Kalliath,T.J.,Bluedorn,A.C.,Gillespie,D.F.,1999.Aconﬁrmatoryfactoranalysisof thecompetingvaluesinstrument.Educ.Psychol.Meas.59(1),143–158.

Kaplan,R.S.,Norton,D.P.,1996.Usingthebalancedmanagementsystem.Harv. Bus.Rev.,75–86.

Kemp,S.,Dwyer,L.,2001.Anexaminationoforganisationalculture–theRegent Hotel,Sydney.Int.J.Hosp.Manag20(1),77–93.

Kessapidou,S.,Varsakelis,N.C.,2002.Theimpactofnationalcultureon internationalbusinessperformance:thecaseofforeignﬁrmsinGreece.Euro. Bus.Rev.14(4),268–275.

(11)

Kilduff,M.,1993.Deconstructingorganizations.Acad.Manag.Rev.18(1),13–31.

Kotter,J.P.,Heskett,J.L.,1992.CorporateCultureandPerformance.TheFreepress, NY.

Laesser,C.,Beritelli,P.,Heer,S.,2014.Differentnativelanguagesasproxyfor culturaldifferencesintravelbehaviour:insightsfrommultilingual Switzerland.Int.J.Cul.Tour.Hosp.Res.8(2),140–152.

Lebas,M.,Euske,K.,2007.Aconceptualandoperationaldelineationof

performance.In:Neely,A.(Ed.),BusinessPerformanceMeasurementUnifying TheoriesandIntegratingPractice.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp. 125–140.

Lee,S.K.J.,Yu,K.,2004.Corporatecultureandorganizationalperformance.J. Manag.Psychol.19(4),340–359.

Li,L.,Tse,E.,1998.Antecedentsandconsequencesofexpatriatesatisfactioninthe AsianPaciﬁc.Tour.Manag.19(2),135–143.

McCoy,S.,Galletta,D.F.,King,W.R.,2005.IntegratingnationalcultureintoIS research:theneedforcurrentindividual-levelmeasures.Commun.Assoc.Inf. Syst.15,211–224.

McDaniel,C.,Gates,R.,2006.MarketingResearch.Auﬂage,Hoboken,NJ.

McSweney,B.,2002.Hofstede’smodelofnationalculturaldifferencesandtheir consequences:atriumphoffaith–afailureofanalysis.Hum.Relat.55(1), 89–118.

Merritt,A.,2000.CultureintheCockpit:doHofstede’sDimensionsReplicate?J. Cross.Cult.Psychol.31(3),283–301.

Nazarian,A.,Atkinson,P.,Greaves,L.,2014.Therelationshipbetweennational cultureandorganisationalculture:caseofmediumandlargesize organisationsinIran.MacrothemeRev.3(6),66–78.

Neely,A.,Kennerly,M.,Adams,C.,2007.Performancemeasurementframeworks:a review.In:Neely,A.(Ed.),BusinessPerformanceMeasurement:Unifying TheoriesandIntegratingPractice.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK.

Norreklit,H.,2000.Thebalanceonthebalancedscorecardacriticalanalysisof someofitsassumptions.Manag.Account.Res.11(1),65–88.

Nunnally,J.C.,1978.PsychometricTheory.McGraw-Hill,NewYork,NY.

Orﬁla-Sintes,F.,Mattssona,J.,2009.Innovationbehaviorinthehotelindustry. Omega37(2),380–394.

Otely,D.,2007.Accountingperformancemeasurement:areviewofitspurposes andpractices.In:Neely,A.(Ed.),BusinessPerformanceMeasurement:Unifying TheoriesandIntegratingPractice.,Cambridge,UK.

Ottenbacher,M.C.,2007.Innovationmanagementinthehospitalityindustry: differentstrategiesforachievingsuccess.J.Hosp.Tour.Res.31(4),431–454.

Pfeffer,J.,Sutton,R.I.,1999.Knowingwhattodoisnotenough:turningknowledge intoaction.Calif.Manage.Rev.42(1),83–108.

Pizam,A.,1993.ManagingCross-CulturalHospitalityEnterprises.TheInternational HospitalityIndustry:OrganizationalandOperationalIssues.JohnWiley,New York,NY.

Prajogo,D.I.,McDermott,C.M.,2011.Therelationshipbetweenmultidimensional organizationalcultureandperformance.Int.J.Oper.Prod.Manag.31(2), 712–735.

Quinn,R.E.,Rohrbaugh,J.,1983.Aspatialmodelofeffectivenesscriteria:towardsa competingvaluesapproachtoorganizationalanalysis.Manage.Sci.29(3), 363–377.

Quinn,R.,Spreitzer,G.,1991.Thepsychometricsofthecompetingvaluesculture instrumentandananalysisoftheimpactoforganizationalcultureonquality oflife.In:Woodman,R.,Pasmore,W.A.(Eds.),ResearchinOrganizational ChangeandDevelopment.JAIPress,Greenwich,pp.115–142.

Quinn,R.,1988.BeyondRationalManagement:MasteringtheParadoxesand CompetingDemandsofHighPerformance,SanFrancisco.

Reisinger,Y.,Crotts,J.C.,2010.ApplyingHofstede’sNationalCultureMeasuresin TourismResearch:IlluminatingIssuesofDivergenceandConvergence.J. TravelRes.49(2),153–164.

Schein,E.,2010.OrganizationalCultureandLeadership.JohnWiley&Sons,San Francisco,CA.

Sellani,R.J.,1994.Organizationallaganditseffectsonﬁnancialperformance.Prod. Invent.Manag.J.35(3),77–81.

Sinclair,M.,Sinclair,C.,2009.Improvinghotelefﬁciencythroughintegrationof serviceandprojectmanagementcultures.Int.J.Hosp.Tour.10(4),344–360.

Steenkamp,J.B.E.M.,vanTrijp,H.C.,1991.Theuseoflisrelinvalidatingmarketing constructs.Int.J.Res.Mark.8(4),283–299.

Tabachnick,B.G.,Fidell,L.,2007.UsingMultivariateStatistics,5thed.Pearson, Boston.

Tajeddini,K.,Trueman,M.,2008.Thepotentialforinnovativeness:ataleofthe Swisswatchindustry.J.Mark.Manag.24(1/2),169–184.

Tajeddini,K.,Trueman,M.,2012.ManagingSwissHospitality:howcultural antecedentsofinnovationandcustomer-orientedvaluesystemscaninﬂuence performanceinthehotelindustry.Int.J.Hosp.Manag.31(4),1119–1129.

Teare,R.,1993.Designingacontemporaryhotelserviceculture.Int.J.Serv.Ind. Manag.4(2),63–73.

Testa,M.R.,2007.Adeeperlookatnationalcultureandleadershipinthe hospitalityindustry.Hosp.Manag.26,468–484.

Werther,W.B.,Kerr,J.L.,Wright,R.G.,1995.Strengtheningcorporategovernance throughboard-levelconsultants.J.Organ.Chang.Manag.8(3),63–74.

Yilmaz,C.,Alpkan,L.,Ergun,E.,2005.Culturaldeterminantsofcustomer-and learning-orientedvaluesystemsandtheirjointeffectsonﬁrmperformance.J. Bus.Res.58(10),1340–1352.