University of Tennessee, Knoxville

TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative

Exchange

Masters Theses Graduate School

5-1991

Influence of Organizational Culture on Job Satisfaction,

Organizational Commitment, Turnover, Absenteeism, and
Productivity in Hospital Foodservice
Nancy M. Gilbert
University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes

Part of the Food Science Commons

Recommended Citation
Gilbert, Nancy M., "Influence of Organizational Culture on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment,
Turnover, Absenteeism, and Productivity in Hospital Foodservice. " Master's Thesis, University of
Tennessee, 1991.
https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3933

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and
Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE:
Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact trace@utk.edu.
To the Graduate Council:

I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Nancy M. Gilbert entitled "Influence of

Organizational Culture on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Turnover, Absenteeism,
and Productivity in Hospital Foodservice." I have examined the final electronic copy of this
thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Food Science and Technology.

Jeannie Sneed, Major Professor

We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:

Jean D. Skinner, Betty Ruth Carruth

Accepted for the Council:

Carolyn R. Hodges

Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)

To the Graduate Council:

I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Nancy M. Gilbert entitled "Influence

of Organizational Culture on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment,
Turnover, Absenteeism, and Productivity in Hospital Foodservice". I have
examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it
be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science, with a major in Food Systems Administration.

We have read this thesis

and recommend its acceptance:

\V't':L.r(_,,,
/
)'~ ~ .· -f•:;4:...- )"(• ...i: "'-~/
i ,'

..,,<~ ,.( ) .<: -1-1-

.£-:~:;;:~/J~
~~ • ,, t -
r •.,j (,f:_. :'t.>~1. .I, / / J_,,/,_j
f

Accepted for the Council:

Associate Vice Chancellor

and Dean of The Graduate School
 STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a

Master's degree at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, I agree that the

Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief

quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that

accurate acknowledgement of the source is made.

Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this thesis may

be granted by my major professor, or in her absence, by the Head of Interlibrary

Services when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for

scholarly purposes. Any copying or use of the material in this thesis for financial

gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Signature______________

Date
----------------
Influence of Organizational Culture on Job Satisfaction,

Organizational Commitment, Turnover, Absenteeism,

and Productivity in Hospital Foodservice

A Thesis

Presented for the

Master of Science

Degree

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Nancy M. Gilbert

May 1991
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend genuine gratitude to the following:

First to Jeannie Sneed, for her skill, patience, effort, and determination in

making me fully appreciate and understand the value of total commitment and

follow-through in writing a thesis well, when it was not always clear to me, and to

her "power puppy" Gretl, who has made it all more fun.

To Dr. Betty Ruth Carruth and Dr. Jean Skinner, my committee members,

for their kindness, support, and very useful suggestions.

To Marylenna, who so kindly transformed my limited technological skills

into a beautiful manuscript, of which I am truly proud.

To Mike, for "unpressured" data analysis.

To Grace, who not only diminished distance, by keeping me in touch with

Canada, but in whom I could always trust to advise me well.

To all the Canadian and American foodservice employees who participated,

without whom the study would have been impossible.

To the faculty and students in the UT Nutrition Department, who allowed

me to vent my frustrations, share my joys, and keep it all in perspective, I shall

always remember you.

And to my very special parents for total support and encouragement, which

has made everything else possible.

11
 ABSTRACT

The study was designed to determine the type of organizational culture

(bureaucratic, innovative, or supportive), and to determine the relationships

among organizational culture, affective outcomes Gob satisfaction and

organizational commitment), and behavioral outcomes ( turnover, absenteeism, and

productivity) in hospital foodservice operations in Canada and the United States.

The sample included 436 foodservice employees from ten hospitals in eastern

Canada and nine hospitals in East Tennessee. Two research instruments were

used for data collection. The historical data instrument obtained information to

calculate productivity, turnover, and absenteeism for each hospital. The four-part

instrument for employees included a 24-item organizational culture index to

determine the predominant culture in each hospital (Cronbach's alpha = 0.85),

the 15-item Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Cronbach's alpha= 0.84),

five questions designed to determine employee's perception of job satisfaction

(Cronbach's alpha = 0.63), and demographic items. Multiple linear regression

was used to determine relationships among variables. The predominant culture

was bureaucratic. Positive relationships existed between supportive and innovative

cultures and job satisfaction (R 2 =0.16), and between innovative and supportive

cultures and organizational commitment (R 2 =0.34). Age was positively related to

organizational commitment. For factors related to job satisfaction, employees

rated satisfaction with co-workers as highest, and satisfaction with pay lowest.

Mean productivity was 3.8 + 3.2 meals per labor hour, ranging from 0.80 to 15.0.

lll
These findings will help hospital foodservice managers understand the relationship

of culture to organizational and employee outcomes; changing culture may

improve desired outcomes.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION .............................. . 1
Purposes of the Study .......................... . 3
Research Hypotheses ........................... . 4
Definitions .................................. . 5

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................... . 7

Introduction ................................. . 7
Organizational Culture .......................... . 8
Definition .................................. . 8
Measurement of Culture ....................... . 9
Evolution of Culture .......................... . 9
Organizational Outcomes ........................ . 13
Affective Outcomes ........................... . 13
Job Satisfaction ............................. . 13
Organizational Commitment ................... . 14
Behavioral Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Turnover ................................. . 16
Absenteeism ............................... . 18
Productivity ............................... . 19

III. METHODS ................................... . 21

Study Sample ................................ . 21
Research Instruments .......................... . 21
Historical Data Instrument ..................... . 22
Employee Data Instrument ..................... . 23
Pilot Testing ................................ . 24
Data Collection ............................... . 25
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28

Characteristics of Sample ........................ . 28
Reliability of the Research Instrument .............. . 28
Results and Discussion of the Research Variables ..... . 30
Organizational Culture ........................ . 30
Job Satisfaction .............................. . 30
Organizational Commitment .................... . 32
Turnover ................................... . 34
Absenteeism ................................ . 34
Productivity ................................. . 34

V
 IV. (Continued)

Tests of the Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Hypothesis 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Hypothesis 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Hypothesis 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

V. SUMM.ARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . ... .. 41

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . ... .. 42
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . ... .. 43
Applications for Practitioners . ............. . ... .. 43
Directions of Future Research . ............. . ... .. 44

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

A. Human Subjects Review Approval . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . 53

B. Historical Data Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . 55
C. Employee Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . 57
D. Letter of Permission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . 62
E. Contact Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . 64

VITA.............................................. 65

VI
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Research instruments used for data collection . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2. Demographic characteristics of foodservice employees

(no. = 436) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3. Foodservice employees ratings for the Organizational

Culture Index ( no. = 436) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4. Job satisfaction as perceived by foodservice employees

(no. = 436) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5. Organizational commitment as perceived by foodservice

employees ( no. = 436) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6. Regression models relating organizational culture and

outcome variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

7. Regression models relating demographic variables to

job satisfaction and organizational commitment
(no. = 423) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

8. Regression models relating culture types and

demographic items to job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (no. = 423) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

vu
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The foodservice industry is characterized by disproportionately high levels

of employee turnover. Turnover rates are high in the foodservice industry; a 1990

industry operations survey reported turnover in fast food service to be 140%,

limited menu table service 112%, full-menu table service 109%, and cafeterias at

71 % (Riehle, 1991). One company quoted a figure of $17 million spent on lost

employees who were fired or resigned from their organizations; the average

restaurant employee stays in a position three months; managers stay

approximately six months (Woods, 1989). As a result of these staggering statistics,

there is growing interest within the foodservice industry in establishing effective

employee retention programs (Woods and Macaulay, 1989). Currently, this is

particularly crucial to the foodservice industry because of the shrinking pool of

young job applicants (DeMicco and Reid, 1988). A survey commissioned by the

National Restaurant Association in 1989 confirmed that the labor situation for

restaurant industry employers has worsened over the past two years, more

restaurateurs are reporting labor shortages (NRA, 1990). The labor crisis is

affecting the foodservice industry as a whole. The current shortage of workers to

fill entry level positions and the difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled and

management-level employees is frustrating directors in non-commercial

foodservice as well (Schuster, 1988).

1
 Since there is an immediate need within the industry to implement

retention programs that will positively affect job satisfaction and organizational

commitment, decrease turnover and absenteeism, and effectively increase

productivity, managers are acknowledging the impact of organizational culture on

these organizational outcomes. A business firm may be able to reduce

absenteeism and turnover by correctly matching the culture of the organization

with the motivational needs of its managers (Koberg and Chusmir, 1987).

Organizational culture is a system of shared values and beliefs that

produces norms of behavior and establishes an organizational way of life. It

shapes behavior by conveying a sense of identity to workers, encourages

commitment beyond self, increases stability of the social system, and gives

recognized and accepted premises for decision making (Koberg and Chusmir,

1987).

In the early 1980s, much was written about career management

responsibilities, yet the literature contained little on corporate culture (Wallach,

1983). However, in the latter part of the decade, corporate culture was

increasingly researched and documented. Tidball (1988) stated that when

institutionalized behavioral norms do not correspond with how management says

things really are, employees will notice the incongruencies in the culture of the

organization. She hypothesized that incongruencies interfere with performance,

and congruency in idealogy improves performance/productivity.

2
 The literature related to the dietetic profession in both Canada and the

United States, although acknowledging the value of culture and change, does not

present any research on organizational culture. Corporate culture was addressed

in the foodservice literature, but mostly descriptively as was illustrated in one study

done by Woods (1989). Woods' study explored culture in five restaurants in the

United States and found that cultural similarities outweigh differences, and that

there is a distinct culture within the dinner-house segment of the restaurant

industry.

Foodservice, clearly a growth industry, is now realizing the existence of

culture and the importance of clarifying, articulating, and supporting it as an

effective tool in foodservice organizations. There is, however, a paucity of

research upon which to base decisions about developing or changing the

organizational culture of a foodservice operation.

Purposes of the Study

The purposes of the study were to determine the type of organizational

culture (bureaucratic, innovative, or supportive) in hospital foodservice, and to

determine the relationship among organizational culture, affective outcomes Gob

satisfaction and organizational commitment), and behavioral outcomes (turnover,

absenteeism, and productivity) in hospital foodservice operations in Canada and

the United States.

3
 Research Hypotheses

The following research hypotheses were tested:

1. There is no difference in job satisfaction of employees in foodservice

operations with different types of organizational culture (bureaucratic,

innovative, or supportive).

2. There is no difference in organizational commitment of employees in

foodservice operations with different types of organizational culture.

3. There is no difference in turnover in foodservice operations with different

types of organizational culture.

4. There is no difference in absenteeism in foodservice operations with different

types of organizational culture.

5. There is no difference in productivity in foodservice operations with different

types of organizational culture.

6. There is no significant relationship between job satisfaction and the variables

gender, age, education level, and years of experience for foodservice

employees.

7. There is no significant relationship between organizational commitment and

the variables gender, age, education level, and years of experience for

foodservice employees.

8. There is no significant relationship between job satisfaction and the variables

organizational culture types, gender, age, education level, and years of

experience for foodservice employees.

4
9. There is no significant relationship between organizational commitment and

the variables organizational culture types, gender, age, education level, and

years of experience for foodservice employees.

Definitions

The following definitions will clarify and enhance the understanding of how

the variables in this study were operationalized.

Absenteeism - a measure of the number of days that employees who are

scheduled to work do not report. The following formula was used to calculate

absenteeism:

absenteeism rate = total absences in period

total FfE x workdays in period x 100

(Sneed and Kresse, 1989).

Culture - Three separate organizational cultures have been identified.

Bureaucratic - bureaucratic cultures have clear lines of responsibility and

authority; work is highly organized and systematic. The information and

authority flow is hierarchical, based on control and power. These cultures

are mature, stable, and cautious.

Innovative - these are creative work environments where challenge and risk

taking are the norms. Employees are consistently stimulated and

challenged but often bum out under stress and pressure.

Supportive - the work environment is friendly and the workers tend to be

5
 supportive of one another. The environment is open, trusting, and

equitable. Humanistic principles are basic to this culture (Wallach, 1983).

Job satisfaction - "the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of

one's job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one's job values" (Locke,

1969, p. 316).

Organizational commitment - the relative strength of an individual's identification

with and involvement in a particular organization (Porter, Crampon, and Smith,

1976).

Productivity - the relationship between inputs and outputs in a system. The most

common measure of productivity in foodservice, the number of meals (output) per

labor hour (input), was used in this study (Sneed and Kresse, 1989).

Turnover - the number of employees who leave the organization through

resignations and firings. The following formula was used for determining turnover:

turnover rate = total terminations in period

number employed in period x 100

(Blakeslee, Suntrup, and Kernaghan, 1985).

6
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

Purpose, commitment, and order are generated in an organization both

through the feelings and actions of its founder and through the amalgam of

beliefs, ideology, language, ritual, and myth that make up the multifaceted

construct called organizational culture (Pettigrew, 1979). Organizational culture

impacts on a number of aspects of a foodservice organization. These aspects may

be collectively categorized as affective outcomes and behavioral outcomes. Job

satisfaction and organizational commitment are affective outcomes. Turnover,

absenteeism, and productivity are behavioral outcomes.

Today's hospitals are being run as businesses, where hospital cafeterias are

expected to generate revenue to cover costs and in many cases make a profit

(Rose, 1984). Decreased levels of productivity are a major concern in industry in

the United States in the past decade. In the foodservice industry, which is

particularly labor intensive, only 40 to 45 percent of employees' time is spent

productively (Sneed and Kresse, 1989). It is especially crucial within this industry

to acknowledge and deal with the problem of decreased productivity levels. In

addition to organizational culture, both affective and behavioral outcomes are

discussed in this review of literature.

7
 Organizational Culture

Definition

Wallach (1983) stated that "corporate culture is the shared understanding

of an organization's employees .... these beliefs, values, norms, and philosophies

determine how things work" (p. 29). As employees move up through the

managerial hierarchy, how well they "fit in" with the organizational culture

becomes increasingly important. There are no good or bad cultures, per se, but a

culture is good if it reinforces the mission, purposes, and strategies of the

organization Wallach, 1983).

Schwartz and Davis (1981) suggested that culture is rooted in deeply held

beliefs and values in which individuals hold a substantial investment as the result

of some processing or analysis of data about organizational life. These beliefs and

values create situational norms that are evidenced in observable behavior.

Schwartz and Davis (1981) identified four dimensions of organizations:

structure, systems, people, and culture. They emphasized that no organization will

perform well in a competitive environment unless these four dimensions are

internally consistent and fit the strategy. Furthermore, although a great deal is

known about managing structure, systems, and people, there is little more than an

intuitive sense about how to manage the fourth dimension, culture.

8
 Measurement of Culture

The Organizational Culture Index (OCI), developed by Wallach (1983), is a

measure of three dimensions of organizational culture - bureaucratic, innovative,

and supportive, all three of these dimensions are considered common in varying

degrees to all organizations. Respondents indicate the extent to which 24

adjectives describe their organization. Items are grouped into three culture

dimensions each containing eight items. Scores for each dimension are expressed

as a sum of the eight items.

Evolution of Culture

Webster (1983) defined culture as the integrated pattern of human

knowledge, beliefs, and behavior that depends on man's capacity for learning and

transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations. Organizational cultures, like

people's personalities, are elusive, complex, and paradoxical (Wallach, 1983).

Humanitarian organizations, governments, and societal officials have come to

realize that their efforts are in vain so long as they neglect the cultural factors

affecting the complicated process embodied in the development of a people

(Carrier, 1989).

In order to understand what culture is, it is important to understand what

culture is not. Often the terms organizational climate and organizational culture

are confused. Schwartz and Davis (1981) differentiated clearly between the two.

Organizational climate is a measure of whether peoples' expectations about what

9
it should be like to work in an organization are being met. Climate is often

transitory, tactical, and manageable over the relatively short term. Culture, in

contrast, is a pattern of beliefs and expectations shared by the organization's

members. Culture is usually long-term and strategic. Climate measures whether

expectations are being met, culture is concerned with the nature of the

expectations themselves.

Anthropology, the science that treats the physical, social, material, and

cultural development of man, is well suited for developing a sense of appreciation

for and understanding of culture. According to Giovanni (Zemke, 1989), the

1940s and 50s were characterized by intensive examination of status hierarchies,

relationships among workers and management, union-management interaction, the

integration of various racial/ethnic groups, workers on the line, work:flow, and the

relationship between structure and productivity. In the 1960s, universities and

government agencies tended to absorb and support anthropologists interested in

studying foreign culture. There was a growing suspicion among anthropologists

that more efficient exploitation of workers was the primary focus (Zemke, 1989).

In the 1970s anthropologists were encouraged to advocate for people in the

developing countries against large bureaucracies, including government and

business interests. Anthropology views culture through a different set of lenses

and attempts to understand it so well that one is able to see the world through the

anthropologist's eyes (Zemke, 1989).

10
 Since culture is a multidimensional component, there is potential difficulty

in understanding culture as it integrates into an organization. There are problems

in today's business world because of the heavy emphasis on paying for the bottom

line which leads to a loss of innovation and depreciation of those qualitative

features of an organization representing the core of its character (Levinson, 1988).

Although very little has been documented in the professional dietetic journals

about organizational culture, there is an awareness that the profession is headed

for a future filled with change and challenge, that will influence both how we see

ourselves and how we are seen by others (Hess, 1988).

Although the hospitality industry has been aware of the existence and value

of culture for some time; the use of "organizational culture" as a management tool

is just now being addressed in recent hospitality management literature.

McDonald's, presently the most successful fast food chain in the world, has a

culture, and it is worth noting that as McDonald's advances internationally, it is

not solely due to the popularity of its hamburgers and french fries. The biggest

challenge in foreign markets is more fundamental. McDonald's strategy hinges on

its ability to infuse every store with its culture and standardized procedures. The

value of first identifying, and then solidifying a culture is important for this highly

successful organization. So intent is McDonald's on fostering a family feeling that

it employs one executive dedicated to making the company feel small (Deveny,

1986).

11
 Culture at McDonald's or any other successful organization is neither

haphazard nor vaguely defined. It is bound by rigid procedures and carefully

defined rules. Operating procedures are tight, but McDonald's culture permits a

loose approach to the creativity of every individual (Deveny, 1986).

A winning culture, or one that leads organizations to success, has certain

elements. Fintel (1989) said that effective, successful companies have very clearly

articulated, positive cultures. She identified five common qualities of successful

cultures 1) integrity that goes beyond lying and stealing but is closely tied to the

element of trust, 2) bottom-up style of management, 3) having fun, 4) connecting

to the community within which the organization operates, and 5) physical health

and fitness, or that which connects the organization with the standards and norms

which surrounds it.

Realizing that all organizations have a culture, it is important to identify,

clarify, and communicate the concept in order to enhance productivity. The

process of effective communication is important in administering foodservice

operations. King (1989) emphasized the importance of communication when he

stated that one final stream of rhetorical research, just beginning to manifest itself

strongly in this country, is the study of the interplay of communication and culture.

The basis of this work is the assumption that each human being is suspended in

webs of significance he has spun and that those webs are the culture in which each

of us exists. The focus of this work is the relationship between a culture and the

forms of expression to which it gives rise (King, 1989).

12
 Organizational Outcomes

There are a number of outcomes in organizations that can be used to

evaluate organizational performance. Performance is multidimensional and the

dimensions overlap (Sneed and Kresse, 1989). Outcomes may be either affective

or behavioral. Affective outcomes are job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. Turnover, absenteeism, and productivity are behavioral outcomes.

These outcomes will be discussed in the following section.

Affective Outcomes

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the "pleasurable emotional state resulting from the

appraisal of one's job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one's job

values" (Locke, 1969, p. 316). It may be influenced by many factors including the

job itself, the work environment, and employee demographic variables, including

age, gender, job classification, education, hourly wage or annual salary, tenure, and

full vs. part-time employment (Duke and Sneed, 1989; Myrtle, 1978; Calbeck,

Vaden, and Vaden, 1979). Outcomes of low job satisfaction are absenteeism,

turnover, and poor performance (Porter, Steers, Mowday, Boulian, 1974; Koch

and Steers, 1978).

Research conducted in the foodservice industry has related several

variables to job satisfaction. Variables positively correlated with job satisfaction

13
include: length of employment (Martin and Vaden, 1978), job characteristics

(Duke and Sneed, 1989; Sneed and Herman, 1990), age (Duke and Sneed, 1989;

Calbeck et al., 1979), individual and organizational goals (Hopkins, Vaden, and

Vaden, 1980), and values (Hopkins et al., 1980). Organizational size was

negatively correlated with job satisfaction (Martin and Vaden, 1978). Sneed

(1988) found no relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction.

Measures of job satisfaction have wide application in organizational

research (McNichols, Stahl, and Manley, 1978). The measures used in practice

range from single questions specifically conceived for an individual study to more

sophisticated standardized instruments such as the Job Descriptive Index (Smith,

Kendall, and Hulen, 1969). Hoppock's Job Satisfaction Measure, consisting of

four questions related to various aspects of satisfaction with a person's job,

originally described in 1935 is also used in research studies (McNichols et al.,

1978).

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is the relative strength of an individual's

identification with and involvement in a particular organization (Porter et al.,

1976). Becker (1960) described commitment as the tendency to engage in

"consistent lines of activity" because of the perceived cost of doing othetwise.

Meyer and Allen (1986) used the terms affective commitment and continuance

commitment, respectively, to characterize Porter's and Becker's discrepant views

14
of the construct. Although both affective and continuance commitment reflect

linkages between the employee and the organization that decrease the likelihood

of turnover, the nature of the linkages are quite different. Employees with a

strong affective commitment remain with the organization because they want to,

whereas those with strong continuance commitment remain because they need to

do so. Measures of organizational commitment are as diverse as the definitions

(Mowday, Steers, and Porter, 1979). Early measures consisted of two to four item

scales for which little or no validity and reliability data are presented (Mowday et

al., 1979). The 15-item organizational commitment questionnaire used in this

study was tested for reliability and validity using various types of employees in

different work environments (Mowday et al., 1979).

Commitment represents something beyond passive loyalty to an

organization, it involves an active relationship with the organization such that the

employees are willing to give something of themselves in order to contribute to

the organization's well being (Mowday et al., 1979). Commitment emphasizes

attachment to the employing organization, including goals and values, while

satisfaction emphasizes the specific task environment where an employee performs

his/her duties (Mowday et al., 1979). Organizational commitment is declining, and

executive mobility between firms is at unprecedented levels (Hunt, Wood, and

Chonko, 1989). A vicious economic cycle results in unemployment through layoffs

and terminations (Rezmerski, 1986).

15
 Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, and Jackson (1989) found that the

affective commitment of employees to a foodservice organization was positively

related to their measured job performance, whereas continuance commitment was

negatively related. The value of commitment to the organization, therefore, may

depend on the nature of that commitment. Findings of this study reinforce the

need for further research examining the relationship between commitment and

work-related behaviors other than turnover and emphasize the need to distinguish

clearly the nature of the commitment construct being considered, both in

empirical research and in practical applications.

Behavioral Outcomes

Turnover

Turnover is defined as the number of employees who leave the

organization through resignations and firings (Blakeslee et al, 1985). Turnover

costs American industry billions of dollars every year and is common to every

organization. Research studies have estimated that it costs an organization nearly

one-half of an employee's yearly salary to replace that individual (Wallach, 1983).

Turnover in the foodservice industry exceeds that for all other industries

combined; although turnover can be used to indirectly measure managerial

performance, organizational productivity, and general organizational health, at

present very little priority is given to management turnover (DeMicco and

Giridharan, 1987). Even though turnover rates are costly, very little has been

16
done in the hospitality industry to control turnover. Wasmuth and Davis (1983)

suggested that the greatest opportunity for reducing turnover in the hospitality

industry is at the unit level because immediate supervisors have both the closest

view of turnover causes and the best chance to work directly with staff.

DeMicco and Giridharan (1987) suggested that there are a number of

systems to classify employee turnover. The American Hotel and Motel

Association used the dichotomy of voluntary versus involuntary, assuming that only

voluntary turnover, where the employee leaves of his own accord, could be

controlled. However, certain aspects of involuntary turnover are under

management control, for example when the cause for dismissal is due to improper

hiring practices or poor training and orientation. Controllable versus

uncontrollable, avoidable versus unavoidable, and planned versus unplanned are

other dichotomies often used. Wasmuth and Davis (1983) suggested that a

combination of these classifications will provide a more meaningful analysis

leading to more useful strategies for controlling turnover.

In studies conducted to ascertain the causes of turnover, the real causes

seem to be personnel and employee alienation (Strauss and Sayles, 1980). The

causes of turnover are varied. Although salary, competition, and unions have

been cited as factors related to turnover, studies have shown that these factors

may have a small impact (DeMicco and Giridharan, 1987). The importance of

salary as a cause of turnover has been greatly exaggerated, employees frequently

17
cite salary as their excuse for leaving, making the organization and its pay scale a

convenient target for employee frustrations (Laser, 1980).

Most managers agree that the cost of turnover is always high (Wasmuth

and Davis, 1983). Wasmuth and Davis (1983) reported that no systematic data of

any kind were available on costing turnover, but agreed that the task of managing

turnover is viewed as an indirect measure of managerial performance, particularly

in situations where an increase in turnover is thought to have an adverse impact

on service and profit objectives. Generally the cost may be broken into two

categories: direct and indirect. Direct costs include expenses such as advertising,

agency and search fees, travel and relocation expenses, recruiter's salary and

expenses, administrative functions, unemployment taxes, and uniforms. Indirect

costs of turnover are often subjective, less tangible, and therefore more difficult to

measure than direct costs. They include costs of management time during the

hiring process, cost of employee training and development, cost of reaching the

same productivity level as the former employee, effect on other employees and

customers, and effect on management and supervision.

Absenteeism

Absenteeism is a measure of the number of days that employees who are

scheduled to work do not report (Sneed and Kresse, 1989). High rates of

absenteeism in organizations represent extremely high costs to the nation's

economy. This cost is based on direct salary, fringe benefits, estimated loss of

18
profits, and costs associated with temporary replacement (Scott and Markham,

1982). Given the high cost associated with absenteeism in organizations, it is

fundamentally important that management find methods to control this pervasive

problem. There are a number of control methods presently in use, but most have

limited effectiveness. Scott and Markham (1982) concluded that a comprehensive

approach to the problem is superior to piecemeal efforts. Programs that

terminate employees for excessive absenteeism need evaluation, and positive

inducements are valuable in reducing the absentee rate.

Sneed and Kresse (1989) suggested other concrete control methods. They

stated that it is important to communicate expectations to employees in

orientation sessions, and establish attendance criteria and communicate them to

all employees. Written documentation of attendance and cost review are also

important. Supplying employees with feedback, taking corrective action when

absenteeism is excessive, and maintaining high levels of employee morale are

perceived as essential elements of the control mechanism.

Productivity

Productivity is the relationship between inputs and outputs in a system.

The most common measure of productivity in foodservice is the number of meals

(output) per labor hour (input) (Sneed and Kresse, 1989). Inputs are the

resources necessary to perform a process. These resources are normally labor,

materials, and equipment. Outputs are the outcomes of a process expressed as

19
services or items produced. In a healthcare foodservice department, outcomes are

primarily patient and nonpatient meals and the provision of nutritional care

services (Rose, 1984). Because labor represents 60 percent to 70 percent of the

total hospital budget, health care administrators are interested in standards of

performance, relationships of cost and quality of service, and productivity

improvement in the work place (Rose, 1984 ).

When there is a "mismatch" between an employee and the culture-type of

an organization he/she may not be able to accomplish assigned job tasks resulting

in loss of morale and decreased work effectiveness (Wallach, 1983). She also

confirms the notion that a cultural match suggests that individual job performance

is a function of the match between the individual's needs (motivation) and the

organization's culture. This concept is derived from other related "good-match"

theories that have been tested many times and found to be an effective means of

increasing motivating job satisfaction and job involvement, while decreasing

turnover and absenteeism (Koberg and Chusmir, 1987).

There is presently a serious labor shortage within the foodservice industry.

Turnover and absenteeism rates are typically high; productivity levels are low.

Organizational culture is a complex construct, but once identified within the

organizational structure, may be a useful tool in affecting organizational outcomes.

Organizational culture may not only be related to affective outcomes such as job

satisfaction and organizational commitment, but may also affect behavioral

outcomes such as turnover, absenteeism, and productivity.

20
 CHAPTER III

METHODS

Study Sample

Ten hospitals in eastern Canada and nine hospitals in East Tennessee were

chosen to participate in the study. Both supervisory and non-supervisory

employees were included in the study. In Canada, hospitals were chosen from

selected cities in eastern Canada, including Halifax and Dartmouth in Nova Scotia,

and Fredericton and Saint John in New Brunswick. In the United States the

facilities studied were located in the East Tennessee region which includes the

Mid-East District, Knoxville District, and the Upper East District as defined by

the Tennessee Hospital Association (1987). Since this research involved human

subjects, approval of .the research protocol by the University Human Subjects

Research Review Committee was obtained prior to data collection (Appendix A).

Research Instruments

Two research instruments were developed for data collection (Table 1).

One instrument was used to collect historical data from the foodservice director

and the second instrument was used to collect data from foodservice employees.

21
Table 1. Research instruments used for data collection.

Instrument Sample Data Collected

Historical Data 19 Hospitals Meal Equivalents

Instrument Labor Hours
No. of Full-Time Equivalents
No. of Terminations
No. of Absences

Employee Data 436 Foodsetvice Organizational Culture Index

Instrument Employees Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire
Job Satisfaction
(Five Questions)
Demographics

Historical Data Instrument

An instrument was developed to obtain historical information (for the time

period June 1, 1989 to May 31, 1990) on productivity, turnover, total number of

employees, and absenteeism (Appendix B). This instrument was completed by

the Director of each Dietary Department.

Based on data obtained from the historical data instrument, organizational-

level variables were calculated using the following formulae:

Turnover Rate= Total terminations in period

Number employed in period x 100

Absenteeism= total absences in period

total FfE's x workdays in period x 100

Productivity=number of meals (output)

labor hour (input) x 100

22
 Employee Data Instrument

A four-part questionnaire was developed for employees (Appendix C).

Part I included the Organizational Culture Index (OCI) developed by Wallach

(1983). The OCI is a measure of three dimensions of organizational culture-

bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive (Wallach, 1983). Respondents were

asked to indicate the extent to which 24 adjectives described their organization

using the following 4-point rating scale: 0 "does not describe my organization", 1

"describes my organization a little", 2 "describes my organization a fair amount",

and 3 "describes my organization most of the time".

Permission to use the instrument was granted by the Training and

Development Journal, American Society of Training and Development provided

credit was given to the author and the following copyright statement was included:

developed by Ellen Wallach@ 1983, Training and Development Journal, American

Society of Training and Development. Reprinted with permission. All rights

reserved.

Part II of the questionnaire consisted of the 15-item Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Mowday et al. (1979). The

OCQ identifies organizational commitment by examining three related factors:

(1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goal and values; (2) a

willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (3) a

strong desire to maintain membership in the organization. Responses to each

item were made on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree ( 1)

23
to strongly agree (7). A letter was sent to Dr. Lyman Porter (Appendix D)

requesting permission to use this instrument and permission was granted.

Part III included five questions designed to determine employees'

perceptions of job satisfaction. Sneed (1988) modified these questions from the

Job Descriptive Index for use with foodservice employees. Questions were related

to satisfaction with supervision, people on the job, work, pay, and opportunities

for promotion. The item responses were made on a seven-point rating scale with

the following descriptive anchors: strongly agree (1), neutral (3), and strongly

disagree (7).

Part IV, included demographic items related to gender, age, education

level, years employed in foodservice, and employment status. Responses to

demographic items were made by selecting the appropriate descriptive category.

Pilot Testing

A pilot test was conducted with a group of 35 dietary managers employed

in hospitals and nursing homes in the Knoxville area. The dietary managers were

given a brief introduction and asked to respond to the 24 questions on the OCI,

the only section of the instrument that had not been used previously with

foodservice employees. A second pilot test of the entire questionnaire was

conducted with a group of 12 foodservice employees in a nursing home facility in

the Knoxville area. A scripted introduction was read to the employees and all 12

agreed to participate. It was explained that participation would be on a voluntary

24
basis and completion of the questionnaire would be interpreted as consent to

participate. Anonymity was insured by the researcher.

Some minor wording changes were made in the questionnaire based on the

pilot tests. Five of the 24 questions in the OCI were unclear for the respondents

and were clarified by adding simple phrases in parentheses after the adjective.

Collaborative was clarified by adding the phrase "everyone works together". The

following adjectives were clarified in the same fashion: Hierarchical (emphasis on

rank), equitable (fair), safe (no risk), and enterprising (readiness to try something

new - experiment). One negative description was eliminated from one question in

the job satisfaction section of the questionnaire to minimize confusion for the

respondents. The historical data instrument was pilot tested with the foodservice

supervisor in the same nursing home facility in which pilot testing of the employee

instrument was done. No problems were noted for that instrument.

Data Collection

Data collection was done in Canada during summer 1990 and in the United

States during fall 1990. Letters were mailed to the foodservice director/manager

of ten selected hospital dietary departments in Canada to explain the purpose of

the study and to ask permission to conduct the survey (Appendix E). Telephone

calls were made to confirm dates, times, and survey procedures. Selected

foodservice directors in the United States were contacted by telephone to explain

the purpose of the study, to obtain permission to conduct the study, to explain

25
procedures in the study, and to establish times and dates to conduct the study.

Each foodservice director provided the researcher with a letter of permission to

conduct the study in their hospital. Historical data forms were presented to each

foodservice director to complete, and upon completion were either collected

immediately on site, or forwarded to the researcher by mail at a later date.

The researcher administered the survey during working hours, at a time

that accommodated both early and late shifts, so as to obtain as many employees

as possible. The instrument was distributed to the foodservice employees in group

settings to facilitate ease of distribution and collection. A brief explanation was

given by the researcher as to the nature and purpose of the study, as well as

possible outcomes and relevancy of the study. The credentials and background of

the researcher were addressed. The researcher read each question aloud to each

group of employees.

Data Analysis

Due to environmental problems in one hospital in Canada, it was

eliminated from the study. Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were

calculated for each item on the 24-item Organizational Culture Index, the 15-item

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, and the 5-item job satisfaction scale.

For the five demographic items, frequency of responses were determined for

descriptive purposes.

26
 The internal consistency of the items in the Organizational Culture Index,

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, and job satisfaction scales were

determined using Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951). The scale reliability

coefficients and the item-total reliability statistics were calculated.

Research hypotheses one through five were tested using multiple linear

regression, the three organizational culture types scores were used as the

independent variables. A regression model was done for each dependent variable:

job satisfaction, organizational commitment, productivity, absenteeism, and

turnover. For job satisfaction and organizational commitment, the employee was

the unit of analysis. For turnover, absenteeism, and productivity the hospital was

the unit of analysis. For research hypotheses six and seven, multiple linear

regression was used with demographic variables as the independent variables and

job satisfaction (for hypothesis 6) and organizational commitment (for hypothesis

7) as dependent variables. For research hypotheses eight and nine, multiple linear

regression was used with culture types and demographic variables as the

independent variables and job satisfaction (for hypothesis 8) and organizational

commitment (hypothesis 9) as dependent variables. When the regression models

were significant, Tukey's Studentized Range Test was used to determine

differences in means. Simple linear regression, yielding a Pearson's Product

Moment Coefficient (r), was done to determine the relationship between job

satisfaction and productivity. A probability level of 0.05 was used for all tests of

significance. The SAS System (SAS, 1985) was used for all data analyses.

27
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Characteristics of Sample

The sample consisted of 436 supervisory and non-supervisory foodservice

employees in 19 hospitals. Demographic characteristics of these employees are

summarized in Table 2. There were four times as many female employees in the

sample as male employees. Sixty-four percent of the employees were between the

ages of 20 and 40 years; the smallest percentage of employees were in the less

than 20 years (2%) and over 60 years (4%) categories. The largest proportion of

employees were employed full-time. Thirty-two percent had completed high

school, while 23% of the employees had completed college. Fifty-seven percent of

the employees had ten years or less foodservice work experience, and only 12

percent had more than 21 years of experience.

Reliability of the Research Instrument

The reliability coefficients for the three scales in the employee instrument

were determined using Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951 ). The 24-item OCI had

a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.85; reliability for the scale would only slightly

increase from 0.850 to 0.855 if item no. 1 were omitted, to 0.854 if item no. 11

were omitted, and to 0.855 if item no. 24 were omitted. The 15-item OCQ had a

Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.839, and the reliability of this scale would only

28
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of foodservice employees (no. = 436)

Characteristics No. %

Gender
Male 80 19
Female 349 81

Age in Years
less than 20 8 2
20-29 134 32
30-39 136 32
40-49 84 20
50-59 47 11
over 60 16 4

Education
some grade school 8 2
completed grade school 17 4
some high school 70 16
completed high school 137 32
some technical school 21 5
completed technical school 20 8
some college 42 10
completed college 97 23

Years of Foodservice Experience

less than 5 138 33
6 to 10 101 24
11 to 15 84 20
16 to 20 53 13
21 to 25 24 6
more than 26 24 6

Employment Status
Full time ( more than 35 hours per week) 357 84
Part time (less than 35 hours per week) 66 16

29
slightly increase from 0.839 to 0.847 if item no. 31 were omitted. Cronbach's

alpha for the 5-item job satisfaction scale was 0.63 and would not increase if any

item were omitted. Since reliability is related to the number and homogeneity of

items, a higher Cronbach's alpha would not be expected.

Results and Discussion of the Research Variables

Organizational Culture

Items in the OCI were grouped into three culture dimensions: bureaucratic,

innovative, and supportive. Means and standard deviations for the items within

the three dimensions are shown in Table 3. Each dimension contained eight

items, rated on a 4-point scale. Scores were expressed as a sum of the eight

items. The means and standard deviations for the three dimensions were:

bureaucratic 14.9 + 4.3, innovative 13.2 + 4.3, and supportive 12.7 + 5.0. When

t-test comparisons between the dimensions were done, innovative was significantly

lower than bureaucratic (p=0.001), innovative was higher than supportive

(p=0.0269), and bureaucratic was significantly higher than supportive (p=0.0001).

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction in this study was determined using five questions developed

by Sneed (1988) for use with foodservice employees. The mean and standard

deviation for each of the job satisfaction items are shown in Table 4. The overall

mean for this scale was 22.9 + 6.2. Employees rated satisfaction with co-workers

30
Table 3. Foodservice employees ratings for the Organizational Culture
Index ( no. = 436)

Item Rating 1

Bureaucratic

Procedural 2.1 + 0.22

Established, solid 2.0 + 0.9
Structured 2.0 + 0.8
Ordered 1.9 + 0.8
Regulated 1.9 + 0.9
Cautious 1.9 + 0.8
Power-oriented 1.9 + 1.0
Hierarchical (emphasis on rank) 1.8 + 1.0

Innovative

Pressurized 2.2 + 0.9

Results-oriented 1.9 + 0.9
Enterprising ( readiness to try something new-experiment) 1.9 + 0.9
Creative 1.7 + 0.9
Driving 1.7 + 1.0
Challenging 1.7 + 1.0
Stimulating 1.4 + 1.0
Risk-taking 1.1 + 0.8

Supportive

Sociable 1.9 + 0.9

Collaborative (everyone works together) 1.9 + 0.9
Equitable (fair) 1.6 + 1.0
Safe (no risk) 1.6 + 0.9
Trusting 1.6 + 1.0
Relationships-oriented 1.6 + 0.9
Encouraging 1.5 + 1.0
Personal Freedom 1.4 + 1.0
1
Ratings ranged from"does not describe my organization" (0), to"describes my
organization a little" (1), to"describes my organization a fair amount" (2),
to"describes my organization most of the time" (3)
2
Mean+standard deviation

31
Table 4. Job satisfaction as perceived by foodservice employees (no. = 436)

Item Rating 1

I enjoy the people I work with. 5.8 + 1.72

I enjoy the work I do. 5.6 + 1.7
I am satisfied with the supervision I receive on my job. 4.7 + 2.0
I am satisfied with my opportunities for promotion. 3.6 + 2.2
I am satisfied with my present pay. 3.4 + 2.0

1
Item scores ranged from strongly agree ( 1) to strongly disagree (7)
Mean + standard deviation
2

highest, and satisfaction with pay lowest. These results are very similar to findings

of Sneed (1988). In her study both employees and supervisors in school

foodservice rated satisfaction with supervision and co-workers as highest, and

satisfaction with pay and opportunities for promotion as lowest.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment was measured using the 15-item OCQ. The

mean and standard deviation for each OCQ item are shown in Table 5. The

overall mean and standard deviation for this scale was 66.0 + 16.4.

32
Table 5. Organizational commitment as perceived by foodservice employees
(no.=436)

Item OCQ Score 1

I am willing to put a great deal of effort beyond that normally

expected in order to help this organization be successful. 5.6 + 1.62
I really care about the fate of this organization. 5.3 + 1.7

I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 4.9 + 1.9

I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for

over others that I was considering at the time I joined. 4.8 + 1.8
Often I find it difficult to agree with this organization's
policies on important matters relating to its employees. 4.5 + 2.0
I talk up this organization to my friends as a great
organization to work for. 4.4 + 2.0
I could just as well be working for a different organization
as long as the type of work was similar. 4.4 + 2.0
This organization really inspires the very best in me
in the way of job performance. 4.3 + 1.9
I find that my values and the organization's values are
very similar. 4.2 + 2.0
For me this is the best of all possible organizations
to work for. 4.1 + 2.0
There is not too much to be gained by sticking with this
organization indefinitely. 3.9 + 2.2
I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order
to keep working for this organization. 3.7 + 2.2
It would take very little change in my present circumstances
to cause me to leave this organization. 3.7 + 2.1
I feel very little loyalty to this organization. 3.1 + 2.0
Deciding to work for this organization was a definite
mistake on my part. 2.6 + 1.9
1
Item scores ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7)
2
Mean + standard deviation

33
 Turnover

The mean and standard deviation for the turnover rate in 18 of the 19

hospitals surveyed was 2.4 + 1.3, ranging from 1.2 to 5.5. Sneed and Kresse

(1989) suggested that it is desirable to keep yearly turnover rates to below 10

percent. One foodservice industry statistic showed annual employee turnover

averaging 96 per cent (Woods and Macaulay, 1989). Turnover rates this study are

not as high as rates of turnover typically found in the foodservice industry, perhaps

because of differences peculiar to each region in the study, the type of foodservice

operation, or to the economic conditions at the time of the study.

Absenteeism

The mean and standard deviation for 16 of the 19 hospitals surveyed was

3.3 + 5.3 ranging from 1.8 to 16.0. The absenteeism score could not be calculated

for two hospitals in the survey because of the unavailability of the total absences

in the period. The wide range in absenteeism rates may be directly related to the

differences in size of the institutions studied.

Productivity

The mean and standard deviation for productivity in 17 of the 19 hospitals

surveyed was 3.8 + 3.2, ranging from 2.9 to 4.1. Productivity was not calculated

for one hospital surveyed because of the unavailability of labor hours. Productivity

in this study closely corresponds with the average productivity level of 3.5 meals

34
per labor hour for an acute care facility (Sneed & Kresse, 1989). The Pearson's

Product Moment Coefficient (r) relating job satisfaction and productivity was not

significant, thus, those two variables were not related.

Tests of the Research Hypotheses

Research hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analyses.

Models relating organizational culture to outcomes are summarized in Table 6.

Models relating demographic variables, to job satisfaction and organizational

commitment are summarized in Table 7. Models relating culture types and

demographic items to job satisfaction and organizational commitment are

summarized in Table 8.

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 stated that there is no difference in job satisfaction of

employees in foodservice operations with different types of organizational culture.

In this study the regression model testing the relationship was significant

(F= 28.46, p=0.0001). There was a positive relationship between innovative and

supportive cultures and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1 was rejected. The R 2 for

the model was 0.16, thus, culture explains 16% of the variance in job satisfaction.

35
Table 6. Regression models relating organizational culture and outcome
variables

dependent variable regression inde:gendent variables

(outcome) model innovative bureaucratic supportive

job satisfactionb df=419 p=0.038 NS p=0.0001 3

F=26.90
p=0.0001

organizational df=419 p=0.0001 NS p=0.0001

commitmentb F=71.68
p=0.0001

productivitt NS

absenteeismc NS

turnoverc NS

aA probability level of p<0.05 was used for all tests of significance.

b423 employees were included in the sample; the individual employee was
the unit of analysis.
c1g hospitals were included in the sample; the hospital was the unit of
analysis.

36
Table 7. Regression models relating demographic variables to job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (no.=423).

dependent variable regression independent variables

(outcome) model gender age education work
level experience

job satisfaction NS NS NS NS NS
df=419

organizational F=l.77 NS 0.0211 NS NS

commitment p=0.0269

Table 8. Regression models relating culture types and demographic items to

job satisfaction and organizational commitment (no.=423).

Dependent Regression Independent variables

variable model Culture Demographic
types items

Job df=404 innovative (p=0.0038) gender (p=0.0431)

satisfaction F=l5.14 supportive (p=0.0001) age NS
p=0.0001 bureaucratic NS education level NS
years of experience NS

Organizational df=404 innovative (p=0.0002) gender (p = 0.0297)

commitment F=33.48 supportive (p=0.0001) age (p=0.0117)
p=0.0001 bureaucratic NS education level NS
years of experience NS

37
 Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 stated that there is no difference in organizational

commitment of employees in foodservice operations with different types of

organizational culture. In this study, the regression model testing the hypothesis

was significant (F=74.93, p=0.0005). There was a positive relationship between

innovative and supportive cultures and organizational commitment. Thus,

hypothesis 2 was rejected. The R 2 for the model was 0.34, thus, a high percentage

of the variance in organizational commitment was explained by type of

organizational culture.

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 stated that there is no significant difference in productivity in

foodservice operations with different types of organizational culture. The

regression model testing the relationship was not significant, and the hypothesis

was not rejected.

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 stated that there is no significant difference in absenteeism in

foodservice operations with different types of organizational culture. The

regression model testing this relationship was not significant, and the hypothesis

was not rejected.

38
 Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 5 stated that there is no difference in turnover in foodservice

operations with different types of organizational culture. The regression model

testing this relationship was not significant. This hypothesis was not rejected.

Hypothesis 6

Hypothesis 6 stated that there is no significant relationship between job

satisfaction and the variables gender, age, education level, and years of experience.

The regression model testing this hypothesis was not significant. Thus, this

hypothesis was not rejected. Sneed and Herman (1990) also found no significant

relationship between job satisfaction and the variables length of employment, age,

and education for hospital foodservice employees.

Hypothesis 7

Hypothesis 7 stated that there is no significant relationship between

organizational commitment and the variables gender, age, educational level, and

years of experience. The regression model testing this hypothesis was significant

(F= 1. 77, p=0.0269), age (p=0.0211) was the significant individual variable. Thus,

this hypothesis was rejected. The model had a very low R 2 value (0.07) therefore,

demographic variables do not explain much of the variance in organizational

commitment. Sneed and Herman (1990) found that demographic variables for

39
nonsupervisory hospital foodservice employees were related to organizational

commitment, with age also being the only significant individual variable.

Hypothesis 8

Hypothesis 8 stated that there is no significant relationship between job

satisfaction and the independent variables organizational culture type, gender, age,

educational level, and years of experience types for foodservice employees. The

regression model was significant (F=15.14, p=O~OOOl); innovative and supportive

culture types and gender were the significant individual variables. Therefore, this

hypothesis was rejected. The R 2 for the model was 0.21, thus, these independent

variables accounted for 21 % of the variance in job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 9

Hypothesis 9 stated that there is no significant relationship between

organizational commitment and the independent variables organizational culture

type, gender, age, educational level, and years of experience for foodservice

employees. This regression model was significant (F=33.48, p=0.0001); innovative

and supportive culture types, gender, and age were the significant individual

variables. Thus this hypothesis was rejected. The R 2 for the model was 0.37, thus,

these independent variables accounted for 37% of the variance in organizational

commitment. Adding the demographic variables increased the R 2 by 0.03.

40
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

This study determined the levels of each of the three types of

organizational culture (bureaucratic, innovative, or supportive), and the

relationships among organizational culture, affective outcomes (job satisfaction

and organizational commitment), and behavioral outcomes (turnover, absenteeism,

and productivity) in 18 hospital foodservice operations in Canada and the United

States. The influence of employee demographic characteristics on job satisfaction

and organizational commitment were examined also. Two instruments were used

for data collection. The historical data instrument obtained data to calculate

productivity, turnover, and absenteeism for each hospital. The four-part employee

instrument included the 24-item Organizational Culture Index to determine the

culture-type in each hospital, the 15-item Organizational Commitment

Questionnaire, five questions designed to determine employees perceptions of job

satisfaction, and demographic items.

The predominant culture was found to be bureaucratic. This could

probably be explained by the nature of the organizations being surveyed.

Foodservice departments in health care institutions tend to depend on the

bureaucratic management style when management has to be able to plan and

execute often in crisis situations to fulfill the objectives required in this service-

oriented type of operation (Schuster, 1988). While bureaucratic mean scores were

41
highest (14.9 + 4.3), mean scores for innovative and supportive cultures were not

much lower (13.2 + 4.3 and 12.7 + 5.0, respectively).

In this study, positive relationships existed between supportive and

innovative cultures and job satisfaction, and between supportive and innovative

cultures and organizational commitment. Thus, food service managers should try

to devise methods that promote these culture types, in order to enhance both job

satisfaction and organizational commitment within their organization.

Age was the only demographic variable significantly related to

organizational commitment. This is congruent with research done in hospital

foodservice by Sneed and Herman (1990). Innovative and supportive cultures and

gender were significantly related to job satisfaction. Innovative and supportive

cultures, gender, and age were significantly related to organizational commitment.

Limitations

There were a few limitations that should be acknowledged in this study.

The number of hospitals surveyed was limited to ten in eastern Canada and nine

in East Tennessee. The time frame available to conduct the study, and the fact

that the researcher personally administered the instrument, limited the number of

hospitals that could be included in the study. Not all variables in the study could

be calculated for all 19 hospitals because of the unavailability of historical data

from some institutions surveyed. One hospital surveyed was eliminated from the

study because of environmental problems experienced during the period.

42
Restricted geographic location (ie, East Tennessee and eastern Canada) also

posed limitations as to the generalizability of the results of the study. The

questionnaire did not measure aspects of the environment that may affect

employees' regional interpretation of adjectives used in the OCI.

Recommendations

Applications for Practitioners

This study showed a positive relationship between supportive and

innovative cultures and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment,

therefore, the foodservice practitioner may find it useful to identify the culture

peculiar to his/her organization. This study should provide some useful guidelines

for initially evaluating organizational culture, then clarifying and articulating it. At

this point the practitioner may want to either reinforce or alter the present

cultural environment, in order to enhance job satisfaction and organizational

commitment within the organization.

Although the mean productivity level of 3.8 + 3.2 meals per labor hour

recorded in the study closely corresponded with the average productivity level of

3.5 meals per labor hour in hospitals (Sneed and Kresse, 1989) it appears that

levels of productivity are generally lower in the foodservice industry than for

industry in general. In an age where economic accountability has become

increasingly important, it may be useful for the practicing foodservice manager to

43
evaluate and monitor present levels of productivity so as to promote improvement

within the particular operation.

Although pilot testing was done with the historical data instrument, it was

extremely difficult, if not impossible, for some foodservice managers to retrieve

the information required. It is recommended that all hospital foodservice

directors maintain these data in order to monitor performance by developing

trend data.

Directions of Future Research

The purpose of the Organizational Culture Index is to measure the

predominant type of organizational culture as perceived by the foodservice

employees. The questionnaire required that the employees respond to a number

of adjectives that corresponded in varying degrees to their perception of their

particular organization. Organizational culture is a complex construct which is

difficult to measure in a way that is appropriate for all foodservice employees in

different geographic locations. Other studies should evaluate alternate methods of

assessing organizational culture.

The study was limited to two very specific regions in Canada and the

United States. Future research efforts might increase the sample size to include

hospitals representative of the entire population of hospitals from both countries.

Increasing the sample size may help to expose other relationships between the

variables studied since the sample was small for analyses using the hospital as the

44
unit of analysis. In selecting samples from entire populations of both countries,

cultural differences may become evident within regions and within each country.

45
REFERENCES
 References

Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concepts of commitment. American Journal

of Sociology, 66, 32-40.

Blakeslee, G.S., Suntrup, E.L. & Kernaghan, J.A. (1985). How much is turnover
costing you? Personnel Journal, 64(11), 98-103.

Calbeck, D.C., Vaden, A.G., & Vaden, R.E. (1979). Work-related values and
satisfactions. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 73, 434-440.

Carrier, H. (1989). Gospel Message and Human Cultures. Pittsburg: Duquesne

University Press.

Cronbach, L. ( 1951 ). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

DeMicco, F.J., & Reid, R.D. (1988). Older workers: A hiring resource for the
hospitality industry. The Cornell HRA Quarterly, 29(1), 56-61.

DeMicco, F.J., & Giridharan, J. (1987). Managing employee turnover in the

hospitality industry. FIU Hospitality Review, ~(2), 26-32.

Deveny, K. (1986). McWorld? McDonald's can make a big mac anywhere, but
duplicating its culture abroad won't be easy. Business Week, 78-86.

Duke, K.M., & Sneed, J. (1989). A research model for relating job characteristics
to job satisfaction of university foodservice employees. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 89, 1087-1091.

Fintel, J. (1989). Restaurant cultures, positive cultures can keep companies

healthy. Restaurants U.S.A., 2(10), 12-18.

Hess, M.A. (1988). The hundredth monkey: The new consciousness in dietetics.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 88, 669-670.

Hopkins, D.E., Vaden, A.G., & Vaden, R.E. (1980). Some aspects of
organization identification among school foodservice employees. School
Food Service Research Review, 1, 34-42.

Hunt, S.D., Wood, V.R., & Chonko, L.B. (1989). Corporate ethical values and
organizational commitment in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 53(7),
79-90.

47
King, S.S. (1989). Human Communication as a Field of Study, New York: State
University of New York Press. Albany.

Koberg, C.S., & Chusmir, L.H. (1987). Organizational culture relationships with
creativity and other job-related variables. Journal of Business Research, 15,
397-409.

Koch, J.L., & Steers, R.M. (1978). Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover
among public sector employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12,
119-128.

Laser, S.A. (1980). Dealing with the problem of employee turnover. Human
Resource Management. 19( 4), 17-21.

Levinson, H. (1988). You won't recognize me: Predictions about changes in top-
management characteristics. The Academy of Management Executive,
2(2), 119-125.

Locke, A.E. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 1(4), 309-336.

Martin, J.M., & Vaden, A.G. (1978). Behavioral science research in hospital
foodservice. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 73, 127-130.

McNichols, C.W., Stahl, M.J., & Manley, T.R. (1978). A validation of Hoppock's
job satisfaction measure. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4), 737-742.

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1986). Development and consequences of three
components of organizational commitment. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Whistler,
British Columbia, Canada.

Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, LR., Goffin, R.D., & Jackson, D.N. (1989).
Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the
commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of
organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Myrtle, R.C. (1978). Problems and job satisfactions of administrative and clinical
dietitians. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 72, 295-298.

National Restaurant Association Current Issues Report. (1990). Foodservice

employers and the labor market. Washington, DC: Author.

48
Pettigrew, A.M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581.

Porter, L.W., Crampon, W.J., & Smith, F.J. (1976). Organizational commitment
and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 15, 87-98.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Boulian, P.V. (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among
psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

Rezmerski, B. (1986). The case for commitment. Training, 23(5), 142.

Riehle, H. (1991). A review of employee turnover rates. Restaurants USA,

11(4), 37-39.

Rose, J.C. (1984). Handbook for health care foodservice management.

Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation.

SAS Institute, Inc. (1985). SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Eduction.
Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.

Schatz, K.M. (1986). The art of evoking commitment. Training, 23(10), 130.

Schuster, K. (1988). The people puzzle. Food Management, 27( 4), 110-115,
120-125.

Schwartz, H., & Davis, S.M. (1981). Matching corporate culture and business
strategy. Organizational Dynamics, 10(1), 30-48.

Scott, D., & Markham, S. (1982). Absenteeism control methods: A survey of

practices and results. Personnel Administrator, 27(6), 73-84.

Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of
satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago Rand McNally.

Sneed, J. (1988). Job characteristics and job satisfaction of school foodservice

employees. School Food Service Research Review, 12, 65-68.

Sneed, J., & Herman, C.M. (1990). Job characteristics, organizational

commitment, and job satisfaction of hospital foodservice employees. Journal
of the American Dietetic Association, 90, 1072-1076.

49
Sneed, J., & Kresse, K.H. (1989). Understanding Foodservice Financial
Management. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Strauss, G., & Sayles, L.R. (1980). Personnel: The Human Problems of
Management. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tennessee Hospital Association. (1987). Tennessee Hospital Association: 1987

Membership Directory. Nashville, TN: Author.

Tidball, K.H. (1988). Creating a culture that builds your bottom line. The
Cornell HRA Quarterly, 29(1), 63-69.

Wallach, E.J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match.

Training and Development Journal, 37(2), 28-36.

Wasmuth, J., & Davis, S.W. (1983). Managing employee turnover. The Cornell
HRA Quarterly, 23( 4), 15-22.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. (1983). Springfield: Merriam

Webster Inc.

Woods, R.H. (1989). More alike than different: The culture of the restaurant
industry. The Cornell HRA Quarterly, 30(2), 82-97.

Woods, R.H. & Macaulay, J.F. (1989). Rx for turnover: Retention programs
that work. The Cornell HRA Quarterly, 30(1), 78-90.

Zemke, R. (1989). Anthropologists in the corporate jungle. Training, 26( 4),

48-60.

50
APPENDIXES
 APPENDIX A

Human Subjects Review Approval

 KNOXVILLE

CRP #: 3244 A DATE: 05/09/90

Tit1e: Organizational culture, commitment, and job satisfaction of
hospital foodservice employees
Office of the
Gilbert, Nancy M. Snee~O~nfe7
Vice Provost
Nutrition & Food Sciences Nutnti or,:.i.g/•Fooci--Sci enc es
for~h 229 Jessie Harris Bldg. 229 Jessie Harris Bldg.
Campus Campus

The project listed above has been certified exempt from review by the
Committee on Research Participation and is approved.
This certification is for a period ending one year from the date of
this 1etter. Please make timely submission of renewal or prompt
notification of project termination (see item #2 below).
The responsibilities of the project director include the following:
1. Prior approval from the Coordinator of Compliances must be
obtained before any changes in the project are instituted.
2. Submission of a Form D at 12-month intervals attesting to the
current status of the project (protocol is still in effect,
project is terminated, etc.).
We wish you success in your research endeavors.
Sincerely,
f_ritt.i-:.:.1 ::r,.::,;D: ::'"~....,1
Edith M. Szathmary
Coordinator of Compliances

cc: Or. James 0. Moran III

229 Jessie Harris Bldg.
Attachment: Copy of Form A
NOTE:> Approval is contingent upon your submitting to this office letters
from the respective hospitals (on their letterheads) granting you
permission to use their faci1ities and interact with their personnel

404 Andy Hole Tower/Knoxvtlle, Tenn~ Ji996-0l40/(6l5) 974-3466

53
 APPENDIX B

Historical Data Questionnaire

 HISTORICAL DATA
FOR JUNE 1, 1989 THROUGH :MAY 31, 1990

~~ ,:.,
iJ·S
-..; ~ ::: ilJ ~
:;;
....
§~ ~ 't: ""'
~ g.c:.... """ .i:;
.:i ~~ .c"'
::: ~ u:.., ':-...
u ..9
\..;

~
0 t.iJ
..... 'S1
a~
-0 ~
c..... ....
0
-~
;;
~.o
•:::
::: ce ~ ::: tJ
~~
cy ,,c;
::: ~;;..
~~t
~ ~ C,
...._;.$ ~-$ ~-•::: <I
~-$

Januarv

Februarv

March

Aori.l

Mav

June

Julv

Au£Ust

Semember

Ocrober

November

December
1
Full-time equivalents.
2
Number of employees leaving organization because of resignation or firing.
3
N umber of employees who are scheduled to work and do not report.

Code No. _ _ __

Return co: Nancy Gilbert, P.Dt/Je~nie Snee4 Ph.D., R.D.

Department of N ucrition and Food Sciences
229 JHB
1215 Cumberland A venue
Knoxville, TN 37996-1900
USA 55
 APPENDIX C

Employee Questionnaire
 YOUR ORGANIZATION
WHAT'S IT LIKE?

:-;;.~~-::~---.
·. ·.;.. ..
~,,,
.. : . ...
.... .. ~- . -
..·.,.., .. . ~

·-· -~
;
. . -~
' :
. J

·I
·/
: !

l
I

' I

---- 11.._ ___

Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences

College of Human Ecology
The University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996-1900

April 1990

57
PART I.

Please circle a score from the scale below which most closely corresponds with how you see your organization.

Does not Describes my Describes my Describes my

describe my organization organization organization
organization a little a fair amount most of the time

Q-1. Rislc taking 0 2 3

Q-2. Collaborative 0 2 3
(everyone works together)
Q-3. Hierarchical 0 2 3
(emphasis on rank)
Q-4. Procedural 0 2 3
Q-5. Relationships-oriented 0 2 3
Q-6. Results-oriented 0 2 3
Q-7. Creative 0 2 3
Q-8. Encouraging 0 2 3
Q-9. Sociable 0 2 3
Q· 10. Structured 0 2 3
Q-11. Pressurized 0 2 3
Q-12. Ordered 0 2 3
Q-13. Stimulating 0 2 3
Q-14. Regulated 0 2 3
Q-15. Personal freedom 0 2 3
Q-16. Equitable (fair) 0 2 3
Q-17. Safe (no risk) 0 2 3
Q-18. Challenging 0 2 3
Q- t 9. Enterprising 0 2 3
Q-20. Established, solid 0 2 3
Q-21. Cautious 0 2 3
Q-22. Trusting 0 2 3
Q-23. Driving 0 2 3
Q-24. Power-oriented 0 2 3

Developed by Ellen Wallach. © 1983, Training and Development Journal, Americ:in Society of Training and
Development. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

58
PART II

Listed below are statemerus about possible feelings you might have about the organization for which you work.
Please circle the nwnber that best describes the following statements.

Q-25. I am willing to put a great deal of effort beyond that

normally expected in order to help this organization
be successful. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-26. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great
organization to work for. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-27. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-28. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in
order to keep working for this organization. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-29. I find that my values and lhe organization's values
are very similar. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-30. l am proud to tell others lhat I am part of this organization. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-3 l. l could just as well be working for a different organization
as long as the type of work was similar. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-32. This organization really inspires lhe very best in me in
the way of job perfonnance. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-33. Ct would take very little change in m~· present
circumstances to cause me to leave this organization. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-34. I am extremely glad that I chose this orgaruzation to work
for over others that I was considering at the time I joined. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-35. There is not too much to be gained by sticking with this
organization indefinitely. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-36. Often. l find it difficult to agree with this organization's
policies on important matters relating to its employees. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-37. I really care about the fate of lhis organization. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-38. For me this is the best of all possi~''" or~anizations
for which to work. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q-39. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite
mistake on my part. 2 3 4 5 6 7

59
PART III.

Elch of the following are statements related to your satisfaction with different aspecrs of your work situation.
Circle the number of the statement that most agrees with your feelings.

Q-40. I am satisfied with the supervision I receive on my job.

Q-4 l. I enjoy the people that I work with.
Q-42. I enjoy the work I do.
Q-43. I am satisfied with my present pay. 4
Q44. I am satisfied with my oppommities for promotion. 4

Finally, we would like to ask some questions about you to help interpret the results.

Q-45. Your sex (Circle number of your answer)

1 Male
2 Female

Q-46. Your present age (Circle number)

1 Less than 20
2 20-29
3 30-39
4 40-49
5 50-59
6 Over 60

Q-47. Which is the highest level of education that you have completed? (Circle number)

Some grade school

2 Completed grade school
3 Some high school
4 Completed high school
5 Some technic:21 school
6 Completed technical school
7 Some college
8 Completed college

Q-48. Number of years that you have been employed in foodservice (Circle number)

1 Less than 5 years

2 6 to 10 years
3 11 to 15 years
4 16 to 20 years
5 21 to 25 years
6 More than 26 years

Q-49. What is your current employment status? (Circle one)

1 employed full time (35 or more hours per week)

2 employed part time (less than 35 hours per week)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE

60
 APPENDIX D

Letter of Permission
 THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
KNOXVILLE

March 8, 1990

Dr. Lyman W. Poner

Professor
Graduate School of Administration
College of University of California, Irvine
Human Ecology L-vin.:, CA 92717
Nutrition and
Food Science Dear Dr. Poner:

I am writing to request permission to use the Organizational

Commitment Questionnaire for research chat I am conducting at the
University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The survey will be administered to
foodservice employees in selected hospitals (over 200-bed) in both
eastern Canada and east Tennessee. The OCI will be incorporated as
part of an instrument to determine the relationship among organizational
culture, affective outcomes Uob satisfaction and organizational
commitment) and behavioral outcomes (productivity, absenteeism, and
turnover).

I would appreciate your forwarding a letter of permission. I am

enclosing a self-addressed, scamped envelope for your convenience.

Sincerely,

jtdtv.r
~lben
Graduate Student

l215 West Cumberland Avenue, Room 229/Knoxvtlle, Tt:nnessee, 3i996-l900/(615) 974-5++5. 9i4-349i

62
APPENDIX E

Contact Letter
 THE UNIVERSITI OF TENNESSEE
KNOXVILLE

April 30, 1990

..
.

'College of
Human Ecology
Nucmion and
F-ood Science
Dear Ms.

There is an immediate need within the foodservice industry to implement

programs that will effectively increase productivity, decrease rurnover and.
absenteeism. and positively affect job satisfaction and job commitment.
Organizational culture may have an impact on these organizational outcomes.
However. little is known about the relationship among these variables ·in
foodservice operations. thus, this will be the focus of our research.

Your assistance and suppon is critical to the success of this study. We would.
appreciate it if you would allow Ms. Gilben to administer a questionnaire to
foodservice employees in your operation. She would like to administer the
survey to a group of employees during normal working hours at a time
convenient to you. She will read the questions aloud to the entire group to
allow individuals with limited reading skills to panicipate. The entire process·
should take no longer than 30 minutes.

Participation of individual employees would be strictly voluntary. These

surveys will not be identified in any way by name or code numbers to ensure
complete anonymity. Neither the employee nor the institutions participating will
be identified. All data will be compiled and rcponed as group data. A
summary of study results will be provided upon request.

Ms. Gilbert will contact you by telephone by May 15 to determine your interest
in participation and to set a date for data collection. We appreciate your
cooperation and feel confident that the findings of this study will be useful to
managers in the foodservicc industry.

Sincerely,

~fiL.t
Ms. Nancy Gilbert. P.Dt.
Graduate S rudent
~rL
Jeannie Sneed. Ph.D.,R.D.
Assistant Professor

1215 West Cumberland Avenue, Room 229/Knaxville, Tenn~ 37996-1900/(615) 974-5445, 974-3491

64
 VITA

Nancy Margaret Gilbert is a professional dietitian (P .Dt. ). She received a

diploma in Home Economics from Centralia College of Agricultural Technology i1_1

Centralia, Ontario, Canada in 1969. Following this, she worked as a foodservice

supervisor for a number of foodservice operations. She received a Bachelor of

Science degree in Home Economics from Mount Saint Vincent University in

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, in 1977. She completed a dietetic internship at the

Victoria General Hospital in Halifax in 1978. In 1983 she completed a Bachelor

of Education at Mount Saint Vincent University. She instructed courses in the

Home Economics Department, Child Study Department, and in the Tourism and

Hospitality Management Program at Mount Saint Vincent University.

In 1989 Ms. Gilbert began study toward a Master of Science degree in

Food Systems Administration at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. During

this period she worked as a Teaching Assistant in the Hotel and Restaurant

Administration program.

Ms. Gilbert is a member of the Nova Scotia Dietetic Association, the

Canadian Dietetic Association, Delta Kappa Gamma, and Kappa Omicron Nu.

The author plans to pursue a doctoral program in the future and to continue to

teach in a university program.

65