International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Central Florida] On: 10 May 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 784375776] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306898

Understanding Why Women Work in Five-Star Hotels in a Developing Country and Their Work-Related Problems

Fevzi Okumusa; Mehmet Sariisikb; Sandra Naipaula a Rosen College of Hospitality Management, The University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA b Derbent School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Kocaeli University, Turkey Online publication date: 09 February 2010

To cite this Article Okumus, Fevzi , Sariisik, Mehmet and Naipaul, Sandra(2010) 'Understanding Why Women Work in

Five-Star Hotels in a Developing Country and Their Work-Related Problems', International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 11: 1, 76 — 105 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15256480903539693 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15256480903539693

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 11:76–105, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1525-6480 print/1528-6499 online DOI: 10.1080/15256480903539693

Understanding Why Women Work in Five-Star Hotels in a Developing Country and Their Work-Related Problems

1528-6499 Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 1525-6480 10WJHT International Administration Vol. 11, No. 1, December 2009: pp. 0–0

Downloaded By: [University of Central Florida] At: 21:21 10 May 2011

Understanding F. Okumus et al. Why Women Work in Five-Star Hotels

FEVZI OKUMUS

Rosen College of Hospitality Management, The University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

MEHMET SARIISIK Derbent School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Kocaeli University, Turkey

SANDRA NAIPAUL Rosen College of Hospitality Management, The University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

This study investigated why women work in five-star hotels in a developing country and what type of problems they face when working in these organizations. The empirical data was collected via a survey from 571 women working in five-star hotels in Turkey. Having formal training and education in tourism, high interest in the industry, and enjoyment of working in tourism were the most important reasons for the participants to work in tourism organizations. The study findings further reveal that lack of sufficient time for friends and relatives, low wages and the difficulty of getting a promotion were the main job-related problems for women working in five-star hotels in Turkey. The research findings provide partial support for previous studies but also provide additional insights into this relatively under researched area. KEYWORDS women, employment, human resources, tourism, hotel, developing country, Turkey

Received February 8, 2008; revisions recieved April 8, 2008; accepted April 23, 2008. Address correspondence to Fevzi Okumus, Rosen College of Hospitality Management, The University of Central Florida, Universal Blvd., Orlando, FL 32819, USA. E-mail: fokumus @mail.ucf.edu 76

Understanding Why Women Work in Five-Star Hotels

77


INTRODUCTION The role of women in employment has changed in many countries as a result of major developments in sociocultural, economic, and legal environments. Today, more than 40% of the world’s labor force is female (International Labor Organization [ILO], 2006) and this ratio is expected to rise worldwide in the coming years. There is no doubt this will have implications on managing human resources in public and private organizations. The tourism and hospitality industry accounts for more than 10% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) and has created directly and indirectly over 230 million jobs (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2007). This industry offers various occupations for men and women. Men are mainly employed as barmen, gardeners, construction workers, drivers, and pilots, whereas women generally work either in their traditional roles of cooks, housekeeping maids, and waitresses or in high-profile roles such as receptionists, sales clerks, and marketing representatives (Jordan, 1997; Kusluvan, 2003; Purcell, 1997). However, the tourism industry has a female-dominated workforce of about 70%, particularly in developing countries (ILO, 2001; Kusluvan, 2003; Woods, 1999). Hemmati (1999) noted that major differences exist between developed countries and developing countries in terms of female participation ratios in tourism employment. However, projections suggest that in both developed and developing countries, the tourism industry will continue to be one of the major growth areas of employment for women (Hemmati, 1999; ILO, 2001; Woods, 1999). Numerous studies have investigated why women work in tourism and what types of work-related problems they face when working in this industry (Brownell, 1994; Burgess, 2003; Burrell, Manfredi, Rollin, Price, & Stead, 1997; Cukier, Norris, & Wall, 1996; Doherty, 2004; Doherty & Manfredi, 2001; Hemati, 1999; Hjalager & Andersen, 2001; Iverson, 2000; Kattara, 2005; Knutson & Schmidgall, 1999; Ng & Pine, 2003; Purcell, 1997; Sehanovic, Zugaj, Krizman, & Bojanic-Glavica, 2000; Szivas & Riley, 1999; Szivas, Riley, & Airey, 2003; Woods & Viehland, 2000). However, the majority of those studies have been carried out in developed countries and there is still a paucity of knowledge on these issues in the context of developing countries. In addition, there is limited knowledge on how far demographic characteristics of female employees (e.g. age, education, income, marital status, work experience, and position) influence their decision to work in tourism and also impact on the types of problems they face when working in this industry. Having identified this gap in the field, a research project was undertaken to investigate these issues in the context of a developing country, namely Turkey. It was believed that providing empirical evidence on these issues from Turkey would particularly be important for a number of reasons. As a developing country, Turkey has been experiencing a rapid economic and sociocultural transition. Despite this, traditional values and customs are


78

F. Okumus et al.

still maintained and women are usually expected to stay at home to look after their children and carry out household duties. Working in tourism organizations is not always seen as very prestigious for women (Kusluvan & Kusluvan, 2000). On the other hand, due to a number of economic reasons, the ratio of the female to male workforce in Turkey has increased over the last two decades (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2006) and the tourism industry appears to be one of the favorite choices for women to search in for employment in Turkey. For example, it is estimated that the tourism industry in Turkey generates over 2.5 million jobs (Tursab, 2007). According to the State Statistics Bureau, over 500,000 women worked in wholesale, retail trade, restaurants, and hotels in 2004 in Turkey (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2006). In the same year, the female labor force was about 6.3 million and the female workforce ratio including all industries was 25.4% (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2006). It can therefore be claimed that about 15% of the total female workforce in the country is employed in wholesale, retail trade, restaurants, and hotels. However, there has been limited research on why women work in tourism in Turkey, and what type of work-related problems they face when working in this industry. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on these areas.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN IN TOURISM In their seminal study, Goldthorpe, Lockwood, Bechhofer, and Platt (1968) investigated numerous aspects of work experience and developed an instrument which they called “orientations to work.” They claimed that outside the workplace, such as family and friends, the community plays a key role in employees’ values and attitudes towards work. Goldthorpe et al. (1968) proposed three dimensions to the meaning of work which include instrumental, bureaucratic, and solidaristic orientations. As noted by Riley, Ladkin, and Szivas (2002) the instrumental orientation views work as a means to an end where employees work to earn the necessary income to support their own life and that of their family. For the bureaucratic orientation, work is valued for its long-term career that secures increases in income and job status. Finally, the solidaristic orientation views work not only in economic returns but also in moral considerations. Studies by Crompton and Harris (1998) and Reed (1997) further extended Goldthorpe et al.’s (1968) study. Riley et al. (2001) claim that the above typologies proposed by Goldthorpe et al. (1968) may be appropriate for employment in tourism since working in this industry is more than simply having a job to earn income; it requires a certain way of work and family life. By extending the typologies of Goldthorpe et al. (1968), Szivas and Riley (1999) developed a four-dimensional model to suit the specific characteristics of employment in the tourism industry. Their



79

model has four dimensions: (a) instrumental utility, (b) positive commitment to tourism, (c) refuge orientation, and (d) entrepreneurial orientation. As noted previously, instrumental utility refers to achieving economic independence. For example, earning income is one of the most important reasons for why people work in tourism since access to an adequate level of steady income enables men and women to support themselves and their families. In addition, there is no need to emphasize that their earnings can enhance their power in family decisions and help them achieve financial independence from their parents and/or from their husbands (Ilkkaracan, 1998). Positive commitment to tourism means that employment in tourism is chosen because of the intrinsic value of the jobs such as image, and pleasant and better working conditions (Riley et al., 2001). For example, compared to agriculture and manufacturing industries, employment in tourism may offer better working conditions and higher income, particularly in developing countries (Cukier & Wall, 1993; Cukier et al., 1996). Under the refugee orientation, people choose to work in tourism because it may give them a chance to move out from a declining industry, an unpleasant job, or unemployment (Riley et al., 2001). For example, in some cases, women may work because there are no other alternative occupations available for them. In addition, employment in tourism organizations can give women the flexibility of managing their domestic household duties while working in tourism organizations (Iverson, 2000). Finally, entrepreneurial orientation explains that employment in tourism may offer people opportunities to accumulate some capital and experience to open their own business. Szivas and Riley (1999) identified different motives for both men and women preferring to work in tourism in Hungary. In their empirical study, they found that the most important six motives for working in tourism were: I wanted an interesting job, I wanted to work in a pleasant surrounding, I wanted a job in which I could deal with people, I wanted to achieve a better living standard, I wanted better working conditions, and I wanted an appropriate income. Overall their findings indicated that statements under positive commitment to tourism received higher mean scores. However, their findings further implied that refugee and instrumental utility dimensions were also important to understanding why people worked in tourism in Hungary. Based on their findings, Szivas and Riley (1999) suggested that when evaluating tourism employment, there is an essential need to consider the country’s economic, political, and social-cultural characteristics. As stated by Cukier and Wall (1993), Cukier and Wall (1994) and Wood (1997) tourism is often perceived in Western societies as a low-paying, low-skill, and low value-added industry. Based on their research findings, Szivas and Riley (1999) claimed that in many developing countries including Hungary, employment in tourism can pay higher wages and provide more skills and favorable working conditions compared to other industries.

80

F. Okumus et al.

Szivas et al. (2003) later replicated the previous study and collected data from male and female workers in tourism organizations in England. Interestingly, their empirical findings greatly supported the findings of their previous study in Hungary (Szivas & Riley, 1999). Their findings indicated that people worked in this industry because they wanted to deal with people, work in pleasant surroundings, and find an interesting job. According to their research findings, the statements under the positive commitment to tourism orientation received higher mean scores. Their study findings revealed no significant differences between the rural and urban experiences of labor mobility into tourism.


WORK–RELATED PROBLEMS FOR WOMEN WORKING IN TOURISM The main work-related problems include gender inequality, low wages, irregular and unsocial working hours, less time for family responsibilities, harassment, and difficulty in getting promotion (Brownell, 1994; Burgess, 2003; Doherty, 2004; ILO, 2001; Kusluvan, 2003; Purcell, 1996, 1997). For example, in spite of increased employment of women in all management levels, the inequalities in work and pay have not yet been overcome. Women are generally employed at lower levels for the same length of service and have career breaks, which impact on their salaries and promotions (Burgess, 2003; Doherty, 2004; ILO, 2001). In addition, women often have less training and educational opportunities than men. As a result, they cannot advance beyond the normal expectations and find themselves occupying lower level positions for a long time (Burgess, 2003; Purcell, 1996). Subsequently, women receive lower pay and more limited promotional opportunities than men (ILO, 2001). Conflicts between family responsibilities and work affect women’s decisions to work in tourism (Brownell, 1994; Doherty, 2004). In addition, the combination of physically demanding work and long work hours often deter women from working in tourism organizations. For women, working for tourism organizations may mean spending limited time with the family, friends and relatives for social interaction, communication and leisure. However, in a number of studies (Maxwell, 1997; Ng & Pine, 2003) it was found that many women are committed and willing to work night shifts, long hours and weekends in order to progress in their careers.

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY Turkey has experienced a tremendous growth in tourism, particularly in international tourist arrivals, revenues, and bed capacity over the last three decades. Provision of generous incentives for investors in the 1980s resulted



81

in this rapid tourism growth in the south and south-west regions of the country. For example, international tourist arrivals rose from 6.5 million in 1993 to 19.8 million in 2006. Tourism revenues rose from $7.7 million in 1963 to a staggering $12.5 billion in 2006 (Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2007; Tursab, 2007). Tourism has contributed greatly to the country’s economy. For example, the share of tourism receipts in exports earnings and GDP was 2.1% and 0.1% in 1963. Over the three decades it has gradually increased to 28.2% and 6.6% respectively in 2005 (Tursab, 2007). Despite this growth, the industry has been facing serious problems for many years, including seasonality, low occupancy rates, a high dependency on tour operators, transportation difficulties, inadequate infrastructure, a lack of qualified staff, a lack of sound marketing strategies, a high percentage of lower-income tourists, and the effects of national and global crises (Okumus & Karamustafa, 2005; Tosun, 2001). Tourism in Turkey has been often perceived as a remedy to overcome the country’s economic problems, particularly in the areas of unemployment, balance of payments, and income distribution. However, it is difficult to claim that sound plans and policies have been developed and implemented in order to eliminate the tourism industry’s problems (Tosun, 2001; Tosun & Timothy, 2001). Similar to macro level tourism planning practices, one cannot claim that sound plans and policies on tourism education and employment have been developed and implemented. As stated by Okumus and Yagci (2005) there has been lack of vision, plans, and coordination in tourism education and tourism employment planning in Turkey.

METHODOLOGY As an exploratory study, this research aimed to investigate why women work in five-star hotels in Turkey and evaluate what type of work-related problems they face when working in this industry. After reviewing the relevant literature, several open-ended interviews were conducted with female employees working in two hotels in Istanbul, Turkey. Based on these interviews, a questionnaire was drafted. The questionnaire consisted of four sections. The first section included 5-point Likert scale questions (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) concerning numerous motives explaining why women work in tourism. The statements in this section were taken from Szivas and Riley (1999). Further, interviewing female employees working in two five-star hotels in Istanbul, Turkey, and also piloting the draft survey in a five-star hotel in Istanbul, this section was revised and finalized. For example, it was particularly noted during our interviews that the respondents did not refer to issues very much related to the entrepreneurial and refugee orientations.


82

F. Okumus et al.

After piloting the draft survey, it was further noticed that statements related to entrepreneurial orientation did not receive any support. Therefore, those statements related to this orientation were removed. The second part included 5-point Likert scale questions about whether women were satisfied with working in tourism and whether they would be interested in working in other industries if they had an opportunity. The third section included 5-point Likert scale questions with regard to problems faced by women working in tourism. The statements in this section were not directly taken from any previous studies; however, a number of previous studies were particularly used to develop the statements in this section (Brownell, 1994; Burgess, 2003; Burrell et al., 1997; Cukier & Wall, 1993; Cukier et al., 1996; Doherty & Manfredi, 2001; Hemati, 1999; Iverson, 2000; Lam, Zhang, & Baum, 2001; Purcell, 1996, 1997). The final section had demographic questions about the participants and their organizations. The questionnaire was then randomly distributed to 65 full-time female workers in a five-star hotel in Istanbul and based on the test results, items in each section were revised and reworded, and some items were removed. It was decided to collect data from female employees working in hotel organizations. The reason for this was that hotels employ the highest number of people in the tourism industry in Turkey, and hence also employ one of the highest percentages of women (ILO, 2001; Purcell, 1996) in tourism. It was further decided to collect data from five-star hotels in the hotel industry, believing that this type of establishment would practice more contemporary human resource management practices and they would also employ more women compared to other accommodation establishments. It was believed that in comparison with other types of businesses in this industry, managers of five-star hotels would value academic research more and therefore support such a research project. The empirical data was collected over a one and a half year period, from May 2002 to December 2003. There were 125 five-star hotels in Turkey in 2001 (Ministry of Tourism, 2002). These hotels were contacted by sending a letter and/or making phone calls asking whether they would be interested in participating in a research project. Among these hotels, 18 of them agreed to participate in the study. The participating hotels were located in different cities in Turkey: Istanbul (4), Antalya (6), Mugla (3), Ankara (1), Izmir (1), Aydin (1), Bursa (1), and Kocaeli (1). In terms of categorizing them under city and resort hotels, 8 of the hotels which were located in Istanbul, Ankara, Bursa, Izmir, and Kocaeli were city hotels, whereas the remaining 10 were resort hotels which were in Antalya, Mugla, Izmir, and Aydin. City hotels target more business and convention customers, whereas resort hotels cater to more foreign tourists visiting these destinations for sea, sun, and sand. During the data collection process, each participant company was asked about the number and percentage of female workers in the total number of employees. Based on the numbers obtained from all hotels, it



83

was found that 905 female and 1,687 male full-time workers were employed in the participating companies. The average ratio of female employment in the total number of 2,592 employees was 35%. Among the participating companies, this ratio varied from 25% to 46%. The percentage of women in total employment was 32% in resort hotels whereas the same ratio was 38% in city hotels. It was found that 22% of all female employees in resort hotels occupied managerial positions; whereas, the same ratio in city hotels rose to 38%. The female labor employment ratio in all industries in Turkey was 25.4% in 2004 (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2006). Given this, the ratio of female employment in the companies that participated in this study was higher than the national average. However, the ratio of female employment in this study appears to be lower than the ratio of female employment in tourism organizations in developed countries (ILO, 2001; Kusluvan, 2003; Woods, 1999). As stated above, there were 905 full-time female employees working in the participating companies. Based on this number, the questionnaire designed for this study was distributed to all female employees working in the participating companies. A total of 587 questionnaires were received, of which 571 were usable. The actual response rate was 63%. In total, 218 questionnaires (38.2%) from city hotels and 353 questionnaires (61.8%) from resort hotels were received. Three reasons can be given for this relatively high response rate. First, the participant companies and their managers were supportive of the project and encouraged their employees to participate in the study. Second, the questionnaire was short (only two pages) and it took less than 15 minutes to complete. Finally, the participants seemed to appreciate a research project investigating why they were working in tourism, and what types of problems they faced.

RESULTS Table 1 presents the demographic profile of women who participated in the study. Almost half of the participants were in the range of 21−25 years of age and interestingly over 95% of the participants were younger than 35 years of age. More than half of the respondents had a university level of education. About 46.2% of the participants had formal training and education in tourism and again about 32.6% of the participants received formal training and education in tourism at the university level. Less than half of the respondents were married and two-thirds of them had no children. A high proportion of all participants (72%) were frontline employees and the remaining 28% of them occupied a managerial position. A majority of the participants worked in housekeeping (39.4%) and food and beverage (24%) departments. This is in line with the findings of previous studies (Burrell et al., 1997; Cukier et al., 1996; Doherty & Manfredi, 2001; Purcell,

84

F. Okumus et al.


TABLE 1 Profile of Respondents (N = 571)

Age 20 or younger 21–25 26–30 31–35 36 and older Total Education Primary school (elementary and middle school) High school University (two year pre-degree and four year degree) Master’s Total Formal education in tourism Vocation high school University (two year pre-degree and four year degree) Master’s Total Marital status Married Single Total Department Front office Housekeeping Food and beverage Others (marketing, accounting, and other administrative positions) Total Position Frontline Manager (Senior: 2; Middle: 80; Supervisor: 78) Total Income (monthly $) 200 and less 201–300 301–400 401–500 +501 Total Work experience in tourism (in years) Less than 1 1–4 5–9 10 and more Total Work experience in the current organization (in years) Less than 1 1–4 5–9 10 and more Total

n

%

28 284 154 85 20 571

4.9 49.7 27.0 14.9 3.5 100.0

75 181 294 21 571

13.1 31.7 51.5 3.7 100.0

64 186 14 264

24.2 70.5 5.3 100.0

250 321 571

43.8 56.2 100.0

126 225 137 83 571

22.1 39.4 24.0 14.5 100.0

411 160 571

72.0 28.0 100.0

94 91 94 96 196 571

16.5 15.9 16.5 16.8 34.3 100.0

74 220 169 108 571

13.0 38.5 29.6 18.9 100.0

179 219 105 68 571

31.3 38.4 18.4 11.9 100.0



85

1997). The monthly income of the respondents varied from $200 to over $500. These figures were based on general income level rather than purchasing power. About half of the respondents had more than five-years work experience in the tourism industry. About one third of the participants worked less than a year in the participant companies. On the other hand, about 30% of the respondents worked in the participant companies over five years. It was noted that of the participants who had only the primary level of education, about 55% of them were married, and 81% of them were working in the housekeeping department. Differences were observed between resort and city hotels in terms of female employment ratios. City hotels were found to employ higher numbers of university graduates than resort hotels. It was also found that 55% of the participants in city hotels had over five-years working experience in tourism whereas in resort hotels, only 15% of the participants had over fiveyears working experience in tourism. There were differences between city and resort hotels in terms of income. For example, 80% of the participants in city hotels earned income over $401 monthly whereas this ratio was only 33% in resort hotels. As presented in Table 2, having a formal training and education in tourism, high interest in working in this industry, an enjoyment of working in tourism organizations, encouragement from friends and relatives, and a the possibility of earning high income were the five most important motives for women working in tourism. As presented in Table 2 the t-test results indicated significant differences on several items in relation to position, marital status, and type of hotel (resort or city). For example, in relation to position, the mean scores for managers were higher than the mean scores for frontline employees in three items: “I received formal tourism training and education,” “I am interested in working in tourism,” and “I enjoy working in tourism.” In relation to marital status, single women were more interested in and enjoyed working in tourism than married women. The mean score for single women for “I received formal tourism training and education” was higher than for married women. On the other hand, compared to single women, married women were encouraged more by their relatives and friends to work in tourism. The t-test results indicated significant differences between city hotels and resort hotels in four items. City hotels were found to have higher mean scores in the following items: “I received formal tourism training and education,” “I am interested in working in tourism,” “I enjoy working in tourism,” and “I am encouraged to work in tourism by my family and friends.” As presented in Table 3, in relation to motives for women working in tourism, the ANOVA test results revealed significant differences in terms of age groups, income levels, departments worked and education levels. For example, in relation to age levels, the mean scores for younger age groups (younger than 30) were higher than the mean scores for older age groups (older than 31) in the following items: “I received formal tourism training and education,”

86

F. Okumus et al.

TABLE 2 Motives for Women Working in Tourism Items I received formal training and education in tourism I am interested in working in tourism I enjoy working in tourism organizations I am encouraged to work in tourism by family and friends I can earn high income in tourism Working in tourism is prestigious I have had no other alternatives

N

M

SD

Ranking

519

3.81

1.576

1

526 533 441

3.46 3.40 3.00

1.372 1.364 1.569

2 3 4

463 424 449

2.78 2.73 2.38

1.226 1.552 1.800

5 6 7

Frontline


Position I received formal training and education in tourism I am interested in working in tourism I enjoy working in tourism organizations I am encouraged to work in tourism by family and friends I can earn high income in tourism Working in tourism is prestigious I have had no other alternatives Marital status I received formal training and education in tourism I am interested in working in tourism I enjoy working in tourism organizations I am encouraged to work in tourism by family and friends I can earn high income in tourism Working in tourism is prestigious I have had no other alternatives Types of hotel I received formal training and education in tourism I am interested in working in tourism I enjoy working in tourism organizations I am encouraged to work in tourism by family and friends I can earn high income in tourism Working in tourism is prestigious I have had no other alternatives

n

M

Manager SD

n

M

SD

t

p

375 3.63

1.66

144 4.28 1.210 4.971 .000

343 2.83 388 3.25 383 3.29

1.27 1.36 1.37

120 2.64 1.083 1.412 .159 145 3.82 1.278 4.390 .000 143 3.92 1.262 4.786 .000

326 2.96 1.59 315 2.69 1.55 334 2.49 1.83 Married 226 3.34 1.737

115 3.10 1.504 .778 109 2.85 1.557 .952 115 2.09 1.663 2.154 Single 293 4.17 1.334 5.956

.437 .341 .032 .000

214 2.81 1.355 249 2.75 1.105 .494 .621 232 3.11 1.337 301 3.63 1.345 4.402 .000 230 3.15 1.353 296 3.71 1.339 4.750 .000 200 3.24 1.569 241 2.80 1.544 191 2.63 1.629 233 2.81 1.485 205 2.58 1.912 244 2.22 1.687 City hotel Resort hotel 172 4.49 .976 347 3.47 1.704

2.918 .004 1.173 .241 2.115 .035 8.613 .000

121 2.79 1.233 342 2.77 1.225 .079 .937 183 3.67 1.219 350 3.27 1.417 3.250 .001 176 3.86 1.189 350 3.27 1.417 4.766 .000 116 3.30 1.680 325 2.89 1.515 2.445 .015 109 2.84 1.722 315 2.69 1.490 .881 .379 120 2.51 1.856 329 2.34 1.780 .890 .374

Note. Scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree. *p < .05. **p < .01.

“I am interested in working in tourism,” “I enjoy working in tourism,” and “Working in tourism is prestigious.” The mean scores for the participants who earned over $301 monthly income were higher than the participants who earned less than this amount in the following items: “I received formal tourism



87

training and education,” “I am interested in working in tourism,” “I enjoy working in tourism,” and “Working in tourism is prestigious.” In relation to departments worked, the mean scores for the participants in housekeeping were the lowest compared to the mean scores for the participants in other departments in the following items: “I received formal tourism training and education,” “I am interested in working in tourism,” “I enjoy working in tourism,” and “Working in tourism is prestigious.” The participants in higher education groups (undergraduate and masters degrees) had higher mean scores than the participants in lower education groups in the following items: “I received formal tourism training and education,” “I am interested in working in tourism,” “I enjoy working in tourism,” and “Working in tourism is prestigious.” Finally, in terms of work experience, the ANOVA test results did not indicate any significant differences in relation to work experience in tourism. These results were therefore not included in Table 3. A 5-point Likert scale question was asked to the participants about their satisfaction level with working in tourism. The results indicated that 17.5% of the participants were strongly satisfied and 32.9% of the respondents were satisfied working in tourism. About 26.3% of the participants were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied whereas 15.1% of the participants were dissatisfied, and the remaining 8.2% of the participants were strongly dissatisfied with working in tourism. The mean score for this question was 3.36. The ANOVA test was applied to see whether there were significant differences in the respondents’ satisfaction level with working in tourism with respect to their education, income, age, department, position, and experience in tourism. The ANOVA test results indicated differences only in income (F = 6.04, p < .01) and education levels (F = 3.66, p < .05). The Schaffee test results revealed that the participants who were in higher income groups (earning $301 and more) were more satisfied with working in tourism than those who were in lower monthly income groups ($300 and less). Again the research results revealed that the respondents with a university level education were more satisfied with working in tourism than the respondents who had primary and high school education. Concerning the satisfaction level with working in tourism and hospitality organizations, the mean score for single women was higher (M = 3.41, SD = 1.16) than married women (M = 3.31, SD = 1.12). However, the t-test results did not reveal any statistical differences among married and single women. Again, there were no significant differences (p > .05) in the participants’ satisfaction level with working in tourism with respect to whether they had any formal training and education or not. In other words, having formal training and education in tourism did not influence the participants’ satisfaction level with working in five-star hotels. The research findings revealed positive correlations between the satisfaction level of the participants with working in five-star hotels and income (r = .155; p < .01), as well

88 2.50 1.492 2.79 2.012

3.04 1.401 2.65 1.751

2.60 1.143 3.04 1.401

80 85

91 85

89 91

3.61 1.340 139 3.06 1.482 123

2.346 .054 9.735 .000

5.751 .000 2.494 .042

1.664 .157 4.817 .001

2.70 1.316 74 3.19 1.321 118 2.77 1.656 2.86 1.656 75 1.93 1.510 123 2.00 1.684

2.568 .038 5.378 .000

3.25 1.235 89 3.48 1.307 174 4.04 1.194 15.013 .000 3.33 1.392 79 3.23 1.240 121 2.93 1.521 2.570 .037

3.00 1.034 79 2.96 1.192 129 2.60 1.057 3.25 1.235 89 3.48 1.307 181 3.84 1.252

3.55 1.269 79 2.85 1.397 18 3.00 1.645 2.80 1.668 70 3.16 1.575 14 3.86 1.231

2.88 1.189 76 2.99 1.361 17 2.94 1.784 3.52 1.272 79 2.85 1.397 18 2.94 1.589

74 86

sig.

78 2.49 1.793 80 2.45 1.935

F

82 75

SD

90 2.93 1.475 81 2.84 1.840

M

80 82

n

86 2.81 1.641 90 2.93 1.475

SD

2.89 1.459 114 2.54 1.569 67 2.43 1.644 14 2.29 1.816 2.976 .019 2.21 1.723 124 2.60 1.825 70 2.54 1.799 15 2.53 2.446 1.175 .321 201–300 301–400 401–500 +501 82 3.44 1.693 89 3.83 1.400 90 4.00 1.492 172 4.46 1.056 24.353 .000

M

208 216

n

21 3.43 1.599 24 2.21 1.888 200 and less 86 2.64 1.840

SD

264 213

M

26 3.65 1.468 21 2.43 1.777

n

2.63 1.157 125 3.51 1.338 140

SD

222 270

M

23 2.83 1.029 26 3.65 1.468

n

21–25 26–30 31–35 35 or older 264 4.12 1.441 133 3.80 1.476 78 2.88 1.830 18 2.22 1.309 17.358 .000

SD

20 or younger 26 4.58 .703

M

n

Items

Age groups I received formal training and education in tourism I can earn high income in tourism I enjoy working in tourism organizations I am interested in working tourism I am encouraged to work in tourism by family and friends Working in tourism is prestigious I have had no other alternatives Income ($, monthly) I received formal training and education in tourism I can earn high income in tourism I enjoy working in tourism organizations I am interested in working tourism I am encouraged to work in tourism by family and friends Working in tourism is prestigious I have had no other alternatives

TABLE 3 The ANOVA Test Results about Motives for Women Working in Tourism


89

Scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree. *p < .05.

I enjoy working in tourism organizations I am interested in working tourism I am encouraged to work in tourism by family and friends Working in tourism is prestigious I have had no other alternatives Education I received formal training and education in tourism I can earn high income in tourism I enjoy working in tourism organizations I am interested in working tourism I am encouraged to work in tourism by family and friends Working in tourism is prestigious I have had no other alternatives 2.61 3.11 2.11 3.25

69 56 56 64

1.734 1.935

1.353 1.894 143 147

168 149

150 168

1.488 1.353

3.18 2.61

65 69

205 166

206

179

154 164 High 163

1.225 1.494

1.232

1.133

2.54 1.626 2.55 1.884

2.91 1.228 3.13 1.565

2.94 1.322 2.91 1.228

2.56 1.665 2.65 1.917 school 3.52 1.619

3.09 1.507 3.23 1.684

3.07 1.487

2.79 1.461

Housekeeping 196 3.08 1.732

2.89 1.441 2.19 1.732 Primary school 60 2.20 1.582

3.67 2.78

120 104 104 110

3.58

2.71

Front office 4.24 1.379

122

Departments I received formal training and education 121 in tourism I can earn high income in tourism 109

8.592 .000 3.740 .011

7.052 .000

.263 .852

211 3.00 1.378 14 3.21 1.626 6.481 .000 223 2.12 1.637 15 1.00 .655 10.591 .000

271 3.94 1.242 18 4.67 .594 41.534 .000 219 2.94 1.495 17 2.29 1.213 1.691 .168

231 2.60 1.045 17 2.18 .883 6.434 .000 278 3.82 1.271 18 4.67 .594 34.116 .000

67 2.79 1.581 1.096 .351 67 1.81 1.672 4.260 .006 Masters 21 4.33 1.390 39.383 .000

3.71 1.206 75 3.73 1.266 3.11 1.500 67 2.58 1.383

3.62 1.198 77 3.66 1.324

2.77 1.120 70 2.87 .797

99 2.79 1.459 108 2.53 1.677 University 275 4.29 1.260

126 104

128

105

Food and beverage Others 124 4.28 1.166 78 4.22 1.345 25.609 .000



90

F. Okumus et al.

as the satisfaction level with working in five-star hotels and working experiences in the participant companies (r = .093; p < .05). The satisfaction level of women in city and resort hotels differed somewhat. About 48% of women working in resort hotels were satisfied with their jobs, whereas the same ratio for women working in city hotels was 58%. The respondents were asked another 5-point Likert scale question about whether they would be interested in working for companies in another industry if they had any opportunities. Only 10.3% of the respondents strongly agreed and 13.3% of them agreed that they would be interested in working for companies in another industry if they had an opportunity. About 21.7% of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with having interest in working in another industry. On the other hand, 34.9% disagreed and 19.8% strongly disagreed with having interest in working in another industry. The mean score for this question was 2.4. It was found that 28% of the women employed in resort hotels showed interest in looking for a job in another industry, whereas the same ratio for city hotels was 17%. The ANOVA test results indicated differences among the respondents concerning the level of their income (F = 2.70, p < .05) and education (F = 2.78, p < .05). The Schaffe test results revealed that the participants in higher income groups (earning $301 and more) were less interested in working in other industries than the participants in lower income groups ($300 and less). The respondents with the higher education level (university and masters degrees) were less interested in working in other sectors than those who had the lower education level. The research results revealed a negative correlation between the participants’ intentions to work in other sectors and their income (r = -.102; p < .01). In other words, the higher income the participants had, the less they were interested in working in other industries. As presented in Table 4, not having enough time for friends and relatives, low pay, difficulties in getting a promotion, not having enough time for hobbies, heavy workload, and insufficient time for household duties were the main work-related problems for female employees. On the other hand, gender discrimination, harassment, and not being respected by others were not found to be important work-related problems by the participants. Concerning position, the t-test results indicated significant differences in six items. Overall, the mean scores for frontline employees for these items were higher. The t-test results indicated significant differences between married and single women in the following statements: “Insufficient time for household duties” and “Not enough time for family.” The mean scores for most items on work related problems were higher for married women than single women. The t-test results indicated significant differences between city and resort hotels in eight items on work related problems. Overall, the respondents in resort hotels had higher mean scores for all items than the respondents in city hotels.

91

Understanding Why Women Work in Five-Star Hotels TABLE 4 Work-Related Problems for Women Working in Tourism Items


Do not have enough time for friends and relatives Low pay Not enough time for hobbies Difficulties in getting promotion Heavy workload Insufficient time for household duties Not enough time for family Lack of job security Gender pay gap Not being respected by others Harassment

N

M

SD

Ranking

571

3.96

1.168

1

571 564 571 571 570 571 571 571 514 571

3.49 3.49 3.46 3.14 3.09 3.02 2.38 1.98 1.98 1.93

1.526 1.380 1.356 1.499 1.476 1.642 1.548 1.207 1.510 1.165

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Frontline Position Do not have enough time for friends and relatives Low pay Not enough time for hobbies Difficulties in getting promotion Heavy workload Insufficient time for household duties Not enough time for family Lack of job security Gender pay gap Not being respected by others Harassment

Manager

n

M

SD

n

M

SD.

411

3.93

1.171

160

4.05

1.159

1.086 .278

411 406 411 411 410 411 411 411 372 411

3.76 3.46 3.69 3.17 3.06 3.02 2.59 2.11 2.10 2.05

1.411 1.403 1.262 1.521 1.496 1.645 1.542 1.223 1.579 1.121

160 158 160 160 160 160 160 160 142 160

2.78 3.58 2.85 3.07 3.19 3.03 1.83 1.64 1.65 1.61

1.585 1.322 1.402 1.446 1.424 1.640 1.428 1.095 1.261 1.218

6.857 .929 6.635 .727 .955 .052 5.396 4.248 3.323 3.972

.000 .353 .000 .468 .340 .959 .000 .000 .001 .000

t

p

Married Marital Status Do not have enough time for friends and relatives Low pay Not enough time for hobbies Difficulties in getting promotion Heavy workload Insufficient time for household duties Not enough time for family Lack of job security Gender pay gap Not being respected by others Harassment

Do not have enough time for friends and relatives

p

Single

n

M

SD

n

M

SD

250

4.06

1.208

321

3.89

1.132

1.646 .100

250 246 250 250 250 250 250 250 230 250

3.56 3.53 3.50 2.95 4.17 4.32 2.56 2.09 2.12 2.01

1.504 1.381 1.348 1.515 .895 .866 1.578 1.212 1.538 1.153

321 318 321 321 320 321 321 321 284 321

3.43 3.46 3.42 3.29 2.25 2.00 2.24 1.90 1.86 1.87

1.542 1.381 1.363 1.473 1.279 1.361 1.513 1.197 1.480 1.172

1.042 .653 .667 2.685 21.07 24.77 2.431 1.848 1.906 1.487

.298 .514 .505 .007 .000 .000 .015 .065 .057 .138

t

p

City hotel Types of hotel

t

Resort hotel

n

M

SD

n

M

SD

218

3.94

1.163

353

3.98

1.172

.322 .748 (Continued)

92

F. Okumus et al.

TABLE 4 (Continued) Items Low pay Not enough time for hobbies Difficulties in getting promotion Heavy workload Insufficient time for household duties Not enough time for family Lack of job security Gender pay gap Not being respected by others Harassment

n

M

SD

n

M

SD

t

p

218 218 218 218 217 218 218 218 182 218

2.45 3.27 2.37 2.70 2.98 3.00 1.71 1.77 1.39 1.65

1.574 1.488 1.138 1.443 1.462 1.656 1.318 1.165 1.159 1.081

353 346 353 353 353 353 353 353 332 353

4.13 3.63 4.13 3.41 3.16 3.03 2.79 2.11 2.30 2.10

1.077 1.291 .999 1.471 1.483 1.636 1.538 1.215 1.583 1.183

13.884 2.975 18.756 5.659 1.414 .168 8.913 3.326 7.431 4.569

.00 .00 .00 .00 .15 .86 .00 .00 .00 .00



As presented in Table 5, the ANOVA test results revealed significant differences in work-related problems faced by female employees in relation to levels of age, income, departments worked, education, and work experience in tourism and hospitality organizations. The ANOVA test results indicated significant differences concerning different age groups among the respondents in seven statements. Overall, the respondents in the “31−35” and “36 and over” age groups had higher mean scores for two statements: “Not enough time for family” and “Insufficient time for household duties.” This is understandable given the fact that about 71% of the respondents in the 31−35 and 36 and over age groups were married whereas only 30% of the respondents in the age group of 21−25 were married. The ANOVA test results revealed significant differences in 9 statements out of 11 in relation to income levels. The respondents in the $200 and below income group had higher mean scores for “Low income,” “Not enough time for family,” “Insufficient time for household duties,” “Not being respected by others,” and “Lack of job security.” The respondents earning higher income (over $401) did not see low pay as a main work-related problem whereas the respondents earning lower income indicated that low pay was a major work-related problem for them. Again, the respondents in the higher income groups had lower mean scores for “Lack of job security” and “Difficulties in getting promotion.” The research findings suggest a direct correlation between education levels and income levels (r = .541; p < .01). A similar correlation was found between income levels and job satisfaction. For example, 59% of the respondents earning over $500 monthly expressed satisfaction with their work (r = .155; p < .01) whereas only 29% of the respondents in the $200 and below income level group indicated their satisfaction with working in the industry. According to the ANOVA test results, compared to the respondents working in other departments, women working in the housekeeping

93

Age groups Not enough time for family Insufficient time for household duties Do not have enough time for friends and relatives Not enough time for hobbies Not being respected by others Heavy workload Difficulties in getting promotion Low pay Gender pay gap Lack of job security Harassment Income ($, monthly) Not enough time for family Insufficient time for household duties Do not have enough time for friends and relatives Not enough time for hobbies Not being respected by others Heavy workload Difficulties in getting promotion Low pay Gender pay gap Lack of job security Harassment

SD

1.405 1.771 1.566 .858 .699 1.156 1.149 1.065

91 84 94 94 94 94 94 94

3.62 2.32 2.98 4.32 4.51 2.62 3.77 2.35

1.27 1.19 1.26 .803 .819 .900 1.43 1.05 less 1.430 1.486 1.347

or younger 2.00 1.38 2.54 1.14 3.68 1.09

M

28 3.71 25 2.60 28 3.79 28 4.14 28 4.32 28 2.07 28 3.04 28 2.00 200 and 94 3.78 94 3.54 94 3.77

20 28 28 28

n

SD

90 82 91 91 91 91 91 91

n

3.48 2.34 3.38 4.14 4.29 2.42 3.37 2.24

1.384 1.672 1.597 .877 .922 1.221 1.170 1.186

SD

92 92 94 94 94 94 94 94

n

M

SD

n

M

SD

3.58 2.57 3.50 4.19 4.34 2.19 2.81 2.23

1.385 1.462 1.465 .859 .811 1.297 1.264 1.239

95 89 96 96 96 96 96 96

3.62 1.80 3.33 3.42 3.29 1.9a6 1.68 2.03

1.196 1.236 1.311 1.245 1.465 1.104 1.294 1.090

3.71 1.293 2.44 1.674 2.80 1.454 3.78 1.238 3.88 1.267 2.20 1.078 2.96 1.546 1.95 1.068 401–500 96 3.13 1.598 96 3.27 1.395 96 4.03 1.000

83 77 85 85 85 85 85 85

196 167 196 196 196 196 196 196

3.33 1.40 2.84 2.39 2.32 1.39 1.39 1.39

3.47 2.44 2.95 4.10 4.10 2.20 2.95 2.25 +501 196 2.64 195 2.87 196 4.03

19 16 20 20 20 20 20 20

Sig.

1.445 1.207 1.468 1.258 1.506 .935 1.208 .994

.337 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 (Continued)

1.139 13.484 4.687 82.372 84.841 25.941 89.143 19.303

8.316 .000 4.209 .002 1.089 .361

1.663 1.472 1.139

.459 .001 .007 .000 .000 .099 .000 .398

.909 4.955 3.536 5.837 6.163 1.958 6.794 1.016

32.760 .000 9.389 .000 1.176 .320

F

1.349 1.750 1.395 1.252 1.373 1.322 1.669 1.020

26–30 31–35 35 or older 3.31 1.557 85 4.11 1.363 20 4.90 .447 3.35 1.375 84 3.65 1.427 20 3.70 1.525 3.90 1.243 85 4.02 1.205 20 4.35 1.137

M

3.45 1.325 1.99 1.336 2.99 1.542 3.44 1.338 3.47 1.496 2.06 1.186 2.23 1.489 2.02 1.239 301–400 94 2.89 1.569 94 3.13 1.322 94 4.04 1.126

151 140 154 154 154 154 154 154

21–25 2.50 1.533 154 2.80 1.487 154 3.99 1.121 154

M

3.42 1.445 1.74 1.515 3.28 1.491 3.26 1.402 3.26 1.617 1.85 1.262 2.18 1.522 1.85 1.170 201–300 91 3.08 1.668 91 2.89 1.602 91 3.89 1.233

283 256 284 284 284 284 284 284

284 284 284

n

TABLE 5 The ANOVA Test Results About Work-Related Problems for Women Working in Tourism


94

Departments Not enough time for family Insufficient time for household duties Do not have enough time for friends and relatives Not enough time for hobbies Not being respected by others Heavy workload Difficulties in getting promotion Low pay Gender pay gap Lack of job security Harassment Work experience in tourism (in years) Not enough time for family Insufficient time for household duties Do not have enough time for friends and relatives Not enough time for hobbies Not being respected by others Heavy workload Difficulties in getting promotion Low pay Gender pay gap Lack of job security Harassment

TABLE 5 (Continued)

73 61 74 74 74 74 74 74

3.37 1.18 3.34 3.24 3.16 1.97 2.22 1.80

1.467 1.041 1.358 1.312 1.744 1.314 1.599 1.182

216 203 220 220 220 220 220 220

3.61 2.08 3.20 3.70 3.73 2.02 2.59 2.02

3.47 2.13 2.68 3.56 3.62 2.17 2.71 2.14 1–4 2.81 2.99 3.98 1.332 1.579 1.544 1.294 1.436 1.235 1.558 1.166

1.588 1.536 1.139

1.432 1.644 1.475 1.349 1.525 1.220 1.593 1.151

220 220 220

3.48 1.81 2.86 3.24 3.22 2.04 2.00 1.84 than 1 2.53 2.76 3.82 1.555 1.422 1.243

SD

220 198 225 225 225 225 225 225

M

1.372 1.480 1.548 1.268 1.469 1.113 1.470 1.120

n

126 115 126 126 126 126 126 126 Less 74 74 74

SD Housekeeping 225 3.55 1.581 225 3.41 1.501 225 4.07 1.082

M

Front office 126 2.81 1.628 126 2.87 1.405 126 3.99 1.092

n

M

SD

n

M

SD

F

Sig.

168 159 169 169 169 169 169 169

169 169 169

135 125 137 137 137 137 137 137

3.48 2.14 3.20 3.38 3.44 2.05 2.38 1.95

3.59 2.06 4.23 3.50 3.60 1.92 2.44 1.94 5–10 3.14 3.26 4.00 1.371 1.528 1.470 1.362 1.487 1.201 1.535 1.224

107 91 108 108 108 108 108 108

83 76 83 83 83 83 83 83

3.36 1.99 2.79 3.24 3.30 1.81 2.06 1.81

1.429 1.441 1.510 1.440 1.548 1.072 1.465 1.045

1.043 6.830 2.677 4.050 3.593 1.034 3.197 1.174

3.37 1.359 .456 1.68 1.339 2.273 3.04 1.401 39.893 3.43 1.381 1.595 3.36 1.551 2.262 1.49 1.119 6.741 1.96 1.444 8.234 1.48 1.119 6.941 More than 10 1.625 108 3.60 1.669 8.563 1.432 107 3.28 1.413 2.992 1.185 108 3.97 1.156 .424

1.323 1.384 .901 1.420 1.541 1.243 1.485 1.181

.373 .000 .046 .007 .014 .377 .023 .319

.000 .030 .736

.713 .079 .000 .189 .080 .000 .000 .000

Food & beverage Others 137 2.45 1.514 83 2.86 1.631 15.358 .000 137 2.91 1.342 82 2.87 1.593 6.018 .000 137 3.76 1.298 83 3.99 1.254 2.032 .108

n


95


Education Not enough time for family Insufficient time for household duties Do not have enough time for friends and relatives Not enough time for hobbies Not being respected by others Heavy workload Difficulties in getting promotion Low pay Gender pay gap Lack of job security Harassment 177 167 181 181 181 181 181 181

1.481 1.725 1.523 1.202 1.161 1.130 1.339 .924

73 64 75 75 75 75 75 75

3.44 2.41 2.76 4.01 4.24 2.44 3.33 2.28

High 181 180 181

Primary school 75 4.27 1.223 75 3.93 1.266 75 3.96 1.246 3.58 2.32 3.31 3.73 3.72 2.15 2.68 2.14

1.343 1.473 1.526 1.264 1.539 1.159 1.508 1.184

school 3.27 1.580 3.13 1.439 4.02 1.064 293 267 294 294 294 294 294 294

294 294 294 3.43 1.71 3.12 3.16 3.16 1.78 2.01 1.73

1.397 1.442 1.472 1.353 1.514 1.221 1.472 1.173

21 16 21 21 21 21 21 21

3.71 1.19 3.33 3.24 3.38 1.71 1.52 1.57

1.102 .750 1.390 1.640 1.499 1.056 1.569 1.076

University Masters 2.62 1.582 21 2.10 1.578 2.87 1.468 21 2.86 1.590 3.94 1.200 21 3.81 1.327


.612 9.264 2.583 12.093 12.836 8.263 21.578 7.991

.608 .000 .053 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

27.221 .000 11.107 .000 .305 .822

96

F. Okumus et al.


department complained more about not being able to spend enough time with their families, insufficient time for their household duties, and lack of job security. The ANOVA test results further revealed that the respondents working in the food and beverage department complained more about “heavy workload” and “not being respected by others.” The ANOVA test results further revealed significant differences in two items related to work experience in tourism. Overall, those respondents with less than one year of experience had lower mean scores. Significant differences were found in eight items concerning the respondents’ education levels. Interestingly, the respondents with primary school education had higher mean scores for these eight statements.

DISCUSSION Over 90% of the participants were younger than 35 years of age and more than half of the participants completed their university education. Given the young and highly educated female workforce who participated in the study, one may question whether the participants in this research study would represent all female workers in five-star hotels as well as in other tourism organizations in Turkey. It might be possible that mainly younger female employees with university degrees might have decided to participate in this study. It is also possible that female workers in other tourism organizations in Turkey may have different demographic characteristics. However, one should also underscore the fact that according to the last census carried out in 2000, about 60% of the Turkish population is younger than 35 years of age (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2006). In addition, the unemployment ratio has been relatively high in Turkey, which was 10.5% in 2003 and 10.3% in 2004 (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2006). Therefore, young and educated women in Turkey may see tourism as an attractive industry to seek employment opportunities in this field. In addition, given their relatively better working conditions and employment benefits, five-star hotels may attract a younger and more educated female workforce in Turkey. It is essential to note that the research findings are consistent with the findings of several previous research studies. For example, in their study into employees’ job satisfaction in hotels in Nevsehir, Turkey, Kusluvan and Kusluvan (2005) found that about 66% of the participants were younger than 31 years of age. In their study in Bali, Indonesia, Cukier et al. (1996) found that working in tourism was easier for young and unmarried women because they had more time and did not have to worry about family and household duties at home. Huyton and Sutton (1996) found the average age of female hotel workers was between 20−30 age (93%) in China. Lam et al. (2001) also found that 85% of employees were between 21 and 35 years of age in Hong Kong.



97

As shown in Table 1, the monthly income of the respondents varied from $200 to over $500. These figures might be perceived as a rather low level of income in developed countries. However, as noted earlier, these figures were based on general income level rather than purchasing power. It should be noted that the overall monthly wage of the participants was higher than the average monthly income in Turkey. The minimum monthly wage legally enforced in Turkey was US$164, $180, and $244 in 2002, 2003 and 2004 respectively (Ministry of Labor and Social Security, 2005). Almost two,-thirds of the participants had income higher than the above figures in 2002 and 2003. This implies that female employees working in the tourism industry, particularly in five-star hotels can earn higher income than employees working in other industries in Turkey. However, differences were found in wages paid to women between city and resort hotels. City hotels seem to pay higher wages than resort hotels. Having a formal training and education in tourism, high interest in working in this industry, enjoyment of working in tourism organizations, encouragement from friends and relatives, and a the possibility of earning high income were the five most important motives for women working in tourism. These findings are in line with the findings of previous studies (Cukier & Wall, 1994; Cukier at al, 1996; Szivas & Riley, 1999; Szivas, Riley, & Airey, 2003). For example, Szivas and Riley’s (1999) found that the most important six motives for working in tourism in Hungary were: Having an interesting job; Working in a pleasant surrounding environment; Being able to deal with people; Achieving a better living standard; Working in better conditions; and Having an appropriate income. Similar to Szivas and Riley’s (1999) findings, the current study finding indicate that women working in five-star hotels in Turkey choose to work in this industry because it provides good working conditions, has a good image, and pays relatively good salaries compared to other industries. The research results of the current study further suggest that having formal training and education in tourism was the most important motive for the participants to work in this industry. This finding implies that providing formal training and education can directly influence female employees’ decisions to work in tourism organizations. While trying to understand this issue, one may further question why people, particularly women, study tourism in a developing country. Several reasons can be identified to explain this issue in-depth (Aksu & Koksal, 2005; Kusluvan & Kusluvan, 2000; Okumus & Yagci, 2005). First, tourism is seen as a glamorous industry by many parents and students where employees can receive promotion and relatively good salaries in Turkey. They may work in relatively good working conditions compared to working conditions in other fields (e.g. manufacturing and agriculture). The other reason is that the unemployment ratio in Turkey has been relatively high which was 10.5% in 2003 and 10.3% in 2004 (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2006). It is therefore often perceived that


98

F. Okumus et al.

finding a job in the tourism industry would be much easier than finding a job in other industries. Finally, it is worth noting that getting accepted at a university in Turkey is extremely challenging. Every year about 2.5 million students take the university entrance exam and only about 300,000 students can get accepted to study at the university level. Almost half of these students are placed in two-year associate degree programs at vocational schools (community colleges). As it is very competitive, most students cannot study the field that they want to. Instead they find themselves studying areas where they can at least get a university degree. Based on the authors’ work experience and also stated by Okumus and Yagci (2005), many students in tourism and hospitality schools in Turkey do not really want to study tourism but they often end up studying this field because their university entrance scores are not high enough to be able to get a degree in other fields. As noted above, the participants indicated that having a formal training and education in tourism was the most important reason for them to work in five-star hotels. This is rather important since it may be assumed that in a developing country, if some one has a formal education and training in tourism they seek employment in this industry. However, based on previous studies both in developed countries and in developing countries, many graduates from tourism and hospitality schools decide not to work in the tourism industry. This is also the case in Turkey. For example, in their empirical study Kusluvan and Kusluvan (2000) found that more than half of graduates of tourism and hospitality schools in Turkey choose not work in the tourism industry. After carrying out an extensive review of tourism education in Turkey, Okumus and Yagci (2005) questioned why a high majority of graduates from tourism and hospitality schools in Turkey do not choose to work in this industry. According to these authors, students often have different expectations from the industry and they are not well treated during their internships. As noted previously, the research findings suggest that five-star hotels perhaps offer good working conditions to female students and, therefore, they continue working in these organizations after graduating. The research results suggest that single women are more interested in working in five-star hotels than married women, and married women tend to be more concerned with earning higher income. This can be interpreted as married women being more concerned with their families’ financial stability, whereas single women perhaps have lesser financial responsibilities and obligations. In other words, perhaps single women tend to have more positive commitment to tourism orientation than married women whereas instrumental utility is more important to married women than single women. The income level of female employees appears to influence their satisfaction level with working in five-star hotels. In particular, the participants who earned a higher income were more satisfied than those who



99

earned a lower income. In relation to this, low monthly income was seen as the second most important work-related problem by the participants. This is rather interesting since, overall, the participants in this study earned higher than minimum wage in Turkey but they still complained about their income level. This can, perhaps, be understood given severe economic conditions particularly for middle and lower class families in Turkey. The country has been experiencing chronic high inflation over many years and has faced numerous internal and external political and economic crises (Okumus & Karamustafa, 2005) which have often negatively impacted the economy and subsequently, lower and middle class families. As a result, as stated by Ilkaracan (1998), economic conditions in Turkey pressure women to work to support their families. To summarize, the research findings suggest that earning a high level of income contributes to the satisfaction level of female employees working in hotels. In addition, it is perhaps possible that financial difficulties and wider sociocultural and economic developments in Turkey may influence the expectations from any job in terms of income. These issues may be crucial for satisfaction and retention of employees in tourism organizations, particularly in developing countries. Tourism is often seen as a “passing through” industry or a refuge (Szivas & Riley, 1999; Woods, 1997), particularly for young and unemployed people. The findings of this study do not particularly provide strong support for this claim. First, almost half of the participants had over five years of work experience in the tourism industry. Second, more than half of the participants were satisfied working in this industry. Third, over 55% of the respondents would not consider working in other industries even if they were given an opportunity. Finally, the labor turnover in this study was found to be lower compared to other countries. The research findings from the current study imply that female employees who may want to work in other industries can be categorized under the following groupings: (a) young employees with limited work experience, (b) those who earn a low income, (c) those who are married with children, and (d) those who mainly work in the food and beverage department. Understanding these findings can help practicing managers tackle female employee dissatisfaction and female labor turnover in five-star hotels in developing countries. The research findings imply that the education level of female employees can play an important role in their satisfaction level with working in tourism organizations. For example, those participants who had a higher education level were satisfied more than those participants who had a lower education level. The reason for this may be that respondents with a lower education level might occupy lower level positions and there might be limited promotional opportunities for them. This, in return, might influence their satisfaction level in working in tourism.


100

F. Okumus et al.

The research findings suggest that the type of department in which female employees work can determine their satisfaction level. For example, the female respondents working in marketing and accounting departments had higher satisfaction levels than those who worked in the housekeeping and food and beverage departments. This may be because working in housekeeping and food and beverage areas demands high physical strength and long working hours. This implies that further attention needs to be devoted to finding ways to improve working conditions for female workers in housekeeping and food and beverage departments. Developing and implementing work enrichment, job rotation, and training programs would be beneficial both for employees and also for organizations. According to the research findings, not having enough time for friends and relatives, low pay, difficulties in getting a promotion, not having enough time for hobbies, heavy working conditions, and insufficient time for household duties were the main work-related problems for the participants in this study. These findings are consistent with the findings of previous studies (Doherty, 2004; Doherty & Manfredi, 2001; ILO, 2001). The results further suggest that married participants express more discontent with not being able to spend enough time with their families and children and not having sufficient time for their household duties. Again, the respondents working in the housekeeping departments expressed their disappointment with not being able to spend time with their families and children, not having sufficient time for their household duties, and lack of job security. One of the most important problems faced by the participants was “not having enough time for friends and relatives.” Employees in tourism tend to work long hours during weekdays, weekends, and holidays, which results in having less time to see and socialize with their friends and relatives. This finding can be interpreted from the fact that Turkey has a collective national culture (Hofstede, 1980). Therefore, families, relatives and friends play an important role in people’s daily lives. Future studies can investigate differences between men and women, and also among several countries in this area. According to the findings of this current study, the participants were encouraged by their relatives and friends to work in tourism. It was found that respondents did not feel that they were disrespected and looked down upon in society because they work in five-star hotels. This finding is rather interesting since Kusluvan and Kusluvan (2000) state that the society in Turkey does not highly support women working in tourism. Working in fivestar hotels may be seen as more glamorous and acceptable. Gender pay gap, not being respected by others, and harassment were not found to be among the top work-related problems in this study. In line with these findings, Selim and Ilkkaracan (2002) found that, compared to other countries the gender pay gap was not very high in Turkey. With respect to harassment, the respondents might not have indicated anything because of cultural constraints. There has been limited empirical research on this issue in



101

the tourism field in Turkey. To have a more in-depth understanding of these issues, there is an essential need for future investigation. The research findings indicate significant differences between city and resort hotels. For example, compared to resort hotels, city hotels employ a higher number of university graduates, pay higher wages and experience less labor turnover. Concerning motives for women working in five-star hotels, the respondents working in city hotels had higher mean scores than the respondents in resort hotels. In relation to work related problems, out of 11 items, there were significant differences between city and resort hotels. In relation to work-related problems, the respondents in resort hotels had higher mean scores than the respondents in resort hotels. These findings suggest that there can be differences in human resource management practices between city and resort hotels. The findings imply that city hotels may offer preferable working conditions and employ better human resource management practices than resort hotels in Turkey. This might be due to the fact that resort hotels may lack professional management teams, and they face seasonality, occupancy, and financial problems (Okumus & Karamustafa, 2005; Tosun & Timothy, 2001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study has sought to investigate why women work in five-star hotels in Turkey, and to evaluate their work-related problems. It is hoped that the research findings and their discussions can contribute to the body of knowledge where there has been limited empirical evidence. Based on the research findings and the discussions above, several conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, there are multiple and very closely related reasons for why women work in five-star hotels in Turkey. It is particularly evident that motives related to positive commitment to tourism orientation and instrumental utility receive more support than motives related to refugee orientation. It emerges from this study that female employees in Turkey choose to work in five-star hotels because of the intrinsic value of the jobs such as image, the pleasant and better working conditions. Second, contrary to the common belief in the literature, the research findings of this study imply that female employees working in five-star hotels in a developing country are satisfied with working in this industry. The majority of them do not consider tourism as a passing-through industry especially if they have higher education, work in pleasant working environments, have promotion opportunities, and earn relatively good salaries. In fact, five-star hotels appear to offer them long-term career opportunities especially for those who have higher education. Third, not having enough time for friends and relatives, low pay, difficulties in getting a promotion, not having enough time for hobbies, and


102

F. Okumus et al.

heavy workload appear to be the main work-related problems for female employees working in five-star hotels in Turkey. Understanding these problems better and responding to them with appropriate strategies can increase the satisfaction level of female employees and also reduce their turnover ratio. Fourth, very much related to the previous conclusions, demographic variables and the income level can directly influence women’s decisions to work in five-star hotels, their satisfaction level with the industry and their work-related problems. This implies that when analyzing and evaluating these issues, there is an essential need to consider a woman’s age, education level, marital status, income level, type of department worked, and experience in tourism. In terms of practical implications, tourism organizations need to study demographic profiles of their female employees when designing and implementing specific human resources management practices for female employees, particularly in the areas of hiring, training, compensation, and motivation. Fourth, important differences emerge between city and resort hotels in Turkey in terms of female employees’ motives to work in tourism and their work-related problems. This is perhaps because city hotels offer a better working environment for female employees in Turkey. This finding implies that resort hotels need to improve their human resource management practices. This is rather important since Turkey offers mainly a combination of sea, sun, and sand product (Tosun, 2001) and the majority of tourism establishments are located in resort areas in southern and western Turkey. Finally, it emerges from this study that there may be differences between developing and developed countries regarding why women work in tourism organizations, their satisfaction level with this industry, and their workrelated problems. This study collected data from female employees working in five-star hotels in Turkey. Therefore, the research findings of this exploratory study may not entirely represent views and experiences of women working in other types of tourism organizations in Turkey. Given this, by revising and enhancing the current research instrument used in this study, future studies can collect data from female employees working within different organizations in various subsectors in the tourism industry in developing countries. In addition, future studies may collect data both from men and women to investigate whether there are differences between women and men in terms of investigating motives for both genders to work in tourism, their satisfaction, and their specific work-related problems. Using multiple data collection methods can also provide richer data and a better understanding of these issues. Finally, a comparative study can be undertaken to investigate whether there are differences among countries in terms of why women (perhaps also men) work in tourism and what types of problems they face. It is hoped that the findings of this study will stimulate further research into this important area in the tourism field.


103


REFERENCES Aksu, A., & Koksal, C. (2005). Perceptions and attitudes of tourism students in Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17, 436–447. Brownell, J. (1994). Women in hospitality management: General managers, perceptions of factors related to career development. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 13(2), 101–117. Burgess, C. (2003). Gender and salaries in hotel financial management: It’s still a man’s world. Women in Management Review, 18(1/2), 50–59. Burrell, J., Manfredi, S., Rollin, H., Price, L., & Stead, L. (1997). Equal opportunities for women employees in the hospitality industry: A comparison between France, Italy, Spain and the UK. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(2), 161–179. Crompton, R., & Harris, F. (1998). Explaining women’s employment patterns: Orientations to work revisited. British Journal of Sociology, 49(1), 118–136. Cukier J., Norris J., & Wall, G. (1996). The involvement of women in the tourism industry of Bali, Indonesia. Journal of Development Studies, 33(2), 248–270. Cukier, J., & Wall, G. (1993). Tourism employment, perceptions from Bali. Tourism Management, 14, 195–201. Cukier, J., & Wall, G. (1994). Tourism employment in Bali, Indonesia. Tourism, Recreation Research, 19(1), 32–40. Doherty, L. (2004). Work-life balance initiatives: Implications for women. Employee Relations, 26, 433–452. Doherty, L., & Manfredi, S. (2001). Women’s employment in Italian and UK Hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(1), 61–76. Goldthorpe, J., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F., & Platt, J. (1968). The affluent worker: Industrial attitudes and behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hemmati, M. (Ed.). (1999). Gender & tourism: Women’s employment and participation in tourism (Summary of UNED-UK’s Project Report, 1999). London: United Nations Environment and Development UK Committee (UNED-UK). Hjalager, A., & Anderson, S. (2001). Tourism employment: Contingent work or professional career? Employee Relations, 23(1), 115–129. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in workrelated values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Huyton, J., & Sutton, J. (1996). Employee perceptions of the hotel sector in the People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(1), 22–28. Ilkkaracan, I. (1998). Kentli Kadinlar ve Calisma Yasami, Bilanco 98: 75 Yilda Kadinlar ve Erkekler [Women in city and their work life, Balance Statement 98: Women and men in 75 years]. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Tarih Vakfi Yayinlari. International Labor Organization. (2001). Human resources development, employment and globalization in the hotel, catering and tourism sector. Geneva, Switzerland: International Tourism Office. International Labor Organization. (2006). Facts on women at work. International Labor Organization. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from www.ilo.org


104

F. Okumus et al.

Iverson, K. (2000). The paradox of the consented female manager: An empirical investigation on gender differences in pay expectation in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19(1), 33–51. Jordan, F. (1997) An occupational hazard? Sex segregation in tourism employment. Tourism Management, 18, 525–534. Kattara, H. (2005). Career challenges for female managers in Egyptian hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17, 238–251. Knutson, J., & Schmidgall, R. (1999). Dimension of the glass ceiling in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(6), 64–75. Kusluvan, S. (2003). Characteristics of employment and human resource management in the tourism and hospitality industry. In S. Kusluvan (Ed.), Managing employee attitudes and behaviors in the tourism and hospitality industry (pp. 3–24). New York: Nova. Kusluvan, S., & Kusluvan, Z. (2000). Perceptions and attitudes of undergraduate tourism students towards working in the tourism industry in Turkey. Tourism Management, 21, 251–269. Kusluvan, Z., & Kusluvan, S. (2005). Relative impact of job and organization related factors on employees’ job satisfaction in the hotel industry: The case of Nevsehir [Turkish version]. Anatolia, 16(2), 183–203. Lam, T., Zhang, H., & Baum, T. (2001). An investigation of employees’ job satisfaction: The case of hotels in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 22, 157–165. Maxwell, G. (1997). Hotel general management: Views from above the glass ceiling. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(5/6), 230–235. Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (2007). Statistics of accommodation establishments. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from www.kultur.gov.tr Ministry of Labor and Social Security of Turkey. (2005). Statistics: Yearly average minimum wage as USD. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from www.calisma.gov.tr Ministry of Tourism. (2002). Statistics of accommodation establishments. Retrieved February 10, 2003, from www.turizm.gov.tr Ng, C., & Pine, R. (2003). Women and men in hotel management in Hong Kong: Perceptions of gender and career development issues. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22(1), 85–102. Okumus, F., & Karamustafa, K. (2005). Impact of an economic crisis: Evidence from Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 942–961. Okumus, F., & Yagci, O. (2005). Tourism higher education in Turkey. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 5(1/2), 67–93. Purcell, K. (1996). The relationship between career and job opportunities: Women’s employment in the hospitality industry as a microcosm of women’s employment. Women in Management Review, 11(5), 17–24. Purcell, K. (1997). Women’s employment in UK tourism: Gender roles and labor market. In M. T. Sinclair (Ed.), Gender, work and tourism (pp. 35–59). London: Routledge. Reed, K. (1997). Orientations to work: The cultural conditioning of motivation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 33, 364–386. Riley, M., Ladkin, A., & Szivas, E. (2002). Tourism employment, analysis and planning. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.



105

Sehanovic, J., Zugaj, M., Krizman, D., & Bojanic-Glavica, B. (2000). Some characteristics of women managers in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12, 267–270. Selim, R., & Ilkkaracan, I. (2002). Gender inequalities in the labor market in Turkey: Differentials in wages, industrial and occupational distribution of men and women. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from www.econ.utah.edu/ehrbar/erc2002/pdf Szivas, E., & Riley, M. (1999). Tourism employment during economic transition. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 747–771. Szivas, E., Riley, M., & Airey, D. (2003). Labor mobility into tourism: Attraction and satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 64–76. Tosun, C. (2001). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 22, 289–303. Tosun, C., & Timothy, D. (2001). Shortcomings in planning approaches to tourism development in developing countries: The case of Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13, 352–359. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2006). Statistics, Turkish Statistical Institute. Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://www.tuik.gov.tr Tursab. (2007). Tourism statistics. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://www. tursab.org.tr Wood, R. (1997). Working in hotels and catering (2nd ed.). London: International Thompson Business Press. Woods, R. (1999). Predicting is difficult, especially about the future: Human resources in the new millennium. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 443–456. Woods, R., & Viehland, D. (2000). Women in hotel management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 51–54. World Travel and Tourism Council. (2007). Progress and priorities 2006–2007. Retrieved May 30, 2007, from http://www.wttc.travel/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/ progresspriorities06-07.pdf