International Journal of Hospitality Management 35 (2013) 360– 368
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hospitality Management
j ourna l h om epa ge : www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i jhosman
The lowest rung’: Women room attendants’ perceptions of five starotels’ operational hierarchies’
andra Kensbocka,∗, Gayle Jenningsb,a,1, Janis Baileyc,2, Anoop Patiara,3
Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith University, Brisbane, AustraliaImagine Consulting Group International, Brisbane, AustraliaDepartment of Employment Relations and Human Resources, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
r t i c l e i n f o
eywords:otel hierarchiesoom attendantsrounded theory
nvisibilityender
a b s t r a c t
Hotel room attendants play a significant role in the overall performance and success of hotels. This studypresents women room attendants’ perspectives of working in what they perceive is the lowest level of ahotel’s operational hierarchy, and their experience of the power relationships inherent in these bureau-cratic structures. A qualitative, constructionist grounded theory methodology was used, underpinned bya socialist-feminist, critical theory epistemology. Interviews were conducted with 46 room attendantsfrom five ‘five-star’ hotels on the Gold Coast region of South East Queensland, Australia. Emerging fromthis study was the conceptualization of women room attendants’ daily work experiences at the lowest
level of the operational hierarchy. Despite their conspicuous presence, women room attendants perceivethemselves as near invisible through non-acknowledgement by hotel management and other staff dueto their position at the lowest level of the operational hierarchy. This article contributes to theoreticalresearch on employment experiences in hospitality, particularly on hotel operational praxis and method-ologically presents the perceptions of women room attendants through embodiment of their particularvoices.
. Introduction
We don’t seem to have any input. If you say something to some-one higher up it doesn’t seem to have any impact, they don’treally listen. We are the ‘lowest rung’ here they just don’t seemto think we are important, even though the rooms ‘are’ the hotel.
(Helen, Gold Coast Hotel, 2010).
This research narrates the lived employment experiences ofomen working as room attendants in five ‘five-star’ hotels on
he Gold Coast of South East Queensland, Australia. Five-starotels contain significant contradictions. On the one hand, theyffer ‘luxury’ or ‘enchantized’ (Ritzer, 1999) settings to meet the
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management,athan Campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, QLD 4111, Australia.el.: +61 7 373 56710; fax: +61 7 373 56743.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Kensbock),[email protected] (G. Jennings), [email protected] (J. Bailey),[email protected] (A. Patiar).1 GPO Box 2843, Brisbane 4001, Australia.2 Department of Employment Relations and Human Resources, Gold Coast Cam-us, Griffith University, QLD 4222, Australia. Tel.: +61 7 555 27748;ax: +61 7 555 29206.
3 Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Nathan Campus, Nathan,riffith University, QLD 4111, Australia. Tel.: +61 7 373 54104; fax: +61 7 373 56743.
expectations and the enjoyment of guests. On the other hand,they are workplaces characterized by intense time-pressures andphysically demanding, low-paid work for many, including roomattendants (Lennon and Wood, 1989; Onsøyen et al., 2009; HunterPowell and Watson, 2006). Through the nature of their work, roomattendants, both women and men contribute to the long-termfinancial success of hotels by meeting the guest’s expectations ofa high-quality, visually appealing and hygienic room (Gundersenet al., 1996). As noted in the opening sentence, the focus ofthis research is women room attendants. In western, developednations, room attendants’ work has long been associated withwomen and the work is similarly gendered.
The gendered nature of room attendant work is reflected inthe many labels for people who clean hotel rooms, includingmaid, housemaid, chambermaid and floor housekeeper (Lennonand Wood, 1989). The use of word ‘maid’ highlights the historicalemployment of women in domestic service in private households(Onsøyen et al., 2009). Language serves to reinforce a genderedworkplace hierarchy (Eichler and Burke, 2006). The more contem-porary (and overtly gender-free) term, ‘room attendant’, is definedby the International Labour Organization (ILO) (2000) as ‘someone
who cleans hotels’. Whatever the title however, room attendantwork is socially constructed as women’s work. It was againstthis background context that the overall research design wasframed.
S. Kensbock et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 35 (2013) 360– 368 361
reganaMlareneG
Rooms Division Manager
Front Office Manager
Executive Housekeeper
Housekeeping Manager
Night Housekeeper Floor Supervisors Lobby Supervisors Linen Room
Supervisor
Night
Housekeeping Aides
Room Attendants Public Area Cleaners
Housemen
Laundry and Uniform
Attendants
ekeepS
corwvttbatwacu
tba2d1cbkTih
wlalshPtwakdwvaawl‘ra
Fig. 1. Generic hotel housource: Adapted from Baker and Huyton (2001, p. 104).
In this article, room attendants’ employment experiences areonceptualized as being, from their perspective, at the lower levelr ‘lowest rung’ of the operational hierarchy. As the empirical mate-ial will show, room attendants saw themselves as near-invisibleithin their employing organizations despite the importance (and
isibility) of the work they do. The term ‘invisible’ refers hereo room attendants’ perceptions that, due to their low occupa-ional status, they are largely ignored by managers and other staff,ecause their work has low occupational status, and is unimportantnd commonplace (Hunter Powell and Watson, 2006). In response,his paper argues that, given the significant contribution of theirork to the presentation of five-star service provision, hotels
ppear to ignore room attendants as a community of value. Byommunity of value, we mean an economically defined group withnrecognized and ignored knowledge or wisdom (Fraser, 1997).
It is important to note that the prevailing operational struc-ure of most hotels, including those in this study, is based onureaucratic or mechanistic hierarchies resting on strong man-gerial control and authority (Sollund, 2006; Waser and Johns,003). Bureaucratic hierarchies have a clear division of labour inefined levels with standardized rules and regulations (Weber,964). Such hierarchies in hotels form a framework for the effi-ient management of staff activities to deliver the services expectedy guests (Subramanian and Ramakrishnan, 2012). A hotel house-eeping department’s hierarchical structure is depicted in Fig. 1.his generic hotel housekeeping department structure is very sim-lar to the organizational hierarchy of the participating Gold Coastotels.
The consequence of a hotel’s operational hierarchy is aork environment characterized by impersonal relationships and
imited autonomy, with minimal interaction between departmentsnd managerial levels. Room attendants are situated at the lowestevel of the hotel’s housekeeping department. It must be empha-ized – and this point is central to the research – that hotels areighly gendered workplaces (Faulkner and Patiar, 1997; Hunterowell and Watson, 2006; Onsøyen et al., 2009). Gendering referso the systematic structuring behaviour and practices associatedith women’s roles in patriarchal societies (Althusser, 1971). Patri-
rchy is founded on a social system of male domination, whicheeps women in subservient gendered positions. Relatedly, ‘gen-ered employment’ is the sexual division of work tasks based onomen’s traditional roles (Veijola, 2009) in both the public and pri-
ate spheres. Gendered employment, as a concept, links capitalismnd patriarchy in that women workers’ efforts are undervalued andre low-paid. Gendering in society is imbued by the ‘othering’ ofomen vis-à-vis men, as posited by the prominent feminist intel-
ectual Simone de Beauvoir (1949/1972). Her exposition of the termwoman’ as a socially constructed differentiation of ‘the other’ inelation to the norm ‘man’ has strongly influenced feminist schol-rship. Further, room attendant work as a community of value is
ing organizational chart.
obscured and results in a ‘lack of voice’ and input into decisionmaking (Wajcman, 2000).
This purpose of this paper is to present an in-depth knowledgeof women room attendants’ perceptions of employment withinthe highly hierarchal organizational structure of five-star hotels.Founded on a socialist feminist critical theory epistemology anda grounded theory methodology, the research, conducted in theearly decades of the twenty-first century, gives voice to womenroom attendants’ lived work experiences, highlighting the impactexerted by both managers and other staff on attendants’ perfor-mance. The narratives of the women and the interpretation oftheir employment stories provide in-depth understanding of therole of women room attendants’ positions within the study hotels.The narratives and interpretations reveal perceptions of low sta-tus – related to both occupation and gender – within the hotels’operational hierarchies. This status reinforces the women roomattendants’ perceptions that they are near invisible. While thisstudy focussed on a holistic view of employment experiences ofwomen room attendants, parts of their experiences resonated withthe conclusions found in three European studies (Hunter Powelland Watson, 2006; Onsøyen et al., 2009; Saunders and Pullen,1987). Those conclusions being that the occupation involves hardwork, low pay and time pressures in a highly gendered occupation.
The following sections of this paper present an overview of theliterature and this study’s place within it. We then describe the epis-temological foundations of this research and the methods followedto collect and interpret the empirical material. The outcomes of thisresearch are described by presenting and explaining the womenroom attendants’ perceptions of working within the hotels’ opera-tional hierarchies. Finally, we analyze the outcomes by discussinghow women room attendants’ place within the hotel operationalhierarchy increases their invisibility and leads to them being ‘oth-ered’. The detailed examination of invisibility and ‘othering’ are theunique contributions of this research.
2. Room attendants in the literature
In the main, room attendant research has focussed on bothwomen and men room attendants. Unless specifically noted, the useof the term room attendant in this section refers to both women andmen as room attendants. As an occupation in hotels, room atten-dants comprise the second-largest group (Scherzer et al., 2005).They are critical to service provision and hotel profitability. There isa consensus in literature that room attendant work involves phys-ically demanding and dirty tasks, with unsafe and uneven work-loads, accompanied by low status and low pay (Faulkner and Patiar,
1997; Hunter Powell and Watson, 2006; Onsøyen et al., 2009;Pearce, 2012; Saunders and Pullen, 1987; Sherman, 2011). Faulknerand Patiar (1997) compared work related stress of front office andhousekeeping staff, finding that room attendants identified hard
3 f Hosp
wTsKlcafiedbgitfa
cLwpotae(fpeHoit(act(ettanmRitIbuagaw
aamrpmaSig
62 S. Kensbock et al. / International Journal o
ork, time pressures and feeling undervalued as key stressors.his situation has since been partially addressed however; manytudies consider hotel workers as a homogenous cohort, such asandasamy and Ancheri (2009) investigation of quality of work
ife amongst hotel workers. Similar research serves to reinforceoncepts of invisibility since hotel workers and their work are notppreciated for their heterogeneity. Research that has specificallyocused on room attendants traverses a range of topics. Low pay andts association with staff turnover have been examined (Madanoglut al., 2003). Boon (2007) identified the difficulties room atten-ants encountered when negotiating front of house/back of houseoundaries in relation to producing positive service encounters foruests. Sherman (2011) investigated how guests influence the non-nteractive dimensions of room attendant work particularly theiming, pace and effort involved in room servicing. These studiesocus on several dimensions of room attendants work rather than
holistic perspective as was undertaken in this research.A number of other studies have examined room attendants’ per-
eptions of the nature of their work and their identity as workers.ennon and Wood (1989) found that room attendants’ perceptionsere that their work was low in social esteem and offered littleersonal fulfilment. While they identified the ‘status differentiated’perational hierarchy of hotels (Lennon and Wood, 1989, p. 227),hey did not explore room attendants’ experiences of hotels’ oper-tional hierarchies other than to state attendant work ‘enjoys littlesteem’ (Lennon and Wood, 1989, p. 231). Saunders and Pullen1987) conducted a questionnaire survey at 30 London hotels andound that room attendants perceived their work as frustrating,hysically demanding and dirty. They did not, however, study theffect of the hotels’ organizational structures on room attendants.unter Powell and Watson (2006) undertook an in-depth analysisf hotel room attendant work at 12 hotels in Cardiff, Wales. Theydentified the economic significance as well as the relative isola-ion of the housekeeping department. Hunter Powell and Watson2006) describe room attendant work as hard, dirty, servile worknd almost invisible. However, they found there was a signifi-ant degree of job satisfaction amongst room attendants due tohe pride they took in their work. Hunter Powell and Watson2006) also identified the many gender-segregated supervisory lev-ls within hotel organizational hierarchies. In particular, they notedhat one third of participants perceived general management failedo respect them. Onsøyen et al.’s (2009) focus group study of roomttendants at four Norwegian hotels found that attendants wereot consulted in relevant decision making processes, were not com-unicated with by management, and were undervalued at work.
esearch by Sherman (2005) on luxury hotel workers generally,ncluding room attendants, reveals that they use various strategieso compensate for their subordinate and servile position to guests.mmigrant women working in hotel housekeeping were found toe stigmatized due to their low organization position and, in partic-lar, actively excluded from decision making (Sollund, 2006). Adibnd Guerrier’s (2003) examination of identity construction andender representations in hotels also found stigmatizing of roomttendants due to the role’s associations with servitude, ‘women’sork’ and dirty work.
Prior research has focussed on several dimensions of roomttendants’ work. Such research has demonstrated that roomttendants work hard, receive low pay, are generally invisible toanagement and excluded from decision making. The majority of
esearch used post/positivistic research paradigms and was heavilyredicated on ‘a priori’ theory with the exception of interviewethods of Hunter Powell and Watson (2006), the focus group
pproach of Onsøyen et al.’s (2009), and participant observation ofherman (2005). Most studied men and women together, assum-ng a homogeneous employment experience however, all noted aendered occupation. Little research has been conducted into the
itality Management 35 (2013) 360– 368
lived employment experiences of room attendants using a socialistfeminist critical theory perspective that attempts to gain a holis-tic insight into women room attendants’ experiences. No researchhas been identified, which uses a grounded theory approach tobuild theory from empirical world experiences. As a result of ourresearch, we have filled this gap. Our research reports womenroom attendants’ perspectives of their lived employment experi-ences at the lower level of hotels’ operational hierarchy and theattendants are given voice. The participating women room atten-dants of this study self-report that hotels’ operational hierarchiesinvolve interactions that render these women undervalued andunder-recognized, and subsequently invisible. In using a socialist-feminist critical theory approach drawing on qualitative researchtenets and grounded theory in particular, our research explores howthis occurs and provides a theorized explanation of the social andorganizational mechanisms that perpetuate undervaluation andinvisibility.
The following section presents an overview of the epistemologi-cal foundations of this research and the methods followed to collectand interpret the empirical materials generated by the participat-ing women room attendants. The foundations and methods usedin this research in and of themselves distinguish this research fromother research involving women room attendants.
3. Research foundations
Given that the overarching purpose of this research was toaddress the invisibility of the lived employment experiences ofwomen hotel room attendants, the research has clear underlyingvalues. In particular, the axiology (that is, the values and ethics)of this research is to advance transformational change (Jennings,2005; Reinharz, 1992) in women room attendants’ work circum-stances. A critical theory epistemology was therefore adopted.Critical theory is synergistic with the researchers’ humanitarianconcern “to correct both the invisibility and the distortion of femaleexperience” (Lather, 2003:192) which, in this case, arises as a resultof hotels’ highly gendered division of labour. Given the focus onwomen’s lived employment experiences, an intertwined socialist(Marxist) feminist and social-constructionist ontology (worldview)and epistemology (knowledge/understanding) were adopted, rec-ognizing that all knowledge is socially constructed, situated andevolving. The result is a holistic, reflective interpretation of thecomplex set of experiences (Jamal and Hollinshead, 2001) of theparticipating five-star hotels’ women room attendants.
Importantly, the research drew on an epistemology of ‘insid-erness’, which views personal experience as a legitimate sourceof research material (Reinharz, 1992). This epistemological stanceprovides a perspective not offered in previous studies and, by work-ing in a different paradigm to other studies, provides additionalinsights that add to the literature. In particular, the first authorsocially situates herself as a woman with ‘Austrocentric’ experi-ences, having insider knowledge from previous work as a hotelroom attendant. This insiderness afforded an emic insight intoroom attendants’ experiences and aided development of rapportwith participants. The other researchers included two Anglo-Celticwomen with restaurant and cleaning experiences. The fourthresearcher has broad professional experience as a man in the hos-pitality industry at operational as well as managerial levels.
Our shared recognition of the constructed understanding ofexperience and the importance of the researchers’ interpreta-tions influenced our choice of constructionist grounded theory as
an appropriate methodology (Charmaz, 2006). Our methodologi-cal approach enabled understanding of the hotel workplace fromwomen room attendants’ viewpoints. The embodiment of par-ticular voices, it is argued, reveals under-recognized aspects of
f Hospitality Management 35 (2013) 360– 368 363
khhwoeapiipGip
4
dfihat‘paehiaeauch
laacieTcao
iew
c
TS
S
Table 2Open code generation from empirical material.
Interview statement Open code
1. R: Tell me how you would describe your2. Interaction with management and other staff?3. RA: You get the ones that think they’re just
awesome4. and you’re just a stupid old room attendant
youLevel maintenance
5. know.. but the snobby HR woman . . .(laughs)..
6. its like being sent to the headmistress . . . avery
Condescending
7. condescending attitude.. its like wow comeon.
8. you are here to do your job.. you are no better9. than me . . . supervisors didn’t even say thank Lacking recognition10. you. . .. Thanks for your help today . . . I
worked in11. this job for seventeen years and I’ve been
doing12. everything.. but there was never at the end
of the
to others. As the discussion will demonstrate, women atten-dants were the recipients of power displays, verbal denigrationand assignation of particularly dirty tasks by those in authority.Subsequently, women room attendants were denied respect and
S. Kensbock et al. / International Journal o
nowledge (Fullagar and Wilson, 2012). In this case, we emphasizeow these women perceive their role within the hotel’s operationalierarchy. As Allison (1971) reminds us, “. . .where you sit affectshat you see”. Grounded theory is a well-established and rigor-
us methodology (Sarantakos, 1998). Grounded theory provides anffective system for handling large amounts of empirical materialnd offers a systematic approach to the implicit process of inter-reting complex material (Glaser, 1998). It involves an inductive
nteraction with empirical material, and has particular strength ints flexible approach to constructing categories to explain socialhenomena in a holistic, reflective way (Charmaz, 1994, 2003).rounded theory enables processes to be identified and explored
n ways that are shaped by the empirical materials rather than byreconceived theoretical frameworks.
. Empirical material collection and interpretation
The empirical material was generated from one-on-one, in-epth interviews with 46 women room attendants employed atve hotels rated as ‘five-star’ on the Gold Coast of Australia. Theseotels were comparable in terms of room rate, layout and facilitiesnd market mix to most five-star hotels in Australia, and are thusypical of such establishments. Participants were enlisted usingpurposive’ (highly selective) theoretical sampling based on theirotential ability to provide rich information as the people doing thectual work. Initial access involved approval of several gatekeep-rs (general managers, human resource managers and executiveousekeepers) with women room attendants invited during morn-
ng staff briefings to participate. The participating room attendants’ge ranged from 20 to 60 years old, and they came from diversethnic backgrounds. Semi-structured interviews, digitally recordednd transcribed verbatim, ranged from 15 minutes to 75 min-tes, with an average time of 30 minutes. Most interviews wereonducted in staff lunchrooms, with a few in vacated executiveousekeeper offices and guest lounge areas.
Open coding was initially used to interpret the interviews, fol-owed by selective coding based on constant comparison methods,nd interspersed with memoing procedures. Coding took placefter each group of interviews, so that interpretive constructionould commence immediately. Glaser’s (1978) concepts of theoret-cal sensitivity were applied to derive the theoretical codes, whichxpress the interrelationships between the codes and categories.he outcomes of our interpretations were emergent theoreticalodes regarding the social and psychological processes of beingnd working as a room attendant, illuminating of the complexityf room attendants’ experiences (Table 1).
How we arrived at these theoretical codes or processes is shownn Table 2, which illustrates the generation of open codes from thempirical material associated with room attendants’ interactions
ith supervisors.
This level of coding was further subsumed into categories andonstruction of these was recorded in memos. These processes
able 1ocial and psychological processes.
BSP Basic Social Process BSP of being a roomattendant in a 5 star hotel.
BSSP Basic Social Structural Process BSSP of working as a roomattendant in a 5 star hotel.
BSPP Basic Social Psychological Process BSPPs of having low socialstatus, and being amultiple role social person.
BPP Basic Psychological Process BPP of defining self as aroom attendant and findingdignity in employment.
ource: Adapted from Glaser (1978).
13. day ‘thank you girls.. see you tomorrow’.. and Lacking recognition14. that’s what people want . . . respect.
were constructed both inductively and deductively in relation todevelopment of the operational hierarchy basic social structuralprocess. Table 3 illustrates the different coding levels, which wereconstructed both inductively and deductively in order to developthe relevant categories.
5. Working within hotel hierarchies
The outcome of our grounded theory interpretations was aconceptualization of women room attendants’ employment expe-riences within a hotel hierarchy. The abstraction of the livedemployment experiences demonstrates how the women roomattendants’ interactions with other people were influenced byorganizational and social hierarchies, which contributed to theirinvisibility. The stories recounted by room attendants in the inter-views expressed the sense-making co-performance exchangesbetween hotel actors (room attendants, guests, other hotel employ-ees and management), revealing the ‘multiple roles’ in a hotel’sgendered and highly structured workplace (Boje, 2001).
Within the hotel context, women room attendants perceivedthat they were located at the lowest level and that their employ-ment role-scripts required them to be submissive and subservient
Table 3Levels of codes from open to substantive.
Open codes Selective code Substantive
Complex Levels Hotel Structure Operational HierarchyLevel MaintenanceKnowing ManagerCondescending
Supervisor Support Supervisor InteractionLacking Supervisor SupportCovert Surveillance
Abuse of Power PowerHierarchy CorruptionHarassment
3 f Hosp
maaasai“tdopss
dtwh
Wrc
RpRtfi
Haawamhtirs
Whub
64 S. Kensbock et al. / International Journal o
arginalized. Their perceptions of inferiority were emphasizednd rendered them invisible. Here, marginalization denotes roomttendants’ exclusion from operational decision-making and socialcknowledgement, based on the perceived undesirable nature andtatus of their jobs (Lacher and Oh, 2012). The women roomttendants’ experiences presented below reveal many instancesdentifiable in Thompson’s (1998:10) definition of oppression asthe degrading treatment of individuals . . . brought about byhe dominance of one group over another; the negative andemeaning exercise of power”. These concepts resonate through-ut the following section, which narrates the room attendants’erceptions of their interactions with senior management, othertaff and the executive housekeeper and housekeeping supervi-ors.
Within hotels’ operational hierarchies, the various operationalepartments (food and beverage, housekeeping) add complexity. Inurn, each department has its own managerial hierarchy. Danielle,ith four years’ experience, described the many levels within oneousekeeping department:
We have a manager, and we have an assistant, and we have aroster person, and we have an ordering person on the phone allthe time, and the executive manager is responsible for every-thing, the laundry, concierge, public cleaning, so there are thatmany chiefs, we have a lot of people loitering downstairs, it’shuge.
ithin this set of hierarchies, room attendants were frequentlyeminded of their place, as Elizabeth, with five years’ experience,ommented:
We are at the bottom of the staff and no one thinks we have anymental capacity for anything, so no one asks us anything, we arecleaners, we are treated as the lesser workers.
oom attendants commonly said their work was viewed as unim-ortant and their value within the hotel was not acknowledged.oom attendants’ low position in the hotel hierarchy contributedo their lack of voice and marginalization, as observed by Ying, withve years’ experience:
I think they should really get down here and talk to us, see whatwe are doing, see what they can do to make it better for us,appreciation is another thing too.
otel management thus often failed to recognize the roomttendant cohort as a ‘community of value’, further reinforcingttendants’ invisibility. Room attendants’ knowledge about theirork processes, was not accessed and therefore not used to hotels’
dvantage. Some of the room attendants had outlasted five generalanagers and, with up to 20 years’ experience, possessed a store-
ouse of knowledge about the hotel’s history and development, andhe actual job. Room attendants’ invisibility was further reflectedn minimal contact with senior management. For example, refer-ing to her general manager, Elaine, with five years’ experience,tated:
The last one left a few months ago but I don’t know who the newone is. I’ve seen him once at a staff meeting and that was it. It’ssuch a big hotel and management structure that you just neversee him.
hile room attendants rarely saw managers senior to the executiveousekeeper, the manager in one smaller hotel, who was seen reg-larly, rarely expressed his appreciation to attendants, as relayedy Kirsten, with eight years’ experience:
We need more training for the manager to respect womenbecause he is dreadful. He comes to our briefing and it’s all nega-tive. There’s no ‘thanks girls you did a great job’, it’s all negative,
itality Management 35 (2013) 360– 368
and I think that is why the girls leave and why some give up oncleaning or trying to do a good job.
Room attendants continually expressed feelings of being underval-ued and gendered, as most management rarely provided positivefeedback. Elizabeth, with five years’ experience stated:
HR and the high flyers couldn’t give a s..t, our immediate super-visors are great, but management couldn’t care less.
Compounding these issues, many room attendants across theparticipating establishments claimed that human resource (HR)departments were generally unsympathetic and unsupportive.Bianca, with two years’ experience, stated:
Most of the staff are pretty good apart from the snobby HumanResources woman, it’s like being sent to the headmistress, a verycondescending attitude. I think ‘you are here to do your job, youare no better than me’.
These room attendants’ subordinate position in the hotel wasentrenched by HR, based on their perceptions of not receivingan empathetic hearing of their concerns. They felt marginalizedand ‘othered’ believing managers paid scant regard to their wel-fare and well-being. Room attendants reported receiving lesserrecognition from senior hotel management than did other staff,underlining their perceived lower value and inferiority comparedto other employees. For example, Bianca, with two years’ experi-ence, recounted:
There’s a definite hierarchy. Christmas time is a good exampleof that because all the food and beverage were given a bottleof [expensive champagne], the room attendants got a bottle ofthe crap champagne they use in banquets, and it’s just like ahome brand product. A [low priced carbonated brand] wouldhave been nicer.
This example illustrated inequitable rewards for different employ-ees’ contributions, reinforcing the lesser value management placedon room attendants vis-à-vis other hotel workers. The followingsection presents this ‘othering’, which room attendants attributedto the servile nature of their work.
From the room attendants’ perspectives, staff in other depart-ments had a higher status than their own. Such employees wereoften condescending, as expressed by Jamie, with nine years’ expe-rience:
Some staff from other departments are a bit standoffish, youcan see in their eyes that they won’t talk to me because I am inhousekeeping, and it’s not as important as their job.
Room attendants keenly felt the effects of such ‘distancing’. Rela-tions with ‘front office’ staff were particularly fraught, and a causeof daily tension and stress for room attendants. Room attendantswere often required by front office staff to change their room clean-ing schedules, increasing time pressures on them. Daja, with fouryears’ experience, explained the oppressive behaviour that com-monly occurred:
Without us this place wouldn’t function, like reception arealways demanding rooms and you think, well come up and helpus get them ready! They don’t seem to get the concept that ifpeople arrive early, their room is not ready. But they come upand say we want that room and that room, and they are all overthe hallway, that’s the worst part.
Attendants said front office staff had little appreciation of the
difficulties imposed by changing room cleaning schedules, andcommanding that room attendants comply. Room attendantsreported often experiencing such oppressive harassment fromfront office staff.
f Hosp
aw
Thbctes
Ida–dssw
Atroac
S(bvt
TstCuas
S. Kensbock et al. / International Journal o
In describing interactions with the executive housekeeper, roomttendants relate experiences of bullying as expressed by Clare,ith four years’ experience:
The last executive housekeeper was a guy and he didn’t reallycare about anything, he just sat in his office and perved on thechicks. It was just ‘do your job and shut the f..k up’, you woulddo your rooms and there was no communication between themand us and then we get roused at and chastized and it’s justchaos.
he humiliation and oppression expressed by Clare exemplifiesow management power was used to silence room attendants. Suchehaviours denied room attendants an avenue to express their con-erns related to performing their work and also ignored dialoguehat might have improved hotel operations. Elaine, with five years’xperience, described further oppressive supervisory behaviourhe had experienced:
If you have to take three days off in a row and you get backand it’s like they are angry at you. You haven’t been here forthree days but you’ve been sick, so it’s like high school. If thereis something the executive housekeeper or supervisor doesn’tlike then they will treat you like s..t for a while, until they forgetabout it. They almost overreact, so if you do call in sick a lot,they take it out on you.
nfantilizing behaviour of this kind was reported by other atten-ants as well. Based on their collective experiences, roomttendants were divided in their opinions of their floor supervisors
the immediate higher hierarchical level with who room atten-ants had the most frequent contact. At one end of the continuum,ome viewed their floor supervisors as approachable and under-tanding, and at the other as dictatorial and condescending. Susan,ith four years’ experience, related:
Most important part is to feel like you are appreciated, what youdo, not only with the guest but with the supervisor seeing youas a good worker, judging the outcome of your work. I have anew supervisor and she understands that we work hard.
ccording to participants, supervisors who had been promotedhrough the ranks appeared better able to understand the effortequired in room servicing. These supervisors had an appreciationf the physical challenges and time pressures involved, and seemedble to inspire additional effort. Ivy, with four years’ experience,ommented on the importance of recognition from supervisors:
When you get praise, you go out of your way to do things.
upervisors could reward good workers by allocating roomssuites) situated on higher floors with better views, often occupiedy VIPs and requiring less surveillance, thus freeing up the super-isors’ workload. Daja, with four years’ experience, had achievedhis status:
The supervisors learn the standards of each room attendant andknow what weaknesses they have. If you’re one of the cleanerpeople they will check briefly, just to make sure your standardsare still there, but they focus on the lower floors where thenewer staff are or the younger ones, they lack the experienceof cleaning.
he allocation of work at a higher floor within the hotel showsome housekeeping supervisors recognized room attendants’ valueo the hotel by acknowledging their work required less supervision.
onversely, some room attendants also perceived that they werender excessive surveillance and subject to snap inspections. Eliz-beth, with five years’ experience, relates her interpretation of aupervisor’s draconian behaviour:
itality Management 35 (2013) 360– 368 365
There’s one supervisor I can’t stand, I think she is a b. . .h, sohaughty and superior; she seems to sneak up on us and checkall the time. You are watched, but she is over the top, I don’t giveher the time of day.
Such close surveillance was viewed by room attendants as showinga lack of trust, reinforcing their placement at the lowest level of thehotel hierarchy and the undervaluation of their work. Attendantsreported a range of punitive measures by supervisors, includingsurveillance, threats and abuse, all operating as mechanisms ofcontrol. Such coercive power displays included denigrating staffverbally, and assigning particularly dirty and tough tasks to atten-dants who were not ‘in favor’. Room attendants also spoke of somesupervisors who drove a fast work pace to meet their own workdeadlines. In sum, the room attendants’ experiences of marginaliza-tion and oppression while working within a hotel hierarchy revealtheir invisibility in hotel hierarchy decision making processes, andtheir powerlessness in their placement on the lowest hierarchalrung.
6. Discussion
From the hotel’s perspective, overall performance – includingprofitability – depends on room attendants using their skillsand experience to complete their tasks efficiently. Conversely,from the participating women room attendants’ perspectives,their self-worth as employees derives in part from how theyare treated at work. This research therefore makes two majorcontributions. First, it supports findings of earlier research thatthe housekeeping department continues to have low status andthat attendants are often denigrated and socially isolated by otheremployees (Faulkner and Patiar, 1997). This contributes to theirbeing rendered near invisible (Hunter Powell and Watson, 2006;Onsøyen et al., 2009) within the complex and strongly hierarchicalenvironment of hotels (Grove et al., 1992; Wood, 1992). Despitethe passage of time and changes in employment practices andoperational management styles, as well as research highlightingsuch invisibility women room attendants, their employmentcircumstances have not changed.
Second, the research contributes new knowledge to the litera-ture by uncovering the dynamics of room attendants’ perceptions oftheir place in the operational hierarchy by situating it on the ‘lowestrung’ of hotels’ ladder of hierarchy. Room attendants’ low occupa-tional status and lack of power was revealed in their marginal-ization, oppression and othering – key outcomes for attendantsas a result of the daily performance of their job role. Situated atthe ‘lowest rung’ identified the inequalities room attendants facedas a collective group of employees highlighting the disadvantagesof room attendant employment. While working under autocraticmanagement styles these disadvantages include denial as a com-munity of value, being ‘othered’ and subjugated through surveil-lance. Underlying these various processes are gendered notions ofroom attendants’ work and the gendered processes which imbuehotels’ managerial systems and reinforce inequalities of power.
6.1. Autocratic management
Strongly bureaucratic (or mechanistic) hierarchical structures –such as those in hotels illuminated by this research – give rise todiscriminatory power imbalances between people. Discriminatorypower is underpinned by the concept of ‘managerial preroga-tive’ (Bittner, 1965) and perpetuated via derogatory language, as
Clare found. Where treatment was not discriminatory, it was oftenmarked by very little positive feedback, as Kirsten observed, andthis is consistent with the findings of Sollund’s (2006) researchon hospitality workers. Autocratic management styles have been
3 f Hosp
rPt‘t(shmiicTt2
6
t1fihchmetWscpio2uuaihowiratps(iia
6
ietnfabwsn
66 S. Kensbock et al. / International Journal o
ecognized as a general feature of hotels in Australia (Faulkner andatiar, 1997), and this management style has been dubbed ‘destruc-ive leadership’ (Onsøyen et al., 2009) or, in a union publication,hegemonic management’ (Tarrant, 2009). In other words, this con-rol is based on institutionalized power rather than relying on forceLukes, 1974), as Bianca and Elaine discovered in their dealings withtaff higher up the hierarchy. The operational hierarchy of theseotels was premised on and sustained by an ideology of manage-ent praxis (Thompson, 1998), which reinforced inequality result-
ng in room attendants feeling devalued and disempowered. Thesedeological assumptions of the hierarchical management praxisontribute to oppressive workplace practices for room attendants.his research contributes to identifying that despite the passage ofime the style of human resource practice is still the same as in the0th century and the marginalization of workers continues.
.2. Othering and subjugation
From a feminist perspective, women room attendants who par-icipated in this research were treated as the ‘other’ (de Beauvoir,949/1972). Their roles were highly gendered, and gendering rei-es social perceptions of the inferiority of women (Davis, 1993), andence the participating room attendants. The patriarchal bureau-ratic management structure, embedded within the participatingotels’ operational hierarchies, is a social construct prevalent inost societies (Rose, 2003). As in the room attendants’ experi-
nce this structure reinforces male gender power by replicatinghe gendered order of society to the workplace (Seymour, 2009;
ilson and Thompson, 2001). Particular evidence of this is demon-trated in the women room attendants’ daily task function, that is,leaning – ‘women’s work’ in the private sphere. These inherentatriarchal attitudes in hotel operational hierarchies were reflected
n Clare’s gendering experience. Her experience was an examplef harassment, and bullying and denial of dignity at work (Sayer,007). Evidence of widespread discrimination and harassment, sex-al and otherwise, by frontline managers in hospitality has beenncovered by others (Slonaker et al., 2007), despite the existence ofnti-discrimination legislation in most Western countries, includ-ng Australia. In this study, as found elsewhere (Kay et al., 2009), theierarchal operating structure ensured the paternalistic treatmentf women and continued their subjugation. For the participatingomen room attendants, this resulted in perceptions of being near
nvisible and was accompanied by othering as well as denial ofespectful treatment. Self-reports of participating room attendants,lso noted that the most insignificant daily interpersonal interac-ions were characterized by domination from those in supervisoryositions. Interpersonal interactions are both defined and con-trained by the status broader society assigns to individual rolesJones and Ellis, 2003). Hence, the exercise of power and controls inextricably linked to the women room attendants’ gendereddentity and experiences at the lower level of the operational hier-rchy.
.3. Denial of community of value
Participating women room attendants were rendered nearnvisible in multiple ways. As a community of value, they were gen-rally excluded from operational decision-making. This ensuredhat they had no voice and their interests and knowledge wereot considered. The introductory quote from Helen, and Ying’s call
or management to ‘see’ provide evidence of this. These women –nd many other participants – questioned management practices
ut felt no one listened to them because they perceived that theyere at the lowest hierarchal level. Our study calls for equality in
ocial life, including work life to provide recognition for the domi-ated, and this is supported in literature (Fraser, 1997). The lack of
itality Management 35 (2013) 360– 368
room attendant voice and consultation has been noted in Europeanstudies (Onsøyen et al., 2009; Hunter Powell and Watson, 2006),particularly in relation to aspects directly relevant to attendants’daily tasks, such as the design of hotel rooms or consultation overselection of cleaning products.
Our findings within the hotel context are also consistent withothers’ findings that while worker knowledge is valuable it isoften suppressed because of hegemonic management philosophieswhich separate planning and execution (Courpasson et al., 2012;Giroux, 1988). The room attendants participating in this study con-tributed significantly to hotels’ profitability but did not feel theywere included or acknowledged in the hotel’s decision-making pro-cesses. Hegemonic hierarchal management styles, as practiced inthe participating hotels, often results in decisions that are unwork-able on the ground, due to the multi-tiered approval layers thatsystematically disempower lower-level employees (Hamel, 2011).As other studies have found, both in hospitality and other low-paidoccupations, employees’ ability to affect organizational practices ismediated by their undervalued position at the bottom of the hier-archy (Leach, 2005; Primaeaux and Beckley, 1999; Testa, 2001). Inthis way knowledge sharing is limited within a bureaucratic hier-archical operational system (Stanton et al., 2010). Ideas for change,innovations and improvements may come from unusual places(Hamel, 2011; Koutra and Edwards, 2011), drawing from hiddenreservoirs of talent (Jentoft, 2007; Sandvik et al., 2011). Therefore,room attendants’ near invisibility to management, identified in thisstudy, limits potential spontaneous innovation within these hotels.
6.4. Power
Power is embedded in the hierarchies and practises of hotels asauthority is at the core of their bureaucratic (mechanistic) oper-ational systems. In this study, displays of power were evident,with widespread exercise of power via punitive tactics. As Jentoff(2007) suggests, power can be disruptive, corruptive, and negative,creating inequity and injustice. The participating hotels’ manage-ment used the power of ‘command authority’ (Goffman, 1959) toensure that room attendants conformed to required norms. Onthe positive side, when some of the participating women roomattendants performed consistently at a high standard, good super-visors trusted them, and this provided attendants with a modicumof self-determination and confidence regarding their performance.On the other hand, some participating attendants found constantsurveillance humiliating as, in the words of Sayer (2007:571) itdiminished their dignity and “underestimated their capacity forvirtuous autonomous action”. Surveillance – both physical andtechnological – is a disciplinary power based on mistrust that cre-ates intimate control. Those attendants who reported enjoyingsome discretion in their work as a result of supervisor trust feltsome degree of empowerment. However, limited empowermenthas little overall impact in a context of voice (Wajcman, 2000).Further, the (limited) measures of empowerment, related by thewomen room attendants, did not provide avenues for consultationor ‘voice’, thus contributing to attendants’ invisibility and gender-ing. The empowerment of these room attendants could thereforebe seen as a form of subordination, encouraging them to engagein self-surveillance to improve productivity for the establishment(Burawoy, 1985). The control experienced by room attendantsis therefore exercised through, and comprised of, relationshipsof superiority or domination (Darity, 2008). In this connection,organizational structure enforces managerial control and providesa means to exploit low-paid labour, based on institutionalized
power rather than relying on force (Lukes, 1974). From a Marxistperspective, the rise of globalized capitalism has rendered orga-nizations such as hotels as autonomous worlds-unto-themselves(Courpasson et al., 2012). Room attendants have little choice other
f Hosp
tv
tmrssptfehtgta
7
tosrcw
fievwdtcadtatcPiiecimtmoh
tad‘flimcaruo
S. Kensbock et al. / International Journal o
han to collude with the power invested in management, and haveery little ability to contest this power.
The workplace struggles of hotel room attendants outlined inhis paper shows that attendants seek to generate new sense-
aking in the face of hegemonic operational hierarchies. Someoom attendants resisted in certain contexts but at other times con-ented to practises and managerial styles that they found repres-ive. While theories of oppression are still relatively undeveloped,articularly as they apply to hospitality services (Thompson, 1998),he layers of operational hierarchy created oppressive conditionsor the women room attendants, and the requirements for defer-nce limited their voice, thus reinforcing their near invisibility. Itas been noted that ‘status’ in a hierarchy has performance expecta-ions, which can be used to shape human behaviour and, in a highlyendered workplace, can legitimize and reinforce the organiza-ion’s patriarchal hierarchy (Bergh et al., 2010) which, we wouldrgue, permeates the participating five-star hotel environments.
. Concluding comments
Room attendants experience subjugation and oppressionhrough lack of respect from other hotel workers, and the exercisef authority via a network of created management and supervi-or power. The findings of this study reveal that, in hotel praxis,oom attendants are gendered and ‘othered’ and little recognized asohort of workers with knowledge. Importantly, room attendants’isdom and practical advice as a community of value was ignored.
This research thus contributes to the hospitality literaturerstly, through the intertwined socialist feminist critical theorypistemological stance providing a perspective not offered in pre-ious studies. By working in a different paradigm to other studies,e provide additional insights grounded in women room atten-ants’ perspectives that add to the literature in acknowledgingheir denigration and social isolation from other employees whichontribute to their near invisibility. Secondly, by focussing on
largely overlooked subject, the concerns of hotel room atten-ants, and particularly the perceptions of women participating inhis research viewing themselves as ‘the lowest rung’. Thirdly, bydopting a grounded theory methodology we have contributed toheory building from empirical world experiences rather than pre-onceived theoretical frameworks, thus filling a gap in literature.articipating women room attendants’ concerns include work-ng under physical duress, poor remuneration and, as this articlellustrates, marginalization from decision-making and detrimentalxperiences of oppression under the hotels’ operational hierar-hy. The perspectives of room attendants revealed here providensights for hotel operational praxis, particularly, acknowledge-
ent of room attendants as a community of value, and in movingowards a reduction in ‘othering’ and surveillance under autocratic
anagement styles. Relatedly, the following implications and rec-mmendations are offered as a means to rectify and make visibleotel room attendants.
Given the aim of this research was for transformational change,he authors call for greater acknowledgement of women roomttendants as a community of value with inclusion in hotelecision-making to diminish their marginalization and provide
voice’. This can be best achieved by an intention to share power andatten the hotel hierarchical decision making processes. Greater
nteraction and inclusivity across hotel hierarchy levels and depart-ents will foster an appreciation of room attendants’ important
ontribution to the hotels’ functioning, so lessening the ‘othering’
spect. An organizational culture change is required to encompassegular on-floor visits by the managers. This has to be subtletyndertaken so as not to be perceived as an additional layerf surveillance, rather to demonstrate acknowledgement of the
itality Management 35 (2013) 360– 368 367
importance of the women who fulfil the role of room attendant sothey do not feel so isolated, unappreciated or near invisible. Such isthe nature of power and the implications for room attendants thatthe following questions require examination. What is the natureof power within everyday hotel operational settings? What are theconsequences for room attendants of managerial power in decisionmaking? Under what conditions can hotel staff resist domination?In answering these questions researchers will be addressing theconcerns of room attendants as exemplified by Helen and Ying’sexperience of denial of their knowledge and Kirsten’s (and manyother room attendants) experiences of subjugation through auto-cratic management.
This study has provided in-depth insights into women roomattendants’ employment experiences in five ‘five-star’ hotels on theGold Coast, Queensland, Australia. The research was conducted inthe early decades of the 21st century. In light of this research, otherresearch directions are recommended. Research using a broadersample across all hotel ‘star’ ratings will provide a deeper represen-tation of the room attendant occupation in relation to working in anorganizational hierarchy. Such research should be considered fromvarying gender perspectives for comparative purposes. Differingcultural and social milieus will provide different insights and fur-ther our understandings. Further, research into the perspectives ofother hotel employees from the various levels of the hotel organiza-tional structure to determine how management, line managers andhuman resource managers view their position and the functionalityof the operational hierarchy will build on this research. Qualita-tive, quantitative and mixed method research designs will variouslyinform our understandings. However, one key recommendation ofthis research is that given the current world circumstances of com-plexity, change and diversity, site specific research encompassingqualitative research principles will enable hotel management tomake informed decisions based on holistic and multiple perspec-tives from varying levels of the organization.
References
Adib, A., Guerrier, Y., 2003. The interlocking of gender with nationality, race, eth-nicity and class: the narratives of women in hotel work. Gender, Work andOrganization 10 (4), 413–432.
Allison, G.T., 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. LittleBrown, London.
Althusser, L., 1971. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New Left Books, London.Baker, K., Huyton, J., 2001. Hospitality Management. An introduction. Hospitality
Press, Melbourne.Bergh, D.D., Ketchen Jr., D.J., Boyd, B.K., Bergh, J., 2010. New frontiers of the rep-
Bittner, E., 1965. The concept of organization. Sociological Research 32 (3), 239–255.Boje, D.M., 2001. What doors can we open? Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern
Organization Science 1 (1), 8–15.Boon, B., 2007. Working within the front of house/back-of-house boundary: room
attendants in the hotel guest room space. Journal of Management and Organi-zation 13 (2), 160–174.
Burawoy, S.M., 1985. The Politics of Production. Factory Regimes under Capitalismand Socialism. Thetford Press, Norfolk, England.
Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through Qual-itative Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Charmaz, K., 1994. The grounded theory method: an explication and interpretation.In: Glaser, B.G. (Ed.), More Grounded Theory Methodology: A Reader. SociologyPress, Mill Valley, CA, pp. 96–114.
Courpasson, D., Golsorkhi, D., Sallaz, J.J. (Eds.), 2012. Rethinking Power in Organi-zations, Institutions, and Markets: Classical Perspectives, Current Research, andthe Future Agenda, vol. 34. Research in the Sociology of Organizations. EmeraldGroup, Bingley, UK, pp. 1–20.
Darity Jr., W.A., 2008. International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 3., 2nded. Macmillan, Detroit.
Davis, T.R.V., 1993. Managing internal service delivery in organizations. In: Swartz,T.A., Bowen, D.E., Brown, S.W. (Eds.), Advances in Services Marketing and Man-
agement, vol. 2. JAI Press, London, pp. 301–321.
de Beauvoir, S., (H.M. Parshley, Trans.) 1972. The Second Sex (Le Deuxieme Sexe).Penguin, Ringwood, Australia.
Eichler, M., Burke, M.A.A., 2006. The bias free framework: a new analytical tool forglobal health research. Canadian Journal of Public Health 97 (1), 63–68.
aulkner, B., Patiar, A., 1997. Workplace induced stress among operational staff in thehotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 16 (1), 99–117.
raser, N., 1997. From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘Post-socialist’ age. In: Fraser, N. (Ed.), Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the‘Postsocialist’ Condition. Routledge, New York, pp. 11–40.
ullagar, S., Wilson, E., 2012. Critical pedagogies: A reflexive approach to knowledgecreation in tourism and hospitality studies. Journal of Hospitality and TourismManagement 19, 5–10.
laser, B.G., 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Sociology Press,Mill Valley. CA.
laser, B.G., 1978. Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. TheoreticalSensitivity. Sociology Press, CA.
iroux, H.A., 1988. Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice: rethinkingthe discourse of educational research. In: Sherman, R.R., Webb, R.B. (Eds.), Qual-itative Research in Education: Focus and Methods. Falmer Press, London, pp.190–210.
offman, E., 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Overlook Press, NY.rove, S.J., Fisk, R.P., Bitner, M.J., 1992. Dramatizing the service experience: a man-
agerial approach. In: Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E., Brown, S.W. (Eds.), Advances inServices Marketing and Management, vol. 1. JAI Press, London, pp. 91–121.
undersen, M.G., Morten, H., Olsson, U.H., 1996. Hotel guest satisfaction amongbusiness travelers: what are the important factors? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly37 (2), 72–81.
amel, G., 2011. The big idea: first let’s fire all the managers. Harvard BusinessReview December, 48–60.
unter Powell, P., Watson, D., 2006. Service unseen: the hotel room attendant atwork. International Journal of Hospitality Management 25 (2), 297–312.
amal, T., Hollinshead, K., 2001. Tourism and the forbidden zone: the underservedpower of qualitative inquiry. Tourism Management 22 (1), 63–82.
ennings, G.R., 2005. Business Research theoretical paradigms that inform. In:Kempf-Leonard, K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, vol. 1, no. 71.Elsevier Inc., Oxford, UK, pp. 211–217.
entoft, S., 2007. In the power of power: the understated aspect of fisheries andcoastal management. Human Organization 66 (4), 426–437.
ones, C.B., Ellis, W., 2003. The hermeneutics of work. Psychology of Women Quar-terly 27 (3), 271–273.
andasamy, I., Ancheri, S., 2009. Hotel employee’s expectations of WQL: A qualita-tive study. International. Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3), 328–337.
ay, A.C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J.M., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M.P., Spencer, S.J., 2009.Inequality, discrimination and the power of the status quo: direct evidence fora motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 97 (3), 421–434.
outra, C., Edwards, J., 2011. Capacity building through socially responsible tourismdevelopment: a Ghanaian case study. Journal of Travel Research 51 (6), 779–792.
acher, R.G., Oh, C.O., 2012. Is Tourism a Low-Income Industry? Evidence from threeCoastal Regions. Journal of Travel Research 51 (4), 464–472.
ather, P., 2003. Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock anda soft place. In: Lincoln, Y.S., Denzin, N.K. (Eds.), Turning Points in QualitativeResearch. Tying Knots in a Handkerchief. Altamira Press, CA, pp. 185–215.
each, B., 2005. Agency and the gendered imagination: women’s actions and localculture in steelworker families. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power12 (1), 1–22.
ennon, J.J., Wood, R.C., 1989. The sociological analysis of hospitality labour and theneglect of accommodation workers. International Journal of Hospitality Man-
agement 8 (3), 227–235.
ukes, S., 1974. Power, a Radical View. Macmillan, London.adanoglu, M., Moreo, P.J., Leong, J.K., 2003. Reasons for employee turnover. among
room attendants. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 2 (1),17–38.
itality Management 35 (2013) 360– 368
Onsøyen, L.E., Myukletun, R.J., Steiro, T.J., 2009. Silenced and invisible: the work-experience of room attendants in Norwegian hotels. Scandinavian Journal ofHospitality and Tourism 9 (1), 81–102.
Pearce, P.L., 2012. Tourists’ written reactions to poverty in southern Africa. Journalof Travel Research 51 (2), 154–165.
Primaeaux, P., Beckley, J., 1999. Double bookkeeping: hierarchical obedience andparticipative cooperation. Journal of Business Ethics 19 (1), 123–137.
Reinharz, S., 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford University, Oxford.Ritzer, G., 1999. Enchanting a Disenchanting World. Pine Forge, Thousand Oaks, CA.Rose, G., 2003. Family photographs and domestic spacings: a case study. Transitions
of the Institute of British Geographers 28 (1), 5–18.Sandvik, I.L., Arnett, D.B., Sandvik, K., 2011. The effects of new product develop-
ment proficiency on product advantage and tourism business performance:evidence from the Norwegian hotel industry. Journal of Travel Research 50 (6),641–653.
Sarantakos, S., 1998. Social Research, 2nd ed. Macmillan, NY.Saunders, K.C., Pullen, R.A., 1987. An Occupational Study of Room Maids in Hotels.
Middlesex Polytechnic, London.Sayer, A., 2007. Dignity at Work: Broadening the Agenda. Organization 14 (4),
565–581.Scherzer, T., Rugulies, R., Krause, N., 2005. Work-related pain and injury and barri-
ers to workers’ compensation among Las Vegas hotel room cleaners. AmericanJournal of Public Health 95 (3), 483–488.
Seymour, K., 2009. Women, gendered work and gendered violence: so much morethan a job. Gender, Work and Organization 16 (2), 238–265.
Sherman, R., 2011. Beyond interaction: customer influence on housekeeping androom service work in hotels. Work, Employment and Society 25 (1), 19–33.
Sherman, R, 2005. Producing the superior self: strategic comparison and symbolicboundaries among luxury hotel workers. Ethnography 6 (2), 131–158.
Slonaker, W.M., Wendt, A.C., Baker, B., 2007. Employment discrimination in therestaurant industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 48,46–58.
Sollund, R., 2006. Mechanistic versus organic organizations’ impact on immigrantwomen’s work satisfaction and occupational mobility. Scandinavian Journal ofHospitality and Tourism 64 (4), 287–307.
Stanton, P., Young, S., Bartram, T., Leggat, S.G., 2010. Singing the same song:translating HRM messages across management hierarchies in Australian hos-pitals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21 (4),567–581.
Subramanian, N., Ramakrishnan, R., 2012. A review of applications of analytic hier-archy process in operations management. International Journal of ProductionEconomics 138 (2), 215–241.
Tarrant, L. (Ed.), 2009. Hotels To Be Proud Of. LHMU, Redfern, NSW.Testa, M.R., 2001. Hospitality leaders: do they know how their employees feel
about them? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42 (6),80–89.
Thompson, N., 1998. Promoting Equality: Challenging Discrimination and Oppres-sion in the Human Services. Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Veijola, S., 2009. Gender as work in the tourism industry. Tourist Studies 9 (2),109–126.
Wajcman, J., 2000. Feminism facing industrial relations in Britain. British Journal ofIndustrial Relations 38 (2), 183–201.
Waser, H., Johns, N., 2003. An evaluation of action research as a vehicle for individualand organisational development in the hotel industry. Hospitality Management
22 (4), 373–393.
Weber, M., 1964. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Free Press, NY.Wilson, F., Thompson, P., 2001. Sexual harassment as an exercise of power. Gender,
Work and Organization 8 (1), 61–83.Wood, R.C., 1992. Working in Hotels and Catering. Routledge, London.
