Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Running Head: MENZIESTRATHMORE HOTEL CUSTOMER ?ND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION " Menziestrathmore Hotel Customer ?nd Employee Satisfaction" [Name of the writer] [Name of the institution] Abstract "Treat others as you would like t? be treated" this is th? golden rule ?nd th? basis for th? success ?nd recognized service quality ?f th? Menzies Strathmore Hotel in Luton. Its dedication t? its customer's ?nd employee's ?f offering th? highest standards when delivering their service has made it th? benchmark in luxury hotels. MenziesStrathmore Hotel in Luton constantly endeavors t? maintain ?nd improve th? quality ?f its services. Menzies Strathmore Hotel in Luton has been ? major innovator in th? hospitality industry, developing services t? make business travel more productive ?nd efficient, ?nd leisure travel stress-free ?nd more enjoyable. Th? aim ?f this essay is t? explore ?nd examine th? service quality ?f this chain which has focused its quality amongst its human resources ?nd ?f course its clientele. Through this we will compare ?nd relate them t? service quality theories that it relates t? as well as examining other theories towards service quality ?nd contrast them t? th? MenziesStrathmore approach. Th? brand, its marketing, th? scarcity ?f th? type ?f service, etc. are all secondary factors which will also be looked at ?nd examined. Secondly we look at how th? service quality obtained by MenziesStrathmore Hotel seeks t? minimize th? service gaps which so often occur in this industry. Finally, we will make future projections as well as how such ?n established ?nd high-quality chain copes with service recovery in order t? maintain its high esteem amongst its extremely demanding customers ?nd maintain its stature. TABLE OF CONTENT CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 3 MENZIESTRATHMORE HOTEL OVERVIEW 12 ?TTR?CTION-?ELECTION-MODEL 14 B?L?NCE THEORY 15 EMOTION?L CONT?GION 16 ?YNTHE?I? 18 HYPOTHE?I? 19 CH?PTER 3: METHODOLOGY 20 ??MPLE ?ND D?T? COLLECTION 20 ME??UREMENT OF CON?TRUCT? 20 CH?PTER 4: ?N?LY?I? ?ND RE?ULT? ...read more.

Middle

For te?ting H1, multiple group ?n?ly?i? on the ?tructur?l equ?tion model de?cribed ?bove w?? conducted. In ? fir?t model, the p?th from employee to cu?tomer ??ti?f?ction i? re?tricted to be the ??me ?cro?? ?ll three employee group? (re?tricted model). Next, ? te?t whether thi? re?tricted model perform? better in comp?ri?on to ? model in which the p?th i? ?llowed to v?ry ?cro?? the three group? (unre?tricted model) i? performed. ?ll other model p?th? were re?tricted to be equ?l ?cro?? the three group? for both model?, re?ulting in the unre?tricted model h?ving two degree? of freedom le?? (i.e., the two more p?r?meter? to be e?tim?ted). The null hypothe?i? of equ?l p?r?meter? for ?ll three group? i? rejected when the difference in chi-?qu?re between the re?tricted ?nd the unre?tricted v?lue i? ?bove the critic?l thre?hold for ? 95%-confidence interv?l ?t 2 degree? of freedom, which i? 5.99. The re?ulting p?r?meter e?tim?te? for the unre?tricted model ?re ? = .29(t = 6.45, p < .01) for ?ervice employee? in Menziestrathmore Hotel, ? = .25(t = 3.99, p < .01) for c??hier? ?nd ? = .20(t = 2.82, p < .01) for ?toreroom worker?. Hence, the effect i? ?tronge?t for employee? who ?re in direct cont?ct with cu?tomer?, ?nd we?ke?t for employee? who do not h?ve cont?ct ?t ?ll with cu?tomer?. However, the chi-?qu?re difference between the re?tricted ?nd the unre?tricted model i? 3.45, ?ugge?ting th?t rel?xing the ???umption of equ?l p?r?meter? for ?ll employee group? doe? not ?ignific?ntly improve model fit. In combin?tion with the f?ct th?t the effect i? ?t?ti?tic?lly ?ignific?nt for ?ll three group?, thi? ?ugge?t? th?t only very we?k difference? in the employee-cu?tomer ??ti?f?ction link exi?t ?cro?? v?riou? cu?tomer cont?ct group?. Hence, the hypothe?i? 1 receive? ?ome light ?upport (th?t the link i? ?tronge?t for employee? who ?re in direct cu?tomer cont?ct), but ?ince the te?t f?il? to reve?l ?t?ti?tic?l ?ignific?nce, the hypothe?i? 1 c?nnot be cle?rly confirmed. However, ? ?t?ti?tic?lly ?ignific?nt rel?tion?hip exi?t? even for cu?tomer? who ?re not in direct cu?tomer cont?ct. ...read more.

Conclusion

T?ylor ?ee? it, ?n inequ?lency i? p?rt ?f th? phenomenon, not ? confound. In th? mind ?f thi? ?uthor, however, it ?eem? ?? if th? i??ue need? t? be ex?mined more c?refully. Moreover, in ? de?ign in which th? re?pondent i? ??ked ?bout hi?/her re?pon?e t? different epi?ode?, it might be reve?ling t? include epi?ode? which de?cribe ? perfectly ''norm?l'' inter?ction which would f?ll within th? ''zone ?f indifference''. Thi? m?y indeed ??y ?omething ?bout th? potenti?l for ?kewed di?tribution? ?f employee ?nd cu?tomer ?nd employee ??ti?f?ction ?core?. ?nother intere?ting ?ltern?tive i? t? gener?te epi?ode? on ? ?elf-?election b??i?. Th?t i? t? ??y, re?pondent? could be ??ked t? rec?ll re?l epi?ode? which cre?ted low ?nd high level? ?f ??ti?f?ction, ?nd ??ked t? re?pond t? item? which ?re th? ??me for ?ll re?pondent?. One nice ex?mple ?f ? ?tudy ?f thi? type i? (Fornell, 1992, 21). Moreover, employee ?nd cu?tomer ?nd employee ??ti?f?ction c?n be oper?tion?lized in w?y? f?r richer th?n tho?e ?pplied in thi? ?tudy. For in?t?nce, with reg?rd t? tr?n?mi??ion ?f inform?tion, ?ever?l type?' ?f receiver?' ?f word-?f-mouth (clo?e friend?, di?t?nt friend?, etc.) ?nd feedb?ck (m?n?ger?, ??le? clerk?, ?t?ff in th? compl?int dep?rtment, etc.) m?y be di?tingui?hed. Th? p?rticul?r type ?f inform?tion which i? tr?n?mitted m?y ?l?o be explicitly ???e??ed (e.g. compl?int? ?nd compliment?). With re?pect t? loy?lty, future purch??e intention? ?re only one po??ible indic?tor (for ? r?re ?ttempt t? define loy?lty in ?ever?l w?y?). Furthermore, when it come? t? th? independent v?ri?ble in thi? ?tudy, employee ?nd cu?tomer ?nd employee ??ti?f?ction, it ?hould be noted th?t th? level ?f ??ti?f?ction re?ulting from one p?rticul?r incident (i.e. tr?n??ction-?pecific ??ti?f?ction, which thi? ?tudy i? likely t? h?ve ?imul?ted) m?y produce ? different beh?viour th?n ??ti?f?ction which i? b??ed on th? employee ?nd cu?tomer ?nd employee cumul?tive experience. It ?eem? likely th?t th? l?tter would h?ve ? ?tronger influence on beh?viour (Coyne, 1989, 68). Fin?lly, it ?hould be noted th?t ? ?m?ll convenience ??mple w?? u?ed in thi? explor?tory ?tudy, ?? well ?? epi?ode? rel?ted t? th? ?irline indu?try. Needle?? t? ??y, then, gener?liz?tion? beyond th? re?pondent? in thi? p?rticul?r ?tudy ?re tenuou?. ...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Case Studies section.