Exploring the Strategic Ground for Listening and Organizational Effectiveness 
Judi Brownell 
Cornell University 
 
Correspondence Address 
Cornell School of Hotel Administration,  
Cornell University  
545 Statler Hall  
Ithaca, New York 14853 
Fax: (607) 254-2971  
Email: jlb18@cornell.edu 
 
Abstract 
This paper proposes that strategic plans are most likely to be implemented successfully when hospitality 
leaders listen well and when hospitality organizations develop strong learning environments. It is 
proposed that leaders who listen effectively can influence organizational processes at three levels of 
analysis – individual, team/interactional, and organizational. Examples are provided of the specific 
listening challenges hospitality leaders confront at each level. The HURIER model proposes a 6-stage 
listening process. A discussion then follows describing how listening skills can be applied to address the 
challenges posed at each of the three levels of analysis. It is argued that when leaders listen effectively 
they can create learning environments that then facilitate the implementation of the strategies they 
propose. When such organizational cultures are created and maintained, both employee empowerment 
and organizational performance are increased. Suggestions for increasing listening effectiveness are 
presented. A conceptual model is offered as a tool for identifying questions for future research. 
 
 Keywords: Strategic plan, learning organization, learning environment, listening, hospitality 
leadership, symbolic perspective  
1 
 
Exploring the Strategic Ground for Listening and Organizational Effectiveness 
 In the dynamic hospitality industry, skilled leaders increasingly focus their attention on creating 
strategies to accomplish organizational goals. The development of strategic plans, however, is only the 
first step; leaders must also successfully implement the plans they design (Knotter, 1996; Knotter & 
Cohen, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Kusy & McBain, 2000). As experience has repeatedly 
demonstrated, good ideas and carefully crafted strategic plans – the ‘‘what’’ of organizational 
effectiveness – -are insufficient for those seeking to impact an organization’s future. Rather, a hospitality 
leader’s most difficult challenge is the ‘‘how’’ – the implementation of strategies that will keep the 
organization focused and competitive. In today’s dynamic service setting, we propose that effective 
listening is the key competence required for creating an environment that will facilitate the 
implementation of strategic plans (Argyris, 1999, 1993; Chang & Lee, 2007; Collins, 2005; 
Konczak, 2005). 
Leaders as listeners recognize differences in employees’ interpretations of organizational events 
(over-booking or a kitchen accident) and work to create shared meanings. They understand both their 
employees and the specific hospitality environment in which they work. They develop a team spirit that 
facilitates the accomplishment of their action plans. Listening leaders also understand how to effectively 
use the organization’s communication channels to implement their strategies. When agile organizations 
are created and maintained, employees are likely to feel empowered and guests more satisfied (Chew, 
Cheng, & Petrovic-Lazarevic, 2006; Elkjaer, 2004; Knotter, 1996; Knotter & Cohen, 2002; Savolainen & 
Haikonen, 2007). 
This paper unfolds in the following manner. First, the importance of strategic planning is 
emphasized. Three levels of organizational analysis are then used as a guiding framework in discussing 
the challenges to implementing strategic plans in hospitality environments. The concept of a learning 
organization is then presented and defined, and the requirements for creating a strong learning 
environment are outlined. The symbolic approach to understanding organizational activities is described 
and its usefulness highlighted. 
2 
 
The leader’s role, and the critical need for listening competence, is then proposed and examined. 
The HURIER model of listening is described and, using this approach, the potential impact listening 
leaders have on creating responsive organizational environments is examined. The authors propose that 
listening is likely to facilitate the implementation of strategic plans on three levels – by better 
understanding the nature of the hospitality workforce, by addressing challenges created by the nature of 
hospitality work, and by making wise communication choices regarding the organization’s channels and 
sources. It would seem, then, that leaders who listen effectively are well-positioned to address the 
challenges of the hospitality environment as they implement their strategic plans. Assuming this is the 
case, the paper concludes by suggesting ways to promote listening effectiveness and by offering a model 
that can be used to identify questions for future research on this topic. 
Implementation of Strategic Plans 
 The importance of strategic planning in the hospitality industry is well documented (Harrison, 
2003; Manderscheid & Kusy, 2005; Dulmanis, 2003; Ram & Geoffrey, 1999; Hughes & Beatty, 2005). 
Unfortunately, strategic plans are often poorly implemented and consequently important goals are not 
accomplished (Deloitte Consulting, 2007; Millett, 2006; Kaplan, 2005). In fact, some researchers estimate 
that as many as 9 of 10 strategic planning efforts fail, costing companies billions of dollars in labor 
(Speculand, 2006) as well as lost trust in the organization’s leadership. Recent studies reveal that over one 
third of employees do not know where their organization is headed (Kaplan, 2005); related research 
provides convincing evidence that leaders regularly underestimate the challenge of implementing the 
strategies they develop (Mitchell, 2006; Mintzberg, 1994; Manderscheid & Kusy, 2005; Hwang & 
Lockwood, 2006; Ireland & Hitt, 1999). 
The characteristics of hospitality organizations make implementing strategic plans particularly 
problematic. Increasing staff diversity, globalization, customer demographics and demands, workforce 
composition, environmental considerations, economic shifts, new technologies, natural disasters, and 
numerous other factors have the potential to affect hospitality organizations in unanticipated ways 
(Rusnak, 2006; Sullivan, 2004). Leaders who simply react to these events, rather than carefully designing 
3 
 
and executing a course of action, put their organizations at needless risk. It would seem useful, then, to 
examine several of the distinguishing characteristics of hospitality organizations that make the 
implementation of strategic plans particularly challenging and, we later argue, make the need for effective 
listening particularly acute. 
Characteristics of Hospitality Environments 
 One commonly accepted approach to understanding organizational activity is to apply three levels 
of analysis believed to capture the range of considerations leaders address – individual, team, and 
organizational networks (Senge, 1990; Steiner, 1998). In preparation for our later discussions regarding 
how leaders facilitate learning environments through listening, we apply this three-tiered framework to 
examine elements of the hospitality workplace. In a later section, we discuss how leaders who listen 
effectively can influence variables at each phase. 
Individual Level: The Hospitality Workforce 
 The hospitality workforce is one of the most difficult to recruit, motivate, and retain (Woods, 
1997). Locations that are particularly desirable for business opportunities are often those where the supply 
of labor is limited and workers are unskilled (Wildes, 2005; Ronan, Garavan, O’Brian, & McDonnell, 
2003). High turnover, due in part to the large percentage of temporary and part-time employees, also 
makes staffing difficult and traditional incentives less effective (Gunter, 2006; Quest, 2006; Smith, 
Gregory, & Cannon, 1996; Worsfold, 1999). In addition, employee diversity, while holding tremendous 
potential for competitive advantage, is often poorly managed (Caldeira, Fernandez, & Wood, 2004; 
Prewitt, 2000; Berta, 2002).  
Language barriers, lifestyle differences, and value clashes are more likely to occur when the 
workforce is diverse. Employees enter the organization with different needs, assumptions, and 
expectations about the nature of work and their role in the organization’s operation (Ballance, 2006; 
Caldeira et al., 2004; Raso, 2006). Employee satisfaction and commitment becomes increasingly difficult 
when individuals feel underrepresented or misunderstood. Gender issues have also been widely studied 
(Knutson & Schmidgall, 1999; Nelson, 1990; Shinew & Arnold, 1998), particularly in foodservice 
4 
 
operations. Several researchers have referred to the dynamic of such male-dominated departments as 
‘‘sexualized’’ environments where women, in particular, have traditionally struggled to gain recognition 
and respect (Woods & Viehland, 2000; Gutek, Cohen, & Konrad, 1990; Hicks, 1990). 
Activities Level: The Hospitality Workplace 
 When we change our lens and focus on the way in which employees work together to accomplish 
tasks, we find that the nature of work in hospitality organizations is dynamic and unpredictable. 
Unanticipated changes, from hurricanes to canceled weddings, make the development and 
implementation of strategic plans particularly critical but also particularly complicated. Long hours and 
irregular work schedules – often including weekends and holidays – make stress and burnout all too 
common (Harris, Artis, Walters, & Licata, 2006). Crises routinely consume a high percent of employees’ 
time as they strive to meet the large and small emergencies that arise. 
Conflicting priorities and lack of shared information among departments results in poor team 
functioning. The housekeeping staff and front desk employees, members of the sales and banquets 
departments, all benefit from planned and spontaneous communication as well as informal dialogue with 
coworkers. Knowledge transfer is blocked if opportunities are not deliberately created for regular 
information sharing (Eisenberg, Andrews, & Murphy, 1999; Ford, 1999; Lewis, 1999). As Mitchell 
(2006) emphasizes, there is often a lack of integration which makes collective action nearly impossible. 
Recently, guests themselves have contributed to the complexity of hospitality work. As 
competition increases and marketing becomes more aggressive, customer expectations regarding the 
experience they expect to receive increases as well (Ford & Heaton, 2001; Varoglu & Eser, 2006). A 
public suffering from personal stress and looking forward to enjoying the promises of comfort, service, 
and personalization, is becoming less tolerant of unfulfilled expectations. In fact, some researchers argue 
that satisfying customers’ expectations is no longer sufficient; guests expect to be ‘‘delighted’’ by the 
service they receive (Cohen, 1997; Torres & Kline, 2006). As travelers visit other countries for both 
business and vacation purposes, adapting to international guests becomes yet another concern. Service 
5 
 
employees are undoubtedly finding that satisfying customers is an increasingly challenging task (Purves, 
2007; D’Annunzio-Green, 2002; Davis, 2005). 
Organizational Level: Communication Networks 
 Information does not automatically flow through an organization; when it does, it is often 
distorted and incomplete. While hospitality organizations are not unique in their frequent failure to 
capture and tap into informal networks, the fast pace of events and the demand for coordination make 
them one of the most challenging. 
The very nature of hospitality environments that cause them to be dynamic and unpredictable also 
work to keep employees focused on a set of well-defined tasks, procedures, and operating standards to 
ensure consistency and quality. Time for reflection and planning is minimal as employees address 
pressing issues on a continuously full plate of demands, whether fulfilling complicated requests or 
recovering from service breakdowns (Berger & Merritt, 1998; Eary & Allison, 2002; Enz, 2001; Kelly & 
Kelly, 1994). 
In larger hospitality organizations it is not unusual for employees – particularly line staff – to 
admit they have never seen their general manager and cannot describe the organization’s mission. 
Without systems carefully designed to facilitate information flow, the sharing of plans and ideas is 
limited. In this regard, hospitality organizations have been among the last to recognize the value of flatter, 
team-based organizational structures that reduce barriers to knowledge transfer (Overholt, 1997; Fulk, 
2001). 
Creating a Learning Environment 
 What organizational conditions can be created to ensure the greatest potential for success in 
implementing strategic plans? One way that leaders can ‘‘ready’’ their employees to implement new 
strategies is by encouraging the characteristics of what theorists have called a learning organization 
(Tranfield, Duberley, Smith, & Stokes, 2000; Henderson & McAdam, 2003; Ellinger, Watkins, & 
Bostrom, 1999; Hawkins, 2005). One approach to understanding learning organizations and related 
variables of concern is through a symbolic perspective. We propose that leaders who focus on effective 
6 
 
listening are best able to establish learning environments and are subsequently in the best position to 
implement the strategic plans that will facilitate high performance. 
Learning organizations have been defined in a number of ways (Yeo, 2004, 2005; Frahm & 
Brown, 2006). All share a common theme of encouraging employees to challenge what and how things 
are done. Focus is on the continuous transfer of knowledge, which increases the resources available to 
solve organizational problems and make effective decisions (Cornett, 1998; Sinkula, 1994). Through this 
activity, information becomes widely shared among organizational members (Braham, 1996; Murray, 
2002) and hospitality leaders have a responsive environment in which to introduce and implement their 
strategic plans. 
As knowledge moves through the organization it increases employees’ confidence, reassuring 
them that things will go well and increasing their self-efficacy (Henderson & McAdam, 2003). When 
there is continuous information sharing, every employee becomes a valued team member (Frahm & 
Brown, 2006; Cummings & Huse, 1996; Harung, Heaton, & Alexander, 1999). 
Success in establishing continuous knowledge transfer – the basic process in creating a learning 
environment – depends upon employees’ perceptions of one another and the nature of the relationships 
they establish (Lucas & Ogilvie, 2006). Learning is not something that is done ‘‘to’’ employees (Small & 
Irvine, 2006; Marvin & Cavaleri, 2004; Moilanen, 2001); leaders, no matter how skilled, cannot make 
employees learn. Rather, learning is a voluntary process dependent upon each employee’s perceptions and 
subsequent interpretations of organizational messages and activities. 
A Symbolic Approach to Understanding the Learning Environment 
 At the heart of the symbolic perspective is the premise that meanings are continuously being 
created and shared and, in doing so, individuals develop common understandings as they expand their 
knowledge base (Bogenrieder, 2002; Boud & Middleton, 2003; Kim, 1993). Keep in mind that employees 
interpret organizational events based on their past experiences, values, beliefs, attitudes, and other 
individual factors. A ‘‘holiday party,’’ a ‘‘difficult guest,’’ or an ‘‘email reminder’’ has different 
meanings to different individuals. The more diverse the workforce, the greater the chances are that 
7 
 
various policies and practices will be interpreted differently. Employees are in a constant process of 
making sense of their workplace experiences in light of their unique perceptual frameworks (Weick, 
2005). 
Over time, sense-making activities enable employees to align their understandings and 
expectations so that a shared culture develops. This culture then shapes individuals’ behaviors and 
assumptions and serves as a framework for interpreting new and unfamiliar events (Schein, 1996, 1985; 
O’Reilly and Chatman, 1996). Ultimately, we believe that when listening is valued, leaders are best able 
to develop a culture that supports continuous information sharing and planned change (Franklin, 
2000). 
The Leader’s Role in Developing a Learning Environment 
 A leader’s vision remains unrealized unless he or she influences the organization’s culture 
(Buckler, 1996; Harrison, 1993; Bingham, 2006). While an array of competencies are involved in 
leadership effectiveness (Chung-Herrera, Enz, & Lankau, 2003; Lustri, Miura, & Takahashi, 2007), we 
propose that listening is the most central and one of the most neglected. 
Recall our earlier proposition that the strategic plan itself – the ‘‘what’’ of leadership influence – 
can only be realized if process concerns – the ‘‘how’’ of implementation – are addressed. We have further 
suggested that leaders who develop learning environments in preparation for implementing their strategic 
plans have a clear advantage (Cornett, 1998; Marquardt, 2002). The following section provides an 
overview of how listening can be approached as a tool for influencing organizational culture and the 
implementation of strategic plans. We then address hospitality related challenges at each of the three 
levels presented earlier and argue that effective listening can reduce or contribute to overcoming these 
concerns. 
Listening as a Leader’s Core Competence 
 It appears that few leaders have developed listening as a core competence, or chosen to focus on 
listening improvement for their employees. We hypothesize that this is not because they aren’t convinced 
of the value of listening behavior – indeed, listening ability is increasingly linked to service excellence, 
8 
 
vendor partnerships, and other hospitality relationships (Goby & Lewis, 2000; Steil & Brommelje, 2004). 
Rather, listening’s taken-for-granted, intangible nature makes it difficult to develop through traditional 
methods (Golen, 1990; Rhodes,Watson, & Barker, 1990; Sypher, Bostrom, & Seibert, 1989). While good 
listeners and poor listeners can readily be distinguished,] the path from acceptable to outstanding remains 
more complicated. 
Recent thinking about the communication process has moved from traditional sender-receiver 
models to a relational approach (Clampitt, 2004; Eisenberg & Goodall, 2001). From this perspective, 
which is compatible with the organizational learning process discussed earlier, effective communicators 
are always listening – even as they speak. To facilitate shared meanings, individuals must continuously 
engage in the listening process, picking up cues from their partners as well as from the environment. 
Effective listeners need to understand the meanings others have assigned to given events or activities. 
Then, when speaking, listeners continue to adapt their messages as they observe and process the 
continuous verbal or nonverbal feedback. 
Scholars have found that listening is particularly valued by those just entering hospitality 
organizations as they make sense of new activities and service practices. Senior executives, who must 
gather information from numerous sources and then make decisions about how to respond, also benefit 
significantly from listening competence (Brownell, 1994). It is not surprising that listening is of particular 
value in hospitality organizations where employees interact with both internal and external customers. 
A Behavioral Model of Listening 
 Recognizing the need for a more behavioral approach to listening improvement, Brownell’s 
(2006, 1994a, 1994b) research led to the development of the HURIER listening model (Figure 1). Her 
framework identifies six distinct but interrelated listening skill clusters and allows individuals to focus on 
those components that are most related to their workplace needs. Further, the model accounts for the 
impact of individual variables such as attitudes, values, past experiences, gender, and age as well as 
elements of the context that may influence a listener’s choices.  Components of the model are briefly 
described below as they contribute to a leader’s ability to facilitate information sharing (and the 
9 
 
subsequent implementation of strategic plans). This description of the listening process provides a 
background for later discussion. 
(1) Hearing: The first step in listening effectiveness is for leaders to ‘‘hear,’’ or focus attention, 
on the ‘‘right’’ things. Unless leaders pay attention to the events and messages that matter, their listening 
efforts will be futile (Weick, 2006). Effective listeners notice when front desk employees are upset and 
frustrated about a new computer system or when servers are working too many hours. Leaders who filter 
messages effectively can sit in the employee cafeteria and pick out the critical conversations that suggest 
why employees might be confused or anxious. 
Hearing is influenced by both external and internal factors. While it is relatively easy to manage 
distractions in the environment – to deliberately reduce interruptions and confusion – it is more 
challenging to control fatigue, stress, and other personal variables that make concentration on important 
verbal and nonverbal messages difficult. Progressive hospitality organizations continuously emphasize 
the importance of maintaining wellness and balance for high performance. 
(2) Understanding: This component of the listening process addresses employees’ comprehension 
of the literal meaning of what they hear. This activity is not as easy as it may appear – especially when the 
workforce is diverse or when departments have developed specialized vocabularies. 
Second language speakers are likely to have difficulty determining the exact meaning of what is 
said to them. This often reduces both their participation in workplace activities and their self-efficacy. 
Listening leaders recognize where such miscommunication occurs and initiate actions to reduce such 
problems. In the US, for instance, a largely Hispanic housekeeping staff would appreciate pictures to 
accompany written directions; perhaps the Italian reservations manager can be made more comfortable so 
that she doesn’t hesitate to ask when she has questions about what was said; perhaps older employees 
working on the bell staff need the background music turned down so that they can hear guests’ requests 
more clearly. 
10 
 
The development of a learning environment depends on participants’ ability to process layers of 
meaning and to recognize unstated assumptions. Leaders can facilitate this process by taking steps to 
ensure that literal meanings are accurately understood. 
 (3) Remembering: In hospitality environments, in particular, the need for remembering is critical. 
Guests expect that their names will be used, diners expect that their orders will be accurate and their 
preferences noted. Effectiveness in attending to the daily details of a service environment depends upon a 
well-developed memory system. 
Remembering is an important component of how employees perceive a leader’s listening 
(Bostrom&Waldhart, 1988; Johnson&Bechler, 1998).When hotel employees were asked if their manager 
‘‘listened’’ to them, many complained that while she seemed to understand and care about their concerns, 
nothing happened – there was no follow up or implementation as promised. Culture leaders also build on 
the past, reminding all employees of the stories and traditions that define the organization’s core 
competencies and best practices. Remembering and recognizing accomplishments, large and small, has a 
significant impact on morale. It also increases employees’ self-efficacy which, in turn, promotes higher 
performance (Steil & Brommelje, 2004). 
 (4) Interpreting: Learning environments only develop when employees share meanings – that is, 
accurately interpret the messages they receive. Interpreting messages requires that listeners consider a 
range of cues to determine their partner’s intentions. Contextual and nonverbal dimensions lend particular 
insight in this regard (Boyatzis & Van Oosten, 2003; Druskat & Wolff, 2001). Although listeners can 
only hope to approximate the intended meanings, the more similar and familiar the communicators are the 
more likely it is that shared understandings are created. 
Leading a diverse workforce that serves international guests is particularly challenging, then, as 
we are reminded that past experiences, values, expectations, and assumptions may vary dramatically from 
one culture to the next. With high employee diversity, leaders are challenged to provide a common 
foundation of experience. Once organizational members have solved problems together, overcome 
11 
 
challenges as a team, and celebrated their accomplishments, they begin to develop a shared culture from 
which to create further bonds and align their expectations. 
Empathy, understanding what messages mean from the employee’s point of view, is a particularly 
important component of interpreting messages. In listening to the issues and challenges reported by each 
member of the Executive Team, for instance, empathic leaders view the situation from multiple 
perspectives. Empathy creates a supportive climate where all participants can focus on joint problem 
solving (Becker, 2003; Lei & Greer, 2003). 
 (5) Evaluating: Leaders constantly make judgments about the ideas and proposals that come to 
their attention, often serving as gatekeepers in filtering important from less critical issues. Effectiveness in 
this dimension requires withholding evaluation until a message has been completely understood. Fast-
paced hospitality environments tempt employees to jump to conclusions or to make unwarranted 
assumptions in seeking the most direct path to a solution. Excellent listeners make sure they have 
complete and accurate information before making a decision. 
In addition, effective listeners recognize their own agendas and biases and how their past 
experiences and personal values influence their response. While everyone is affected by individual filters, 
acknowledging them before a decision is made demonstrates an awareness of the variables that affect 
important choices (Kotef, 2006). Identifying emotional appeals or asking for evidence to support 
generalizations increases everyone’s confidence in the outcome. Leaders who base their decisions on fact 
and strive to be fair and impartial ultimately benefit from greater trust and respect. Leaders who are 
perceived as trustworthy and who demonstrate behavioral integrity facilitate information sharing (Simons, 
2002; Fernandez, 2003). 
 (6) Responding: Employees assess the quality of a leader’s listening by the nature of his or her 
response. Often, leaders are unaware of the nearly unlimited options they have to either hinder or 
facilitate information exchanges. Those interested in creating learning environments encourage 
information sharing by responding to what they hear in ways that promote openness and dialogue. 
Research has found that hasty judgments, too much advice, discounts, and other negative responses are 
12 
 
likely to derail efforts to engage and empower a diverse hospitality workforce (Ford, 2006; Bakker, 
Leenders, Gabbay, Kratzer, & Van Engelen, 2006). 
Increasing Listening Competence 
 Listening competence can be improved organization-wide by focusing on specific components of 
the behavioral HURIER model. For instance, understanding is facilitated by providing non-native 
speakers with the resources they need to accomplish their jobs. Increasing awareness of how specialized, 
department-specific vocabularies – from Food and Beverage to Housekeeping – inhibit the creation of 
shared meanings can also improve understanding. 
Emotional and cultural intelligence are becoming increasingly important to hospitality 
practitioners, especially when the workforce is diverse and customers are increasingly international. 
Leaders who accurately interpret messages recognize how the workplace itself impacts employee 
perceptions and behavior. Greater sensitivity to nonverbal and other indirect cues can also be developed 
through training sessions, coaching, and mentoring practices. Leaders who identify and work to eliminate 
instances of stereotyping or other forms of bias that inhibit information sharing also contribute to a 
learning environment. 
Leaders themselves demonstrate that they value listening by serving as a role model and by 
rewarding and reinforcing employees who listen well. Including listening competence as a requirement in 
employee selection and addressing listening effectiveness in performance appraisals send important 
messages about its value. Leaders who participate in the daily activities of their staff, rather than spending 
the majority of their time behind closed office doors, are in the best position to analyze and address 
employee and guest needs. 
The following section provides examples of how such leaders might begin to address the listening 
challenges of the hospitality workplace.  
Listening Solutions to Hospitality Leadership Challenges 
 Earlier we proposed that learning environments could be analyzed on three levels – individual-
based, interaction-based, and organization-based. Here, we suggest how a leader who listens well can 
13 
 
broadly address hospitality challenges at each of these levels (Figure 2). Ultimately, the leader’s goal is to 
facilitate the implementation of strategic plans by encouraging knowledge transfer. 
Implementation Challenge #1: Nature of the Hospitality Workforce 
 Listening at the individual level demonstrates to employees that they are recognized and valued. 
Giving ‘‘voice’’ to service workers has been recognized as a key leadership task; effective listening helps 
to set the stage for full employee participation and empowerment (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). 
Listening helps leaders recognize the variations in how individuals from different cultures and 
with very different life experiences see organizational events and respond to policies and practices. Rather 
than focusing on ‘‘telling’’, leaders who value listening are concerned with better understanding how 
each employee views the situation. Once employees’ perspectives are better understood, leaders can make 
appropriate choices about how to motivate and retain their staff. Given the high hospitality industry 
turnover, focusing on employees’ unique needs has had a significant positive impact on retention and 
performance (Bowen, 1997; Dreachslin, 2007). 
Heightened sensitivity to the effect taken-for-granted practices and policies have on non-native 
members can help create a more supportive and inclusive environment in which all employees feel they 
have something to contribute. For instance, differences in the meanings of such concepts as ‘‘on time’’, 
‘‘quality service’’, ‘‘professional,’’ and so forth can be the source of on-going frustration. 
Rather than assuming that all employees are motivated to work toward higher salaries, leaders 
who listen obtain as much information as possible about each individual’s values and priorities before 
determining the most effective way to reward performance. While native Islanders might be working only 
until they have enough money to sustain them for several weeks, alternative benefits – such as child care 
or transportation – might encourage them to make a more long term commitment. 
When the labor pool allows for careful selection, leaders who listen attentively to applicants are 
better able to determine person-organization fit. Finding individuals to handle the increasing demands of 
sophisticated customers and the unexpected crises of daily activities – what has been termed ‘‘adaptive 
behavior’’ – is an on-going challenge (Vilnai-Yavetz & Rafaeli, 2003). Creating selection practices that 
14 
 
assess the values that are critical to a service-oriented learning organization – flexibility, open 
mindedness, and positive attitude, for instance, can greatly reduce turnover and facilitate the 
implementation of continuous improvement processes (Berger & Brownell, 2006). 
Implementation Challenge #2: The Nature of Hospitality Work 
 While listening to individual employees establishes the foundation for on-going information 
transfer, attention to the interaction and organizational levels is also critical. The impact of listening on 
team performance and organizational culture cannot be underestimated. When employees feel ‘‘heard’’ 
and when leaders are responsive to individual needs, employees are likely to be more involved, 
committed, and consequently more receptive to new ideas and plans. 
When leaders listen well, they promote a learning environment where employees work together to 
solve problems, explore options, and increase the organization’s knowledge base. The spatial 
environment as well as established routines, systems, and policies, all influence employees’ perceptions 
of their work (Henderson & McAdam, 2003). Creating common public areas for dialogue, providing 
accessible water coolers and bulletin boards, and publicizing employee accomplishments all facilitate 
regular information sharing. 
As discussed earlier, culture is created as employees go about their daily activities. When leaders 
listen, they contribute to an environment that supports continuous change and encourages employees to 
seek ways of improving their current practices. Risk-taking, so essential to learning and change, only 
occurs when employees feel free to acknowledge and confront workplace dilemmas. 
There is strong agreement among scholars and practitioners alike that the role of a culture leader 
involves modeling the behavior desired of organizational members, and listening is no exception 
(Brownell, 1994b). When listening becomes part of a strong culture, employees are better prepared to 
address the needs of customers and guests as well. Stories and myths develop that clearly communicate 
the importance of team effort and reinforce service values. 
We propose that through a high level of listening competence, leaders demonstrate to their 
employees that it is not only safe, but essential, to share information, explore options, and to continuously 
15 
 
improve. This activity facilitates the final stage required to create an environment where employees are 
most likely to be receptive to strategic plans – the organizational level. 
Implementation Challenge #3: Implementing Through Organizational Networks 
 A hospitality organization’s structure impacts how information travels and how readily 
employees can develop shared understandings. Leaders have nearly unlimited options regarding their 
choice of communication channels; that is, how they communicate information. Memos, bulletin boards, 
meetings, phone conversations, email, web pages, brochures, instant messaging, and informal 
conversations are just a few of the numerous options. Frequently, knowledge transfer practices develop 
from convenience rather than based on an understanding of how employees seek and use the information 
they receive. 
A recent study of how hospitality employees come to understand what ‘‘quality service’’ means, 
provides a vivid example (Brownell & Jameson, 1996). Leaders were frustrated with their inability to 
create a shared vision of service quality as it was translated throughout various departments. They had 
spent thousands of dollars developing training programs, brochures, and handbooks to communicate 
quality service standards. When a survey was given to employees asking what sources and channels they 
used to gain information about issues of quality, the employee response came as a surprise to senior 
planners. Non-native speakers did not seek the same sources and channels as those whose first language 
was English. Women had slightly different preferences than their male colleagues. The majority of 
employees indicated that they depended heavily on their supervisor to provide feedback to them on the 
job. They described instances where they learned the most important lessons by observing fellow 
employees who responded effectively to the crises and solved the dilemmas that arose. Did they learn 
from training seminars? Hardly at all. Did they understand the information in the Handbook? No one had 
read it. 
Such disconnects are not uncommon. Leaders who listen to their employees, however, are in a 
position to align internal communication strategies – both sources and channels – with employee 
preferences. This ensures that important messages reach their intended audiences and facilitates the 
16 
 
central component of a learning organization, continuous flow of information throughout the system. 
Learning environments can only be established if leaders are aware of how to deliberately use formal and 
informal communication networks to create shared understandings. 
Implications for Future Research 
 We have proposed that articulating a vision and creating a strategic plan is only the first step 
toward planned change. To realize their strategies, we argue that leaders must address the challenges of 
implementation. We have suggested that the context most likely to facilitate planned change is a learning 
environment characterized by openness, knowledge transfer, and shared meanings. We have further 
proposed that listening is the critical leadership competence in accomplishing this task. Leaders as change 
agents recognize emerging employee practices and partner with employees in creating and maintaining 
information-sharing activities. This perspective suggests a number of directions for future research. 
Researchers who seek to better understand listening and its impact on organizational processes 
confront a number of challenges. Lack of a common theoretical framework has prevented the 
development of a vigorous research stream.  The interdisciplinary nature of listening behavior further 
contributes to the fragmentation in how it has been approached as a subject of study. In addition, the 
covert nature of the listening process prevents it from being readily observable and easily quantified. 
Consequently, few studies have contributed to our understanding of the impact listening has on the 
hospitality workplace. 
If we adapt the model presented earlier, however, we find that research questions might be posed 
at each of the three levels of analysis (Figure 3). The first question becomes, ‘‘How well do employees in 
this organization listen?’’ While perceptions of listening effectiveness are a critical factor in 
organizational contexts, multiple evaluation instruments (Bostrom & Waldhart, 1983; Brown & Carlson, 
1995; Watson & Barker, 1991) are also available to assess listening behavior on standardized scales. If 
listening instruction was provided to a random sample of employees, it would be useful to assess the 
impact of this intervention not only on listening test scores but also on subsequent behavior. Researchers 
17 
 
would find it useful to ask whether listening effectiveness is related to the key variables discussed in this 
paper, such as levels of employee loyalty (intent to stay) and clarity of job expectations. 
 At the level of workplace activities and team dynamics, researchers might profitably explore such 
questions as whether perceptions of listening effectiveness or listening assessment scores are correlated 
with team variables such as cohesiveness, decision making practices, and member satisfaction with team 
outcomes. It might also be useful to know whether perceptions of listening are correlated with the degree 
of member participation in team processes. It is likely that other workplace activities, from event planning 
to front desk encounters, are influenced by perceptions of listening effectiveness. 
Studies that focus on service delivery, both internal and external, would provide additional value 
to hospitality leaders. Customization of the service experience requires employee adaptive behavior. To 
what extent is listening involved in the service employee-customer exchange? To what extent can 
adaptive behavior be taught, and how do employees approach listening in cross-cultural interactions? 
Finally, there are many organization-level questions that could be posed, and responses would 
help hospitality leaders create learning environments that facilitate information flow. Studies might 
determine the extent to which individuals in different departments share common understandings of 
organizational messages. Assessing the degree to which effective listening enables leaders to adapt 
messages to various employee groups, or to effectively communicate the organization’s vision and values, 
would also be useful. As noted earlier, little research has been conducted to determine the impact listening 
behavior has on organizational communication and subsequent performance. 
Conclusion 
 While countless competencies have been proposed as critical to leadership effectiveness, we posit 
that few have as much potential as listening to facilitate the implementation of strategies for planned 
change. Researchers who study listening in hospitality contexts may generate findings that will assist in 
developing the next generation of hospitality leaders. Educators and trainers who focus on hospitality 
leadership development may discover that the results of studies on listening competence guide their 
efforts to improve leadership effectiveness.  
18 
 
Figure 1. The HURIER Listening Model: Facilitating a Learning Environment (adapted from 
Brownell, 2006, p. 17). 
  
19 
 
Figure 2. Effect of leaders’ listening on the implementation of strategic plans 
  
20 
 
Figure 3. Listening research and hospitality practice. 
  
21 
 
References 
Argyris, C. (1999) On Organizational Learning. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Business Publishers). 
Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change 
(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.). 
Bakker, M., Leenders, R., Gabbay, S., Kratzer, J. & Van Engelen, J. (2006) Is trust really social capital? 
Knowledge sharing in product development projects. The Learning Organization, 13(6), p. 594. 
Ballance, C. (2006) Effective multicultural communication, World Trade, 19(7), pp. 54–58. 
Becker, T. (2003) Is emotional intelligence a viable concept? Academy of Management Review, 28, pp. 
192–195. 
Berger, F. &Merritt, E. (1998) No time left for you: Time management strategies for restaurateurs, 
Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(5), pp. 32–40. 
Berger, F. & Brownell, J. (2006) 20-20 Skills. Hospitality Valuation Services (New York: Mineola). 
Berta, D. (2002) Diversity good for business, Nation’s Restaurant News, 36(34), pp. 1–3. 
Bingham, T. (2006) The centre of strategy is learning, Canadian HR Reporter, 19(21), p. 15. 
Bogenrieder, I. (2002) Social architecture as a prerequisite for organizational learning, Management 
Learning, 33(2), pp. 197–114. 
Bostrom, R. & Waldhart, E. S. (1983) Kentucky Comprehensive Listening Test (Lexington, KY: The 
Kentucky Listening Research Center). 
Bostrom, R. & Waldhart, E. S. (1988) Memory models and the measurement of listening, Communication 
Education, 37(1), pp. 1–18. 
Boud, D. & Middleton, H. (2003) Learning from others at work: Communities of practice and informal 
learning, Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(5), pp. 194–203. 
Bowen, J. (1997) A market-driven approach to business development and service improvement in the 
hospitality industry, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(7), pp. 
334–344. 
22 
 
Boyatzis, R. & Van Oosten, E. (2003) A leadership imperative: Building the emotionally intelligent 
organization. Ivey Business Journal, 67(2), pp. 43–61. 
Braham, B. J. (1996) Creating a Learning Organization (London: Kogan Page). 
Brown, J. I. & Carlson, G. R. (1995) Brown-Carlsen Listening Comprehension Test (New York: 
Harcourt, Brace and World). 
Brownell, J. (1994) Listening and career development in the hospitality industry, Journal of the 
International Listening Association, 8, pp. 31–49. 
Brownell, J. (2006) Listening: Attitudes, Principles and Skills. 3rd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon 
Publishers). 
Brownell, J. & Jameson, D. (1996) Getting quality out on the street: A case of show and tell, Cornell 
Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(1), pp. 28–33. 
Brownell, J. (1994a) Relational listening: Fostering effective communication practices in diverse 
organizational environments, Hospitality and Tourism Educator, 6(4), pp. 11–16. 
Brownell, J. (1994b) Creating strong listening environments: A key hospitality management task, The 
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(3), pp. 3–10. 
Buckler, B. (1996) A learning process model to achieve continuous improvement and innovation, The 
Learning Organization, 3(3), pp. 31–39. 
Caldeira, S., Fernandez, G. & Wood, K. (2004) Best practices make perfect: Achieve diversity by  
translating notion into action, Nation’s Restaurant News, 38(28), pp. 26–29. 
Chang, S. & Lee, M. (2007) A study on relationship among leadership, organizational culture, the  
operation of learning organization and employees’ job satisfaction, The Learning Organization, 
14(2), pp. 155–185. 
Chew, M. M., Cheng, J. & Petrovic-Lazarevic, S. (2006) Managers’ role in implementing organizational 
change: Case of the restaurant industry in Melbourne, Journal of Global Business and 
Technology, 2(1), pp. 58–68. 
23 
 
Chung-Herrera, B., Enz, C. & Lankau, M. (2003) Grooming future hospitality leaders: A competencies 
model, Cornell Restaurant & Hotel Administration Quarterly, 44(3), pp. 17–26. 
Clampitt, P. G. (2004) Communicating for Managerial Effectiveness (Newbury Park, CA: Sage 
Publishers). 
Cohen, B. (1997) The ‘‘WOW’’ effect: How one restaurateur continues to delight customers, Cornell 
Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 38(2), pp. 74–81. 
Collins, R. (2005) Knowledge leadership: The art and science of the knowledge-based organization, The 
Learning Organization, 12(3), pp. 299–301. 
Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988) The empowerment process: Integration of theory and practice, 
Academy of Management Journal, 13(3), pp. 471–482. 
Cornett, S. (1998) Learning Experiences of Leaders in Developing Characteristics of Leadership 
identified for Learning Organizations (Santa Barbara: The Fielding Institute). 
Cummings, T. G. & Huse, E. F. (1996) Organization Development and Change (New York: West 
Publishing Company). 
D’Annunzio-Green, N. (2002) An examination of the organizational and cross-cultural challenges facing 
international hotel managers in Russia, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 
Management, 14(6), pp. 266–274. 
Davis, S. (2005) The customer service opportunity, Lodging Hospitality, 61(14), pp. 36–38. 
Deloitte Consulting (26 June 2007) Executives Dissatisfied with Capacity to Respond to Market Changes.  
Report by Deloitte and BPM Form, pp. 1–6. 
Dreachslin, J. (2007) The role of leadership in creating a diversity-sensitive organization, Journal of 
Healthcare Management, 52(3), pp. 151–155. 
Druskat, V. U. & Wolff, S. B. (2001) Building the emotional intelligence of groups, Harvard Business 
Review, 39(3), pp. 81–90. 
Dulmanis, P. (2003) A practitioner’s perspective on the execution of strategy, Mt. Eliza Business Review,  
6(1), pp. 24–29. 
24 
 
Eary, J. & Allison, E. (2002, September) Personalizing work/life balance: Considering your options, 
Training Journal, pp. 32–34. 
Eisenberg, E. & Goodall, H. L. Jr. (2001) Organizational Communication: Balancing Creativity and 
Constraint (New York: St. Martin’s Press). 
Eisenberg, E., Andrews, L. & Murphy, A. (1999) Transforming organizations through communication, in: 
P. Salem (Ed.), Organizational Communication and Change, pp. 99–147 (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton 
Press, Inc.). 
Elkjaer, B. (2004) Organizational learning—the ‘third way’, Management Learning, 35(4), pp. 419–434. 
Ellinger, A., Watkins, K. & Bostrom, R. (1999) Managers as facilitators of learning in learning 
organizations, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(2), pp. 105–126. 
Enz, C. A. (2001) What keeps you up at night? Key issues of concern for lodging managers, Cornell 
Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), pp. 38–46. 
Fernandez, J. (2003) The making of a global executive, The Journal of Business Strategy, 24(5), pp. 36-
44. 
Ford, J. (1999) Organizational change as shifting conversations, Journal of Organizational Chang 
Management, 12(4), pp. 480–502. 
Ford, R. (2006) Organizational learning, change and power: Toward a practice-theory framework, The 
Learning Organization, 13(5), p. 495. 
Ford, R. & Heaton, C. (2001) Managing your guest as a quasi-employee, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant 
Administration Quarterly, 42(2), pp. 46–55. 
Frahm, J. & Brown, K. (2006) Developing communicative competencies for a learning organization, The 
Journal of Management Development, 25(3/4), pp. 201–211. 
Franklin, P. (2000) Doing strategy through culture in knowledge-based organizations, Strategic Change, 
9(2), pp. 129–134. 
Fulk, J. (2001) Global network organizations: Emergence and future prospects, Human Relations, 54, pp. 
91–100. 
25 
 
Goby, J. & Lewis, H. (2000) The key role of listening in business: A study of the Singapore insurance 
industry, Business Communication Quarterly, 63(2), pp. 41–51. 
Golen, S. (1990) A factor analysis of barriers to effective listening, The Journal of Business 
Communication, 27(1), pp. 25–36. 
Gunter, H. (2006) Standards, personnel, remain issues, Hotel & Motel Management, 221(10), pp. 1–3. 
Gutek, B., Cohen, A. & Konrad, A. (1990) Predicting social-sexual behavior at work: A contract 
hypothesis, Academy of Management Journal, 33(3), pp. 560–577. 
Harris, E., Artis, A., Walters, J. & Licata, J. (2006) Role stressors, service worker job resourcefulness, 
and job outcomes, Journal of Business Research, 59(4), pp. 407–412.  
Harrison, R. (1993) Human Resource Management: Issues and Strategies (New York: Addison-Wesley, 
Publishers). 
Harrison, J. (2003) Strategic analysis for the hospitality industry: Hospitality executives must analyze 
both external factors and internal resources to develop a strategic plan, Cornell Hotel & 
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 139–152. 
Harung, H. S., Heaton, D. P. & Alexander, C. N. (1999) Evolution of organizations in the new 
millennium, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(4), pp. 198–207. 
Hawkins, A. (2005) Leaders as Facilitators of Organizational Learning (Virginia Beach, VA: Regent 
University). 3196621. 
Henderson, J. & McAdam, R. (2003) Adopting a learning-based approach to improve internal 
communications: A large utility experience, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability 
Management, 20(6/7), pp. 774–794. 
Hicks, L. (1990) Excluded women: How can this happen in the hotel world? Service Industries Journal, 
10, pp. 348–363. 
Hughes, R. & Beatty, K. (2005) Becoming a Strategic Leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring 
success (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers). 
26 
 
Hwang, L. J. & Lockwood, A. (2006) Understanding the challenges of implementing best practices in 
hospitality and tourism SMEs, Benchmarking, 13(3), pp. 337–351. 
st
Ireland, R. D. & Hitt, M. A. (1999) Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21  
century: The role of strategic leadership, The Academy of Management Executive, 13(1), pp. 43–
57. 
Johnson, S. D. & Bechler, C. (1998) Examining the relationship between listening effectiveness and 
leadership emergence: Perceptions, behaviors, and recall, Small Group Research, 29(4), pp. 452–
471. 
Kaplan, J. (2005) Strategy 101, Leadership Excellence, 22(10), pp. 18–19. 
Kelly, K. & Kelly, J. (1994) Multiple dimensions of meaning in the domains of work, family, and leisure, 
Journal of Leisure Research, 26(3), pp. 250–274. 
Kim, D. (1993) The link between individual and organizational learning, Sloan Management Review, pp. 
37–50. 
Knotter, J. (1996) Leading Change (Boston: Harvard Business School Press). 
Knotter, J. & Cohen, D. (2002) The Heart of Change: Real life stories of how people change their 
organizations (Boston: Harvard Business School Press). 
Knutson, B. J. & Schmidgall, R. S. (1999) Dimensions of the glass ceiling in the hospitality industry, 
Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(6), pp. 64–75. 
Konczak, L. (2005) Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring success, 
Personnel Psychology, 58(4), pp. 1077–1082. 
Kotef, E. (2006) Lethal weapon: Use zero-tolerance policies to eradicate prejudice in the workplace, 
Nation’s Restaurant News, 40(50), p. 25. 
Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2002) The Leadership Challenge (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers). 
Kusy, M. & McBain, R. (2000) Putting real value into strategic planning, Organization Development 
Practitioner, 32(2), pp. 18–24. 
Lei, D. & Greer, C. (2003) The empathetic organization, Organizational Dynamics, 32(2), p. 142. 
27 
 
Lewis, K. L. (1999) Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change, 
Management Communication Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 43–75. 
Lucas, L. & Ogilvie, D. (2006) Things are not always what they seem: How reputations, culture, 
andincentives influence knowledge transfer, The Learning Organization, 13(1), pp. 7–24. 
Lustri, D., Miura, I. & Takahashi, S. (2007) Knowledge management model: Practical application for 
competency development, The Learning Organization, 14(2), pp. 186. 
Manderscheid, S. & Kusy, M. (2005) How to design strategy with no dust—just results, Organization 
Development Journal, 23(2), pp. 62–71. 
Marquardt, M. (2002) Five elements of learning, Executive Excellence, 19(9), pp. 15–16. 
Marvin, S. & Cavaleri, S. (2004) Viewing learning organizations through a social learning lens, The 
Learning Organization, 11(3), pp. 285–289. 
Millett, S. (2006) Futuring and visioning: Complementary approaches to strategic decision making. 
Strategy & Leadership, 34(3), pp. 43–55. 
Mintzberg, H. (1994, January) The fall and rise of strategic planning, Harvard Business Review, pp. 107–
114. 
Mitchell, H. M. (2006) Top 7 strategic planning mistakes, Strategic Management Resources, pp. 1–3. 
www.strategicmgmtresources.com. 
Moilanen, R. (2001) Diagnostic tools for learning organizations, The Learning Organization, 8(1), pp. 6–
20. 
Murray, P. (2002) Cycles of organizational learning: A conceptual approach, Management Decision, 
40(3), pp. 239–247. 
Nelson, B. M. (1990) Perceptions of sexism in F&B oriented corporations, Lodging, 15(5), pp. 51–53. 
O’Reilly, C. A. & Chatman, J. A. (1996) Culture as social control: Corporations, cults and commitment. 
In: B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 157–200) 
(Greenwich, CT: JAI Press). 
28 
 
Overholt, M. (1997) Flexible organizations: Using organizational design as a competitive advantage, 
Human Resource Planning, 20, pp. 22–32. 
Prewitt, M. (2000) NRN survey: When it comes to diversity, it’s a mixed bag, Nation’s Restaurant News, 
34(50), pp. 1–3. 
Purves, L. (2007, 20 March) Jacko’s odd list of demands at hotel, Daily Star. UK, p. 3. 
Quest, M. (2006) Where do you stand on staff turnover? Caterer & Housekeeper, 196(419), pp. 44–47. 
Ram, C. & Geoffrey, C. (1999, 21 June) Why CEOs fail, Fortune Magazine, pp. 1–9. 
Raso, R. (2006) Cultural competence: Integral in diverse populations, Nursing Management, 37(7), pp. 
56–58. 
Rhodes, S. C., Watson, K. W. & Barker, L. L. (1990) Listening assessment: Trends and influencing 
factors in the l980s, Journal of the International Listening Association, 4, pp. 62–82. Ronan, C.,  
Garavan, T., O’Brian, F. & McDonnell, J. (2003) Predicting hotel managers’ turnover options, Journal of 
Managerial Psychology, 18(7), pp. 649–670. 
Rusnak, P. (2006) Leaders: Guests’ needs pose challenges, Hotel & Motel Management, 221(1), pp. 4–7. 
Savolainen, T. & Haikonen, A. (2007) Dynamics of organizational learning and continuous improvement  
in six sigma implementation, The TQM Magazine, 19(1), p. 6. 
Schein, E. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers). 
Schein, E. H. (1996) Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning, Sloan 
Management Review, 38(1), pp. 9–20. 
Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (New York: 
Random House, Inc.). 
Shinew, K. J. & Arnold, M. L. (1998) Gender equity in the leisure services field, Journal of Leisure 
Research, 30(2), pp. 177–194. 
Simons, T. (2002) Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as 
a research focus, Organization Science, 13(1), pp. 18–35. 
29 
 
Sinkula, J. M. (1994) Market information processing and organizational learning, Journal of Marketing, 
58, pp. 35–45. 
Small, A. & Irvine, P. (2006) Towards a framework for organizational learning, The Learning 
Organization, 13(2/3), pp. 276–299. 
Smith, K., Gregory, S. & Cannon, D. (1996) Becoming an employer of choice: Assessing commitment in 
the hospitality workplace, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(6), 
pp. 3–9. 
Speculand, R. (2006) The great big strategy challenge, Strategic Direction, 22(3), pp. 3–7. 
Steil, L. K. & Brommelje, R. K. (2004) Listening Leaders: The ten golden rules to listen, lead, and 
succeed  (St. Paul, MN: Beaver’s Pond Press). 
Steiner, L. (1998) Organizational dilemmas as barriers to learning, The Learning Organization, 5(4), pp. 
193–201. 
Sullivan, J. (2004) Tackling industry issues at hand, Nation’s Restaurant News, 38(47), pp. 52–56. 
Sypher, B. D., Bostrom, R. N. & Seibert, J. H. (1989) Listening, communication abilities, and success at 
work, The Journal of Business Communication, 26(4), pp. 293–303. 
Torres, E. & Kline, S. (2006) From satisfaction to delight: A model for the hotel industry, International 
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(4), pp. 290. 
Tranfield, D., Duberley, J., Smith, S. & Stokes, P. (2000) Organizational learning—it’s just routine, 
Management Decision, 38(4), pp. 253–260. 
Varoglu, D. & Eser, Z. (2006) How service employees can be treated as internal customers in hospitality 
industry, The Business Review, 5(2), pp. 30–36. 
Vilnai-Yavetz, I. & Rafaeli, A. (2003) Organizational interactions: A basic skeleton with spiritual tissue. 
In: R.A. Giacalone & C.L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and 
Organizational  Performance, pp. 76–92 (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe). 
Watson, K. W. & Barker, L. L. (1991) Watson-Barker Listening Test (New Orleans, LA: Spectra 
Incorporated, Publishers). 
30 
 
Weick, K. (2006) Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention, Organization Science, 17(4), 
pp. 514–526. 
Weick, K. (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking, Organization Science, 16(4), pp. 409–426. 
Wildes, V. (2005) Stigma in food service work: How it affects restaurant servers’ intention to stay in the 
business, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(3), pp. 213–234. 
Woods, R. (1997) Managing Hospitality Human Resources (Lansing, MI: Hotel & Motel Association). 
Woods, R. & Viehland, D. (2000) Women in hotel management, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant 
Administration Quarterly, 41, pp. 51–64. 
Worsfold, P. (1999) HRM, performance, commitment, and service quality in the hospitality industry, 
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(7), pp. 340–348. 
Yeo, R. (2005) Revisiting the roots of learning organization: A synthesis of the learning organization 
literature, The Learning Organization, 12(4), pp. 368–382. 
Yeo, R. (2004) Understanding the stages of organizational learning and development: An integrative  
framework, Management Development Journal of Singapore, 12(1), pp. 14–37. 
 
31