Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1938965509338453v1
50/4/460    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tse, E. C.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Ho, S.-C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Service Quality in the Hotel Industry: When Cultural Contexts Matter

Eliza Ching-Yick Tse* and Suk-Ching Ho

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: elizatse{at}cuhk.edu.hk.


   Abstract
An analysis of 168 critical incidents of service success or failure for seventeen hotels in Hong Kong found that the most common critical incident involved a hotel employee responding to a guest request. That stands in contrast to an earlier study conducted in Western hotels that identified service recovery as the most common critical incident. The analysis is based on interviews with fifty-six front-desk employees in a diverse group of Hong Kong hotels. When it came to service recovery, hotels in Hong Kong were inclined to apply compensatory responses, while earlier studies found that Western hotels favored corrective responses, even when customers preferred compensation. The comparison of Western studies with those of Hong Kong highlight cultural differences with regard to service. One particular difference was employees’ assessment of the source of customer dissatisfaction. Whereas respondents in Western studies seemed to cite external causes, the delivery system, or the customers themselves for customer dissatisfaction, the respondents in the Hong Kong study uniformly blamed themselves.

First published on June 17, 2009, doi:10.1177/1938965509338453

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 2009;50:460.

A more recent version of this article appeared on November 1, 2009


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?