Description
The purpose of this paper is to describe a framework and illustration to assess and manage
the perceived content and experiences in hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions.
Teleological actions are movements into the future that are believed to move either towards a
predictable/known or unpredictable/unknown state or condition: transformative – ad hoc and
present-based actions; formative – pre-determined and past-based actions; and rationalist –
goal-directed and future-based actions.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions – framework and illustration
Carmen Padin Goran Svensson
Article information:
To cite this document:
Carmen Padin Goran Svensson , (2014),"Hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions – framework and
illustration", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 361 - 371
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-08-2012-0062
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 213 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Defang Zhao, Ingrid Y. Lin, (2014),"Understanding tourists’ perception and evaluation of inter-cultural service encounters: a
holistic mental model process", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 290-309http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-09-2013-0070
Yi-Fei Chuang, Shiuh-Nan Hwang, J ehn-Yih Wong, Chun-Der Chen, (2014),"The attractiveness of tourist night markets in
Taiwan – a supply-side view", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 333-344http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-09-2013-0067
Choo Ling Suan, Aizzat Mohd Nasurdin, (2014),"An empirical investigation into the influence of human resource
management practices on work engagement: the case of customer-contact employees in Malaysia", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 345-360http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-12-2013-0083
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Hospitality processes through the lens of
teleological actions – framework and
illustration
Carmen Padin and Goran Svensson
Carmen Padin is based
at Facultad Economía,
Departamento Economía
Aplicada, Vigo University,
Vigo, Spain.
Goran Svensson is based
at Oslo School of
Management, Oslo,
Norway.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe a framework and illustration to assess and manage
the perceived content and experiences in hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions.
Teleological actions are movements into the future that are believed to move either towards a
predictable/known or unpredictable/unknown state or condition: transformative – ad hoc and
present-based actions; formative – pre-determined and past-based actions; and rationalist –
goal-directed and future-based actions.
Design/methodology/approach – A framework of teleological actions and its underlying logic
illustrates how critical hospitality processes may be assessed and managed in both research and
practice.
Findings – The lens of teleological actions offers a non-traditional and unusual, potentially unique,
perspective on hospitality processes. It reveals additional insights to assess and manage critical
incidents in hospitality processes between service providers and service receivers.
Research limitations/implications – Assessing and managing hospitality processes through the lens
of teleological actions makes both a contribution to and provides opportunities for further research in the
?eld of hospitality management.
Practical implications – It opens up the possibility of examining different hospitality processes based
upon the lens of teleological actions. It provides interesting and valuable insights in relation to
contemporary approaches to assess and manage critical incidents in the literature of hospitality
processes.
Originality/value – It sheds a different and additional light upon current theory and practice in
hospitality management. It explicitly addresses the meaning of time and howto relate to the content and
experiences of previous, current and forthcoming hospitality processes.
Keywords Hospitality, Process, Hospitality management, Teleology, Teleological action,
Complexity sciences
Paper type Conceptual Paper
Introduction
Reviews in hospitality and tourism research reveal unexplored areas of study (Line and
Runyan, 2012; Myung et al., 2012). These reviews offer opportunities for further research in
exploring hospitality processes. Complementary research from other ?elds of theory is
needed (McKercher et al., 2012). O’Gorman (2007) concludes that the study of hospitality
processes requires a continuous multi-disciplinary focus. Lashley (2007) suggests revised
ways to understand the research of hospitality processes derived from social science
perspectives.
Line and Runyan (2012) offer a review of hospitality research describing recent trends and
future directions. We complement and expand previous propositions for future directions
by introducing a framework and illustration of teleological actions (Stacey et al., 2000) in
hospitality processes. Teleological actions are movements into the future that are believed
to be moved either toward a predictable/known or unpredictable/unknown state or
condition. We distinguish between, de?ne and apply the following three categories:
Received 7 August 2012
Revised 24 October 2013
21 January 2014
19 March 2014
Accepted 20 May 2014
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-08-2012-0062 VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014, pp. 361-371, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 361
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
1. Transformative – ad hoc and present-based actions;
2. Formative – pre-determined and past-based actions; and
3. Rationalist – goal-directed and future-based actions.
To our knowledge, there are rare efforts to include conceptual approaches from other
research disciplines into the literature on hospitality processes. The objective is, therefore,
to describe a framework and illustration to assess and manage the perceived content and
experiences in hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions. We argue that
the lens of teleological actions provide interesting and valuable insights in relation to
contemporary approaches to assess and manage critical incidents in the literature of
hospitality processes. We also argue that it provides a foundation for additional ways and
means of assessing and managing critical incidents in hospitality processes.
Frame of reference
Stacey et al. (2000) identify different teleological actions derived from previous literature,
such as: Darwin (1859 and 1971), Hegel (1807 and 1830) and Kant (1790/1987).
Teleological actions have been previously applied in areas such as: services, supply-chain
management, business ethics and leadership (Svensson and Padin, 2013; Svensson,
2010; Svensson and Wood, 2010; Svensson et al., 2008), and adapted here in an attempt
to incorporate teleological actions to hospitality management.
Parsons (1951) outlines a conceptual scheme for the analysis of the structure and
processes of social systems, which provides an overall frame of reference to Stacey et
al. (2000). Luhmann (1995) proposes a general theory that exploits the conceptual
resources of modern science for a study of social phenomena. Machiavelli (1532)
regards coincidences and circumstances in?uencing the complexity and outcomes in
different situations (i.e. transformative – ad hoc and present-based actions). Tzu (500
B. C.) (1910) and Musashi (1645) are concerned about being continuously preventive
across situations (i.e. rationalist – goal-directed and future-based actions). The
scienti?c method (Taylor, 1911; Fayol, 1916/1948) has limitations in terms of providing
insightful knowledge in complex situations (i.e. formative – pre-determined and
past-based actions). Hospitality processes tend to be framed by a complex situation
not only in situations in the present but over time and across situations. Subsequently,
we contend that the inherent complexity of hospitality processes supports our focus to
apply teleological actions in illustrative situations of hospitality processes.
The next section positions teleological actions in a theoretical framework applicable to
hospitality processes and when critical incidents have occurred.
Teleological actions positioned in hospitality processes
Service settings are often highly competitive. Service receivers may be costly and
troublesome to attract, while losing service receivers may cause concerns and, in
extension, threaten the well-being of the service provider (Oliver, 1999). The literature of
service pro?t-chain indicates that loyalty is the outcome of service receivers’ satisfaction.
Subsequently, the pro?t of service providers relates, to some extent, to loyalty (Heskett et
al., 1994). Those service receivers that continue buying the service offered are crucial to
service providers (Miller et al., 2000). It is, therefore, essential to manage the performance
of hospitality processes adequately to enhance the satisfaction and repurchasing
behaviors by service receivers (Bitner, 1990; Edvardsson, 1992, 1998a; Edvardsson and
Roos, 2001).
Services offered in hospitality processes are often seen as largely intangible,
inseparable, heterogeneous and perishable (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991; Gallouj,
1997; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996; Zeithaml et al., 1985, 1993).
Hospitality processes are, to a large extent, based upon human involvement between
PAGE 362 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
service providers and service receivers. There is, subsequently, an interactive interface
in hospitality processes between service providers and service receivers that need to
be assessed and managed properly.
Critical incident will, sooner or later, most likely appear in hospitality processes leading
to a service failure (Kau and Loh, 2006; Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008; Wen et al., 2013).
A critical incident in a hospitality process may in?uence the perceived satisfaction of
service receivers with the service offered, and also, in extension, in?uence the
complaint behavior by service receivers (Varela-Neira et al., 2008).
The hospitality process between service providers and service receivers is essential in
assessing the service quality provided (Bitner et al., 1990). Assessments of hospitality
processes are based on a perceived gap between the expectations service receivers
possess of service quality in comparison to their perceptions of the hospitality process
experienced (Bitner, 1990; Bouranta et al., 2009; Clow and Beisel, 1995; Parasuraman
et al., 1988).
Berry et al. (1985) contend that service quality may be either “normal” or “exceptional”.
The latter may indicate that a critical incident has occurred in the hospitality process
(Bitner, 1990; Edvardsson, 1992, 1998a; Edvardsson and Roos, 2001). A critical
incident, is “[. . .] special, problematic, sensitive or directly unpleasant to the individual
who has not got what he/she expected [. . .]” (Edvardsson, 1998a; 1998b, p. 190).
Research shows that critical incidents may affect hospitality processes negatively and
the loyalty of service receivers if not managed properly (Roos et al., 2009; Wong, 2004).
Critical incidents in hospitality processes may also affect willingness to make a
complaint, causing negative word-of-mouth about the hospitality process experienced
(Bougie et al., 2003; Liljander and Strandvik, 1997; White and Yu, 2005). Furthermore,
critical incidents may disrupt continued buying behavior and affect perceptions in
subsequent hospitality processes (Davidow, 2003).
The organizational foundation offered to the service providers involved in hospitality
process is crucial (Hur et al., 2013). It is, therefore, important that service providers are
able to properly assess and manage critical incidents that may occur in hospitality
processes. Building an emotional attachment between the service providers and their
service receivers is crucial to gain a competitive advantage (Jain and Jain, 2005; Lam
and Chen, 2012).
Previous studies in the service setting have mostly been limited to a smaller number of
emotions, although recent studies has been including a broader spectrum of them
(Petzer et al., 2012; Svari et al., 2011). Wen et al. (2013) have striven to explain the
in?uence of perceived justice and emotions on satisfaction, trust and behaviors of
service receivers in service recovery settings. There is also a need to examine how to
assess and manage critical incidents in hospitality processes (Bagozzi et al., 1999).
Evidently, further research on critical incidents in hospitality processes is needed
(Wong, 2004).
The predominant discourse explaining how to assess and manage human
organizations relies on two schools of thought (Stacey et al., 2000), namely, the
scienti?c method and systems thinking. Stacey et al. (2000) argues that both schools
provide unsatisfactory knowledge into the assessment and management of human
actions in organizations.
A fairly novel approach is found in the complexity sciences that emphasize different
aspects of foundation to other approaches, such as chaos theory, dissipative structure
theory and the theory of complex adaptive systems. Svensson and Padín (2013, p. 225)
write that:
Chaos theory examines the behaviour of a system based upon deterministic non-linear
equations that indicate how a set of parameters indirectly affecting a system lead to its
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 363
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
behaviour of making things achieve a speci?c condition; dissipative structure theory streses
the deterministic nonlinear system; and the theory of the complex adaptive system
represents several units, each of which conforms locally to its own principle interaction.
We believe that there is a gap to ?ll based upon a conceptual framework that may
describe how to assess and manage critical incidents in hospitality processes.
Svensson and Padín (2013) apply a teleological approach derived from the complexity
sciences into the assessment and management of hospitality processes, which refers
to (Stacey et al., 2000, p. 14):
the kind of movement into the future that is believed to lead either towards a
predictable or an unpredictable state or condition, or a known or unknown state or
condition; and
the reason for the movement of a phenomenon into the future to achieve some
optimal arrangement, a chosen goal, a mature form of itself and/or a continuity and
transformation of its identity.
We adapt and re?ne this approach to assess and manage critical incidents in
hospitality processes based upon a framework of teleological actions that focus on a
perceptual gap between service providers and service receivers. We argue that such
an approach makes a complementary and relevant contribution to hospitality research.
Our adapted approach is based upon a typology of teleological actions:
Transformative – ad hoc and present-based;
Formative – pre-determined and past-based; and
Rationalist – goal-directed and future-based.
Critical incidents in hospitality processes may lead to both positive and negative
emotions. It is important to assess and manage critical incidents that cause negative
emotions to minimize the “perceptual gap” between the “teleological actions”
undertaken by service providers and those actions taken by service receivers in
hospitality processes.
Implications – teleological lens in hospitality processes
We intend to brie?y describe the implications of teleological actions described by
Stacey et al. (2000) in hospitality management and subsequent hospitality processes.
Teleological actions have been previously applied in areas such as: services,
supply-chain management, business ethics and leadership (Svensson and Padin,
2013; Svensson, 2010; Svensson and Wood, 2010; Svensson et al., 2008), and adapted
here to incorporate the lens of teleological actions into hospitality management. In fact,
teleological actions become of interest and essential in terms of hospitality processes.
We argue that it is valuable and important to be aware of the differences between
formative, rationalist and transformative actions in hospitality processes.
We will revisit, as well as reconnect to, the following scenario description labeled as the
“waiter-and-triplets” scenario:
Imagine identical triplets being guests in the same restaurant having the same meal and
wine at the same time, but on different tables unaware of each others’ presence and
attended by different waiters.
Unfortunately, the same unpleasant incident occurred on all three tables during their meals.
When the three guests grabbed the glass full of red wine, they spilt the wine on their shirts
and trousers. They immediately called for the attention of their waiters, who came instantly
to attend their frustrated and upset guests
The manager on duty in the restaurant decided to contact the guests the next day to
follow-up the “spilt-wine” incidents the day before – a critical one. During these
conversations, something unexpected happened, namely, to the manager’s surprise,
PAGE 364 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
three different stories were told by the guests about how they perceived what happened
with the waiter after the incident. Two of them were more or less disappointed with the
waiter (e.g. their actions and behaviors) and, in extension, the restaurant where the
situation occurred, while the third was pleased.
The question arises how is it possible that the guests’ perceived content and
experiences of hospitality offered by the waiters after the critical incident turned out
differently in the three independent hospitality processes of the restaurant as described
in the “waiter-and-triplets” scenario? Evidently, there are many possible explanations
where we describe one of them based upon the lens of teleological actions.
Subsequently, an explanatory foundation is provided in the following paragraphs to
assess and manage hospitality processes in the introduced “waiter-and-triplets”
scenario taking place after the “spilt-wine” incidents through the lens of teleological
actions. It is introduced in an effort to bring in non-orthodox theory into how hospitality
processes may be assessed and managed in both research and practice.
Formative actions in hospitality processes
Formative actions in hospitality processes refer to the stable movement produced by
the self-organizing interaction of parts in processes of hospitality (adapted from Stacey
et al., 2000), where the forthcoming content and experiences of hospitality processes
are known and predictable. The dynamics of hospitality processes move toward this
end as shown in Figure 1 (Svensson et al., 2008). Self-organizing refers to individuals
interacting in line with their own ideas lacking a general example for the situation.
Undertaken actions are pre-determined and past-based (i.e. formative ones).
The movement of time and meaning ?ows from previous content and experiences in
hospitality processes toward the current ones. The forthcoming dynamics in hospitality
processes are recognizable in the content and experiences of the previous ones, and
will thus be a repetition of the previous content and experiences of hospitality
processes. Subsequently, the formative actions in hospitality processes are seen as
having a notion of the forthcoming dynamics of hospitality processes based upon the
content and experiences of current hospitality processes, but the assumptions being
made are, nevertheless, based upon the content and experiences of previous ones.
Subsequently, the content and experiences of formative actions in hospitality
processes become pre-determined and past-based directed toward known and
predictable state or condition.
How do the formative actions in hospitality processes make sense based upon the
“waiter-and-triplets” scenario? A possible explanation is that a guest’s perceived
content and experiences of hospitality with the waiter would presumably be less
satisfactory, if formative actions characterizes the waiter’s attendance of the critical
Figure 1 Formative actions in hospitality processes
Previous
Content and
Experiences
Current
Content and
Experiences
Forthcoming
Content and
Experiences
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 365
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
incident with the guest. The formative logic of hospitality actions offers the waiter
marginal ?exibility and responsibility to manage unpleasant situations for guests. Let us
assume that the waiter had been thoroughly instructed to meet different critical
incidents in speci?ed ways that may occur in the hospitality processes with the
restaurant guests. The dilemma is that the critical incidents in hospitality processes can
hardly be predicted (e.g. when, how, where and why). Furthermore, it is impossible to
know in advance how the guest is going to react and behave as a consequence of the
critical incident. For example, the guest may blame the restaurant, blame him or herself
or blame somebody else for the incident. Subsequently, the outcome of this situation is
dependent upon the hospitality process taking place between waiter and guest after
the critical incident has occurred.
Subsequently, it may not be advisable to manage the hospitality processes in general
with detailed guidelines and ?xed scenarios on how to handle critical incidents when
they may occur. A consequence may be that the guest’s perception of the content and
experiences of hospitality may then turn out to be unsatisfactory due to a mismatch
between his or her expectation and perception. We argue that the formative actions in
hospitality processes of the “waiter-and-triplets”scenario increases the likelihood of
creating a negative guest perception of the content and experiences of hospitality.
Pre-determined and past-based actions may not be appropriate to handle critical
incidents in hospitality processes.
Rationalist actions in hospitality processes
Rationalist actions in hospitality processes refer to the notions of self-organization as
being absent, and both stability and change are choices toward chosen goals (adapted
from Stacey et al., 2000). What happens in this case is that the content and experiences
of hospitality processes aim to ful?ll selected goals of hospitality management. The
forthcoming content and experiences of hospitality processes are known and
predictable as shown in Figure 2 (Svensson et al., 2008). Actions undertaken are
goal-directed and future-based (rationalist ones).
The content and experiences of hospitality processes based upon rationalist actions,
thus, become about ?lling the gap between what is desired outcome and the actual
situation. The movement of time and meaning departs from the actual situation toward
the desired outcome. The meaning is located in the dynamics of the desired outcome
of hospitality processes, and the actual dynamics are relevant, primarily as they point
to the desired content and experiences of hospitality processes. In sum, the content
and experiences of rationalist actions in hospitality processes becomes future-based
and goal-directed toward a known and predictable state or condition.
Figure 2 Rationalist actions in hospitality processes
Previous
Content and
Experiences
Current
Content and
Experiences
Forthcoming
Content and
Experiences
PAGE 366 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
How does the rationalist actions make sense based upon the “waiter-and-triplets”
scenario? The likelihood that the guest’s perceived content and experiences of
hospitality with the waiter would presumably be less satisfactory if rationalist actions
characterized the waiter’s attendance of the critical incident with the guest. The
rationalist logic of hospitality actions interferes with the waiter’s actions to manage the
unpleasant situation. Let us assume that the waiter has been informed about the
restaurants’ customer care policy and its intentions to be able to meet different critical
incidents that may occur with guests. The dilemma is that critical incidents in hospitality
processes can hardly be predicted (e.g. when, how, where and why). It would be
unreasonable for the waiter to achieve or match the attentions of the customer care
policy if his or her actions were supposed to be based upon assumptions about the
guest’s expected reactions and behaviors. For example, the restaurant’s customer care
policy expresses most likely how to attend the guest adequately, but the waiter does not
know how he or she is going to react and behave as a consequence of any incident.
Subsequently, the “waiter-and-triplets” scenario is dependent upon the content and
experiences in the hospitality process taking place between the waiter and the guest
after the critical incident has occurred. It may not be appropriate to manage critical
incidents in hospitality processes based upon a goal-oriented and future-based
process toward the customer care policy that is based upon assumptions of how to act
and behave. The perceived content and experiences of hospitality may then turn out to
be unsatisfactory due to a mismatch between the guest’s expectation and perception.
We argue that the rationalist actions in a hospitality process of the “waiter-and-triplets”
scenario increases the likelihood of creating a negative guest perception of the content
and experiences of hospitality.
Transformative actions in hospitality processes
Transformative actions in hospitality process refer to their being a self-organization and
a transformative interaction in which each moment is in?uenced by previous actions
(adapted from Stacey et al., 2000). Each such moment is a repetition of previous
content and experiences in hospitality processes, but with the potential for ongoing
transformation and continuity at the same time. The forthcoming content and
experiences of hospitality processes are unknown and unpredictable, as shown in
Figure 3 (Svensson et al., 2008). Actions undertaken are ad hoc and present-based
(transformative ones).
The transformative actions in hospitality processes reveal and highlight the dynamics of
assessing and managing hospitality processes. The content and experiences of
transformative actions in hospitality processes become ad hoc (variable) and
present-based (continuous) toward an unknown and unpredictable state or condition.
Figure 3 Transformative actions in hospitality processes
Previous
Content and
Experiences
Current
Content and
Experiences Forthcoming
Content and
Experiences
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 367
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
There are notions of how the future dynamics of content and experiences might
probably be in hospitality processes.
How do the transformative actions in hospitality processes make sense based upon the
“waiter-and-triplets” scenario? It is most likely that the guest’s perceived content and
experiences of hospitality with the waiter would presumably be more satisfactory if
transformative actions characterized the waiter’s attendance of the critical incident with
the guest. The transformative logic does not create explicit obstacles or boundaries for
the waiter to manage the guest’s unpleasant situation. On the contrary, this approach
promotes the waiter’s independence and accountability to be in charge of managing
the critical incident of the hospitality process to the best of the restaurant’s interest.
Transformative actions in hospitality processes allow the waiter to handle critical
incidents without blinkers. The waiter’s ability to decide continuously about what should
be appropriate actions evolves with the guest perception. It may increase the chance
that the critical incident is converted into a less negative experience for the customer.
The content and experiences of hospitality may then turn out to be satisfactory for the
guest even though the hospitality process contained a highly unpleasant happening
due to a match between his or her expectation and perception. Subsequently, it is
argued that the transformative actions in hospitality processes to the “waiter-and-
triplets” scenario increase the likelihood of creating a positive guest perception of the
content and experiences of hospitality.
Concluding thoughts and suggestions
The lens of teleological actions offers a non-traditional and unusual, potentially unique,
perspective on hospitality processes, such as the “waiter-and-triplet” scenario. We
conclude that it sheds a different and additional light upon current theory and practice,
as it explicitly addresses the meaning of time (pre-determined, goal-directed or ad hoc)
and how to relate to the content and experiences of previous, current and forthcoming
hospitality processes (past-, present- or future-based). We also conclude that the lens
of teleological actions opens up the optional possibilities to assess and manage
hospitality processes. It should be interpreted as a seed for further research
opportunities and, as such, it requires further exploration and re?nement. Furthermore,
it complements and expands the future directions proposed by Line and Runyan
(2012). Finally, we conclude that exploring hospitality processes through the lens of
teleological actions (Stacey et al., 2000) makes a contribution to contemporary
research and theory in the ?eld of hospitality management in the context of hospitality
management.
In sum, exploring hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions makes both a
contribution to and provides opportunities for further research in the ?eld of hospitality
management. A research proposition is whether the formative, rationalist and transformative
actions in hospitality processes are applicable beyond the “waiter-and-triplets” scenario? We
believe that the described teleological actions are universally applicable in hospitality
processes, but evidently, further validations are required. Another research proposition is what
the key characteristics are and variables in those processes, as well as how to measure and
assess them adequately.
References
Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M. and Nyer, P.U. (1999), “The role of emotions in marketing”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 184-206.
Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V. and Parasuraman, A. (1985), “Quality counts in services too”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 44-52.
PAGE 368 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluation service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee
responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.M. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Bougie, R., Pieters, R. and Zeelenberg, M. (2003), “Angry customers don’t come back, they get back:
the experience and behavioral implications of anger and dissatisfaction in services”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 377-393.
Bouranta, N., Chitiris, L. and Paravantis, J. (2009), “The relationship between internal and external
service quality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 275-293.
Clow, E.K. and Beisel, L.J. (1995), “Managing consumer expectations of low-margin, high volume
service”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Darwin, C. (1859), The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life, John Murray, London.
Darwin, C. (1871), The Descent of Man, John Murray, London.
Davidow, M. (2003), “Organizational responses to customers complaints: what works and what
doesn‘t”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 225-250.
Edvardsson, B. (1992), “Service breakdowns: a study of critical incidents in an airline”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 17-29.
Edvardsson, B. and Ross, I. (2001), “Critical incident techniques: towards a framework for analysing
the criticality of critical incidents”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 251-268.
Edvardsson, M. (1998a), “Causes of customer dissatisfaction – studies of public transport by the
critical-incident method”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 189-197.
Edvardsson, M. (1998b), “Measuring consumer emotions in service encounters: an exploratory
analysis”, Australasian Journal of Market Research, Vol. 6. No. 2, pp. 34-48.
Fayol, H. (1916/1948), Industrial and General Administration, Pitman, London.
Gallouj, C. (1997), “Asymmetry of information and the service relationship: selection and
evaluation of the service provider”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 42-64.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1807), Phänomenologie des Geistes, Joseph Anton Goebhardt, Bamberg.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1830), Enzyklopädie der Philosophischen Wissenschaften, Felix Meiner, Hamburg.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E.Jr. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting the
service-pro?t chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 2, pp. 164-170.
Hur, W., Moon, T. and Jun, J. (2013), “The role of perceived organizational support on emotional labor
in the airline industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 105-123.
Jain, R. and Jain, S. (2005), “Towards relational exchange in services marketing: insights from
hospitality industry”, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 139-150.
Kant, I. (1790/1987), Critiqye of Judgement, translation by Pluhar, W. and Hackett, S., Indianapolis, IN.
Kau, A. and Loh, E.W. (2006), “The effects of service recovery on consumer satisfaction: a comparison
between complainants and non-complainants”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 101-111.
Lam, W. and Chen, Z. (2012), “When I put on my service mask: determinants and outcomes of
emotional labor among hotel service providers according to affective event theory”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Lashley, C. (2007), “Discovering hospitality: observations from recent research”, International Journal
of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 214-226.
Liljander, V. and Strandvik, T. (1997), “Emotions in service satisfaction”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 148-169.
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 369
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Line, N.D. and Runyan, R.C. (2012), “Hospitality marketing research: recent trends and future
directions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 477-488.
Luhmann, N. (1995), Social Systems, Standford University Press, Standford, CA.
McKercher, B., Mackenzie, M., Prideaux, B. and Pang, S. (2012), “Is the hospitality and tourism
curriculum effective in teaching personal social responsibility?”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, In press.
Machiavelli, N. (1532), “Il Principe”, The Prince, Penguin Classics.
Miller, J.L., Craighead, C.W. and Karwan, K.R. (2000), “Service recovery: a framework and empirical
investigation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 387-400.
Musashi, M. (1645), The Book of the Five Rings, in Brown, B.J., Kashiwagi, Y., Barrett, W.H. and
Sasagawa, E. (Eds), Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Myung, E., McClaren, A. and Li, L. (2012), “Environmentally related research in scholarly hospitality
journals: current status and future opportunities”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 312 No. 4, pp. 1264-1275.
O’Gorman, K.D. (2007), “The hospitality phenomenon: philosophical enlightenment?”, International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 189-202.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1994), “Reassessment of expectations as a comparison
standard in measuring service quality: implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58
No. 1, pp. 111-124.
Parsons, T. (1951), The Social System, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Petzer, D.J., De Meyer, C.F., Sværi, S. and Svensson, G. (2012), “Service receivers’ negative emotions
in airline and hospital service settings”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 484-496.
Roos, I., Friman, M. and Edvardsson, B. (2009), “Emotions and stability in Telecom-customer
relationships”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 192-208.
Stacey, R.D., Grif?n, D. and Shaw, P. (2000), Complexity and Management – Fad or Radical Challenge
to Systems Thinking, Routledge, London and New York.
Svari, S., Svensson, G., Slåtten, T. and Edvardsson, B. (2011), “A SOS-construct of negative emotions
in customers’ service experience (CSE) and ?rms’ service recovery (FSR) in the Norwegian Tourism
Industry”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1 pp. 51-58.
Svensson, G. (2010), “Teleological approaches in supply chain management: illustrations”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 16-20.
Svensson, G. and Padín, C. (2013), “Teleological approaches from complexity sciences in services:
framework, illustration and proposition”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 224-237.
Svensson, G. and Wood, G. (2010), “Teleological business ethics: formative, rationalist and
transformative – illustrations and analogies”, ESIC Market, Vol. 138, pp. 35-61.
Svensson, G., Wood, G. and Mathisen, B.R. (2008), “Re?exive and critical views of leadership
performance in corporate accomplishment: framework and illustration”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 879-899.
Taylor, F. (1911), Scienti?c Management, Harper Brothers, New York, NY.
Tzu, S. (500 B. C.) (1910), in Giles, L.M.A. (Ed.), Sun Tzu on the Art of War, Luzac and Co, London.
Varela-Neira, C., Vazquez-Casielles, R. and Iglesias, V. (2008), “Explaining customer satisfaction with
complaint handling”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 88-112.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
PAGE 370 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Wen, B. and Geng-qing Chi, C. (2013), “Examine the cognitive and affective antecedents to service
recovery satisfaction: a ?eld study of delayed airline passengers”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 306-327.
White, C. and Yu, Y.T. (2005), “Satisfaction emotions and consumer behavioral intentions”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 411-420.
Wong, A. (2004), “The role of emotional satisfaction in service encounters”, Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 365-376.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1996), Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “Problems and strategies in services
marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 33-46.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1993), “The nature and determinants of customer
expectations of service”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Further reading
Brown, T.J. and Kirmani, A. (1999), “The in?uence of preencounter affect on satisfaction with an
anxiety-provoking service encounter”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 333-346.
Corresponding author
Goran Svensson is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: goran.svensson@
hh.se
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 371
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Aviad A. Israeli. 2014. An inter-paradigmatic agenda for research, education and practice in hospitality management.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 42, 188-191. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_204289113.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to describe a framework and illustration to assess and manage
the perceived content and experiences in hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions.
Teleological actions are movements into the future that are believed to move either towards a
predictable/known or unpredictable/unknown state or condition: transformative – ad hoc and
present-based actions; formative – pre-determined and past-based actions; and rationalist –
goal-directed and future-based actions.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions – framework and illustration
Carmen Padin Goran Svensson
Article information:
To cite this document:
Carmen Padin Goran Svensson , (2014),"Hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions – framework and
illustration", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 361 - 371
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-08-2012-0062
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 213 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Defang Zhao, Ingrid Y. Lin, (2014),"Understanding tourists’ perception and evaluation of inter-cultural service encounters: a
holistic mental model process", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 290-309http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-09-2013-0070
Yi-Fei Chuang, Shiuh-Nan Hwang, J ehn-Yih Wong, Chun-Der Chen, (2014),"The attractiveness of tourist night markets in
Taiwan – a supply-side view", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 333-344http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-09-2013-0067
Choo Ling Suan, Aizzat Mohd Nasurdin, (2014),"An empirical investigation into the influence of human resource
management practices on work engagement: the case of customer-contact employees in Malaysia", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 345-360http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-12-2013-0083
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Hospitality processes through the lens of
teleological actions – framework and
illustration
Carmen Padin and Goran Svensson
Carmen Padin is based
at Facultad Economía,
Departamento Economía
Aplicada, Vigo University,
Vigo, Spain.
Goran Svensson is based
at Oslo School of
Management, Oslo,
Norway.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe a framework and illustration to assess and manage
the perceived content and experiences in hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions.
Teleological actions are movements into the future that are believed to move either towards a
predictable/known or unpredictable/unknown state or condition: transformative – ad hoc and
present-based actions; formative – pre-determined and past-based actions; and rationalist –
goal-directed and future-based actions.
Design/methodology/approach – A framework of teleological actions and its underlying logic
illustrates how critical hospitality processes may be assessed and managed in both research and
practice.
Findings – The lens of teleological actions offers a non-traditional and unusual, potentially unique,
perspective on hospitality processes. It reveals additional insights to assess and manage critical
incidents in hospitality processes between service providers and service receivers.
Research limitations/implications – Assessing and managing hospitality processes through the lens
of teleological actions makes both a contribution to and provides opportunities for further research in the
?eld of hospitality management.
Practical implications – It opens up the possibility of examining different hospitality processes based
upon the lens of teleological actions. It provides interesting and valuable insights in relation to
contemporary approaches to assess and manage critical incidents in the literature of hospitality
processes.
Originality/value – It sheds a different and additional light upon current theory and practice in
hospitality management. It explicitly addresses the meaning of time and howto relate to the content and
experiences of previous, current and forthcoming hospitality processes.
Keywords Hospitality, Process, Hospitality management, Teleology, Teleological action,
Complexity sciences
Paper type Conceptual Paper
Introduction
Reviews in hospitality and tourism research reveal unexplored areas of study (Line and
Runyan, 2012; Myung et al., 2012). These reviews offer opportunities for further research in
exploring hospitality processes. Complementary research from other ?elds of theory is
needed (McKercher et al., 2012). O’Gorman (2007) concludes that the study of hospitality
processes requires a continuous multi-disciplinary focus. Lashley (2007) suggests revised
ways to understand the research of hospitality processes derived from social science
perspectives.
Line and Runyan (2012) offer a review of hospitality research describing recent trends and
future directions. We complement and expand previous propositions for future directions
by introducing a framework and illustration of teleological actions (Stacey et al., 2000) in
hospitality processes. Teleological actions are movements into the future that are believed
to be moved either toward a predictable/known or unpredictable/unknown state or
condition. We distinguish between, de?ne and apply the following three categories:
Received 7 August 2012
Revised 24 October 2013
21 January 2014
19 March 2014
Accepted 20 May 2014
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-08-2012-0062 VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014, pp. 361-371, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 361
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
1. Transformative – ad hoc and present-based actions;
2. Formative – pre-determined and past-based actions; and
3. Rationalist – goal-directed and future-based actions.
To our knowledge, there are rare efforts to include conceptual approaches from other
research disciplines into the literature on hospitality processes. The objective is, therefore,
to describe a framework and illustration to assess and manage the perceived content and
experiences in hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions. We argue that
the lens of teleological actions provide interesting and valuable insights in relation to
contemporary approaches to assess and manage critical incidents in the literature of
hospitality processes. We also argue that it provides a foundation for additional ways and
means of assessing and managing critical incidents in hospitality processes.
Frame of reference
Stacey et al. (2000) identify different teleological actions derived from previous literature,
such as: Darwin (1859 and 1971), Hegel (1807 and 1830) and Kant (1790/1987).
Teleological actions have been previously applied in areas such as: services, supply-chain
management, business ethics and leadership (Svensson and Padin, 2013; Svensson,
2010; Svensson and Wood, 2010; Svensson et al., 2008), and adapted here in an attempt
to incorporate teleological actions to hospitality management.
Parsons (1951) outlines a conceptual scheme for the analysis of the structure and
processes of social systems, which provides an overall frame of reference to Stacey et
al. (2000). Luhmann (1995) proposes a general theory that exploits the conceptual
resources of modern science for a study of social phenomena. Machiavelli (1532)
regards coincidences and circumstances in?uencing the complexity and outcomes in
different situations (i.e. transformative – ad hoc and present-based actions). Tzu (500
B. C.) (1910) and Musashi (1645) are concerned about being continuously preventive
across situations (i.e. rationalist – goal-directed and future-based actions). The
scienti?c method (Taylor, 1911; Fayol, 1916/1948) has limitations in terms of providing
insightful knowledge in complex situations (i.e. formative – pre-determined and
past-based actions). Hospitality processes tend to be framed by a complex situation
not only in situations in the present but over time and across situations. Subsequently,
we contend that the inherent complexity of hospitality processes supports our focus to
apply teleological actions in illustrative situations of hospitality processes.
The next section positions teleological actions in a theoretical framework applicable to
hospitality processes and when critical incidents have occurred.
Teleological actions positioned in hospitality processes
Service settings are often highly competitive. Service receivers may be costly and
troublesome to attract, while losing service receivers may cause concerns and, in
extension, threaten the well-being of the service provider (Oliver, 1999). The literature of
service pro?t-chain indicates that loyalty is the outcome of service receivers’ satisfaction.
Subsequently, the pro?t of service providers relates, to some extent, to loyalty (Heskett et
al., 1994). Those service receivers that continue buying the service offered are crucial to
service providers (Miller et al., 2000). It is, therefore, essential to manage the performance
of hospitality processes adequately to enhance the satisfaction and repurchasing
behaviors by service receivers (Bitner, 1990; Edvardsson, 1992, 1998a; Edvardsson and
Roos, 2001).
Services offered in hospitality processes are often seen as largely intangible,
inseparable, heterogeneous and perishable (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991; Gallouj,
1997; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996; Zeithaml et al., 1985, 1993).
Hospitality processes are, to a large extent, based upon human involvement between
PAGE 362 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
service providers and service receivers. There is, subsequently, an interactive interface
in hospitality processes between service providers and service receivers that need to
be assessed and managed properly.
Critical incident will, sooner or later, most likely appear in hospitality processes leading
to a service failure (Kau and Loh, 2006; Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008; Wen et al., 2013).
A critical incident in a hospitality process may in?uence the perceived satisfaction of
service receivers with the service offered, and also, in extension, in?uence the
complaint behavior by service receivers (Varela-Neira et al., 2008).
The hospitality process between service providers and service receivers is essential in
assessing the service quality provided (Bitner et al., 1990). Assessments of hospitality
processes are based on a perceived gap between the expectations service receivers
possess of service quality in comparison to their perceptions of the hospitality process
experienced (Bitner, 1990; Bouranta et al., 2009; Clow and Beisel, 1995; Parasuraman
et al., 1988).
Berry et al. (1985) contend that service quality may be either “normal” or “exceptional”.
The latter may indicate that a critical incident has occurred in the hospitality process
(Bitner, 1990; Edvardsson, 1992, 1998a; Edvardsson and Roos, 2001). A critical
incident, is “[. . .] special, problematic, sensitive or directly unpleasant to the individual
who has not got what he/she expected [. . .]” (Edvardsson, 1998a; 1998b, p. 190).
Research shows that critical incidents may affect hospitality processes negatively and
the loyalty of service receivers if not managed properly (Roos et al., 2009; Wong, 2004).
Critical incidents in hospitality processes may also affect willingness to make a
complaint, causing negative word-of-mouth about the hospitality process experienced
(Bougie et al., 2003; Liljander and Strandvik, 1997; White and Yu, 2005). Furthermore,
critical incidents may disrupt continued buying behavior and affect perceptions in
subsequent hospitality processes (Davidow, 2003).
The organizational foundation offered to the service providers involved in hospitality
process is crucial (Hur et al., 2013). It is, therefore, important that service providers are
able to properly assess and manage critical incidents that may occur in hospitality
processes. Building an emotional attachment between the service providers and their
service receivers is crucial to gain a competitive advantage (Jain and Jain, 2005; Lam
and Chen, 2012).
Previous studies in the service setting have mostly been limited to a smaller number of
emotions, although recent studies has been including a broader spectrum of them
(Petzer et al., 2012; Svari et al., 2011). Wen et al. (2013) have striven to explain the
in?uence of perceived justice and emotions on satisfaction, trust and behaviors of
service receivers in service recovery settings. There is also a need to examine how to
assess and manage critical incidents in hospitality processes (Bagozzi et al., 1999).
Evidently, further research on critical incidents in hospitality processes is needed
(Wong, 2004).
The predominant discourse explaining how to assess and manage human
organizations relies on two schools of thought (Stacey et al., 2000), namely, the
scienti?c method and systems thinking. Stacey et al. (2000) argues that both schools
provide unsatisfactory knowledge into the assessment and management of human
actions in organizations.
A fairly novel approach is found in the complexity sciences that emphasize different
aspects of foundation to other approaches, such as chaos theory, dissipative structure
theory and the theory of complex adaptive systems. Svensson and Padín (2013, p. 225)
write that:
Chaos theory examines the behaviour of a system based upon deterministic non-linear
equations that indicate how a set of parameters indirectly affecting a system lead to its
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 363
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
behaviour of making things achieve a speci?c condition; dissipative structure theory streses
the deterministic nonlinear system; and the theory of the complex adaptive system
represents several units, each of which conforms locally to its own principle interaction.
We believe that there is a gap to ?ll based upon a conceptual framework that may
describe how to assess and manage critical incidents in hospitality processes.
Svensson and Padín (2013) apply a teleological approach derived from the complexity
sciences into the assessment and management of hospitality processes, which refers
to (Stacey et al., 2000, p. 14):
the kind of movement into the future that is believed to lead either towards a
predictable or an unpredictable state or condition, or a known or unknown state or
condition; and
the reason for the movement of a phenomenon into the future to achieve some
optimal arrangement, a chosen goal, a mature form of itself and/or a continuity and
transformation of its identity.
We adapt and re?ne this approach to assess and manage critical incidents in
hospitality processes based upon a framework of teleological actions that focus on a
perceptual gap between service providers and service receivers. We argue that such
an approach makes a complementary and relevant contribution to hospitality research.
Our adapted approach is based upon a typology of teleological actions:
Transformative – ad hoc and present-based;
Formative – pre-determined and past-based; and
Rationalist – goal-directed and future-based.
Critical incidents in hospitality processes may lead to both positive and negative
emotions. It is important to assess and manage critical incidents that cause negative
emotions to minimize the “perceptual gap” between the “teleological actions”
undertaken by service providers and those actions taken by service receivers in
hospitality processes.
Implications – teleological lens in hospitality processes
We intend to brie?y describe the implications of teleological actions described by
Stacey et al. (2000) in hospitality management and subsequent hospitality processes.
Teleological actions have been previously applied in areas such as: services,
supply-chain management, business ethics and leadership (Svensson and Padin,
2013; Svensson, 2010; Svensson and Wood, 2010; Svensson et al., 2008), and adapted
here to incorporate the lens of teleological actions into hospitality management. In fact,
teleological actions become of interest and essential in terms of hospitality processes.
We argue that it is valuable and important to be aware of the differences between
formative, rationalist and transformative actions in hospitality processes.
We will revisit, as well as reconnect to, the following scenario description labeled as the
“waiter-and-triplets” scenario:
Imagine identical triplets being guests in the same restaurant having the same meal and
wine at the same time, but on different tables unaware of each others’ presence and
attended by different waiters.
Unfortunately, the same unpleasant incident occurred on all three tables during their meals.
When the three guests grabbed the glass full of red wine, they spilt the wine on their shirts
and trousers. They immediately called for the attention of their waiters, who came instantly
to attend their frustrated and upset guests
The manager on duty in the restaurant decided to contact the guests the next day to
follow-up the “spilt-wine” incidents the day before – a critical one. During these
conversations, something unexpected happened, namely, to the manager’s surprise,
PAGE 364 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
three different stories were told by the guests about how they perceived what happened
with the waiter after the incident. Two of them were more or less disappointed with the
waiter (e.g. their actions and behaviors) and, in extension, the restaurant where the
situation occurred, while the third was pleased.
The question arises how is it possible that the guests’ perceived content and
experiences of hospitality offered by the waiters after the critical incident turned out
differently in the three independent hospitality processes of the restaurant as described
in the “waiter-and-triplets” scenario? Evidently, there are many possible explanations
where we describe one of them based upon the lens of teleological actions.
Subsequently, an explanatory foundation is provided in the following paragraphs to
assess and manage hospitality processes in the introduced “waiter-and-triplets”
scenario taking place after the “spilt-wine” incidents through the lens of teleological
actions. It is introduced in an effort to bring in non-orthodox theory into how hospitality
processes may be assessed and managed in both research and practice.
Formative actions in hospitality processes
Formative actions in hospitality processes refer to the stable movement produced by
the self-organizing interaction of parts in processes of hospitality (adapted from Stacey
et al., 2000), where the forthcoming content and experiences of hospitality processes
are known and predictable. The dynamics of hospitality processes move toward this
end as shown in Figure 1 (Svensson et al., 2008). Self-organizing refers to individuals
interacting in line with their own ideas lacking a general example for the situation.
Undertaken actions are pre-determined and past-based (i.e. formative ones).
The movement of time and meaning ?ows from previous content and experiences in
hospitality processes toward the current ones. The forthcoming dynamics in hospitality
processes are recognizable in the content and experiences of the previous ones, and
will thus be a repetition of the previous content and experiences of hospitality
processes. Subsequently, the formative actions in hospitality processes are seen as
having a notion of the forthcoming dynamics of hospitality processes based upon the
content and experiences of current hospitality processes, but the assumptions being
made are, nevertheless, based upon the content and experiences of previous ones.
Subsequently, the content and experiences of formative actions in hospitality
processes become pre-determined and past-based directed toward known and
predictable state or condition.
How do the formative actions in hospitality processes make sense based upon the
“waiter-and-triplets” scenario? A possible explanation is that a guest’s perceived
content and experiences of hospitality with the waiter would presumably be less
satisfactory, if formative actions characterizes the waiter’s attendance of the critical
Figure 1 Formative actions in hospitality processes
Previous
Content and
Experiences
Current
Content and
Experiences
Forthcoming
Content and
Experiences
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 365
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
incident with the guest. The formative logic of hospitality actions offers the waiter
marginal ?exibility and responsibility to manage unpleasant situations for guests. Let us
assume that the waiter had been thoroughly instructed to meet different critical
incidents in speci?ed ways that may occur in the hospitality processes with the
restaurant guests. The dilemma is that the critical incidents in hospitality processes can
hardly be predicted (e.g. when, how, where and why). Furthermore, it is impossible to
know in advance how the guest is going to react and behave as a consequence of the
critical incident. For example, the guest may blame the restaurant, blame him or herself
or blame somebody else for the incident. Subsequently, the outcome of this situation is
dependent upon the hospitality process taking place between waiter and guest after
the critical incident has occurred.
Subsequently, it may not be advisable to manage the hospitality processes in general
with detailed guidelines and ?xed scenarios on how to handle critical incidents when
they may occur. A consequence may be that the guest’s perception of the content and
experiences of hospitality may then turn out to be unsatisfactory due to a mismatch
between his or her expectation and perception. We argue that the formative actions in
hospitality processes of the “waiter-and-triplets”scenario increases the likelihood of
creating a negative guest perception of the content and experiences of hospitality.
Pre-determined and past-based actions may not be appropriate to handle critical
incidents in hospitality processes.
Rationalist actions in hospitality processes
Rationalist actions in hospitality processes refer to the notions of self-organization as
being absent, and both stability and change are choices toward chosen goals (adapted
from Stacey et al., 2000). What happens in this case is that the content and experiences
of hospitality processes aim to ful?ll selected goals of hospitality management. The
forthcoming content and experiences of hospitality processes are known and
predictable as shown in Figure 2 (Svensson et al., 2008). Actions undertaken are
goal-directed and future-based (rationalist ones).
The content and experiences of hospitality processes based upon rationalist actions,
thus, become about ?lling the gap between what is desired outcome and the actual
situation. The movement of time and meaning departs from the actual situation toward
the desired outcome. The meaning is located in the dynamics of the desired outcome
of hospitality processes, and the actual dynamics are relevant, primarily as they point
to the desired content and experiences of hospitality processes. In sum, the content
and experiences of rationalist actions in hospitality processes becomes future-based
and goal-directed toward a known and predictable state or condition.
Figure 2 Rationalist actions in hospitality processes
Previous
Content and
Experiences
Current
Content and
Experiences
Forthcoming
Content and
Experiences
PAGE 366 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
How does the rationalist actions make sense based upon the “waiter-and-triplets”
scenario? The likelihood that the guest’s perceived content and experiences of
hospitality with the waiter would presumably be less satisfactory if rationalist actions
characterized the waiter’s attendance of the critical incident with the guest. The
rationalist logic of hospitality actions interferes with the waiter’s actions to manage the
unpleasant situation. Let us assume that the waiter has been informed about the
restaurants’ customer care policy and its intentions to be able to meet different critical
incidents that may occur with guests. The dilemma is that critical incidents in hospitality
processes can hardly be predicted (e.g. when, how, where and why). It would be
unreasonable for the waiter to achieve or match the attentions of the customer care
policy if his or her actions were supposed to be based upon assumptions about the
guest’s expected reactions and behaviors. For example, the restaurant’s customer care
policy expresses most likely how to attend the guest adequately, but the waiter does not
know how he or she is going to react and behave as a consequence of any incident.
Subsequently, the “waiter-and-triplets” scenario is dependent upon the content and
experiences in the hospitality process taking place between the waiter and the guest
after the critical incident has occurred. It may not be appropriate to manage critical
incidents in hospitality processes based upon a goal-oriented and future-based
process toward the customer care policy that is based upon assumptions of how to act
and behave. The perceived content and experiences of hospitality may then turn out to
be unsatisfactory due to a mismatch between the guest’s expectation and perception.
We argue that the rationalist actions in a hospitality process of the “waiter-and-triplets”
scenario increases the likelihood of creating a negative guest perception of the content
and experiences of hospitality.
Transformative actions in hospitality processes
Transformative actions in hospitality process refer to their being a self-organization and
a transformative interaction in which each moment is in?uenced by previous actions
(adapted from Stacey et al., 2000). Each such moment is a repetition of previous
content and experiences in hospitality processes, but with the potential for ongoing
transformation and continuity at the same time. The forthcoming content and
experiences of hospitality processes are unknown and unpredictable, as shown in
Figure 3 (Svensson et al., 2008). Actions undertaken are ad hoc and present-based
(transformative ones).
The transformative actions in hospitality processes reveal and highlight the dynamics of
assessing and managing hospitality processes. The content and experiences of
transformative actions in hospitality processes become ad hoc (variable) and
present-based (continuous) toward an unknown and unpredictable state or condition.
Figure 3 Transformative actions in hospitality processes
Previous
Content and
Experiences
Current
Content and
Experiences Forthcoming
Content and
Experiences
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 367
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
There are notions of how the future dynamics of content and experiences might
probably be in hospitality processes.
How do the transformative actions in hospitality processes make sense based upon the
“waiter-and-triplets” scenario? It is most likely that the guest’s perceived content and
experiences of hospitality with the waiter would presumably be more satisfactory if
transformative actions characterized the waiter’s attendance of the critical incident with
the guest. The transformative logic does not create explicit obstacles or boundaries for
the waiter to manage the guest’s unpleasant situation. On the contrary, this approach
promotes the waiter’s independence and accountability to be in charge of managing
the critical incident of the hospitality process to the best of the restaurant’s interest.
Transformative actions in hospitality processes allow the waiter to handle critical
incidents without blinkers. The waiter’s ability to decide continuously about what should
be appropriate actions evolves with the guest perception. It may increase the chance
that the critical incident is converted into a less negative experience for the customer.
The content and experiences of hospitality may then turn out to be satisfactory for the
guest even though the hospitality process contained a highly unpleasant happening
due to a match between his or her expectation and perception. Subsequently, it is
argued that the transformative actions in hospitality processes to the “waiter-and-
triplets” scenario increase the likelihood of creating a positive guest perception of the
content and experiences of hospitality.
Concluding thoughts and suggestions
The lens of teleological actions offers a non-traditional and unusual, potentially unique,
perspective on hospitality processes, such as the “waiter-and-triplet” scenario. We
conclude that it sheds a different and additional light upon current theory and practice,
as it explicitly addresses the meaning of time (pre-determined, goal-directed or ad hoc)
and how to relate to the content and experiences of previous, current and forthcoming
hospitality processes (past-, present- or future-based). We also conclude that the lens
of teleological actions opens up the optional possibilities to assess and manage
hospitality processes. It should be interpreted as a seed for further research
opportunities and, as such, it requires further exploration and re?nement. Furthermore,
it complements and expands the future directions proposed by Line and Runyan
(2012). Finally, we conclude that exploring hospitality processes through the lens of
teleological actions (Stacey et al., 2000) makes a contribution to contemporary
research and theory in the ?eld of hospitality management in the context of hospitality
management.
In sum, exploring hospitality processes through the lens of teleological actions makes both a
contribution to and provides opportunities for further research in the ?eld of hospitality
management. A research proposition is whether the formative, rationalist and transformative
actions in hospitality processes are applicable beyond the “waiter-and-triplets” scenario? We
believe that the described teleological actions are universally applicable in hospitality
processes, but evidently, further validations are required. Another research proposition is what
the key characteristics are and variables in those processes, as well as how to measure and
assess them adequately.
References
Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M. and Nyer, P.U. (1999), “The role of emotions in marketing”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 184-206.
Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V. and Parasuraman, A. (1985), “Quality counts in services too”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 44-52.
PAGE 368 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluation service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee
responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.M. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Bougie, R., Pieters, R. and Zeelenberg, M. (2003), “Angry customers don’t come back, they get back:
the experience and behavioral implications of anger and dissatisfaction in services”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 377-393.
Bouranta, N., Chitiris, L. and Paravantis, J. (2009), “The relationship between internal and external
service quality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 275-293.
Clow, E.K. and Beisel, L.J. (1995), “Managing consumer expectations of low-margin, high volume
service”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Darwin, C. (1859), The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life, John Murray, London.
Darwin, C. (1871), The Descent of Man, John Murray, London.
Davidow, M. (2003), “Organizational responses to customers complaints: what works and what
doesn‘t”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 225-250.
Edvardsson, B. (1992), “Service breakdowns: a study of critical incidents in an airline”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 17-29.
Edvardsson, B. and Ross, I. (2001), “Critical incident techniques: towards a framework for analysing
the criticality of critical incidents”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 251-268.
Edvardsson, M. (1998a), “Causes of customer dissatisfaction – studies of public transport by the
critical-incident method”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 189-197.
Edvardsson, M. (1998b), “Measuring consumer emotions in service encounters: an exploratory
analysis”, Australasian Journal of Market Research, Vol. 6. No. 2, pp. 34-48.
Fayol, H. (1916/1948), Industrial and General Administration, Pitman, London.
Gallouj, C. (1997), “Asymmetry of information and the service relationship: selection and
evaluation of the service provider”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 42-64.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1807), Phänomenologie des Geistes, Joseph Anton Goebhardt, Bamberg.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1830), Enzyklopädie der Philosophischen Wissenschaften, Felix Meiner, Hamburg.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E.Jr. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting the
service-pro?t chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 2, pp. 164-170.
Hur, W., Moon, T. and Jun, J. (2013), “The role of perceived organizational support on emotional labor
in the airline industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 105-123.
Jain, R. and Jain, S. (2005), “Towards relational exchange in services marketing: insights from
hospitality industry”, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 139-150.
Kant, I. (1790/1987), Critiqye of Judgement, translation by Pluhar, W. and Hackett, S., Indianapolis, IN.
Kau, A. and Loh, E.W. (2006), “The effects of service recovery on consumer satisfaction: a comparison
between complainants and non-complainants”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 101-111.
Lam, W. and Chen, Z. (2012), “When I put on my service mask: determinants and outcomes of
emotional labor among hotel service providers according to affective event theory”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Lashley, C. (2007), “Discovering hospitality: observations from recent research”, International Journal
of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 214-226.
Liljander, V. and Strandvik, T. (1997), “Emotions in service satisfaction”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 148-169.
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 369
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Line, N.D. and Runyan, R.C. (2012), “Hospitality marketing research: recent trends and future
directions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 477-488.
Luhmann, N. (1995), Social Systems, Standford University Press, Standford, CA.
McKercher, B., Mackenzie, M., Prideaux, B. and Pang, S. (2012), “Is the hospitality and tourism
curriculum effective in teaching personal social responsibility?”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, In press.
Machiavelli, N. (1532), “Il Principe”, The Prince, Penguin Classics.
Miller, J.L., Craighead, C.W. and Karwan, K.R. (2000), “Service recovery: a framework and empirical
investigation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 387-400.
Musashi, M. (1645), The Book of the Five Rings, in Brown, B.J., Kashiwagi, Y., Barrett, W.H. and
Sasagawa, E. (Eds), Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Myung, E., McClaren, A. and Li, L. (2012), “Environmentally related research in scholarly hospitality
journals: current status and future opportunities”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 312 No. 4, pp. 1264-1275.
O’Gorman, K.D. (2007), “The hospitality phenomenon: philosophical enlightenment?”, International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 189-202.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1994), “Reassessment of expectations as a comparison
standard in measuring service quality: implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58
No. 1, pp. 111-124.
Parsons, T. (1951), The Social System, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Petzer, D.J., De Meyer, C.F., Sværi, S. and Svensson, G. (2012), “Service receivers’ negative emotions
in airline and hospital service settings”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 484-496.
Roos, I., Friman, M. and Edvardsson, B. (2009), “Emotions and stability in Telecom-customer
relationships”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 192-208.
Stacey, R.D., Grif?n, D. and Shaw, P. (2000), Complexity and Management – Fad or Radical Challenge
to Systems Thinking, Routledge, London and New York.
Svari, S., Svensson, G., Slåtten, T. and Edvardsson, B. (2011), “A SOS-construct of negative emotions
in customers’ service experience (CSE) and ?rms’ service recovery (FSR) in the Norwegian Tourism
Industry”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1 pp. 51-58.
Svensson, G. (2010), “Teleological approaches in supply chain management: illustrations”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 16-20.
Svensson, G. and Padín, C. (2013), “Teleological approaches from complexity sciences in services:
framework, illustration and proposition”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 224-237.
Svensson, G. and Wood, G. (2010), “Teleological business ethics: formative, rationalist and
transformative – illustrations and analogies”, ESIC Market, Vol. 138, pp. 35-61.
Svensson, G., Wood, G. and Mathisen, B.R. (2008), “Re?exive and critical views of leadership
performance in corporate accomplishment: framework and illustration”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 879-899.
Taylor, F. (1911), Scienti?c Management, Harper Brothers, New York, NY.
Tzu, S. (500 B. C.) (1910), in Giles, L.M.A. (Ed.), Sun Tzu on the Art of War, Luzac and Co, London.
Varela-Neira, C., Vazquez-Casielles, R. and Iglesias, V. (2008), “Explaining customer satisfaction with
complaint handling”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 88-112.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
PAGE 370 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Wen, B. and Geng-qing Chi, C. (2013), “Examine the cognitive and affective antecedents to service
recovery satisfaction: a ?eld study of delayed airline passengers”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 306-327.
White, C. and Yu, Y.T. (2005), “Satisfaction emotions and consumer behavioral intentions”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 411-420.
Wong, A. (2004), “The role of emotional satisfaction in service encounters”, Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 365-376.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1996), Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “Problems and strategies in services
marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 33-46.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1993), “The nature and determinants of customer
expectations of service”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Further reading
Brown, T.J. and Kirmani, A. (1999), “The in?uence of preencounter affect on satisfaction with an
anxiety-provoking service encounter”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 333-346.
Corresponding author
Goran Svensson is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: goran.svensson@
hh.se
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 371
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Aviad A. Israeli. 2014. An inter-paradigmatic agenda for research, education and practice in hospitality management.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 42, 188-191. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_204289113.pdf