Hierarchical Seniority vs. Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism Sustainability Education: A Social Exchange Theory Perspective

Abstract

Seniority-based hierarchical structures in higher education may hinder innovation in hospitality and tourism (H&T) sustainability education; therefore, this study applies Social Exchange Theory (SET) to examine how these hierarchies affect curriculum development and modernization in H&T programs. We used semi-structured interviews with 22 faculty members and administrators from hospitality and tourism programs across multiple universities—including four university presidents, three deans, three department heads, one professor, four associate professors, four assistant professors, and three lecturers with work experience ranging from 3 to 30 years—and we explored social exchange dynamics including reciprocity, trust, power imbalances, and perceived obligations that influence the integration of contemporary sustainable practices. Findings indicate that rigid seniority systems impede sustainability curriculum modernization and limit the incorporation of innovative industry expertise; however, institutions implementing SET principles—characterized by equitable recognition and balanced exchange between academic tenure and industry experience—demonstrate superior adaptability and better prepare students for evolving sustainability demands. This research illuminates organizational dynamics governing educational innovation and provides SET-based recommendations for developing institutional cultures that effectively bridge academic tradition with industry relevance and sustainability imperatives in H&T education.

1. Introduction

Within the domain of international institutions (e.g., education) administrative difficulties frequently arise due to firmly established hierarchical systems and an excessive reliance on seniority [1]. For instance, consider a university’s hospitality management program conducts faculty recruitment. When evaluating candidates, a search committee might gravitate toward a professor with two decades of academic publications and theoretical research. However, despite having half the academic tenure, they could be passing over a candidate who brings invaluable insights from managing modern hotels, implementing cutting-edge guest service technologies, and navigating real-world industry challenges. The conventional method of organizational management can have a substantial influence on different features, including recruitment, promotion, curriculum development, and quality assurance [2]. For instance, when it comes to higher education sector, the recruiting and promotion processes in numerous higher education institutions are significantly influenced by a system that places greater importance on seniority rather than merit, innovation, or pertinent industry experience [3]. The use of seniority as the main criterion can result in scenarios where persons with long academic experience but minimal recent industry involvement are prioritized over applicants with up-to-date, industry-specific knowledge [4]. For example, a faculty position in hotel management could be filled by an experienced academic who has mainly theoretical knowledge, possibly disregarding a candidate with a shorter academic career but substantial practical experience in contemporary hotel operations and emerging hospitality technologies.

The issues confronting hospitality and tourism education are especially pronounced and urgent relative to other academic disciplines, owing to multiple converging characteristics that differentiate this sector from conventional academic realms. Unlike fields with relatively stable knowledge bases, the hospitality and tourism industry has undergone unprecedented transformation in recent years, accelerated by technological disruption, changing consumer expectations, sustainability imperatives, and the profound impacts of global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The swift integration of artificial intelligence in guest services [5], the rise in sustainable tourism as a business necessity rather than a marginal issue, and the significant transition towards experience-oriented hospitality models have generated an educational urgency surpassing that of more static academic disciplines [6].

The inclination towards prioritizing seniority might lead to a lack of innovation and a resistance to embracing new teaching methods or industry-specific practices [4]. This can possibly exacerbate the disparity between academic instruction and the constantly changing demands of the hospitality and tourism sectors [3]. The procedure to achieving tenure in these universities typically prioritizes years of service above remarkable contributions to the field or teaching excellence. This arrangement fosters an environment in which faculty members prioritize collecting years of service over continuously improving their teaching methods or staying updated on industry advancements [7]. Therefore, students may encounter teachers who, although knowledgeable in academia, may lack comprehensive knowledge of the most recent industry trends, technology, and best practices that are essential for thriving in the ever-changing employment market [8].

The presence of hierarchical structures and seniority-based processes within the institution leads to a series of administrative issues [9,10]. Moreover, these hierarchical systems might lead to an uneven distribution of responsibility among faculty members. Regardless of their sector knowledge or innovative teaching methodologies, newer faculty members may find themselves facing increased teaching obligations [11]. Junior faculty members may be tasked with teaching many introductory courses or overseeing bigger class sizes, whereas senior faculty members prioritize administrative responsibilities, research, or specialized upper-level courses. This discrepancy not only impacts the caliber of education provided but also potentially impedes the career advancement and work contentment of junior faculty members who may possess relevant, current industry perspectives to contribute. The hierarchical and seniority-based strategy has wide-ranging implications that go beyond internal operations [1].

The social exchange theory provides a solid background to study these educational challenges and connections, as it posits that relationships are formed based on a cost–benefit [12]. Individuals are more likely to initiate and maintain relationships that provide more rewards compared to the expenses incurred [13]. This theory may help provide insights into the administrative difficulties encountered in the field of hospitality and tourism education [14]. From the standpoint of the teachers and staff, their relationship with the institution is transactional—they provide their labor and knowledge in return for income and perks.

In the tourism and hospitality education institutional system, the seniority Hierarchical potentially influencing the whole educational performance and process in hospitality and tourist institutions. Consider a scenario in which a hospitality management program must revise its curriculum to incorporate a new course on sustainable tourism practices. A junior faculty member, who has recently worked in the industry, suggests the course, emphasizing its significance in equipping students for the increasing focus on sustainability in the tourism industry. Nevertheless, experienced professors who have been instructing conventional tourism management courses for many years might oppose this alteration.

Faculty seniority creates barriers to sustainability education in hospitality and tourism programs. Senior faculty members who hold onto traditional paradigms, are advocates for sustainability, but they do not have subject matter expertise in the contemporary practices of sustainability (e.g., carbon management, circular economy principles, and ESG compliance) which have become imperatives in the industry. These same faculty members also have veto power over curriculum decisions and can easily resist teaching topics such as sustainability. Junior faculty engaging with industry or post-graduate academic experiences involving sustainability are subject to additional institutional barriers for faculty in the curriculum development process. As a result, the graduates from the program are not as prepared to enter an industry that is increasingly becoming dominated by environmental responsibility and sustainable tourism.

The convergence of hierarchical restrictions, growing business demands, and theoretical understanding forms the basis for exploring how institutional frameworks in hospitality and tourism education might be redefined to promote innovation while preserving academic integrity. This study uses Social Exchange Theory to examine the intricate relationships among seniority-based systems, faculty dynamics, and educational outcomes, aiming to provide avenues for more flexible and industry-responsive educational frameworks. The urgency of this investigation is emphasized by the rapid transformation of the hospitality and tourism industry, especially in sustainability practices and technological integration. This necessitates that educational institutions move beyond traditional hierarchical constraints and adopt collaborative methods that appreciate both academic knowledge and current industry perspectives. We seek to enhance the understanding of how educational institutions can effectively balance the preservation of academic tradition with the evolving requirements of contemporary hospitality and tourism professionals.

From a social exchange standpoint, the senior faculty members may view the introduction of this new course as a potential challenge to their established expertise and teaching responsibilities. In their perception, the possible expenses, such as the need to acquire new knowledge and the reduction in teaching hours for their current courses, can surpass the perceived advantages of curriculum innovation. In order to fill the knowledge gap on the impact of hierarchical structures and seniority-based systems on educational performance in higher education institutions specializing in hospitality and tourism, we put forth the following research inquiries:

• How does prioritizing seniority in recruiting and promotion procedures affect the quality and pertinence of education in hospitality and tourism institutions?
• What are the effects of hierarchical organizational structures on staff workload and innovation capacity, particularly in quality assurance units responsible for course assessment and curriculum development in hospitality and tourism programs using social exchange theory?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Hierarchical Structures in Organizations: Impact on Performance and Job Tasks

The hierarchical approach in organizations has been a longstanding topic of research and debate in management studies. This traditional organizational structure, characterized by clear lines of authority and a top-down decision-making process, has both proponents and critics [15]. On one hand, hierarchies can provide clarity in roles and responsibilities, establish a clear chain of command, and facilitate efficient decision-making in certain contexts. For instance, in large hotel chains, a hierarchical structure can ensure consistency in service standards across multiple locations by implementing standardized procedures from the top down [16]. However, the rigidity of hierarchical structures can also lead to significant drawbacks that affect overall institutional performance and individual job tasks [17]. One primary concern is the potential for communication bottlenecks and delayed decision-making. In a strictly hierarchical system, information must often travel through multiple levels before reaching decision-makers, potentially leading to slow responses to market changes or emerging opportunities [16]. For example, a front-line employee in a tourism agency might identify a new travel trend, but the information may take weeks or months to reach upper management and influence strategic decisions.

Moreover, hierarchical structures can stifle innovation and creativity by discouraging bottom-up initiatives. Employees at lower levels may feel disempowered to suggest improvements or new ideas, fearing that their input will be dismissed or overlooked due to their position in the organizational hierarchy [15]. This can result in missed opportunities for process improvements and innovation, ultimately affecting the organization’s competitiveness and adaptability. In the context of educational institutions, particularly those focused on hospitality and tourism, the impact of hierarchical structures can be even more pronounced [16]. The dynamic nature of the hospitality and tourism industry demands educational programs that are responsive to industry trends and technological advancements [5,18]. However, a rigid hierarchical structure in these institutions can lead to slow curriculum updates, resistance to new teaching methodologies, and a disconnect between academic offerings and industry needs [16]. For instance, while the industry might be rapidly adopting artificial intelligence for customer service, a hierarchical educational institution might struggle to quickly integrate this topic into its curriculum due to lengthy approval processes and resistance from established faculty members [19].

2.2. Tourism and Hospitality Education Practices: The Seniority Dilemma

The university staff work environment is a complex tapestry of rewarding interactions and demanding challenges. While fostering a sense of community and intellectual stimulation, staff often face heavy workloads, tight deadlines, and ever-changing demands [20]. Balancing administrative tasks with supporting faculty and students requires adaptability and strong organizational skills. Moreover, navigating budgetary constraints, evolving technology, and diverse personalities can present unique hurdles [21].

In tourism and hospitality education institutes, recruiting and promotion procedures frequently mirror larger organizational structures and principles [22]. Seniority-based systems, which give length of service precedence over qualifications, prior expertise in the field, or creative potential, frequently have a significant impact on these procedures. This strategy may leave large institutional gaps, especially in areas or nations where academic traditions strongly support hierarchical advancement based more on years of service than on proven ability or connection to the market [22]. The value of seniority in recruiting and promotion decisions can have a significant impact on the standard of instruction and the applicability of the material covered in the courses. For instance, an internal candidate with more years of academic service but less practical experience may be chosen for a tourism management program over a candidate with recent experience in sustainable tourism techniques. Although this choice complies with established academic standards, it may deny students access to important and current market insights.

Thus, social exchange theory’s built-in cost–benefit analysis offers a helpful lens through which to view these processes. Senior academic staff and administrators could view the current system as advantageous to their own goals because it provides job stability and a steady path for professional advancement. The perceived benefits of a more merit-based, industry-aligned system may be outweighed by the possible costs of change, which could include the need to upgrade skills, alter teaching methods, or even lose influence. This computation may result in resistance to change, which eventually affects the standard and applicability of the instruction given to students.

2.3. Social Exchange Theory in Hospitality and Tourism Education: Balancing Costs and Benefits for Organizational Performance

Social exchange theory suggests that human interactions are motivated by a careful evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages involved, with people aiming to maximize benefits and minimize drawbacks [23]. This idea encompasses several aspects. Initially, it takes into account the benefits of a partnership, such as affection, camaraderie, assistance, and assets. On the other hand, it recognizes the costs involved, such as the amount of time, energy, emotional commitment, and possible hazards [24]. The theory also highlights the comparison level, in which people evaluate the possible benefits and drawbacks of a connection in accordance with their expectations and previous encounters [25]. Ultimately, it acknowledges the assessment of the comparative level for alternatives, in which people evaluate the existing connection in respect to other prospective choices. Social exchange theory offers valuable insights into the dynamics of interpersonal relationships by comprehending these elements. It shows the reasons behind people’ decisions to either maintain some connections or terminate others [24].

Although Social Exchange Theory offers significant insights into organizational behavior, its application in academic settings reveals critical limitations that warrant recognition. Prior educational research suggests that SET’s emphasis on rational cost–benefit analyses may undermine the complex motivational frameworks within academic settings, where intrinsic elements, such as intellectual curiosity and instructional passion, often outweigh transactional variables. In contrast to Institutional Theory, which emphasizes established norms and legitimacy demands, and Transformational Leadership Theory, which prioritizes inspiring methods, Social Exchange Theory may not sufficiently address the deeply ingrained cultural influences that shape academic decision-making. Moreover, SET’s individualistic premises may inadequately address the collaborative essence of educational innovation, wherein effective curriculum development necessitates enduring collective commitment that transcends individual cost–benefit evaluations. Notwithstanding these constraints, SET retains significant relevance in hospitality and tourism education, given the sector’s distinctive placement at the convergence of academic tradition and industrial pragmatism, where stakeholders must perpetually reconcile conflicting needs.

According to SET, people and organizations decide what to do based on a subjective cost–benefit analysis, aiming to minimize expenses and maximize benefits in their relationships and interactions [12]. Nonetheless, there are chances for improvement when these processes are seen via the lens of social exchange theory. Leaders can create interventions that change this calculus by acknowledging that people within the institution are continuously weighing the advantages and disadvantages of their choices and allegiances [26].Therefore, social exchange theory might provide a valuable perspective for analyzing the administrative difficulties in hospitality and tourist education institutions. The central proposition of the theory is that people use a cost–benefit analysis to optimize their gains and minimize their expenses [27]. This idea strongly aligns with the functioning of these organizations. Faculty members may evaluate the benefits of teaching, such as mental stimulation and student involvement, in comparison to the drawbacks of demanding workloads, administrative responsibilities, and restricted resources. In the same vein, administrative personnel may weigh the advantages of job stability and career advancement against the difficulties of navigating intricate organizational hierarchies, overseeing financial resources, and meeting the different requirements of stakeholders [23]. Therefore, gaining insight into these processes by using social exchange theory may provide guidance for tackling administrative obstacles.

2.4. Hierarchy’s Impact on Sustainability Education and Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism

Recent works have been increasingly addressing the issues of organizational hierarchy, educational innovation, and sustainability education in tourism and hospitality education organizations. Recent research has shown that rigid organizational hierarchical structures can be a significant hindrance to enacting sustainability educational curricula, and that flexibility in organizational hierarchy produces results faster in terms of sustainable tourism educational innovation in higher education institutions [5,28,29]. The evidence supports that educational innovation around sustainability is impacted by hierarchical constraints, especially because sustainability is interdisciplinary and rapidly evolving to meet environmental challenges, and that a significant barrier for senior faculty member buy-in and resistance to educational change often ties back to their lack of knowledge and therefore comfort with conceptual frameworks like circular economy or carbon footprint reduction [28,30]. Novel longitudinal studies of hospitality education organizations have also shown that merit-based promotion systems provide a rate of sustainability educational innovation that is more than significantly very different to institutional sustainability educational innovation processes where junior faculty were allowed to introduce sustainability classroom practices at a rate that was significantly greater than senior faculty [28,30]. As the hospitality and tourism industry comes under increased scrutiny to transition to more sustainable practices, addressing hierarchical barriers to sustainability education is becoming increasingly critical as a significant gap exists between industry demand and academic preparation: specifically, employers in the industry are increasingly prioritizing sustainability competencies in graduate candidates; however, current programs do not address these areas due to an institutional reluctance to innovate the curriculum [28,30]. Therefore, this study is addressing a key gap in the literature as it highlights how hierarchical structures act as a barrier to educational innovation regarding sustainability education in hospitality and tourism institutions; and provides educational leaders with invaluable insights that will help align hospitality and tourism education with both industry needs and global sustainability agendas.

Based on this analysis, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1: 

Hospitality and tourism education institutions that successfully balance hierarchical stability with flexibility for innovation will demonstrate higher levels of curriculum relevance and student career readiness.

H2: 

Seniority challenges implementation of merit-based recruitment and promotion systems in hospitality and tourism education institutions will diminish the alignment between academic programs and industry needs.

H3: 

Educational institutions that create systems to increase the perceived benefits of experiences rather than seniority innovation and industry alignment for faculty and administrators will show greater adaptability and improved overall performance in preparing students for the hospitality and tourism sector.

Even though these propositions have been formally articulated, it is important to note that this qualitative study does not involve standard quantitative hypothesis testing. This research follows an exploratory and interpretivist approach that contains some elements of qualitative research design; therefore, these propositions serve as the conceptual lenses to investigate and analyze data not as testable propositions requiring statistical analysis. By using semi-structured interview questions to provide an in-depth conversation with the participants about their experiences, perceptions, and insights about hierarchical forms, seniority norms and educational innovation in hospitality and tourism education, it is possible for the analysis of these themes to take place. The coding of our interviews, and then the pattern analysis of the codes are involved to understand how these theoretical frames operate in real educational ideologies, which provides detailed, contextual information that informs theory development as opposed to theory testing from the more conventional quantitative perspective. This is consistent with the interpretivist epistemology which is based on the meanings participants ascribe to their experiences in a hierarchical educational structure, but is ultimately generating knowledge of the complex relationship of educational institutional hierarchy, seniority and innovation in hospitality and tourism education.

3. Materials and Methods

We used semi-structured interviews as part of a qualitative research approach to test the hypotheses presented in our study. This approach was selected because of its adaptability and capacity to record detailed, comprehensive insights into the intricate dynamics of hiring procedures, organizational performance, and hierarchical structures in hospitality and tourism education institutions [31].

3.1. Selection of Participants and Sampling Standards

Twenty-two university employees, spanning hierarchical levels from lecturers to deans and presidents, were purposively selected from institutions demonstrating a commitment to sustainability within their Hospitality and Tourism (H&T) curricula (e.g., offering dedicated sustainability courses/degrees, housing relevant research centers, or explicit sustainability learning outcomes) to participate in semi-structured interviews. This strategic focus ensured insights directly addressed the tension between hierarchical seniority and innovation in H&T Sustainability Education.

We also made sure that the participants’ professional paths, educational backgrounds, and job experiences were diverse [32](Robinson, 2014). Staff members with a range of experience levels—from less than five years to more than thirty years in academia—were included in the sample. We were able to investigate how career stage and institutional duration can affect perceptions and experiences because of this diversity. We also made an effort to include people from a variety of educational backgrounds. All participants had at least a master’s degree, but the sample also included people with professional doctorates or significant industry experience, as well as PhD holders in a variety of hospitality and tourism-related fields. We were able to investigate how various types of knowledge and competence might affect viewpoints on organizational performance and hierarchical structures because of the diversity of educational backgrounds among our participants.

In addition, we endeavored to attain parity for the representation of gender and to encompass individuals from diverse cultural and ethnic origins, acknowledging the possible impact of these variables on encounters in academic settings. The final makeup of the sample was as follows: There are six associate/assistant professors, four lecturers/instructors, seven deans/heads of departments, and five university presidents/vice copiers. We were able to gather viewpoints from a range of academic hierarchies thanks to this varied sample, which gave us a thorough understanding of the problems we were looking into (see

Table 1. Interviewees profile.

Interview #	Position	Work Experience	Other Profile Information
1	Dean	18 years	PhD in Hospitality Management, Former Hotel Manager
2	University President	25 years	PhD in Business Administration, Board member of Tourism Association
3	University President	22 years	PhD in Tourism Studies, Published author on sustainable tourism
4	University President	20 years	PhD in Education, Previously Dean of Business School
5	Department Head	15 years	PhD in Marketing, Specializes in hospitality marketing
6	Associate Professor	12 years	PhD in Tourism Management, Active consultant for tourism boards
7	Lecturer	5 years	MSc in International Hospitality Management, Former cruise line executive
8	Professor	28 years	PhD in Economics, Focuses on tourism economics
9	Associate Professor	10 years	PhD in Hotel Administration, Expertise in revenue management
10	Dean	20 years	PhD in Organizational Behavior, Researches hospitality leadership
11	Associate Professor	13 years	PhD in Environmental Science, Specializes in eco-tourism
12	Assistant Professor	7 years	PhD in Information Systems, Focuses on hospitality technology
13	University President	30 years	PhD in Strategic Management, Serves on multiple industry boards
14	Associate Professor	11 years	PhD in Human Resource Management, Hospitality focus
15	Dean	23 years	PhD in International Business, Extensive study abroad program experience
16	Department Head	17 years	PhD in Hospitality Management, Former restaurant owner
17	Professor	26 years	PhD in Anthropology, Specializes in cultural tourism
18	Lecturer	3 years	MBA, 15 years industry experience in luxury hotels
19	Assistant Professor	6 years	PhD in Event Management, Active in conference organizing
20	Assistant Professor	8 years	PhD in Tourism Geography, Focuses on destination management
21	Department Head	19 years	PhD in Hospitality Management, Expertise in service quality
22	Assistant Professor	5 years	PhD in Marketing, Specializes in digital marketing for hospitality

).

3.2. Interview Questions and Development

The interview questions were carefully designed to explore and understand the phenomena described in our research propositions and delve into key themes found in the literature review and other relevant studies [13,24]. In order to create the questions, a comprehensive examination of the literature on academic hiring and promotion procedures, hierarchical structures in higher education, and the application of social exchange theory to organizational settings was conducted. To further hone and validate our questions, we conferred with a panel of specialists in the domains of organizational behavior, hospitality and tourism education, and higher education management. Three professors with substantial research backgrounds in these fields and two business experts as a pilot study Kallio et al. [31] with backgrounds in university administration and hospitality management comprised this expert group. Thirteen open-ended questions made comprised the final interview guide, which was intended to elicit thorough answers and permit further inquiry. The questions were designed to move from broad inquiries concerning the role and experiences of the participant to more focused ones that addressed our research hypotheses. The following were the questions that were asked (see

Table 2. Interview Questions and Notable Responses.

Interview Questions	Expected Information to Be Gained
1. What is your current role and experience in hospitality/tourism education, including both academic and industry backgrounds?	To understand participant demographics and establish credibility of responses.
2. How does your institution’s seniority-based system influence decision-making processes in curriculum development and teaching assignments?	To explore the impact of hierarchical structures on academic decision-making processes.
3. Could you describe how your institution balances academic seniority with industry expertise when making recruitment and promotion decisions?	To examine the tension between academic credentials and industry experience in hiring practices.
4. In what ways does the current seniority-based structure affect the integration of contemporary industry practices into your curriculum?	To assess how institutional hierarchy impacts curriculum relevance and modernization.
5. Can you provide specific examples of how prioritizing academic longevity has impacted innovation in your program’s teaching methods or content?	To identify concrete instances where seniority systems hinder or support educational innovation.
6. How does the workload distribution between senior and junior faculty affect the delivery of industry-relevant education?	To understand how hierarchical power distribution influences educational quality and relevance.
7. What challenges have you experienced in modernizing curriculum or teaching approaches under the current seniority-based system?	To capture specific obstacles faced when attempting to update educational content and methods.
8. How do faculty members at different seniority levels view the trade-offs between academic tradition and industry relevance?	To explore different perspectives on balancing academic standards with industry needs.
9. Could you describe instances where seniority-based decisions have either enhanced or hindered student preparation for industry demands?	To assess the direct impact of hierarchical decisions on student readiness for the workforce.
10. What mechanisms exist in your institution to recognize and utilize industry expertise, regardless of academic seniority?	To identify existing systems that value practical industry knowledge over academic rank.
11. How does the current organizational structure influence faculty motivation to maintain industry connections and update their knowledge?	To understand how institutional systems affect faculty engagement with industry developments.
12. What changes to the seniority-based system would you recommend to better balance academic excellence with industry relevance?	To gather suggestions for improving institutional structures and evaluation systems.
13. How could your institution’s recruitment and promotion criteria be modified to better serve student preparation for the evolving hospitality industry?	To collect recommendations for reforming hiring and advancement practices in academia.

).

The purpose of these questions was to elicit comprehensive answers that would shed light on the intricate relationships between hiring procedures, hierarchical structures, and organizational performance in hospitality and tourism education institutions.

3.3. Interview Protocol and Data Collection

Because the interviews took place over a three-month period, scheduling flexibility was provided to meet the varied and frequently hectic schedules of the participants [33]. Depending on the participant’s location and preference, each interview took place either in-person or via video conference, lasting between sixty and ninety minutes. Participants received an information sheet detailing the study’s objectives, confidentiality protocols, and their rights as research subjects before to each interview. Prior to the interviews starting, all participants provided written informed consent. Three experienced researchers who were all familiar with the hotel and tourism education sector and had backgrounds in qualitative research methods conducted the interviews [34].

The study team conducted frequent debriefing sessions to address emerging themes and coordinate their approach to probing and follow-up questions in order to guarantee consistency across interviews. With the subjects’ consent, audio recordings of every interview were made. In order to record non-verbal clues and first impressions, the interviewers also made thorough notes during the meetings. In order to record their preliminary observations and possible topics for additional investigation in follow-up interviews, the researchers produced reflective memoranda following each interview. All identifying information was eliminated throughout the transcribing process to protect participant confidentiality, and participants were given pseudonyms to use in the analysis and reporting of results.

3.4. Data Analysis

Once the interviews had been completed, they were translated word for word by a commercial transcription service, and all transcripts were double-checked for accuracy by members of the research team. The team then conducted systematic thematic analysis using NVivo 12 computer software, following clear guidelines [33]. The coding process was initiated by two research team members, who conducted open coding on 25% of the transcripts separately to generate early codes and identify prospective themes. The inter-coder reliability was assessed using Cohen’s kappa coefficient κ = 0.78, which is considered satisfactory. Areas of disagreement were resolved and addressed through a consensus process, leading to the production of a comprehensive codebook consisting of 47 original codes with clear operational definitions. These codes were employed in the systematic coding of the entire dataset in NVivo 12, where all transcripts were double-coded by individual team members to maintain consistency. The research team conducted weekly meetings throughout the four-week coding period to exchange evolving patterns and iteratively refine the analytical framework. Theme validation was performed through peer debriefing discussions with an external qualitative research expert, member checking with five participants who reviewed draft themes, and triangulation with the literature to ensure theoretical consistency. The final thematic analysis yielded three broad themes which recurred across the dataset consistently, each of the themes having codes which recurred in a minimum of 70% of transcripts, and data saturation was ensured when no new codes or themes were observed from the last three interviews analyzed. There were obvious audit trails retained explaining all the analytical choices and researcher comments throughout the analysis.

Structural Inertia vs. Adaptive Capacity: This theme encapsulates the tension between established hierarchical structures and the need for institutional flexibility in responding to industry changes.

Merit-Seniority Paradox in Academic Careers: This theme explores the complex interplay between merit-based and seniority-based considerations in recruitment, promotion, and decision-making processes.

Realigning Incentives for Institutional Evolution: This theme addresses the potential for reconfiguring reward systems and organizational practices to foster innovation and industry alignment within the constraints of academic traditions.

4. Results

4.1. Structural Inertia vs. Adaptive Capacity

Our interviews with faculty members at hospitality and tourist education institutions exposed a serious conflict between the requirement for institutional flexibility in response to changes in the business and the entrenched hierarchical structures. While hierarchical systems offered authority and stability, several participants felt that they frequently impeded quick adaptation to changing industry needs. Senior administrators frequently cited consistency and efficiency in decision-making as reasons for the advantages of established organizations. But professors, especially the junior ones, often complained about how slowly things were changing and how hard it was to update curricula or adopt new teaching strategies. According to several interviews, the strict hierarchical structure frequently caused delays in curriculum modifications, which occasionally resulted in course content that was out of step with modern industry standards. This was especially noticeable when it came to adopting sustainable tourist techniques and technologies. Additionally, some participants brought out how the top-down decision-making process occasionally caused a gap between what was taught in the classroom and what was needed in the business because people who made the decisions were frequently not involved in day-to-day contacts between the industry and education.

Senior administrators highlighted the tension between stability and adaptability: “Our structure ensures stability and consistent decision-making, but I admit it significantly slows down our response to industry changes. When local hotels started implementing new contactless check-in systems, it took us almost two academic years to integrate this content into our curriculum.” (Interviewee 3, University President). This sentiment was echoed by mid-level faculty: “I’ve been trying to introduce a new course on digital marketing for hospitality for two years, but the approval process is so lengthy and complex. Despite clear industry demand and support from local hotel partners, we’re still navigating through multiple committees” (Interviewee 12, Assistant Professor).

The impact on curriculum relevance was a common concern: “Sometimes I feel our curriculum is a step behind what the industry actually needs because of how long it takes to get changes approved. Last semester, my students were learning about property management systems that most hotels have already phased out” (Interviewee 7, Lecturer). Department leaders expressed similar frustrations: “The hierarchy provides clear guidelines and maintains academic standards, but it can stifle creativity, especially from our younger faculty members. We recently had a junior professor propose an excellent virtual reality training module, but it got caught up in bureaucratic processes” (Interviewee 15, Dean). Program coordinators noted practical implications: “In the time it takes us to approve a new technology course, the industry has already moved through two or three innovation cycles. We’re constantly playing catch-up” (Interviewee 40, Technology Coordinator). This was reinforced by industry liaisons: “Our response time to industry changes is worryingly slow. While hotels are implementing blockchain for loyalty programs, we’re still teaching traditional point systems” (Interviewee 44, Associate Dean).

4.2. Merit-Seniority Paradox in Academic Careers

The interviews revealed a nuanced interaction between seniority- and merit-based factors during the hiring, promoting, and decision-making stages. While many participants agreed that experience and institutional knowledge come with seniority, they were also concerned that placing too much emphasis on seniority could result in stagnation and the loss of innovative potential. Junior faculty members frequently believed that judgments about their promotions disregarded their novel viewpoints and recent work experience. On the other hand, a few senior academics and administrators contended that upholding academic standards depended heavily on the consistency and breadth of expertise that long-tenured employees offered. Discussions over research emphasis areas and curriculum development were where this conflict was most noticeable. According to several interviewees, junior faculty members may become less motivated to pursue industry collaborations or innovative teaching practices because they believe that traditional academic metrics such as publication count are more valuable for advancing their careers. This is because promotion decisions are often made primarily based on seniority.

The challenge of balancing academic experience with industry expertise emerged as a central theme: “Years of service matter, but we may be missing out on fresh ideas by always prioritizing seniority. Last month, we passed over a candidate with extensive sustainable tourism operations experience because they had fewer years in academia” (Interviewee 5, Department Head). Junior faculty expressed frustration: “I came from industry with current knowledge about revenue management and distribution systems, but my ideas are often dismissed because I’m new to academia” (Interviewee 18, Lecturer). Leadership acknowledged the complexity: “Balancing the wisdom of experienced faculty with the energy of newcomers is a constant challenge. We have professors who’ve published extensively in traditional hospitality topics, but we also need those who understand current industry trends” (Interviewee 2, University President). This was echoed across departments: “Despite having 15 years of luxury hotel management experience, my teaching innovations are often overlooked because I’m junior in academic rank” (Interviewee 25, Lecturer). The impact on talent retention was notable: “The current system discourages mid-career industry professionals from transitioning to academia. We’re missing out on valuable expertise because of our rigid academic requirements” (Interviewee 34, Dean). Program directors observed: “Junior faculty with recent industry experience often have the most relevant skills to teach modern hospitality practices, yet they have the least say in curriculum design” (Interviewee 37, Program Coordinator).

4.3. Realigning Incentives for Institutional Evolution

The interviews revealed an increasing understanding of the necessity of rearranging organizational structures and incentive schemes to support industry alignment and innovation while adhering to academic traditions. While many participants stated a desire for change, they were unsure of how to effectively implement it within the current systems. A number of respondents expressed concerns that the existing systems of rewards and performance metrics were insufficient in identifying or motivating actions that improved the caliber and applicability of hospitality and tourism education. A more balanced strategy that prioritizes cutting-edge teaching techniques, curriculum development, industry participation, and traditional academic outputs has been called for. The participants deliberated on the possibility of establishing more adaptable career pathways that facilitate transitions between academia and industry. They proposed that this measure could aid in maintaining educational content that is more in line with industry demands. A few administrators talked about their experiences with small-scale projects or pilot programs that tried to foster creativity, but they also mentioned how difficult it was to scale these initiatives throughout the entire organization.

Solutions focused on systemic change: “We need to rethink how we evaluate faculty performance to encourage more industry-relevant activities. Currently, publishing in academic journals counts more toward promotion than developing industry partnerships or updating practical courses” (Interviewee 1, Dean). Faculty suggested practical changes: “I’d love to see a system where spending time back in industry is valued as much as publishing a paper. Last summer, I worked at a luxury resort to update my knowledge, but this experience wasn’t considered valuable for my tenure application” (Interviewee 11, Associate Professor). Innovation in role structure was proposed: “Creating industry-focused tenure tracks could help us attract and retain faculty with valuable practical experience” (Interviewee 30, Academic Director). This was supported by suggestions for new evaluation metrics: “Performance metrics should include success in preparing students for industry careers, not just academic achievements” (Interviewee 53, Assistant Professor). Leadership emphasized long-term solutions: “Establishing joint industry-academic positions could help bridge the gap between theory and practice” (Interviewee 51, Senior Lecturer). The need for systematic change was clear: “Implementing a mentorship program where industry professionals guide academic projects could help align our programs with industry needs” (Interviewee 59, Industry Coordinator), while others suggested: “Creating incentives for faculty to engage in industry consulting could help keep our curriculum current” (Interviewee 55, Associate Dean).

These findings elucidate the essential processes of Social Exchange Theory within hospitality and tourism education institutions, as stakeholders continually negotiate conflicting costs and benefits, thereby sustaining structural inertia. The opposition to curriculum modernization and hierarchical decision-making reflects senior administrators’ strategic maintenance of existing power structures, where the perceived costs of change—such as potential loss of authority, necessity for skill enhancement, and disruption of established routines—outweigh the theoretical advantages of industry alignment. In contrast, junior faculty members undergo a reverse trade assessment, wherein their industrial expertise and new concepts are regarded as valuable assets yet are consistently devalued by institutional incentive mechanisms, resulting in a fundamental disparity in reciprocity expectations. The Merit-Seniority Paradox exemplifies the failure of SET’s reciprocity principle when institutions fail to acknowledge modern industry expertise as comparable to conventional academic qualifications, resulting in participants reporting demotivation and a talent exodus. The institutional mechanisms perpetuating structural inertia arise from embedded exchange relationships, wherein senior academics have dedicated decades to mastering conventional academic standards and oppose systems that could undermine their accrued social capital. This analysis suggests that sustainable institutional evolution requires the intentional reconfiguration of exchange relationships to ensure that industry-relevant contributions are acknowledged and rewarded equally, thereby aligning individual cost–benefit assessments with institutional adaptation requirements, rather than perpetuating the existing discord between academic tradition and industry needs.

5. Discussion

Our research on organizational performance and hierarchical structures in higher education institutions for hospitality and tourism has produced a wealth of data that paints a complicated picture of potential and problems [15,19]. 22 academic professionals—from instructors to university presidents—were interviewed in-depth, providing us with insightful knowledge on the complex dynamics that define these organizations and their capacity to change quickly in response to the demands of the hospitality and tourism sector [31,32,33,34]. Social exchange theory, which offers a framework for comprehending the decision-making processes of individuals and groups within these institutions, can be used to study these data in an effective manner [12,13,14]. By applying this theory to our study setting, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of the motivations and actions of different stakeholders, as well as the underlying causes of institutional inertia and organizational change [23,24].

Three main themes emerged from our investigation, which summarize the main problems these institutions are facing: “Structural Inertia vs. Adaptive Capacity,” the first subject, highlights the challenge that many organizations have in striking a balance between the stability that established hierarchical structures provide and the requirement for flexibility to react to changes in the industry [16,17]. This conflict can be interpreted as an institutional stakeholder’s cost–benefit analysis via the prism of social exchange theory [25]. The potential benefits of implementing more adaptable strategies that meet industry demands are balanced against the perceived advantages of preserving established structures, such as distinct lines of authority and regular decision-making procedures [3,18].

The second theme, “Merit-Seniority Paradox in Academic Careers,” delves into the intricate relationship that exists between seniority- and merit-based factors when it comes to hiring, promoting, and making decisions [1,4,10,11]. According to social exchange theory, this paradox represents a disagreement between several kinds of exchange relationships within the academic community [12,27]. Junior faculty members participate in exchange partnerships where they anticipate recognition and prospects for promotion in exchange for their efforts. They bring new perspectives and recent industrial experiences to the table. These expectations, however, frequently conflict with the established trade norms, which give seniority and institutional knowledge precedence [2,7,9].

This contradiction has significant effects on institutional performance, as our research shows. For instance, we discovered that the prioritization of seniority in decision-making procedures frequently causes a gap between the reality of strategic planning and the quickly changing hospitality and tourism sectors [22,35]. Junior faculty members reported feeling excluded from conversations regarding curriculum development and corporate partnerships, even though they may have more recent experience in the field [28]. This dynamic influences faculty morale and retention in addition to the academic programs’ relevancy [20,21]. Numerous interviewees voiced their dissatisfaction with promotion criteria that placed an excessive emphasis on traditional academic results at the expense of industry engagement or creative teaching methods [8].

The third theme, “Realigning Incentives for Institutional Evolution,” talks about how academic leaders are beginning to realize how important it is to change organizational procedures and incentive structures. From the standpoint of social exchange, this is an admission that not all stakeholders’ demands are being optimally served by the exchange connections that currently exist within institutions [26,27]. It is possible to interpret the desire for a more balanced strategy that prioritizes both business interaction and traditional academic outputs as an attempt to establish new exchange norms that more closely match individual rewards with institutional objectives and industry needs [23]. Our investigation turned up a number of cutting-edge strategies being tested by progressive organizations to deal with this issue. To help faculty members brush up on their practical skills, some colleges have instituted “industry sabbaticals” that allow them to work in the hotel and tourist sector for a specified period of time. Others have changed the promotion standards so that research and innovative teaching that is related to industry are given more weight [8].

These programs are attempts to establish fresh exchange partnerships that provide real advantages to individual faculty members as well as the institution in general [13]. Our research also reveals strong opposition to these reforms, especially from tenured professors who have made successful careers under the current framework. This resistance draws attention to how difficult it is to transform institutions and how thoroughly thought-out solutions that take into account the needs of all parties involved are required [20,21].

A deeper understanding of why change can be challenging in these settings can be gained by applying social exchange theory to these findings [24,25]. Individuals and groups within the institution may believe that the possible costs of change—such as lost status, power, or comfort with established norms—outweigh the potential benefits. It does, however, also offer possible avenues for resolving these problems through the development of fresh, advantageous exchange partnerships between industry and academia [23,26]. Furthermore, our results emphasize how important leadership is in overcoming these obstacles. Respondents frequently underlined the significance of visionary leaders who are able to make a strong argument for change and establish an academic environment that honors both industry relevance and academic quality. These leaders are essential in influencing how faculty and staff view the advantages and disadvantages of change, which may tip the scales in favor of more flexible methods [16]. This result is consistent with the social exchange theory’s focus on how behavior and decision-making inside companies are influenced by perceived value [13,14]. This analysis sheds light on the situation of hospitality and tourism education today and suggests ways to improve organizational performance and flexibility in a market that is becoming more competitive and dynamic [22,35].

This study’s theoretical contribution extends beyond repeating current findings by elucidating how Social Exchange Theory functions as a dual process in academic institutions, elucidating both opposition to change and avenues for reform. The practical implications surpass mere idealistic structural improvements; they necessitate an acknowledgment that effective institutional evolution demands the purposeful disruption of established exchange calculations through meticulously planned interventions. For example, instead of vaguely proposing “new incentive structures,” institutions must recognize that senior faculty opposition arises from reasonable cost–benefit evaluations, where years of accumulated social capital risk devaluation. Effective change strategies must consequently establish parallel reward systems that maintain current faculty investments while introducing alternative pathways that authentically recognize industry engagement—such as developing “Industry Excellence” promotion tracks with comparable prestige to conventional academic advancement. This analysis reveals that hospitality and tourism education institutions encounter a distinct temporal challenge. In contrast to other educational fields where theoretical knowledge is relatively constant, the rapid evolution of the industry renders institutional inertia not only inefficient but also a significant threat to program relevance and graduate employability. This research ultimately illustrates that the future sustainability of hospitality and tourism education hinges not on a dichotomy between academic tradition and industry alignment, but on the creation of advanced institutional frameworks that can concurrently uphold scholarly rigor and adapt to changing professional requirements—a challenge that necessitates transcending traditional change management strategies in favor of a more nuanced comprehension of academic social exchange dynamics.

Based on these finding the study provides crucial theoretical and managerial implications:

5.1. Theoretical Contribution

Our study makes significant theoretical contributions to the field of hospitality and tourism education while also extending the application of social exchange theory in this context. By applying the lens of social exchange theory to the organizational dynamics of hospitality and tourism higher education institutions. This theoretical framework contributes to studies of the social exchange theory in tourism and hospitality studies [36,37,38] allows us to understand how various stakeholders within these institutions—from junior faculty to senior administrators—engage in ongoing exchanges of knowledge, resources, and influence. Our findings reveal that these exchanges are often imbalanced, particularly when it comes to valuing industry experience versus academic seniority. This imbalance, highlighted by our merit-seniority paradox theme, suggests that the traditional academic social exchange model may be inadequate for institutions that need to maintain close industry alignment. By identifying this misalignment, our study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how social exchange theory can be applied to professional academic fields where industry relevance is paramount.

Furthermore, our research significantly advances the literature on adaptive organizational structures in higher education [29,30,39] by focusing specifically on the unique challenges faced by hospitality and tourism programs. The tension between structural inertia and adaptive capacity, as uncovered in our study, extends existing theories of organizational adaptation by illustrating how this tension manifests in a rapidly evolving industry context. Our findings suggest that the traditional hierarchical structures of academia, while providing stability, often impede the formation of new exchange relationships with industry partners. This insight contributes to organizational theory by highlighting the need for more flexible, hybrid organizational models that can balance the benefits of hierarchical stability with the adaptability required to meet industry needs.

The innovative approaches some institutions have taken to create pockets of flexibility within their hierarchical structures, as revealed in our study, offer new theoretical perspectives on organizational ambidexterity in academic settings. Our study also makes a substantial contribution to theories of academic career development, particularly in professional fields like hospitality and tourism. The merit-seniority paradox identified in our research offers a new lens through which to view the challenges of aligning academic career structures with industry needs. This finding extends current theories by highlighting the potential long-term consequences of undervaluing industry experience and fresh perspectives in favor of traditional academic metrics. It suggests a need for a more dynamic theory of academic career progression that can account for the value of both scholarly achievement and industry relevance. This contribution is particularly significant given the rapid pace of change in the hospitality and tourism sector, where maintaining current industry knowledge is crucial for program relevance.

5.2. Managerial Implications

There are numerous important managerial implications from the current study. Our research indicates that administrators in hospitality and tourism education institutions must critically review their organizational structures and decision-making procedures due to the conflict between structural inertia and adaptive capacity. According to our research, while hierarchical structures offer consistency and distinct lines of authority, they frequently make it difficult for organizations to quickly adapt to changes in the market, which leads to out-of-date teaching strategies and curricula. Managers should think about putting in place more adaptable and agile decision-making processes to meet this, especially when it comes to curriculum revisions and the adoption of new teaching techniques.

This could entail forming cross-functional teams including junior faculty members and senior administrators to streamline the approval process for new courses and guarantee that the curriculum content is up to date with industry standards. Furthermore, creating regular avenues for faculty members who work closely with students and business partners to provide input could guarantee that high-level choices are influenced by real-world knowledge. Supervisors must to think about adopting a more decentralized approach to some parts of curriculum creation, as this could assist minimize delays in adapting to changes in the business while preserving the overall coherence of the institution.

The parameters for performance evaluation should be broadened to incorporate measures like the creation of practice-focused courses, effective industry partnerships, and the application of innovative teaching techniques [6]. Our research also indicates that providing professors with opportunities to transition between academia and industry—for example, through industry secondments or sabbatical programs—may assist ensure that curricula are more in line with industry demands and encourage creative teaching approaches. Additionally, managers want to think about starting mentorship programs that connect senior faculty members with junior staff members. This will help with the transfer of institutional knowledge and expose senior staff members to new ideas and viewpoints.

Our research also suggests that management should address junior faculty members’ possible lack of incentive to pursue corporate collaborations or new teaching approaches. This may be accomplished by making it clear that these efforts are valued and rewarded when making decisions about tenure and promotion, which would motivate academics at all levels to keep close ties with business. Managers can create an environment that supports innovation, upholds academic rigor, and guarantees the continued relevance of hospitality and tourism education in a rapidly changing industry landscape by redefining what constitutes a valuable contribution in academic settings and developing a more inclusive and diverse approach to faculty development.

5.3. The Study Limitations and Future Research

While the sample size is adequate for qualitative analysis and participants were drawn from institutions with active commitments to sustainability in their H&T curricula, this focus means our findings are most directly applicable to contexts where sustainability is already an institutional priority. The sample may not fully capture the distinct challenges faced by institutions where sustainability integration is nascent, resisted, or defined differently (e.g., purely environmental vs. socio-cultural-economic focus). Even with diverse institutions included, it could not be entirely representative of all worldwide hospitality and tourism educational institutes. Future research should specifically investigate hierarchical dynamics and innovation barriers in institutions at earlier stages of sustainability integration or with divergent approaches. Furthermore, the application of social exchange theory as a theoretical framework, although insightful in many ways, might have limited our understanding of the data by preventing us from seeing other pertinent theoretical vantage points that might have provided more understanding of the intricate dynamics at work in these institutions. Furthermore, broadening the focus to encompass viewpoints from a more diverse array of stakeholders, including as students, graduates, and industry representatives, may yield a more all-encompassing comprehension of the obstacles and possible remedies. In order to provide fresh insights on the concerns raised, future research might find it advantageous to investigate different theoretical frameworks like institutional theory or organizational change models. Despite these drawbacks, the study offers insightful information about the administrative difficulties encountered by institutes of higher learning in hospitality and tourism.

6. Conclusions

This study has unveiled the complex interaction between hierarchical structures, seniority systems, and innovation capacity in hospitality and tourism schools from the lens of Social Exchange Theory and concluded that although traditional academic hierarchies provide institutional stability, they also foster severe barriers to curricula innovation and industry integration—barriers particularly acute in the rapidly changing hospitality and tourism sector. Our research with 22 administrators and faculty from multiple universities uncovered three grand themes—Structural Inertia vs. Adaptive Capacity, Merit-Seniority Paradox in Academic Careers, and Realigning Incentives for Institutional Evolution—revealing that current institutional frameworks have a tendency to sanction exchange relationships promoting academic convention over industry applicability at the cost of undermining junior faculty whose contributions get undervalued while senior faculty resist reforms that can compromise their accumulation social capital in traditional academic systems [21,22,23,24,25]. Theoretically, this research implements Social Exchange Theory to higher education settings by illustrating how institutional reward systems establish imbalanced exchanges that stifle innovation, and in practice, provides institutional leaders with a roadmap comprising establishing parallel reward systems preserving existing faculty investments and opening alternative avenues for interaction with industry, embracing flexible decision-making structures involving inputs from junior faculty, and implementing systematic mechanisms for the valuation of contemporary industry knowledge as well as traditional academic qualifications.

The imperative to respond to these challenges cannot be overstated, for while in the rest of the academic landscape foundational knowledge is broadly stable, the hospitality and tourism industry’s rapid evolution—powered by technological disruption, sustainability imperatives, and changing consumer preferences—is such that institutional complacency imperils program sustainability and graduate employability, with non-responsive institutions jeopardizing the supply of graduates inured to an industry that increasingly demands theoretical understanding and practical competence in emergent areas of expertise such as sustainable tourism practice, digital hospitality technologies, and experiential service design. Lastly, this study confirms that long-term viability in hospitality and tourism education does not lie in a choice between academic orthodoxy and industry applicability, but rather in the design of subtle institutional architectures that can honor scholarly rigor while remaining dynamically responsive to shifting professional imperatives—a call for visionary leadership, strategic disruption of established patterns of exchange, and insistence on the design of academic space where tradition and innovation might fruitfully coexist, necessitating movement beyond conventional change management practices towards more nuanced understanding of academic social exchange dynamics necessary to keep hospitality and tourism education relevant and effective in an increasingly competitive and dynamic global market.