Next Article in Journal
The Costs of Ambiguity in Strategic Contexts
Previous Article in Journal
Employee Compensation and Benefits Pre and Post COVID-19
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/admsci12030107
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

State and Order of Service Orientation Knowledge in Hospitality and Tourism Research: Systematic Literature Review

by
Magnús Haukur Ásgeirsson
1,*,
Thorhallur Gudlaugsson
2 and
Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson
1
1
Department of Geography and Tourism, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavík, Iceland
2
Department of Business Administration, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavík, Iceland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2022, 12(3), 107; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12030107
Submission received: 28 July 2022 / Revised: 16 August 2022 / Accepted: 20 August 2022 / Published: 25 August 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This article offers a systematic review of research trends and methodology, with a focus on the state and order of knowledge regarding service orientation in hospitality and tourism research. A search algorithm was created through Web of Science and Scopus using search words related to service orientation and criteria regarding hospitality and tourism, yielding 154 articles. Duplicates and articles that did not focus on hospitality and tourism or did not have service orientation as their focus were removed, leaving 50 articles that were reviewed thoroughly and are the bases of the results. The review’s main findings are that discussion of service orientation seems to be selective in categorizations and bound mostly to employee hospitableness, therefore leaving out organizational culture, strategy, and process. There is, however, evidence in recent literature that scholars are taking a more holistic view of the phenomena. Most articles contribute to knowledge-building through the third order of knowledge, leaving little room to define concepts or gather mutual understandings through empirical data. Based on our findings, we recommend conscious and continuous building of tools and methods that will contribute to a more in-depth and holistic understanding and measurement of service orientation in hospitality and tourism.

1. Introduction

Hospitality and tourism revolve around cocreating value through service, which means that the entire organizational structure must be orientated toward service excellence. Such service orientation (SO) has been recognized as one of the key factors in successfully managing hospitality and tourism organizations, and one which leads to better performance (Ali et al. 2021).
It has been asserted that hospitality and tourism differ somewhat from other service industries. For instance, in the tourism sector, service performance (i.e., the moment of truth) often lasts longer than in other industries, as is the case for a mountain guide, who must be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week while on a tour, acting not only as a guide but also a morale leader for a group of travelers. Furthermore, hotels become travelers’ homes for an extended period, with prolonged and distinctive service instances (Crick and Spencer. 2011; Ford and Sturman 2018; Reisinger et al. 2001). Based on that notion, it can be argued that orientation toward service is even more important for hospitality and tourism firms than for other service organizations, and it is imperative that managers within the sector have guidance on, and knowledge of service regarding, what it entails to be service orientated.
Although vigorous orientation toward service leads to improved organizational performance and competitive advantages (Ally et al. 2020; Lai et al. 2018; Lytle and Timmerman 2006; Urban 2009), a vast difference exists between understanding the definitions of this phenomenon and grasping its antecedents and consequences. In hospitality and tourism research, SO has been categorized using three main definitions: (1) as organizational culture, with customer service as a driving force; (2) as a strategic, systematic, and processual approach to service; and, most commonly, (3) as individual performance and attitude toward service, derived from the degree of employee hospitableness (Teng and Barrows 2009). However, it has been argued by scholars in the field of service marketing and management that to enhance organizational performance, SO should not be taken as only one of these attributes but rather, as an integrated whole of the three. As such, it would combine all actions that employees or customers perform, the entire service process, and the servicescape (i.e., the design of the place of service and all its surroundings). That denotes an interfunctional, philosophical approach to service and value creation throughout an organization, which is rooted in, and measured through the organizational culture (Achroll and Kotler 2014; Grönroos 2015; Grönroos 2020; Lytle and Timmerman 2006; Voon 2006).
In their review of SO in the field of tourism and hospitality Teng and Barrows (2009) called for improved empirical understanding of SO, suggesting that future research should adopt a more holistic approach to define and measure the phenomenon in hospitality and tourism. Furthermore, they indicated that the academic discourse regarding SO in the field is scarce in journals associated with the hospitality and tourism industry, and it therefore seems that scholars are not managing knowledge-building. To the best of the author’s knowledge, a systematic review focusing on SO in hospitality and tourism has not been performed since. Meanwhile, the hospitality and tourism sector has continued to grow immensely, and service has gained more attention from scholars and practitioners (Garg and Garg 2018; Hudson and Hudson 2012).
Given the development of both the sector and the service knowledge, we believe it to be imperative to conduct an analysis of knowledge creation through recent research, drawing on previous recommendations, considering possible shifts in the discussion focus, and pointing to avenues for future research. The aim of this article is therefore to map the SO research in hospitality and tourism for the past decade, from 2010–May 2022 (covering the period from the last review of Teng and Barrows (2009)): looking into the methodology on which it is based; identifying trends, shifts in focus, and possible knowledge gaps that require attention; and discerning the state of knowledge produced in hospitality and tourism research regarding SO. We thus seek answers to the following questions:
  • Which trends, categorizations, and methodologies are dominant in the discussion on SO in hospitality and tourism research?
  • What is the state and order of knowledge regarding SO in hospitality and tourism research?
To answer these questions, we present a systematic review of scholarly articles published in Web of Science and Scopus, following PRISMA guidelines of reporting. A content analysis is produced, examining trends in discourse, definitions of SO, and methodologies used. Moreover, we evaluate the state and order of knowledge portrayed in these articles.
This article contributes an update on research on SO within the field of hospitality and tourism since 2010. Moreover, it adds novel insights from its investigation of the state and order of knowledge regarding SO in the field. Thus, the focus of the review is on the underlying conceptualization of SO in the field and the framework through which SO is articulated, as well as research principles evident in the relevant studies, rather than the empirical findings of the studies under review. The article is constructed as follows: First, it presents a theoretical overview of SO. Then it outlines knowledge transfer and knowledge-building processes before describing the research methodology. Finally, it submits the results and discussions, followed by recommendations for future research.

2. Literature Review

Service is a complex phenomenon with no simple solutions (Rosenbaum and Massiah 2011; Grönroos 1990b, 2001, 2006; Parasuraman et al. 1985; Zeithaml et al. 1985). While definitions of service differ slightly, they share the understanding that it must be planned and managed holistically; in other words, service does not occur instrumentally, and its provision should not be left to chance (Gummesson 1987a; Zeithaml and Brown 2014). For instance, a holistic definition of service is: “all economic activities whose output is not physical product or construction, is generally consumed at the same time it is produced and provides added value in forms that are essentially intangible concerns of its purchaser” (Zeithaml et al. 2006, p. 5). This definition reveals the breadth of service and service management, encompassing all economic activities that increase the added value of a purchase, the moment of truth.
In perhaps simpler and more practical, yet holistic, terms, service is also defined as deed, process, and performance (Lovelock et al. 1999). Deed concerns the strategy of what should be achieved, how it should be achieved, who should achieve it, and for whom, in terms of service. A service promise is formulated based on the customers’ (i.e., target group’s) needs and wants on the one hand and an organization’s ability to fulfill that promise on the other (Berry et al. 1994). Process concerns who it is that performs service and for whom in space and time. Here, service activities are grouped into a holistic process that runs through the organization and is derived from the target group’s needs and wants and from the organization’s ability to perform (Chumpitaz Caceres and Paparoidamis 2007; Grönroos 2001). Performance is then measured against set service goals and standards that aim for increased service quality and value creation (Garg and Garg 2018; Lovelock and Gummesson 2004; Zeithaml et al. 1993).
Managing service revolves around productivity and quality of work (Grönroos 2011; Lovelock et al. 1999), agility through continuous adaptation, and learning throughout the organizational culture (Grönroos 1990a; Tajeddini 2011). This includes managing interactions between all human and nonhuman actors, external and internal customers (namely, employees), and others. “Nonhuman actors” refers to all tools, machines, and technologies used in service interactions, such as online service, self-service, and checkout, whereas “others” may mean bystanders, those next in line, or any other actor that can influence (for better or worse) the service encounter, value creation, and perceived service quality (Wilson et al. 2012). Based on that concept, SO has been defined as “the set of beliefs, behaviors, and cross-functional processes that seriously focuses on continuous and comprehensive understanding, disseminating, as well as satisfying the current and future needs of the target customers, for service excellence” (Voon 2008, p. 219). It is thus an application of the market orientation philosophy to service quality management.
Voon has also stated that to have such prevalent focus on a matter as intangible as service, the concept of service must be embedded in an organization’s culture, led by managers, with involvement by all (Voon 2006, 2008). According to this approach, service must be considered not as a singular act but as a holistic process, from making a promise to enabling that promise and keeping it (Bitner, 1995; Dolnicar and Ring 2014; Grönroos 2006).

2.1. Evolving Service Orientation

Categorization of SO in service literature is far from new (Homburg et al. 2002) and has in fact followed the maturity and history of service research. In the early days of service literature, Fisk et al. (1993) highlighted that service was considered an extension of physical goods and retail; it hardly had managers’ attention, let alone inclusion in the organizational strategy. Essentially, the idea was that all that one needed to be in service was a front-of-house employee who was geared toward customer service and who had a hospitable attitude, which is now generally known as customer orientation (Grönroos 2017).
As service knowledge matured and conceptual understanding progressed, scholars and practitioners alike began to acknowledge that orientation toward service through individual employees was insufficient to sustain or deliver consistent service. A more systematic processual approach (Eiglier and Langeard 1977) with a clear service strategy and vision (Mills et al. 1983) and strong internal focus (George 1990; James and Jones 1974) was needed. At this time, increased attention was devoted to the significance of service, the definition of service, and differentiating service as standalone nonphysical goods as opposed to an extension of physical goods (Fisk et al. 1993; Gummesson and Grönroos 2012). Different methods for addressing service marketing rather than traditional goods were also proposed (Grönroos 1980; Magrath 1986); focus on customers (their expectations and perceptions of service) received more attention, and service quality gained prominence (Parasuraman et al. 1985; Wilson et al. 2020).
Simultaneously, the conscious strategic building of service culture began to receive attention as a piece of the concept of service (Gummesson 1987b). Such a culture includes mutual beliefs and values regarding customer service excellence (Bellou and Andronikidis 2017; Grönroos 2020), pushes for employee engagement (Teimouri et al. 2018) and job satisfaction (Asgeirsson et al. 2020; Gudlaugsson et al. 2022), and formulates service promises based on the ability and strategy of the organization and customer satisfaction (Grönroos 2017; Groth et al. 2019). The importance of service, service provision, and service quality to organizational performance has since been recognized as an axiom in the service marketing literature (George 1977; Grönroos 1978; Groth et al. 2019; Lovelock 1983; Regan 1963).

2.2. Building Knowledge

Different framings and understandings of a research object or phenomenon between disciplines is not uncommon, especially for interdisciplinary fields, in this case hospitality and tourism, where knowledge transfer has often proven to be slow and faltering (Tribe and Liburd 2016). Comprehensive knowledge and the foundations upon which concepts or methods are grounded commonly fail when transferred and applied to a new field of study, with the risk that the use, discussion, and further development of these concepts or methods will be selective or partial in the new context (Belhassen and Caton 2009; Hall and Duval 2006; Tribe and Liburd 2016).
To examine the maturity and order of knowledge and knowledge-building, Rossiter (2001) divided knowledge into three order forms, which he refers to as the nature of knowledge (see Figure 1).
In Figure 1, the nature of knowledge has been categorized into three orders that are built up by different levels of epistemology. The first order of knowledge includes the definition of concepts that instill mutual understanding in the study field and descriptions of independent objects; this knowledge is used as a foundation for further knowledge creation. The second order of knowledge, which builds on the foundation of the first order, comprises structural frameworks and empirical generalizations. Structural frameworks contextualize the independent concepts for managerial use and help detect problems without establishing what Rossiter (2001) refers to as causal relationships. Moreover, empirical generalizations postulate connections between independent concepts without using causal conclusions (Rossiter 2002). The third order of knowledge builds on previous knowledge orders (i.e., mutual understanding of the phenomenon and its contexts, both theoretical and practical) and includes the description of causal relationships, aiming to determine the reasons for the associations between constructs and strategic principles, as well as research principles.
Strategic principles are set as a practical guideline for discussion makers (i.e., managers), created with experimental design, longitudinal data, or deductive logic; such principles lead to clear “if, do” recommendations for managers as a response to a situation, in order to deliver the best outcome. Research principles are related to epistemology and are necessary for extensive knowledge-building, since they should guide researchers in defining concepts, formulating structural frameworks, observing empirical generalizations, and testing and confirming the theoretical validity of strategic principles. Such principles generally provide “if, use” guidelines for researchers that adhere to an advocacy technique to deliver the best answer to a proposed question. It is suggested that once the research principle is reached, the need for content analysis becomes redundant, as the level of knowledge should contain references to all aspects of content and be built from the previous knowledge orders (Dolnicar and Ring 2014; Rossiter 2001, 2002, 2012).

3. Methods

This study presents a systematic literature review on SO in hospitality and tourism research, following a rigorous PRISMA research protocol aimed to minimize research bias (Page et al. 2021). Articles published in peer-reviewed journals (from 2010 to 2022) were gathered from Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus, which are among the most comprehensive abstract and citation databases available for peer-reviewed literature. The inclusion criteria of peer- reviewed articles in English was used, therefore excluding other languages and other types of publications (such as book chapters and conference proceedings), whether peer-reviewed or not. The review search string was created using the standard Boolean terms “AND”, “OR”, and “NOT” to construct a single search algorithm stream, scanning the titles, abstracts, and keywords. The string-search algorithm used in the search included the search words “service orientation”, “customer orientation”, “service culture”, “service climate”, “service strategy”, and the categorizations “hospitality” and “tourism”. The search yielded 154 articles matching the search algorithm (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 shows the screening process. First, duplicates between databanks were excluded (6), along with articles that did not focus on the hospitality and tourism industry (39). The remaining articles (109) were analyzed in terms of focus area, and those not emphasizing SO were excluded (59), leaving the articles with more in-depth analytics in the sample (50).
These sample articles were then analyzed in terms of content and as to how SO was categorized or defined in their research. Categorization was ranked relative to the findings of Teng and Barrows (2009), who found that SO in tourism research had been analyzed at either the organizational level (i.e., culture or strategic/processual manner) or the individual level (as a degree of employee hospitable behavior). Articles that attributed SO to more than one category were marked accordingly, as an attempt to consider the topic in a more holistic manner. A methodology stock-taking (i.e., qualitative and quantitative) was also performed. Some articles based their findings on mixed methods (used both qualitative and quantitative research) and were marked accordingly. An extensive list was produced (see Appendix A Table A1) to demonstrate the findings.
Secondly, the review focused on the nature of knowledge. Here, the knowledge-building concept by Rossiter (2001) was used as a determination of knowledge maturity (i.e., defining concepts, structural framework, empirical generalization, strategic principles, and research principles). In most cases, either in the aim of the research or in the discussion and conclusions, the authors of the reviewed articles stated the nature of the knowledge created. However, in some cases where this was not evident, the nature of knowledge was categorized by reviewers. Findings from this knowledge analysis are shown in a hospitality and tourism SO knowledge grid that matches the SO discussion on SO to the relevant order and nature of knowledge. A knowledge grid describes the linear discussion maturity of any given field of study (i.e., the less mature discussions should lean more toward the first and second orders of knowledge, whereas the more mature discussions should lean more toward the third order of knowledge (Dolnicar and Ring 2014; Rossiter 2002).
Given the relatively recent focus on SO in hospitality and tourism, the division of the concept in prior research, and the recommendation by Teng and Barrows (2009) that a more conceptual and empirical understanding is needed to further SO knowledge in tourism, we expected most of the reviewed literature to be categorized into the first or second (and, to a lesser extent, the third) order of knowledge.
As suggested by Rossiter (2001, 2002) once the nature of knowledge is in the third order—more specifically, when the research principle is reached—the need for content analysis becomes redundant, as this level of knowledge should contain references to all aspects of prior content and be built from the previous knowledge orders. However, in this study, a content analysis was conducted to further scrutinize the research principles section. Abbreviations are used in tables and figures to make the content more readable (please refer to end of the main text for a list of abbreviations).

4. Results

To answer the first research question (“Which trends, categorizations, and methodologies are dominant in the discussion on SO in hospitality and tourism research?”), we performed a content analysis of the 50 selected articles. As expected, the categorization of the articles exceeds the number of articles as some addressed or attempted to intertwine more than one type of content. Table 1 offers an overview of the analysis, identifying trends and methodologies. An extensive list of the reviewed articles can be found in Appendix A, sorted first by year of publication and then by alphabetical order of authors’ names.
As can be seen in the table, SO is commonly categorized as employee hospitableness (EMPL) (29), followed by organizational culture (OC) (9), and lastly as strategy and process (S&P) (6). A total of six articles categorized SO as a form of interplay of more than one category (see number in brackets). Five of these combined employee hospitableness and organizational culture and one employee hospitableness and strategy and process. Interestingly, five of those six articles were published recently in the last two years, suggesting a shift in focus toward a more holistic view of SO in hospitality and tourism research.
The methodology used is predominantly quantitative, with twenty-six articles studying employee behavior and attitude toward service, five on organizational culture, and three on strategy and process. Quantitative methods were used in five of the articles intertwining categories, four of which focused on employee hospitableness and organizational culture and one on employee hospitableness and strategy and process. Qualitative methods were used in the form of either interviews or desktop analysis, one on employee hospitableness, four addressing organizational culture, and two referring to strategy and process. Qualitative methods were used in one article intertwining employee hospitableness and organizational culture. Mixed methods were employed in three articles, where interviews for deeper understanding of answers were performed. Two of those addressed employee hospitableness and one strategy and process.
For a better grasp of the discussion trends, publications were grouped per year and categorization (see Figure 3). To identify trends in the more holistic manner, articles that dealt with more than one category simultaneously were added to new categorizations: employee hospitableness (EMPL) and organizational culture (OC), and EMPL and strategy and process (S&P).
As mentioned, most articles use the EMPL categorization, but there seems to be an emerging shift in focus in the more recent publications. Firstly, OC is gaining more attention, and seemingly more research is leaning toward a holistic discussion of SO. However, those articles only connect two of three categories deemed to be the foundations of the SO holistic approach. Additionally, little attempt has been made in connecting the two categories, and they are therefore still viewed as separate pillars, although it is stated that both matter in building SO.
To answer our second question (What is the state and order of knowledge regarding SO in hospitality and tourism research?), we revisited the 50 articles under review and matched the previous content analysis to the nature and order of knowledge, and the findings displayed in Table 2. The nature of knowledge was, in most cases, mentioned in the articles, either in the aim or conclusions. However, where this was not clearly stated, the content was analyzed in depth using the nature of knowledge protocol.
The table shows the nature of SO knowledge produced in hospitality and tourism research. The idea is, as more research is categorized as the third order of knowledge (TOK), the more mature the knowledge is in any given sector. TOK is based and builds on previous knowledge forms (i.e., first order of knowledge [FOK] and second order of knowledge [SOK]) and therefore should have already undergone the scrutinization of previous knowledge orders.
One article on the FOK addresses defining concepts (DC) as a foundation for further utilization, and is categorized in S&P. Eleven articles fall into SOK: three were classified as using a structural framework (SF) and adhering to organizational culture, eight were categorized as empirical generalizations, one concerned S&P, four were categorized as OC, two dealt with EMPL, and finally, one addressed EMPL and S&P. Most of the articles (thirty-eight of the fifty) adhere to TOK, with twenty-nine of them adhering to strategic principles (SP) as a more practical utilization and guidelines for managers. Moreover, twenty-four of these articles classify SO as EMPL, which is by far the largest group. Two articles examine the phenomenon through the lens of OC, another two consider SO as an organizational strategy, and one as EMPL and OC. Nine articles view the phenomenon in terms of research principles as a causal relationship, seeking the best answers to proposed questions; three identify it as EMPL; two as S&P; and four as EMPL and OC.
Contrary to our expectations, the nature of knowledge of the reviewed articles is categorized more in the third order rather than in the previous two. This contradicts earlier recommendations and findings of the discussion, as the knowledge is more mature. Based on this analysis, it can be argued that although the discourse is mature, the common research focus and methodology of these studies are somewhat selective. The most common way to study SO in hospitality and tourism seems to be through quantitative research, framing it as CO or employees’ degree of hospitableness. Most emphasis is on the strategic principles and therefore on practicalities and guidelines for the industry rather than on research principles to determine best practices.
It has been suggested that once the TOK is reached, there is no need for content analysis since the third order builds on previous orders and should therefore intertwine the categorizations found and scrutinized and build on a holistic approach. This, however, is not the case in this study, where only a small portion of the reviewed articles attempt to combine the contents.

5. Discussion

To determine the discourse, methodology, and maturity regarding SO in the hospitality and tourism sector, our objective was to answer the two research questions: Which trends, categorizations, and methodology are dominant in the discussion on SO in hospitality and tourism research? What is the state and order of knowledge regarding SO in hospitality and tourism research?
The systematic literature review on SO in hospitality and tourism revealed that the academic discussion is somewhat narrow and the methodology one-dimensional. Researchers are not unanimous on how to define and categorize SO, but the categorization found in this analysis reiterates previous findings that indicate a focus on employee hospitableness, organizational culture, or strategy persists. The main emphasis is on determining employees’ degree of hospitableness, using quantitative methods. These findings suggest that the discourse follows a more product-centered approach since most of the categorization is on EMPL (Fisk et al. 1993; Gummesson and Grönroos 2012). That is not to claim that employee characteristics and performance do not matter; they matter immensely. However, to grow people and nurture their positive behavior and attributes, there must be procedures in place (George 1990; Gummesson and Grönroos 2012) based on rigorous systems and strategy (Garg and Garg 2018) and grounded within the OC (Voon 2008).
Reasons for this focus on employees rather than on organizational behavior or strategy implementation could be of a different nature. Perhaps it is as Pizam (2012) elaborated in his editorial remarks: that one of the reasons for SO research leaning more toward employees’ personal traits rather than a holistic organizational level is that the former is to some extent easier to measure, as more tools have been developed to do so. Then again, it could be that the discourse on SO as employee hospitableness has already matured within the industry, prior to this analysis and has undergone conceptual and mutual empirical understandings as the way forward for hospitality and tourism research and best practices. Whatever the reasons might be, this means that both researchers and practitioners alike are missing out on the full potential of a holistic approach that, based on experience and research within service marketing, is likely to be of use for even better organizational performance (Ally et al. 2020; Lai et al. 2018). Such an approach, whereby the whole organization is geared toward customer service (Grönroos 2020), considers all aspects of service, from employee engagement (Teimouri, et al. 2018) and job satisfaction (Asgeirsson et al. 2020; Gudlaugsson et al. 2022), through formulating the strategy and service promise, to customer satisfaction and loyalty (Grönroos 2017; Groth et al. 2019).
Regarding the findings on order of knowledge and maturity, most of the articles refer to the TOK, therefore suggesting a maturity in the discussion. Moreover, they focus on strategic principles in a more practical sense, providing guidelines for managers in the field. These findings came as a surprise, as we expected the discourse to be more empirical and conceptual for future knowledge-building, given the recommendations and findings of Teng and Barrows (2009). Instead, it seems that the problem they pointed out persists, little focus is placed on conceptualizing knowledge in building mutual understanding or empirical and contextual understanding of the phenomenon of SO.
Due to these findings, a slight modification was made in the research principles and to the order of knowledge. As Rossiter (2001) suggested, research principles force the discussion to be fulfilled holistically, building on mutual, conceptual, and empirical understandings. Since we found that the basics to build on were lacking, we wanted to investigate whether the discussions of the articles concerning the research principles were in fact addressing the phenomenon holistically. Although they certainly categorize SO using three categories (EMPL, OC, and S&P), there is evidence of combining these contents, especially in the more recent articles. This might signal that a holistic approach is catching the attention of more scholars in the field. However, as mentioned, little effort was made in the articles reviewed to investigate the connectivity between these themes, which were instead addressed as two important but separate pillars.
Therefore, it can be argued that the knowledge transfer between the field of service marketing and hospitality and tourism seems to be somewhat slow and faltering, which is not uncommon, as argued by Tribe and Liburd (2016). This could be because scholars in the field are not utilizing service literature to the full extent and perhaps not realizing the complexity of service and what SO means in an organizational behavior context. There could also be other reasons, such as researchers being reluctant to associate their research with marketing, which may hinder or slow the maturity of the discussion (Rossiter 2002). It has been pointed out that there is a tendency to dissect or diminish actions related to marketing in hospitality and tourism research and that marketing is predominantly viewed as a singular act of promotion and sale and not as a holistic process rooted in organizational behavior and culture (see Grönroos 2006; Dolnicar and Ring 2014). Regardless of the reason, this is a sign of a selective use of knowledge and insight from service marketing in research on SO in the field of hospitality and tourism, which, it can be argued, further limits the development of methods and concepts in studies of SO in the latter field.
Service is a complex phenomenon, with no simple solution, as our findings demonstrate. A vigorous orientation towards service in a philosophical and holistic manner, and through organizational culture can lead to superior organizational performance. This complexity of SO is seemingly not addressed in hospitality and tourism research. As a result, the industry could be missing out on its full performance potential.

Study Limitations

This study is not without its limitations. One is that the review was conducted with qualitative methods; therefore, the understandings and categorizations of the selected articles might be biased. Reviewers might have missed and/or misinterpreted the original meanings of the selected studies, despite their best intentions and efforts. However, this approach was deemed to be superior to a quantitative content analysis, as it allowed an in depth reading of all the articles providing insight into the discussion on SO in hospitality and tourism.
The file drawer problem could exist, since this study is based only on published and reviewed articles, therefore excluding working papers, conference proceedings and book chapters. By following PRISMA protocols in preparation, data gathering and reviewing, we hope to have eliminated that possibility.
Another limiting factor might be the choice of keywords, as the discourse concerning SO in hospitality and tourism research might use different terms and concepts than those selected to create the algorithm string. We selected keywords from prior literature reviews on SO in hospitality and tourism in the attempt to eliminate this factor.

6. Conclusions

This study offers insight into knowledge-building regarding SO in hospitality and tourism research, mapping its discourse and methodology. Given the nature of the tourism industry, which revolves around value creation through service, and considering our findings of monotonous categorizations of SO in hospitality and tourism research, we believe that scholars and practitioners must recognize the need for investigating a holistic approach to SO as a fundamental strategy for organizations, destinations, and countries to improve their service in tourism. We therefore reiterate previous recommendations by Teng and Barrows (2009) that fellow hospitality and tourism scholars seek ways to deliver more unanimous, empirical understandings of these phenomena, finding ways to intertwine these attributes (how they are connected and supportive of each other). There is also a need to investigate the state of knowledge regarding employee hospitableness, and we recommend that a taking stock, as performed here, of customer orientation in hospitality and tourism research should be conducted.
As a continuation of this article, in the attempt to reduce the gap that appears to be persistent, we plan on developing and verifying an approach to measure SO in hospitality and tourism. Its approach would include service strategy and employee hospitableness, measured through the lens of organizational culture. Recent attempts have been made in this regard, both within the hospitality and tourism sector, and in other service sectors (see Gudlaugsson et al. 2022; Williams 2022), and these will be utilized as guidance for our continuing work on SO in hospitality and tourism.

Practical Applications

This study contributes not only to the theoretical understanding of SO, but also to knowledge of the practicalities. Managers of hospitality and tourism firms can benefit from this by viewing the whole organization’s participation in service by creating service orientation across the firm. This means having the right people in the right place, and at the right time, in order to satisfy guests’ expectations toward service. Also, having a clear service strategy and process in place takes into consideration the guests’ needs and wants and the organization’s ability to perform. This should then be formulated in the organizational culture, one that nurtures positive behavior and service thinking, led by managers and participated in by all.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H.Á., methodology, M.H.Á.; writing and original draft preparation, M.H.Á.; writing, reviewing, and editing, M.H.Á., T.G. and G.T.J.; visualization M.H.Á.; supervision, T.G and G.T.J., project and administration, M.H.Á. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

AbbreviationFull Text
EMPLEmployee hospitableness
OCOrganizational culture
S&PStrategy and process
EMPL + S&PEMPL and Strategy and process
EMPL + OCEMPL and Organizational culture
NOFNature of knowledge
FOKFirst order of knowledge
DCDefining concepts
SOKSecond order of knowledge
SFStructural framework
EGEmpirical generalization
TOKThird order of knowledge
SPStrategic principles
RPResearch principles

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Complete list of sample articles and their categorization.
Table A1. Complete list of sample articles and their categorization.
Author (Year)TitleJournalMethodologyService Orientation Categorization:
QualitativeQuantitativeEmployee HospitablenessOrganizational CultureStrategy & Process
Kim and Ok (2010)Customer Orientation of Service Employees and Rapport: Influences on Service-Outcome Variables in Full-Service RestaurantsJournal of Hospitality & Tourism Research xx
Venugopal and Gopakumar (2010)An Experimental Modeling of a Service Blueprint Based on Inbound Travellers’ Point of View—Study at a Three Star Hotel in Calicuti-Manager’s Journal on Managementxx x
García et al. (2011)Organizational Service Systems: Antecedents and ConsequencesTourism and Hospitality Researchxxx
Tajeddini (2011)Customer Orientation, Learning Orientation, and New Service Development: An Empirical Investigation of the Swiss Hotel IndustryJournal of Hospitality & Tourism Researchx x
Camarero and Garrido (2012)Fostering Innovation in Cultural Contexts: Market Orientation, Service Orientation, and Innovations in MuseumsJournal of Service Research x x
Gazzoli et al. (2012)Employee Empowerment and Customer Orientation: Effects on Workers’ Attitudes in Restaurant OrganizationsInternational Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration xx
Karatepe and Douri (2012)Does Customer Orientation Mediate the Effect of Job Resourcefulness on Hotel Employee Outcomes? Evidence from IranJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Management xx
Kim et al. (2012)Frontline service employees’ customer-related social stressors, emotional exhaustion, and service recovery performance: customer orientation as a moderatorService Business xx
Mathe and Scott-Halsell (2012)The Effects of Perceived External Prestige on Positive Psychological States in Quick Service RestaurantsJournal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism xx
Noor et al. (2012)The Role of Individual Differences in Promoting Front Liners to Become Customer-Oriented: A Case of the Hotel Industry in MalaysiaJournal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism xx
Nedeljković et al. (2012)Organizational changes and job satisfaction in the hospitality industry in SerbiaUTMS Journal of Economics xx
Petrović and Marcović (2012)Researching Connection between Service Orientation and Work Satisfaction: A Study of Hotel EmployeesTurizam xx
Yang (2012)Identifying the attributes of blue ocean strategies in hospitalityInternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management x x
Mohammad et al. (2013)Assessing the influence of customer relationship management (CRM) dimensions on organization performance: An empirical study in the hotel industryJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology xxx
Grissemann et al. (2013)Enhancing business performance of hotels: The role of innovation and customer orientationInternational Journal of Hospitality Management xx
Choi et al. (2014)Testing the stressor–strain–outcome model of customer-related social stressors in predicting emotional exhaustion, customer orientation and service recovery performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management xx
Lee (2014)Attitudinal dimensions of professionalism and service quality efficacy of frontline employees in hotelsInternational Journal of Hospitality Management xx
Lee et al. (2013)Developing a competitive international service strategy: a case of international joint venture in the global service industryThe Journal of Services Marketingx x
Qin et al. (2014)How and when the effect of ethical leadership occurs? A multilevel analysis in the Chinese hospitality industryInternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management xx
Saarijärvi et al. (2014)Disentangling customer orientation–executive perspectiveBusiness Process Management Journalx x
Gallarza et al. (2015)Managers’ Perceptions of Delivered Value in the Hospitality IndustryJournal of Hospitality Marketing & Management x x
Lee and Ok (2015)Examination of Factors Affecting Hotel Employees’ Service Orientation: An Emotional Labor PerspectiveJournal of Hospitality & Tourism Research xx
Song et al. (2015)The Role of CSR and Responsible Gambling in Casino Employees’ Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Customer OrientationAsia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research xx
Walsh et al. (2015)Understanding Students’ Intentions to Join the Hospitality Industry: The Role of Emotional Intelligence, Service Orientation, and Industry SatisfactionCornell Hospitality Quarterly xx
González-Rodríguez et al. (2016)Post-visit and pre-visit tourist destination image through eWOM sentiment analysis and perceived helpfulnessInternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Managementx x
Kandampully et al. (2016)Developing a people-technology hybrids model to unleash innovation and creativity: The new hospitality frontierJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Managementx x
Kang et al. (2016)The followership of hotel employees and the relationship between occupational burnout, job stress, and customer orientation: Targeting the hotel service providers at luxury hotelsTourism and Hospitality Research xx
Karatepe et al. (2016)Investigating the impact of customer orientation on innovativeness: evidence from born-global firms in TurkeyEkonomska Istrazivanja xx
Kaynak et al. (2016)Role of adaptive selling and customer orientation on salesperson performance: Evidence from two distinct markets of Europe and AsiaJournal of Transnational Management xx
Arasli et al. (2017)Effects of service orientation on job embeddedness in hotel industryThe Service Industries Journal xx
Jalilvand (2017)The effect of innovativeness and customer-oriented systems on performance in the hotel industry of IranJournal of Science and Technology Policy Management x x
Michaelides (2017)Hospitality industry and the service culture in EuropeTourism and Travellingx x
Ngacha and Onyango (2017)The role of a Customer-Oriented Service Culture in influencing Customer Retention in the Hotel IndustryAfrican Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure x x
Cha and Borchgrevink (2018)Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and Frontline Employees’ Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Foodservice Context: Exploring the Moderating Role of Work StatusInternational Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration xx
Johnson et al. (2018)Perceptions of customer service orientation, training, and employee engagement in Jamaica’s hospitality sectorEuropean Journal of Training and Development xxx
Lin et al. (2018)How Hospitality and Tourism Students Choose Careers: Influences of Employer Branding and Applicants’ Customer OrientationJournal of Hospitality & Tourism Education xx
Teimouri et al. (2018) Service, politics, and engagement: A multi-level analysisTourism Management Perspectives xx
Tsaur et al. (2018)SOCO’s impact on service outcomes of tour guides: the moderating effect of customers’ shopping orientationCurrent Issues in Tourism xx
Zhu et al. (2018)Service quality delivery in a cross-national context. International Business ReviewInternational Business Reviewx x
Moon et al. (2019)How Service Employees’ Work Motivations Lead to Job Performance: The Role of Service Employees’ Job Creativity and Customer OrientationCurrent Psychology xx
Köşker et al. (2019)The effect of basic personality traits on service orientation and tendency to work in the hospitality and tourism industryJournal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism xx
Domi et al. (2020)Customer orientation and SME performance in Albania: A case study of the mediating role of innovativeness and innovation behaviorJournal of Vacation Marketingxxx
Yang et al. (2020)The Multilevel Mechanism of Multifoci Service Orientation on Emotional Labor: Based on the Chinese Hospitality IndustryInternational journal of environmental research and public health xxx
Domi and Domi (2021)The interplay effects of skill-enhancing human resources practices, customer orientation and tourism SMEs performanceEuropean Journal of Training and Development xx x
Lin et al. (2021)The effects of service climate and internal service quality on frontline hotel employees’ service-oriented behaviorsInternational Journal of Hospitality Management x x
Pham Thi Phuong and Ahn (2021)Service Climate and Empowerment for Customer Service Quality among Vietnamese Employees at RestaurantsSustainability xxx
Palácios et al. (2021)A Bibliometric Analysis of Service Climate as a Sustainable Competitive Advantage in HospitalitySustainability x x
Deng et al. (2022)Error Aversion Versus Error Management: Does Organizational Error Culture Affect Employees’ Customer Orientation?Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research xxx
Kim and Jang (2022)The Impact of Employees’ Perceived Customer Citizenship Behaviors on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Mediating Roles of Employee Customer-orientation AttitudeInternational Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration xxx
William (2022)Refining the service orientation scale (SOS-22) from inside the Canadian lodging sectorTourism and Hospitality Managementx xx

References

  1. Achroll, Ravi, and Philip Kotler. 2014. The service-dominant logic for marketing: A critique. In The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing. London: Routledge, pp. 320, 338–352. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ali, Bayad Jamal, Bayar Gardi, Baban Jabbar Othman, Sahala Ali Ahmed, Ismael Burhan Nechirwan, Pshdar Abdalla Hamza, Hassan Mahmood Aziz, Bawan Yassin Sabir, Sarhang Sorguli, and Govand Anwar. 2021. Hotel Service Quality: The Impact of Service Quality on Customer Satisfaction in Hospitality. International Journal of Engineering, Business and Management 5: 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ally, Seonjeong, Aryn C. Karpinski, and Aviad A. Israeli. 2020. Customer behavioural analysis: The impact of internet addiction, interpersonal competencies, and service orientation on customers’ online complaint behaviour. Research in Hospitality Management 10: 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arasli, Huseyin, Reza Bahman Teimouri, Hassan Kiliç, and Iman Aghaei. 2017. Effects of service orientation on job embeddedness in hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal 37: 607–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Asgeirsson, Magnus, Paulina Neshybová, Brynjar Thor Thorsteinsson, and Ester Gustavsdottir. 2020. Employee motivation and satisfaction practices—A case from Iceland. In Tourism Employment in Nordic Countries: Trends Practices and Opportunities. Edited by Andreas Walmsley, Kajsa Åberg, Petra Blinnikka and Gunnar Thór Johannesson. Cham: Palgrave. [Google Scholar]
  6. Belhassen, Yaniv, and Kellee Caton. 2009. Advancing understandings: A Linguistic Approach to Tourism Epistemology. Annals of Tourism Research 36: 335–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bellou, Victoria, and Andreas Andronikidis. 2017. Organizational service orientation and job satisfaction: A multidisciplinary investigation of a reciprocal relationship. EuroMed Journal of Business 12: 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Berry, Leonard L., Anantharanthan Parasuraman, and Valarie Zeithaml. 1994. Improving service quality in America: Lessons learned. Academy of Management Executive 8: 32–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bitner, Mary Jo. 1995. Building service relationships: It’s all about promises. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23: 246–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Camarero, Carmen, and Ma José Garrido. 2012. Fostering Innovation in Cultural Contexts: Market Orientation, Service Orientation, and Innovations in Museums. Journal of Service Research 15: 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cha, Jaemin, and Carl Borchgrevink. 2018. Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and Frontline Employees’ Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Foodservice Context: Exploring the Moderating Role of Work Status. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 19: 233–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Choi, Chang Hwan, Taegoo Kim, Gyehee Lee, and Seung Kon Lee. 2014. Testing the stressor–strain–outcome model of customer-related social stressors in predicting emotional exhaustion, customer orientation and service recovery performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 36: 272–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chumpitaz Caceres, Ruben, and Nicholas Paparoidamis. 2007. Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust, commitment, and business-to-business loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 41: 836–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Crick, Anne, and Andrew Spencer. 2011. Hospitality quality: New directions and new challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 23: 463–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Deng, Demi Shenrui, Hyun Jeong Kim, Hyounae Min, and Jessica Murray. 2022. Error Aversion Versus Error Management: Does Organizational Error Culture Affect Employees’ Customer Orientation? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dolnicar, Sara, and Amata Ring. 2014. Tourism marketing research: Past, present, and future. Annals of Tourism Research 47: 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Domi, Shpresim, and Fabjola Domi. 2021. The interplay effects of skill-enhancing human resources practices, customer orientation and tourism SMEs performance. European Journal of Training and Development 45: 737–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Domi, Shpresim, Joan-Lluis Capelleras, and Bari Musabelliu. 2020. Customer orientation and SME performance in Albania: A case study of the mediating role of innovativeness and innovation behavior. Journal of Vacation Marketing 26: 130–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Eiglier, Piearre, and Eric Langeard. 1977. Services as systems: Marketing implications. Marketing Consumer Services: New Insights 18: 83–103. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fisk, Raymond P., Stephen W. Brown, and Mary Jo Bitner. 1993. Tracking the evolution of the services marketing literature. Journal of Retailing 69: 61–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ford, Robert C., and Michael C. Sturman. 2018. Managing Hospitality Organizations: Achieving Excellence in the Guest Experience. Thousand Oaks, London and New Deli: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gallarza, Martina G., Francisco Arteaga, and Irene Gil-Saura. 2015. Managers’ Perceptions of Delivered Value in the Hospitality Industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 24: 857–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. García, Terese, José Varela, and Marisa del Río. 2011. Organizational Service Systems: Antecedents and Consequences. Tourism and Hospitality Research 11: 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Garg, Rashmi, and Renuka Garg. 2018. Organizational Factors That Affect Service Delivery in the Hospitality Sector. IUP Journal of Marketing Management 17: 50–84. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gazzoli, Gabriel, Murat Hancer, and Yumi Park. 2012. Employee Empowerment and Customer Orientation: Effects on Workers’ Attitudes in Restaurant Organizations. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 13: 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. George, William R. 1977. Retailing of services-challenging future. Journal of Retailing 53: 85–98. [Google Scholar]
  27. George, William R. 1990. Internal marketing and organizational behavior: A partnership in developing customer-conscious employees at every level. Journal of Business Research 20: 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. González-Rodríguez, M. Rosario, Rocio Martínez-Torres, and Sergio Toral. 2016. Post-visit and pre-visit tourist destination image through eWOM sentiment analysis and perceived helpfulness. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28: 2609–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Grissemann, Ursula, Andreas Plank, and Alexandra Brunner-Sperdin. 2013. Enhancing business performance of hotels: The role of innovation and customer orientation. International Journal of Hospitality Management 33: 347–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Grönroos, Christian. 1978. A Service-Orientated Approach to Marketing of Services. European Journal of Marketing 12: 588–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Grönroos, Christian. 1980. An Applied Service Marketing Theory. [Svenska handelshögskolan]. Helsinki: Institutionen för Marknadsekonomi. [Google Scholar]
  32. Grönroos, Christian. 1990a. Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: The marketing and organizational behavior interface. Journal of Business Research 20: 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Grönroos, Christian. 1990b. Service Management: A Management Focus for Service Competition. International Journal of Service Industry Management 1: 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Grönroos, Christian. 2001. Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship Management Approach. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., vol. 2. [Google Scholar]
  35. Grönroos, Christian. 2006. Adopting a service logic for marketing. Marketing Theory 6: 317–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Grönroos, Christian. 2011. A service perspective on business relationships: The value creation, interaction, and marketing interface. Industrial Marketing Management 40: 240–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Grönroos, Christian. 2015. Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Service Profit Logic. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., vol. 4. [Google Scholar]
  38. Grönroos, Christian. 2017. On Value and Value Creation in Service: A Management Perspective. Journal of Creating Value 3: 125–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Grönroos, Christian. 2020. Viewpoint: Service marketing research priorities. Journal of Services Marketing 34: 291–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Groth, Markus, Yu Wu, Helena Nguyen, and Anya Johnson. 2019. The Moment of Truth: A Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda for the Customer Service Experience. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 6: 89–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gudlaugsson, Thorhallur, Magnus Asgeirsson, and Gylfi Dalmann Adalsteinsson. 2022. Service orientation and performance. Research in Applied Business and Economics 19: 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gummesson, Evert. 1987a. The new marketing—Developing long-term interactive relationships. Long Range Planning 20: 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gummesson, Evert. 1987b. Using internal marketing to develop a new culture—The case of Ericsson quality. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 2: 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gummesson, Evert, and Christian Grönroos. 2012. The emergence of the new service marketing: Nordic School perspectives. Journal of Service Management 23: 479–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hall, C. Michael, and David Timothy Duval. 2006. Tourism and Post-Disciplinary Enquiry AU - Coles, Tim. Current Issues in Tourism 9: 293–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Homburg, Christian, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Martin Fassnacht. 2002. Service Orientation of a Retailer’s Business Strategy: Dimensions, Antecedents, and Performance Outcomes. Journal of Marketing 66: 86–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hudson, Simon, and Luise Hudson. 2012. Customer Service for Hospitality and Tourism. London: Goodfellow Publishers Limited. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jalilvand, Mohamed Reza. 2017. The effect of innovativeness and customer-oriented systems on performance in the hotel industry of Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 8: 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. James, Lawrence R., and Allan P. Jones. 1974. Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin 81: 1096–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Johnson, Karen R., Sunyoung Park, and Kenneth R. Bartlett. 2018. Perceptions of customer service orientation, training, and employee engagement in Jamaica’s hospitality sector. European Journal of Training and Development 42: 191–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kandampully, Jay, Anil Bilgihan, and Tingting Zhang. 2016. Developing a people-technology hybrids model to unleash innovation and creativity: The new hospitality frontier. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 29: 154–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kang, Jae-wan, Jeaong-ho Heo, and Joon-ho Kim. 2016. The followership of hotel employees and the relationship between occupational burnout, job stress, and customer orientation: Targeting the hotel service providers at luxury hotels. Tourism and Hospitality Research 16: 345–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Karatepe, Osman M., and Behnaz Gharehbaghi Douri. 2012. Does Customer Orientation Mediate the Effect of Job Resourcefulness on Hotel Employee Outcomes? Evidence from Iran. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 19: 133–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Karatepe, Osman M., M. Mithat Uner, and Akin Kocak. 2016. Investigating the impact of customer orientation on innovativeness: Evidence from born-global firms in Turkey: Znanstveno-Strucni Casopis Znanstveno-Strucni Casopis. Ekonomska Istrazivanja 29: 721–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kaynak, Erdener, Ali Kara, Clement S. F. Chow, and Tommi Laukkanen. 2016. Role of adaptive selling and customer orientation on salesperson performance: Evidence from two distinct markets of Europe and Asia. Journal of Transnational Management 21: 62–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kim, Misun, and Jichul Jang. 2022. The Impact of Employees’ Perceived Customer Citizenship Behaviors on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Mediating Roles of Employee Customer-orientation Attitude. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kim, Taegoo Terry, Soyon Paek, Chang Hwan Choi, and Gyehee Lee. 2012. Frontline service employees’ customer-related social stressors, emotional exhaustion, and service recovery performance: Customer orientation as a moderator. Service Business 6: 503–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kim, Wansoo, and Chihyung Ok. 2010. Customer Orientation of Service Employees and Rapport: Influences on Service-Outcome Variables in Full-Service Restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 34: 34–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Köşker, Hasan, Kamil Unur, and Dogan Gursoy. 2019. The effect of basic personality traits on service orientation and tendency to work in the hospitality and tourism industry. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism 19: 140–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lai, Ivan K. W., Michael Hitchcock, Ting Yang, and Tun-Wei Lu. 2018. Literature review on service quality in hospitality and tourism (1984–2014) Future directions and trends. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30: 114–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lee, Kyong-Joo. 2014. Attitudinal dimensions of professionalism and service quality efficacy of frontline employees in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 41: 140–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lee, JungHoon, and Chihyung Ok. 2015. Examination of Factors Affecting Hotel Employees’ Service Orientation: An Emotional Labor Perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 39: 437–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lee, Kyuho, Melihand Madanoglu, and Ko Jae-Youn. 2013. Developing a competitive international service strategy: A case of international joint venture in the global service industry. The Journal of Services Marketing 27: 245–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lin, Ming-Yu, Chung-Fang Chiang, and Huo-Ping Wu. 2018. How Hospitality and Tourism Students Choose Careers: Influences of Employer Branding and Applicants’ Customer Orientation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 30: 229–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lin, Meizhen, Qian Ling, Yanling Liu, and Rong Hu. 2021. The effects of service climate and internal service quality on frontline hotel employees’ service-oriented behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality Management 97: 102995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lovelock, Christopher H. 1983. Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights. Journal of Marketing 47: 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lovelock, Christopher H., and Evert Gummesson. 2004. Whither Services Marketing: In Search of a New Paradigm and Fresh Perspectives. Journal of Service Research 7: 20–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lovelock, Christopher H., Andra Vandermerwe, and Bargara Lewis. 1999. Services Marketing: A European Perspective. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Europe. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lytle, Richard S., and John E. Timmerman. 2006. Service orientation and performance: An organizational perspective. Journal of Services Marketing 20: 136–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Magrath, Aanthony J. 1986. When marketing services, 4 Ps are not enough. Business Horizons 29: 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mathe, Kimberly, and Sheila Scott-Halsell. 2012. The Effects of Perceived External Prestige on Positive Psychological States in Quick Service Restaurants. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 11: 354–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Michaelides, Roxanna. 2017. Hospitality industry and the service culture in Europe. Tourism and Travelling 1: 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mills, Peter K., Richard B. Chase, and Newton Margulies. 1983. Motivating the client/employee system as a service production strategy. Academy of Management Review 8: 301–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mohammad, Abdul alem, Basri bin Rashid, and Shaharuddin bin Tahir. 2013. Assessing the influence of customer relationship management (CRM) dimensions on organization performance: An empirical study in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 4: 228–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Moon, Taewon, Won-Moo Hur, and Sunghyuo Hyun. 2019. How Service Employees’ Work Motivations Lead to Job Performance: The Role of Service Employees’ Job Creativity and Customer Orientation. Current Psychology 38: 517–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nedeljković, Milos, Olga Hadžić, and Slobodan Čerović. 2012. Organizational changes and job satisfaction in the hospitality industry in Serbia. UTMS Journal of Economics 3: 105–17. [Google Scholar]
  77. Ngacha, Weru Joshua, and Fwaya Eric Victor Onyango. 2017. The role of a Customer-Oriented Service Culture in influencing Customer Retention in the Hotel Industry. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 6: 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  78. Noor, Nor Azila Mohd, Azilah Kasim, Cezar Scarlat, and Azli Muhamad. 2012. The Role of Individual Differences in Promoting Front Liners to Become Customer-Oriented: A Case of the Hotel Industry in Malaysia. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 13: 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Page, Mathew J., Joanna E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, and et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372: n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Palácios, Hugo, Helena de Almeida, and Maria José Sousa. 2021. A Bibliometric Analysis of Service Climate as a Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Hospitality. Sustainability 13: 12214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Parasuraman, Aanantharathan, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry. 1985. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing 49: 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Petrović, Marco, and Jelica Marcović. 2012. Researching Connection between Service Orientation and Work Satisfaction: A Study of Hotel Employees (Novi Sad, Serbia). Turizam 16: 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pham Thi Phuong, Loan, and Young-joo Ahn. 2021. Service Climate and Empowerment for Customer Service Quality among Vietnamese Employees at Restaurants. Sustainability 13: 1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pizam, Abraham. 2012. Service Orientation in the Hospitality Context. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31: 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Qin, Qianqian, Wen Biyan, Ling Qian, Sinian Zhou, and Mengshi Tong. 2014. How and when the effect of ethical leadership occurs? A multilevel analysis in the Chinese hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26: 974–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Regan, Williams J. 1963. The Service Revolution. Journal of Marketing 27: 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Reisinger, Yvette, Jay Kandampully, Connie Mok, and Beverly Sparks. 2001. Unique characteristics of tourism, hospitality, and leisure services. Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure 1: 15–47. [Google Scholar]
  88. Rosenbaum, Mark S., and Carolyn Massiah. 2011. An expanded servicescape perspective. Journal of Service Management 22: 471–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rossiter, John R. 2001. What Is Marketing Knowledge? Stage I: Forms of marketing knowledge. Marketing Theory 1: 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rossiter, John R. 2002. The Five Forms of Transmissible, Usable marketing Knowledge. Marketing Theory 2: 369–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Rossiter, John R. 2012. A new measure of social classes. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 11: 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Saarijärvi, Hannu, Hannu Kuusela, Kari Neilimo, and Elina Närvänen. 2014. Disentangling customer orientation—Executive perspective. Business Process Management Journal 20: 663–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Song, Hak Jun, Hye-Mi Lee, Choong-Ki Lee, and Su-Jung Song. 2015. The Role of CSR and Responsible Gambling in Casino Employees’ Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Customer Orientation. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 20: 455–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Tajeddini, Kayhan. 2011. Customer Orientation, Learning Orientation, and New Service Development: An Empirical Investigation of the Swiss Hotel Industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 35: 437–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Teimouri, Reza Bahman, Huseyin Arasli, Hasan Kiliç, and Iman Aghaei. 2018. Service, politics, and engagement: A multi-level analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives 28: 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Teng, Chih-Ching, and Clayton W. Barrows. 2009. Service orientation: Antecedents, outcomes, and implications for hospitality research and practice. The Service Industries Journal 29: 1413–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tribe, John, and Janne Liburd. 2016. The tourism knowledge system. Annals of Tourism Research 57: 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Tsaur, Sheng-Hshiung, You-Yu Dai, and Jui-Shiang Liu. 2018. SOCO’s impact on service outcomes of tour guides: The moderating effect of customers’ shopping orientation. Current Issues in Tourism 21: 917–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Urban, Wieslaw. 2009. Organizational service orientation and its role in service performance formation: Evidence from Polish service industry. Measuring Business Excellence 13: 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Venugopal, Aparna, and Vadassery Gopakumar. 2010. An Experimental Modeling of a Service Blueprint Based on Inbound Travellers’ Point of View—Study at a Three Star Hotel in Calicut. i-Manager’s Journal on Management 5: 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Voon, Boo Ho. 2006. Linking a service-driven market orientation to service quality. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 16: 595–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Voon, Boo Ho. 2008. SERVMO: A Measure for Service-Driven Market Orientation in Higher Education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 17: 216–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Walsh, Kate, Song Chang, and Eliza Ching-Yick Tse. 2015. Understanding Students’ Intentions to Join the Hospitality Industry: The Role of Emotional Intelligence, Service Orientation, and Industry Satisfaction. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 56: 369–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. William, C. Murrey. 2022. Refining the service orientation scale (SOS-22) from inside the Canadian lodging sector. Tourism and Hospitality Management 28: 101–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wilson, Alan, Valarie A. Zeithaml, Mary Jo Bitner, and Dwayne D. Gremler. 2012. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm. London: McGraw Hill, vol. 2. [Google Scholar]
  106. Wilson, Alan, Valarie A. Zeithaml, Mary Jo Bitner, and Dwayne D. Gremler. 2020. EBK: Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Service Across the Firm 4e. London: McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar]
  107. Yang, Jen-Te. 2012. Identifying the attributes of blue ocean strategies in hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24: 701–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Yang, Yong, Fan Yang, Jingzhu Cao, and Bo Feng. 2020. The Multilevel Mechanism of Multifoci Service Orientation on Emotional Labor: Based on the Chinese Hospitality Industry. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 4314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zeithaml, Valarie A, and Stephen W. Brown. 2014. Profiting From Services and Solutions: What Product-Centric Firms Need to Know. Hampton: Business Expert Press. [Google Scholar]
  110. Zeithaml, Valarie A, Anantharanthan Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry. 1985. Problems and Strategies in Services Marketing. Journal of Marketing 49: 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zeithaml, Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry, and Anantharanthan Parasuraman. 1993. The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service. Academy of Marketing Science 21: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zeithaml, Valarie A., Mary Jo Bitnerand, and Dwayne D. Gremler. 2006. Service Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm. London: McGraw Hill, vol. 4. [Google Scholar]
  113. Zhu, Ying, Susan Freeman, and S. Tamer Cavusgil. 2018. Service quality delivery in a cross-national context. International Business Review 27: 1022–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 12 00107 g001 550
Figure 1. Nature of knowledge, based on Rossiter (2001).
Figure 1. Nature of knowledge, based on Rossiter (2001).
Admsci 12 00107 g001
Admsci 12 00107 g002 550
Figure 2. The PRISMA research data gathering and screening flowchart.
Figure 2. The PRISMA research data gathering and screening flowchart.
Admsci 12 00107 g002
Admsci 12 00107 g003 550
Figure 3. Mapping the categorical discussion.
Figure 3. Mapping the categorical discussion.
Admsci 12 00107 g003
Table
Table 1. Categorization of SO and methodology of reviewed articles.
Table 1. Categorization of SO and methodology of reviewed articles.
MethodologyEMPLOCS&P
Quantitative2653
(5)(4)(1)
Qualitative142
(1)(1)
Mixed methods201
Totals2996
(6)(5)(1)
Table
Table 2. Hospitality and tourism SO knowledge grid.
Table 2. Hospitality and tourism SO knowledge grid.
SO Categorization EMPLOCS&PEMPL + OCEMPL + S&P
FOK/DC
1
SOK/SF
3
SOK/EG
241 1
TOK/SP
24221
TOK/RP
3 24
Total
299651
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ásgeirsson, M.H.; Gudlaugsson, T.; Jóhannesson, G.T. State and Order of Service Orientation Knowledge in Hospitality and Tourism Research: Systematic Literature Review. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12030107

AMA Style

Ásgeirsson MH, Gudlaugsson T, Jóhannesson GT. State and Order of Service Orientation Knowledge in Hospitality and Tourism Research: Systematic Literature Review. Administrative Sciences. 2022; 12(3):107. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12030107

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ásgeirsson, Magnús Haukur, Thorhallur Gudlaugsson, and Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson. 2022. "State and Order of Service Orientation Knowledge in Hospitality and Tourism Research: Systematic Literature Review" Administrative Sciences 12, no. 3: 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12030107

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop