International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Administration, 10:253–269, 2009

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1525-6480 print/1528-6499 online
DOI: 10.1080/15256480903088469

Employee Motivation and Organizational

1528-6499 Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration
1525-6480
WJHT
International Administration, Vol. 10, No. 3, June 2009: pp. 1–29

Commitment: A Comparison of Tipped and

Nontipped Restaurant Employees

CATHERINE R. CURTIS
Employee
C. R. CurtisMotivation
et al. and Organizational Commitment

Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida,

Orlando, Florida, USA

RANDALL S. UPCHURCH
Center for Distributed Learning, University of Central Florida,
Orlando, Florida, USA

DENVER E. SEVERT
Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida,
Orlando, Florida, USA

This study explores motivational and organizational commitment

factors of tipped and nontipped restaurant employees when differ-
entiated by gender. The data collected from employees of a nationally-
known, branded restaurant chain was analyzed using the
ANOVA procedure in an effort to determine if significant
differences existed between the tipped and nontipped employees
relative to their level of motivation and organizational commitment.
The results show that limited differences do exist for certain
motivational factors and organizational commitment factors
when employees were differentiated by tipped versus nontipped
employee status and by gender. The study concludes by offering
management implications and suggestions for future research
relative to implementing operational systems, policies, and proce-
dures that attend to restaurant employee classification difference
as well as gender preference.

Received March 14, 2007; revisions received August 23, 2007; second revisions received
January 13, 2008; accepted January 21, 2008.
Address correspondence to Randall S. Upchurch, PhD, Center for Distributed Learning,
University of Central Florida, 3100 Technology Parkway, Orlando, FL 32816-3281 USA.
E-mail: rupchurc@mail.ucf.edu

253
254 C. R. Curtis et al.

KEYWORDS motivation, tipped employee, nontipped employee,

commitment

INTRODUCTION

The hospitality industry has faced many challenges throughout the years in
terms of managing, retaining, and motivating its human capital (Enz, 2001).
Unfortunately, service industry jobs have been touted to be high stress and
low pay which are factors that work against employee motivation and orga-
nizational commitment (Stamper & Van Dyne, 2003). However, motivation
and organizational commitment are factors that vary between individuals
making it hard to measure, categorize, and generalize (Meyer, Bobocel, &
Allen, 1991; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Nicholson, 2003; Simons & Enz,
1995; Zacarelli, 1985).
Employee motivation in the restaurant industry is vital to the future suc-
cess of restaurant organizations because if recognized correctly, managers
can avoid the high costs associated with turnover (Dermody, Young, & Taylor,
2004). Because competition is steady with other industries to attract and
retain workers to meet the demand of consumers, restaurant employers
stand to gain by achieving a better understanding of worker motivation. Enz
(2001) suggests that the number one problem in the hospitality industry is
the care and motivation of human capital. The high stress and low pay
associated with service industry jobs work against employee motivation
(Stamper & Van Dyne, 2003). However, others factors more along the lines
of intrinsic factors also affect the employee motivation. Various academic
researchers agree with this intrinsic approach by asserting that workplace
motivation primarily emanates from within the individual (Nicholson, 2003;
Simons & Enz, 1995, Zacarelli, 1985).
Organizational commitment research in the hospitality industry has
received interest in the academic arena concerning impacts upon operational
output metrics as well as client interactions. Luthans (1998) noted that job
design and managerial style influence the degree of employee commitment;
Janssen (2004) found that employee empowerment is closely associated
with organizational commitment and that commitment exists at both the
individual and the organizational level; and Meyer and Allen (1991) noted that
there are three types of organizational commitment: normative commitment,
affective commitment, and continuance commitment. Normative commitment
applies to the employee abiding by established organizational values; affec-
tive commitment refers to the degree to which the employee internalizes the
values of the organization; and continuance commitment relates to the
switching costs of maintaining membership or leaving the organization. Out
of these three types of commitment, it appears that affective commitment
has the strongest bearing to the hospitality industry due to the critical role
 Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment 255

that employees play in the provision of hospitality services. This growing

body of organizational commitment research aligns with the work by
Schuler and Jackson (1999) in that service provision is strongly related to
employee organizational commitment, employee turnover, and organiza-
tional output. Their findings indicate that human resource feedback systems,
construction of learning or performance communities, and delegation of
critical service functions to employees are critical to the provision of quality
services. More importantly there is evidence that management can design
and implement systems, policies and procedures that enhance worker satis-
faction and commitment while improving organizational performance.
Overall the previous research indicates that from an aggregate view the
interaction of motivational factors and employee organizational commitment
is very relevant and worthy of further study within the hospitality industry.

BACKGROUND LITERATURE
Motivation Research: Tipped Employees
Literature on restaurant industry employees, both hourly tipped and nontipped
restaurant employees, demonstrate that these frontline service agents perform
a critical role in restaurant operations (Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & Taylor, 2004).
Therefore, given the importance of their function to organizational output it
is natural assumption that management should understand the presence or
absence of unique differences of tipped and nontipped employees relative
to their motivation and degree of organizational commitment.
According to Azar (2003, p. 1084), “tipping is a phenomenon that illus-
trates that economic behavior is often motivated by social norms and
psychological reasons.” This statement clearly reflects upon the economic,
psychological, and sociological underpinnings associated with tipped service
positions. In reference to the magnitude of tipped positions it has been noted
that there are over 33 service professions that receive tips (Lynn, Zinkhan, &
Harris, 1993), and that each year over 3 million people earn tipped income
within the United States alone (Azar, 2003; Wessels, 1997). Azar (2003) claims
that tipping has implications for economics and management in four ways:
(a) it is a social norm tipping and thus has implications for social economics,
(b) people tip because of feelings of embarrassment or unfairness signifying
implications for behavioral economics, (c) tipping is a source of income for
over 3 million people so tipping is connected with labor economics, and
(d) suggests that tips are a form of consumer monitoring, an incentive for
workers to provide good service, suggesting that companies should monitor
the performance of tipped employees versus nontipped employees.
Weaver (1988) states that hourly employees in the hotel industry are
better in tune with their motivation needs as opposed to management. In
addition, employees frequently perceive motivation programs as “hot air.”
256 C. R. Curtis et al.

In response to those feelings, Weaver (1988) developed Theory M as an

explanation of hourly employee motivation. The main postulate of this
theory is that employees are strongly driven by the notion that they should
be paid what they are worth (Weaver, 1988). According to Weaver (1988),
raising minimum wage will not produce the same effect as the incentive
because it is not the same as being paid for what you are worth. Weaver
(1988) argues that if all tipped employees’ wages were tied to their output,
the industry may be able to solve inherent motivation problems.
Wong, Siu, and Tsang (1999) utilized Kovach’s 10 job factors survey in
the same manner ranking the 10 job motivating factors 1–10, with 1 as the
most important and 10 as the least important. Wong, Siu, & Tsang (1999)
divided the 10 job motivating factors into two variables: intrinsic and extrinsic
variables. The intrinsic variables consisted of a feeling of involvement,
supervisor’s help with personal problems, interesting work, promotion or
career development, supervisor’s help with personal problems, and full
appreciation of a job well done. The extrinsic variables are: job security, good
wages, tactful discipline, and good working conditions (Wong et al., 1999).
Simons and Enz (1995) also applied the same 10 job factors survey in
the US and Canada surveying hotel workers, ranking the 10 job motivating
factors 1–10 with 1 as the most important and 10 as the least important. Their
studied revealed that different departments within a hotel respond to different
motivators. They found significant differences in some demographic variables
such as age but no significance in gender. Simons and Enz (1995) recommend
asking an individual if you do not know their motivation.
Wong et al. (1999) study illustrated some characteristics of employees
in relation to motivation. More specifically, some gender differences in that
females were more inclined to value recognition factors like: “Appreciation
and praise for a job well done,” and “feeling of being involved,” and,
“interesting work.” The intrinsic factors differed for females, unmarried
employees, employees with higher education, and employees earning
higher wages. Married workers also preferred more intrinsic factors. The
researchers speculated reasons for this may include the desire to develop
their career, and in turn demand better treatment from management (Wong
et al., 1999).
Furthermore, the study demonstrated differences in job factors between
management and hourly employees, where job security was more important
to managers (Kovach, 1995; Wong et al., 1999). Evidence showed that moti-
vational preferences also differed by department (Simons & Enz, 1995;
Wong et al., 1999). The researchers suggest that due to the popularity of the
factors across all demographic levels: interesting work, and opportunities
for advancement and promotion, and a feeling of being involved should be
integrated into an employee motivation program along with providing
quality training programs, encouraging employee participation, and redesign-
ing current jobs (Wong et al., 1999).
 Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment 257

On the other hand, the study by Charles and Marshall (1992) found that
the respondents were high school graduates between the ages of 25–29,
mostly female with high guest interaction in nonsupervisory roles. The top
motivators for workers in this environment were: good wages, good work-
ing conditions, and appreciation for a job well done. However, the authors
note that this study is not conclusive and should be performed in other
Caribbean locations or other developing countries to test the reliability
(Charles & Marshall, 1992).
Furthermore, Simons and Enz (1995) found respondents reporting that
good wages, job security, and opportunities for advancement and develop-
ment were the most important to hospitality workers in the US and Canada
(Simons & Enz, 1995). According to Simons & Enz, (1995), this study dem-
onstrated that there were not any significant differences between females
and males in the US and in Canada in motivational factors.
However, the study demonstrated many differences between industrial
workers and hospitality workers (Simons & Enz, 1995). The top three
motivators for industrial workers were: interesting work, appreciation of
work done, and the feeling of being in on things (Kovach, 1995; Simons &
Enz, 1995). Simons and Enz (1995) offer explanations to the intrinsic
variables mentioned foremost for the industrial workers. The assertion is
that industrial workers are usually paid based on their skill level and as their
skill level increases, their pay increases (Simons & Enz, 1995). The authors
claim that the low wages associated with service sector jobs, job security,
and opportunities for advancement may be the frustrations that current
hotel workers are experiencing (Lo & Lamm, 2005; Simons & Enz, 1995).
The existing literature testing theories on employee motivation has
found contradictory results which maybe due to the geographic area and
industry in which the study was performed. The contradictory results
demonstrate the importance of continued investigation and examination of
motivational factors within the hospitality industry.

Organizational Commitment Research

Many definitions exists for organizational commitment beginning with
Becker (1960, p. 33) describing the concept of commitment as, “consistent
lines of activity.” For the purpose of this study, organizational commitment
is defined as relative strength of an individual’s identification with and
involvement in a particular organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979).
Organization commitment has received much attention in social science lit-
erature and has been studied in the hospitality literature with various
approaches and theories. This study approaches existing theories of organi-
zational commitment divided into four categories: organization commitment
defined by Mowday et al. (1979); based off of the prior work of Becker
(1960); the development of side-bet theory from Meyer & Allen (1991); and
258 C. R. Curtis et al.

social relationships and organizational commitment by Madsen, Miller, and

John (2005), which has had various applications in the hospitality industry.
McIntyre (2006) sampled from a variety of industries, including hospitality
institutions. Results showed strong evidence that service climate was correlated
with employee attitudes of job satisfaction, job involvement, and affective
organizational commitment. At the individual analysis level the relationship
between service climate and both job involvement and affective organizational
commitment was accentuated for employees with higher levels of customer
service orientation than for those with lower customer service orientation.
Hsu (2003) surveyed employees from several hotels and restaurants
responded and found a positive relationship between communication
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Employee satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment was strongly related to the degree to which goals
and values were communicated to the employees.
Fang (2001) surveyed 177 employees from four hospitality companies to
examine how job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, self-efficacy, and overall job characteristics) and self-efficacy may
independently and interactively influence organizational commitment. Predic-
tive effects were found between skill variety and task significance exerted a
strong influence upon the degree of employee organizational commitment.
Lee (2000) conducted a study to identify the impact of interpersonal
working relationships on hotel employees’ justice perceptions and the
effects of those perceptions on employees’ work-related attitudes and behavior
in the hospitality industry. This study also indicated empirical evidence of
that the higher the degree of employee organizational commitment the
lower the organization’s turnover rate. It appears that the quality of interper-
sonal working relationships positively impacted employees’ perceptions of
fairness and therefore their degree of commitment.
Salazar (2000) postulated that the psychological dimensions of job satis-
faction and employee commitment can differ according to race and gender.
Data were collected at three different lodging properties located in the
Southeastern US. The results of the study indicate that empowerment is
related to employee organizational commitment. The implications for man-
agement are that human resource strategies should take into consideration
gender and ethnic difference that influence the degree of an employee’s
organizational commitment.
Cha (1996) indicated that there is a service orientation discrepancy
between managers and employees. Employees saw themselves as more
enthusiastic and less bureaucratic than managers and this service orientation
was inversely correlated with employee organizational commitment. Hence
the higher the level of service orientation the stronger the degree of the
employee’s organizational commitment. The implications for management
center on designing training, communication, and motivational programs
and other human resource management programs for employees.
 Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment 259

STUDY PURPOSE

Certainly the topic of employee motivation and organizational commitment

has received exposure within the hospitality literature, but to date there
has not been a single reported study that has profiled hourly tipped and
nontipped restaurant workers’ motivations and organizational commitment
relationship. For that reason, this article addresses this lack of information
with hope that effective management strategies can be developed so as to
cultivate motivational and organizational commitment needs associated with
tipped and nontipped employees.

STUDY HYPOTHESES

This study sought to determine if significant differences exist between

tipped and nontipped employees on a predetermined set of motivational
and organizational commitment factors. The following four hypotheses are
posed to test the presence of differences between tipped and nontipped
employees and by gender.

H1: There is no significant difference between tipped and nontipped

employee mean ratings concerning Kovach’s 12 motivational
factors.
H2: There is no significant difference between genders as measured
by Kovach’s 12 motivational factors.
H3: There is no significant difference between tipped and nontipped
employees as measured by Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s 9 organiza-
tional commitment factors.
H4: There is no significant difference between gender as measured
by Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s 9 organizational commitment
factors.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Restaurant operators in particular employ two groups of employees, sala-

ried and hourly employees. Salaried employees are not investigated in this
study whereas the hourly employees are of interest to this study as further
differentiated by tipped versus nontipped status. For the purpose of this
study, nontipped hourly employees are defined as employees that depend
on an hourly wage as their main source of income and generally do not
receive any income from tips or gratuities. Conversely, tipped employees
are defined as employees are those that depend on the receipt of tips as
their main source of income.
260 C. R. Curtis et al.

This study employed a convenience sampling process whereby 104

hourly tipped and nontipped employees from a single branded, national
restaurant chain located in the metropolitan area of Orlando, Florida. In
order not to interfere with service operations, the researcher administered the
surveys to hourly tipped and nontipped employees during the late afternoon
and prior to each restaurant’s nightly dinner rush. This prevented the staff
from performing their duties during peak business hours and controlled for
differences in results due to time of the day and day of the week.

Instrumentation
The survey questionnaire instrument was comprised of demographic questions,
twelve motivation questions based on a scale developed by Kovach (1995),
and nine organizational commitment questions based on the work of
Mowday et al. (1979). Both dependent measures (motivation and organiza-
tional commitment factors) were set to a 5-point Likert scale.
The first portion of the survey collected demographic data about the
participants. This was critical as gender, age, race, education level, marital
status, job type and tenure, and tenure in the industry.
The 12 motivational factor items included: a feeling of being involved,
job security, supervisor’s help with personal problems, good wages, interesting
work, tactful discipline, promotion or career development, good working con-
ditions, management/supervisor loyalty to employees, gratitude for a job well
done, monetary incentives for a job well done, and public celebration for a job
well done. These questions were answered in a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 to 5 representing from very unimportant to very important respectively.
This was used to understand the motivations of hourly tipped or nontipped
restaurant workers. The Cronbach Alpha measurement for the motivational
scale was 0.920 thus indicating strong rating reliability among the raters.
The third section of the survey was comprised of the shortened organ-
izational commitment OCQ inventory from Mowday et al. (1979). The nine
statements were:

1. I would accept almost any job to keep working for this organization.
2. I find that my values and organization’s values are very similar.
3. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.
4. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job
performance.
5. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others
I was considering at the time I joined.
6. I really care about the fate of this organization.
7. For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.
8. I know what is expected of me at my job.
9. I am able to do what I do best every day.
 Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment 261

These questions were answered in a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =

strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach Alpha reliability statistic
for the organizational commitment scale was 0.854 indicating strong internal
consistency of measurement.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Demographic Profile of Respondents
A total of 104 surveys were administered and collected on site. All 104 were
used for analysis. The sample of respondents consisted of a slightly higher
female percentage (56.3%). The majority of the respondents were white
(68.9%), followed by Hispanics (13.6%). A large portion of the respondents
(31.1%) were age 20 and younger, with another large segment between the
ages of 21–25 at (29.1%), displaying that 60.2% was age 25 and younger.
The next highest portions were those aged 36 and older at making up
15.5%, followed by 31–35, making up 12.6% and 26–30 making up 11.7%.
Employees were 85.4% tipped and 14.6% were nontipped.

Hypothesis Results
Table 1 indicates that the null hypothesis of no significant difference
between mean ratings for tipped versus nontipped employees on Kovach’s
motivational factors was rejected only for the factors of interesting work
(p = .048), promotion or career development (p = .008), and gratitude for a
job well done (p = .022) otherwise indicating general agreement regardless
of tipped status on the remaining nine items.
Table 2 demonstrates that null Hypothesis 2 was rejected on six of
Kovach’s motivational factors. In particular, job security (p = .027), interest-
ing work (p = .035), promotion and career development (p = .032), and
good working conditions (p = .005), gratitude for a job well done (p = .003),
and monetary incentives for a job well done (p = .001) were all found to
reflect significant differences between males and female mean ratings. An
interesting note is that the mean ratings were higher for females than of
their male counterparts thus implying that there are gender differences
present which in turn indicates that operators can facilitate worker perfor-
mance and satisfaction by concentrating on gender related motivational fac-
tors that serve to attract and enhance gender performance. This observation
extends past the present findings but it does shed light on the possibility
that attending to differing motivational factors can make a difference in
worker and organizational performance which would agree with previous
research (Enz, 2001; Hsu, 2000; Salazar, 2000; Simon & Enz, 1995).
The null hypothesis testing for no difference between tipped and non-
tipped employees on the organizational commitment factors was not upheld
262 C. R. Curtis et al.

TABLE 1 Employee Motivation ANOVA of Tipped versus Nontipped

Employee motivation item

(Name) Position Mean1 Rank Std. dev. n F Sig.2

Promotion or career Tipped 4.17 0.985 88 7.280 0.008*

development Nontipped 4.87 1 0.352 15
Gratitude for a job well done Tipped 4.28 0.958 88 5.382 0.022*
Nontipped 4.87 1 0.352 15
Good working conditions Tipped 4.51 0.897 88 1.450 0.231
Nontipped 4.80 2 0.561 15
Job security Tipped 4.45 0.870 88 1.422 0.236
Nontipped 4.73 3 0.594 15
A feeling of being involved Tipped 4.31 0.835 88 2.617 0.109
Nontipped 4.67 4 0.488 15
Interesting work Tipped 4.18 0.909 87 4.008 0.048*
Nontipped 4.67 4 0.488 15
Good wages Tipped 4.43 0.960 87 .881 0.350
Nontipped 4.67 4 0.617 15
Supervisor loyalty to employees Tipped 4.56 0.895 88 .208 0.649
Nontipped 4.67 4 0.617 15
Tactful discipline Tipped 4.15 0.824 88 1.477 0.227
Nontipped 4.43 5 0.646 14
Monetary incentives for a job Tipped 3.86 1.069 87 1.952 0.165
well done Nontipped 4.27 6 0.799 15
Supervisor’s help with personal Tipped 3.61 1.254 88 .290 0.592
issues Nontipped 3.80 7 1.146 15
Public celebration for a job well Tipped 3.26 1.077 88 1.318 0.254
done Nontipped 3.60 8 0.910 15
Note. Rank order is based on nontipped category on highest to lowest mean. Five-point Likert scale: 1 = very
unimportant, 5 = very important.
*p < .05.

for all nine of the factors. This finding indicates there is no difference in the
perceptions of the tipped versus nontipped employees, thus indicating
general agreement on the level of commitment for both employee classifica-
tions (Table 3). In terms of the mean ratings the organizational commitment
scale shows consistency of measurement between respondents on the items
rated. More importantly this organizational commitment scale appears to
have measured what it was intended to measure, meaning the degree of
organizational commitment expressed by the individual. This finding holds
great promise of using this tool within the broader hospitality industry
which, of course, should be tested within other settings to prove this
assumption.
When the null hypothesis testing concerning no difference in the mean
ratings was filtered by gender it was discovered that two of the nine factors
were significant at the .05 probability level. This finding indicates that both
females and males believed that their values were closely aligned with the
organization’s expressed values, and both genders were generally comfortable
with their choice of this particular employer as their preferred organization
 Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment 263

TABLE 2 Employee Motivation ANOVA and Gender

Employee motivation variable Gender Mean Rank Std. dev. F Sig.

Good working conditions Female 4.76 1 0.657 8.083 0.005*

Male 4.29 1.014
Job security Female 4.66 2 0.762 5.024 0.027*
Male 4.29 0.895
Supervisor loyalty to employees Female 4.66 2 0.751 1.224 0.271
Male 4.47 1.014
Gratitude for a job well done Female 4.60 3 0.748 9.373 0.003*
Male 4.07 1.031
Good wages Female 4.60 3 0.799 2.868 0.093
Male 4.29 1.036
Promotion or career development Female 4.45 4 0.776 4.729 0.032*
Male 4.04 1.107
Interesting work Female 4.41 5 0.650 4.589 0.035*
Male 4.05 1.077
A feeling of being involved Female 4.40 6 0.836 .285 0.595
Male 4.31 0.763
Tactful discipline Female 4.30 7 0.755 2.537 0.114
Male 4.04 0.852
Monetary incentives for a job well done Female 4.21 8 0.969 11.121 0.001*
Male 3.55 1.022
Supervisor’s help with personal problems Female 3.83 9 1.142 3.097 0.081
Male 3.40 1.321
Public celebration for a job well done Female 3.36 10 1.055 .311 0.578
Male 3.24 1.069
Note. Rank order is based on female category from highest to lowest mean. Five-point Likert scale: 1 =
very unimportant, 5 = very important.
*p < .05.

of choice (Table 4). The two variables that showed a significant difference
pertained to the alignment of personal values with those expressed by the
organization and the assessment that the respondent was pleased with their
choice of this employer versus other possible employer options that were
available. This finding indicates that the alignment of the females’ value system
with that of the organization’s value system carried a higher level of
importance than it did for their male counterparts which has ramifications
for hospitality operators in terms of worker satisfaction and perhaps per-
formance output. A secondary and unintended finding relative to these
organizational commitment items is that the organizational commitment
scales showed a remarkable ability to assess the organizational climate for
this restaurant sample. If this finding can be replicated in other restaurant
settings then the instrument as developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter
clearly shows great promise in assessing organizational commitment within the
restaurant sector of the hospitality industry. The importance of this observation
is that previous studies have already shown linkages between organizational
commitment and performance indicators thus indicating that restaurant
264 C. R. Curtis et al.

TABLE 3 Organizational Commitment by Tipped and Nontipped Status

Tipped vs.
Organizational commitment variable nontipped Mean Rank Std. dev. F Sig.

I know what is expected of me at tipped 4.57 0.64 .03 0.86

my job. nontipped 4.60 1 0.63
I am able to do what I do best tipped 4.51 0.66 .30 0.58
every day. nontipped 4.40 2 1.05
I really care about the fate of this tipped 3.92 0.76 2.9 0.09
organization. nontipped 4.27 3 0.45
I am proud to tell others that I am tipped 3.98 0.85 .14 0.71
part of this organization. nontipped 4.07 4 0.88
I find that my values and tipped 3.76 0.85 .45 0.50
organization’s values are very
similar. nontipped 3.93 5 1.22
I am extremely glad that I chose tipped 3.79 0.95 .07 0.78
this organization to work for over
others I was considering at the
time I joined. nontipped 3.87 6 0.83
This organization really inspires the tipped 3.66 0.91 .31 0.57
very best in me in the way of job
performance. nontipped 3.80 7 0.94
For me, this is the best of all possible tipped 3.14 1.12 .17 0.67
organizations for which to work. nontipped 3.27 8 1.03
I would accept almost any job to tipped 2.70 1.05 .09 0.75
keep working for this
organization. nontipped 2.80 9 1.37
Note. Rank order is based on nontipped category from highest to lowest mean. Scale: 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Scale: 1 = Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree.
Note: Rank order is based on nontipped category from highest to lowest mean.

operators can therefore mold and modify their systems, practices, and policies
to enhance worker performance and organizational output.
Overall, the general agreement expressed indicates that this particular
organization is very effective at communicating their goals, mission, and
values out to their workforce and is also capable at cultivating their mission,
goals, and values across employee classifications.

CONCLUSIONS

Employee motivation is vital to the success of organizations as noted by

various researchers (Meyer et al., 1991; Mowday et al., 1979; Nicholson,
2003; Simons & Enz, 1995; Zacarelli, 1985). Some of the more salient con-
cerns noted in this research is that a lack of employee motivation may
cause organizational problems in turnover, retention, morale, and poor
productivity. Certainly, restaurant operations are not unfamiliar with these
human resource issues, however, many restaurants choose to accept these
 Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment 265

TABLE 4 Organizational Commitment by Gender

Organizational commitment variable Gender Mean Rank Std. dev. F Sig.

I know what is expected of me at my job. Female 4.52 1 0.59 1.01 0.316

Male 4.64 0.67
I am able to do what I do best every day. Female 4.50 2 0.65 0.006 0.939
Male 4.49 0.81
I am proud to tell others that I am part of Female 4.12 3 0.78 3.24 0.075
this organization. Male 3.81 0.93
I really care about the fate of this Female 4.05 4 0.63 1.62 0.206
organization. Male 3.87 0.84
I find that my values and organization’s Female 4.02 5 0.78 9.13 0.003*
values are very similar. Male 3.49 0.99
I am extremely glad that I chose this Female 3.97 6 0.89 4.15 0.044*
organization to work for over others I
was considering at the time I joined. Male 3.59 0.95
This organization really inspires the very Female 3.7 7 1.01 0.098 0.755
best in me in the way of job
performance. Male 3.68 0.91
For me, this is the best of all possible Female 3.33 8 1.06 3.27 0.073
organizations for which to work. Male 2.93 1.13
I would accept almost any job to keep Female 2.71 9 1.17 .015 0.904
working for this organization. Male 2.73 1.09
Note. Rank order is based on female category from highest to lowest mean.
*p < .05.

issues as part of the business or utilize ineffective, archaic motivational

techniques.
Recognition of the problem of employee motivation is the first step a
restaurant organization may choose to tackle the problem. Given the under-
standing that the restaurant is comprised of two different types of employee,
the tipped employee and the nontipped employee, employers must under-
stand that differing needs may exist for these employee groups, and if they
do then varied systems, procedures, and polices might need to be deployed
so as to positively impact employee and organizational performance factors.
There have been numerous studies concerning employee motivation
but this body of research did focus on differences between tipped and non-
tipped employees. Therefore the present study was performed to examine
current restaurant front-of-the-house personnel’s motivations and commitment
as differentiated by tipped status. To better understand the motivation and
organization commitment of current restaurant employees, this research
focused on the front of the house motivations as a whole, the individual
employment groups’ motivations, demographic impacts on motivation, and the
relationship between employee motivation and organization commitment.
In general, the top motivational factors for this group of employees
showed that management loyalty to employees, good working conditions, job
security, and good wages all top motivators. Less important to employees
266 C. R. Curtis et al.

were supervisor’s help with personal problems and public celebration for a
job well done.
Respondent differences were discovered between motivators between
tipped and nontipped employees with nontipped employees reporting at a
statistically significant difference much higher scores across the motivators
of interesting work, possibility for promotion or career development, and
gratitude for a job well done. One speculation given the nature of tipped
jobs is that perhaps tipped employees, due to the practice of tipping are
much more like subcontractors in that work interest, promotion room and
gratitude may pale in comparison to excellent tips. Given the pay difference
between tipped and nontipped hourly employees which is typically significant,
we may venture a guess that intrinsic motivators are higher for nontipped
than tipped and in the case of interesting work, chance for promotion and
gratitude for a job well done, our premise is supported. Significant differ-
ences did not exist regarding the motivation factors of involvement, job
security, supervisor’s help with personal problems, good wages, tactful dis-
cipline, good working conditions, manager loyalty to employees, monetary
incentives and public celebration for a job well done. It should not be over-
looked that all these motivators were consistently ranked as more important
to nontipped employees as well which implies a universal and accepted
approach to employee motivation and to the deployment of work conditions
that create the perception of a positive work environment.
By viewing differences across position, the only significant difference
between host, bartender, and server was in promotion or career development
again offering support for the earlier deduction about suggesting that tipped
employees including bartenders and servers may not be seeking or interested
in promotion particularly given the relatively high pay of those positions as
compared with hostess positions.
Prior research reviewed for this study revealed that gender had a signif-
icant difference in wages in the Caribbean hotel worker study (Charles &
Marshall, 1992), gender had no significance in the US and Canada hotel
worker study (Simons & Enz, 1995), and in the Hong Kong hotel worker
study differences were reported, females preferred interesting work, feeling
of being involved, good working conditions and gratitude for a job well
done, (Wong et al., 1999). The one-way analysis of variance was conducted
to explore the impact of gender and the employee motivation factors in this
study of national chain restaurant hourly tipped and nontipped employees.
For this study, results were mixed in that gender accounted for differences
on 6 of the 12 motivational items and for 2 of the organizational commit-
ment factors. The motivational factors encompassed work security, praise
for a job well done, good working conditions, promotion or career develop-
ment, and gratitude for a job well done, and the latter concerned the alignment
of personal values with organizational values as well as comfort with their
decision to choose their present employer.
 Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment 267

The results of this study provide a small snapshot of the employee

motivation and organizational commitment of tipped and nontipped
employees within one casual and branded restaurant location. Overall there
was general agreement with the respondents when differentiated by
tipped status or by gender thus indicating the existence of an organizational
environment that focuses on systems, practices, and polices that promote
worker commitment.

Future Studies
This is a single-site study with limited application due to that fact thereby
indicating that additional studies within similar settings and varied settings
are suggested with a larger sample bases to confirm these findings. Further-
more, additional studies need to be designed that focus on the intrinsic
motivators of servers versus other front-of-the-house staff positions as well
as between men and women regarding motivators within the restaurant
sector. This would serve to confirm the ability of the present findings and
scales (motivation and organizational commitment) to generalize to the
broader industry as a whole. Studies could also be done across a broader
range of restaurants with higher or lower service standards. Given the
findings here, it is likely managers may decide to use different tactics to
motivate tipped versus nontipped employees due to situational specifics
within their organization. Finally, further exploration of the tipped organiza-
tional commitment and citizenship behaviors of employees would be inter-
esting considering the sub-contracting nature of many tipped jobs
particularly when we combine the fact that a large majority of the tipped
employees income comes from tips paid by the consumer and not wages
paid by the organization.

REFERENCES

Azar, O. (2003). The implications of tipping for economics and management. Inter-
national Journal of Social Economics, 30, 1084–1094.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. The American Journal
of Sociology, 66(1), 32–40.
Cha, S.-B. (1996). Service orientation discrepancy between managers and employees and
its impact on the affective reactions of employees: A case study of casual restaurant
segment (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
1995). Worldcat Dissertations and Theses, 56(9), 3643–3815. (AAT No. 9544238)
Charles, K. R., & Marshall, L.H. (1992). Motivational preferences of Caribbean hotel
workers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 4(3),
25–29.
Dermody, M., Young, M., & Taylor, S. (2004). Identifying job motivation factors of
restaurant servers: Insight for the development of effective recruitment and
268 C. R. Curtis et al.

retention strategies. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Adminis-

tration, 5(3), 1–14.
Enz, C.A. (2001). What keeps you up at night? Key issues of concern for lodging man-
agers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 38–45.
Fang, M. (2001). Job characteristics and self-efficacy as predictors of organizational
commitment (Master’s thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2002). Worldcat
Dissertations and Theses, 40(2), 326–397. (AAT No. 1406395)
Hsu, S. C. (2003). Internal marketing in the hospitality industry: Communication sat-
isfaction and organizational commitment (Master’s thesis, Eastern Michigan
University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(1), 112–169. (AAT
No. 1410019)
Janssen, O. (2004). The barrier effect of conflict with superiors in the relationship
between employee empowerment and organizational commitment. Work &
Stress, 18(1), 56–65.
Kovach, K. A. (1995). Employee motivation: Addressing a crucial factor in your
organization’s performance. Employment Relations Today, 22, 93–107.
Lee, H.-R. (2000). An empirical study of organizational justice as a mediator of the
relationships among leader-member exchange and job satisfaction, organiza-
tional commitment, and turnover intentions in the lodging industry (Doctoral
Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2000). Disserta-
tions Abstracts International, 61(06), 2379–2558. (AAT No. 9974193)
Lo, K., & Lamm, F. (2005). Occupational stress in the hospitality industry – An
employment relations perspective. New Zealand Journal of Employment Rela-
tions, 30(1), 23–47.
Luthans, F. (1998). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). Boston: Irwin-McGraw Hill.
Lynn, M., Zinkhan, G. M., & Harris, J. (1993). Consumer tipping: A cross country
study. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 478–488.
Madsen, S. R., Miller, D., & John, C. R. (2005). Readiness for organizational change:
Do organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace make
a difference? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 213–233.
McIntyre, K. (2006). Understanding a climate for customer service (Doctoral disser-
tation, Colorado State University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International,
66(8), 4523–4637. (AAT No. 3185524)
Meyer, J., Bobocel, D., & Allen, N. (1991). AddedDevelopment of organizational
commitment during the first year of employment: A longitudinal study of pre-
and post-entry influences. Journal of Management, 17, 716–734.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organi-
zational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organiza-
tional commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
Nicholson, N. (2003). How to motivate your problem people. Harvard Business
Review, 81(1), 56–65.
Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L., & Taylor, A. (2004). The relationships between food service
wait staff skills, satisfaction, commitment and their levels of customer orientation.
International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 5(2), 43–59.
Salazar, J. P. (2000). The relationships between hospitality employee empowerment,
overall job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A study of race and
 Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment 269

gender differences (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 2000). Worldcat

Dissertations and Theses, 61(3), 1075– 1188. (AAT No. 9965765)
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Strategic human resource management.
Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Simons, T., & Enz, C. (1995). Motivating hotel employees. Cornell Hotel and Restau-
rant Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 20–27.
Stamper, C., & Van Dyne, L. (2003). Organizational citizenship: A comparison
between part-time and full-time service employees. Cornell Hotel and Restau-
rant Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 33–42.
Weaver, T. (1988). Theory M: Motivating with money. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 40–45.
Wessels, W. J. (1997). Minimum wages and tipped servers. Economic Inquiry, 35,
334–349.
Wong, S., Siu, V., & Tsang, N. (1999). The impact of demographic factors on Hong
Kong hotel employees’ choice of job-related motivators. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11 (5), 230–241.
Zacarelli, H. (1985). Is the hospitality-foodservice industry turning its employees on
or off? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 4(3), 123–124.