Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhtm

Informal learning research in hospitality and tourism: A systematic

literature review
Justice K. Kodom-Wiredu *, Alan Coetzer, Janice Redmond, Jalleh Sharafizad
School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Informal learning (IL) in hospitality and tourism (H&T) is a significant contributor to improving individual and
Continuous learning organisational performance. However, prior research in this field is fragmented and there is a need to assemble
Experiential learning and evaluate these studies. This paper presents the first known systematic review and critique of the literature in
Informal learning
this field. A filtered search resulted in 70 empirical studies published in ABDC ranked journals. Analysis of the
Self-directed learning
Work-based learning
studies revealed the following: (1) concentration of research in developed-country contexts, (2) limited explo­
Hospitality and tourism ration of theories that encapsulate both personal and work environment factors that might influence partici­
pation in informal learning, (3) lack of research designs that incorporate rigour such as multi-source data, mixed-
methods, causality testing, or multilevel analysis, and (4) limited exploration of the antecedents and outcomes of
employees’ engagement in IL activities. Drawing on these findings, the paper provides several suggestions for
future research.

1. Introduction H&T industry.

There have been significant changes to the learning approaches used
by organisations over the years (Nolan, Garavan, & Lynch, 2020). Or­
ganisations operate in complex environments, which do not favour a
reliance solely on formal learning for addressing knowledge and skill
needs (Dachner, Ellingson, Noe, & Saxton, 2021). Additionally, there
has been an increasing emphasis on informal learning (IL) to continu­
ously improve employee knowledge and skills through self-initiated
learning.
The hospitality and tourism (H&T) industry is rapidly growing across
global economies. In 2019, H&T globally created 330 million jobs and
contributed 10.3% (US$8.9 trillion) to GDP (World Travel & Tourism
Council, 2020). The industry provides a wide range of services which
require employees who possess job-specific knowledge and skills and the
ability to continuously learn to meet changing consumer demands
(Adeyinka-Ojo, 2018). Within the industry, formal training is important
for quality service delivery. However, in general, job knowledge and
skills are acquired predominantly through IL processes (Kleefstra, Altan,
& Stoffers, 2020; Ruhanen, 2006). Evidence suggests that 70–90% of
learning takes place at the workplace (Eraut, 2011; Noe, Tews, & Mar­
and, 2013) and the same would be true for employee learning in the
The study of IL in the H&T industry is of practical and scholarly
significance. From a practice perspective, the dynamic nature of the
industry coupled with changing customer demands and regulatory re­
quirements create an imperative for employees to autonomously learn
on an ongoing basis (Nolan et al., 2020). According to Tracey (2014),
factors such as reliance on low-skill workers in some sectors of the in­
dustry and high fixed costs favour IL practices. IL is cost effective,
employee-directed and occurs on a continuous basis (CIPD, 2015; Jo­
seph & Totawar, 2020). Furthermore, lockdowns in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic have forced many businesses within the industry to
close for extended periods (Hite & McDonald, 2020; Kaushal & Srivas­
tava, 2021), drawing attention to the economic plight of the industry
and highlights the need for these businesses to be more cost-conscious
and self-sufficient. One way to cope with the financial challenges
brought on by the pandemic is to foster IL within workplaces (Watkins &
Marsick, 2021) rather than rely on external providers.
Researchers have highlighted the positive contributions of IL to the
bottom line of H&T firms to demonstrate its value (Burke, 2018;
Kleefstra et al., 2020), yet research on IL in the industry remains low
(Tracey & Swart, 2020). Identifying areas for future research with the
aim of stimulating IL research in the industry is therefore important. A

* Corresponding author. 270 Joondalup Dr, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia.

E-mail addresses: jkodomwi@our.ecu.edu.au (J.K. Kodom-Wiredu), a.coetzer@ecu.edu.au (A. Coetzer), j.redmond@ecu.edu.au (J. Redmond), j.sharafizad@ecu.
edu.au (J. Sharafizad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.05.011
Received 17 December 2021; Received in revised form 3 April 2022; Accepted 21 May 2022
Available online 6 June 2022
1447-6770/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of CAUTHE - COUNCIL FOR AUSTRALASIAN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY EDUCATION. All
rights reserved.
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.
systematic review of IL research can help to advance this goal. Existing
IL-related reviews in the H&T industry have focused on virtual learning
(Teare & O’Hern, 2000), benefits of workplace learning (Teare, 2011),
human resource development (Tracey, 2014), and training and devel­
opment (Tracey & Swart, 2020). Additionally, Cecil’s (2012) conceptual
framework for service learning and Drew, Woodside, Martin, and
Woodside’s (2009) editorial on experimental learning exercises for H&T
managers shed light on the scope of IL in the industry. While each of
these papers provide insight into learning in the H&T industry, to our
knowledge there is no systematic review that provides a compendium of
IL research in this industry.
Given the prevalence and increasing importance of IL and its cost
savings benefits, it is imperative to critically review research in the H&T
industry. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to systematically and
critically evaluate existing studies that have explored IL in the industry
to provide directions for further research. Specifically, this systematic
review sought to answer the following research questions in the H&T
context:
(1) In which national contexts has IL research been conducted?
(2) What theories have been employed in existing IL research?
(3) What methods have been employed and who are the participants
that have been involved in IL research?
(4) What antecedents (personal and environmental) and outcomes
(individual, group and organisational) of IL have been explored
by researchers?
Regarding the antecedents and outcomes, IL is influenced by several
factors, and results in a myriad of outcomes. As concerns antecedents, IL
can be influenced by both the personal characteristics of the learner and
the work context (Cerasoli et al., 2018). People’s predispositions and
demographics can determine the extent of their involvement in IL ac­
tivities (Tannenbaum, Beard, McNall, & Salas, 2010). Predispositions
such as goal-orientation, learning orientation, motivation and
self-efficacy have been reported to relate with IL (Cerasoli et al., 2018;
Choi & Jacobs, 2011). Additionally, demographic characteristics such as
age, education, rank, and experience can be related to IL (Berg &
Chyung, 2008; Rastogi & Karatepe, 2021). In terms of work context,
factors such as task variety (Froehlich, Segers, Beausaert, & Kremer,
2019), supervisor and peer support (Choi & Jacobs, 2011) and work
autonomy (Gijbels, Raemdonck, Vervecken, & Van Herck, 2012) have
been found to influence IL at the workplace. Regarding outcomes,
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework (3-P model: adapted from Tynjälä, 2013).
14
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28
several individual, group/team and organisational outcomes have been
linked with IL. Examples include employability (Froehlich et al., 2019),
opportunities for cooperation (Kyndt, Vermeire, & Cabus, 2016), and
organisational competitiveness (Froehlich, Segers, & Van den Bossche,
2014).
2. Informal learning and conceptual framework
IL is predominantly unstructured, experiential, noninstitutional and
occurs during daily work activities. It is driven by individual intentions,
choices, and preferences (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Wolfson, Tannenbaum,
Mathieu, & Maynard, 2018). IL constitutes on-the-job, intentional,
intrinsically driven, and non-curricular experiential learning activities
that occur through cognitive activities and behaviours such as
observing, reflecting, asking questions, experimenting, or interacting
with experienced persons at work (Cerasoli et al., 2018). Unlike IL,
formal learning assumes a structured, ‘off-the-job’, classroom-based,
curricular-based, organisation-planned process of knowledge and skill
acquisition (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Manuti, Pastore, Scardigno, Gianca­
spro, & Morciano, 2015; Richter, Kortsch, & Kauffeld, 2020). Workplace
learning concepts such as incidental/implicit learning are often used
interchangeably with IL, however some scholars contend that IL is
characterised by intentionality. While incidental learning can be
described as unintentional, people who engage in IL consciously do so
with the intent to learn or improve (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Noe, Tews, &
McConnell Dachner, 2010).
Despite the numerous benefits of IL, there have been efforts to assess
its dark side (Zhan & Noe, 2021). Learning of bad work practices from
poor role models, misguided experimentation resulting in deviation
from standardised procedures, and knowledge sabotage that can all lead
to negative and costly consequences have been cited as some potential
dark sides of IL (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Perotti, Ferraris, Candelo, & Busso,
2022). Furthermore, employees often express dissatisfaction with their
lack of opportunities to get access to formal training because this com­
promises their employability elsewhere, job progression and career
development prospects (Nolan et al., 2020).
Building on Tynjälä’s (2013) 3-P model of workplace learning, Fig. 1
shows the conceptual framework that helped focus and bound the
review.
Over the years, the 3-P model has been applied as an analytical tool
to explore the complexity and interrelationships among different com­
ponents of IL (Hilkenmeier, Goller, & Schaper, 2021; Puhakka,
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.
Nokelainen, & Pylväs, 2021; Tynjälä, 2013). According to proponents of
the model, learning comprises of three basic components: presage,
process, and product. Presage refers to person-related factors (e.g.,
motivation) and learning context factors (e.g., learning climate) that
influence IL. Process comprises of various learning activities (e.g.,
experimentation, interactions/networking, and observation) while
product refers to the outcomes of learning (e.g., performance, career
development).
In this study, the authors apply the 3-P model of workplace learning
(Tynjälä, 2013) to focus and bound the systematic review. An expanded
conceptual framework is presented in Fig. 1 which includes both per­
sonal and learning context factors (presage), learning activities (process)
and learning outcomes (product) of IL and adds three further factors that
are important when studying relations among elements of the 3-P
model: national context, theory, and methodology. In this systematic
review, the 3-P model’s dimensions of presage, process and product are
analogous to antecedents, IL activities and outcomes of IL respectively.
Regarding ‘presage factors’, antecedents of IL comprise of two compo­
nents: personal factors and work environment conditions. Personal
factors comprise of individual characteristics such as motivation and
demographics that influence people’s propensity to engage in IL. Work
environment conditions constitute contextual or job characteristic fac­
tors that influence the extent to which people engage in IL. Examples
include learning climate, workload, colleagues and supervisor support.
As concerns ‘process factors’, IL comprise of self-directed, unstructured,
on-the-job learning activities employees engage in to acquire knowl­
edge, skills, and abilities. For instance, learning from colleagues,
learning from supervisors, and learning from non-interpersonal sources
(Noe et al., 2013). Finally, regarding ‘product factors’, outcomes of IL
are the results derived from engaging in workplace learning. In the
present review, outcomes are subdivided into individual (e.g., task
performance), group (e.g., team performance) and organisational (e.g.,
profitability) components. The additional factors of national contexts,
theory, and method of IL research are explored in this study to propose
improvements that can be made in these three domains to enhance the
rigor of future studies. Based on the findings of the review, the authors
make suggestions for enhancing the quality of IL research in the H&T
industry. The elaborated 3-P model that constitutes the conceptual
framework (Fig. 1) implies that in addition to the presage, process, and
product dimensions of workplace learning (i.e., antecedents, learning
processes, and outcomes), IL research should incorporate contextual
inclusivity, suitable theories, and robust methodologies. The expected
advantage of such an approach is it should provide greater under­
standing of IL as greater rigor within the studies is achieved.
3. Methods
A systematic literature review process following the Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)
approach (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Prisma Group, 2009) was
used to analyse the existing IL research in the H&T industry. PRISMA
provides a framework that guides researchers through the review pro­
cess that involves four main steps: article search and identification,
screening and abstracting, eligibility and quality assessment, and article
selection and inclusion (Page & Moher, 2017). Fig. 2 presents an over­
view of the steps used to select the 70 articles included in the review.
3.1. Article search and identification
Based on the recommendation of Kraus, Breier, and Dasí-Rodríguez
(2020), the following databases were searched for articles: Scopus,
Proquest, Web of Science, Informit and EBSCOhost. Although searching
multiple databases produced duplicates, searching within the five da­
tabases mitigated the risk of missing important papers. Duplicate articles
were resolved at the data management stage. Consistent with the clas­
sifications of informal work-based learning (Tannenbaum & Wolfson,
15
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28
2021; Wolfson et al., 2018), the following search terms were initially
used to identify articles related to IL: informal learning, work-related
learning, self-learning, self-directed learning, workplace learning,
work-based learning, experiential learning and continuous learning.
Based on further reading “employee learning, knowledge sharing and
knowledge transfer” were added to the search words. To search for ar­
ticles within the H&T context, the following search words were used:
tourism, hospitality, hotels, restaurant, travel, and leisure. To enhance
search accuracy, the Boolean search method (e.g., ‘informal learning’
AND ‘tourism’ OR ‘hospitality’) was also used. There were no date
limitations for inclusion of articles. The search for studies was carried
out between March 2020 - February 2022 at irregular intervals to cap­
ture any new research or studies that eluded the researchers in their
earlier searches. The filtered search generated an initial one hundred
and ninety-six (196) studies. A supplementary search was carried out in
workplace learning and human resource development-related journals
(see Table 1), which generated an additional fifteen (15) articles. The
two searches generated a sum of two hundred and eleven (211) articles.
3.2. Screening and abstracting
The article screening process was in two phases. First, one researcher
read the titles and abstracts of the manuscripts simultaneously to
determine their suitability for inclusion. This approach avoided arbi­
trary rejection or inclusion of articles based on just reading the article
title. At this phase, 36 articles out of 211 were excluded. Second, two
researchers carried out parallel independent assessment of the articles.
This process afforded the researchers the opportunity to resolve any
discrepancies they individually found. After the assessment 16 articles
were excluded. As such, 159 studies were considered relevant to the
present systematic review, hence the full-text articles were retrieved for
quality and inclusiveness assessment.
3.3. Eligibility and quality assessment
The authors skimmed through the full text of the studies that passed
the screening stage. The following five inclusion/exclusion criteria were
used to select the final articles for this review: (1) the content must be
related to IL, and the context must be H&T industry, (2) the article must
be published in a peer-reviewed journal, (3) the journal must be ranked
in Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) journal quality rating list,
(4) the article must be an empirical study, and (5) the article must be
written in English. Only studies whose content focused on IL, were
included. This was in line with the objective of the present systematic
review. The authors included only peer-reviewed journal articles in the
present review because, unlike grey sources (e.g., book chapters, con­
ference papers and unpublished thesis), peer-reviewed articles go
through rigorous scholarly scrutiny and are considered more robust
(Kraus et al., 2020; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Bachrach, & Podsakoff, 2005;
Xiao & Watson, 2019). Also, to ensure included studies possessed the
highest quality of research standard, the ABDC’s (2019) journal quality
rating list was used as a benchmark for selection. Kraus et al. (2020)
warn researchers against selecting publications based on personal
judgement. Instead, researchers need to use reputable journal ranking
systems to guarantee the quality of journals used. Kraus et al.‘s rule of
thumb for quality journal selection (A* to C rank) was used. The ABDC is
a reputable body that ranks the best journals across various disciplines.
To achieve the thematic focus of this research, only empirical studies
that reported the context(s) of the research, theory/model/framework
employed, methods used, participants studied, and antecedents and
outcomes were included. Also, only articles published in English lan­
guage were included in the review because English is the common lan­
guage understood by all the authors. Translating research from other
languages to English can distort key information or findings. Further­
more, although researchers are encouraged to include non-English ar­
ticles in systematic reviews, other scholars have argued that including
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28

Fig. 2. Literature review process.

Table 1
Supplementary search.
Journal Publisher Impact Factor ABDC Ranking

Advances in Developing Human Resources Sage – C

Education + Training Sage – –
European Journal of Education Wiley 1.714 –
European Journal of Training and Development Emerald Insight – C
Human Resource Development International Taylor & Francis – B
Human Resource Development Quarterly Wiley 4.007 B
Human Resource Development Review Sage 4.742 B
Human Resource Management Wiley 5.078 A*
Human Resource Management International Digest Emerald Insight – C
Human Resource Management Journal Wiley 5.039 A
Human Resource Management Review Elsevier 7.444 A
International Journal of Human Resource Management Taylor & Francis 5.546 A
International Journal of Training and Development Wiley – C
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism Taylor & Francis – B
Journal of Workplace Learning Emerald Insight 2.5 C
Management Learning Sage 4.952 A
Vocations and Learning Springer 1.804 –

16
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.
only studies written in English does not cause bias in systematic reviews
(Morrison et al., 2012; Siddaway, Wood, & Hedges, 2019).
3.4. Inclusion and selection
The following stages outline how the inclusion/exclusion criterion
were applied to select the included studies. First, by reading through the
full text, 25 articles that were not related to IL were dropped, leaving
134 articles. The excluded articles focused on concepts such as formal
learning, learning organisation or training. Second, due to the require­
ment to include only peer reviewed journal articles, 21 non-peer
reviewed articles were dropped, with 113 articles remaining. Out of
the 21 dropped articles, 8 were conference proceedings and 13
comprised of book chapters, briefs, or trade bulletins. Third, as a quality
assessment measure, articles included were selected based on whether
they were published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the ABDC
journal quality rating list (2019 edition). Sixteen articles that were not
published in ABDC ranked journals were dropped, bringing the number
of remaining articles to 97. Fourth, of the 97articles published in the
ABDC ranked journals, 9 were removed as they were non-empirical
papers, leaving 88 articles. All included studies were published in En­
glish language; therefore, no article was dropped due to English lan­
guage requirement. Two authors conducted a final cross-evaluation of
the articles to ensure key quality protocols were observed. It was found
that 1 article had no author name, 3 articles studied multiple industries,
12 articles were duplicate, and 5 articles were conducted in sectors other
than hospitality and tourism, hence all these articles were dropped. This
brought the number of remaining articles to 67. Additionally, 3 articles
published in non ABDC-ranked journals were added to the final list of
included studies due to their relevance to the study (1 = Education +
Training, 2 = Vocations & Learning). These articles were identified
through the forward and backward search approach. This brought the
final number of articles used for analysis to 70.
3.5. Data analysis
Two researchers individually extracted data from the articles for
cross-checking. After jointly reviewing a few articles, the researchers
agreed on what data to extract from the articles. One researcher was
tasked to extract the data while maintaining constant communication
with the rest of the team. Articles that were hard to decide were dis­
cussed between the researchers. Data from the 70 included articles were
extracted and presented in a matrix form (see Table 2). The table pre­
sents author(s)’ name and year of publication, national context, theory,
methods, participants, antecedents, and outcomes.
4. Findings
4.1. Context
Of the 70 empirical studies, a majority (23, 32.8%) were conducted
in Europe (Portugal, England, United Kingdom, Croatia, Italy, Denmark,
Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Cyprus, Scotland, Norway), followed by
Asia (China, India, Turkey, Hong Kong, Korea, Thailand, Cambodia,
Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan) (20, 28.6%). The remaining
were undertaken in North America (USA, Canada, Cuba, St. Lucia, Ja­
maica, Granada, Antigua, the Bahamas, Barbados, Curacao, Turkey, and
Caicos) (17, 24%); Oceania/Australia (Australia and New Zealand) (6,
8.6%); and Africa (Mauritius and South Africa) (2, 2.9%). Finally, two
(2.9%) of the studies were conducted in multiple continents (i.e., Li &
Law, 2012- UK, Australia, France and Germany; Isacsson & Gretzel,
2011- USA and Finland). There were no studies from South America and
Antarctica.
17
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28
4.2. Theory and models
Out of the 70 empirical studies, 52(74.3%) used a theory or model,
while 18(25.7%) did not. Only theories that are significantly related to IL
were included in the analysis. The most used theory was Experiential
Learning theory (Kolb, 1984) (16 out of 52, 30.77%), followed by Com­
munities of Practice theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) (3, 5.77%), Social
Cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) (3, 5.77%), Resource-Based View the­
ory (Barney, 1991) (2, 3.85%) and Knowledge-Based Learning theory
(Eraut, 1994) (2, 3.85%). Other theories that are learning-focused include
Situated Learning theory (Fuller, Hodkinson, Hodkinson, & Unwin, 2005)
and Transformative Learning theory (Mezirow, 2000; 2009). Some
studies used theories that do not have a learning focus, such as
Self-Determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), Self-Efficacy theory
(Bandura, 1986), Path-Goal theory (Vroom, 1964), Institutional Logic
theory (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999), Social Capital theory (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998), Evolutionary Resource-Based view theory (Mueller,
1996), Organisational Performance theory (Delaney & Huselid, 1996),
Systems Thinking theory (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001), Functional
Psychology theory (Schneider, 1975), Categorization theory (Cantor &
Mischel, 1979), Sociomaterial theory (Fenwick, 2010), Systems theory
(Senge, 1990), Organisational Support theory (Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) and Job-Demands-Resources theory (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007). Regarding models and frameworks employed in the
studies, all were learning-focused: Knowledge Sharing model (Fullwood
& Rowley, 2021), Learning Organisation framework (Watkins & Marsick,
1993), Contextual Model of Learning (Falk & Dierking, 2005), Small Firm
Learning Network model (Kelliher, Foley, & Frampton, 2009) and
Problem-Based Learning model (Clausen & Andersson, 2019).
4.3. Methodology
Analysis of methodology employed in the reviewed studies focused
on research participants, design, instrumentation, and analysis. First, in
terms of research participants, most of the studies used single source
data, and only a few collected data from multiple groups of participants.
Out of 70 empirical studies, the following respondents were sampled:
only employees (16, 22.86%), only students (15, 21.43%), only man­
agers/supervisors (13, 18.57%) and only tourists/public (4, 5.71%).
Furthermore, other studies sampled employees and managers (14, 20%),
employees and customers (1, 1.43%), students and supervisors/manager
(1, 1.43%), and practitioners and academics (2, 2.86%). There were
others too that sampled managers, employees, and tourists (2, 2.86%),
and employee, visitors, and others (2, 2.86%). Second, out of the 70
empirical studies, the research designs used are as follows: qualitative
(35, 50%), quantitative (25, 35.7%) and mixed method (10, 14.3%).
Apart from a few studies (i.e., Guchait, Lee, Wang, & Abbott, 2016;
Huang, Loo, Zhao, & Chow, 2019; Kelliher et al., 2009), the remaining
researchers used a cross-sectional design (31, 95.71%). Only one study
used a multi-level design (Peng, Xie, Zhou, & Huan, 2022). Third, in­
terviews, focus groups, observation, participant observation and
reflective essays were used to collect qualitative data. Mixed methods
studies used a combination of interviews and surveys, while quantitative
data were collected through survey questionnaires and secondary
sources. Finally, in terms of data analysis technique(s), thematic and
content analysis were used to analyse all qualitative data. To analyse
quantitative data, the following methods were used: Hierarchical Linear
modeling-HLM (1) Structural Equation Modeling-SEM (13), regression
(5), correlation (1), analysis of variance (2), Chi-square (1), t-test (1) and
descriptive statistics (1) were used to analyse quantitative data.
4.4. Antecedents and outcomes
While not all studies focused on antecedents of IL, the results
revealed that 36 antecedents were examined by the empirical studies.
For the purposes of this review, these antecedents were grouped into
 Table 2

J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.

Included studies.
Author(s) Context(s) Theory/Model Method(s) Participants Antecedent(s) Outcome(s)

Albrecht et al. (2022) New Zealand – Qualitative (semi- Tour managers & guides Informal learning, lifelong learningGuided tour content selection and
structured interview) delivery, engagement with participants
of a guided tour experience.
Peng et al. (2022) China Functional Psychology theory ( Quantitative (HLM) Employees (travel consultants) & Team learning climate, learning goal Team performance & individual
Schneider, 1975)/Categorization theory customers orientation performance
(Cantor & Mischel, 1979)
Almeida and Campos Portugal Community of Practice theory (Lave & Mixed (descriptive Hotel workers Community of practice Rapid information exchange and
(2021) Wenger, 1991) statistics, content analysis diffusion, efficient context for
and social network knowledge transfer and individual
analysis) responsiveness to daily professional
activities and challenges.
Boccia and Cseh (2021) USA Learning Organization framework ( Mixed (Descriptive, focus Restaurant employees Experimentation, knowledge sharing Learning culture
Watkins & Marsick, 1993) group interviews,
observations and
document collection)
Fullwood and Rowley England Knowledge Sharing model (Fullwood & Qualitative (Case study) Managers & heritage site Tacit knowledge Educating visitors
(2021) Rowley, 2021) volunteers
Goodbrand et al. (2021) Canada Community of Practice theory (Lave & Qualitative (semi- Students, culinary instructors, Interpersonal interactions & level of Safety knowledge
Wenger, 1991) structured interviews) and restaurant chefs experience
Rao et al. (2021) China Bounded-Rational Decision theory ( Qualitative (interviews/ Employees & managers Time constraints, limited Knowledge exchange
Simon, 1957) thematic) information
Rastogi and Karatepe India Path-Goal theory (Vroom, 1964), Quantitative (SEM) Employees Informal learning, work engagement Work-family enrichment
(2021) Work-Family Enrichment model (
Greenhaus & Powell, 2006)
Arcodia, Novais, Cavlek, Croatia Theory and Practice (Gretzel, Jamal, Quantitative (T-test and Tourism students Educational tourism and experiential Social and professional connections,
and Humpe (2020) Stronza, & Nepal, 2009) principal component learning learning and engaging teaching
analysis)
18

Bishop (2020) UK Sociomaterial theory (Fenwick, 2010) Qualitative Managers & employees Firm size Workplace learning
Cangialosi et al. (2020) Italy Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Quantitative (SEM) Employees & supervisors Error avoidance learning climate & Innovative behaviour
1984) Facilitation learning climate
Chowdhury et al. (2020) India Social Capital theory (Nahapiet & Quantitative (PLS-SEM) Line managers (chefs and other External social capital & internal New product development
Ghoshal, 1998) managers) and/or owners/ social capital, knowledge sharing
proprietors/partners intentions
Kleefstra at al. (2020) Denmark Organisational Performance theory ( Qualitative (Explorative) Hotel general managers & HR Workplace learning Organizational performance
Delaney & Huselid, 1996) managers
Lui and Choy (2020) Australia Theory of Practice Architecture ( Qualitative Employees Ethnic culture Workplace learning

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28

Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008) (ethnographic/interview/
thematic analysis)
Nolan et al. (2020) Ireland Evolutionary Resource-Based View Qualitative (multiple case Owner-managers, senior family/ Multidimensionality of HRD Small tourism firms’ growth
theory (Mueller, 1996)/Institutional studies) general managers & employees
Logic theory (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999) of hotels
Wang et al. (2020) Turkey Social Cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) Quantitative (SEM) Employees Error tolerance, psychological safety, Error reporting, service recovery
self-efficacy, learning behaviours performance
Clausen and Andersson Denmark Problem-based learning model Qualitative (ethnographic Education (Tourism students) Problem-based learning & education Employability
(2019) reflective investigation)
Fleming and Pretti New Zealand Communities of Practice theory (Lave & Mixed (Interviews & Students (sport and recreation) & Work-integrated learning Belonging to workplace team & impact
(2019) Wenger, 1991) and Situated Learning survey)/Weighted sports and recreational firm experiences on workplace team
theory (Fuller et al., 2005) averages & thematic supervisors
analysis
Guachalla and Gledhill UK Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Qualitative (interviews) Education (tourism students) Co-creating learning experiences Student employability
(2019) 1984)
Huang et al. (2019) Hong Kong The Contextual Model of Learning (Falk Quantitative (Panel/ Visitors Visitor’s Informal learning, Conservation education
& Storksdieck, 2005). Correlation & Chi-square) emotions, temporal & spatial
behaviour
Ivanova and Light (2018) UK Dark Tourism Spectrum model (Stone, Qualitative (Semi- Visitors Visiting a lightest dark (heritage) Informal education
2006) structured interviews) tourism attraction
(continued on next page)
 Table 2 (continued )

J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.

Author(s) Context(s) Theory/Model Method(s) Participants Antecedent(s) Outcome(s)

Kim and Shim (2018) Korea Theory of Industrial Districts and Quantitative (SEM) Employees & Owners of SME Network density, network centrality, Innovation & performance
Agglomeration Economies (Marshall, tourism firms relational social capital, cognitive
1920), social capital
Matteucci and Aubke Austria Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Qualitative (reflective Education (hospitality students) Service learning Self- awareness, self-confidence, self-
(2018) 1984) essays/Thematic analysis) esteem, stress-resistance, enhanced
communication, and problem-solving
skills.
Spencer (2018) Cuba – Qualitative (ethnography) Tour participants, tour operators, Experiential learning Tourism development
Canadian, American and
Australian NGO staff
Venske (2018) South Africa Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Qualitative (Focus Education (event management Student experiences Enhanced student experiences
1984) discussion & interviews) students)
Yachin (2018) Sweden Customer Journey model (Yachin, Qualitative (participant Tourists, tour guides & owner- Socialization, customer interaction Experiential knowledge
2018) observations, interviews/ manager, tripadvisor
content analysis)
Gil and Mataveli (2017) Spain – Quantitative (PLS-SEM) Employees Learning process & group learning Job satisfaction
Lawton (2017) England – Qualitative Strategic managers (Outdoor Student learning Work placement opportunities
(interpretative/ education centres)
interviews)/thematic
analysis
Lin et al. (2017) China Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Qualitative (reflective Education (students) Service learning Improved hospitality education
1984) journals)
Mak et al. (2017) China Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Mixed Students Experiential learning Students’ development
1984)
Guchait, Lee, Wang, and USA Organizational Support theory ( Quantitative Students Organizational support, supervisor Service recovery performance, Helping
Abbott (2016) Eisenberger et al., 1986) & (Experimental) support, Co-worker support behaviours
Job-Demands-Resources theory (Bakker
& Demerouti, 2007)
Guchait, Madera, and USA Learning Behavior theory (Edmondson, Quantitative (SEM/ Hotel & lodging managers Diversity climate Learning behaviour
19

Dawson (2016) Dillon, & Roloff, 2007). mediation)

Lee (2016) Korea Self-Determination theory (Ryan & Quantitative (SEM) Frontline employees Calling, knowledge sharing Career satisfaction
Deci, 2000)
Stansbie et al. (2016) USA Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Mixed (survey & focus Education (hospitality & Classroom learning Student internship opportunity
1984) group discussions) students)
Walter (2016) Southeast Asia (Thailand, Transformative Learning (Mezirow, Qualitative (focus group Leaders, guides and community Community-Based Ecotourism Transformative learning
Cambodia & Vietnam) 2000; 2009)/Experiential Learning discussions/interviews & members in the ecotourism (CBET)
theory (Kolb, 1984) participant observation) project, staff, homestay hosts,
guides and local villagers & CBET
participants

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28

Yang et al. (2016) China – Quantitative (SEM) Hotel employees Experiential learning Graduate learning satisfaction
Bos et al. (2015) UK Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Qualitative (interviews) Low-income families on a Experiential learning Educational achievement and
1984) holiday attainment
Cormier-MacBurnie et al. Canada – Qualitative Executive chefs Doing independent research, Assists in the development of cascade
(2015) technology, limited food offering by training
restaurants
Kim et al. (2015) Hong Kong Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Qualitative (interviews) Education (students) Experiential learning Student event-planning knowledge
1984)
Prayag and Hosany Mauritius – Qualitative Hotel line managers Human resource development Improvements in staff attitude, better
(2015) teamwork, enhanced productivity, and
better service delivery
Bound and Lin (2013) Singapore Qualifications System and framework ( Qualitative (Interview/ Trainee chefs/supervisors Nature of work Workplace learning
Ellström, 1997) organisational policies/
non-participant
observation)
Kim et al. (2013) Korea Resource-Based View theory (Barney, Quantitative (SEM/Path Employees Structural social capital, relational Organizational performance
1991) analysis) social capital, cognitive social capital
Li et al. (2013) UK Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Qualitative (interviews & General managers Experiencing Business management skills
1984 observation)
Cyprus Quantitative (SEM) Education (hospitality students)
(continued on next page)
 Table 2 (continued )
Author(s) Context(s) Theory/Model Method(s) Participants Antecedent(s) Outcome(s)

J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.

Zopiatis and Theocharous Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Intern’s perceived level of readiness Internship’s perceived success and
(2013) 1984) to participate in the internship future intention to purse a hospitality
career
Chalkiti (2012) Australia – Qualitative (Semi- Managers & employees Attitudes to knowledge sharing, Adaptation to multiple levels (place,
structured interview & social interactions and social industry, hotels, and peers) and in turn
focus group) networks helped them to share knowledge with
peers irrespective of labour instability.
Doyle et al. (2012) Canada -_ Quantitative (Analysis of Hotel managers & employees Gender & Managerial/non- Learning strategies, outcomes,
Variance) managerial position facilitators, and barriers
Harris (2012) Malaysia Experiential Learning theory (Kolb, Qualitative (Focus group) Education (Dip. Teachers) Social media Experiential learning
1984)
Janta et al. (2012) UK Social Learning theory and Social Qualitative (ethnography Migrant workers Co-workers, co-nationals and Migrants’ language learning
Cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, and interviews) customers interactions, online
1986)/Experiential learning model sources, and knowledge exchange
(Kolb, 1984)
Li and Law (2012) UK, Australia, France, and Knowledge-Based Learning theory ( Mixed (framework Hotel General managers & Food ICT applications Management Knowledge acquisition
Germany/online Eraut, 1994). analysis & Manova/ service providers
stepwise discriminant
analysis)
Minnaert (2012) UK Experiential Learning theory (Boydell, Qualitative (case study, Low-income families Social tourism Unplanned learning strategies
1976; Kolb, 1984) interviews & focus group
discussion)
Anderson and Teare St. Lucia The five pillars framework Qualitative (Narrative) 1 Resort General manager Action learning Outrageous guest service, a productive
(2011) workplace, revenue growth, cost
control and quality assurance of the
physical resort environment
Brown and Teare (2011) Caribbean (Antigua, The – Qualitative (viewpoint) 1 Group Director, Human Customized learning Self-actualization at work
Bahamas, Grenada, Resources, Training and Service
Barbados, Jamaica, Saint Standards
20

Lucia, Curaçao and Turks

& Caicos
Hassan et al. (2011) St Lucia (Caribbean) _ Qualitative (Personal Resort manager Global University for Lifelong Development and implementation of
experiences of action Learning (GULL) action learning innovative ways of managing one of the
learning) system & resort-wide framework Caribbean’s most successful resorts
termed the “five pillars”
Isacsson and Gretzel USA & Finland _ Qualitative (Case study) Education (Hospitality students) Informal learning environment Sustainable tourism
(2011) (Facebook)
Kim et al. (2011) Korea Social Cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) Quantitative (SEM) Employees Self-efficacy, technology anxiety, Intention to use e-learning
extrinsic motivation, intrinsic

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28

motivation
Nicely et al. (2011) Jamaica _ Quantitative (multiple Hotel managers Perceived risk-taking abilities, Work-related learning levels
regression) attitudes towards learning, intrinsic
motivation
Palacios-Marqués et al. Spain Knowledge-Based approach (Teece Quantitative (SEM) Hospitality firm managers Knowledge management Firm performance
(2011) et al., 1997)
Kim and Hancer (2010) USA Systems Thinking theory ( Quantitative (t-test, one- Restaurant employees Information technology, incentive & Organizational effectiveness
Rubenstein-Montano et al., way ANOVA, and multiple knowledge sharing culture
2001)/Microeconomic theory ( regression analysis
Freeman, 1977; Holmström, 1979)
Fairley and Tyler (2009) USA _ Qualitative (observation, Education (sports students) Cultural learning Group member experiences
interviews, students’
reflection paper)
Hu et al. (2009) Taiwan – Quantitative (Regression) Hotel employees Knowledge sharing, team culture Service innovation performance
Kelliher et al. (2009) Ireland Small Firm Learning Network model Qualitative (Intervention/ Hospitality & tourism Tourism Learning Network Development of organisational
focus group) practitioners and academics capabilities
Solnet et al. (2009) USA _ Quantitative (Descriptive General Managers, Human Competencies Improved internship programmes
statistics) Resource Directors and
operational Directors
(continued on next page)
 J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28

personal factors (17, 47.2%) and work environmental factors (19,

Time savings, best practise, and keeping

52.8%). Personal factors such as attitude towards learning (Chalkiti,

up to date with industry information

Producing future Tourism managers

2012; Nicely, Palakurthi, & Gooden, 2011; Wang, Guchait, &
Organizational knowledge sharing

Paşamehmetoğlu, 2020; Yang, 2008), calling (Lee, 2016), competencies

Interesting learning experience

(Solnet, Kralj, Kay, & DeVeau, 2009), intrinsic motivation (Kim, Erdem,

Curriculum development
Byun, & Jeong, 2011; Nicely et al., 2011), learning goal orientation
(Peng et al., 2022), perceived risk-taking abilities (Nicely et al., 2011),
Industry experience

Individual learning
and developments

psychological safety (Wang et al., 2020), self-efficacy (Kim et al., 2011;

Learning climate
Lema & Agrusa, 2007; Wang et al., 2020), readiness to learn (Lema &
Outcome(s)

Agrusa, 2007; Zopiatis & Theocharous, 2013) and work engagement

(Rastogi & Karatepe, 2021) have been explored. Furthermore, employee
demographic characteristics such gender (Doyle, Findlay, & Young,
2012), position (Doyle et al., 2012) and work experience (Adams, 2001;
Attitude towards learning, sharing

Sharing tourism knowledge online

Self-directed learning readiness &

Goodbrand et al., 2021; Venske, 2018) have been explored.

teamworking and made dialogue

Regarding work environment factors, the studies included factors

with colleagues, training and

Hotel and industry specific

Higher education learning

such as diversity climate (Guchait, Madera, & Dawson, 2016), error

Prior learning experience
Behaviour of supervisor,
and storing information

avoidance (Cangialosi, Odoardi, & Battistelli, 2020), error tolerance

Experiential learning

(Wang et al., 2020), ethnic culture (Lui & Choy, 2020), firm size (Bishop,
2020), information technology (Kim et al., 2011; Kim & Hancer, 2010;
Antecedent(s)

Self-efficacy

Li & Law, 2012), interacting with colleagues, supervisors and customers

knowledge
rewards

(Aksu & Özdemir, 2005; Chalkiti, 2012; Chowdhury et al., 2021; Janta,
Lugosi, Brown, & Ladkin, 2012; Patwardhan & Kumar, 2020; Yachin,
2018), knowledge sharing/exchange (Boccia & Cseh, 2021; Braun &
Hollick, 2006; Chowdhury, Prayag, Patwardhan, & Kumar, 2020; Hu,
division and media enrolled in
accelerated MBA programmes
Tourism industry players and

Hotel managers & employees

Education (Senior managers:

Horng, & Sun, 2009; Janta et al., 2012; Kim & Hancer, 2010; Lee, 2016;
motorway services, hotels

Yang, 2008) and learning climate (Cangialosi et al., 2020; Peng et al.,
Managers & employees

Mixed (role play scenario, Education (students)

2022). Other studies included factors such as organisation, supervisor

Tourism operators

Hotel employees
College students

and co-worker support (Aksu & Özdemir, 2005; Guchait, Lee, Wang, &
Abbott, 2016), rewards and incentives (Aksu & Özdemir, 2005; Kim &
Participants

academics

students)

Hancer, 2010), service learning (Lin, Kim, Qiu, & Ren, 2017; Matteucci
& Aubke, 2018), social media and online sources (Harris, 2012; Isacsson
& Gretzel, 2011; Janta et al., 2012) and teamwork (Aksu & Özdemir,
multiple linear regression)

Mixed (Logistic regression

2005; Gil & Mataveli, 2017; Hu et al., 2009). Also, learning inhibitors
Quantitative (Regression)

exit interviews & survey)

Qualitative (Focus group

Mixed (Conceptual/Case
Mixed (survey/face-to-
Quantitative (Stepwise

such as limited information and time constraints (Rao, Lao, & Liu, 2021)
Quantitative (Anova)

discussion/Scenario

have been studied.

For the purposes of this review, the outcome variables were cat­
& Interviews)
face seminar)

egorised as: individual, group and organisational level outcomes. A total

Method(s)

planning)

of 39 outcomes were extracted, out of which 19 (48.72%) were indi­

study)

vidual, 5 (12.82%) were group, and 15 (38.46%) were organisational

level variables. Individual-level outcomes were related to employees/
managers (13, 68.42%), students (5, 26.32%) and visitors (1, 5.26%).
Resource-Based View theory (Barney,
Self-Efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986)

Experiential Learning theory (Kolb,

Researchers have explored employee/manager-level outcomes such as

Knowledge Management model (

adaptability (Chalkiti, 2012), engagement with tourists (Albrecht,

Systems theory (Senge, 1990)

Moscardo, & Dwyer, 2022), enhanced communication and

problem-solving skills (Matteucci & Aubke, 2018), employability
(Clausen & Andersson, 2019; Guachalla & Gledhill, 2019), individual
performance (Peng et al., 2022), innovative behaviour (Cangialosi et al.,
Rowley, 2000)
Theory/Model

2020) and improvement in staff attitude (Prayag & Hosany, 2015).

Others have also studied job satisfaction (Gil & Mataveli, 2017; Lee,
1984)

1991)

2016; Yang, Cheung, & Song, 2016), knowledge and skills acquisition
–

(Kim, Lin, & Qiu, 2015; Lema & Agrusa, 2007; Li, Gray, John Lockwood,
_

& Buhalis, 2013; Li & Law, 2012; Venske, 2018; Yachin, 2018), mi­
grants’ language learning (Janta et al., 2012), safety knowledge
(Goodbrand et al., 2021), self-actualization (Brown & Teare, 2011) and
work-family enrichment (Rastogi & Karatepe, 2021). Regarding stu­
Scotland/UK

dents, educational achievements (Bos, McCabe, & Johnson, 2015),

Context(s)

Braun and Hollick (2006) Australia

Australia

Granada
Norway

event-planning knowledge (Kim et al., 2015), development (Mak, Lau, &

Taiwan

Aksu and Özdemir (2005) Turkey

USA

Wong, 2017), internship opportunities (Lawton, 2017; Stansbie, Nash, &

Chang, 2016) and interns’ perceived success and future intention to
Lema and Agrusa (2007)

purse a hospitality career (Zopiatis & Theocharous, 2013) were

Littlejohn and Watson
Table 2 (continued )

observed as outcome variables. There was also an investigation of visi­

Ruhanen (2006)

tors’ conservation education as an outcome variable (Huang et al.,

Gjelsvik (2002)

Adams (2001)

2019).
Yang (2008)
Author(s)

(2004)

Group level outcomes such as better teamwork (Prayag & Hosany,

2015), group member experiences (Fairley & Tyler, 2009), knowledge
sharing (Yang, 2008), team belongingness and impact (Fleming & Pretti,

21
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.
2019) and team performance (Peng et al., 2022) have been researched in
relation to IL. In terms of organisational level outcomes, the following
have been reported: enhanced productivity, and better service delivery
(Prayag & Hosany, 2015; Wang et al., 2020), development of organ­
isational capabilities (Kelliher et al., 2009), firm responsiveness
(Almeida & Campos, 2021), innovation (Hassan, Whitely-Clarke, Teare,
& Anderson, 2011; Hu et al., 2009; Kim & Shim, 2018), knowledge
exchange (Rao et al., 2021), learning culture (Boccia & Cseh, 2021), new
product development (Chowdhury et al., 2020), organisational effec­
tiveness (Kim & Hancer, 2010) and organisational performance (Kim,
Lee, Paek, & Lee, 2013; Kim & Shim, 2018; Kleefstra et al., 2020; Pal­
acios-Marqués et al., 2011). Other studies also focused on producing
future tourism managers (Littlejohn & Watson, 2004), small tourism
firms’ growth (Nolan et al., 2020), sustainable tourism (Isacsson &
Gretzel, 2011) and tourism development (Spencer, 2018). Furthermore,
Anderson and Teare (2011) focused on productive workplace, revenue
growth, cost control and quality assurance of the physical resort envi­
ronment, while Braun and Hollick (2006) studied time savings, best
practice, and keeping up to date with industry information and
developments.
5. Discussion
Although the results reveal several potential areas for discussion, for
coherence the discussion that follows aligns with the four topic areas
that were covered in the results. The discussions are also guided by the
theoretical framework for the study (i.e., Fig. 1). First, there is an uneven
distribution of IL research between developed and developing countries.
While about 97.1% of the studies were across four continents (i.e.,
Europe, Asia, North America, and Oceania/Australia), only 2.9% were
from Africa, with no study from South America and Antarctica. The
limited studies from these countries (predominantly developing coun­
tries) may be so because researchers have only recently gone beyond
Western contexts to these countries where H&T is still growing as an
industry (Fang, 2020). Without global representation, factors which are
different between developed and developing countries may not be
accounted for. For instance, unlike developed countries, cultural dis­
parities, resource limitations, managerial styles, and lack of access to
technology which are characteristic of developing contexts, may have
implications for the nature of informal learning processes and the extent
to which people engage in IL (Adeola & Evans, 2020; Kim & McLean,
2014). Therefore, encouraging more context-sensitive IL research in the
H&T industry in developing economies will enhance understanding of
how IL is influenced by contextual factors.
Second, while most of the studies used theories, none of them
fundamentally engages with personal and work environmental factors
concurrently. For example, the dominant theory used by most of the
studies was Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning theory. This theory
emphasizes IL as a process of acquiring knowledge and skills through
work experience, reflective observation, conceptualization, and experi­
mentation (Nikolova, Van Ruysseveldt, De Witte, & Syroit, 2014), which
focuses primarily on the individual. The dominance of Experiential
Learning theory might be attributable to its ability to offer an explana­
tion for the self-directed, practical, interactional, and on-the-job nature
of IL. Other theories that also tend to emphasise the influence of personal
factors on IL, but which were less frequently used, included
Knowledge-Based Learning theory (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997) and
Self-Efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986). On the other hand, theories used
such as Communities of Practice theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991),
Resource-Based View theory (Barney, 1991) and Institutional Logic
theory (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999) are more related to work environ­
mental factors. Although some of the studies used multiple theories,
apart from Janta et al. (2012) who combined Social Cognitive Learning
theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) and Experiential Learning theory (Kolb,
1984), none of them combined individual-based and work
environment-based theories concurrently. These results of the analysis
22
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28
of prior studies reflect a limitation in theoretical development of IL due
to the inability of the studies to account for both personal and work
environmental factors affecting IL. This means that researchers
exploring either individual or work environmental factors separately
may not provide a complete understanding of IL.
Third, for the purposes of this systematic review, analysis of the
methodology employed in the reviewed studies focused on four ele­
ments: participants, design, instrumentation, and analysis. First,
although most of the studies sampled employee participants (22.86%)
(e.g., Almeida & Campos, 2021; Rastogi & Karatepe, 2021) there were
also a significant number of studies that sampled students (21.43%), (e.
g., Clausen & Andersson, 2019; Guachalla & Gledhill, 2019), manager­
s/supervisors (18.57%) (Guchait et al., 2016; Li et al., 2013) and em­
ployees and managers respondents (20%) (e.g., Albrecht et al., 2022;
Fullwood & Rowley, 2021; Rao et al., 2021). While the number of
employee and manager/supervisor samples is encouraging, the high
number of student samples poses a significant limitation to the body of
research for two reasons. Student samples can produce misleading re­
sponses when generalising results to the working population based on
personal and attitudinal variables (Hanel & Vione, 2016), and may not
reflect the actual IL experienced by employees in H&T firms. Further­
more, although IL is characterised by employees’ experimentation,
reflection and interactions, managers/supervisors overseeing their ac­
tivities at the workplace can influence the determining factors and
outcomes of IL at the workplace. It is therefore appropriate to study a
combination of employees, co-workers, and managers to fully under­
stand the influence of all actors on IL processes, especially those whose
interactions with employees at the workplace affect their IL. Second,
most of the past research is qualitative in design (50%) (e.g., Matteucci
& Aubke, 2018; Nolan et al., 2020; Spencer, 2018). While a reasonable
number of researchers adopted a quantitative design (35.7%), the
limited number of published quantitative and mixed method studies (e.
g., Almeida & Campos, 2021; Peng et al., 2022; Rastogi & Karatepe,
2021) point to an inadequate focus on relationship and causality testing.
Also, there is a dominance of cross-sectional design (67, 95.71%) which
limits causality testing. Again, apart from Peng et al. (2022), all the
remaining studies adopted a single level design. Although IL is indi­
vidually initiated, employees are members of groups and organisations,
and therefore their learning activities can be influenced by external
factors. Adopting a single level design does not fully account for vari­
ances in individual, group and organisational factors that influence IL
(Maas & Hox, 2005; Peugh, 2010). Multilevel research designs are
appropriate for capturing the individual, group and organisational
variances that influence IL (González-Romá & Hernández, 2017). Third,
in terms of instruments for data collection, few studies used mixed
methods. While both qualitative and quantitative data collection in­
struments have their strengths, a blend of both instruments can mini­
mize the limitations of using only one instrument (Ivankova & Wingo,
2018). Finally, most qualitative studies analysed data based on emer­
gent themes, while the quantitative studies used descriptive and infer­
ential analysis. The diversity of research approaches used reflects the
philosophical differences among researchers. These results also under­
score the multifactorial and complex nature of IL. Since IL has various
categories of antecedent and outcome variables, the use of mixed
research design can potentially generate more comprehensive results.
Fourth, the results relating to antecedents reveal that most of the
studies focused on work environment factors (52.8%) as compared to
personal factors (47.2%). These results suggest that scholars recognise
that both individual predispositions and work environment conditions
play vital roles in determining IL in the H&T industry. Frontline em­
ployees are the main architects of service delivery; hence their learning
practices, motivations, experiences, and competencies are of practical
and scholarly significance (Karatepe & Uludag, 2007). While individual
characteristics play a key role in IL, the work environment also in­
fluences their learning behaviours. Therefore, having reached a stage
where a considerable number of factors in both areas of influence have
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.
been identified, researchers should now focus on both individual and
work environmental factors when studying IL (Zia, Bashir, Mangi, &
Shamsi, 2021). On this subject, the person-situation perspective is sug­
gested to provide a holistic view of how work environmental factors
influence people’s IL behaviours at the workplace (Diener, Larsen, &
Emmons, 1984; van Knippenberg & Hirst, 2020).
In terms of outcome variables, although evidence of individual,
group and organisational level outcomes exist in the literature,
individual-level outcomes (48.72%) were dominant (Clausen & Ander­
sson, 2019; Guachalla & Gledhill, 2019). The H&T industry is service
based where individual performance is vital to service delivery. There­
fore, assessing employees’ learning outcomes helps to determine their
individual work outcomes and how they contribute to group and
organisational output. However, H&T workers often work in groups. IL
can influence group outcomes such as teamwork or group performance
(Fleming & Pretti, 2019; Prayag & Hosany, 2015). IL can also impact
organisational performance indicators such as profitability and corpo­
rate image (Isacsson & Gretzel, 2011). In sum, skills and competencies
gained through IL are beneficial to individuals, groups, and the orga­
nisation at large. Therefore, evaluating all three levels of outcomes can
provide a more comprehensive account of IL.
6. Research directions
6.1. Contextual research direction
It is evident that there is a contextual imbalance of IL research be­
tween predominantly developed and developing countries. African,
South America and Antarctica are the least researched continents in the
present study, yet they have unique cultural and managerial practices
that might impact IL processes differently from the Western context. For
instance, Africa and Asia are characterised by high power distance
culture (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010), which can influence
supervisor-employee interaction-based learning. Also, collectivist cul­
tures are more encouraging of team learning and peer-based learning
compared to individualist cultures (Ellinger, 2005; Kim & McLean,
2014). Furthermore, limited infrastructure and technology such as ac­
cess to stable internet supply to support employees’ IL activities may
play a crucial role (Adeola & Evans, 2020). Importantly, the H&T in­
dustry is growing in most emerging economies (Fang, 2020; Signé,
2018), yet vital industry skills remain scarce (Adeyinka-Ojo, 2018;
Sheehan, Grant, & Garavan, 2018). Hence, extension of IL research to
developing countries can provide valuable insights into contextual fac­
tors that influence IL processes in these countries and provide a more
holistic understanding of IL in the H&T industry that recognizes
differing cultural, infrastructural, skill and other global factors. Thus,
more scholarly attention to developing country contexts is needed.
6.2. Theoretical research directions
The review suggests the need for theoretical development of IL in the
H&T industry. IL involves individually directed learning activities, yet
individuals’ learning is influenced by internal and external factors.
Therefore, when studying IL, it is imperative to account for both per­
sonal and work environmental factors. Two theories are identified that
have had little application to this topic but can be beneficial to under­
standing IL in the industry from both perspectives.
First, Lewin’s (1943) Field theory accounts for both personal and
work environmental factors and could enhance IL understanding. This
theoretical suggestion is made in response to the lack of a theory that
encapsulates both personal characteristics of employees and the work
23
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28
environmental factors of H&T firms. According to Lewin, behaviour is a
function of the person and the situation. This is suggestive that the
Informal Learning Behaviours (ILBs) enacted by organisational members
result from the combination of their individual idiosyncrasies (e.g.,
intrinsic motivation, goal orientation, risk taking propensity, and atti­
tude towards learning) and organisational characteristics (e.g., leader­
ship, co-worker support, and learning potential of the workplace). As
ILBs are influenced by characteristics of the individual employee and
work environmental factors, Lewin’s Field theory can be used to theorise
IL as an outcome of a mix of personal and work environmental factors.
Second, Job-Demands Resource (J-DR) theory (Bakker, Demerouti,
& Verbeke, 2004) offers a useful explanation of how personal resources
(e.g., self-efficacy and learning goal orientation), job resources (e.g.,
learning climate and supervisor support) and job demands (i.e., chal­
lenge and hindrance demands) can influence employees’ propensity to
engage in IL. The H&T industry can sometimes be characterised by
seasonal fluctuations, intense work pressure and the task of dealing with
difficult customers (Grobelna, 2021). These demands (i.e., hindrance
demands) can negatively influence the extent to which employees
informally learn if job resources are inadequate (Vong & Tang, 2017).
Employees may also be required to learn new industry skills and achieve
sale targets, which constitute challenging job demands. These demands
can positively affect IL since they challenge the individual to do more.
Therefore, JD-R theory can be leveraged to help unpack the job resource
and demand factors that influence IL in the H&T industry.
6.3. Methodological research directions
Four methodological directions are offered to enhance future
research. First, future researchers should sample more organisational
respondents (i.e., frontline employees, co-workers, and supervisors)
since they can provide a comprehensive account of practical IL at the
workplace. Second, the use of more mixed-method research designs to
overcome the limitations of using either qualitative or quantitative
research methods are recommended (Ivankova & Wingo, 2018). Also, to
test for causal relationships among antecedents and outcomes of IL,
experimental and longitudinal designs must be adopted (Bloomfield &
Fisher, 2019). Third, to minimize common method variance and other
limitations associated with single source data, the use of multisource
data (e.g., employees, co-workers, owners/managers, supervisors, cus­
tomers, archival data) and multiple data collection instruments are
important. Finally, because IL is influenced by individual, group, and
organisational factors, it is assumed to have a nested structure (i.e.,
employees nested within groups, and groups nested within organisa­
tions). Since the variance of IL could differ at each level, the application
of multilevel analysis to estimate the variances at the various hierar­
chical levels (González-Romá & Hernández, 2017) is encouraged.
6.4. Antecedents and outcomes research directions
Since both personal and work environmental factors (i.e., anteced­
ents) influence employees’ propensity to engage in IL, it is prudent to
assess both factors concurrently. To extend scholarly knowledge on
personal factors influencing participation in IL, self-determination and
job crafting should be considered in future studies. Self-determination
and job crafting can be considered as personal resources that can
enhance employees’ IL. According to Ryan and Deci’s (2000)
self-determination theory, humans are motivated and experience
well-being when three basic psychological needs are met (i.e., auton­
omy, competence, and relatedness). Given the dynamisms associated
with service delivery in the H&T industry, employees need to be
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.
autonomous learners and continually develop their job competencies.
Having a sense of belonging to the work group and organisation can
positively influence employees’ IL (Salmi & Thuneberg, 2019). There­
fore, research is required to determine whether self-determined people
who are autonomous, competent and interact with others in their jobs
will be more likely to engage in IL (Salmi & Thuneberg, 2019).
Furthermore, job crafting, which is the process whereby employees
modify their tasks, cognitions, and relationships with others at the
workplace, can affect the extent of their IL (Guan & Frenkel, 2018).
Customer requests and preferences are variable, therefore, to offer
quality services to customers, employees need to modify their tasks,
mindset, and interactions with people, a skill set which can be attained
through IL. As a self-regulated behaviour, job crafting can generate the
personal and job resources necessary to fuel self-directed learning ac­
tivities (Guan & Frenkel, 2018). Studying these two personal factors will
shed light on whether intrinsic motivations and self-regulatory practices
predict engagement in ILBs.
Similarly, exploring how workload, learning potential of the work­
place and leadership support influence IL can provide insight into how
these job demands and job resources impact IL (Ellström, 2011).
Workload constitutes a job demand, while learning potential of the
workplace and leadership support are job resources. There are incon­
clusive findings on the relationship between workload and IL. While
some studies report positive relationship between workload and
learning outcomes (e.g., Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), other studies report
a negative relationship (e.g., Parker & Sprigg, 1999) and yet others
report no relationship (e.g., Houkes, Janssen, de Jonge, & Nijhuis,
2001). van Ruysseveldt and van Dijke (2011) reported that there is a
curvilinear relationship between workload and work-related learning.
Since the H&T industry is characterised by high workload and pressure,
testing the relationship between workload and IL will contribute to this
debate in the literature.
The learning potential of the workplace, which includes factors such
as job characteristics and supervisor support, refers to a collection of
resources that can influence the extent to which employees engage in IL
(Choi & Jacobs, 2011). Nikolova et al. (2014) demonstrated that a work
environment characterised by experimentation, reflection, learning
from colleagues and from supervisors can facilitate IL. The H&T work
context is characterised by fast-paced work (Partington, 2016), and
therefore presents a potential challenge for employees who want to
informally learn. On the other hand, the hands-on nature of tasks and
constant interactions service personnel experience in the course of their
work can serve as an avenue for IL.
The nature of support employees receive from managers and super­
visors can determine their level of IL activities (Macneil, 2001). Sup­
portive leaders provide an environment conducive to learning by
encouraging ILBs and providing access to learning opportunities and
learning resources. Also, supportive leaders treat employees’ errors as
learning experiences (Leicher, Mulder, & Bauer, 2013; Wang et al.,
2020). Studying these concepts will help to develop an understanding of
how job demands and resources influence IL processes.
In terms of outcome variables, future researchers could consider
innovative work behaviour, team performance and organisational
branding as individual, group and organisational-level outcome vari­
ables respectively. IL is likely to trigger employees’ innovative work
practices (Messmann, Segers, & Dochy, 2018; Sanders & Lin, 2016). As a
service-oriented industry, employees are at the forefront of innovation,
and their propensity to enact innovative work behaviours can have a
direct impact on customer experiences and organisational performance
(Dhar, 2015; Hjalager, 2010). Employees who engage in IL are more
likely to generate new or improved products, processes, or work
24
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28
practices (Lecat, Beausaert, & Raemdonck, 2018).
There has been research on IL and team concepts such as team
commitment (Kukenberger, Mathieu, & Ruddy, 2015), team learning
(Edmondson, 1999), teamwork (Prayag & Hosany, 2015), group mem­
ber experiences (Fairley & Tyler, 2009) and team belonginess (Fleming
& Pretti, 2019), yet little is known about how IL impacts team perfor­
mance in the H&T industry (Peng et al., 2022). Team performance is
vital as collective goal setting, planning, coordination, and teamwork
can contribute to excellent service delivery and customer experience.
Testing the relationship between IL and team performance will help to
ascertain the synergistic performance outcome of group members.
Finally, there is a scholarly and practical potential in exploring the
relationship between IL and corporate branding. Corporate branding
among H&T firms is vital because it creates a positive image in the minds
of employees which is reflective of the way they relate with customers
(Coffie, 2020; Sürücü, Öztürk, Okumus, & Bilgihan, 2019). Also, if
effectively executed, firms can create brand identity in the minds of
customers to distinguish themselves from other service providers.
Corporate branding can result in brand loyalty and attraction of new
clientele (Yang & Tan, 2017). It is anticipated that IL processes can help
create a unique image of the firm in the minds of employees which can
be translated into customer experiences. Such a positive image can
attract talented staff and customers to the firm, thereby creating
competitive advantage.
7. Strengths and limitations of the review
The strengths of this systematic literature review include the wide-
ranging search for relevant studies and the rigorous methodology
used. By not imposing a timeframe cut-off point of included studies, a
wide spectrum of years of research was captured. Also, adopting
rigorous methods for identifying, selecting, screening, and analysing
studies (i.e., PRISMA systematic review approach) helped to ensure
reliable outcomes. In terms of limitations, only empirical studies were
included in the final analysis. Reviews, conceptual papers, unpublished
papers, book chapters and conference proceedings were not included in
the review. Furthermore, only articles published in journals indexed in
the ABDC journal quality list were included. Nevertheless, these strict
screening processes helped to strengthen the quality of the systematic
review.
8. Conclusion
Despite the socioeconomic significance of the H&T industry (World
Travel & Tourism Council, 2020), and the important contribution that IL
can make to individual, group and organisational performance, there is
no known systematic review of IL research that might be helpful in
stimulating further research. The relevance of IL in the industry has been
more profound in recent times due to the negative impact of COVID-19
on firms and the urgency to leverage employees’ knowledge and skills
for economic survival (Watkins & Marsick, 2021). In response to this
limitation of the literature, a systematic literature review was
conducted.
By building on the 3-P model, the results of the systematic review
have generated four directions for future research. Two of these require
research in developing countries to help bridge the knowledge gap be­
tween developed and developing countries and use of theories that ac­
count for both personal and work environmental factors. Furthermore,
the adoption of multisource data, mixed method research designs and
data collection instruments, causality testing and multilevel analysis to
improve methodological rigour are all encouraged. Lastly, studies that
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.
explore antecedents and outcomes of IL will offer highly relevant sup­
port to the H&T industry. By filling these gaps and imbalances in the
literature, a better global perspective of how IL improves individual,
group and organisational performance will be possible.
Note: Studies included in the analysis are identified by asterisks (*) in
the reference list.
References
* Adams, D. (2001). Learning from experience–making the most of work-based learning.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(5), 235–240.
Adeola, O., & Evans, O. (2020). ICT, infrastructure, and tourism development in Africa.
Tourism Economics, 26(1), 97–114.
Adeyinka-Ojo, S. (2018). A strategic framework for analysing employability skills deficits
in rural hospitality and tourism destinations. Tourism Management Perspectives, 27,
47–54.
* Aksu, A. A., & Özdemir, B. (2005). Individual learning and organization culture in
learning organizations: Five-star hotels in antalya region of Turkey. Managerial
Auditing Journal, 20(4), 422–441.
* Albrecht, J. N., Moscardo, G., & Dwyer, T. (2022). Learning about learning in tourism:
Indigenous guide perspectives on their personal and professional development.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 46(2), 320–343.
* Almeida, S., & Campos, A. C. (2021). New avenues for business competitiveness: The
case of a community of practice in the hotel sector. International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-12-2020-0285.
* Anderson, W., & Teare, R. (2011). The five pillars framework for action learning at
Sandals Grande St Lucia. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(1), 52–59.
* Arcodia, C., Novais, M. A., Cavlek, N., & Humpe, A. (2020). Educational tourism and
experiential learning: Students’ perceptions of field trips. Tourism Review, 76(1),
241–254, 2021.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17, 99–120.
Berg, S. A., & Chyung, S. Y. Y. (2008). Factors that influence informal learning in the
workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(4), 229–244.
* Bishop, D. (2020). Firm size and workplace learning processes: A study of the
restaurant sector. European Journal of Training and Development, 44(2/3), 305–320.
Bloomfield, J., & Fisher, M. J. (2019). Quantitative research design. Journal of the
Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses’ Association, 22(2), 27–30.
* Boccia, M., & Cseh, M. (2021). Full-service restaurants as learning organizations: A
multiple- site case study. The Learning Organization, 28(4), 413–427.
* Bos, L., McCabe, S., & Johnson, S. (2015). Learning never goes on holiday: An
exploration of social tourism as a context for experiential learning. Current Issues in
Tourism, 18(9), 859–875.
* Bound, H., & Lin, M. (2013). Developing competence at work. Vocations and Learning, 6
(3), 403–420.
* Braun, P., & Hollick, M. (2006). Tourism skills delivery: Sharing tourism knowledge
online. Education + Training, 48(8/9), 693–703.
* Brown, P., & Teare, R. (2011). Getting to the transfer point: Cascading action learning.
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(1), 66–70.
Burke, R. J. (2018). Benefits of workplace learning in hospitality organizations. In
Handbook of human resource management in the tourism and hospitality industries.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
* Cangialosi, N., Odoardi, C., & Battistelli, A. (2020). Learning climate and innovative
work behavior, the mediating role of the learning potential of the workplace.
Vocations and Learning, 13(2), 263–280.
Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. In Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 3–52). Academic Press.
Cecil, A. (2012). A framework for service learning in hospitality and tourism
management education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 12(4), 313–331.
Cerasoli, C. P., Alliger, G. M., Donsbach, J. S., Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., &
Orvis, K. A. (2018). Antecedents and outcomes of informal learning behaviors: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(2), 203–230.
* Chalkiti, K. (2012). Knowledge sharing in dynamic labour environments: Insights from
Australia. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(4),
522–541.
Chartered Institute for Personnel & Development (Cipd). (2015). Making maximum impact
as an HR professional in an SME. London: CIPD. http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/ma
king-maximum-impact-HR-professional-SME.pdf.
25
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28
Choi, W., & Jacobs, R. L. (2011). Influences of formal learning, personal learning
orientation, and supportive learning environment on informal learning. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 22(3), 239–257.
* Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G., Patwardhan, V., & Kumar, N. (2020). The impact of social
capital and knowledge sharing intention on restaurants’ new product development.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(10), 3271–3293.
* Clausen, H. B., & Andersson, V. (2019). Problem-based learning, education and
employability: A case study with master’s students from aalborg university,
Denmark. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 19(2), 126–139.
Coffie, S. (2020). Positioning strategies for branding services in an emerging economy.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 28(4), 321–335.
* Cormier-MacBurnie, P., Doyle, W., Mombourquette, P., & Young, J. D. (2015).
Canadian chefs’ workplace learning. European Journal of Training and Development,
39(6), 522–537.
Dachner, A. M., Ellingson, J. E., Noe, R. A., & Saxton, B. M. (2021). The future of
employee development. Human Resource Management Review, 31(2), Article 100732.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management
practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(4), 949–969.
Dhar, R. L. (2015). The effects of high-performance human resource practices on service
innovative behaviour. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 67–75.
Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person × Situation interactions: Choice
of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47(3), 580–592.
* Doyle, W., Findlay, S., & Young, J. D. (2012). Workplace learning issues of hotel
employees: Examining differences across management status and gender. Journal of
Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 11(4), 259–279.
Drew, M., Woodside, A., Martin, D., & Woodside, A. G. (2009). Moving beyond pedagogy
to andragogy: Experimental learning exercises for tourism/hospitality executive
training. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(4),
283–286.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Edmondson, A. C., Dillon, J. R., & Roloff, K. S. (2007). 6 three perspectives on team
learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process. The Academy of
Management Annals, 1(1), 269–314.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.
Ellström, P. E. (1997). The many meanings of occupational competence and
qualification. Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(6/7), 266–273.
Ellström, P. E. (2011). Informal learning at work: Conditions, processes and logics. The sage
handbook of workplace learning. Sage.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. Psychology Press.
Eraut, M. (2011). Informal learning in the workplace: Evidence on the real value of work-
based learning (WBL). Development and Learning in Organizations: An International
Journal, 25(5), 8–12.
* Fairley, S., & Tyler, B. D. (2009). Cultural learning through a sport tourism experience:
The role of the group. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14(4), 273–292.
Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand
visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744–778.
Fang, W. T. (2020). Tourism in emerging economies. Springer Singapore.
Fenwick, T. (2010). Re-thinking the “thing”: Sociomaterial approaches to understanding
and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 104–116.
* Fleming, J., & Pretti, T. J. (2019). The impact of work-integrated learning students on
workplace dynamics. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 25,
Article 100209.
Freeman, S. (1977). Wage trends as performance displays productive potential: A model
and application to academic early retirement. The Bell Journal of Economics,
419–443.
Froehlich, D. E., Segers, M., Beausaert, S., & Kremer, M. (2019). On the relation between
task- variety, social informal learning, and employability. Vocations and Learning, 12
(1), 113–127.
Froehlich, D., Segers, M., & Van den Bossche, P. (2014). Informal workplace learning in
Austrian banks: The influence of learning approach, leadership style, and
organizational learning culture on managers’ learning outcomes. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 25(1), 29–57.
Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P., & Unwin, L. (2005). Learning as peripheral
participation in communities of practice: A reassessment of key concepts in
workplace learning. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 49–68.
* Fullwood, R., & Rowley, J. (2021). The role of knowledge sharing in volunteer learning
and development. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 32(1), 121–139.
Gijbels, D., Raemdonck, I., Vervecken, D., & Van Herck, J. (2012). Understanding work-
related learning: The case of ICT workers. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(6),
416–429.
* Gil, A. J., & Mataveli, M. (2017). Learning processes and job satisfaction in the Spanish
wine sector: The moderating effect of organizational size and employees’
educational level. Personnel Review, 46(3), 624–643.
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.
* Gjelsvik, M. (2002). Hotels as learning arenas. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 2(1), 31–48.
González-Romá, V., & Hernández, A. (2017). Multilevel modeling: Research-based
lessons for substantive researchers. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 4, 183–210.
* Goodbrand, P. T., Deng, C., Turner, N., Uggerslev, K. L., Gordon, J., Martin, K., et al.
(2021). Exploring safety knowledge sharing among experienced and novice workers.
Journal of Safety Research, 79, 125–134.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of
work- family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92.
Gretzel, U., Jamal, T., Stronza, A., & Nepal, S. K. (2009). Teaching international tourism:
An interdisciplinary, field-based course. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 8
(2–3), 261–282.
Grobelna, A. (2021). Emotional exhaustion and its consequences for hotel service
quality: The critical role of workload and supervisor support. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 30(4), 395–418.
* Guachalla, A., & Gledhill, M. (2019). Co-creating learning experiences to support
student employability in travel and tourism. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and
Tourism Education, 25, Article 100210.
Guan, X., & Frenkel, S. (2018). How HR practice, work engagement and job crafting
influence employee performance. Chinese Management Studies, 12(3), 591–607.
* Guchait, P., Lee, C., Wang, C. Y., & Abbott, J. L. (2016a). Impact of error management
practices on service recovery performance and helping behaviors in the hospitality
industry: The mediating effects of psychological safety and learning behaviors.
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(1), 1–28.
* Guchait, P., Madera, J., & Dawson, M. (2016b). Learning in the service environment:
The influence of diversity climate. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(4),
448–470.
Hanel, P. H., & Vione, K. C. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of
the general public? PLoS One, 11(12), Article e0168354.
* Harris, C. W. (2012). The uses of Facebook technologies in hospitality curriculum on an
experiential learning platform for a new generation of students. Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing & Logistics, 24(5), 805–825.
* Hassan, S., Whitely-Clarke, S. A., Teare, R., & Anderson, W. (2011). The five pillars
framework for action learning at Sandals Grande St Lucia. Worldwide Hospitality and
Tourism Themes, 3(1), 52–59.
Hilkenmeier, F., Goller, M., & Schaper, N. (2021). The differential influence of learner
factors and learning context on different professional learning activities. Vocations
and Learning, 14(3), 411–438.
Hite, L. M., & McDonald, K. S. (2020). Careers after COVID-19: Challenges and changes.
Human Resource Development International, 23(4), 427–437.
Hjalager, A. M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management,
31(1), 1–12.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of
the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Holmström, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. The Bell Journal of Economics,
74–91.
Houkes, I., Janssen, P. P., de Jonge, J., & Nijhuis, F. J. (2001). Specific relationships
between work characteristics and intrinsic work motivation, burnout and turnover
intention: A multi-sample analysis. European Journal of Work & Organizational
Psychology, 10(1), 1–23.
* Huang, X., Loo, B. P., Zhao, Y., & Chow, A. S. (2019). Incorporating personal
experience in free-choice environmental learning: Lessons from a zoological theme
park. Environmental Education Research, 25(8), 1250–1266.
* Hu, M. L. M., Horng, J. S., & Sun, Y. H. C. (2009). Hospitality teams: Knowledge sharing
and service innovation performance. Tourism Management, 30(1), 41–50.
* Isacsson, A., & Gretzel, U. (2011). Facebook as an edutainment medium to engage
students in sustainability and tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology,
2(1), 81–90.
Ivankova, N., & Wingo, N. (2018). Applying mixed methods in action research:
Methodological potentials and advantages. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7),
978–997.
* Ivanova, P., & Light, D. (2018). ‘It’s not that we like death or anything’: Exploring the
motivations and experiences of visitors to a lighter dark tourism attraction. Journal
of Heritage Tourism, 13(4), 356–369.
* Janta, H., Lugosi, P., Brown, L., & Ladkin, A. (2012). Migrant networks, language
learning and tourism employment. Tourism Management, 33(2), 431–439.
Joseph, N., & Totawar, A. (2020). How to increase social capital of organizations:
Identifying the role of informal learning behaviors. Development and Learning in
Organization, 35(3), 1–3.
Karatepe, O. M., & Uludag, O. (2007). Conflict, exhaustion, and motivation: A study of
frontline employees in northern Cyprus hotels. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 26(3), 645–665.
Kaushal, V., & Srivastava, S. (2021). Hospitality and tourism industry amid COVID-19
pandemic: Perspectives on challenges and learnings from India. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 92, Article 102707.
* Kelliher, F., Foley, A., & Frampton, A. M. (2009). Facilitating small firm learning
networks in the Irish tourism sector. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(1), 80–95.
26
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28
Kemmis, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures
and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In Enabling praxis (pp.
37–62). Brill Sense.
* Kim, J. S., Erdem, M., Byun, J., & Jeong, H. (2011). Training soft skills via e-learning:
International chain hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 23(6), 739–763.
* Kim, Y. J., & Hancer, M. (2010). The effect of knowledge management resource inputs
on organizational effectiveness in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology, 1(2), 174–189.
* Kim, T. T., Lee, G., Paek, S., & Lee, S. (2013). Social capital, knowledge sharing and
organizational performance: What structural relationship do they have in hotels?.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(5), 683–704.
* Kim, Y., Lin, P. M., & Qiu, H. (2015). Experiential learning: Being a real-event planner.
Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 15(4), 382–401.
Kim, S., & McLean, G. N. (2014). The impact of national culture on informal learning in
the workplace. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(1), 39–59.
* Kim, N., & Shim, C. (2018). Social capital, knowledge sharing and innovation of small-
and medium-sized enterprises in a tourism cluster. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(6), 2417–2437.
* Kleefstra, A., Altan, M., & Stoffers, J. (2020). Workplace learning and organisational
performance in the hospitality industry. International Hospitality Review, 34(2),
173–186.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hirst, G. (2020). A motivational lens model of person× situation
interactions in employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10),
1129–1144.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic
literature review in entrepreneurship research. The International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 16(3), 1023–1042.
Kukenberger, M. R., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. (2015). A cross-level test of
empowerment and process influences on members’ informal learning and team
commitment. Journal of Management, 41(3), 987–1016.
Kyndt, E., Vermeire, E., & Cabus, S. (2016). Informal workplace learning among nurses:
Organisational learning conditions and personal characteristics that predict learning
outcomes. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(7), 435–450.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Lawton, M. (2017). ‘Employers’ perspectives on maximising undergraduate student
learning from the outdoor education centre work placement. Journal of Hospitality,
Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 21, 1–12.
Lecat, A., Beausaert, S., & Raemdonck, I. (2018). On the relation between teachers’(in)
formal learning and innovative working behavior: The mediating role of
employability. Vocations and Learning, 11(3), 529–554.
* Lee, K. J. (2016). Sense of calling and career satisfaction of hotel frontline employees:
Mediation through knowledge sharing with organizational members. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(2), 346–365.
Leicher, V., Mulder, R. H., & Bauer, J. (2013). Learning from errors at work: A replication
study in elder care nursing. Vocations and Learning, 6(2), 207–220.
* Lema, J. D., & Agrusa, J. (2007). Self-efficacy, industry experience, and the self-
directed learning readiness of hospitality industry college students. Journal of
Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(4), 37–50.
Lewin, K. (1943). Psychological ecology. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social
science. London: Social Science Paperbacks.
* Li, L., Gray, D. E., John Lockwood, A., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Learning about managing
the business in the hospitality industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24
(4), 525–559.
* Li, L., & Law, R. (2012). Technology-mediated management learning in hospitality
organisations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 451–457.
* Lin, P. M., Kim, Y., Qiu, H., & Ren, L. (2017). Experiential learning in hospitality
education through a service-learning project. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Education, 29(2), 71–81.
* Littlejohn, D., & Watson, S. (2004). Developing graduate managers for hospitality and
tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(7),
408–414.
* Lui, K. W. R., & Choy, S. (2020). How ethnic cultures influence practice-based learning.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(3), 183–197.
Maas, C., & Hox, J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology,
1, 86–92.
Macneil, C. (2001). The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work teams.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(6), 246–253.
* Mak, B., Lau, C., & Wong, A. (2017). Effects of experiential learning on students: An
ecotourism service-learning course. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 17(2),
85–100.
Manuti, A., Pastore, S., Scardigno, A. F., Giancaspro, M. L., & Morciano, D. (2015).
Formal and informal learning in the workplace: A research review. International
Journal of Training and Development, 19(1), 1–17.
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.
* Matteucci, X., & Aubke, F. (2018). Experience care: Efficacy of service-learning in
fostering perspective transformation in tourism education. Journal of Teaching in
Travel & Tourism, 18(1), 8–24.
Messmann, G., Segers, M., & Dochy, F. (Eds.). (2018). Informal learning at work: Triggers,
antecedents, and consequences. Routledge.
Mezirow, J., & Taylor, E. W. (Eds.). (2009). Transformative learning in practice: Insights
from community, workplace, and higher education. John Wiley & Sons.
* Minnaert, L. (2012). Social tourism as opportunity for unplanned learning and
behaviour change. Journal of Travel Research, 51(5), 607–616.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
PLoS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097.
Morrison, A., Polisena, J., Husereau, D., Moulton, K., Clark, M., Fiander, M., … Rabb, D.
(2012). The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-
analyses: A systematic review of empirical studies. International Journal of Technology
Assessment in Health Care, 28(2), 138–144.
Mueller, F. (1996). Human resources as strategic assets: An evolutionary resource-based
theory. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 757–785.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
* Nicely, A., Palakurthi, R., & Gooden, A. D. (2011). Behaviors linked to high levels of
hotel managers’ work-related learning. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 23(6), 764–783.
Nikolova, I., Van Ruysseveldt, J., De Witte, H., & Syroit, J. (2014). Work-based learning:
Development and validation of a scale measuring the learning potential of the
workplace (LPW). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 1–10.
Noe, R. A., Tews, M. J., & Marand, A. D. (2013). Individual differences and informal
learning in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 327–335.
Noe, R. A., Tews, M. J., & McConnell Dachner, A. (2010). Learner engagement: A new
perspective for enhancing our understanding of learner motivation and workplace
learning. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 279–315.
* Nolan, C. T., Garavan, T. N., & Lynch, P. (2020). Multidimensionality of hrd in small
tourism firms: A case study of the republic of Ireland. Tourism Management, 79,
Article 104029.
Page, M. J., & Moher, D. (2017). Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and
extensions: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 263.
* Palacios-Marqués, D., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Gil-Pechuán, I. (2011). The effect of
learning- based distinctive competencies on firm performance: A study of Spanish
hospitality firms. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52(2), 102–110.
Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The
role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(6), 925–939.
Partington, S. N. (2016). Hospitality employment. The routledge handbook of hospitality
studies. https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_Ax6DQAAQBAJ&oi
=fnd&pg=PT298&dq=hospitality+industry+fast+paced+work&ots=_p9R2
npTp6&sig=Zkeutyvj5_xJMMgb_8wBV65KcUc#v=onepage&q=hospitality%20i
ndustry%20fast%20paced%20work&f=false.
* Peng, J., Xie, L., Zhou, L., & Huan, T. C. T. (2022). Linking team learning climate to
service performance: The role of individual-and team-level adaptive behaviors in
travel services. Tourism Management, 91, Article 104481.
Perotti, F. A., Ferraris, A., Candelo, E., & Busso, D. (2022). The dark side of knowledge
sharing: Exploring “knowledge sabotage” and its antecedents. Journal of Business
Research, 141, 422–432.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The
influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management
Journal, 26(5), 473–488.
* Prayag, G., & Hosany, S. (2015). Human resource development in the hotel industry of
Mauritius: Myth or reality?. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(3), 249–266.
Puhakka, I. J., Nokelainen, P., & Pylväs, L. (2021). Learning or leaving? Individual and
environmental factors related to job satisfaction and turnover intention. Vocations
and Learning, 14(3), 481–510.
* Rao, Y., Lao, L., & Liu, C. (2021). How do front-line employees make decisions on
whether to hide their knowledge from co-workers in hospitality firms?. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(5), 1532–1553.
* Rastogi, M., & Karatepe, O. M. (2021). Informal learning, work engagement and their
effects on work-family enrichment. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2020-0087.
Richter, S., Kortsch, T., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Understanding learning spillover: The
major role of reflection in the formal–informal learning interaction within different
cultural value settings. Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(7), 513–532.
Rowley, J. (2000). From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 4(1), 7–15.
Rubenstein-Montano, B., Liebowitz, J., Buchwalter, J., McCaw, D., Newman, B.,
Rebeck, K., et al. (2001). A systems thinking framework for knowledge management.
Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 5–16.
* Ruhanen, L. (2006). Bridging the divide between theory and practice: Experiential
learning approaches for tourism and hospitality management education. Journal of
Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 5(4), 33–51.
27
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28
van Ruysseveldt, J., & van Dijke, M. (2011). When are workload and workplace learning
opportunities related in a curvilinear manner? The moderating role of autonomy.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 470–483.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55
(1), 68–78.
Salmi, H., & Thuneberg, H. (2019). The role of self-determination in informal and formal
science learning contexts. Learning Environments Research, 22(1), 43–63.
Sanders, K., & Lin, C. H. (2016). Human resource management and innovative behaviour:
Considering interactive, informal learning activities. In Human resource management,
innovation and performance (pp. 32–47). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay 1. Personnel Psychology, 28(4),
447–479.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The art and practice of the learning organization. http://www.seeing-
everything-in-a-new-way.com/uploads/2/8/5/1/28516163/peter-senge-the-fifth-
discipline.pdf.
Sheehan, M., Grant, K., & Garavan, T. (2018). Strategic talent management. Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 10(1), 28–41.
Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A
best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses,
and meta- syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770.
Signé, L. (2018). Africa’s tourism potential. Trends, drivers, opportunities, and strategies.
Africa Growth Initiative.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man; social and rational. Wiley.
* Solnet, D., Kralj, A., Kay, C., & DeVeau, L. (2009). A lodging internship competency
model: Enhancing educational outcomes through work integrated learning. Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 21(4), 16–24.
* Spencer, R. (2018). Development tourism in Cuba: Experiential learning and solidarity
in the development tourism encounter. Tourism Planning & Development, 15(3),
277–292.
* Stansbie, P., Nash, R., & Chang, S. (2016). Linking internships and classroom learning:
A case study examination of hospitality and tourism management students. Journal
of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 19, 19–29.
Stone, P. R. (2006). A dark tourism spectrum: Towards a typology of death and macabre
related tourist sites, attractions and exhibitions. Tourism: An International
Interdisciplinary Journal, 54(2), 145–160.
Sürücü, Ö., Öztürk, Y., Okumus, F., & Bilgihan, A. (2019). Brand awareness, image,
physical quality and employee behavior as building blocks of customer-based brand
equity: Consequences in the hotel context. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 40, 114–124.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., McNall, L. A., & Salas, E. (2010). Informal learning and
development in organizations. In Learning, training, and development in organizations,
the organisational frontiers series (pp. 303–332). London: Routledge.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Wolfson, M. A. (2021). Informal (Field-Based) learning. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 391–414.
Teare, R. (2011). Learning at work: Practical steps to maximize the individual and
organizational benefits. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(1), 14–29.
Teare, R., & O’Hern, J. (2000). Challenges for service leaders: Setting the agenda for the
virtual learning organization. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 12(2), 97–106.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency
of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing
industry, 1958– 1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.
Tracey, J. B. (2014). A review of human resources management research. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(5), 679–705.
Tracey, B., & Swart, M. P. N. (2020). Training and development research in tourism and
hospitality: A perspective paper. Tourism Review, 75(1), 256–259.
Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review.
Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 11–36.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den
Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological
need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(2), 251–277.
* Venske, E. (2018). Rising to the occasion: Experiential learning experiences of event
management students at a South African University of Technology. Event
Management, 22(1), 79–97.
Vong, L. T. N., & Tang, W. S. L. (2017). The mediating effect of work–family conflict in
the relationship between job stress and intent to stay: The case of tourism and
hospitality workers in Macau. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 16
(1), 39–55.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
* Walter, P. G. (2016). Catalysts for transformative learning in community-based
ecotourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(13), 1356–1371.
* Wang, X., Guchait, P., & Paşamehmetoğlu, A. (2020). Tolerating errors in hospitality
organizations: Relationships with learning behavior, error reporting and service
recovery performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
32(8), 2635–2655.
J.K. Kodom-Wiredu et al.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the
art and science of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., 350 Sansome
Street.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2021). Informal and incidental learning in the time of
COVID- 19. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 23(1), 88–96.
Wolfson, M. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., & Maynard, M. T. (2018). A cross-level
investigation of informal field-based learning and performance improvements.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 14–36.
World Travel, & Tourism Council. (2019). Travel and tourism regional performance. WTTC,
2020, Retrieved 24/06/2020) https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact.
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112.
* Yachin, J. M. (2018). The ‘customer journey’: Learning from customers in tourism
experience encounters. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28, 201–210.
* Yang, J. T. (2008). Individual attitudes and organisational knowledge sharing. Tourism
Management, 29(2), 345–353.
28
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 52 (2022) 13–28
* Yang, H., Cheung, C., & Song, H. (2016). Enhancing the learning and employability of
hospitality graduates in China. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism
Education, 19, 85–96.
Yang, F. X., & Tan, S. X. (2017). Event innovation induced corporate branding.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(3), 862–882.
Zhan, Y., & Noe, R. A. (2021). The dark side of employees’ informal learning. No. 1. In
Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2021, p. 14028). NY 10510: Academy of
Management. Briarcliff Manor.
Zia, M. Q., Bashir, M. A., Mangi, R. A., & Shamsi, A. F. (2021). A person-situation
perspective of informal learning: The role of supervisor feedback environment. European
Journal of Training and Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-09-2020-0142
* Zopiatis, A., & Theocharous, A. L. (2013). Revisiting hospitality internship practices: A
holistic investigation. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 13,
33–46.