Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and ManagementEmployee Performance and Motivation

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Determinants of Delegation: A Study in Five Star Hotels

Open access
Jha, Sumi·2004·Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers
DOI 10.1177/0256090920040404
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In today's business context, managing the ever increasing customer expectations and need is a key to survival and growth. Considering the people-centric nature of the service industry, particularly the hotel industry, managing the motivation of frontline employees and retaining them for continued customer relationship is a challenge for any organization. Since customers with different needs and aspirations have to be served differently, the frontline employees of five star hotels play a significant role in establishing relationship with customers. To retain the customers, they should be properly trained based on the job they do. Trained frontline employees would understand the characteristics of their job and would be more efficient while serving the customers. The superiors would also need to delegate tasks to the subordinates and this requires adequate knowledge of the job, proper flow of information, and sharing of resources between the superiors and the subordinates. Based on a sample of 319 frontline employees of five star hotels in Mumbai, this study examines the direct and interaction effects of job characteristics and superior-subordinate relationship on delegation. The primary purpose of job characteristics is to measure job attributes that affect intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. Job characteristics have been studied in terms of five factors: skill variety task identity feedback dealing with others friendship opportunities. In the hotel industry, the frontline employees are required to deal with the customers daily and therefore strive to maintain a conducive relationship with them. Dealing with others and friendship opportunity in the job itself help them in enhancing the relationship with customers. Continuous feedback from the superiors also helps the employees in being effective in their work. Superior-subordinate relationship is defined as the perception of subordinates about the information being shared and support being provided by the superior. It has been seen that if the relationship between the superior and the subordinate is not conducive, it hampers work as the superior may be reluctant to delegate tasks to the subordinate. The basic concept of delegation in this study is the willingness on the part of the subordinate to accept a given task so that it will result in effective completion. Delegation is measured through three factors: amount of delegation process of delegation facilitating factors of delegation. Using factor analysis, this paper studies the conceptual differences among variables like job characteristics, superior-subordinate relationship, and delegation. The factor structure that has emerged supports the view that job characteristics, superior-subordinate relationship, and delegation are conceptually from different domains and are independent of each other. Providing better characteristics of job gives the superiors the room to delegate tasks. Repetitive task with no variety in it will make the superior as well as the subordinate less passionate about the job. The major findings of the study are as follows: Direct and indirect effects of job characteristics and superior-subordinate relationship significantly influence delegation. Among the factors of job characteristics, feedback influences delegation the most, i.e., for effective completion of delegated task, continuous feedback is the key. It is imperative to retain frontline employees by providing challenging job and adequate information and by delegating effectively.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0256090920040404

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. [1]1. Bass, B M (1990). Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership, 3 rd Edition, New York: Free Press.
  2. [2]2. Brief, A P and Aldag, R J (1978). "The Job Characteristics Inventory: An Examination," Academy of Management Journal, 21(4), 659-670.
  3. [4]4. Cosier, R A and Aplin, J C (1980). "Effects of Delegated Choice on Performance," Personnel Psychology, 33(3), 581-593.
  4. [5]5. Crouch, A and Yetton, P (1988). "Manager Subordinate Dyads: Relationships among Task and Social Contact, Manager Friendliness and Subordinate Performance in Management Groups," Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 65-82.
  5. [6]6. Dansereau, F, Graen, G and Haga, W (1975). "A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations," Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78.
  6. [7]7. Fried, Y and Ferris, G R (1987). "The Validity of Job Characteristics Model: A Review and Meta Analysis," Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.
  7. [8]8. Glission, C and Durick, M (1988). "Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Human Service Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 61-81.
  8. [9]9. Graen, G B (1989). Unwritten Rules for Your Career: 15 Secrets for Fast-Track Success, New York: Wiley.
  9. [10]10. Graen, G and Cashman, J F (1975). "A Rolemaking Model in Formal Organizations: A Developmental Approach," in Hunt, J G and Larson, L L (eds.), Leadership Frontiers, Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 153-165.
  10. [11]11. Graen, G, Liden, R C and Hoel, W (1982). "Role of Leadership in the Employee Withdrawal Process," Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 868-872.
  11. [13]13. Graen, G and Uhl-Bien, M (1991). "Relationship Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader- Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership Over 25 Years: Applying A Multilevel Multi-Domain Perspective," Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
  12. [14]14. Graen, G Scandura, T A and Graen, M R (1986). "A Field Experimental Test of the Moderating Effects of Growth Need Strength on Productivity," Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 484-491.
  13. [16]16. Hackman, J R and Lawler, E E (1971). "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259-286.
  14. [17]17. Hackman, J R and Oldham, G R (1975). "Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey," Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170.
  15. [18]18. Hackman, J R and Oldham, G R (1980). Work Redesign, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  16. [19]19. Honig, W K (ed.) (1966). Operant Behaviour: Area of Research and Application, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  17. [20]20. Honig, W K and Stadden, J E R (1977). HandBook of Operant Behavioiur, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  18. [21]21. Hollander, E P and Offerman, L R (1990). "Power and Leadership in Organizations," American Psychologist, 45(2), 184-185.
  19. [22]22. James, L R and James, L A (1989). "Integrating Work Environ- ment Perceptions: Explorations into the Measurement of Meaning," Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 739- 751.
  20. [23]23. Jablin, F M (1979), "Organizational Entry, Assimilation Exit," in Jablin, F M; Putnam, L L, Roberts, K H and Porter, L W (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication, New-burry Park, CA: Sage Publications, 679-740.
  21. [24]24. Leana, C R (1986). "Predictors and Consequences of Delegation," Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 754- 774.
  22. [25]25. Leana, C R (1987). "Power Relinquishment Versus Power Sharing: Theoretical Clarification and Empirical Comparison of Delegation and Participation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 228-233.
  23. [27]27. Locke, E A (1976). "The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction," in Dunnett, M B (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally.
  24. [28]28. Manz, C C and Sims, H P (1987). "Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self Managed Working Teams," Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106-128.
  25. [29]29. Martin, S (1983). Managing Without Managers: Alternative Work Arrangements in Public Organizations, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  26. [31]31. McEvoy, G M and Cascio, W F (1985). "Strategies for Reducing Turnover: A Meta Analysis," Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 342-353.
  27. [32]32. McIntyre, R M and Salas, E (1995). "Measuring and Managing for Team Performance: Lessons from Complex Environments," in Guzzo, R A and Salas, E (eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  28. [33]33. Nair, S K (1988). "Role of Cognitive Styles in Job Cognitions and Job Attitudes," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Nagpur University, Nagpur.
  29. [34]34. Pareek, U (1997). Training Instruments for Human Resource Development, New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., 517-525.
  30. [35]35. Parker, S K (1998). "Enhancing Role Breadth Self-Efficacy: The Roles of Job Enrichment and Other Organizational Interventions," Journal of Applied Psychology 83(6), 835- 852.
  31. [36]36. Pierce, J L and Dunham, R B (1978). "The Measurement of Perceived Job Characteristics: The Job Diagnostic Survey Versus the Job Characteristics Inventory," Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 123-128.
  32. [37]37. Roebuck, C (1996). "Constructive Feedback: Key to Higher Performance and Commitment," Long Range Planning, 29(3), 328-336.
  33. [38]38. Schriesheim, C A, Neider, L L and Scandura, T A (1998). "Delegation and Leader-Member Exchange: Main Effects, Moderators, and Measurement Issues," Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 298-318.
  34. [39]39. Sekaran, U (1981). "Are US Organizational Concepts and Measures Transferable to Another Culture? An Empirical Investigation," Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 409-441.
  35. [40]40. Sekaran, U and Trafton, R S (1978). "The Dimensionality of Jobs: Back to Square One," Twenty First Midwest Academy of Management Proceedings, 249-262.
  36. [41]41. Seashore, S E; Lawler, E E, Mirvis, P and Cammann, C (eds.) (1982). Observing and Measuring Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice, New York: Wiley.
  37. [42]42. Sims, H P, Szilagy, A D and Keller, R T (1976). "Role Dynamics, Locus of Control, and Employee Attitudes and Behaviour," Academy of Management Journal, 19(2), 259-276.
  38. [44]44. Ulrich, R, Stachnik, T and Mabry, J (eds.) (1966). Control of Human Behaviour, 1, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
  39. [45]45. Ulrich, R, Stachnik, T and Mabry, J (eds.) (1970). Control of Human Behaviour: From Cure to Prevention (Vol. 2), Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
  40. [46]46. Ulrich, R, Stachnik, T and Mabry, J (eds.) (1974). Control of Human Behaviour: Behaviour Modification in Education (Vol. 3), Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
  41. [47]47. Wakabayashi, M; Graen, G, Graen, M and Graen, M (1988). "Japanese Management Progress: Mobility into Middle Management," Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 217- 227.
  42. [48]48. Wagner, J A III (1994). "Participation Effect on Performance and Satisfaction: A Consideration of Research Evidence," Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 312-330.
  43. [49]49. Wayne, S J and Ferris, G R (1990). "Influence Tactics, Affect and Exchange Quality in Supervisor-Subordinate Interactions: A Laboratory Experiment and Field Study," Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487-499.
  44. [50]50. Yukl, G (1994). Leadership in Organizations, NJ: Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
  45. [51]51. Yukl, G and Fu, Ping Ping (1999). "Determinants of Dele- gation and Consultation by Managers," Journal of Orga- nization Behaviour, 20(2), 219-232.
  46. [52]52. Zand, D E (1972). "Trust and Managerial Problem Solving," Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 229-239.

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jha, S.
Affiliations
Guru Nanak Institute of Management Studies (IN)
Corresponding author
Jha, Sumi
ORCID
Jha, Sumi
Venue
Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-10
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
43-56
ISSN
  • 0256-0909 (ISSN-L)
  • 2395-3799
DOI
10.1177/0256090920040404
OpenAlex
W2599445635
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Vikalpa The Journal for Decision Makers (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Motivation
Keywords
delegation, job characteristics, superior-subordinate relationships, five-star hotels, frontline hotel employees, task identity, feedback, skill variety, job satisfaction, employee motivation, customer relationship management, hospitality industry, resource sharing, task acceptance, employee autonomy, job feedback

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.