Tourism Management 30 (2009) 41–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: [Link]/locate/tourman

Hospitality teams: Knowledge sharing and service innovation performance

Meng-Lei Monica Hu a, *, Jeou-Shyan Horng b, c, Yu-Hua Christine Sun c
a
Department of Food and Beverage Management, Jinwen University Science and Technology, 1F, No. 2, Lane 2, Ru-I Street, Hsintein City, Taipei, Taiwan 231, R.O.C
b
Office of Research & Development, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
c
Graduate Institute of Hospitality Management & Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Knowledge sharing and team culture have been found to have an important influence on service in-
Received 26 July 2007 novation performance. However, there has been relatively little substantive research focusing on these
Accepted 11 April 2008 issues. This study’s results support team culture’s role in maintaining and moderating the relationship
between knowledge sharing and service innovation performance. The research framework developed in
Keywords: this study was tested by 621 employees of international tourist hotels. The survey responses indicated
Knowledge sharing that the relationships between and among knowledge sharing, team culture and service innovation
Team culture
performance are significant and strong. The main overall practical implication that can be drawn from
Service innovation performance
these findings is that to achieve high service innovation performance, organizations first need to develop
knowledge sharing behaviors plus a better team culture.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction However, despite the increasing research on product and service

innovationdincluding both service innovation performance (SIP)
The hospitality industrydwhich includes the restaurant, ac- and new service development (NSD)dmost of the focus has been on
commodation, entertainment and transportation businesses manufacturing and technology-based industries (Matthing, Sanden,
(Brotherton, 1999; King, 1995)dfaces increasing competition. & Edvardsson, 2004). Only a few studies have addressed in some
Those who are working in this industry must be able to keep and depth the implications of SIP in the hospitality and tourism sectors
attract new customers by satisfying their increasingly sophisticated (see e.g., Aune, 2002; Enz & Siguaw, 2003; Jones & Wan, 1992;
demands. Tourists in particular are more than ever before looking Matear, Gray, & Garrett, 2004; Orfila-Sintes, Crespı́-Cladera, & Mar-
for ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘unique’’ experiences. To meet this new challenge tı́nez-Ros, 2005; Ottenbacher & Gnoth, 2005; Ottenbacher, Gnoth, &
there has recently been more emphasis on ‘‘knowledge sharing’’ in Jones, 2006; Victorino,Verma, Plaschka, & Dev, 2005). Furthermore,
the hospitality industry, and even on the notion of ‘‘teamwork.’’ current theories provide only fragmentary insights into the origins of
Thus we are now seeing more and more ‘‘organizational teams’’ KS, and thus offer limited guidance for KS practices. To date, there has
within the industry. also been little empirical examination of the important relationship
Moreover, the members of these teams are increasingly sharing between KS and SIP. Also, although organizations are increasingly
among themselves their knowledge and experience in order to pro- relying on teams to respond to the rapidly changing marketplace by
vide new and more creative products and services, for there is an coming up with new innovations in management practices as well as
emerging consensus that knowledge is a key factor in any enterprise’s goods and services (Hoegl, Ernst, & Proserpio, 2007), discussion of
success. In recent research that is not limited to the hospitality in- the ability of KS to stimulate SIP is still very limited.
dustry, the importance of knowledge management (KM) and Building on prior research, then, the purpose of this study is to
knowledge sharing (KS) has been firmly established. Many studies explore issues related to KS, SIP and the role that organizational
have recognized the importance of KM and KS in supporting in- teams can play in increasing KS and SIPdin organizations both
novation in an organization (Finnegan & Willcocks, 2006; Hallin & within and outside the hospitality industry. The section Theory and
Marnburg, 2008; Mohamed, Stankosky, & Murray, 2004). research model of this paper presents the researcher’s underlying
theory and hypotheses to be tested. The section Hypotheses: back-
ground and development then presents the research methods, while
* Corresponding author. Department of Food and Beverage Management, Jinwen
the section Method is devoted to a discussion of the theoretical and
University Science and Technology, Tel.: þ886-2-22145525; fax: þ886-2-82122669. managerial aspects of the study, and also makes suggestions for
E-mail address: e5267@[Link] (M.-L. Monica Hu). future research.

0261-5177/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.04.009
42 M.-L. Monica Hu et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 41–50

2. Theory and research model to that of services, thus becoming predominantly a service econ-
omy: services now account for more than half of both employment
2.1. Knowledge management and sharing and output in most industrial nations (Gustafsson & Johnson,
2003). Perhaps this is an important reason why, as Osborne (1998)
KM is essentially a social process, one which must take into noted, post-1985 studies of innovation, especially innovation in
account social and cultural factors (Clarke & Rollo, 2002). Compa- services, have tended to have a strong socio-political orientation.
nies (businesses, industries) both large and small can gain a com- Indeed SIP is itself rarely science or even technology-based: its
petitive advantage only if they are able to integrate the knowledge, primary dynamic is often social (and political), as in the conceiving
expertise and skills of their employees and make use of the most of new ways to access both employees and customers (Sundbo,
effective managerial practices in their day-to-day operations. This 1996).
entails the sharing of knowledge and the transforming of it into In order to explore individual innovative behavior, Scott and
practice. According to Mason and Pauleen’s (2003) qualitative Bruce (1994) developed the employee service innovation behavior
study, ‘‘sharing’’ is the single most important factor in KM imple- (ESIB) scale by interviewing firms’ high-level managers. Enz and
mentation. Some research has also analyzed the factors Siguaw (2003) suggested that managers could learn from the suc-
determining the degree of an individual’s engagement in intra- cesses of proven leaders in the hospitality industry, and that the
organizational KS, such as his or her personality, willingness, and most successful practices could serve as benchmarks, guiding and
organizational commitment (Cabrera, Collins, & Salgado, 2006; Foss inspiring other innovators. Chan, Go, and Pine (1998) found that
& Pedersen, 2002). Studies of the factors affecting KS have identi- hotel, restaurant and tourism businesses still tend to focus on
fied a number of different variables, such as technologies (Malhotra quality improvement rather than innovation; almost half of those
& Majchrzak, 2004), motivations (Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling, they studied had not developed new teams to work on incremental
2003), leadership and collaborative culture (Yang, 2007), and innovation. Jeong and Oh (1998) proposed the quality/function/
organizational and communicational climate (Moffett, McAdam, & development approach to the design of new services and modifi-
Parkinson, 2003). cation of old ones, with a focus on both external customer needs
Furthermore, some KM and KS research has shown the need for and internal service management requirements.
such strategies in the hospitality and tourism industries (Sungsoo,
2005; Yang, 2004a, 2004b, 2007). Hotels can improve the quality of 2.3. Team culture
their service, for example, by enhancing employees’ knowledge of
customers’ preferences and improving their service accordingly. If A successful hotel depends on its teamwork. Team culture can
hospitality and tourist businesses clearly understand how knowl- be defined in terms of an emergent and simplified set of rules,
edge is best shared (and how much of it may be shared), they can norms, expectations, and roles that team members share and
greatly improve their performance through KS. This includes fos- ‘‘enact’’ (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). This emergent culture, itself
tering in all its employees an understanding of the company’s goals, an abstract mental construct or model, offers members a common
which include the serving of guests as well as continual innovation sense of identity that becomes group specific. A strong team culture
through KS and KM. Above all, hospitality and tourist industry may be derived from the overlapping, preexisting characteristics of
employees should be aware that their own coordination and joint team members or from newly developed patterns of team member
‘‘creative thinking’’ are vital to achieving increased customer sat- interaction. Team culture thus provides a basis for team members’
isfaction and greater quality of service (Bouncken, 2005). self-evaluation as well as facilitating team interaction and perfor-
There are of course special problems, as well as special oppor- mance (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Froehle, Roth, Chase, & Voss,
tunities, with regard to KS in the hospitality industry. Because 2000; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Moultrie, Nilsson, Dissel,
knowledge is power, employees may hoard knowledge: for exam- Janssen, and Van der Lugt (2007) have even emphasized the im-
ple, restaurant chefs may face strong competition and start keeping portance of a ‘‘strategic intent’’ to ‘‘enhance teamwork in in-
‘‘secret recipes’’ to themselves. Partial transfer of knowledge, where novation, encourage better communication (physical or virtual),
employees share only selected aspects of a given case rather than encourage formal and informal social interaction and motivate
all of it, may be a more common kind of hoarding (Goh, 2002). staff.’’
Because the elimination of hoarding behavior seems to be quite A team culture, then, consists of an emergent and simplified set
difficult for any team or company, understanding how to inspire of rules and actions, work capability expectations, and perceptions
individuals to share their knowledge has become crucial, and that are shared by the individuals on a given team, developed by
organizations have to create a positive team culture that supports them and ‘‘enacted’’ after a number of team-member interactions.
solid relationships and active, healthy collaboration. To the extent that these rules, expectations, and roles are shared,
There are many different ways in which knowledge sharing may a strong team culture exists. These characteristics need not be
take place through employee–customer and employee–employee completely shared among a team’s members, just as cultural values
interactions in hotels, each with its own special features. For ex- are not uniformly shared among a society’s members, but a strong
ample, employees’ direct interactions with customers by telephone team culture requires a significant degree of ‘‘overlap.’’ An in-
and e-mail limit knowledge transfer to explicit items of in- novative team has a strong team culture because shared member
formation. Of course, the KS made possible by employee–employee expectations facilitate the innovative performance both of
interaction is also very important. In the complex environment of individuals and of the team. Successful implementation of new
hotels, personal and direct communication between and among services depends on a person’s or team’s having a good idea and
employees aids shared decision-making and reliable knowledge developing that idea beyond its initial state.
transfer. The direct communication between instructors and
trainees found in ‘‘apprentice’’ relationships, a special case, allows 3. Hypotheses: background and development
for the implicit transfer of tacit and process-oriented knowledge.
3.1. Knowledge sharing and service innovation performance
2.2. Service innovation performance
Hertog (2000) identified a number of different processes,
Over the past two decades, the world’s economy has been including expert consulting and experience sharing, by which in-
marked by a steady shift in emphasis from the production of goods novation can be supported. Empirical studies concerned with the
 M.-L. Monica Hu et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 41–50 43

sharing of knowledge and information in and by teams have showed creative teams are those that realize they are working on jobs with
that well-developed ‘‘team processes’’ do result in better coordinated high task interdependence, and that their tasks require high levels
and superior team performance (Bank & Millward, 2000; Erika & of creativity. Also, teams that possess a high degree of shared goals,
Leigh, 1997). Bartol and Srivastava (2002) noted that through KS, that value participative problem solving, and that work in a climate
employees are able to diffuse relevant information to others across supportive of creativity tend to be themselves more creative. Fur-
the organization. In the ‘‘resource-based’’ view of the firm, knowledge thermore, members of the most creative teams tend to spend the
is considered to be the most strategically important resource. The KS most time together, socializing with each other inside and outside
between and among individuals and departments in the organization of the workplace. In the present study, then, we take team support,
is considered to be a crucial process (Osterloh & Frey, 2000). team coordination, and team cohesion as being vitally important to
The purpose of this study is to provide some new insights into team culture. There is a positive relationship between team culture
the knowledge-sharing and service–innovation–performance of and SIP primarily because supportive, coordinative, and cohesive
hospitality teams via a particular conceptual model. This model was team culture can stimulate team SIP. Therefore, we propose that
developed using items generated from an extensive review of KS, team culture is collectively positive in relation to SIP.
SIP and team culture literatures, as well as comprehensive personal
Hypothesis 5. Team culture positively relates to service in-
interviews of five hotel managers. Noting, then, Chi and Holsapple’s
novation performance and more specifically to ESIB.
(2005) conclusion that the critical function of KS is that of main-
taining an inter-organizational mechanism for on-going in- Hypothesis 6. Team culture positively relates to service in-
novation, we propose that KS is positively r related to SIP. novation performance and more specifically to NSD.
Hypothesis 1. All knowledge sharing positively relates to SIP and Hypothesis 7. Team culture predicts ESIB.
more specifically to employee service innovation behavior (ESIB).
Hypothesis 8. Team culture predicts NSD.
Hypothesis 2. All knowledge sharing positively relates to SIP and
The few studies in which the moderating influence of team
more specifically to new service development (NSD).
culture has been investigated have yielded contradictory and in-
Hypothesis 3. Knowledge sharing predicts ESIB. conclusive results (e.g., Chen et al., 2007). Leenders, van Engelen,
and Kratzer (2003) found that for new product development teams,
Hypothesis 4. Knowledge sharing predicts NSD.
a moderate frequency of communication was best for creativity.
This allows team members to share their ideas and have a con-
structive dialogue, while still maintaining a degree of the ‘‘private
3.2. Team culture and service innovation performance
space’’ that is also necessary to creativity. Furthermore, these re-
searchers found that a low level of communication centralization
The relationship between different facets of organizational cul-
was best for team creativity, because in this way ideas were not
ture, such as organizational commitment and work satisfaction, has
being filtered through just one or two of the members. Therefore
been documented in the literature at the individual level of analysis
the authors of this study propose that the influence of the in-
with regard to personality and cognition (e.g., Chen, Kirkman, Kan-
dividual KS and SIP of team units is moderated by the team culture
fer, & Allen, 2007; Taggar, 2002). A positive team culture stimulates
of these units. In the model we are proposing here, KS stimulates
the innovation process and contributes to testing and in some cases
SIP, a process of stimulation that will itself be moderated by the
implementing ideas. The main force behind an organization’s ability
team culture, Applying this framework to our research question,
to change is that of innovation, which can be described as an attitude
then, we predict that the relationship between KS and SIP is
that helps organizations to see beyond the present and concentrate
moderated by team culture, and in the case of international tourist
on the future (Ahmed, 1998; Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001).
hotels, this process of stimulation (of SIP by KS) and this relation-
Team development has become increasingly diffuse because in-
ship (between KS and SIP) will be moderated by the team culture of
novative tasks require the input of a specialized knowledge available
these hotels. We thus put forward the following hypothesis:
in multiple locations. Quinn’s (1992) study of 84 cases of innovation
yielded seven important factors fostering organizational innovation, Hypothesis 9. Team culture (team support, team coordination,
and fine teamwork was one of them. Reciprocal interactions can team cohesiveness) moderates the relationship between the
prevent misunderstanding and enhance shared values, leadership, knowledge sharing and service innovation performance of in-
trust and justice in team-member relationships, thus promoting the ternational tourist hotels. When team culture (team support, team
democratization of knowledge (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Yang, 2007). coordination, team cohesiveness) is well-developed, there is
Organizational learning and knowledge creation indicate that KS, a stronger relationship between knowledge sharing and service
communication, and learning in organizations are profoundly innovation performance, one that is closely related to ESIB and NSD.
influenced by the cultural values of individual employees (Hutchings
& Michailova, 2004). A team’s organizational environment and cul-
ture is one of the important factors influencing innovative perfor- 4. Method
mance (Thamhain, 2003). The pilot study of Ottenbacher et al.
(2006) noted that team employees are the most critical factor for The sample consisted of 1260 employees in 35 different in-
NSD in the hospitality sector. Drach-Zahavy and Somech (2001) in- ternational tourist hotels, generally higher-class hotels, located in
vestigated the contributions of both team interaction processes Taiwan. The human resource managers of all these hotels promised
(exchange of information, learning, motivating, and negotiating) and to administer the questionnaires via random sampling. Six hundred
team structures (functional heterogeneity and frequency of meet- fifty-nine usable questionnaires were returned, yielding a 52.3%
ings) to innovation. They found that team structure, heterogeneity response rate; 38 questionnaires containing missing data further
and interaction processes positively relate to team innovation, and reduced the useable sample size to 621 (49.29%).
furthermore that team interaction processes mediate the relation-
ship between team heterogeneity and innovation. 4.1. Questionnaire measures
These results imply that the development of mutual interaction
processes is a crucial mechanism for converting team heterogeneity The questionnaire items were derived from interviews and
into innovation. Gilson and Shalley (2004) found that the most previous studies. In the pre-study phase, structured interviews
44 M.-L. Monica Hu et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 41–50

were carried out with five managers from various international Table 1
tourist hotels, with the aim of identifying the items related to the Characteristics of the respondents (n ¼ 621)

topic of this study. The structured interview questions are in the Frequency Percentage
Appendix. The questionnaire battery included KS, team culture, SIP Gender
and personal information items, all of them derived from a com- Male 216 34.8
prehensive review of existing literature. The information on Female 398 64.1
Total 614
international tourist hotels in Taiwan was collected from Taiwan’s
Tourism Bureau. KS items were taken from two empirical studies Education
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Walz & Niehoff, 2000), in which a total Secondary and high school 132 21.3
Vocational school 195 31.4
of 11 KS items were utilized. The KS dimensions of ‘‘symbiosis,’’ University 261 42.0
‘‘reputation,’’ and ‘‘altruism’’ were adopted. Master’s/PhD 13 2.1
The 16 team-culture items were taken from several empirical Total 601
studies (e.g., Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001; Stashevsky & Marital status
Koslowsky, 2006; Van de Ven, Delbeeq, & Koening, 1976). These Married 122 19.6
items were grouped into three team-culture dimensions: team Single or divorced 485 78.1
support, team coordination, and team cohesiveness. The 14 SIP Total 607

items were developed from Matear et al. (2004) and Scott and Hotel department
Bruce (1994). We also included two new SIP dimensions: ‘‘em- Food and beverage 285 45.9
Rooms 192 30.9
ployee service innovation behavior (ESIB)’’ and ‘‘new service
Others 121 20.2
development (NSD).’’ A six-point Likert-type scale was utilized for Total 598
most items in this study (6 ¼ ‘‘strongly agree’’ or ‘‘very satisfied’’;
Job title
1 ¼ ‘‘strongly disagree’’ or ‘‘very dissatisfied’’). Data analysis was
First-line employee 369 59.4
performed in two stages. In the first stage, reliability analysis was Supervisor 115 18.5
conducted using SPSS (V.12.0) to evaluate the stability and consis- Outlet manager 78 12.6
tency of the measured items. Department manager 16 2.6
General manager 3 0.5
Total 581
4.2. Treatment of common method variance
Organizational tenure (years)
Under 3 422 68.0
Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are common method-bound predictions.
3–6 92 14.8
Hence, we took several precautions, following Podsakoff, Mac- 6–9 32 5.2
Kenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), in order to minimize common 9–12 20 3.2
method biases. First, to increase the candidness of respondents, we 12–15 6 1.0
presented the employees with detailed information about the 15–18 7 1.1
18–21 3 0.5
precautions taken to ensure the confidentiality of their individual
Above 21 11 1.8
responses. Furthermore, to decrease respondents’ apprehension Total 593
about being evaluated, we assured the employees that there were
no right or wrong answers to the measures in the survey. Finally,
team cohesiveness (three items), employee service innovation be-
we used two versions of the survey to counterbalance the question
order and decrease priming effects caused by the context of the havior (six items) and development of new services (eight items) had
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of over 0.81, with no apparent increase
questions or item embeddedness.
when any of the items were deleted. The coefficients exceeded
Nunnally and Bernstein’s (1994) recommendation of 0.70, and sup-
5. Results
ported the use of these items in each scale. Almost all the correlations
between and among variables were significant.
5.1. Characteristics of the respondents
As a first step, data reduction was conducted to convert the
items in each scale into a single composite score. The 45 items
The participants were primarily female (64%). Their ages ranged
from 18 to 70 years of age with 55% being 20–29 years old and 20% shown were subjected to principal component analysis in order to
examine their unidimensionality. Seven factors with eigenvalues
being 30–39 years old. Most of them were studying in university or
had completed their university education (42%). The participants were greater than 1 were extracted by means of direct oblimin rotation.
The first factor (team coordination) explained 36.90% of the vari-
first-line employees (59%), leaders or supervisors (19%), assistant
managers or managers of outlets (13%), and department managers ance in the subscales, whereas the other factors accounted for
11.07%, 5.51%, 4.29%, 2.58%, 2.01% and 1.62% of the variance in the
(3%). Table 1 demonstrates the characteristics of the respondents.
subscales, respectively. Table 3 shows the factor loadings for each
item. Overall, results of the factor analysis appeared satisfactory,
5.2. Reliability analysis and data reduction
and most measurement items loaded strongly onto the constructs
they were supposed to measure, with a range of 0.31–0.91. Re-
Reliability analysis was used to evaluate the stability and consis-
liability analysis was then conducted by calculating the Cronbach’s
tency of the measured items in each latent construct. The criteria used
in deciding whether to delete an item were (1) its corrected item-to-
a for each scale. The results showed that the Cronbach’s a for the
seven constructs surpassed the threshold point of 0.7 (0.81–0.94),
total correlation and (2) the question as to whether this elimination
as suggested by Nunnally (1978). During this process, none of the
improved the corresponding alpha values (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &
items was deleted from its latent variable.
Berry, 1988). As a result, items with corrected item-to-total correla-
tions of below 0.30 were eliminated. The Pearson correlations be-
tween and among KS, team culture and SIP, as well as Cronbach’s a for 5.3. Prediction effect and discussion
this study, are shown in Table 2. The items concerned with symbiosis
and reputation (seven items), reputation (four items), altruism (four Hypotheses 1, 2 and 5, 6 predicted that KS and team culture
items), team support (five items), team coordination (eight items), would be positively related to SIP. The dependent variables were
 M.-L. Monica Hu et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 41–50 45

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Symbiosis and reputation (KS) 4.64 0.72 (0.86)
2. Altruism (KS) 4.37 0.68 0.57** (0.81)
3. Team support (TC) 4.50 0.79 0.50** 0.51** (0.91)
4. Team coordination (TC) 4.27 0.67 0.43** 0.47** 0.55** (0.91)
5. Team cohesiveness (TC) 4.28 0.82 0.37** 0.43** 0.41** 0.55** (0.86)
6. Employee service innovation behavior (ESIB) 4.18 0.78 0.43** 0.44** 0.35** 0.53** 0.45** (0.92)
7. New service development (NSD) 4.03 0.74 0.18** 0.26** 0.31** 0.47** 0.45** 0.48** (0.94)
8. Age 27.07 7.92 0.09* 0.09* 0.02 0.09* 0.08 0.12** 0.01 d
9. Number of years working 2.62 1.35 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.64**

N ¼ 621. Values in parentheses are Cronbach’s a. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01.

strongly interrelated, with correlations ranging from 0.37 to 0.57. dimensions and ESIB, and weaker correlations between the two
All KS dimensions were significantly correlated with ESIB and NSD, KS dimensions and NSD. On the other hand, among the team cul-
thus supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2 of this study. Further ture dimensions, team support was the least related to NSD while
inspection showed stronger correlations between the two KS coordination was the most closely related to ESIB. Thus Hypotheses

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and factor loadings for the items

Scale/item Mean SD Factor loading

Symbiosis and reputation (KS)
I respect others’ impression that I am willing to assist people 4.62 0.91 0.79
In a team setting, I am willing to share knowledge to pay back colleagues that have assisted me 4.74 0.90 0.75
I want to become a person with professional knowledge in the eyes of my colleagues 4.49 0.94 0.74
I believe that knowledge sharing among teams can help establish my image as an expert 4.44 0.94 0.71
Helping the team address work problems will let me feel happy and satisfied 4.71 0.89 0.70
I believe that members should help each other to foster knowledge sharing 4.84 0.88 0.69
I enjoy learning and sharing knowledge through teamwork 4.64 0.84 0.54

Altruism (KS)
I will personally help other team members regardless of whether they are in need 4.21 0.88 0.76
I am willing to help other team members 4.49 0.84 0.73
I am willing to use my spare time to help other team members 4.33 0.82 0.47
I am eager to exchange knowledge without asking for anything in return 4.47 0.90 0.34

Team support (TC)

My unit supervisor supports knowledge and technical information sharing 4.54 0.91 0.91
My department supervisor supports knowledge and technical information sharing 4.52 0.94 0.83
My direct supervisor supports knowledge and technical information sharing 4.48 0.96 0.78
In my organization, there is always someone to address work problems 4.50 0.93 0.56
My team supports knowledge and technical information sharing 4.49 0.90 0.35

Coordination (TC)
This hotel coordinates teamwork through team leaders 4.29 0.80 0.73
This hotel coordinates teamwork through formal rules and procedures 4.28 0.82 0.76
This hotel coordinates teamwork through pre-designed work plans and processes 4.31 0.83 0.75
This hotel coordinates work through direct inquiry by asking knowledgeable members of the team 4.23 0.86 0.49
This hotel assigns a designated person to coordinate teamwork 4.16 0.89 0.55
This hotel’s employees are flexible about meeting to discuss problems and coordinate teamwork 4.28 0.87 0.60
This hotel’s employees hold regular meetings to coordinate teamwork 4.36 0.88 0.61
During our spare time, this hotel’s team members socialize and hold other social activities 4.26 0.94 0.31

Team cohesiveness (TC)

This service team possesses a fine spirit 4.32 0.98 0.76
Members of this team have a sense of participation 4.35 0.89 0.67
Each member of this team contributes equally to the hotel’s innovation in services 4.17 0.90 0.60

Employee service innovation behavior (ESIB)

At work, I come up with innovative and creative notions 4.26 0.84 0.83
At work, I try to propose my own creative ideas and convince others 4.21 0.86 0.82
At work, I seek new service techniques, methods, or techniques 4.30 0.83 0.81
At work, I provide a suitable plan for developing new ideas 4.19 0.87 0.79
At work, I try to secure the funding and resources needed to implement innovations 4.07 0.93 0.69
Overall, I consider myself a creative member of my team 4.04 0.95 0.65

New service development (NSD)

This hotel would be willing to dedicate some resources to the development of new services 3.97 0.89 0.90
The hotel’s current manpower is sufficient to handle the new services that need to be developed 3.98 0.92 0.88
This team has a professional attitude toward developing new businesses or new product launches 4.01 0.91 0.87
This hotel would be happy to offer incentives or promotions to members involved in the 3.98 0.99 0.81
development of new businesses, upon the successful completion of the project
The new services developed by this team are effective with respect to timing, resources and 4.09 0.92 0.76
processes
This hotel provides a suitable environment for developing new services 4.01 0.97 0.74
All departments and units are able to interact effectively in developing new businesses 4.10 0.96 0.68
In developing new service projects, managers and front-line service personnel collaborate closely 4.13 0.91 0.63

Scales ranged from 1 to 6, from strongly disagree to strongly agree on each variable.
46 M.-L. Monica Hu et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 41–50

5 and 6 were supported. Also, all team culture dimensions were (Z:team support)
0.5
found to correlate positively with SIP dimensions.
Moderated regression results are shown in Table 4. Hypotheses
0
3, 4 and 7, 8 proposed that KS and team culture can predict SIP.
Gender predicted ESIB but not NSD. Symbiosis and reputation, -2 2 Z-max
-0.5
altruism, team support, team coordination, and team cohesiveness

ESIB
predicted ESIB, while only team coordination and team co- Z-mean
-1
hesiveness predicted NSD. Hypotheses 3, 4 and 7 were therefore
Z-min
supported, but Hypothesis 8 was not supported. Finally, the
-1.5
interaction termsdteam support–altruism and team coordination–
altruismdpredicted ESIB, while only team cohesiveness–symbiosis
-2
and team reputation predicted NSD. The effect magnitudes (DR2) of Altruism
the interaction terms of ESIB and NSD were consistent with those
Fig. 1. Team support–altruism.
typically found in non-experimental studies (i.e., 0.02–0.03;
Chaplin, 1991). Furthermore, the moderating effect of team culture
on the crucial KS–SIP ‘‘simulation relationship’’ was statistically
significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 9 was also supported.
be seen from a review of the literature, has focused on the ante-
We plotted the prediction for each outcome based on simple
cedents of individual employee innovation. However, it is clear that
slope analysis (using a simple regression equation) and at different
teams are increasingly responsible for organizations’ service in-
TC levels (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Curran, Bauer, &
novations (Chen et al., 2007; Sundstrom, 1999). The major objective
Willoughby, 2004). Figs. 1–3, produced from the simple slope and
of this study was then to investigate the positive relationships
intercept data in the regression output, support our hypothesis
between and among the KS, SIP and team culture of hospitality
regarding the expected effects of interactions. The results as shown
teams, and to clarify the moderating role of perceived team culture.
in Fig. 1 mean that a higher degree of altruism is associated with
Four hypotheses were supported by the empirical data, showing
greater ESIB, and that team support, serving as moderator, has
that there is a significant direct relationship between KS and SIP
a strengthening effect on the relation between altruism and ESIB.
(Bank & Millward, 2000), and between team culture and SIP
Results from Fig. 2 show that a higher level of altruism was asso-
(Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001). Furthermore, the results strongly
ciated with greater ESIB for mean and maximum levels of team
suggest that team culture moderates the relationship between KS
coordination, but that the relationship between altruism and ESIB
and SIP (Chen et al., 2007).
was negative, with a minimum degree of team coordination.
There was an interesting result regarding the dimensions for the
Results from Fig. 3 show that a higher level of symbiosis and rep-
Chinese KS in this study: symbiosis and reputation appeared as
utation was associated with greater NSD for mean and minimal
a single dimension, while altruism appeared as another dimension.
levels of team cohesiveness, but the relationship between these
This result was different from what other studies have shown
variables and the groups with a maximum level of team co-
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Walz & Niehoff, 2000). Why then are
hesiveness was negative.
there only two KS dimensions for the Chinese: symbiosis–reputa-
tion and altruism? One possible reason for this result may be that
6. Conclusion and discussion symbiosis is always combined with reputation in Chinese com-
munities. More research will be needed to clarify the specifically
To date, little empirical work has been conducted in the precise Chinese KS dimensions. Table 2 shows that the hospitality teams in
area investigated by this research study; most past research, as may this study have displayed more symbiosis-reputation than altruism
(M ¼ 4.64 and 4.37), and more team support than cohesiveness and
Table 4
team coordination (M ¼ 4.50, 4.28, and 4.27, respectively). Fur-
Results of regression analyses
thermore, the individual employees’ service innovation behavior
Variables ESIB NSD tends to be greater than the NSD of the hospitality team.
B t b t As expected, the KS–SIP and team culture–SIP correlations are
1. Controls both positive. In the beginning we hypothesized that the KS–SIP
Gender 0.10** 2.76 0.04 0.93 interaction would be positive with teams that have a good team
Age 0.06 1.28 0.04 0.83 culture, and are therefore more likely to take advantage of a high KS
Education 0.06 1.54 0.01 0.18
to produce a higher SIP. Further inspection of the analyses showed
Tenure 0.03 0.56 0.01 0.23
DR2 0.04** 0.00
DF 4.59 0.14

2. Symbiosis and reputation (KS) 0.24*** 4.66 0.09 1.68

Altruism (KS) 0.16** 2.93 0.01 0.14 (Z:team coordination)
Team support (TC) 0.19*** 3.84 0.01 0.21 0.5
Team coordination (TC) 0.26*** 4.66 0.30*** 4.94
Team cohesiveness (TC) 0.21** 4.20 0.38*** 7.22
0
DR2 0.36*** 0.28***
Z-max
DF 56.49 38.16
-0.5 -2 2
ESIB

3. Team support–symbiosis and reputation 0.03 0.56 0.01 0.14 Z-mean

Team support–altruism 0.16* 2.55 0.02 0.25 -1
Team coordination–symbiosis and reputation 0.11 1.71 0.13 1.84 Z-min
Team coordination–altruism 0.28*** 3.58 0.08 0.95
-1.5
Team cohesiveness–symbiosis and reputation 0.09 1.29 0.18* 2.46
Team cohesiveness–altruism 0.09 1.30 0.07 1.01
2 -2
DR 0.03** 0.03**
DF 3.82 3.32
Altruism

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; Gender: 1 ¼ Male; 2 ¼ Female. Fig. 2. Team coordination–altruism.
 M.-L. Monica Hu et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 41–50 47

(Z:team cohesiveness) investment in new facilities or technologies, it is well worth the

2 money and time to develop successful teamwork within an
organization.
1.5 Furthermore, organizational research on product and service
Z-max
innovation has been mainly conducted on the cross-disciplinary
1
level (Karniouchina, Victorino, & Verma, 2006), with studies fo-
NSD

Z-mean
cusing predominantly on KM and organizational environments. By
0.5
demonstrating that team culture can serve as a contextual back-
Z-min
0
ground for KS, SIP, and the KS–SIP interaction, this study furthers
our understanding of team culture. To expand on these findings,
-0.5 -2 2 then, future research may focus on two specific areas. First, and in
Symbiosis & reputation connection with the previous point, the variables incorporated in
this study were deliberately limited in scope in order to facilitate
Fig. 3. Team cohesiveness–symbiosis and reputation. testing. Therefore further studies investigating the complexity of
the ‘‘hard’’ and ‘‘soft’’ aspects of service innovation management
could profitably incorporate more explanatory variables, including
controlling and moderating variables such as organizational envi-
a stronger correlation between the KS dimensions and ESIB, and ronment. Second, this study does not prescribe actual methods of
a weaker correlation between the KS dimensions and NSD; it also developing the managerial practices that can create the organiza-
showed a weaker correlation between team support and SIP (ESIB tional and cultural environment it describes, and this is another goal
and NSD), and a stronger one between both team coordination and that future studies may want to pursue. Such investigations, how-
cohesiveness and SIP (ESIB and NSD). This study found, then, that ever, would require longitudinal designs in order to test the nature
KS correlates positively with SIP, and that a well-developed team of the relationships if they hoped to yield very useful insights.
cultureditself a function of team support, team coordination and
team cohesivenessddirectly promotes SIP. That is, both KS and 6.1. Managerial implications
team culture reinforce SIP. These results support those of studies of
KS, TC and SIP by Drach-Zahavy and Somech (2001), and Bank and As for the practical implications of these findings, this study has
Millward (2000). The researchers found that the positive impact of shown the importance of the employees, or ‘‘employee side,’’ in
KS and TC on SIP is significant. From the estimated coefficients, they service firms: it is clear that to achieve high SIP, hospitality orga-
conclude that those hotel employees with a high degree of KS and nizations first need to develop and ensure KS behavior; moreover,
TC tend to have more ESIB, while those with a high degree of team better team culture also means increased SIP. Because a team
coordination and cohesiveness tend to have more NSD. Finally, no culture based on cooperation, organizational support, and co-
grounds were found for a direct link between team support and hesiveness will stimulate greater KS in organizations, it will also
NSD. motivate and empower the individuals in organizations to
Our findings clearly suggest that TC moderates the effect of KS innovate. If managers focus more on individual team members in
on SIP. These results regarding the moderating effects of team hospitality organizations, then all team members, that is, all
culture on KS–SIP coincide, then, with those of previous studies by employees will be encouraged to satisfy all the service needs of
Ahmed (1998), and Gonzalez-Roma, Peiro, and Tordera (2002). Our their organization. Furthermore, it is important that all managerial
findings are also congruent with the results of Blazevic and actions should consistently show management’s concern for both
Lievens’ (2004) study of the moderating effect of coordinated employees and customers.
communication on the SIP process. In other words, our findings The findings of this research can also help managers to un-
suggest that the relationship between KS and SIP is fully moder- derstand the importance of such soft elements as knowledge
ated by the hospitality industry’s team culture. They also help to sharing, team culture and ‘‘organization climate’’ (Prajogo &
clarify the important role of ‘‘team culture’’ as a fundamental Ahmed, 2006). However, the moderating effects also mean that the
component, one that enables the sharing of knowledge to drive three ‘‘mixed’’ situations can only be achieved via a deep un-
innovation (e.g., Blazevic & Lievens, 2004). When we measured the derstanding of the relationships between and among different
moderating effect of team culture on the KS–SIP relationship, we configurations of KS and team culture. The strong effects of both KS
found that there were three two-way interactions between and and team culture observed in this study, and the fact that SIP leads
among KS and team-culture dimensions when the goal was to to customer satisfaction (Bouncken, 2005; Jeong & Oh, 1998),
predict SIP. Indeed, all of these variables were important pre- clearly suggest that improving KS, team culture and service in-
dictors of the SIP outcomes, either alone or in combination (see novation are a managerial imperative.
Table 4).
More generally, the results of this research reinforce recently 6.2. Limitations of this study and directions for future research
accumulated evidence that KS and team culture may be detri-
mental to SIP (e.g., Chi & Holsapple, 2005; Bank & Millward, 2000). Two potential limitations of this study should be noted. First, in
The logic for this argument stems from the finding that the KS and order to capture team members’ perceptions of KS, team culture
team-culture factors, both ‘‘soft’’ factors, seem to determine (or at and SIP, these variables were measured by means of the subjects’
least be positively correlated with) the effectiveness of ‘‘hard’’ self-reporting, thus raising the problem of common method vari-
factors (i.e., SIP). Therefore, if the hospitality industry continues to ance (CMV; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The researchers therefore
develop soft factors that seem to lie beyond the scope of manage- adopted Harman’s one-factor test to investigate this issue.
ment, while also developing the SIP of both individual employees According to Podsakoff et al. (2003), CMV problems exist if a single
and work teams, this will likely encourage further innovation. Our factor emerging from the factor analysis proves to account for most
findings regarding this team-culture effect confirm the claim of of the variance. However, results of exploratory factor analysis
other researchers that ‘‘soft’’ organizational structures are more (EFA) with an unrotated factor solution suggested that no single
important than ‘‘hard’’ ones (e.g., Prajogo & Ahmed, 2006). Thus general factor emerged, with the largest factor explaining 36.90% of
while investment in team building is not really any easier than the variances. Moreover, we also used CFA to judge the severity of
48 M.-L. Monica Hu et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 41–50

CMV (see Korsgaard & Roberson, 1995). If CMV is indeed is a sig- Appendix
nificant problem, a single-factor model should fit the data as well as
the hypothesized model. In our case we found that the seven-factor Questions in the structured interviews:
model provided a better fit than the single-factor model (e.g., c2/
df ¼ 1.2 and 5.6; GFI ¼ 0.96 and 0.76; CFI ¼ 0.97 and 0.78; NFI ¼ 0.90 Q1. How do you conduct knowledge sharing in the hotel organi-
and 0.68; NFI ¼ 0.97 and 0.75, RMSEA ¼ 0.05 and 0.11, respectively) zation? What are the hotel’s mechanisms for promoting
(Bentler, 1995; Hu and Bentler, 1995; Steiger, 1990). The afore- knowledge exchange?
mentioned results taken together suggested that the issue of CMV Q2. Do your organizations support service innovation? How do the
should not have had a significant adverse effect on our findings. organizations support service innovation?
Secondly, we chose the employees of international tourist hotels Q3. What are the service and product innovation contents of
as our sample, which might seem to raise the issue of generaliz- the hotel in the past 3 years? What are the influential
ability. However, hotel employees and teams are in fact a very factors?
relevant sample (Sackett & Larson, 1990) for testing the relation- Q4. What roles do employees and customers play in new service
ships between and among knowledge and innovation (e.g., Smith, design and processes? What is their importance?
Collins, & Clark, 2005). Although we do believe that the current Q5. What is the impact of past service and product innovation on
sample was appropriate for testing our model, we also encourage the hotel?
future researchers to test this same model with other samples (e.g., Q6. What are the hotel’s plans for service and product innovation
top management teams). in the future?

Hospitality Teams’ Knowledge Sharing and Service Innovation Performance

*Please use the following scale in your ratings to indicate how much you agree/disagree with the following
statements.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree

Part I: Knowledge sharing

This study defines “Team” as the network of all co-workers who share knowledge, and who jointly
service customers as a unit, regardless of each customer s class. This section concerns your perception
of the knowledge sharing taking place within your unit.
1 I am pleased to learn and share knowledge among different teams 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 I believe that members should help each other through teamwork to foster knowledge sharing 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 In a team setting, I would share knowledge with colleagues who had assisted me in the past 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 I want to become a person with professional knowledge in the eyes of my colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 I believe that knowledge sharing among teams can help establish my image as an expert 1 2 3 4 5 6
6 I respect others’ impression that I am willing to assist people 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 Helping my team address work problems would make me feel happy and satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6
8 I enjoy exchanging knowledge and I don’t ask for anything in return 1 2 3 4 5 6
9 I am willing to use my spare time to help other team members 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 I would personally help other team members regardless of whether or not they ask for 1 2 3 4 5 6
my help
11 I am willing to help other team members 1 2 3 4 5 6

Part II: Team Culture Scale

This section concerns your service team.
1 My team supports knowledge and technical information sharing 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 My direct supervisor supports knowledge and technical information sharing 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 My unit supervisor supports knowledge and technical information sharing 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 My department supervisor supports knowledge and technical information sharing 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 In my organization, there is always someone to address work problems 1 2 3 4 5 6
6 This hotel coordinates teamwork through formal rules and procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 This hotel coordinates teamwork through pre-designed work plans and processes 1 2 3 4 5 6
8 This hotel coordinates teamwork through leaders or their assistants 1 2 3 4 5 6
9 This hotel assigns coordinators to coordinate teamwork 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 This hotel coordinates work by directly communicating with knowledgeable team members 1 2 3 4 5 6
11 This hotel’s members hold regular meetings to coordinate teamwork 1 2 3 4 5 6
12 This hotel’s members meet freely to discuss the coordination of teamwork 1 2 3 4 5 6
13 During our spare time, team members of this hotel socialize and hold various social activities 1 2 3 4 5 6
14 Each member of this team contributes equally to our hotel’s service innovation 1 2 3 4 5 6
15 This service team possesses a fine spirit 1 2 3 4 5 6
16 Members of this team have a strong sense of participation 1 2 3 4 5 6
 M.-L. Monica Hu et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 41–50 49

Part III: Service innovation performance scale

This section concerns the service innovation of your hotel.
1 At work, I seek new service techniques and methods 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 At work, I sometimes come up with innovative and creative notions 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 At work, I sometimes propose my creative ideas and try to convince others 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 At work, I try to secure the funding and resources needed to implement innovations 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 At work, I provide a suitable plan and workable process for developing new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6
6 Overall, I consider myself a creative member of my team 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 This hotel provides a suitable environment for developing new services 1 2 3 4 5 6
8 All departments and units interact well to develop new businesses 1 2 3 4 5 6
9 When developing and executing new service projects, managers and front-line service 1 2 3 4 5 6
personnel collaborate closely
10 This hotel will offer incentives or promotions to members involved in the development of new 1 2 3 4 5 6
businesses upon the success of their project
11 This hotel will dedicate some resources to developing new services 1 2 3 4 5 6
12 The hotel’s current manpower is sufficient for the new services that have to be developed 1 2 3 4 5 6
13 This team is professional in developing new services or new products 1 2 3 4 5 6
14 The new services developed by this team are effective with respect to timing, resources and 1 2 3 4 5 6
process
Part IV: Personal data
1. Sex: (1). Male (2). Female
2. Age: ______ years old
3. Highest educational level: (1). Senior high (vocational school) or below (2). Technical college
(3). University or technological university (4). Master’s degree and above
4. Tenure at hotel: (1). Under 3 years (2). 3-6 years (3). 6-9 years
(4). 9-12 years (5). 12-15 years (6). 15-18 years
(7). 18-21 years (8). 21 years and above
5. Marital status: (1). Married (2). Single (3). Others
6. Current department: (1). Food & Beverage (2). Rooms (3). Personnel
(4). Finance / Accounting (5). Sales (6). General Affairs
(7). Security (8). IT (9). Public Relations
(10). Marketing (11). Product development (12). Purchasing
(13). Customer Service (14). Others
7. Current position: (1). First-line staff (waiter/waitress, counter reception, maid)
(2). Grassroots leader or supervisor
(3). Unit chief (supervisor, deputy manager or manager)
(4). Department supervisor
(5). Highest level (general manager or CEO)

References Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual en-
gagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17(2), 245–264.
Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of In-
Chan, A., Go, F., & Pine, R. (1998). Service innovation in Hong Kong: attitudes and
novation Management, 1, 30–43.
practice. The Service Industry Journal, 18(2), 112–124.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to partici-
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., & Allen, D. (2007). A multilevel study of lead-
pation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of
ership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77.
92(2), 331–346.
Aune, L. (2002). The use of enchantment in wine and dining. International Journal of
Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14(1), 34–37.
psychology. Journal of Personality, 59, 143–178.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of
Chi, L., & Holsapple, C. W. (2005). Understanding computer-mediated inter-orga-
organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
nizational collaboration: a model and framework. Journal of Knowledge Man-
9(1), 64–76.
agement, 9(1), 53–75.
Bank, A. P., & Millward, L. J. (2000). Running shared mental models as a distributed
Clarke, T., & Rollo, C. (2002). Corporate initiatives in knowledge management. Ed-
cognitive process. British Journal of Psychology, 91(4), 513–523.
ucation and Training, 43(4/5), 206–214.
Bentler, P.M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multi-
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/
variate Software.
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blazevic, V., & Lievens, A. (2004). Learning during the new financial service in-
Curran, P. J., Bauer, D. J., & Willoughby, M. T. (2004). Testing main effects and in-
novation process: antecedents and performance effects. Journal of Business
teractions in hierarchical linear growth models. Psychological Methods, 9(2),
Research, 57, 374–391.
220–237.
Bouncken, R. B. (2005). Standardization and individualization strategies of hotel
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage
brands: matching strategy to quality management instruments and marketing
what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
in Germany. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 13(3/4), 29–51.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: the role of
Brotherton, B. (1999). Towards a definitive view of the nature of hospitality and
team processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
5(2), 111–123.
Management, 11(4), 165–173.
50 M.-L. Monica Hu et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 41–50

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M., & Murray, A. (2004). Applying knowledge manage-
test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), ment principles to enhance cross-functional team performance. Journal of
26–49. Knowledge Management, 8(3), 127–142.
Enz, C. A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2003). Revisiting the best of the best: innovations in hotel Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M. U. E., Janssen, S., & Van der Lugt, R. (2007).
practice. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(5/6), Innovation spaces: towards a framework for understanding the role of the
115–123. physical environment in innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management,
Erika, P., & Leigh, T. (1997). Negotiation teamwork: the impact of information dis- 16(1), 53–65.
tribution and accountability on performance depends on the relationship Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
among team members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
72(3), 364–383. McGraw-Hill.
Finnegan, D., & Willcocks, L. (2006). Knowledge sharing issues in the introduction of Orfila-Sintes, F., Crespı́-Cladera, R., & Martı́nez-Ros, E. (2005). Innovation activity in
a new technology. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 19(6), 200–221. the hotel industry: evidence from the Balearic Islands. Tourism Management,
Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: the role of 26(6), 851–865.
sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context. Journal of Osborne, S. P. (1998). Naming the beast: Defining and classifying service in-
International Management, 8(1), 49–67. novations in social policy. Human Relations, 51(9), 1133–1154.
Froehle, C. M., Roth, A. V., Chase, R. B., & Voss, C. A. (2000). Antecedents of new Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organization
service development effectiveness: an exploratory examination of strategic forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.
operations choices. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 3–17. Ottenbacher, M., & Gnoth, J. (2005). How to develop successful hospitality in-
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: an exami- novation. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 205–222.
nation of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, Ottenbacher, M., Gnoth, J., & Jones, P. (2006). Identifying determinants of success in
30(6), 453–470. development of new high-contact services: insights from the hospitality
Goh, S. G. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework industry. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(4), 344–363.
and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 22–30. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: a multiple-item scale
Gonzalez-Roma, V., Peiro, J. M., & Tordera, N. (2002). An examination of the for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64,
antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied 12–40.
Psychology, 87(3), 465–473. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Gustafsson, A., & Johnson, M. D. (2003). Competing in a service economy: How to problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 69–82.
create a competitive advantage through service development and innovation. San Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
Hallin, C. A., & Marnburg, E. (2008). Knowledge management in the hospitality mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
industry: a review of empirical research. Tourism Management, 29(2), 366–381. Prajogo, D. I., & Ahmed, P. K. (2006). Relationships between innovation stimulus,
Hertog, P. den (2000). Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation capacity, and innovation performance. R&D Management, 36(5),
innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4), 491–528. 499–515.
Hoegl, M., Ernst, H., & Proserpio, L. (2007). How teamwork matters more as team Quinn, J. B. (1992). The intelligent enterprise behavior: a path model of individual
member dispersion increases. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(2), innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.
156–165. Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in I/O psychology.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural In M. D. Dunnette, & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 428–442) Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Oaks, CA: Sage. Press.
Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2004). Facilitating knowledge sharing in Russian Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model
and Chinese subsidiaries: the role of personal networks and group member- of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal,
ship. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 84–94. 37(3), 580–607.
Jeong, M., & Oh, H. (1998). Quality function development: An extended framework Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge crea-
for service quality and customer satisfaction in the hospitality industry. In- tion capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology
ternational Journal of Hospitality Management, 17(4), 375–390. firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 346–357.
Jones, P., & Wan, L. (1992). Innovation in the UK food-service industry. International Stashevsky, S., & Koslowsky, M. (2006). Leadership team cohesiveness and team
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 4(4), 1–3. performance. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 63–74.
Karniouchina, E. V., Victorino, L., & Verma, R. (2006). Product and service Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval
innovation: ideas for future cross-disciplinary research. Journal of Product In- estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
novation Management, 23, 274–280. Sundbo, J. (1996). Balancing empowerment: a strategic resource based model of
King, C. A. (1995). What is hospitality? International Journal of Hospitality Manage- organizing innovation activities in service and low-tech firms. Technovation,
ment 14(3/4), 219–234. 16(8), 397–409.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. Sup-
Journal of Management, 20, 403–437. porting work team effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (pp. 3–23).
Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evalua- Sungsoo, P. (2005). Knowledge map for tourist destinationsdneeds and implica-
tion: the role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance tions. Tourism Management, 26(4), 583–594.
appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21, 657–669. Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative
Leenders, R., Th, A. J., van Engelen, J. M. L., & Kratzer, J. (2003). Virtuality, com- resources: a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330.
munication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective. Thamhain, H. J. (2003). Managing innovative R&D teams. R&D Management, 33(3),
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1–2), 69–92. 297–311.
Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2004). Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung Van de Ven, A. H., Delbeeq, A. L., & Koening, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination
teams: best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowl- modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 332–338.
edge Management, 8(4), 75–88. Victorino, L., Verma, R., Plaschka, G., & Dev, C. (2005). Service innovation and cus-
Mason, D., & Pauleen, D. J. (2003). Perceptions of knowledge management: a qual- tomer choices in the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality, 15(6),
itative analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(4), 38–48. 555–576.
Matear, S., Gray, B. J., & Garrett, T. (2004). Market orientation, brand investment Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: their
new service development, market position and performance for service orga- relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
nizations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(3/4), Research, 24(3), 301–319.
284–301. Yang, J. T. (2004a). Job-related knowledge sharing: Comparative case studies.
Matthing, J., Sanden, B., & Edvardsson, B. (2004). New service development: Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 118–126.
Learning from and with customers. International Journal of service Industry Yang, J. T. (2004b). Qualitative knowledge capturing and organizational learning:
Management, 15(5), 479–498. two case studies in Taiwan hotels. Tourism Management, 25(4), 421–428.
Moffett, S., McAdam, R., & Parkinson, S. (2003). An empirical analysis of knowledge Yang, J. T. (2007). Knowledge sharing: investigating appropriate leadership roles
management applications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 6–26. and collaborative culture. Tourism Management, 28(2), 530–543.