Error Recovery Performance: The Impact of Leader Behavioral Integrity and Job Satisfaction

This article introduces the concept of error recovery performance, followed by the development and validation of an instrument to measure it. The first objective of this article is to broaden the current concept of service recovery to be relevant to the back-of-house operations. The second objective is to examine the influence of leader behavioral integrity (BI) on error recovery performance. Moreover, the study examines the mediating effect of job satisfaction between BI and error recovery performance. Finally, the study links error management performance with work-unit effectiveness. Data for Study 1 were collected from 369 hotel employees in Turkey. The same relationships were tested again in Study 2 to validate the findings of Study 1 with a different sample. Data for Study 2 were collected from 33 departmental managers from the same hotels. Linear regression analysis was used to test the direct effects. The mediating effects were tested using the mediation test suggested by Preacher and Hayes. In addition, in Study 2, general managers of the hotels were asked to rate the effectiveness of each manager and their respective department. Results from Study 1 indicate that BI drives error recovery performance, and this impact is mediated by employee job satisfaction. Results of Study 2 confirm this model and finds further that managers’ self-rated error recovery performance was associated with their general managers’ assessment of their deliverables and of their department’s overall performance.

Consequences of Influence Tactics Used With Subordinates, Peers, and the Boss

A field study was conducted to discover how a manager's use of 9 different influence tactics is related to target task commitment and the manager's effectiveness. The variables were measured with a questionnaire filled out by subordinates, peers, and the boss of each manager. The most effective tactics were rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, and consultation; the least effective tactics were pressure, coalition, and legitimating. Ingratiation and exchange were moderately effective for influencing subordinates and peers but were not effective for influencing superiors. Inspirational appeal, ingratiation, and pressure were used most in a downward direction; personal appeal, exchange, and legitimating were used most in a lateral direction; coalitions were used most in lateral and upward directions; and rational persuasion was used most in an upward direction.