Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aviad A. Israeli
Department of Hotel and Tourism Management
The Guilford Glazer School of Business and Management
Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Beer Sheva, Israel 84105
Tel: +972 8 6461254
Fax: +972 8 6472920
Email: aviad@som.bgu.ac.il
Managers and Their Crisis Management Practices
Importance and Usage of
Hospitality Crisis Management Practices
Both importance and usage practices will follow the constructs of human
resources, marketing, maintenance, and government (i.e. construct validity)
Research Population – Hospitality Crisis Study
328 general managers from all of the hotels in Israel registered with the
Ministry of Tourism.
116 usable questionnaires (response rate of 35%)
Main Findings – Hospitality Crisis Study
Correlation between Importance and Usage
For the four practices with the highest correlation (freezing pay rates, price
drop on special offers, reducing list price and cost cuts by postponing maintenance to the
engineering systems) the average means for usage were higher than the
means for importance.
One possible explanation is that these four practices have been extensively
used in past crises and are almost automatically considered when a new
crisis arises.
In the other practices importance was higher than usage which may
suggest that possibly more could be done.
Main Findings – Hospitality Crisis Study
Factors of Practices’ Importance and Usage
Factor 4 finding neglected segments and Factor 4 focused marketing and shorter
tightening employment terms workweek
Hospitality Management Performance
Management Performance
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-0
9
20
00
-1
2
20
01
-0
3
20
01
-0
6
20
01
-0
9
20
01
-1
2
20
02
-0
3
20
02
-0 Crisis period
6
20
02
-0
9
20
02
-1
2
20
03
-0
3
20
03
-0
6
20
03
-0
9
Comparing Occupancy
20
03
-1
occupancy Israel
2
20
04
-0
3
20
Crisis Impact on Hospitality
04
-0
6
20
04
-0
9
20
04
-1
2
20
06
-0
3
20
06
-0
6
20
06
-0
9
20
06
-1
2
20
07
-0
3
20
07
-0
6
20
07
-0
9
No crisis period
20
07
-1
2
20
08
-0
3
Crisis Impact on Hospitality
Comparing Yield
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-0
9
20
00
-1
2
20
01
-0
3
20
01
-0
6
20
01
-0
9
20
01
-1
2
20
02
-0
3
20
02
-0
6
Crisis period
20
02
-0
9
20
02
-1
Comparing Yield
2
20
03
-0
3
20
03
-0
6
20
03
-0
9
20
03
-1
04
-0
6
20
04
-0
9
20
04
-1
2
20
06
-0
3
20
06
-0
6
20
06
-0
9
20
06
-1
2
20
07
-0
3
20
07
-0
6
20
07
-0
9
20
No crisis period
07
-1
2
20
08
-0
3
Conclusions