Michigan state university : HB 889

The effect of location on rural resort managers

A case study of Odyssey Resorts

Elizabeth Jennings

4/20/2014

The effect of location on person-environment (P-E) fit and employee Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) has received little research attention in the hospitality industry. The traditional P-E model combines person-job fit and person-organization fit, but an article called “Modeling locational factors for tourism employment,” published in Annals of Tourism Research (2014), suggests that person-location fit should be added to the traditional P-E model. The authors (David Solnet, Robert Ford, Richard Robinson, Brent Ritchie, and Mark Olsen) claim their model is especially pertinent to hospitality employees working in remote locations. The combination of their P-E model and the ASA framework provide eight propositions, which guide the research of this field study paper. Semi-structured interviews, with nine managers from four rural resorts, serve as the first empirical investigation utilizing the new P-E model and its corresponding propositions.

Table of Contents

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

Results

(1) Interview sample ……………………………………………………………………… 7

(2) Interview questions …………………………………………………………………. 8

(3) Findings concerning the Solnet, et al. propositions ………………….. 9

(4) Other findings and themes ……………………………………………………… 12

Discussion and Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………… 14

Limitations and Implications ……………………………………………………………………. 17

1

Introduction

When debating which topic would be right for my graduate program’s final semester field study, I turned to a previous employer of mine, Odyssey Resorts (HQ in Duluth, MN), to see if they could use my help in researching an issue of concern that they didn’t have the time or resources to manage on their own. They immediately responded yes; they had been struggling with high turnover in their management positions for quite some time.

I had already been aware of this problem they faced, from my time spent working at one of the company’s 6 resorts, Larsmont Cottages (Two Harbors, MN). From comments made by managers at Larsmont, I knew that location could either act as a big benefit to managers at these rural resorts, or as a big challenge that would likely lead to a short tenure with the company. This opinion of mine was backed up by Odyssey’s HR Director, Kelley Blomer.

The primary objective of this field study is to field test a new P-E model suggested by Solnet, et al. in order to find out if their eight propositions can be backed up by feedback from rural resort managers. I also have a secondary objective, which is to gather as much feedback as possible about feelings, connotations, etc. that managers have concerning living and working in rural areas. The hope is that combining these two objectives will produce results which can guide Odyssey Resorts, and potentially other rural resort companies, in developing more effective screening processes to use while interviewing and assessing management candidates.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2012, the average number of years that leisure and hospitality employees had tenured at their current employer was 2.4 years (this figure includes the “art, entertainment, and recreation” sectors). The number of years tenured for “accommodation” employees was 3.8, while the tenure for employees working in “food service and drinking places” was 2.1 years.i It could be reasoned that any manager in hospitality should be expected to tenure a number of years more than this average, since this average is taking into account all hourly non-managerial employees as well as managerial ones. The average number of years tenured with current employers for managers across all industries in the U.S. was reported to be 6.3 years in 2012. This is a number that has been slightly rising since 2002 when the average was 5.6 years.ii

Though the sample company for this study, Odyssey Resorts, was not in possession of official internal statistics akin to the ones listed above, they estimated that over the last 5-10 years, tenure averages for their managers had been more in keeping with the hospitality industry averages for all employees, as opposed to the average for managers across industries.

2

Literature Review

A scarcity of experienced and qualified hospitality managers in rural areas can lead to transplant hires; hiring individuals who are from other areas, whether these areas are rural or urban in nature, and relocating them to the rural area that the business is located in. This study is partially driven by a desire to learn what the likelihood is of such transplants wanting to remain in rural settings after the new job honeymoon period ends. This honeymoon period could last anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. This problem is described by the HR Director of Odyssey Resorts in the following words: “After a while, the ‘quaintness’ and novelty of living and working in a small town may wear off.”iii The dilemma for rural resorts such as this then becomes a question of whether “transplant managers” are worthwhile long-term investments to make.

There is a lack of research that has been done in the area of manager retention in the hospitality industry, especially concerning those in rural areas. Mainly, empirical research that has been done about talent retention in rural areas pertains to the medical field. In the past, rural hospitals and long-term care facilities have had trouble holding onto physicians and case workers.iv Transplanting physicians and case workers from more urban areas has long been a necessity in the medical field because of a lack of local candidates. The problem then has been in finding ways to keep these employees satisfied with their rural surroundings so they will be more likely to stay for an extended period. A high turnover rate in this field leads to lower quality patient care.v It could definitely be argued that the same principle holds true for the relationship between manager turnover and guest care in the hospitality industry. Hence, a rural hospitality business may be led to worry over what effects their “rural-ness” could have on management retention, and by extension customer satisfaction and market penetration.

According to Solnet, et al., the authors of an article in the forty-fifth edition of Annals of Tourism Research, there have not been previous empirical studies regarding what effect the person-location fit has on the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) process. The article discusses the accepted framework of combining person-job and person-organization fit to create overall person-environment fit within a workplace. They suggest that, in order to have a comprehensive view of an employee’s fit, person-location fit must also be considered. They propose this ASA model as being especially pertinent to “regional and remote” areas, as there is oftentimes a shortage of qualified or interested applicants in these places.vi

The article by Solnet, et al. is called “Modeling locational factors for tourism employment.” The article introduces an innovative model for “developing a workforce development strategy that comprehensively includes the critical determinants of how

3

employees fit a particular job in a particular organization at a particular location.”vii The much-studied person-environment framework that HR strategists have relied on for quite some time includes two dimensions: person-job fit and person-organization fit. The authors suggest that person-location fit should be added to this framework in order to “[facilitate] a multi-level and holistic appraisal of employee fit.”viii

Solnet, et al. generated eight propositions pertaining to their newly conceptualized eight cell model. Their model, an explanation of each cell, and each cell’s corresponding proposition (as found in their article) is shown below:

Cell 1: strong P-J; strong P-O; strong P-LProposition 1: People who perceive potential employment opportunities with a strong person-job, organization, and location fit will be more likely to apply for and accept a job and more likely to stay in the job, organization and location.

Cell 2: strong P-J; strong P-O; weak P-LProposition 2: People who perceive potential employment situations with a strong person-job and organization fit but a weak location fit will be more likely to be attracted to and accept job offers, but more likely to quit the job and leave the organization when location challenges are no longer outweighed by the job and organization benefits.

Cell 3: strong P-J; weak P-O; strong P-LProposition 3: People who perceive employment situations with a strong person-job and location fit but a weak organization fit will be more likely to apply for and accept job offers but more likely to quit; but they are likely to consider similar jobs in a different organization in the same location.

4

Cell 4: strong P-J; weak P-O; weak P-LProposition 4: People who perceive employment situations with a strong job fit but a weak organization and location fit will be less likely to be attracted to and accept job offers and more likely to quit until advantages of the job outweigh the disadvantages of the organization and location.

Cell 5: weak P-J; strong P-O; strong P-LProposition 5: People who perceive employment situations with a weak person-job but a strong organization and location fit will be more likely to be attracted to and accept job offers and less likely to quit once accepted.

Cell 6: weak P-J; strong P-O; weak P-LProposition 6: People who perceive employment situations with a weak person-job and location fit but a strong organization fit will be more likely to be attracted to and accept job offers and less likely to quit once accepted as long as the advantages of the fit with organization outweigh the disadvantages of the fit with job and location.

Cell 7: weak P-J; weak P-O; strong P-LProposition 7: People who perceive employment situations with a weak person-job and organization fit but a strong location fit will be less likely to be attracted to and accept job offers and more likely to quit unless the strength of the location fit outweighs the weakness of the job and the organization fit.

Cell 8: weak P-J; weak P-O; weak P-LProposition 8: People who perceive employment situations with a weak person-job, organization, and location fit will be less attracted to and less likely to accept job offers and more likely to quit once accepted when the disadvantages of the job, organization and location outweigh any employment relationship advantages.

According to Solnet, et al., “Research on recruitment and retention has primarily focused on micro (job task) or meso (organizational) factors with surprisingly little research on macro (locational) factors. Moreover no research to date has been done integrating these three levels of analysis into a comprehensive model to effectively explain and predict an employee’s fit with a work environment… The model and research propositions should be empirically tested to validate the underlying theory.”ix Again, initiating the process of validating their underlying theory is the first objective of this field study.

The methodology and results sections of this paper are based on the assertions made by Solnet, et al. They further explain the relevance of their model in the following words: “In expanding the classic formulation of B = f(p,e) (behavior = a function of person and environment), the model defines e = f(j,o,l) (environment = a function of the job, organization

5

and location). By considering the three environmental factors it is possible to investigate what type of employee finds which type of work environment attractive because of its fit. Moreover, we can investigate which type of factor is most important (singly or in combination) with which type of employee.”x

Some general themes were found to be prevalent in rural employee retention research for other industries (i.e. medical field). For example, there is the perception that rural employees (specifically those working for small-medium sized companies) earn lower wages and work longer hours than employees working in metro or suburban areas.xi These are among the themes that will be explored in the following sections of this paper, in order to fulfill the second objective of the study. Again, the second objective is to gather as much feedback as possible about feelings, connotations, etc. that managers have concerning living and working in rural areas. The intent is to uncover valuable information that could help rural resort companies develop more effective screening processes for interviewing and assessing management candidates.

Methodology

The Solnet, et al. article recommends the development of a comprehensive measurement tool for assessing P-L fit. However, in this study a direct measurement strategy was used to assess participants’ P-E fit, meaning the participants were directly asked questions regarding their P-E fit. The decision to use direct measurement was motivated by: (1) According to the Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, “This type of assessment captures holistic assessments of subjective or perceived fit, because the individuals are asked to mentally calculate fit using whatever internal standards they wish to apply”; (2) this empirical study concerns a brand new P-E model, which has not been field tested to any extent before this field study (i.e. it was reasoned that an initial study such as this could yield valuable results via direct measurement); (3) developing a comprehensive measurement tool, such as the one that Solnet, et al. theoretically suggest, would have consumed all available time for completing this study, and would likely not have led to useful results for Odyssey Resorts.

Empirical research, consisting of semi-structured interviews, was carried out. Managers working at four rural Odyssey resort locations (Larsmont Cottages, Grand Superior Lodge, Caribou Highlands Lodge, and Trapper’s Landing Lodge) were targeted for participation in these interviews (Appendix III includes a map of where these resorts are located). Though Odyssey was not in possession of their manager tenure statistics covering the last several years, they still

6

felt they were experiencing an unreasonably high level of turnover in management positions, which is why their managers served as a good pool of individuals from which to sample.

Working with Odyssey’s Human Resources Director, a list of fifteen managers was generated that would give a cross-sectional sampling (i.e. differences in age, gender, familial status, current tenure with the company, etc.). A couple managers who were no longer with the company were also included in the list. Only those managers who resigned voluntarily, and parted amicably, from the company were solicited for their participation.

Odyssey’s Director of HR sent out an initial email to these select managers in order to introduce the research project as well as the researcher, and to solicit their voluntary participation in the semi-structured interviews. A second email was sent by the researcher introducing herself, as most of the managers were personally unknown to her. Managers were reassured that their participation was entirely voluntary and that any interview responses would not be personally attributed to them in any results reported to their employer. The interview questions/discussions called for managers to be open about their personal feelings having to do with their own jobs, the company in general, and their physical working locations. Confidentiality was important in order to encourage honest sharing without any fear of repercussions.

Results

(1) Interview sample

In total, nine interviews took place. Each interview lasted 1-1 ½ hours, as some managers were more willing, or able, to give illustrative explanations of their experiences, feelings, opinions, etc. Unfortunately, none of the interviewees were former managers. However, most interviewees had significant prior experience as managers at other rural resorts, so perspectives regarding past employment experiences (e.g. Why did they choose to leave? In what ways is their current position better or worse than past experiences in similar work environments?) were still obtained.

Seven out of nine managers interviewed had hospitality management experience prior to their employment with Odyssey. Participants ranged in age from early 20s to late 50s. Eight out of nine managers were men. Tenure with their current organization (Odyssey) averaged less than 2 years.

7

(2) Interview questions

Each of the propositions put forth by Solnet, et al. was converted into a question format. Each proposition (with the exception of Proposition 1) was further broken down into two parts; (a) Would the interviewee apply to and accept a position if a particular P-E scenario were true, and (b) if the interviewee were already established in a position with an organization, would he/she most likely separate from the company if, through the course of time, he/she came to find that the aforementioned P-E scenario had manifested itself and come to reflect their comprehensive P-E fit? (See Appendix I for a complete list of interview questions.)

In addition to age, gender, familial status, and current tenure with the company, participants were asked to rate the strength of their person-job, person-organization and person-location fits. They were asked if the strength for one or all of these fits had changed at any point during their time with the company, and if so, what factors/events/feelings contributed to this change.

Interviewees were also asked if they had ever lived and worked in another rural area from the one they were currently in. If they answered yes, then they were asked to describe what attractions rural areas hold for them that they are influenced to continuously seek employment/living situations in rural areas. Participants were asked to identify the P-E aspect (job, organization, or location) that produces the most challenges in a rural work environment and why they feel this way. They were also asked to identify which P-E aspect produces the most benefits, and why. Additional questions included, “What qualities, characteristics, events, etc. indicative of your P-L fit do you think create/provide benefits that lead to a stronger perceived fit with location?” and conversely, “What qualities, characteristics, events, etc. indicative of your P-L fit do you think create/provide challenges that lead to a weaker perceived fit with location?” (See Appendix II for a full list of interview questions not pertaining to the Solnet, et al. model.)

For the questions concerning fit, descriptions of fit were given to the interviewees beforehand as follows: P-J fit = the degree to which the job satisfies your needs and wants + the degree to which you feel you deliver what is required and desired for someone performing your job; P-O fit = the degree to which the organization's culture and structure satisfy your needs and wants + the degree to which you feel you are an integrated part of, or complement to that culture/structure; P-L fit = the degree to which working and living in the location satisfies your needs and wants + the degree to which you feel you are an integrated part of, or complement to that location.

8

(3) Findings concerning the Solnet, et al. propositions

(3.1) Proposition 1: strong P-J; strong P-O; strong P-L

Predictably, all managers said that they would definitely apply to, and accept a position if they perceived all three of their P-E fit measures to be strong. Little emphasis was put on the significance of this question because it was assumed that responses would be consistently in the affirmative, and that reasons for answering this way would likewise be consistent and predictable.

(3.2) Proposition 2: strong P-J; strong P-O; weak P-L

Five out of nine managers said that they would apply to and accept a position if this scenario described their comprehensive P-E fit. A couple managers responded that they would be ok with this situation if the potential “job or organization were too good to pass up.” One manager said that, “as a person, I’m very open to new adventures, so as long as the location is family friendly, I would be open to it.” Another interviewee shared a past experience of having accepted a job under this scenario, and their P-L fit became strong over a short period of time, which gave them the optimism to say that they would be open to accepting a job again in the future if perceived P-L fit was initially weak.

Those managers who said they would not apply to and accept a position under this scenario gave a variety of reasons as well. One manager passionately stated that “location is just as important as job and organization,” and that “especially in a small area, it all has to fit.” Past experiences of having to drive long distances between home and work, or just having a natural aversion to big cities, were a couple of the other reasons given.

For the second question in this scenario, regarding the likelihood that the interviewee would leave a company they’re established in if the scenario were to manifest itself over time, five managers answered yes, two answered no, and two could not say for sure. Managers who answered in the affirmative said they don’t think they could “ever be truly happy” if they didn’t like where they were living, or that while they would definitely leave a job/company under these circumstances, they doubt they would have done so in the past as they were building their careers. A couple more said that under this scenario, they would likely leave a company only if a great opportunity with a different organization came along.

(3.3) Proposition 3: strong P-J; weak P-O; strong P-L

The dominant response (7/9) to the first question in this scenario was no, they would not apply to and accept a position where this P-E description was the case. A common feeling seemed to be that job success (and thus, P-J fit) is dependent upon a good P-O fit; they felt

9

their P-J fit would likely be weak if their P-O fit were weak. Another shared opinion was that internal advancement would be less probable where a weak P-O fit was present. Several managers shared experiences of having accepted positions in the past where P-J and P-L fit were strong and P-O fit was weak, and they all said they elected to leave these companies before too long, mostly due to a lack of organization, communication, or accountability within the company culture/structure.

As would be logical, those who responded negatively to Question 1 of this scenario answered positively to Question 2. Comparable justifications to those given in Question 1 were given here.

(3.4) Proposition 4: strong P-J; weak P-O; weak P-L

The dominant response (8/9) to the first question in this scenario was no, they would not apply to and accept a position if they felt that both P-O fit and P-L fit were weak. The feelings previously expressed about the domino effect P-O fit can ultimately have on P-J fit, added to challenges of living and working in an unsatisfying area, would be “too many strikes” against that work environment.

Again, as seems logical, those who responded negatively to Question 1 of this scenario answered positively to Question 2. The same justifications were listed as those given for answers to Question 1.

(3.5) Proposition 5: weak P-J; strong P-O; strong P-L

The majority of responses (6/9) to the first question in this scenario was no, they would not apply to and accept a position if they associated this kind of overall P-E fit with the position. A theme here was that without a strong P-J fit, managers felt they would lack the confidence needed to perform the job. As one manager said, “If your job fit is weak, then you won’t have the right tools to perform the job. You wouldn’t be happy with it, and wouldn’t last long.”

The same inverse responses were observed here as observed for previous questions; those who answered no to this scenario’s first question, then answered yes to the second question. Again, the same reasoning was employed between answers for Questions 1 and 2. A couple of the managers who answered no to the second question in this scenario said that they wouldn’t be as likely to leave a company under these circumstances because they feel that it is easier to alter job fit than the other types of fit. So, instead of separating from the company, they would try to mold themselves and the job (if possible) until they felt an improved P-J fit.

10

(3.6) Proposition 6: weak P-J; strong P-O; weak P-L

All nine managers responded negatively to the first question in this scenario; they would not apply to and accept a position where they felt a weak fit with the job and the location. Again, there would be “too many strikes” against the work environment in a situation like this. At various points throughout most of the interviews, managers claimed to value a strong P-O fit slightly more than a strong P-J fit, but even though this scenario includes a strong P-O fit (supposedly more important), the accumulation of a weak P-L fit on top of the weak P-J fit led all interviewees to ultimately answer no to this question. One manager colorfully illustrated their point by saying, “I’m sure McDonald’s is an awesome organization, but there’s no way I’d flip burgers in New Jersey.”

Of course, as before, the inverse of responses to Question 1 was observed in Question 2, meaning all managers would likely separate from a company if, through the course of time, they came to find that a weak P-J; strong P-O; weak P-L environment fit had become their reality in the workplace.

(3.7) Proposition 7: weak P-J; weak P-O; strong P-L

As in the last scenario, all managers responded no to the first question in this hypothetical; they would not apply to and accept a position where they felt a strong fit with the location only, and not with the job or the organization. Managers seemed to agree that, while P-L fit is important, if this were the only positive aspect of their work lives, then they would always be struggling. Managers spend a lot of time at work, well beyond 40 hours/week during the busy season(s), so it is considered necessary to have a least one other strong P-E measure. Essentially, no matter how happy a manager is with a location, if they spend 60 hours/week at work during a good portion of the year, then they will be miserable if both the P-J and P-O fit are weak.

Eight out of nine managers answered in the affirmative to the second question in this scenario. The one manager who answered negatively (seemingly illogical?) explained that the reason behind this choice had to do with life stage and familial status. This manager is older and doesn’t intend to move again in their lifetime. This person would be satisfied with a strong P-L fit and a relatively weaker fit with job and organization. However, this manager stipulated that their response to this hypothetical probably would have been different at an earlier stage in life.

(3.8) Proposition 8: weak P-J; weak P-O; weak P-L

The responses to both questions under this scenario were obviously easy to predict. All managers said they would not apply to and accept a position that carried this P-E fit with it. And

11

all managers said they would definitely separate from a company if they found that this hypothetical had manifested itself through the course of time.

(4) Other findings and themes

When asked to describe why they were most attracted to rural areas (emphasis on their current location), managers gave a variety of reasons, but a few main themes in these responses emerged. Strong positive feelings about rural areas included that (a) rural areas provide for a better work-life balance than metro/suburban areas, that (b) rural areas provide more opportunities to enjoy the outdoors, that (c) working at a naturally beautiful property (particularly owing to the scenery and surrounding environment of Lake Superior) every day is fulfilling or rejuvenating, that (d) rural areas are more family-friendly, and that (e) it’s more convenient and personally fulfilling to take part in community activities in these areas.

A couple managers pronounced that in order to be happy living in small rural communities they feel it is extremely important to be socially outgoing, and to take an active interest in hobbies, sports, or other activities related to the community or the outdoors. Other managers concurred with this viewpoint, saying they suspect that people who are more introverted probably won’t last long in a small community environment. Additionally, interviewees felt that some managers they have worked with in the past have claimed to be fans of the outdoors, but took no steps to actively enjoy it. These managers, it was said, did not last long with the rural organizations they were with.

When speaking about negative feels associated with working in rural areas, managers consistently brought up impressions of being paid less and working longer hours than managers in other areas. It was generally felt that upper management in rural resorts may justify this salary structure by pointing out that cost of living is lower than in metro areas. While interviewees did not dispute this, they strongly felt that compensation was not as in line with cost of living as salary structures in metro/suburban areas. Having to work more hours per week was primarily seen as a product of a more or less constant state of being understaffed. Managers felt that their job duties were more extensive than those demanded of hospitality managers in more densely populated areas. They also stated feelings of being expected to “do more with less,” referring to the lower departmental budgets they observe in rural resorts compared to hospitality venues in metro areas.

A common frustration that food and beverage managers and executive chefs associated with rural workplaces was that the menus they work with in these locations are perhaps less sophisticated or complex than those they enjoyed working with in city settings. These managers also enjoy cooking outside of work, and they find it frustrating that certain ingredients they prefer to cook with are not available at local grocery stores. Lack of local shopping options was

12

a common theme shared by all managers. (Though some actually saw this as a positive, as impulse purchases are virtually non-existent when one must “drive at least 2 ½ hours round trip to get to the nearest Target,” for example.)

Valuing the unique lifestyle made possible by living in a rural location was deemed to be necessary for new managers who move to rural communities. Also, the ability to fit into a new rural community necessitates transplant hires to take initiative in becoming involved in community activities and for them to be extroverted. Again, most interviewees had extensive work experience in various rural communities, primarily in the Mid-Western region. These managers generally felt that small-town community members could routinely be “standoffish” with new arrivals. According to the interviewees, long-time rural community members may act this way because there is an assumption that new arrivals to the community may very well leave before long. Thus, in the words of one interviewee, “As a new addition to the community, you need to take the initiative, be social, and put yourself out there if you want to get acclimated and accepted.”

Seasonality was another theme brought up by managers in almost all of the interviews. All these managers viewed seasonality as being more pronounced in rural locations compared to metro/suburban locations. Some viewed this extreme seasonality as a good thing, while others viewed it in a negative light. Those who viewed it positively said that they enjoy the excitement of the busy season(s), while the slow season provides them with the necessary time to “take care of things that there just isn’t time for during the busy times.” Those who viewed it negatively also said they enjoy the excitement of the busy season(s), but that such low occupancy during the slow season leads to experiencing a degree of boredom at work (not to suggest that these managers don’t utilize the time in this “slow period” to take care of pending administrative duties, as the other managers stated).

Managers were asked to describe the conversations that took place during their interview processes with Odyssey concerning their preferences for living in rural areas, and their abilities to adapt to the living/working conditions owing to the “rural-ness” of these resort locations. Most managers reported that a fair amount of this discussion was had at various times throughout the interview process (most managers had roughly three interviews with the company). Upper management and the HR Director were said to have asked questions like, “Have you lived in another rural area before?” “What are your recreational pursuits?” “Have you traveled to the area before, or vacationed there in the past?”

However, there was some unevenness here; three managers said these issues were barely discussed during their interviews. Two of these managers were friends with one or more Odyssey employees prior to applying with the company, and managers stated that they assumed this was the reason Odyssey did not make an issue of location fit during their

13

interviews. The other manager had completed an internship with Odyssey before accepting a permanent position, and this manager assumed this explained the lack of conversation about P-L fit during interviews with the company (even though the permanent position was at a different property than the property where the internship was competed). In both cases, these managers said they wished there had been more discussion, more questions asked, and more information provided about living conditions in these locations.

As interviewees were all well aware of retention issues at rural resorts (not limited to Odyssey), they were asked to give their opinions of what upper/corporate management could be doing to better retain valuable property managers. To a large degree, responses were related to salary structure; either compensation is not thought to be high enough to “comfortably” afford the cost of living, or too often “bonuses are forgotten about.” Odyssey will sometimes offer a bonus incentive to new managers where they will receive an attractive bonus after being with the company for one year. Managers think it would be more effective to simply offer a slightly higher initial salary to the new hire right away, as opposed to promising an anniversary bonus, which will most likely be forgotten, thus damaging the commitment managers feel toward the company.

Interviewees felt that upper management of smaller rural resorts could do more to “sell the intangible benefits” of living in these areas during the interview process. They also reported feeling under-supported by corporate management. Oftentimes, a new manager is brought in to “fix problems, so that person is immediately put in a difficult situation,” when it may be more efficient and less wasteful of company resources for corporate managers to play a larger role in fixing these problems.

Discussion and Conclusions

So, how do the findings of this study support, or not support, the propositions by Solnet, et al.? For the most part, findings support the assumptions made by the authors. But, of particular interest are the situations where the findings do not support the propositions. This applies to the findings for Propositions 3 and 6.

As a reminder, Proposition 3 supposes that “People who perceive employment situations with a strong person-job and location fit but a weak organization fit will be more likely to apply for and accept job offers but more likely to quit.” While seven out of nine managers said they would indeed be likely to quit under these P-E conditions, these same seven also said they would not likely to apply and accept such a position in the first place. Let’s

14

remember that the propositions stemming from the Solnet, et al. model are meant to be applicable to all employees in rural hospitality workplaces, and not just to managers. If a study of all levels of employees showed findings concurrent with Proposition 3, then it could be inferred that managers put more emphasis on organization fit than other employees do when reviewing employment options. But, additional research would be needed to support such an inference.

The main part of Proposition 6 states that “People who perceive employment situations with a weak person-job and location fit but a strong organization fit will be more likely to be attracted to and accept job offers and less likely to quit once accepted,” neither part of which is supported by the findings of this study. Managers responded that they would not in fact apply to and accept a position under these P-E fit conditions, and that they would likely quit if such a scenario manifested through the course of time spent with a company. The observation in the paragraph above, that managers may emphasize organization fit more than other employees when reviewing employment options, may still hold true, but the combination of poor P-J and P-L fit simply creates too many obstacles for a good P-O fit to overcome. As seen in responses to Propositions 2 and 5, the majority of managers may be willing to accept work environments where they feel a weak fit with the job or the location, but according to data from Proposition 6 weak fits with both job and location is too much, even when combined with a strong P-O fit.

Interviews with the nine managers regarding the issues discussed in the fourth section of Results (“Other findings and themes”) yielded some overarching themes. First and foremost was that they all enjoy living in rural areas, as opposed to metro areas. The main reasons they gave had to do with the lifestyles they are able to maintain as a result of living in these communities (emphasis on having connections to nature and outdoor activities). Most of them prefer the areas they are currently living in while working for Odyssey Resorts, as opposed to previous experiences working in other rural areas. Their reasoning for this mainly had to do with feelings that Odyssey is more of an organized company, comparatively speaking, than other small-medium sized rural resort companies.

Additionally, while there was a general feeling of perhaps being overworked during busy seasons, it was felt that this type of sacrifice was more or less justified because of strong P-O and P-L fit. All managers identified their strongest fit as being either with the organization or with the location. No one identified their job fit as necessarily being weak, only that they attributed more benefits to the organization or the location.

In conclusion, I believe this study serves as a good “jumping off point” for future research using the P-E model developed by Solet, et al. The insights gained through the nine one-on-one interviews will hopefully spur HR directors at rural resorts, and other rural hospitality venues, to re-evaluate how they go about hiring managers, especially those who

15

have no prior management experience in rural locations. Odyssey, for example, is trying to make an active effort to find out if there are more effective filters to use during the manager selection process; filters that could act as better predictors of candidates’ future intentions to stay or leave the company. The P-E model introduced by Solnet, et al. could prove to be a very useful indicator in the future.

One suggestion that could be offered to Odyssey would be to rethink their current manager candidate filters. The company acknowledges that the majority of those who apply for management positions don’t have work backgrounds in rural areas, and also that managers hired away from metro areas may be more experienced. It’s a balancing act; the HR Director and other managers in charge of hiring are supposedly put in the position of choosing between candidates who have more experience vs. those who have primarily worked in rural areas. The former group of candidates, it is assumed, is less likely to be fulfilled by locational factors of rural resorts. And the latter group, it is assumed, will last longer with the company due to prior work experience in rural areas. As a result, more often than not, Odyssey will reject candidates based on a lack of familiarity with rural lifestyles/workplaces. However, it is this researcher’s contention that such candidates should not be rejected out of hand. Instead, HR would do better to more thoroughly evaluate the reasoning these urban managers have for applying to positions in rural areas.

The factors inherent in a good lifestyle/work environment for a manager from an urban area may not be so different from those of a manager from a rural area. In subsection 4 of the Results section in this paper, powerful positive associations that managers attributed to rural areas were examined. Once again, the main themes were that (a) rural areas provide for a better work-life balance than metro/suburban areas, that (b) rural areas provide more opportunities to enjoy the outdoors, that (c) working at a naturally beautiful property (particularly owing to the scenery and surrounding environment of Lake Superior) every day is fulfilling or rejuvenating, that (d) rural areas are more family-friendly, and that (e) it’s more convenient and personally fulfilling to take part in community activities in these areas. Odyssey could incorporate these themes into their interview questions (e.g. How do you think working in a rural area will contribute to a good work-life balance for you? Do you have any outdoor pursuits? How much of your day-to-day satisfaction at work can you attribute to your physical surroundings? Do you intend to be active in the community, and how?). Instead of letting geographic background speak for itself, the incorporation of these factors into interview processes could yield beneficial results to Odyssey and future managers.

16

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

The obvious main limitation in this study is that the number of respondents to these research questions is too small to make statistically significant conclusions that would be considered valid in the scientific community. The number of interviews conducted was limited by the time allotted for completing the research. Working with Odyssey Resorts also led to a limited number of interviewees (i.e. a random sampling of managers was not used, and only those who felt comfortable enough, or had enough time, accepted the invitation to be interviewed). The number of interviewees was also limited by the second objective in this study, of doing exploratory research on what attracts managers to rural resorts and what qualities are necessary in managers, and in work environments, for managers to achieve longevity with a rural resort organization.

In the future, it would be best to work with a larger sampling of managers, as well as a sample not employed by a single parent company. Though managers from four resorts were interviewed, these resorts are all in the same general region, Northern Minnesota. In future research, the larger sampling should include areas outside of this region, and possibly outside of the Mid-West all together, depending on how generalized the conclusions of such research are meant to be.

There are also research implications for Odyssey, specifically. If the company is willing and able, they should definitely adopt a standard practice of conducting exit interviews with managers who are leaving the company; currently, this is a sporadic practice within the company. Also, further research could be undertaken to understand why so many of the management applications Odyssey receives are from “urban managers.” Is this due to scarcity of hospitality management positions in metro areas? Or is this symptomatic of a genuine desire these “urban managers” have to relocate to rural communities?

17

i Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employee Tenure in 2012 (9/18/12).ii Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employee Tenure in 2012 (9/18/12).iii Kelley Blomer, HR Director of Odyssey Resorts. Personal interview 3/7/2014 in Duluth, MN.iv Ardys Richards, Licensed Medical Social Worker for Gentiva Home Healthcare. Phone interview 2/15/2014.v Martin London. Retention before recruitment – creating the contexts of sustainable rural health services. Rural General Practice, Volume 29, Number 2 (April 2007).vi David J. Solnet, Robert C. Ford, Richard N.S. Robinson, Brent W. Ritchie, and Mark Olsen. Modeling locational factors for tourism employment. Annals of Tourism Research, 45 (2014) 30–45.vii David J. Solnet, Robert C. Ford, Richard N.S. Robinson, Brent W. Ritchie, and Mark Olsen. Modeling locational factors for tourism employment. Annals of Tourism Research, 45 (2014) 30–45.viii David J. Solnet, Robert C. Ford, Richard N.S. Robinson, Brent W. Ritchie, and Mark Olsen. Modeling locational factors for tourism employment. Annals of Tourism Research, 45 (2014) 30–45.ix David J. Solnet, Robert C. Ford, Richard N.S. Robinson, Brent W. Ritchie, and Mark Olsen. Modeling locational factors for tourism employment. Annals of Tourism Research, 45 (2014) 30–45.x David J. Solnet, Robert C. Ford, Richard N.S. Robinson, Brent W. Ritchie, and Mark Olsen. Modeling locational factors for tourism employment. Annals of Tourism Research, 45 (2014) 30–45.xi David J. Solnet, Robert C. Ford, Richard N.S. Robinson, Brent W. Ritchie, and Mark Olsen. Modeling locational factors for tourism employment. Annals of Tourism Research, 45 (2014) 30–45.