The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

IJCHM
29,5
Customer relationship
management (people, process and
technology) and organisational
1380 culture in hotels
Received 31 October 2015
Revised 6 February 2016
Which traits matter?
20 April 2016
12 June 2016 Roya Rahimi
24 June 2016 Department of Marketing, Innovation, Leisure and Enterprise,
Accepted 30 September 2016
University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of four organisational cultural traits of
adaptability, consistency, involvement and mission on the three components of customer relationship
management (CRM), namely, people, process and technology, in the context of the hotel industry.
Design/methodology/approach – Required data are collected with a quantitative approach and a
questionnaire adapted from the Denison organisational culture survey and the Mendoza CRM model. The
questionnaire was distributed among 364 managers of a chain hotel in the UK and gathered data were
examined using the structural equation modelling method.
Findings – The results of this study reveal that the four traits of organisational culture (adaptability,
consistency, involvement and mission) have positive and significant impacts on the three components of CRM
(people, process and technology). A set of theoretical contributions and practical implications was also
discussed.
Research limitations/implications – The study is conducted with a case study approach; hence, the
findings cannot be generalised to a larger population, and the results might be different for other industries.
Because of the limitation of access to all employees, only managers were selected as the sample, and future
studies with all employees may show different results.
Practical implications – Current study helps hotel managers to understand the role and importance of
organisational cultural traits in successful implementation of their CRM strategy components.
Originality/value – The position taken in this study recognises the need to enhance the understanding of
organisational culture’s impact on implementing CRM components. Organisational cultural traits have
different levels of impact on CRM implementation, and this is the first study to investigate the detailed impacts
of the four traits of adaptability, consistency, involvement and mission on the three components of CRM,
namely, people, process and technology.
Keywords Organizational culture, Hotel industry, Critical success factors,
Customer relationship management, CRM components, People, Process and technology
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Customer relationship management (CRM) is a successful marketing strategy, which has
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
been proven to aid in improving business performance, customer satisfaction and customer
Management retention (Abu Kasim and Minai, 2009; Mohammed and Rashid, 2012). There is an
Vol. 29 No. 5, 2017
pp. 1380-1402 ever-increasing use of CRM in tourism and hospitality businesses, and hotels as a part of the
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
service industry largely applies CRM strategies to attain greater profits (Sarmaniotis et al.,
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0617 2013). Wu and Lu (2012) in their study found that the successful implementation of CRM
projects in hotels not only increases customer satisfaction but also has a significant and Customer
positive impact on business performance and customer lifetime value. Lo et al. (2010) relationship
mentioned that CRM plays a vital role in achieving the hotels’ main objectives, which are
increasing guest satisfaction, loyalty, retention, reducing guest acquisition costs and
management
increasing profitability.
Despite all of the successful outcomes, CRM implementation is time-consuming,
expensive and comes with a significant risk of failure, as high as 65 per cent (Almotairi, 2010;
Kale, 2004). Considering the importance of having close relationships with customers in the 1381
current competitive business environment and the failure risks of implementing CRM
projects, it is imperative that everything related to CRM must be handled with care (Mendoza
et al., 2006; Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016). A CRM strategy is a combination of people, business
processes and technology and an integrated and holistic approach between these three
components is required for successful CRM outcomes (Bull, 2003; Chen and Popovich, 2003;
Mendoza et al., 2006; Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016; Zablah et al., 2004; Rahimi et al., 2015).
Apart from this integration, there are a set of external factors that play a vital role for
successful CRM outcomes, such as organisational culture. This has been identified by
different researchers as one of the most important factors that enables or prevents the
achievement of desirable CRM outcomes (Buttle, 2009; Curry and Kkolou, 2004; Iriana and
Buttle, 2006; Kale, 2004; Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016; Siriprasoetsin et al., 2011). The role of
organisational culture in CRM implementation in hotels is even more critical because of the
human nature of the industry and the importance of personal contacts (Iglesias et al., 2011).
Organisational culture and its impacts on CRM implementation have been at the centre of
attention for a number of researchers (Chen and Popovich, 2003; Iglesias et al., 2011;
Karakostas et al., 2005; Mitussis et al., 2006; Raman et al., 2006; Reinartz et al., 2004; Rahimi
and Gunlu, 2016; Ryals and Knox, 2001; Sigala, 2011; Verhoef and Langerak, 2002). A review
of the literature has shown that most of the previous studies have tried to simply highlight
the role of organisational culture on CRM implementation (Chen and Popovich, 2003;
Karakostas et al., 2005; Raman et al., 2006; Verhoef and Langerak, 2002), and others have
empirically investigated the impact of a limited number of organisational culture traits on
CRM implementation (Mitussis et al., 2006; Reinartz and Chugh, 2003; Ryals and Knox, 2001)
or the impact of organisational culture traits on CRM implantation as a composite variable
(Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016).
Considering the three components of CRM and a wide range of organisational culture
traits, to the best knowledge of the author, no study has been focused on the impacts of a
broad set of organisational culture traits on implementing the three components of CRM,
especially in the context of the hotel industry. The current study tries to address this gap via
following four steps: First, via a comprehensive literature review, the author will try to find
organisational culture traits with potential impacts on CRM implementations. Second, the
study seeks to identify an organisational culture model with the ability to empirically
measure these factors and identify a CRM model with the ability to measure the three
components of CRM, and finally, it will empirically investigate the potential impacts between
the research variables.

Literature review
Customer relationship management in hotels
CRM is defined by Parvatiyar and Sheth (2001) as a philosophy, a comprehensive strategy
which describes the process of acquiring, retaining and partnering with selective consumers
to create superior value for both the business and the consumer. Jain et al. (2007) in their
study mentioned that CRM focuses on customers and tries to customise products to meet
IJCHM individual needs so as to create a unique value that increases customer satisfaction and
29,5 loyalty. According to Greenberg (2001), CRM is a series of extensive processes to manage
potential and existing customers and enhance an enterprise’s partnership relationships.
Christopher et al. (2003) considered CRM as an information system that helps enterprises to
understand customers’ needs.
There are two main views on the definition of CRM; one describes CRM as the use of
1382 customer-related information to deliver customised products and services and another
emphasises that CRM is technology-orientated and should be applied via software packages
(Piskar and Faganel, 2009). Rababah et al. (2011, p. 223), in a more comprehensive definition,
defined CRM as the building of a customer-oriented culture by which a strategy is created for
acquiring, enhancing the profitability of and retaining customers, that is enabled by an IT
application, for achieving mutual benefits for both the organisation and the customers. This
definition is used for the purpose of this study.
CRM as a modern marketing strategy came to the attention of hotel managers’ in the early
1990s because of its focus on gathering customers’ information and increasing the likelihood
of customer satisfaction and retention (Rahimi, 2017; Sigala, 2005; Wu and Lu, 2012). Since
then, it has been intensely adopted by different hotels to enhance their relationship with
customers and increase the business’s profits (Rahimi, 2017; Wu and Chen, 2012). CRM
solutions in hotels aim to seek, gather and store the right guests’ information towards
identifying and retaining the most profitable customers and improving the profitability of
less profitable customers and developing the quality of the services (Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016;
Rahimi and Kozak, 2016; Sigala and Connolly, 2004).
Successfully implemented CRM strategies in hotels not only increase customer lifetime
values but also have significant and positive effects on business performance and customer
satisfaction (Wu and Chen, 2012). CRM also has a positive influence on relationship quality,
and relationship quality has a positive influence on customer lifetime value in hotels
(Daghfous and Barkhi, 2009; Josiassen et al., 2014; Lo et al., 2010; Lin and Su, 2003; Piccoli
et al., 2003; Rahimi and Kozak, 2016; Wu and Lu, 2012; Priporas et al., (2017)).

Customer relationship management components

As mentioned earlier, CRM is a combination of people, processes and technology, and an
integrated and holistic approach between these three components is required for a successful
CRM implementation (Bull, 2003; Chen and Popovich, 2003; Mendoza et al., 2006; Rahimi and
Gunlu, 2016; Zablah et al., 2004; Rahimi, 2014). The process component of CRM tries to focus
on individual customers and uses business process reengineering (BPR) to shift the direction
of organisations’ processes from product-centric to customer-centric. According to Mendoza
et al. (2006), the main business processes that need to be addressed during CRM
implementation are marketing, sales and services. Hence, a new approach to marketing
should be taken, keeping customers’ needs at the centre of the business. The relationship
between the client and the sales person should be more face-to-face, and the long-term quality
of the customer service should be the main focus.
The technology component of CRM should be seen as key in implementing the CRM
strategy and to assist with the re-design of the business (Hansotia, 2002; Mendoza et al., 2006;
Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016). Technology collects and analyses data on customers’ patterns,
interprets customer behaviour and develops predictive models. It ensures timely responses,
effective customised communications and delivers customised products and services to
individual customers (Chang et al., 2010; Chen and Popovich, 2003; Mendoza et al., 2006).
However, companies have been repeatedly warned that technology is a necessary but not
sufficient factor in the ultimate success of a CRM system (Goldenberg, 2002; Roberts et al., Customer
2005). relationship
The people component of CRM includes the organisational readiness and collaboration
with staff, which is essential for a successful CRM implementation (Chakravorti, 2006). One
management
of the greatest challenges in implementing CRM is aligning the people with the new
strategies and processes. CRM entails new processes, the value of which the entire
organisation must understand and appreciate, and staff must be involved with the strategy
and be motivated to reach the objectives (Chen and Popovich, 2003; Mendoza et al., 2006). 1383
Considering the significance of these three components for successful CRM outcomes, a very
limited number of studies have tried to investigate their implementation process and/or
impacts of external factors on them. The current study has tried to address this gap.

Customer relationship management implementation and measurement

For a successful CRM implementation, an integrated and holistic approach between its
above-mentioned three components is required. Each component contains a set of factors,
known as critical success factors (CSFs) (Almotairi, 2010; Mendoza et al., 2006). Oakland
(1995) defined CSFs as those critical areas where the organisation must succeed to achieve
the organisation’s mission. In terms of CRM, they can be viewed as the factors that help to
achieve the goal of the component and require consideration and presence in the CRM
programme of a company to guarantee successful implementation (Mendoza et al., 2006).
Different authors have proposed different models for successfully implementing CRM
(Eid, 2007; Mendoza et al., 2006; Payne and Frow, 2004; Richard et al., 2007; Rahimi et al.,
2017a). An evaluation of the different models to find an appropriate model for this study
demonstrated that in most of the models, CRM is considered as a strategic process and the
importance of integration and interplay between people, process and technology has been
ignored. Further investigation showed that the Mendoza model (Mendoza et al., 2006)
considered all three components of CRM and highlighted their CSFs. As such, it can be
considered as the most applicable model for the purpose of this research. The model is
confirmed by a set of CSFs with their corresponding metrics, which will serve as a guide for
organisations wishing to apply this type of strategy. These factors cover the three key
aspects of every CRM strategy (people, processes and technology), giving a global focus and
appropriating success in the implementation of the CRM strategy.

Organisational impacts on customer relationship management

Along with the combination and integration of people, processes and technology, there are a
set of external factors that play a vital role for successful CRM outcomes. Organisational
culture is identified by different researchers as one of the most important factors that enables
or prohibits the achievement of desirable CRM outcomes (Curry and Kkolou, 2004; Iriana and
Buttle, 2006; Kale, 2004; Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016; Siriprasoetsin et al., 2011). In a study by
Curry and Kkolou (2004), customer focus approach, participation and teamwork of the staff
have been identified as important cultural issues influencing CRM outcomes. Reinartz and
Chugh (2003) suggest that empowering employees to excel at customer service, thus
ensuring their job security, also contributes to CRM success. Galbreath and Rogers (1999)
argue that an organisational culture that promotes an atmosphere of risk-taking can create a
climate of confidence in which employees feel empowered to act in the best interests of the
customers.
Other studies found that organisational culture with a focus on customer-focused
behaviours, cross-functional teams, performance-based rewards, adaptive and responsive
attitudes to change and a higher degree of risk-taking and innovation can contribute to a
successful CRM implementation (Deshpande et al., 1999; Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016). Mack
IJCHM et al. (2005) in their study mentioned about the importance of communication in
29,5 organisational culture and making sure that all employees understand the importance of
adopting the customer-centric behaviours for better implementation of CRM. Ryals and
Knox (2001) highlight the importance of customer-centric organisational culture in CRM
programmes. Cross-functional teams can assist in developing customer-centricity (Verhoef
and Langerak, 2002); so in dealing with customer requests, there is a shared customer data
1384 and different departments can support each other (Eichorn, 2004; Ryals and Knox, 2001).
An organisational environment that promotes an atmosphere of risk-taking can create a
climate of confidence in which employees feel able to act in the best interests of the
customers. This kind of climate encourages employees to be more innovative in trying
to overcome problems in the CRM implementation and can ultimately generate a better
CRM outcome. Hence, an innovative culture is required. Girishankar (2000) suggests that
organisations should adopt a holistic approach that places CRM at the heart of the
organisation with customer-orientated business processes and the integration of CRM
systems. Campbell (2003) and Wilson et al. (2002) highlighted the contribution that
customer-focused and cross-functional teams can help in the creation of deeper
customer-related knowledge on which CRM success is based.
To conclude, as Rahimi and Gunlu (2016) also mentioned in their study, an overview of the
literature shows that companies who put more importance on cross-functional teams;
empowerment/staff motivation and training; risk-taking/innovation; commitment; teamwork;
customer-centric culture; adaptability; information sharing; learning orientation and
knowledge management; defined set of mission and visions and clear roles and responsibilities;
interdepartmental integration; and staff involvement are more likely to be successful in their
CRM system implementation. In the next part with a comprehensive literature review, the
study seeks to identify an organisational culture model with the ability to empirically
measure these factors.

Measuring organisational culture

Organisational culture was described for the first time by Jaques (1951) in his book, “The
Changing Culture of a Factory”. Jaques (1951) described organisational culture as a way to
explain the failure of formal policies and procedures to resolve the unproductivity between
managers and employees at the Glacier Metal Company (Denison et al., 2014). Hofstede (1984)
defines organisational culture as a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the
members of one organisation from another. He also indicated that shared perceptions of daily
practices should be included in organisational culture. Organisational culture forms a
significant determinant of human behaviours in organisations (Denison, 1990).
Ginevičius and Vaitkuˉnaitė (2006) in their study mentioned that researchers use different
concepts for explaining organisation culture. Organisational culture can be described by its
factors (Nahavandi and Malekzadeh, 1993), dimensions (Onken, 1999), traits (Denison and
Neale, 1996) or elements (Carmeli and Tishler, 2004). However, reviewing different
organisational culture studies shows that all these terms (factors, dimensions, element and
traits) describe the same concept, which is the content of culture. For consistency, in the
current study, the term trait is used.
Some scholars believe that organisational culture measurement is subjective, and an
assessment concept is more suitable (Ginevičius and Vaitkuˉnaitė, 2006). However, reviewing
the literature surrounding organisational culture shows that the terminology “measuring
organisational culture” is more used by researchers. The questionnaire of choice in
organisational culture measurement is called an instrument (Nahm et al., 2004; Onken, 1999;
Van der Post et al., 1997) or tool (Denison and Neale, 1996). A number of studies propose
different models for measuring organisational cultural factors. Organisational culture Customer
measurement instruments differ based on the numbers of traits they use for categorising the relationship
content of the culture.
Ott (1989) in his study revealed 74 unique traits, while Van der Post et al. (1997) identified
management
114. Though instruments measure different aspects of the culture, they have many overlaps
on the traits they used for defining organisational culture (Denison et al., 2014). Differences
in these instruments often reflect the specific purposes they were designed for (Rousseau,
1991). According to the three levels of culture defined by Schein (2010), Ashkanasy et al.
1385
(2000) proposed a typology for the classification of organisational culture measurement
instruments. According to their framework, instruments could be divided into two groups:
those that focus on patterns of behaviour, known as Typing Instruments, and those that
measure values and beliefs, called Profiling Instruments.
According to Ashkanasy et al. (2000), Typing Instruments provide sets of organisational
culture typologies. In other words, typing surveys identify organisations as belonging to one
of the several possible organisational culture categories and focus on patterns and
behaviours (Denison et al., 2014). Profiling Instruments are concerned with giving a
description of organisations by measuring the strength or weakness of a variety of
organisational members’ beliefs and values (Ashkanasy et al., 2000). Ashkanasy et al. (2000)
further divided Profiling Instruments in to three subgroups: Descriptive Instruments,
Effectiveness Instruments and Value Fit Instruments.
The Descriptive Instruments group is composed of those instruments that measure values
and do not define the impact that value differences have on organisational effectiveness
(Denison et al., 2014). Value Fit instruments are designed to understand the value congruence
between an individual and the organisation (Jung et al., 2009). The focus of Effectiveness
Instruments is placed on the values that the organisations need to be effective and to perform
well in management practices and strategic implementation. The main goal of this study is
to investigate the impact of organisational culture on components of CRM; hence, an
effectiveness-profiling instrument was required. Within the past decade, the number of
instruments proposed by researchers for finding the link between organisational culture and
effectiveness/performance has been increased (Hartnell et al., 2011; Jung et al., 2009;
Wilderom and van den Berg, 1998).
In a recent review, Sackmann (2011) identified 55 empirical studies around organisational
culture measurement, 45 of which had been published in the domain of culture and
effectiveness. Several authors have reviewed the reliability and validity of the effectiveness
of cultural instruments (Ostroff et al., 2003; Sackmann and Sackmann, 2006; Scott et al., 2003.
Denison et al. (2014) reviewed existing effectiveness instruments and found that most of
these models are in the first stage of their developments, and additional research is needed to
establish the validity and reliability of them. Following that, they selected nine of these
effectiveness instruments and tested their validity and reliability according to the criteria of
validity described by Jung et al. (2009). Based on their findings, the Denison Organisational
Culture Survey (DOCS) (Denison and Neale, 1996) is the most valid and reliable effectiveness
organisational culture instrument to date.
DOCS has been used in a large number of studies (Boyce, 2010; Bonavia et al., 2009;
Denison et al., 2003, 2004; Fey and Denison, 2003; Gillespie et al., 2008) which demonstrates
that this instrument has advanced well beyond the initial stages of scale development and
its validity between different industries and national boundaries (Denison et al., 2014). DOCS
is developed based on an integrative theory of organisational culture (Denison, 1990) and
states that the four broadly defined cultural traits of involvement, consistency, adaptability
and mission facilitate an organisation’s capability for superior performance in the
IJCHM implementation of different organisation strategies (Denison, 1990, 1996; Denison et al., 2003;
29,5 Denison and Mishra, 1995; Denison and Neale, 1996).
Further investigation revealed that identified organisational culture factors with
potential impacts on CRM implementation (Curry and Kkolou, 2004; Kale, 2004; Raman et al.,
2006; Starkey and Woodcock, 2002; Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016) have overlaps with four
organisational culture traits of the Denison model. Considering the purpose of the current
1386 study and ability of DOCS for empirically measuring these factors, the Denison model has
been selected for measuring the organisational culture part of the study.

Hypotheses development
Denison and Mishra (1995) found that the highest performing organisations are those which
empower and engage their people (involvement), facilitate coordinated actions and promote
consistency of behaviours with core business values (consistency), translate the demands of
the organisational environment into action (adaptability) and provide a clear sense of purpose
and direction (mission).
In more details, Denison and Mishra (1995) posited that companies with consistency in
their culture provide a central source of integration, coordination and control, and thus, these
organisations develop a set of systems. They have highly committed employees, a distinct
method of doing business and a tendency to promote from within. They promote consistency
of behaviours with core business values. The trait of consistency consists of three sub-traits
(indexes) of core values, agreement, coordination and integration.
Denison and Mishra (1995) further mentioned that organisations that have a clear focus
on their mission have a clear purpose and direction that define the organisational goals and
strategic objectives to employees and provide everyone with a clear direction for their work.
The trait of mission consists of three sub-traits of strategic direction, goals, objectives and
vision. They further mentioned that organisations with a high level of adaptability translate
the demands of the organisational environment into action and have the capability to create
and accept changes. The trait of adaptability consists of three sub-traits (indexes) of creating
change, customer focus and organisational learning. Finally, in organisations with high
levels of involvement, managers and employees are committed and feel a strong sense of
ownership. The trait of involvement consists of three sub-traits (indexes) of empowerment,
team orientation and capability development.
Review of the previous CRM literature shows that organisations that consider customers’
behaviours and needs have knowledge management (KM) capabilities (Garrido-Moreno and
Padilla-Meléndez, 2011; Sigala, 2005;) and use technology to get a 360-degree view of
customers and learn from past interactions to optimise more successful future CRM
outcomes. These types of organisations have change capabilities (Curry and Kkolou, 2004;
Kale, 2004; Raman et al., 2006; Starkey and Woodcock, 2002), and their staff are willing to
change for facilitating the change in processes from service-centric to customer-centric (Kale,
2004; Langerak and Verhoef, 2002; Rigby et al., 2002; Ryals and Knox, 2001; Starkey and
Woodcock, 2002).
Previous literature also suggested that organisations that have cross-functional teams
(Campbell, 2003; Langerak and Verhoef, 2002; Raman et al., 2006; Starkey and Woodcock,
2002; Wilson et al., 2002; Siriprasoetsin et al., 2011) with top management support and highly
committed staff (Lindgreen, 2004) have more successful CRM outcomes. Having technology
in place is essential for system integration capabilities (Campbell, 2003; Chen and Popovich,
2003; Curry and Kkolou, 2004; Langerak and Verhoef, 2002; Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016).
Communicating CRM strategy within the organisation’s departments, staff involvement and
top management support are among the most important success factors for CRM Customer
programmes (Chen and Popovich, 2003; Curry and KKolou, 2004; Reinartz and Chugh, 2003). relationship
Having a clear set of CRM goals and objectives and sharing them with staff throughout
the entire organisation are recognised as CSFs for most successful CRM programmes
management
(Campbell, 2003; Curry and Kkolou, 2004; Chen and Popovich, 2003; O’Malley and Mitussis,
2002; Ryals and Knox, 2001). The present article represents an investigation of the impacts of
adaptability, consistency, involvement and mission on the three components of CRM; hence,
following are the proposed hypotheses: 1387
H1a. Adaptability has a positive impact on people component of customer relationship
management.
H1b. Adaptability has a positive impact on process component of customer relationship
management.
H1c. Adaptability has a positive impact on technology component of customer
relationship management.
H2a. Consistency has a positive impact on people component of customer relationship
management.
H2b. Consistency has a positive impact on process component of customer relationship
management.
H2c. Consistency has a positive impact on technology component of customer
relationship management.
H3a. Mission has a positive impact on people component of customer relationship
management.
H3b. Mission has a positive impact on process component of customer relationship
management.
H3c. Mission has a positive impact on technology component of customer relationship
management.
H4a. Staff involvement has a positive impact on people component of customer
relationship management.
H4b. Staff involvement has a positive impact on process component of customer
relationship management.
H4c. Staff involvement has a positive impact on technology component of customer
relationship management.
Figure 1 displays the research model based on the proposed hypotheses.

Research method
Questionnaire and sampling
A hotel chain with more than 35 branches across the UK was selected as the case study for
this research. The selected hotel chain was founded in the nineteenth century and offers the
same level of accommodation and service in all branches. The company started its CRM
programme in 2003 through a combination of software package, BPR and organisational
culture changes. Required data for the current research were collected with the help of a
questionnaire composed of DOCS (Denison and Neale, 1996), for measuring traits of
organisation culture, and the Mendoza CRM model (Mendoza et al., 2006) for measuring CRM
IJCHM
29,5 Adaptability Consistency Mission Involvement

H1c H2a H3a H4a

H2c
H3c

1388 H2b H3b

H4c

H1b
H1a
H4b

People Process Technology

Figure 1.
Research model Source: Created by author

components. The questionnaire was composed of 86 questions based on a five-point Likert

scale with strongly agree to strongly disagree continuum.
The first 60 questions are related to organisational culture, including 15 items for
involvement, 15 items for consistency, 15 items for adaptability and 15 items for mission.
This was then followed by 26 questions related to the three components of CRM, including
nine items for people, 11 items for process and six items for technology. While DOCS items
are exactly adapted, the CRM items have been revised based on the CRM strategy of the case
study, as it has also been advised by Mendoza et al. (2006) that CSF’s must be updated,
revised and adapted to the environment where they are to be applied. The last six questions
were related to the demography of the respondents. Before data collection, a pilot test was
conducted to assess the internal consistency and face validity of the questionnaire and to
ensure that it was free of wording errors. The results showed that the questionnaire had high
levels of internal consistency and validity in measuring the research’s variables. After few
grammar amendments, the questionnaire was finalised.
The total sample comprised 364 managers from all branches around the UK. The reason
for selecting managers was, first, their key role in implementing and supervising the CRM
programme and, second, the fact that the researcher’s case study is a green company with a
paper-less policy. Distributing pen and paper questionnaire was not permitted, and
therefore, an online survey tool (Survey Monkey) was used. The survey link was sent via
e-mail to the respondents. Among the employees, managers are the only group with a regular
access to e-mail and the internet.
One week after the distribution, the first reminder, after two weeks, the second reminder
and, finally after four weeks, the final reminder was sent. In each reminder e-mail, the
importance of input from the participant was highlighted. In total, 235 (64 per cent)
completed questionnaires were returned. Partly completed questionnaires were disregarded,
and 214 (58 per cent) questionnaires were used for the statistical analysis of the study.
Cochran’s (1977) formula was used for determining the sample size of the research, and the
optimal sample size calculated was 187. This higher number of collected responses is
presumed to be sufficient for statistical analysis. First, descriptive statistics, reliability and
validity tests were conducted, and after that, the structural equation modelling method was
applied for finding the causal relationships between organisational culture traits and CRM Customer
components. relationship
Validity and reliability management
Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted to check the reliability coefficient of the questionnaire.
As Table I shows, the total alpha coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.95 ( p ⬍ 0.001), and the
alpha coefficients for variables were ⱖ 0.70 ( p ⬍ 0.001) (note that reliability coefficient of 0.70
or higher is considered in the acceptable range as suggested by Nunnally (1978)). The 1389
internal consistency of items was also examined by item total correlations which showed all
correlations ranging from 0.33 to 0.78, which are above 0.32 levels suggested by Saxe and
Weitz (1982). This indicates that the questionnaire meets the minimum standards of
convergent validity. Item 15 (from DOCS), the capability development index, showed an
unusually low item correlation (0.17). This result is in line with that of the study by Denison
et al. (2014), and the item was retained on the questionnaire because the alpha coefficient for
the item itself still reaches an acceptable level of 0.70, and the item was judged to have
adequate content validity based on its fit with the definition provided by Denison and Mishra
(1995).
Further correlation coefficients of research variables were calculated, and the results
showed that correlations between variables do not exceed 0.71, and each factor related more
strongly to its own (Hair et al., 2007), which demonstrates the discriminant validity of the
questionnaire. All correlations were statistically significant, p ⬍ 0.01 (two-tailed). This also
shows that the questionnaire variables are interrelated and measure the same concept.
Further, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. To see whether the distribution of
values was adequate, the Kaiser–Meyen–Olkin (KMO) measure was used with a result
of 0.888 (0.050). Bartlett’s test of sphericity measure indicated that the multivariate normality
of the set of distributions was normal, showing a significant value, p ⬍ 0.0. Therefore, the
data were feasible for conducting the factor analysis (Hair et al., 1995). The rotated
component matrix was inspected (Table I), and when observing the commonalities, it was
found that factors related to jobs and goals, customer needs, contact with customers, clear
direction of the company and knowledge about customer satisfaction among staff have
loaded values smaller than 0.40; hence, they were excluded from the data set (Sarmaniotis
et al., 2013; Hair et al., 2007; Rahimi and Gunlu, 2016). The lowest eigenvalue for capability
development (1.083) was significant at above 1.00.

Results
Demographic profile
The demographic profile of the respondents is presented in Table II. It shows that the
majority of respondents (53.2 per cent) were female. More than 40 per cent of the respondents
were aged between 30 and 39 years and 11.9 per cent were aged between 40 and 49 years.
Further analysis presents that 48 per cent of the respondents have worked for the company
between 1 and 5 years, 32 per cent between 6 and 10 years and 20 per cent have been with the
company for more than 10 years. The respondents had different managerial positions,
including operations, front and back office, human resources, sales, food and beverage, duty,
finance, conference and banqueting, housekeeping and general management.

Goodness of fit
The goodness of fit of a statistical model describes how well the model fits with a set of
observations. For assessing the goodness of fit of the current model, a set of the most
important indices were used (Table III). The values were carefully examined and compared
with the common acceptance levels recommended by previous studies (Etezadi-Amoli and
 29,5

1390

Table I.
IJCHM

Scale items,

correlations and

research instrument
reliabilities, item total

deceptive results of the

Item total Standard Factor
Trait Dimension Items correlation Mean deviation Alpha loading Eigenvalue Variance (%)

Involvement Empowerment Involved employees 0.52 3.78 0.75 0.72 0.61 5.835 38.920
␣ ⫽ 0.87 ␣ ⫽ 0.76 Best information 0.52 3.81 0.69 0.72 0.52
Shared information 0.60 3.63 0.85 0.70 0.49
Believe in positive impact 0.56 3.59 0.83 0.72 0.52
Everyone is involved 0.47 3.68 0.86 0.74 0.49
Team orientation Cooperation is encouraged 0.58 3.87 0.70 0.78 0.42 1.151 7.673
␣ ⫽ 0.82 Working as a part of team 0.62 3.82 0.75 0.77 0.62
Teamwork to do work 0.68 3.84 0.84 0.75 0.53
Tams are primary 0.58 4.10 0.70 0.78 0.72
Capability development Authority is delegated 0.35 3.80 0.76 0.77 0.44 1.083 7.220
␣ ⫽ 0.70 Capability of people 0.43 3.62 0.76 0.74 0.47
Continues investment 0.60 3.82 0.88 0.73 0.49
Competitive advantage 0.46 3.83 0.69 0.73 0.48
No necessary skills 0.13 2.72 1.08 0.71 0.43
Consistency Core values Practice what they preach 0.50 3.61 0.95 0.75 0.52 5.767 38.449
␣ ⫽ 0.82 ␣ ⫽ 0.72 Management style 0.47 3.69 0.75 0.76 0.58
Set of values 0.59 3.92 0.70 0.72 0.53
Core values 0.35 3.87 0.84 0.71 0.61
Ethical code 0.48 4.11 0.68 0.76 0.47
Agreement ␣ ⫽ 0.73 Win-win solutions 0.60 3.85 0.73 0.73 0.61 1.814 12.091
Strong culture 0.65 3.73 0.81 0.70 0.57
Reach consensus 0.57 3.44 0.79 0.73 0.91
Reaching agreements 0.40 3.20 0.89 0.79 0.62
Clear agreement 0.44 3.68 0.74 0.78 0.75
Coordination integration Consistent business 0.40 3.63 0.73 0.71 0.71 1.292 8.612
␣ ⫽ 0.73 Common perspectives 0.55 3.63 0.78 0.71 0.70
Coordinate projects 0.42 3.38 0.83 0.78 0.53
Different organisation 0.53 2.88 0.99 0.74 0.55
Alignments of goals 0.44 3.68 0.73 0.79 0.40
(continued)
 Item total Standard Factor
Trait Dimension Items correlation Mean deviation Alpha loading Eigenvalue Variance (%)

Adaptability Creating change Easy to change 0.56 3.31 0.90 0.74 0.54 5.130 34.202
␣ ⫽ 0.74 ␣ ⫽ 0.78 Respond to change 0.53 3.73 0.80 0.73 0.51
New ways to work 0.61 3.80 0.74 0.78 0.50
Create change 0.46 2.20 0.93 0.76 0.59
Cooperate to create 0.48 3.61 0.75 0.70 0.70
change
Customer focus Customer comments 0.46 3.93 0.74 0.71 0.84 1.649 10.994
␣ ⫽ 0.74 Customers and decisions 0.52 3.82 0.76 0.73 0.75
Customer needs 0.49 3.60 0.84 0.72 0.39
Ignoring customers 0.56 2.39 1.04 0.77 0.66
Organisational Opportunity to learn 0.52 3.80 0.82 0.74 0.42 1.434 7.049
learning ␣ ⫽ 0.73 Risk taking 0.50 3.42 0.89 0.73 0.45
A lot of cracks 0.39 2.92 0.91 0.76 0.51
Learning is important 0.42 3.99 0.72 0.72 0.56
Right hand 0.39 3.50 0.87 0.74 0.88
Mission Strategic directional Long-term direction 0.78 3.85 0.76 0.73 0.66 7.336 49.106
␣ ⫽ 0.90 intent ␣ ⫽ 0.83 Strategy to change 0.48 3.49 0.80 0.81 0.63
Direction to work 0.76 3.85 0.72 0.73 0.74
Strategy for the future 0.78 3.80 0.78 0.72 0.70
Goals and Widespread agreement 0.64 3.81 0.70 0.77 0.48 4.504 8.692
objectives ␣ ⫽ 0.82 Realistic goals 0.53 3.68 0.78 0.80 0.47
Meet goals 0.64 3.80 0.70 0.77 0.44
Track progress 0.61 3.92 0.64 0.78 0.60
Long-term success 0.63 3.85 0.68 0.77 0.61
Vision ␣ ⫽ 0.70 Shared vision 0.61 3.70 0.75 0.76 0.57
Long-term viewpoint 0.57 3.86 0.73 0.78 0.46 2.254 7.693
Long-term vision 0.33 3.66 0.88 0.81 0.50
Creating motivation 0.50 3.42 0.85 0.70 0.53
Long-term vision 0.62 3.61 0.74 0.75 0.53
(continued)

Table I.
1391
management
relationship
Customer
 29,5

1392

Table I.
IJCHM

Item total Standard Factor

Trait Dimension Items correlation Mean deviation Alpha loading Eigenvalue Variance (%)

CRM People ␣ ⫽ 0.90 Participation of managers 0.58 3.84 0.714 0.90 0.67 2.269 25.081
implementation Responsible managers 0.49 3.56 0.858 0.90 0.66
␣ ⫽ 0.91 Staff knowledge 0.63 3.90 0.798 0.90 0.65
Employees’ capability 0.68 3.62 0.920 0.90 0.60
Training programmes 0.33 2.93 0.090 0.91 0.59
Staff motivation 0.41 2.76 0.991 0.91 0.56
Managers objectives 0.33 3.12 0.993 0.91 0.51
Teamwork 0.41 3.70 0.028 0.91 0.47
Staff turnover 0.34 3.57 0.795 0.90 0.43
Process ␣ ⫽ 0.88 CRM in strategic plan 0.33 3.41 0.798 0.90 0.41 4.264 6.493
Budget related to CRM 0.50 3.93 0.675 0.90 0.41
Follow-up meeting 0.62 3.72 0.747 0.90 0.60
Documentation of CRM 0.62 4.14 0.642 0.90 0.84
Interdepartmental 0.60 3.86 0.754 0.90 0.84
Different areas of the hotel 0.59 3.64 0.737 0.90 0.82
Internal information 0.62 3.64 0.742 0.90 0.82
Customer satisfaction 0.60 3.63 0.757 0.90 0.75
Internal support 0.48 3.63 0.828 0.90 0.75
Guest retention plan 0.53 3.63 0.850 0.90 0.60
Technology Pre-sale communications 0.57 3.90 0.798 0.90 0.65 7.432 5.126
␣ ⫽ 0.92 Electronic media 0.61 3.86 0.802 0.90 0.65
Remote transactions 0.69 3.77 0.806 0.90 0.60
Use of IT 0.63 3.73 0.812 0.90 0.60
Real time action 0.63 3.54 0.808 0.90 0.55
Post-sale communication 0.68 3.86 0.724 0.90 0.40

Source: Created by author

Farhoomand, 1996; Hair et al., 2007; McKinney et al., 2002). The results showed that values Customer
of degrees of freedom (1.28 ⱕ 3.00), Bentlers’ comparative fit index (CFI) (0.95 ⱖ 0.90), relationship
goodness of fit index (GFI) (0.95 ⱖ 0.90), non-normed fit index (NNFI) (0.91 ⱖ 0.90), adjusted management
goodness of fit index (AGFI) (0.89 ⱖ 0.80) and normed fit index (NFI) (0.96 ⱖ 0.90) are all
within the accepted ranges, and the model shows an adequate level of fit.

1393
Testing hypotheses
The hypothesised relationships were tested, and careful consideration of path coefficients
and t-values demonstrated that there are significant and positive impacts from the four traits
of organisational culture on the three components of CRM. Hence, all the hypotheses were
accepted (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993) (Table IV).
The results demonstrate that companies with a high level of adaptability, consistency,
staff involvement and shared vision and mission among their staff are more likely to have
success in implementing the three components of their CRM strategy and, hence, the CRM
strategy in general (Figure 2).

Demographics of respondents (%)

Age
21-29 34.8
30-39 45.3
40-49 11.9
50-59 6.0
60 or older 1.0
Gender
Female 53.2
Male 46.8
Working for the company
1-5 years 48
6-10 years 32
More than10 20
Table II.
Source: Created by author Demographic profile

Fit indices Model’s value Recommended value

␹2/df 1.28 ⱕ3.00

GFI 0.95 ⱖ0.90
CFI 0.95 ⱖ0.90
AGFI 0.89 ⱖ0.80
NFI 0.96 ⱖ0.90
RMSEA 0.96 ⱕ0.80
NNFI 0.91 ⱖ0.90 Table III.
Goodness-of-fit
Source: Created by author statistics of the model
IJCHM Path Standard error
29,5 Hypotheses Direction coefficient of estimate t value Results

H1a Adaptability to people 0.19 0.07 3.74*** Accepted

H1b Adaptability to Process 0.23 0.08 3.30*** Accepted
H1c Adaptability to technology 0.24 0.09 2.01*** Accepted
1394 H2a Consistency to people 0.29 0.08 2.31*** Accepted
H2b Consistency to process 0.27 0.08 2.59*** Accepted
H2c Consistency to technology 0.18 0.09 2.45*** Accepted
H3a Mission to people 0.18 0.07 2.35*** Accepted
H3b Mission to process 0.27 0.08 3.28*** Accepted
H3c Mission to technology 0.27 0.09 2.94*** Accepted
H4a Involvement to people 0.21 0.04 4.99*** Accepted
H4b Involvement to process 0.18 0.04 4.14*** Accepted
H4c Involvement to technology 0.15 0.05 3.07*** Accepted
Table IV.
Tests of hypothesized Notes: *p ⬍ 0.10; **p ⬍ 0.05; *** p ⬍ 0.01
model Source: Created by author

Adaptability Consistency Mission Involvement

0.24 0.21

0.29 0.18 0.18 0.27

0.27 0.27

0.19 0.18
0.15
0.23

People Process Technology

Figure 2.
Results of path Note: All regression coefficient are p < 0.01
analysis Source: Created by author

Theoretical implementation
The aim of this study was to empirically investigate the impact of four organisational
cultural traits of adaptability, consistency, involvement and mission on the three
components of CRM, namely, people, process and technology, in the context of the hotel
industry via proposing 12 hypotheses. The empirical results of the study, first, confirmed
that there is a positive relationship between the four organisational cultural traits and
components of CRM. Second, a careful consideration of path coefficients and t-values
demonstrated that among 12 impacts, the organisational cultural trait of consistency has the
highest level of impact on the people component of CRM. This suggests that hotels that have
a clear set of core values and a reliable communication process for exchanging information Customer
on the meaning of words, actions and other symbols with their staff have a higher chance of relationship
success in their CRM programmes.
In these types of organisations, among the organisation’s members, there are common
management
perspectives, shared beliefs and communal values which enhance internal coordination
and promote meaning and a sense of identification. Hence, it can be suggested that
providing a consistent culture can increase the willingness among hotel staff to
implement CRM, which results in higher level of success. Also, these hotels have a better 1395
chance of success in adapting the new proposed process and more success in a
customer-centric approach. After consistency, impacts of involvement on people,
adaptability on technology and mission on technology are important for successful CRM
outcomes.
The results also show that organisational culture has its main impact on the two
components of CRM, namely, people and technology. This is a new contribution, as
previous studies mentioned that role of CRM components (100 per cent) can be divided as
70 per cent people, 20 per cent processes and 10 per cent technology, and it had been
repeatedly warned that technology is a necessary but not sufficient factor in the ultimate
success of a CRM system (Chen and Popovich, 2003; Goldenberg, 2002; Roberts et al.,
2005). Current results highlight the role of technology, specifically in the current
business environment where it plays a key role in CRM processes. This is in line with
Rahimi and Gunlu’s (2016) findings presenting that in the current CRM projects, most of
the processes are handled with the help of IT. Hence, having a supportive organisational
culture will facilitate the technology implementation, and involving the staff in
implementing CRM strategies will result in better outcomes. The study also shows that
sharing the mission and vision among the staff has the highest level of impact on
accepting and implementing technology part of the CRM. This suggests that hotel
companies who inform their employees as to why they are doing the work they do, while
using the technology that they do, contributes to the organisational goals and may have
a higher chance of success in adapting and using technology within their process.
Table V shows the results of the research from a different perspective. It shows that
consistency is the most important organisational culture factor for implementing the people
component and the process part of CRM and that adaptability plays the key role in applying
technology towards better CRM outcomes.

Practical implementation
Hotel businesses that successfully implement CRM will reap the reward in customer
loyalty and long-term profitability (Daghfous and Barkhi, 2009; Lin and Su, 2003; Wu
and Lu, 2012). However, successful outcomes are elusive for many hotels because of their
unawareness of CRM requirements and preparations. The current study shows the
importance of organisational culture in successful CRM implementation in hotels.
The study suggests that hotel managers who provide a consistent culture can increase
the willingness among their staff to implement CRM, which results in a higher level of
success.
Towards having a consistent organisational culture, managers need to provide an
overall agreement on the meaning of words, actions and other symbols among their staff.
They should provide a common perspective, shared belief and communal values among
the organisation’s members, which enhance internal coordination and promote meaning
and a sense of identification on the part of its members. As a result, these businesses will
have a consistent culture with a clear set of core values that help employees and leaders
IJCHM Path
29,5 Directions coefficients

People
Adaptability 0.19
Consistency 0.29
1396 Mission 0.18
Involvement 0.21
Process
Adaptability 0.23
Consistency 0.27***
Mission 0.27**
Involvement 0.18
Technology
Adaptability 0.24
Consistency 0.18
Mission 0.27
Table V. Involvement 0.15
Impacts’ ranking of
organisational cultural
factors on CRM Notes: *** t-value ⫽ 3.28; ** t-value ⫽ 2.59
components Source: Created by author

make consistent decisions and behave in a consistent manner. These hotels have a better
chance of success in adapting the new proposed process through their CRM strategy and
more success in a customer-centric approach. While considering the increased
importance of the role of technology in CRM projects, and sharing the mission of the
company and its CRM programme with employees, it is also important to inform them
how the work they do and use of technology each day contribute to the organisational
goals. This approach is critical towards increasing the chance of technology adaption
and CRM success. Finally, managers need to make sure that all employees understand
the importance of adopting the customer-centric behaviours for successful CRM
outcomes.

Research limitations
One of the main criticisms of this research applies to the case study approach, as it is
difficult to generalise the findings to a larger population (Yin, 1994). The study was
conducted in the context of the hotel industry, and results are valid based on a chain
hotel in the UK. Similar studies could be done in different industries, such as food and
beverage, transport, banking or other service industries, with a different or larger
sample. Because of the limitations of access to all employees, only managers were
selected as the sample for the study. All employees may be included in future studies,
and this might show different results.
The main theory driving the research was Denison’s organisational culture model
(Denison and Mishra, 1995). Denison and Mishra (1995) studied organisational culture
based on 4 traits and 12 indexes. The current research used the model based on its four
traits, while future research could consider the 12 indexes and investigate their potential
impact on CRM implementation. It will result in research with higher number of
variables.
References Customer
Abu Kasim, N.A. and Minai, B. (2009), “Linking CRM strategy, customer performance measures and relationship
performance in the hotel industry”, International Journal of Economics and Management, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 297-316.
management
Almotairi, M.A. (2010), “Evaluation of the implementation of CRM in developing countries”, Doctoral
dissertation, Brunel University, Brunel Business School PhD theses.
Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P. and Peterson, M.F. (2000), Handbook of Organisational Culture and
Climate, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
1397
Bonavia, T., Prado, V. and Barberá, D. (2009), “Spanish adaptation and factor structure of the ‘denison
organisational culture survey’(adaptación al castellano y estructura factorial del’denison
organisational culture survey’)”, Psicothema, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 633-638.
Boyce, A. (2010), “Organisational climate and performance: an examination of causal”, Unpublished
PhD dissertation, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI.
Bull, C. (2003), “Strategic issues in customer relationship management (CRM) implementation”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 592-602.
Buttle, F. (2009), Customer Relationship Management: Concepts and Technologies, Routledge,
Abingdon.
Campbell, A.J. (2003), “Creating customer knowledge competence: managing customer relationship
management programs strategically”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 375-383.
Carmeli, A. and Tishler, A. (2004), “The relationships between intangible organisational elements and
organisational performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 13, pp. 1257-1278.
Chakravorti, S. (2006), “Customer relationship management: a content analysis of issues and best
practices”.
Chang, W., Park, E.J. and Chaiy, S. (2010), “How does CRM technology transform into organisational
performance? A mediating role of marketing capability”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63,
pp. 849-855.
Chen, I.J. and Popovich, K. (2003), “Understanding customer relationship management (CRM) People,
process and technology”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 672-688.
Christopher, M., Payne, A. and Ballantyne, D. (2013), Relationship Marketing, Taylor and Francis,
Abingdon.
Cochran, W.G. (1977), Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Curry, A. and Kkolou, E. (2004), “Evaluating CRM to contribute to TQM improvement-a cross-case
comparison”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 314-324.
Daghfous, A. and Barkhi, R. (2009), “The strategic management of information technology in UAE
hotels: an exploratory study of TQM, SCM, and CRM implementations”, Technovation, Vol. 29
No. 9, pp. 588-595.
Denison, D.R. (1990), Corporate Culture and Organisational Effectiveness, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, NY.
Denison, D.R. (1996), “What is the difference between organisational culture and organisational climate?
A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 619-654.
Denison, D.R. and Mishra, A.K. (1995), “Toward a theory of organisational culture and effectiveness”,
Organisation Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 204-223.
Denison, D.R. and Neale, W.S. (1996), Denison Organisational Culture Survey, Aviat, Ann Arbor, MI.
Denison, D.R. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1991), “Organisational culture and organisational development: a
competing values approach”, Research in Organisational Change and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 1-21.
IJCHM Denison, D.R., Haaland, S. and Goelzer, P. (2003), “Corporate culture and organisational effectiveness: is
there a similar pattern around the world?”, Advances in Global Leadership, Vol. 3, pp. 205-227.
29,5
Denison, D., Lief, C. and Ward, J.L. (2004), “Culture in family-owned enterprises: recognizing and
leveraging unique strengths”, Family Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 61-70.
Denison, D., Nieminen, L. and Kotrba, L. (2014), “Diagnosing organisational cultures: a conceptual and
empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys”, European Journal of Work and
1398 Organisational Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 145-161.
Deshpande, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. Jr (1993), “Corporate culture, customer orientation, and
innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis”, The Journal of Marketing, pp. 23-37.
Eichorn, F.L. (2004), “Internal customer relationship management (IntCRM): a framework for achieving
customer relationship management from the inside out”, Problems and Perspectives in
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 154-177.
Eid, R. (2007), “Towards a successful CRM implementation in banks: an integrated model”, The Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1021-1039.
Etezadi-Amoli, J. and Farhoomand, A.F. (1996), “A structural model of end user computing satisfaction
and user performance”, Information and Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 65-73.
Fey, C.F. and Denison, D.R. (2003), “Organisational culture and effectiveness: can American theory be
applied in Russia?”, Organisation Science, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 686-706.
Galbreath, J. and Rogers, T. (1999), “Customer relationship leadership: a leadership and motivation
model for the twenty-first century business”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 161-171.
Garrido-Moreno, A. and Padilla-Meléndez, A. (2011), “Analyzing the impact of knowledge management
on CRM success: the mediating effects of organisational factors”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 437-444.
Gillespie, M.A., Denison, D.R., Haaland, S., Smerek, R. and Neale, W.S. (2008), “Linking organisational
culture and customer satisfaction: results from two companies in different industries”, European
Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 112-132.
Ginevičius, R. and Vaitkuˉnaite, V. (2006), “Analysis of organisational culture dimensions impacting
performance”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 201-211.
Girishankar, S. (2000), “Companies want CRM tools to manage business relationships”, Information
Week, Vol. 17, pp. 65.
Goldenberg, B.J. (2002), CRM Automation, Prentice Hall Professional.
Greenberg, P. (2001), CRM at the Speed of Light, Osborne/McGraw-Hill, Berkeley, CA.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Wolfinbarger, M., Money, A.H., Samouel, P. and Page, M.J. (2007), Essentials of Business
Research Methods, Routledge, Abingdon.
Hansotia, B. (2002), “Gearing up for CRM: antecedents to successful implementation”, Journal of
Database Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 121-132.
Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y. and Kinicki, A. (2011), “Organisational culture and organisational effectiveness:
a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 677.
Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Vol. 5,
Sage, London.
Iglesias, O., Sauquet, A. and Montana, J. (2011), “The role of corporate culture in relationship
marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 631-650.
Iriana, R. and Buttle, F. (2006), “Customer relationship management (CRM): system implementations”,
International Journal of Knowledge Culture and Change Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Jain, R., Jain, S. and Dhar, U. (2007), “Curel: a scale for measuring customer relationship management
effectiveness in service sector”, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 37-58.
Jaques, E. (1951), The Changing Culture of a Factory, Tavistock Publishers, London.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8 User’s Reference Manual, Scientific Software Customer
International, Chicago, IL.
relationship
Josiassen, A., Assaf, A.G. and Cvelbar, L.K. (2014), “CRM and the bottom line: do all CRM dimensions
affect firm performance?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 36, pp. 130-136.
management
Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H.T., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R. and Mannion, R. (2009),
“Instruments for exploring organisational culture: a review of the literature”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 1087-1096.
Kale, S.H. (2004), “CRM Failure and the seven deadly sins are your CRM undertakings lost in a sea of
1399
failed or uncompleted projects?”, Marketing Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 42-47.
Karakostas, B., Kardaras, D. and Papathanassiou, E. (2005), “The state of CRM adoption by the financial
services in the UK: an empirical investigation”, Information and Management, Vol. 42 No. 6,
pp. 853-863.
Lin, Y. and Su, H.Y. (2003), “Strategic analysis of customer relationship management – a field study on
hotel enterprises”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 715-731.
Lindgreen, A. (2004), “The design, implementation and monitoring of a CRM programme: a case study”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 160-186.
Lo, A.S., Stalcup, L.D. and Lee, A. (2010), “Customer relationship management for hotels in Hong Kong”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 139-159.
McKinney, V., Yoon, K. and Zahedi, F.M. (2002), “The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: an
expectation and disconfirmation approach”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 296-315.
Mack, O., Mayo, M.C. and Khare, A. (2005), “A strategic approach for successful CRM: a European
perspective”, Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 2, pp. 98-106.
Mendoza, L.E., Marius, A., Pérez, M. and Grimán, A.C. (2006), “Critical success factors for a customer
relationship management strategy”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 49 No. 8,
pp. 913-945.
Mitussis, D., O’Malley, L. and Patterson, M. (2006), “Mapping the re-engagement of CRM with
relationship marketing”, European journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, Nos 5/6, pp. 572-589.
Mohammed, A.A. and Rashid, B. (2012), “Customer relationship management (CRM) in hotel industry:
a framework proposal on the relationship among CRM dimensions, marketing capabilities, and
hotel performance”, International Review of Management and Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 220-230.
Nahavandi, A. and Malekzadeh, A.R. (1993), “Leader style in strategy and organisational performance:
an integrative framework”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 405-425.
Nahm, A.Y., Vonderembse, M.A. and Koufteros, X.A. (2004), “The impact of organisational culture on
time-based manufacturing and performance”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 579-607.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oakland, J.S. (1995), “Business process re-engineering – the route to integrating TQM into the business
strategy”, Total Quality Management, pp. 95-108.
O’Malley, L. and Mitussis, D. (2002), “Relationships and technology: strategic implications”, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 225-238.
Onken, M.H. (1999), “Temporal elements of organisational culture and impact on firm performance”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 231-244.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A.J. and Tamkins, M.M. (2003), Organisational Culture and Climate, John Wiley and
Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Ott, J.S. (1989), The Organisational Culture Perspective, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Parvatiyar, A. and Sheth, J.N. (2001), “Customer relationship management: emerging practice, process,
and discipline”, Journal of Economic and Social Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-34.
IJCHM Payne, A. and Frow, P. (2004), “The role of multichannel integration in customer relationship
management”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 527-538.
29,5
Piccoli, G., O’Connor, P., Capaccioli, C. and Alvarez, R. (2003), “Customer relationship management-a
driver for change in the structure of the US lodging industry”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 61.
Piskar, F. and Faganel, A. (2009), “A successful CRM implementation project in a service company: case
1400 study”, Organizacija, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 199-208.
Priporas, C., Stylos, N., Rahimi, R. and Narasimhan Vedanthachari, L. (Forthcoming , 2017),
“Unraveling the diverse nature of service quality in a sharing economy: a social exchange theory
perspective of Airbnb accommodation”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0420.
Rababah, K., Mohd, H. and Ibrahim, H. (2011), “Customer relationship management (CRM) processes
from theory to practice: the pre-implementation plan of CRM system”, International Journal of
e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 22.
Rahimi, R. (2014), “Organisational culture perspective and implementing customer relationship
management (CRM) in hotel industry: case of a chain hotel in the UK”, Doctoral Dissertation
Summary, European Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 8, pp. 162-165.
Rahimi, R., Nadda, V. and Wang, H. (2015), “CRM in tourism”, in Nilanjan, R. (Ed.), Emerging Innovative
Marketing Strategies in the Tourism Industry, 1st ed., IGI Global, Pennsylvania, pp. 16-43.
Rahimi, R. and Gunlu, E. (2016), “Implementing customer relationship management (CRM) in hotel
industry from organisational culture perspective”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 89-112.
Rahimi, R. and Kozak, M. (2016), “Impact of customer relationship management on customer
satisfaction: the case of a budget hotel chain”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, doi:
10.1080/10548408.2015.1130108.
Rahimi, R. (2017), “Organizational culture and customer relationship management: a simple linear
regression analysis”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 443-449.
Rahimi, R., Köseoglu, M., Ersoy, A. and Okumus, F. (Forthcoming 2017a), “Customer relationship
management research in tourism and hospitality: a state-of-the-art”, Tourism Review, doi:
10.1108/TR-01-2017-0011.
Raman, P. Wittmann, C.M. and Rauseo, N.A. (2006), “Leveraging CRM for sales: the role of
organisational capabilities in successful CRM implementation”, Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 39-53.
Reinartz, W. Krafft, M. and Hoyer, W.D. (2004), “The customer relationship management process: its
measurement and impact on performance”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 293-305.
Reinartz, W. and Chugh, J. (2003), “Lessons of CRM”, International Journal of Customer Relationship
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 73-75.
Richard, J.E., Thirkell, P.C. and Huff, S.L. (2007), “An examination of customer relationship
management (CRM) technology adoption and its impact on business-to-business customer
relationships”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 927-945.
Rigby, D.K., Reichheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2002), “Avoid the four perils of CRM”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 101-109.
Roberts, M.L., Liu, R.R. and Hazard, K. (2005), “Strategy, technology and organisational alignment: key
components of CRM success”, The Journal of Database Marketing and Customer Strategy
Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 315-326.
Rousseau, D. (1991), Quantitative Assessment of Organisational Psychology, Frontiers in Industry, New
York NY.
Ryals, L. and Knox, S. (2001), “Cross-functional issues in the implementation of relationship marketing Customer
through customer relationship management”, European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 534-542.
relationship
Sackmann, S. (2011), “Culture and performance”, in Ashkanasy, C.M. and Peterson, W. (Eds), The
management
Handbook of Organisational Culture and Climate, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 188-224.
Sackmann, S.A. and Sackmann., S. (2006), Assessment, Evaluation, Improvement: Success Through
Corporate Culture, Bertelsmann Stiftung. 1401
Sarmaniotis, C., Assimakopoulos, C. and Papaioannou, E. (2013), “Successful implementation of CRM in
luxury hotels: determinants and measurements”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 134-153.
Saxe, R. and Weitz, B.A. (1982), “The SOCO scale: a measure of the customer orientation of salespeople”,
Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 343-351.
Schein, E.H. (2010), “Organizational culture and leadership”, John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 2.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H. and Marshall, M. (2003), “The quantitative measurement of
organisational culture in health care: a review of the available instruments”, Health Services
Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 923-945.
Sigala, M. (2005), “Integrating customer relationship management in hotel operations: managerial and
operational implications”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 391-413.
Sigala, M. (2011), “ECRM 2.0 applications and trends: the use and perceptions of Greek tourism firms of
social networks and intelligence”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 655-661.
Sigala, M. and Connolly, D. (2004), “In search of the next big thing: IT issues and trends facing the
hospitality industry”, A Review of the Sixth Annual Pan-European Hospitality Technology
Exhibition and Conference (EURHOTEC 2001); International Hotel and Restaurant
Association, Paris, 19-21 February, Palais Des Congres Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 807-809.
Siriprasoetsin, P., Tuamsuk, K. and Vongprasert, C. (2011), “Factors affecting customer relationship
management practices in Thai academic libraries”, The International Information and Library
Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 221-229.
Starkey, M. and Woodcock, N. (2002), “CRM systems: necessary, but not sufficient. REAP the benefits
of customer management”, The Journal of Database Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 267-275.
Van der Post, W.Z., De Coning, T.J. and Smit, E. (1997), “An instrument to measure organisational
culture”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 147-168.
Verhoef, P.C. and Langerak, F. (2002), “Eleven misconceptions about customer relationship
management”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 70-76.
Wilderom, C.P. and van den Berg, P.T. (1998), “A test of the leadership-culture-performance model
within a large Dutch financial organization”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Academy of
Management, No. 1, pp. B1-B5.
Wilson, H., Daniel, E. and McDonald, M. (2002), “Factors for success in customer relationship
management (CRM) systems”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 193-219.
Wu, S.I. and Chen, J.H. (2012), “Comparison between hotels and motels using CRM effect model–An
empirical study in Taiwan”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 1254-1263.
Wu, S.I. and Lu, C.L. (2012), “The relationship between CRM, RM, and business performance: a study of
the hotel industry in Taiwan”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 276-285.
Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park.
IJCHM Zablah, A.R., Bellenger, D.N. and Johnston, W.J. (2004), “An evaluation of divergent perspectives on
customer relationship management: towards a common understanding of an emerging
29,5 phenomenon”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 475-489.

Further reading
Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
1402 Chalmeta, R. (2006), “Methodology for customer relationship management”, Journal of Systems and
Software, Vol. 79 No. 7, pp. 1015-1024.
Couldwell, C. (1998), “A data day battle”, Computing, Vol. 21, pp. 64-66.
Croteau, A.M. and Li, P. (2003), “Critical success factors of CRM technological initiatives”, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 21-34.
Finnegan, D.J. and Currie, W.L. (2010), “A multi-layered approach to CRM implementation: an
integration perspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 153-167
Gummesson, E. (2002), “Relationship marketing and a new economy: it’s time for de-programming”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 585-589.
Josiassen, A., Assaf, A.G. and Knežvevic´, L. (2012), “Impact of CRM implementation on hotel efficiency:
evidence from the Slovenian hotel sector”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 607-616.
Öztaysi, B., Sezgin, S. and Fahri Özok, A. (2011), “A measurement tool for customer relationship
management processes”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 111 No. 6, pp. 943-960.
Peelen, E., van Montfort, K., Beltman, R. and Klerkx, A. (2009), “An empirical study into the foundations
of CRM success”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 453-471.
Renner, D. (2000), “Customer relationship management: a new weapon in your competitive arsenal”,
Siebel Magazine, Vol. 1 No. 2.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (2002), “Evolving relationship marketing into a discipline”, Journal of
Relationship Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
Sheth, J.N. and Sharma, A. (2001), “Efficacy of financial measures of marketing: it depends on markets
and marketing strategies”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 341-356.
Temkin, B.D., Manning, H., Dorsey, M. and Lee, H. (2003), “Web sites continue to fail the usability test”,
Forrester Research Report, Vol. 17, pp. 226.
Verhoef, P.C. (2003), “Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on
customer retention and customer share development”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 4,
pp. 30-45.

Corresponding author
Roya Rahimi can be contacted at: roya.rahimi@wlv.ac.uk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com