Choosing independence or affiliation: the case of Portuguese four- and five-star hotels

Article Choosing independence or affiliation: The case of Portuguese fourand five-star hotels Sofia Almeida and Valerie Sheppard Faculty of Tourism & Hospitality, Universidade Europeia, Lisboa, Portugal Carlos Costa School of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism (DEGEIT), Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal Jos e Manuel Sim~ oes Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning (IGOT), Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal Raquel Costa Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidade Europeia, Lisboa, Portugal Abstract In the increasingly competitive hotel environment, decision-makers must consider the risks and benefits of remaining independent or affiliating with a brand or consortium. This research sought to understand the level of importance associated with a set of motivating factors considered by Portuguese fourand five-hoteliers as it relates to remaining independent or affiliating. The study results suggest that independent hoteliers rank control over decision making and shorter decision making as most important in remaining independent, and increased sales and more aggressive marketing as most important in the decision to affiliate. Affiliated hoteliers rank shorter decision making and absence of fees as most important in remaining independent, and increased sales,brand value, and more aggressive marketing as most important in the decision to affiliate. Interestingly, independence and freedom were considered less important in the decision to remain independent, by all respondents. We apply Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory to explain some of the key findings. Keywords Motivational factors, hotel independence versus affiliation, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, Portugal Introduction Worldwide tourism arrivals reached 1.4 billion international tourist arrivals in 2018, two years ahead of forecasts (United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), 2019). This represents an increase of 6% over the previous year (2017) and represents the second strongest year since 2010 (UNWTO, 2019). These increases are reflected in the international hotel sector which has experienced similar recovery following the global economic recession which began in 2008 (Papatheodorou et al., 2010). Portugal’s hotel sector has been a part of this recovery. According to Instituto Nacional de Estat ıstica Corresponding author: Sofia Almeida, Faculty of Tourism & Hospitality, Universidade Europeia, Campus Lispolis, Rua Laura Ayres, n4, Lote 17 1600510 Telheiras, Lisboa, Portugal. Email: [email protected] Tourism and Hospitality Research 2020, Vol. 20(4) 450–465 !The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1467358420914369 journals.sagepub.com/home/thr (INE) (2017), Portugal experienced a 23.0% increase in tourism arrivals in 2017 when compared to 2016. In 2010, the Portuguese hotel sector provided accommodation to 13.5 million guests corresponding to 37.4 million overnight stays (INE, 2010). By 2017 (INE), the number of guests had grown to 24.1 million and overnight stays reached 65.8 million. In Portugal, the growth of the hotel sector has included an increase in the number of independent hotels as well as branded hotel chains. Small and independent hotels often look for status and recognition from a strong identity brand umbrella. According to O’Neill and Mattila (2004), branding is increasingly important in a global environment. The American Marketing Association’s (AMA) (1960) definition of a brand is one of the most cited. Specifically, they define a brand as a name, design, term, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s goods or services as being distinct from those of another seller. Chain branded hotels are considered to have more power (through their brand and reputation) and more resources to help their members to achieve their goals. The decision to remain independent or to affiliate with a brand is an important issue for independent hotels (see Almeida, 2018; Braun, 2013; Carlb€ ack, 2012, 2016; Holverson et al., 2010; Holverson and Revaz, 2006; Ivanov and Ivanova, 2016; Koutoulas, 2016; Morrison, 1998; Mulindwa and Ulu, 2016; O’Neill and Carlb€ ack, 2011; O’Neill and Mattila, 2004; Rushmore, 2005), as it influences marketing strategies and many other operational and financial factors. Carlb€ ack’s (2012) study, for example, suggests that hotels affiliated with a hotel brand have higher occupancy rates and a higher financial return than independent hotels. His study demonstrated that revenue per available room (RevPar) for small independent hotels (25 rooms) is less than half of the RevPar for hotels belonging to a chain, of similar size. Therefore, affiliation is a compelling option for small, independent hotels, as they can benefit from the attributes provided by a network of hotels, while maintaining their uniqueness. Although previous researchers have documented the advantages and disadvantages associated with independence and affiliation, much is yet to be understood about the importance of the various motivational factors involved in the decision-making process, as it relates to remaining independent or affiliating. Therefore, the first objective of this study was to understand the degree of importance associated with the various motivational factors which lead Portuguese fourand five-star hotel decision makers to choose to remain independent or affiliate. The second objective was to verify if there are significant differences in the perceptions of independent and affiliate hotels concerning the importance of the various motivational factors. To explain some of the study’s unique findings we returned to the literature to better understand the impact of culture on business decision making. Specifically, we turn to Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory to provide a possible explanation of the cultural aspects associated with the results of this study. Overall, this study advances existing knowledge, particularly as it relates to better understanding how cultural nuances may affect the business environment and, specifically, Portuguese hoteliers’ motivations for remaining independent or affiliating. We begin by reviewing key pieces of literature considered of most relevance to this study, namely: the characteristics of independent and affiliated hotels; the benefits and risks associated with independence and affiliation; and, the decision-making factors associated with choosing affiliation or dependence. To explain some of the findings we also examine literature related to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. The literature review is followed by a description of the methods used to undertake the study, which leads to the results, discussion of the findings, and limitations. We conclude by discussing the implications of the study and areas for future research. Literature review Characteristics of an independent hotel Bardi (2003) defines an independent hotel as one that is not associated with a franchise, marketing, or management agreement. The owner is often involved in the management of the hotel, under the guidance of its own board (Almeida, 2018). Indeed, many independent hotels often have a history and/or are family run which enables them creative freedom to provide unique experiences to their guests (Xotels, 2019). These intangible factors can enhance the success of an independent hotel, along with a strong and effective marketing department, a convenient location, and the hotel’s overall design and planning choices (Lawson, 1997). Other features of independent hotels include room rates that are similar to affiliated hotels, along with rooms decorated in different styles, and inviting dining rooms. Their location can be in the center of the city, the suburbs, alongside road and highways, and or near an airport (Bardi, 2003). Rushmore (2005) describes the profile for an independent hotel as consisting of a good location, a prominent name, an exceptional management team, and the usual amenities. They may be housed in buildings of architectural significance, and can include boutique hotels, convention-style properties, and or extended-stay properties. However, it is important to note that many Almeida et al. 451 of these features are not unique to independent hotels. Indeed, independent hotels can join an affiliation or consortium in their current geographical location, and often maintain many of their original design and layout features. Benefits and risks associated with independence A review of the literature reveals that there are many benefits to remaining independent. Generally, the benefits to remaining independent are identified as follows: maintaining individuality; proximity to the consumer and market needs; customer relationship management (CRM) advantages; exemplary service and guest recognition; the ability to respond to guest needs related to security and privacy; better service and attention to detail; greater value for money; possibility of co-branding with partners; and the ability to continuously make independent decisions related to innovation in design and concept (see Almeida, 2018; Carlb€ ack, 2012; Holverson and Revaz, 2006; Marvel, 2004; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2006; Quesada and Ruiz, 2006; Quintas, 2006). On the other hand, the risks associated with independence have been well described in the literature. For example, Holverson and Revaz’s (2006) research compared affiliated hotels with small, independent hotels and found that the latter have difficulties in the following areas: marketing, standards of quality, cost control, and financial resources. Their research also indicated that independent hotels may suffer from an underutilization of management resources, lower profit margins, employment issues, weaker bargaining power, lack of representation on electronic channels, and a greater fluctuation in demand throughout the year. Similarly, independent hotels may be at much greater risk during economic slowdowns, particularly if they have a limited marketing budget. According to Singh and Dev (2014), there is a positive relationship between marketing expenditure and firm performance, particularly during economically challenging times. The literature also reveals that independent hotels have, historically, been challenged in the areas of employment and technology. For example, Freund de Klumbis (2002) explains that small, independent hotels often have fewer resources to hire dedicated staff. They are also challenged in the ability to invest in technology solutions. For this reason, they are can be disadvantaged when accessing critical information, such as new trends. However, this situation has, over time, become less of a disadvantage, as technology has advanced and become more accessible in the almost twenty years since Freund de Klumbis’ research took place. More recently, the literature reveals another threat to the hotel industry and that is in relation to the sharing economy, particularly Airbnb (Akbar and Tracogna, 2018). For example, Guttentag and Smith’s (2017) research suggests that users consider Airbnb to be superior to budget hotels and motels. Further, their research illustrated that users commonly substituted Airbnb in place of mid-range hotels, but were less likely do so as it related to upscale hotels. These findings have implications for both independent and affiliated hotels, particularly as it relates to maintaining and/or growing market share. Decision-making factors related to remaining independent Overall, there is a lack of literature that discusses the factors that are considered important in the decisionmaking process of hoteliers who decide to remain independent. There are a few noteworthy exceptions, such as Carlb€ ack’s (2008) research undertaken with Swedish hotel decision makers. Specifically, in his interviews with 12 independent hotel managers and 5 affiliated managers in Sweden, he identified a variety of important factors for hotels to consider when deciding to remain independent or affiliate with a hotel brand. The decision-making factors considered important related to remaining independent as identified in his study are: freedom; independence; control over decisions; shorter decision making timelines; shorter decision making processes; cost reduction for the company; better exploitation of internal resources; marketing features based on the unique characteristics of the business; and absence of fees and royalties. Another factor considered important in the decision to remain independent is the history of the hotel. This is particularly so in Europe. As Holverson and Revaz (2006) observe, the European market is characterized by a higher percentage of small, independent, and often family-owned and operated hotels. It is not unusual for these hotels to be hundreds of years old, and as such they have developed a loyal clientele over time. Overall, these hotels have satisfactory occupancy rates, revenues, and profits and it is, therefore, unlikely they would benefit from affiliating. Consequently, the hotel’s history, the family’s history with the hotel, along with cultural aspects related to ownership are important and unique characteristics that influence the decision of many European hoteliers to remain independent. Characteristics of an affiliated hotel Affiliated hotels are those which are associated with hotel chains and/or a hotel marketing consortium 452 Tourism and Hospitality Research 20(4) (i.e. the hotel is part of a bigger network). As noted in the previous section, characteristics of an affiliated hotel are not all that different from those of an independent hotel, with the exception that managers and owners involved in an affiliation usually have less independence in decision making. Affiliation is an enticing option for independent hotels, particularly as it relates to the number of locations, category and size of the various affiliated properties within the consortium (Ivanova and Ivanov, 2015). In other words, an affiliated hotel can benefit from the attributes of the other hotels within the affiliation or consortium. To become a part of a consortium or an affiliation, an independent hotel voluntarily decides to pay an annual fee which enables the hotel to buy into an exchange of services and benefits (Pizam and Holcomb, 2008). The affiliation process begins with the decision to affiliate, after which the decision makers must then select the type of affiliation (franchise or an association within a consortium) and finally decide as to the specific brand to represent the hotel (Almeida, 2018; Ivanova and Ivanov, 2015). Franchising, which is a different option for hotel owners and not the focus of this research, is a form of organization based upon a legal agreement between the parent company (franchisor) and a local business owner (franchisee). One of the main differences between franchising and a consortium is the payment of royalties. As it relates to a franchise agreement, the franchisee is required to pay for the rights to use the brand and is allowed to use the franchisor’s success formula. In contrast, a consortium has an umbrella brand which the members are permitted to use (if they choose), as part of the fees paid, in all their promotional materials and as it relates to the delivery of goods and services. Benefits and risks associated with affiliation Many researchers have described the variety of benefits related to affiliation. These benefits include: (1) brand associated benefits; (2) economies of scale related to the multinational nature of chain hotels; (3) more professional management; (4) rationale of operation; (5) lower operating costs; (6) better service provision; (7) continuous improvement of human resources; (8) diversified career opportunities for employees; (9) better profitability and greater probabilities of economic success (see Andersen, 2000; Contractor and Kundu, 1998; Holverson and Revaz, 2006; Ivanova and Rahimi, 2016; Jiang and Peng, 2011; Miguel, 2001; O’Neill and Carlb€ ack, 2011). According to O’Neill and Carlb€ ack (2011), affiliations are a lever for the growth and development of hotels. The chain, and the hotels within the chain, both benefit with the addition of new hotels in a variety of ways, including: (1) increasing financial resources (through the payment of franchise/management/ lease fees); (2) greater knowledge of local markets (demand, competition, suppliers and the legal system) (Jiang and Peng, 2011); (3) higher market share; (4) freedom to define net prices; (5) greater returns for investors; (6) enhanced growth potential; (7) improved customer loyalty (Andersen, 2000); (8) lower operating costs; (9) better service provision; (10) continuous improvement of human resources; (11) career possibility; (12) better profitability; and (13) greater probabilities of economic success (Miguel, 2001). According to Andersen (2000) while high cost items (e.g. reservation systems, loyalty programs) are expensive to set up and maintain, these costs can be distributed over a greater number of hotel units, creating an advantage over independent hotels. Even soft brand affiliated hotels benefit from the brand (Hoisingtone, 2019). A soft band hotel is defined by Raugh, the CEO of RAR Hospitality, as a hotel that is backed by a brand, but that the brand name does not appear on the building (see Hoisingtone, 2019). Raugh continues on to state that being affiliated is a benefit in recessionary times, as the brand acts like an insurance policy. As he states, brands (or affiliated hotels) have the resources that enable business to continue through such economically challenging times (see Hoisingtone, 2019). According to Holverson and Revaz (2006: 407) there are risks for hotel decision makers who consider affiliation to a brand, particularly as it relates to fees and royalties. Indeed, the risks associated with affiliation may outweigh the benefits received for some hotels. O’Neill and Carlb€ ack (2011) agree, noting that affiliation is not a risk-free process, as it involves membership costs and the loss of administrative autonomy. Interestingly, Holverson and Revaz’s (2006) research findings suggested that the loss of decision-making control was not an important decision-making factor for hotel decision makers. Later research by Holverson et al. (2010: 40) appears to collaborate this finding, indicating that hotel decision makers perceived the largest risk associated with affiliation to be limited positioning and targeting (42%), high fees/commissions (15%), followed by a lack of hotel independence (12%). Decision-making factors related to affiliation While the process of affiliation is an increasingly complex decision to make and process to undergo (Ivanova and Ivanov, 2015), it is still an important option for Almeida et al. 453 independent hotels. The literature outlines a variety of factors that are taken into consideration by hotel decision makers when choosing to affiliate. For example by Quintas (2006) suggests that the nature and quality of the technology provided by the consortium, access to online platforms for updating data, performance evaluation software, sales force opportunities, and the quality standards of the facilities and services provided to the members of the consortia are important considerations. Carlb€ ack (2012) identified other factors that influence the decision to affiliate, including: (1) sales and marketing advantages, (2) loyalty cards, (3) increases in efficiency, (4) central purchasing, (5) social media, and (6) control of management and finances. His research demonstrated that the most important factors when considering affiliation were sales, loyalty card, know how, and brand value. Increased efficiency, management control, finance and marketing were considered less important in comparison. Other research by Miguel’s (2001), suggests that independent hotels choose to affiliate to obtain access to global booking systems, probability of increased sales through a variety of sales structures, access to new markets, as well as competitive advantage, and enhanced budgeting ability. Interestingly, the literature reveals a bit of a debate as it relates to the importance of marketing in the affiliation decision-making process. For example, Carlb€ ack (2012) and Holverson and Revaz (2006) conclude that marketing services are considered less important in the decision-making process. In contrast, Miguel’s (2001) research found that marketing services are considered an important consideration. Indeed, this finding may be explained by the fact that marketing can now more easily be undertaken independently by hotels without the need for affiliation. Cultural aspects of business decision-making The decision to remain independent or affiliate is influenced by many economic factors; however, the literature reveals that cultural aspects also influence business decision making. While historically, this has been an understudied area in the hospitality literature, one of the more interesting and recent developments is the focus on thought and behavioral aspects associated with various cultures in the tourism and hospitality workplace (Mattila, 2019). Some of the most extensive and influential research undertaken on the influence of culture in the workplace is that of Geert Hofstede (1980, 1983, 1984, 1991). In the following section, we explore the most relevant aspects of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions research, as it relates to explaining some of the findings of this study. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Hofstede’s (1984) work examines cultural differences among the inhabitants of more than 50 countries from around the world, particularly as it relates to how such differences affect management planning techniques. Although there are many definitions of culture, Hofstede’s (1984) is one that is often cited. Specifically, he defines culture as the “collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or society from those of another” (p. 82). It results in patterns of thinking that parents pass along to their children, teachers pass along to their students, friends pass along to their friends, leaders pass along to their followers, and followers pass along to their leaders (Hofstede, 1984). Hofstede adds that aspects of culture reside in people’s minds, and are reflected in the “meanings,” that individuals then attach to various aspects of their lives. This includes what they view as good and evil, true and false, and or beautiful and ugly (p. 82). While Hofstede states that collective patterns of thinking become imbedded within institutions and the tangible products produced by the society, he clarifies that not all members of a society are programmed in exactly the same manner. Rather, there are differences amongst individuals and differences amongst sub-groups of individuals Hofstede (1984) contends that business management within a society is restrained by cultural aspects specific to that society. Specifically, business managers are not able to effectively manage without a deep level of understanding of the values, beliefs, and expressions that are held by the individuals within the various cultures. It is these aspects (values, beliefs and expressions) that then, in turn, affect management activities, such as planning. In order to understand cultural differences as it relates to business management, Hofstede (1980, 1983) studied manifestations of culture (i.e. values) at a large multinational business (IBM) with subsidiaries and employees in 67 countries from 1967 through to approximately 1973. He analyzed the results of a pen and paper survey administered to employees from 50 subsidiary companies. Employees’ answered 32 values-based questions. Answers were compared within and across countries based upon similarities within their various employment positions/occupations. The results led to the development of four dimensions (individualism versus collectivism; large versus small power distance; strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance; masculinity versus femininity). In subsequent research Hofstede added two more dimensions, for a total of six dimensions. The first of 454 Tourism and Hospitality Research 20(4) these later additions is longversus short-term orientation which was added in 1991 (Hofstede, 1991): the second addition is the indulgence versus restraint dimension in 2010 (see Hofstede-insights.com). In 2017, Hofstede operationalized his research on cultural dimensions into a consulting business known as Hofstede Insights, providing tools (e.g. country profiles), training, facilitation, and certification programs for organizations (see https://www.hofstede-insights. com/product/compare-countries/). In the following paragraphs, we describe the Hofstede dimensions that are of most relevance and assist in explaining some of the findings of our research: individualism versus collectivism and strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance. Individualism versus collectivism. The individualism versus collectivism dimension is characterized by a society’s preference toward valuing a “loosely knit” (individualistic) society or one that is more “tightly knit” (collectivist) (Hofstede, 1984: 83). In an individualistic society, individuals take care of themselves and their immediate families and there is less interdependence amongst individuals. In contrast, individuals within a collectivist society look to their “relatives, clan, or other in-group” to take care of them. In a collectivist society there is more interdependence amongst individuals. In exchange, individuals within a collectivist society then offer unquestioning loyalty (p. 83). As Hofstede states, it is the difference between the self-concept of “I” or “we” (1984: 83). Strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance. The second dimension we examine is strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance. This dimension is characterized by the degree to which individuals within “a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity” (Hofstede, 1984: 83). A society that demonstrates a preponderance to avoiding uncertainty, values institutions that protect conformity. Individuals within such a society value adherence to codes of belief and specific conforming behaviors. They are also intolerant of individuals who are different and or who have different ideas. In contrast, weak uncertainty avoidance societies are more relaxed and open to differences amongst individuals and their ideas. Individuals within such a society believe that how one behaves is more important than adherence to a set of conformist principles. One of the most important aspects of this dimension relates to the future. Within a weak uncertainty avoidance society, individuals believe they can control the future, whereas those from a strong uncertainty avoidance society believe that they have no control over the future. As Hofstede (1984) observes, this has implications for how individuals within each type of society, weak or strong uncertainty avoidance, build their institutions and organizations (p. 84). Methodology Introduction This study employed a case study approach, utilizing quantitative methods to gather and analyze the data to address the research objectives, as described earlier. In the following paragraphs we detail the data collection instrument, the sample, and the procedures utilized to collect and analyze the data. Development of the data collection instrument Carlb€ ack’s (2016: 391) research served as the foundation for the creation of the data collection tool. The purpose of employing this tool was to identify and rank the importance of the decision-making factors in choosing independence or affiliation, and, to examine the perceived benefits and costs associated with remaining independent versus affiliation. However, based upon feedback received during the piloting stage of the research, changes were made to wording of the importance factors for the questionnaire. These changes were made for translation and relevancy purposes. The final importance factors chosen for assessing the importance of independence were: freedom; independence; control over decisions, shorter decision making; better exploitation of internal resources; and, absence of fees or royalties. The final factors chosen for assessing the importance of affiliation were: increased efficiency; loss of control over management; commercial synergies; more aggressive marketing; loyalty cards; brand value; knowledge sharing; cost sharing; increased sales. As part of the survey development, a pilot study was undertaken, which included seven (n ¼7) face-to-face interviews between October and December 2013 with hotel managers and decision-makers of small hotels and hotel chains from Lisbon, Portugal. The purpose of the pilot study was to gather expert opinions on the development of the survey and to validate the key concepts within the survey tool. The pilot interviews ranged from one to two hours in length and adhered to the following procedures: (i) each interview was recorded with the interviewee’s permission; (ii) the interviewer asked ten open questions to evaluate the perceptions of the interviewees and the level of knowledge about the subject to be discussed; (iii) the interviews were transcribed and analyzed by the lead researcher. The next step involved sending the pilot study survey to hospitality experts (professionals who Almeida et al. 455 had worked in the hospitality industry for 15 or more years) (n ¼5). Individuals from both stages reviewed the contents and gave their opinions on how to improve the survey. As noted, these opinions resulted in minor modifications to Carlb€ ack’s original questionnaire. The final survey was comprised of 25 open and closed-ended questions, in two parts (see online Appendix 1). Population Between January and October 2016, the target population of fourand five-star hotels in Portugal was identified. The inclusion criteria were that the hotels were located in a Portuguese territory, continent, or island. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) campsites, (b) hotels-apartments; (c) settlements; (d) tourist apartments, and (e) pensions. The identification of the population was drawn from three different databases: (1) National Register of Tourist Enterprises – RNET; (2) the directory of the Portuguese Hotel & Travel Guide, whose database is powered by information from Turismo de Portugal, Portuguese Association of Hotels (AHP) and the Association of Portuguese Hotels Directors (ADHP); (3) the research project ‘Accommodation of the Future’ promoted by the Portuguese Association of Hospitality, Restauration and Similar (AHRESP) along with the assistance of Idtour (a Portuguese-based tourism consultant). Overall, 688 hotels of four and five stars in Portugal were identified with a total offer of 76,543 rooms. Of this sum, 568 hotels were four stars (constituting an offer of 52,166 rooms) and 120 hotels were five stars (with an offer of 14,662 rooms). Within this characterization of four and five stars, two further distinctions were made: size (small and large) and independent affiliation (see Table 1). The UNWTO’s (1997) definition of a small hotel was utilized. Specifically, it describes a small hotel as encompassing a property with less than 50 hotel rooms, employing less than 10 employees, and often located in peripheral locations. Therefore, a large hotel was defined as having 50 or more hotel rooms for the purposes of this study. The survey was subsequently e-mailed through the survey platform available at surveymonkey.com. Data collection took place between October 2016 and March 2017. Response rate Overall, 373 questionnaires were returned. Of these, 46 were excluded from the data analysis (26 were duplicates, 20 did not answer a minimum of 50% of the questions). Consequently, a total of 327 valid Table 1. Characteristics of hotel properties. n% Type of hotel Independent 139 42.5 Affiliated 188 57.5 Total 327 100 Hotel size Small b 114 34.9 Large c 213 65.1 Total 327 100 Hotel rating 4 stars 228 69.7 5 stars 99 30.3 Total 327 100 District Aveiro 9 2.8 Beja 1 0.3 Braga 9 2.8 Castelo Branco 7 2.1 Coimbra 7 2.1 E ´vora 11 3.4 Faro 50 15.3 Guarda 5 1.5 Leiria 11 3.4 Lisboa 87 26.3 Portalegre 7 2.1 Porto 35 10.7 Santar em 8 2.4 Set ubal 9 2.8 Viana do Castelo 12 3.7 Vila Real 9 2.8 Viseu 11 3.4 Regi~ ao Autonoma dos Ac¸ores 13 4 Regi~ ao Autonoma da Madeira 26 8 Total 327 99.9 Environment Urban 136 31.6 Mountains 26 5.3 Rural 62 21.1 Beach 73 28.1 Other a 30 13.9 Total 327 100 Segment Luxury market 83 25.4 Family vacation 88 26.9 Romantic escapes 29 8.9 All inclusive 19 5.8 Corporate 46 14.1 Other 62 19 Total 327 100.1 a Included: golf, golf resort, nature, charm, historic, health and well-being, city resort, country house, design, termal, boutique. b Small hotel: 50 rooms; 10 employees. c Large hotel: >50 rooms; >10 employees. 456 Tourism and Hospitality Research 20(4) questionnaires were obtained and analyzed, representing an overall response rate of 47.5%. Validation of the questionnaire The validation of the questionnaire was performed using Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency analysis. Cronbach’s alpha score was found to be acceptable (0.854) according to literature recommendations. To test the hypotheses, a set of statistical analyzes were conducted, including: T-test for paired samples; t-test for independent samples; Chi-square test; and, standard deviation. Data analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS 19. Application of Hofstede’s country profiles tool While the questionnaire was employed to collect data, we also utilized the country profiles tool, available through Hofstede’s Insights website, to assist in explaining some of the results of this study (see https://www. hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/). This free, online tool, enables the user to select and compare countries on the six values-based dimensions (see the section Hofstede’s cultural dimensions). Each country is scored individually on each of the six dimensions. For our purposes, we examined two of the six dimensions for Portugal and Sweden (as it relates to Carlb€ ack’s research) that we were most relevant in explaining some of our findings: uncertainty avoidance and collectivism (see the section Discussion). Results For these purposes we focus our findings in the following areas: (1) the characteristics of the hotel property, and (2) the findings of two key research questions. The first question (see Q12, online Appendix 1) asked: How important are the following factors in motivating a hotel to choose independence over a hotel consortium? The second question (see Q13, online Appendix 1) asked: How important are the following factors in motivating a hotel to choose affiliation over independence? The first question sought to determine the level of importance of the various factors that motivate hotel decision makers (affiliated and independent) to remain independent. The second question sought to identify the level of importance of the various factors that motivate hotel decision makers (affiliated and independent) to affiliate with a consortium. Both questions utilized a five-point Likert scale. The higher the numeric ranking, the great the importance: 1¼not at all important;2¼a little important; 3¼important;4¼very important;5¼most important. There was also an option for participants to indicate Do not know/no response. Characteristics of hotel properties In order to assess the geographic distribution, environment, size (number of rooms and number of employees), environment, and market segments of the hotel properties, descriptive analysis of frequency of different levels of response was carried out. Overall, the sample of 327 hotels in composed of affiliated hotels (n ¼188) and independent hotels (n ¼139). Concerning the size, the sample was composed of small hotels (n ¼114; 34.9%) and large hotels (n ¼213; 65.1%). The majority of hotels that participated in this study were four stars (n ¼228; 68.8%), and five-star hotels (n ¼99; 30.3%), of all districts in Portugal, except Braganc¸a. 1 The three districts with the highest number of participating hotels include Lisbon (n ¼87; 26.3%), followed by Faro (n ¼50; 15.3%) and Porto (n ¼35; 10.7%). Concerning the environment (as described by Ivanova and Ivanov, 2015) the hotel respondents were mostly urban (n ¼136; 31.6%) and the most popular segment represented by the hotels was family vacations (n ¼88; 26.9%), followed by the luxury market (n ¼83; 25.4%). Table 1 provides more detail regarding the respondent characteristics. Characteristics of respondents The respondents were mainly general managers (n ¼208; 63.6%), followed by commercial directors (n ¼83; 25.4%). More than half (52%) of the respondents reported that they had been with their current employer less than a year, 20.6% had worked less than two years, 16.1% had worked less Table 2. Characteristics of hotel decision-makers. Characteristics of decision-makers n % Position Owner 22 6.7 General managers 208 63.6 Marketing director 14 4.3 Commercial director 83 25.4 Total 327 100 Length of service with current hotel Less than one year 170 52.0 One year 69 20.6 Two years 52 16.1 Three years or more 36 11.3 Total 327 100 Almeida et al. 457 than three years, while 11.3% had worked for three or more years (see Table 2). Importance of factors associated with remaining independent A descriptive analysis of the frequency of response levels was carried out. For the purposes of our findings here, we combine the categories “very” and “most important,” as well as “not at all” and “a little important.” Importance of factors associated with independence (independent hoteliers’ perception, n ¼139). Overall, control over decision-making (82.4%) and shorter decision-making (78.8%) were the two highest ranked factors stated by independent hotels as being very and most important. Absence of fees or royalties (68.1%) and better exploitation of resources (64.4%) were also considered very and most important by independent hoteliers. Better exploitation of internal resources (13%), freedom (9.2%), independence (9.2%), and absence of fees or royalties (9.2%) were the lowest ranked importance factors by independent hotels as being not at all important and a little important (see Table 3). Importance of factors associated with independence (affiliated hoteliers’ perception, n ¼188). Similarly, we sought to understand how affiliated hoteliers perceived the importance of factors related to remaining independent. Again, we combine the categories “very” and “most important,” as well as “not at all” and “a little important.” The highest ranked importance factors stated by affiliated hotels related to remaining independent were short decision-making (63.6%) and the absence of fees or royalties (61.9%). For affiliated hotels, freedom (29.8), better exploitation of internal resources (28.3%), and independence (27.0%), were the most cited factors as being not at all important and a little important (see Table 4). Factors associated with independence (affiliated and independent hoteliers’ perception combined, n¼327). In this section, we present the aggregated results for both affiliated and independent hoteliers’ ranking of the factors associated with remaining independent. Overall, the four highest ranked factors as it Table 3. Ranking of importance factors associated with independence (independent hoteliers’ perception, n ¼139). Freedom Independence Control over decision Shorter decisionmaking Better exploitation of internal resources Absence of fees or royalties Not at all important 1.7 2.5 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.8 Little important 7.5 6.7 2.5 4.2 11.3 8.4 Sum 9.2 9.2 3.3 5 13 9.2 Important 30.8 28.3 14.3 16.1 22.6 22.7 Very important 36.7 35.8 37 37.3 37.4 26.9 Most important 23.3 26.7 45.4 41.5 27 41.2 Sum a 60 62.5 82.4 78.8 64.4 68.1 a We have included data as it relates to “Important” for the benefit of the reader. It is not included in the sums reported here. Table 4. Ranking of importance factors associated with independence (affiliated hoteliers’ perception, n ¼188). Freedom Independence Control over decision Shorter decisionmaking Better exploitation of internal resources Absence of fees or royalties Not at all important 5.8 7.1 3.2 4.5 7.1 5.2 Little important 24 19.9 9.6 9.1 21.2 7.1 Sum 29.8 27 12.8 13.6 28.3 12.3 Important 31.2 30.8 29.3 22.7 25.6 25.8 Very important 28.6 29.5 28.7 34.4 28.2 27.7 Most important 10.4 12.8 29.3 29.2 17.9 34.2 Sum a 39 42.3 58 63.6 46.1 61.9 a We have included data as it relates to “Important” for the benefit of the reader. It is not included in the sums reported here. 458 Tourism and Hospitality Research 20(4) Environment from Simon Fraser University, Canada. She also holds a MA in Leisure & Recreation Studies, and a Bachelor’s degree in Tourism Studies, both from Brock University, Canada. Carlos Costa holds a PhD and MSc on Tourism Management (University of Surrey, UK), and a BSc on Urban and Regional Planning (University of Aveiro, Portugal). Carlos is the leader of the Tourism Research Unit and of the PhD Tourism Programme of the University of Aveiro. He is also Scientific Coordinator of the “idtour-unique solutions” (tourism spin-off company of the University of Aveiro), a private sector company located in the University, responsible for the transference of knowledge and innovation to the tourism sector. Carlos is involved in a number of national and international tourism projects. Jos e Manuel Sim~ oes is the President of IGOT – Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning – University of Lisbon (since 2019); Full Professor at IGOT – University of Lisbon (since 2006); Scientific Coordinator of PhD on Tourism of IGOT – University of Lisbon (since 2010); Scientific Coordinator of TERRITUR: unit for Tourism, Culture and Territory Studies at Centre for Geographical Studies – IGOT – University of Lisbon (since 2008); Member of the Executive Board of IUPEA – International Urban Planning and Environment Association (since 2014); and author of numerous papers and headed several research and consultancy projects on regional/local development and tourism strategic planning. Raquel Costa has a PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Minho. Between 2009 and 2013 she taught at the University of Tra ´s-os-Montes and Alto Douro in undergraduate and master’s degrees in Clinical Psychology, Education Psychology and Special Education. Currently and since 2011, is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Healthy Sciences of the Europeia University, where she teaches in undergraduate and graduate programs. Her research interests focus on developmental psychopathology, psychophysiology of early interactions and behavioral genetics, being in these areas principal investigator of projects funded by FCT and Bial Foundation. Other research interests focus on the epidemiology of mental illness, being an integrated member of EPIUNIT (Epidemiology Research Unit) of the Institute of Public Health of the University of Porto. As a result of her research work, she has been integrating national and European project research teams and has published in international scientific journals. Her productivity and impact are evaluated at this time with Scopus Index H ¼10. Almeida et al. 465