Juan M. Madera

Purpose: This paper aims to address the methodological inconsistencies prevalent in qualitative-based systematic literature reviews (Q-SLRs) within hospitality and tourism (H&T) and proposes a comprehensive framework to enhance their rigor and replicability. Design/methodology/approach: This paper presents a quality framework for Q-SLR methodology, outlining best practices for conducting Q-SLRs and a “theorizing from association” approach to guide the development of theoretical implications for Q-SLRs. Findings: The framework presents four phases: planning, conducting, extracting and analyzing, providing a step-by-step approach to Q-SLR. The novel “theorizing from association” integrates H&T literature with related fields, including management, organizational behavior and marketing. Practical implications: The proposed framework enhances methodological rigor and fosters theoretical advancement, ensuring that future reviews can more effectively contribute to the field. Originality/value: This paper addresses a critical gap in the H&T literature by providing a comprehensive guide to conducting Q-SLRs and to theoretical development from Q-SLRs.

The recent backlash against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) creates a strategic paradox for hospitality and tourism (H&T) firms: the sector’s demographic and cultural diversity heighten the need for DEI initiatives even as such efforts face opposition. In response, we develop a framework that reframes DEI as the process safeguarding procedural fairness to ensure merit-based outcomes. We integrate identity-blind personnel scholarship (e.g., validity and KSAOs) with identity-conscious DEI research (e.g., structural bias and intergroup dynamics) to show how DEI practices mitigate bias that undermines merit. We further propose targeted moral appeals (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity) mapped to specific backlash mechanisms to strengthen perceived fairness of DEI-integrated systems. By grounding a moral appeal in shared standards of procedural and outcome fairness, this framework moves beyond the DEI business case rationale and provides pathways for future research.

A framework to move the promotion and tenure process forward, emphasizing more equitable approaches and outcomes.

Underrepresented minority (URM) faculty face challenges in many domains of academia, from university admissions to grant applications. We examine whether this translates to promotion and tenure (P&T) decisions. Data from five US universities on 1,571 faculty members’ P&T decisions show that URM faculty received 7% more negative votes and were 44% less likely to receive unanimous votes from P&T committees. A double standard in how scholarly productivity is rewarded is also observed, with below-average h-indexes being judged more harshly for URM faculty than for non-URM faculty. This relationship is amplified for faculty with intersectional backgrounds, especially URM women. The differential treatment of URM women was mitigated when external reviewers highlighted candidates’ scholarship more in their review letters. In sum, the results support the double standard hypothesis and provide evidence that different outcomes in P&T decision-making processes contribute to the sustained underrepresentation of URM faculty in tenured faculty positions.

While literature articulates the relevance of self-sacrificial leadership to crisis situations, little attention has been paid to employees’ attitudinal and behavioral responses to self-sacrificial leadership. This is a particularly salient gap in the scholarship, given the decisions leaders must make to address challenges in the hospitality industry (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic). Drawing on conservation of resources theory, this pair of field and experimental studies examines how individual differences in employee emotional suppression and leader coping strategy moderate the impacts of self-sacrificial leadership on employee perceptions of leader effectiveness. By sampling U.S. hospitality employees, the studies reveal that leaders who display self-sacrificial behaviors received more favorable ratings on leader effectiveness than others, an effect that is contingent on followers’ emotional suppression and leaders’ coping strategies. The perception of increased leader effectiveness in turn weakened employees’ intentions to engage in negative word-of-mouth toward their organizations.