ISSN 0798 1015
ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 39 (Number 47) Year 2018. Page 16
Gilberto de A. GUIMARÃES 1; Roseane Barcellos MARQUES 2; Luiz Octávio de Lima CAMARGO 3;
Received: 25/05/2018 • Approved: 08/07/2018
ABSTRACT: The understanding about the close relationship between the general systems theory, from the perspective of interpersonal relation and the concept of hospitable meeting, constituted the discussion proposed in this article regarding the systematization of meetings in commercial relations. In conclusion, an approximate system model for commercial activities in the context of hospitality was drawn up, considering that the hospitable encounter, in a commercial environment, consists of the relationship between guest-costumer/employee-host when delivering a product or service. |
RESUMEN: A compreensão a respeito da estreita relação entre a teoria geral dos sistemas sob uma perspectiva de relação interpessoal e o conceito de encontro hospitaleiro constituiu a discussão proposta neste artigo a respeito da sistematização do encontro nas relações comerciais. Em conclusão, esquematizou-se um modelo de sistema, aproximado, às atividades comerciais no contexto da hospitalidade, considerando que o encontro hospitaleiro, em ambiente comercial, consiste na relação entre funcionário-anfitrião/cliente-hóspede no momento da entrega do produto ou serviço. |
This article presents a study for structuring a model of hospitality representation using systems theory, and focuses on hospitality in a commercial environment, specifically at the moment of delivery of a product or service, that is, the hospitable meeting between host-employee and guest-costumer. One of the bases of structuring was the tourism system (SISTUR), by Prof. Dr. Beni (1990), a system that directly or indirectly guides the analysis of activities that are characteristic of tourism, such as food and beverage service in restaurants (Claudio José Stefanini, Alves, & Marques, 2018) and contribute to the identification of tourist segments such as business tourism (Cláudio J. Stefanini, Souza, & Yamashita, 2012; Cláudio José Stefanini, Yamashita, Alves, & Marques, 2017). The starting point was the definition of social organizations and institutions and how these structures were fundamental factors for economic and social development. According to North (1990), the success of the Western economies was a consequence of the development of institutions capable of achieving long-term economic growth.
The general theory of systems, proposed by Von Bertalanffy (2008), has its milestone in the year 1950, in which it clarifies that it can be applied to any type of system and areas of knowledge, such as: biology, physics, mathematics and informatics (Market-Caruso, Castillo, & Oliveira, 2017; Vasquez & Lopez, 2018). In particular, it has been applied to the theory of organizations that have come to be seen as a dynamic and open system, and the system is a set of mutually dependent elements that interact with each other for specific purposes and to perform certain functions.
The conceptualization of the hospitality system was based on the definition demonstrated by Baptista (2002), that defined hospitality as an interpersonal meeting marked by acceptance and receptiveness in relation to the other. Thus, the proposed system refers to a hospitable encounter in a commercial environment, which, as King (1995) states, is a specific form of relationship between people with the goal of satisfying guest and clients and getting them back.
The general objective of the paper is to structure the hospitable encounter in business relations from the conceptual perspective of the general systems theory. In order to achieve this goal, the following research question must be answered: How to structure the interpersonal relationship in a hospitable meeting during commercial activities under the conceptual and analytical approach of institutional systems?
In conclusion, despite the difficulties encountered due to the complexity of the conceptualization of hospitality and the multiple components involved, but also because of the difficulty in measuring the emotional and relational variables, a systemic model was applied to the hospitable encounter. To advance the proposed model becomes the challenge after deeper analysis.
Institutional developments were more important than technological innovations, and they sought to formulate an (institutional) theory of economic development (Gala, 2003, D. North, 2018, D. C. North, 1981). For North (1990), the key to the economic problems lies not in technological advancement or capital accumulation, but in institutional rules or arrangements that stimulate or inhibit activities in that direction. The key to achieving growth lies in building a matrix that stimulates the accumulation of physical and human capital. In their texts, North (1990) showed that the success of Western economies was a consequence of the development of institutions capable of achieving long-term economic growth. Classical examples are the Netherlands and England, which were able to develop institutional arrangements to stimulate productive activities, in which there was a strong relationship and balance of power between the state, organizations and local productive groups, which favored the creation of institutions and laws conducive to the development of trade and industry.
Gala (2003) shows that the difficulty of facing uncertainty and overcoming transaction costs has led human beings to structure themselves in institutions, and to interact from rules. Only from these institutions is it possible to understand the organization of societies. This concept of institution presents a high degree of abstraction, since the rules governing the interaction between individuals can have infinite meanings. In order to make a less abstract concept, it is necessary to reduce the level of abstraction, and to emphasize in more concrete fields such as, for example, economics, as did North (1990).
Astley and De Ven (2005) show that several schools of organizational thinking are classified according to the micro and macro levels of organizational analysis and with deterministic premises, thus generating four basic perspectives: the systemic-structural organizational vision, the vision of strategic choice, that of natural selection and that of collective action. These four views represent different concepts about organizational structure, behavior, change, and managerial roles. They examine the debates about organizational nature and structure that pose the following questions: (1) are organizations rational and technically determined systems or embodiments of socially constructed and subjectively meaningful individual actions?; 2) are the changes in organizational forms explained by internal adaptation or environmental selection?; 3) would organizational life be determined by environmental constraints or created through managerial decisions? 4) should the environment be seen as a simple aggregate of organizations, governed by external economic forces, or as a collective of organizations integrated and governed by their own internal political and social forces? 5) is organizational behavior related to individual action or to collective action?; 6) are the organizations technical instruments to achieve goals, or manifestations of vested interests and power structures of society? They conclude that organizational theory not only reflects organizational reality but also produces this reality. This organizational theory shares a dialectical relationship with organizational life and helps to structure its own object of study to give objectivity to the practices to which it refers. "This reflexivity between theoretical and practical events is apprehended in a fourth and final principle of dialectical analysis [...] the principle of praxis, or the creative reconstruction of social arrangements based on rationally developed analyzes" (ASTLEY; DE VEN, 2005).
Malinowski (1978) argues that culture represents the social totality, the set of all institutions, an "artificial environment", a way of solving human needs. His "functional analysis" assumes that every habit, every idea, has a vital role in meeting needs. Sociocultural life tends to "social institutions".
Each institution has its map, linked to the representations of social groups and beliefs. An institution involves rules, activities, personnel and material, and the rules that the group must obey. It also involves a "function", a responsible collective action and presupposes cooperation and organization among individuals. This organization needs a defined structure, that is, the institution.
"The General Systems Theory proposed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1950 can be considered the theory of theories, since it starts from an abstract concept of systems in search of rules of values in general, applicable to any type of system in several areas of knowledge, such as biology (respiratory system), physics (solar system), mathematics (numbering system)" (Motta, 1971).
For Bertalanffy (1975) [...] "a system is a set of mutually related units. Understanding the properties of systems can only be described by studying them globally, with all the interdependencies of their subsystems". In the particular case of the social sciences, the open system model has revealed enormous potentialities for its comprehensiveness and flexibility.
According to the system theory, system is a set of interdependent parts that, together, form a unitary whole with a certain purpose and perform a certain function (OLIVEIRA BATISTA, 2006). A system is formed by:
Systems can be open or close. The open system model is applied to organizational theory, demonstrating the interaction and exchange of the organization with the environment. According to North (1990), organizations are the main agents of a society and within this category are the most diverse entities: "political organizations (political parties, senate, municipal council, regulator), economic organizations (companies, unions, farms, organizations), social organizations (churches, clubs, athletic associations) and educational organizations (schools, universities, vocational training centers)" (NORTH, 1990, p.5).
To further explain their role in the model, North (1990) uses the metaphor of sports games. If institutions are the rules of the game, organizations represent the various teams that compete for the league championship. It introduces a more elaborate concept, adaptive efficiency. A society will be more efficient the greater its ability to adapt to adversity over time. North (1990) therefore migrates from a static conception of efficiency to a dynamic one (Gala, 2003).
For Motta (1971) "organizations can be seen as a dynamic and open system in which the system is a set of mutually dependent elements that interact with certain objectives and perform certain functions. [...] In order to survive, the organization needs adjustments with the external environment, besides adjustments in the internal environment " (Motta, 1971). Regarding changes in the external environment, the organization adapts to survive by changing its products, techniques and structures (Motta, 1971).
In the institutional dynamics that North (1990) proposes to maximize the return of their activities, organizations invest in economic or political activities. When faced with changes in relative prices and preferences, or some kind of change exogenous to the economic environment, they have two options for capturing new opportunities for gain: rearranging the relation of inputs and outputs with which they work without changing the institutional matrix under which they operate or investing efforts to change this matrix in order to capture such gains from changes in the environment (Gala, 2003).
Worren and Worren (2016), based on concepts from the general systems theory show that functional analysis can be used to improve processes and thus increase the effectiveness of social systems, including public and private sector organizations.
In an open systems theory, organization is seen in terms of interrelated behaviors and embodies the role of the individual in the organization through the concept of a "Functional Man", which plays a role and establishes relationships with other individuals (Baron & Pfeffer, 1994). An organization can be defined as a system of roles. Homans (1974) considers as basic variables, activities, interactions and feelings, and that any change in these variables changes the whole context of the others. A complex is considered where there is: the physical and social environment, the materials, tools and techniques, the external system, the internal system and the norms of the group. In the internal system the leadership role is key to efficiency. All these elements are interconnected and any change among them will bring transformations to the others (Homans, 1974).
The concept of hospitality is very old, vast and broad. Perhaps it has arisen consequently and necessity of the struggle for the survival of the first human groups. Humans were hunter-gatherers until the Neolithic period. Hunting and collecting were the first means of subsistence. Hunting a small mammal could be done individually, but hunting a large animal required a group. Humans then learned to welcome and cooperate with each other, and to live in small groups. Roving bands, with the same language and habits, gathered for hunting and for ceremonies of exchange, weddings, and storytelling (Barnard, 2004).
Finley (1988), in his studies on Greek politics and society, shows the beginning of hospitality in the society that emerged in Greece around 1200 BC. Homeric society was organized around the oikos - houses, in a broader concept, with family, aggregates, lands, goods and that, too, was the center of social relations and relations with the gods. Thus, as in the most primitive societies in the world of Ulysses, goods were put into circulation as gifts that generated the social obligation to repay the gift received. Donation and counter-donation were the fundamental mechanisms of relations between different oikos. In these times men lived in a state of struggle against the threat of strangers. By the Homeric poems, the gods, as a counterpoint, imposed on men a hospitality duty, of meeting and acceptance, in a difficult balance between the threat by the foreigner and the moral ideal imposed by Zeus "protector of the guest and the host". There was always a clash between hospitality and hostility, as expressed by Gotman (2009).
Hospitality involves meeting between two parties or more, and therefore a relationship. It can be understood "as a human relationship in which an exchange takes place between someone who receives (host) and someone who is received (guest), and its unfolding can result in appeasement, feelings [...] friendship, love, human warmth [...], to some level of conflict, aggression, hostility "(CAMARGO, 2015, P.47).
According to Montadon (2003), "hospitality is a way of living together, governed by rules, rites and laws... Hospitality is conceived not only as an essential form of social interaction but also as a proper form of humanization, or at least one of the essential forms of socialization "(MONTANDON, 2003, p. 132).
For Selwin (2004), the function of hospitality aims to establish and promote relationships, consolidating and transforming social structures. "Hospitality turns strangers into acquaintances, enemies into friends, friends into best friends, outsiders into intimate friends, and not relatives into relatives" (Selwyn, 2004, p.26-27).
Hospitality can be considered as one of the bases of social and religious structures. Benedict XVI (2006) in his Encyclical Letter "God is Love" proposed that this relationship, this approach to the other, implies looking for the happiness of the other before ones own, giving oneself and wanting to exist for the other. Baptista (2002) considers hospitality as an interpersonal encounter marked by acceptance in relation to the other. Hospitality practices should mark all life situations. As Camargo (2015, p. 48) states, "the interpersonal relationship is the basic component of a hospitable scene".
In addition, hospitality can be understood in four concepts: "the human relationship, virtue, ritual and exchange" (Camargo, 2015). In the human relationship, hospitality is seen as an encounter, an interpersonal relationship. In some studies of hospitality in human relations, it can be understood as a value, as an advanced stage of human behavior in a group. From this perspective, hospitality can be understood as a fundamental characteristic, ubiquitous in human life (LASHLEY; MORRISON, 2004; LASHLEY; LYNCH; MORRISON, 2007).
Pure and unconditional hospitality, hospitality itself, is offered to someone who is neither expected nor invited, to whoever arrives as an absolutely strange visitor, as a newcomer, unidentifiable and unpredictable (DERRIDA; DUFOURMANTELLE, 2003). Derrida and Dufourmantelle (2003) elaborated the notion of hospitality based on observations of the Levinas and Kant texts.
For Kant (1995), it is a moral issue, but also legal. To have a virtuous way of life, among other things, you should treat your guests well as a duty and not out of pity or compassion. This duty should not be a result of the obligation of others, but a duty owed by the host for the supreme principle of morality (Kant, 1995).
Levinas (1988) goes beyond the law and speaks of an ethical responsibility. He explains that the other is not just an equal but also an absolutely different individual that one should serve without asking for a name, because it is the other that constitutes us, and that we are responsible for him because he constitutes us (Levinas, 1988).
Hospitality in the commercial context is a specific form of relationship between people with the goal of satisfying guest-clients and getting them back (King, 1995). As highlighted by Gotman (2009), somehow, hospitality in commercial action seeks to mimic the social custom of the gift, as discussed by Mauss (2012).
The Maussian total social fact consists of the socialization inherent in the total social phenomenon, that is, an analogy between the exchange phenomenon of a society and the socialization in the broad and complex sense in which social practices are analyzed in their economic, moral, aesthetic dimensions and politics (Setton, 2009). The Maussian discussion adds that social relations contemplate the essence of reciprocity as a universal character of the threefold obligation to "give, receive and reciprocate" (Sabourin, 2008), which would be a first system perspective in the context of hospitality, and reinforced with the possibility of creating a bond between the actors involved. The debate on commercial social relations is a complex issue in the literature of hospitality because at the heart of the discourse is the characterization of hospitality as a genuine activity, devoided of interests or ulterior motives, which would exclude its analysis in the approach to relations in commercial activities.
However, the relationships established in the context of hospitality constitute a study of how hospitality is administered between individuals, groups, at home, or in other commercial and non-commercial contexts (Brotherton & Wood, 2008). Accordingly, the authors clarify that there are other formats of human exchange involving the supply/demand of food, drink and accommodation. Camargo (2004) and Lugosi (2009), in the light of Telfer's literature (1995), include entertainment as an essential complement to the hospitality experience.
According to Moretti (2015), in the provision of services involving hospitality, the meeting between the service providers or host, and the client or guest, is the epicenter of the relationship; it is the moment of truth. The most important dimensions of the meeting are two; 1) social, relational, related to emotional aspects; 2) space, the physical environment (Bitner, 1992).
For O'Sullivan and Spangler (1998) the hospitable meeting should be seen as a process, with three phases: 1) the pre-experience of consumption - the contacts prior to the meeting; 2) the moment of the meeting itself, the provision of the service and the exchange of experiences; 3) the post-encounter, the retention of the experience in the memory.
Knutson and Beck (2004) also envisioned a model with three phases: 1) the pre-encounter, the moment of the creation of expectations, and information researched by different means; 2) the meeting itself, the moment of delivery, the provision of the service; 3) the evaluation, made by the perception, which can be positive and generate a new meeting, repurchase and recommendations to others, or negative, which will prevent new relationships and also generate derogatory comments about the service and the provider.
Regarding the determinant expectations of the positive or negative evaluation of a given service, it can be affirmed that, as Ariely (2008) says, people make choices and make decisions in a "predictably irrational" way, due to the restrictions of the thinking processes, evaluation, and by heuristic processes and biases. In his works, Simon (1979) already alerted about this limited rationality.
In motivational terms, the situation is complex. North (1990) argues that maximizing rational choice fails to address a range of behavior relevant to the social sciences because it fails to cope with altruistic and cooperative gestures, nor to take ideas and ideologies into account in the decisions of the actors. The behavioral assumptions of received theory seem to leave much to be desired in explaining some relevant social and economic phenomena.
The methodological procedure in this qualitative research was analytical - comparative bibliographical research, with a reflexive and interpretative reading of the texts of the main authors, selected for being significant on the subject, analyzing the ideas and the themes and decomposing them into concepts. The authors and texts were selected, primarily, for their relevance to the themes and then through research on the Scopus database. A first survey, conducted on June 22, 2017, sought recent texts on systems theory in organizations with the investigative sequence "(TITLE-ABS-KEY ("system theory") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (corporate)". The results presented six articles, namely: Kim and Daniel (2016), Musgrave and Woodward (2016), Worren and Worren (2016), Wilke, Wilke and Viglione (2015), Dankova, Valeva and Štrukelj (2015), Andersen (2015). A second investigation searched for articles that represented a systematic view of hospitality with an investigative sequence "TITLE-ABS-KEY ("system theory" and "hospitality") limited to articles in the "business" area, with results presented in three articles: Sydnor-Bousso et al. (2011), Murphy, Dipietro and Murrmann (2007), Scott and Laws (2006).
Scott and Laws (2006) present systems theory (social systems) as a viable framework in tourism. For them, tourism companies and social networks are systems whose properties derive from the interaction of all components. In this perspective SISTUR was developed, which consists of the application of the general theory of systems to tourism Beni (1990).
From the model developed by Beni (1990), shown in figure 1, an approximate model was sketched out to commercial activities in the context of hospitality. The hospitable meeting, in a commercial environment, between employee-host and client-guest, specifically at the time of delivery-distribution of the product or service, constitutes the object of study of this article.
Figure 1
System of Tourism
Source: Adapted from Beni (1990)
Starting from the model presented and the classical definitions of the components of a system, it can be established that the hospitality system - a hospitable encounter - has:
In continuity to the detailing of the hospitality system, definitions can be established for the subsets related to the various components of the whole of the structural organization.
Clegg (1998) questioned the universality of modern organizational theories and argued for the need for more contextualized approaches that take into account local specificities as regards their social, cultural, political and economic characteristics. According to Sydnor-Bousso et al. (2011), resilience is the ability to adapt to changes, both community and business changes over time and experience. Communities develop, learn and respond to change. Over time, resilience can be considered as an input and an output, as a result and as a catalyst. According to the general systems theory, firms experience greater resilience through community resilience and vice versa, demonstrating the interdependencies that exist between a community and the companies and the permeable membranes intrinsic in both. Thus, both a Superstructure and a specific Infrastructure for the model can be defined.
In the superstructure there is the economic environment and structure of the region of the company to which the host belongs, which is formed by; 1) the economic and business conditions of the country and the region of the company; 2) the conditions of the structure of the country and the region; urban space, roads, transportation, water, telecommunications, etc.
In Infrastructure there are the characteristics of the company to which the host belongs, and the conditions of the place where it operates, which are formed by; 1) the conditions of the company structure; accessibility, reservations; 2) the physical conditions of the company; space, reception, Wi-Fi, bathrooms, furniture, etc.
Regarding the Set of Environmental Relations there are the following components:
In the detailing of the set of operational actions, the following components related to the market can be highlighted. They can be defined, on one hand, by the production, the offer, consisting of the service provider, the company represented by the employee assuming the role of host, and, on the other hand, by consumption, the demand, formed by the service taker, the client who assumes the role of the guest.
For the production, the offer, by the service provider, there is: 1) Attendance - Reception, which is composed of the tasks; reception, identification, recognition, education, politeness; 2) Attention, attentiveness and interested listening, etc.; 3) Food, accommodation and service; which is represented by the delivery of the product or service; 4) Entertainment, the pleasant waiting, the availability of means and ways to entertain and facilitate the waiting for the service.
For the consumption, by the service taker, there is: 1) the pre-encounter, the expectation, which is constituted by what the consumer imagines will happen from the choice of a certain alternative; 2) the meeting - the receipt, which is the receiving and acceptance of the agreed product or service contracted; 3) the post-meeting satisfaction, which occurs when clients or guests evaluate a service comparing what was accomplished and offered with what they expected. According to Chon and Sparrowe (2003) there are five elements that make up the scale by which services are evaluated: 1) tangibility, 2) credibility, 3) responsibility, 4) guarantee, and 5) empathy. These factors are the result of the human interaction associated with the attitudes of the host-employee, in the meeting that can be hospitable or not.
Finally, what was considered in Beni's (1990) model as distribution is, in the proposed model, considered as the delivery model. This delivery, regardless of the availability or not of a product, is configured in the simultaneous provision of a service, and so it is held in a hospitable meeting. This hospitable meeting, this interpersonal relationship, happens between a person, a collaborator, who represents the company, and performs the functions of host, and another person, a consumer, client, who assumes the role of host. The intangible aspect, the human factor, is one of the most important ingredients for the perception of a positive experience of the hospitable encounter. Because hospitality is an interpersonal relationship, with intersubjectivity, hospitableness can be conceptualized and evaluated through the behavioral characteristics and empathy of the participants (Tasci & Semrad, 2016). In addition, it is also necessary to consider the situation, the scene in which this encounter takes place and, also, the emotional disposition of the participants.
The initial objective of the article was to structure the hospitable encounter in commercial relations from the conceptual perspective of general systems theory. For this, a parallel was drawn between the general systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 2008) and the concepts of hospitality (Camargo, 2015, O'Sullivan & Spangler, 1998), considering the SISTUR format (Beni, 2006). This analytical-comparative perspective of the concepts revealed its proximity in the commercial relations of the formal and informal institutions (D. North, 2018). Thus, from these comparatives analyzes it was possible to construct a systematization of the hospitable meeting that could somehow constitute a system of hospitality, that is, to construct an approximate model of representation of hospitality using the general systems theory.
However, the answer to the research problem was answered by identifying the interpersonal relationships, hospitable encounter, in commercial activities under the conceptual and analytical approach of institutional systems. The SISTUR contemplates the commercial activities of tourism, but the relations established between host and client are supported by contexts inherent to the human dimensions which are exposed now of the meeting and the result of this hospitable meeting will be memorized by the participants of the meeting, who will produce feedback from the system.
It was then demonstrated that the complexity and multiplicity of possibilities in analyzing the hospitable encounter that occurs in the interpersonal relations of service delivery imposes challenges such as the dimensions of the concept of hospitality, the multiple components involved, the measurement of emotional and relational variables among other pertinent epistemological aspects of the areas of knowledge discussed in this article. This suggests empirical research that can fill these aspects of the dynamics inherent in the commercial context of hospitality. However, in this article, a systemic model for the hospitable meeting was outlined as a proposal for discussion and later development.
The resulting model was restricted to the concepts of hospitality in the commercial environment in the provision of services. To advance the proposed model becomes the challenge after deeper analysis.
Andersen, J. A. (2015). How organisation theory supports corporate governance scholarship. Corporate Governance, 15(4), 530–545.
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational. HarperCollins New York.
Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2005). Debates e perspectivas centrais na teoria das organizações. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 45(2), 52–73.
Baptista, I. (2002). Lugares de hospitalidade In: DIAS, C.M.M. (Org.). Hospitalidade, reflexões e perspectivas. São Paulo: Manole.
Barnard, A. (2004). Hunter-gatherers in history, archaeology and anthropology: introductory essay. Hunter-Gatherers in History, Archaeology and Anthropology, 1.
Baron, J. N., & Pfeffer, J. (1994). The Social Psychology of Organizations and Inequality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(3), 190. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786876
Beni, M. C. (1990). Sistema de Turismo-SISTUR: Estudo do Turismo face à moderna Teoria de Sistemas. Revista Turismo Em Análise, 1(1), 15–34.
Beni, M. C. (2006). Análise estrutural do turismo (11th ed.). Editora Senac São Paulo. Retrieved from https://www.livrariacultura.com.br/p/livros/viagem/atividade-economica/analise-estrutural-do-turismo-116256
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. The Journal of Marketing, 57–71.
Brotherton, B., & Wood, R. C. (2008). The nature and meanings of hospitality. The SAGE Handbook of Hospitality Management, 37–61.
Camargo, L. O. de L. (2004). Hospitalidade. São Paulo: Aleph.
Camargo, L. O. de L. (2015). Os interstícios da hospitalidade. Revista Hospitalidade, XII(ESpecial), 42–69.
Chon, K.-S., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2003). Hospitalidade: conceitos e aplicações. São Paulo: Pioneira Thomson Learning, 2.
Clegg, S. R. (1998). As organizações modernas.
Dankova, P., Valeva, M., & Štrukelj, T. (2015). A comparative analysis of international corporate social responsibility standards as enterprise policy/governance innovation guidelines. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(2), 152–159.
Derrida, J., & Dufourmantelle, A. (2003). Anne Dufourmantelle convida Jacques Derrida a falar da hospitalidade. Escuta.
Finley, M. (1988). O mundo de Ulisses. (Presença., Ed.). Lisboa.
Gala, P. (2003). A Teoria Institucional de Douglass North1. Revista de Economia Política, 23(2), 90.
Gotman, A. (2009). O comercio da hospitalidade é possível? Revista Hospitalidade, 6(2), 3–27.
Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
I, B. X. V. (2006). Carta encíclica Deus é amor. São Paulo: Loyola.
Kant, I. (1995). Fundamentação da metafísica dos costumes. Edições 70, Lisboa.
Kim, J., & Daniel, S. J. (2016). Religion and Corporate Governance: Evidence from 32 Countries. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 45(2), 281–308.
King, C. A. (1995). What is hospitality? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3), 219–234.
Knutson, B. J., & Beck, J. A. (2004). Identifying the dimensions of the experience construct: development of the model. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 4(3–4), 23–35.
Lashley, C., Lynch, P., & Morrison, A. J. (2007). Hospitality: A social lens. Elsevier.
Lashley, C., & Morrison, A. (2004). Em busca da hospitalidade: perspectivas para um mundo globalizado. Barueri: Manoele.
Levinas, E. (1988). Ética e infinito (1982). Trad. João Gama. Lisboa: Ed, 70.
Lugosi, P. (2009). The Production of Hospitable Space: Commercial Propositions and Consumer Co-Creation in a Bar Operation. Space and Culture, 12(4), 396–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331209348083
Malinowski, B. (1978). Argonautas do pacífico ocidental. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 2.
Mauss, M. (2012). Ensaio sobre a dádiva. Forma e razão da troca nas sociedades arcaicas.
Mercado-Caruso, N., Castillo, E., & Oliveira, H. (2017). Aplicación del método Delphi para establecer un modelo conceptual de estimación de costos de software of software cost estimation.
Montandon, A. (2003). Hospitalidade ontem e hoje. Hospitalidade: Cenários E Oportunidades. São Paulo: Pioneira-Thomson, 132.
Moretti, S. L. do A. (2015). Encontros de hospitalidade, experiência de consumo e relacionamento com clientes: proposta preliminar para sua integração.
Motta, F. C. P. (1971). A teoria geral dos sistemas na teoria das organizações. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 11(1), 17–33.
Murphy, K. S., DiPietro, R. B., & Murrmann, S. (2007). A proposed research agenda for the refinement of the high performance work system construct in the US restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 8(4), 99–116.
Musgrave, J., & Woodward, S. (2016). Ecological Systems Theory Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: Contextual Perspectives From Meeting Planners. Event Management, 20(3), 365–381.
North, D. (2018). Instituições, Mudança Institucional e Desempenho Econômico - Livros - Livraria da Folha. (Alexandre Morales, Ed.). São Paulo: Tres estrelas. Retrieved from http://livraria.folha.com.br/livros/economia/instituicoes-mudanca-institucional-desempenho-economico-1378512.html
North, D. C. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History. Norton.
North, D. C. (Douglass C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
O’Sullivan, E. L., & Spangler, K. J. (1998). Experience marketing: strategies for the new Millennium. Venture Publishing Inc.
Oliveira Batista, E. de. (2006). Sistemas de informação: o uso consciente da tecnologia para o gerenciamento. Saraiva.
Sabourin, E. (2008). Marcel Mauss: da dádiva à questão da reciprocidade. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais , 23(66), 131–138. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbcsoc/v23n66/08.pdf
Scott, N., & Laws, E. (2006). Tourism crises and disasters: enhancing understanding of system effects. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(2–3), 149–158.
Selwyn, T. (2004). Uma antropologia da hospitalidade. Em Busca Da Hospitalidade: Perspectivas Para Um Mundo Globalizado. Barueri, São Paulo: Manole.
Setton, M. da G. J. (2009). A socialização como fato social total: notas introdutórias sobre a teoria do habitus. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 14(41), 296–394. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbedu/v14n41/v14n41a08.pdf
Simon, H. A. (1979). Comportamento administrativo: estudo dos processos decisórios nas organizações administrativas. FGV.
Stefanini, C. J., Alves, C. A., & Marques, R. B. (2018). Vamos almoçar? Um estudo da relação hospitalidade, qualidade em serviços e marketing de experiência na satisfação dos clientes de restaurantes. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa Em Turismo, 12(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v12i1.1372
Stefanini, C. J., Souza, R. B. M., & Yamashita, A. P. N. G. (2012). Turismo de negócios: um estudo sobre a percepção de valor dos serviços hoteleiros na ótica do turista de negócios. Revista Turismo Visão E Ação, 14(3), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.14210/rtva.v14n3.p349-365
Stefanini, C. J., Yamashita, A. P. N. G., Alves, C. A., & Marques, R. B. (2017). Factors related to perception of quality in hosting services among business tourists from São Paulo / Brazil. Revista Espacios, 38(57), 20.
Sydnor-Bousso, S., Stafford, K., Tews, M., & Adler, H. (2011). Toward a resilience model for the hospitality & tourism industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 10(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2011.536942
Tasci, A. D. A., & Semrad, K. J. (2016). Developing a scale of hospitableness: A tale of two worlds. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.11.006
Telfer, E. (1995). Hospitableness. Philosophical Papers, 24(3), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568649509506530
Uhlmann, G. (2002). Teoria Geral dos Sistemas. São Paulo, Versão Pré–Print. Retrieved from http://www.institutosiegen.com.br/documentos/Teoria Geral dos Sistemas.pdf
Vasquez, F., & Lopez, M. (2018). A critical review of Lean Service. Revista Espacios, 39(7), 9.
von Bertalanffy, L. (2008). Teoria geral dos sistemas: fundamentos, desenvolvimento e aplicações. Vozes. Retrieved from https://www.estantevirtual.com.br/livros/ludwig-von-bertalanffy/teoria-geral-dos-sistemas/341571820
Wilke, S. D., Wilke, J. R. D., & Viglione, D. J. (2015). The corporate family model of leadership development. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 18(2), 64.
Worren, N., & Worren, N. (2016). Functional analysis of organizational designs. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(5), 774–791.
1. Universidade Anhembi Morumbi. Doctorate of the graduate program in hospitality gilberto@gg-guimaraes.com.br
2. Universidade Anhembi Morumbi. Professor and researcher of the graduate program in hospitality rbsousa@anhembi.br
3. Universidade Anhembi Morumbi. Professor and researcher of the graduate program in hospitality octacam@uol.com.br