Search results

In consideration of the lack of research regarding airline lounge customers’ behavior, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among brand personality, self-congruity, functional congruity, positive emotion, customer satisfaction and revisit intentions in airline lounges.

On the basis of theoretical associations among study constructs, a conceptual model was proposed and tested using the data collected from airline lounge patrons through an online survey.

The empirical results showed that brand personality was positively related to self-congruity. Self-congruity was significantly associated with positive emotions and functional congruity. In addition, functional congruity was significantly associated with positive emotions. This result also indicated that positive emotion significantly influenced customer satisfaction. The mediation tests showed that both self-congruity and functional congruity significantly affected customer satisfaction through positive emotion. Customer satisfaction was a significant predictor of revisit intentions within the context of airline lounges.

Overall, these results help airline lounge operators understand lounge travelers who become more demanding with regard to brand personality, self-congruity and functional congruity.

This research was the first to test the effectiveness of image congruity theory in the domain of airline lounges. Our findings contribute to the body of knowledge on customer behaviors in airline lounges and image congruity.

The purpose of this paper was to explore how the two groups of action learning experts (Korean and non-Korean experts) define success of action learning to see whether there are any cultural differences. To this end, the authors conducted a total of 44 interviews with action learning experts around the world. Research questions guiding our inquiry included: How do action learning experts around the world define the success of action learning? Are there any cultural differences in action learning experts’ definitions of success? What do we learn from action learning experts’ definitions of success?

The authors approached willing participants first and then recruited more participants using a snowball sampling technique by requesting them to help us make contact with additional participants. Due to interview participants’ busy schedule at an international conference and work, individual interviews took approximately 30 min to complete using an interview protocol of 10 questions regarding the definitions of success in action learning.

To answer RQ1 (How do action learning experts around the world define the success of action learning?) and RQ2 (Are there any cultural differences in action learning experts’ definitions of success?), the authors analyzed interview data using a content analysis method. Analysis of interview participants’ narratives generated four themes including: definitions of success in action learning, the context where action learning is being practiced, challenges in action learning practice and the comparison of action learning with other approaches. The authors compared and contrasted cultural differences in the review of non-Korean and Korean experts’ narratives.

The authors presented four significant discussion agendas including: cultural differences, relationships between interview questions, typology of definitions of success and comparing action learning with other approaches. Based on the discussion, the authors presented four propositions, three research questions, two methodological questions and two more questions for cultural differences for future investigation.

To answer RQ3 (What do we learn from action learning experts’ definitions of success?), the authors provided at least three practical implications for action learning practitioners.

Previous studies, using research methods such as Delphi and surveys, have not captured a complete picture of the meaning of success in action learning, and the interview method was used for a small number of experts only. In addition, as action learning originally emerged from the UK and Europe, and Korean companies adopted a US approach to action learning with little effort at indigenization, international comparison studies were called for, so the authors turned to action learning experts around the world to learn how they define success in action learning.