Micromanagement at Radisson Hotel - Case Study Example

Micromanagement at Radisson Hotel Executive Summary Theodore Roosevelt once pointed out that a good executive is sensible enough to delegate duties to good men to complete what his or her office requires done. The executive should also exercise maximum restrain from meddling in the roles of the appointees while they carry out the duties. Unfortunately, the manager at Radisson Hotel does not heed on the advice by Theodore Roosevelt that is more than a century old. The manager does not practice enough self-restrain. The manager over manages needlessly, over-scrutinizes, and frustrates employees beyond acceptable levels. Currently, scholars refer to these types of managers as micromanagers. Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Introduction 4 Description of a Micromanager at Radisson Hotel 4 Theories of employee management 5 The Role Leadership in a Hotel 7 Drivers of managing people well 8 Benefits of managing people well 9 Conclusion 10 References 11 Introduction A micromanager is just more than a nuisance in a hotel environment. The manager at Radisson Hotel second-guesses everything done by employees from those working in the front to desk to breakfast attendants. He inspects even the process of washing utensils, eavesdrops to what the breakfast attendant says to the customer, and finds a way to listen to the calls received by the employee sitting at the customer care desk. Actions by the manager demoralize employees in addition to damaging the productivity of the hotel seriously. In the end, his actions will jeopardize the survival of Radisson Hotel. It is unfortunate that micromanagement is alive at Radisson and remains fact of management at the hotel (Fracaro 2007). The control of a business in all aspects including smaller details defines micromanagement. Its influences include hindering development as it neglects issues designed in higher offices. Even before academicians labelled it an institutional pathology, micr0omanagement existed. Drucker asked for a democracy of management that included managers of businesses and organizations decentralising the authority to make decisions to workers. Theory X proposed and described by Douglas McGregor contains the characteristics of a modern micromanager. The theory also explains qualities of a proper manager who believes in delegating duties. Description of a Micromanager at Radisson Hotel Micromanagement by the manager at Radisson has reached at a more severe level. The management is a compelling, behavioural anarchy resembling many addictive patterns. It is possible that the micromanager at Radisson does so because of self-doubts and lack of self-belief. The manager does not recognize that he is hooked to controlling employees in the same way alcoholics and addicts do. The manager behaves pathologically, he never accepts accountability, personal responsibility is not part of him, and finds scapegoats to blame those people working as breakfast attendants in the hotel. Instead of developing breakfast attendants, the manager exploits those (Profiles International 2009). The micromanager fails to inspire creativity and shifts the focus on controlling results. One of the greatest things the manager fears is competition and it explains why all people he hires, as his assistants do not have experience, lack talent, as well as lacking the capacity to challenge the manager. In many ways, the manager dumps down the hotel. When the manager is not present, his assistant acts as a drone. The assistants take more work to supervise as opposed being industrious and effective thinkers. The consequence of this type of management is that good workers continue to leave the hotel as he replaces them with incompetent employees. Additionally, it results in the downward spiral down of knowledge, skill, productivity, and morale. Constant re-hiring and training of employees reduces the efficiency at the hotel and especially among breakfast attendants. In the view of breakfast attendants, a good manager will deal with details and not micromanagement of affairs (Michael 2013). Details are important and good managers utilize micro-indicators to sense or forecast impending disasters as well as bigger problems. Scholars do not attach any wrong to details, however, they essential when evaluating reports, preparing a budget, and in the process of reviewing accidents as well. The manager at Radisson Hotel fails to master the difference between monitoring and micromanagement. It is necessary to monitor each task to enhance performance. Other areas in the hotel such as serving customers are sensitive and do not need micromanagement. The importance of breakfast attendants is that they are in charge of overall customer satisfaction. Often, the manager at Radisson Hotel loses the forest in the trees, gets concerned with nitpicking details much, and denigrates into micromanaging employees at the hotel. Theories of employee management Scholars have dedicated a lot of their time to study on the relevance of effective employee management to realize company goals. However, Atkinson Hall mentions Douglas McGregor to have contributed a lot to this by postulating the XY theory. William Ouchi also introduced Theory Z. An American psychologist Douglas McGregor proposed the X-Y theory that is very famous in the management and motivation of employees. According to Azmat, it gives a form of management that draws a lot of positivism (Azmat 2013). When properly applied, the theory becomes fundamental to organizational growth while at the same time enhancing the performance culture in the organization. According to McGregor, the management that uses theory X is destined to get poor results while the more aggressive and responsible managers who are inclined towards success will always apply theory Y. The latter allows the employees to grow and develop. Their growth is a direct recipe for the growth of the organization. The failures of theory X relate to its authoritarian style of leadership (Fracaro 2007). It is characterised by people resenting work and will look for any slight opportunity to either avoid or abscond it. The inducement for people to work comes from threats. The employees develop a culture of direction to avoid work. Theory Y applies a participative approach of management. Bryson Alex believes that the effort in work in this style of leadership makes work very natural and taken as play. Among the virtues used in this form of managing people includes employees undertaking self-control in addition to taking self-direction. This takes place towards achieving company objectives. Employees work with minimal supervision. Employees are committed to work and take responsibility for anything they do. The organization solves conflicts creatively with a lot of ingenuity and imagination. The general characteristics of an X theory manager include being intolerant, arrogant, elitist, detached and do not involve participation. William Ouchi developed Theory Z and commonly called the Japanese style. Fujimoto and Hartel identify that the theory combines good elements from theory Y and the modern Japanese management (Fujimoto & Hartel 2010). The style believes in trusting and giving enough freedom to the employees. The theory operates on the assumption that employees are always loyal and draw a lot of enthusiasm in working as a team. The two scholars hold that the striking difference with the XY theory is that while the latter concentrates on the management and motivation, theory Z puts its focus on attitude and responsibilities of the employees (Hartel & Fujimoto 2010). The excellent ideas given by theory Z combine with McGregor’s X-Y to make sure that employees positively contribute to the attainment of the company goals. The Role Leadership in a Hotel Leadership in the hotel industry just like in other organizations centres on the Manager who runs the day-to-day operations. The back of decisions making in a hotel Radisson stops with the manager. Success in transformation in the hotel industry depends on the ability of leadership to communicate the importance of transformation, re-shaping desired changes, developing a hitherto team spirit among junior employees, as well as engaging in participatory leadership. The modern business environment does not allow application of piecemeal improvements. Companies do not have any route to success apart from undergoing performance transformations to attain and maintain a top status. No single model that explains the role of leadership in the hotel industry. Hill and Jones, for instance, focus on cost leadership and technology as part of strategic management in the industry. Furthermore, the precise nature of the role of the Manager sitting at the helm of leadership depends on various things among them urgency, magnitude, and the form of transformation under implementation. Other factors that influence the nature of the role of the Manager in the hotel industry are failures and potential of the business organization in the industry, and the personality of the leader (Fracaro 2007). In spite of the variations identified, researchers concur that four common important functions cut across the board and defy the differences necessary for any leadership to remain successful in the hotel industry. Every employee has a role to play in transformational performance. However, the role of the person sitting at the helm of leadership appears unique in many aspects as much as it shares other features with others within the leadership hierarchy (Azmat 2013). This is because the Manager occupies the topmost part of the pyramid while other members take the cue from him downwards. If top leadership in the Radisson gives lip service, the same will apply to the rest of leaders in the hierarchy. Leadership that fails to structure necessary culture and those fail to institute important initiatives is in the danger of losing focus. The right leadership makes sure that the right personnel take the necessary amount of time handling the most appropriate issues. Drivers of managing people well Various scholars including Bryson Alex insist that the survival and success of any organization relies on the performance of employees. The staff ought to comprehend the goals of the company, the roles towards the attainment of the set goals, understand both individual and company levels of performance and how they rate against competitors in the industry. Proper management of employee performance is paramount in the relationship between the staff and company managers. It is an essential tool in enhancing effective communication and in the process promoting trust and individual development of employees. Managing people in a good manner is central to having the employees concentrate on their work. A committed employee values his or her job, shows loyalty to the departmental managers, and believes in teamwork (Hartel & Fujimoto 2010). They also perform other duties beyond what is stipulated in their contracts provided it helps in the development of the company in one way or the other. For a hotel to convert its staff to become engaged employees it must have leadership that has the ability to align company visions and goals to individual players. The managers must also adopt a participatory approach that will empower the employees. Krippendorff Klaus explains that communication channels also ought to be clear so that the junior staff can express their dissatisfaction without victimization. The company must also have standard operating norms that apply to all the staff. This creates uniformity by treating employees equally. Benefits of managing people well Hosking Western in his journal on Human Resource Management states that proper management of employees benefits the managers, the company and employees. A better approach leads to increased performance in the organization. Regular reviews also enhance continuous improvement hence the performance of the company cannot be static. Effective employee management gives direction to the company (Azmat 2013). This begins by the company setting objectives and goals. The importance of managing the staff well is realized when the overall aims and missions are broken down to departments and then to the particular employees at their respective workstations. Clear ideas of the expectations spelt out to every member of staff. Smaeton David when analysing high performance management avers that communication is central to the performance within organizations. Irrespective of whichever mode chosen either the bottom-up approach or the top-down system, proper management of people opens up these channels. In most cases the managers to issue, instructions and guidelines, while the employees to give feedback use the boot-up style apply the top-bottom approach. Both approaches as instructions have to be give and at the same time, the feedback is necessary as it helps the management to take corrective measures where necessary. Effective management of people gives the best opportunities for the organization to identify areas that need improvement and makes sure that problems that arise are amicably resolved. Authors hold these views from Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism Centre. Unity and harmony are important to the development of teamwork in any organization. When the management aligns employee goals to the overall company objectives, it becomes easy to identify areas where the staffs have deficient knowledge and skills (Fujimoto & Hartel 2010). The information collected during performance appraisal used to develop training and development schemes. Managing people encompasses employee motivation. Under this category rewards whether monetary or other forms of recognition are used to motivate the staff. Motivated staffs increase their efficiency output thus the company succeeds in meeting its objectives. Conclusion Managers do not have an alternative to effective management of people if they have to steer their companies to meet the objectives. The company exists to make profits and the only way to make sure the employees improve their efficiency. It is also clear that the two theories associated with employee management play a central role to any organization that needs to succeed. Quoting from Rage against Self-replicating Machines, Ouchi and McGregor have contributed a lot to the field of managing the employees to get the profits that companies set out to get. Considering the drivers of employee management is important. They are the perquisites that the company must have to have employees who are committed to their work References Azmat, F., (2013). Organizational Justice of Work-Life Balance for Professional and Non-Professional Groups in Australia. Journal of Management and Organization, pp. 77-83. Fracaro, K. E. (2007). The Consequences of Micromanaging. In Professional Development. Contract Management. Fujimoto, Y., & Hartel, C., (2010). A New Vision of Management: Full Potential Management Model Journal of Diversity Management. pp. 19-29. Michael, S. (2013, May 31). The problem with micromanagers in the modern workplace. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/the-problem-with-micromanagers-in-the-modern-workplace/story-e6frfm9r-1226654411219 Profiles International. (2009). Eight Signs of Incompetent Managers. Waco, Texas: Profiles Research Institute. Read More