Compare Different Management Styles within the Hospitality, Tourism and Events Industry - Literature review Example

Management Styles in Hospitality, Tourism or Events Industry Student’s Name: Grade course: Tutor’s Name: Date: Introduction Management styles in the hospitality industry or elsewhere are best defined as the approach that managers adopt in motivating employees, providing direction and implementing plans. The Hospitality industry, just like other sectors of the economy experience different management styles. Specifically, different factors affect the management style that individual managers adopt in their respective places of work. Among the influencing factors identified by Lucas (2004, p. 54) as having an impact on the choice of management style include the products or services being offered to the consumer market, the labour market, the status, structure and the culture observed in the organisation. Ryan (1998, p. 31) on the other hand identifies the workplace size, operational constraints, market-based constraints, and personal beliefs and experiences as the main four factors affecting the type of management styles that managers in the hospitality industry adopt. Notably, managers are not entirely free to choose the management style that fits a particular scenario best; rather, they must consider how different factors in the internal and external environments will interact with different management styles before choosing the most ideal management approach. Among the factors that managers working in the hospitality industry has to consider include employees’ needs, consumer needs and demands, and the challenges posed by competitors. This is in addition to the fact that different managers prefer or are naturally inclined to specific management styles. Just as individuals are different, so are their management styles. Notably, the type of style that a manager chooses to use affects the operational effectiveness witnessed in the hospitality establishment since it affects the how employees respond to different situations in the workplace. According Raguž(2007, p. 58), the hospitality industry has two main characteristics that affect the type of management styles adopted by managers: competition and guests. Competition affects the manager’s willingness to adopt new hospitality products in order to attain quality and respond effectively to consumer needs. This in turn affects the management style adopted since employees need to embrace the new hospitality products as introduced by the management willingly. Guests on the other hand provide ever-changing demands in the hospitality industry as they try to attain maximum value for money spent. As such, the managers in the hospitality industry usually adopt styles that adequately address the pressure created by consumer demands, employee demands, and the need to create as much value for their respective business entities. Arguably, managers in the hospitality industry usually forsake their natural management styles, and instead take up styles create value for all stakeholders. Nebel and Stearns (1977, p. 69) hold the opinion that most managers recognise the differences in management styles. However, they are puzzled and even confused when choosing the most appropriate management style to follow. Their bewilderment is further complicated by the fact that the management techniques studied in classroom settings or during training “do not always work in practice, and competent experts often suggest conflicting solutions to personnel problems” (Nebel & Stearns, 1977, p. 69). In practice, Nebel and Stearns observe that there are two extremes that managers can subscribe to; autocratic management style or the participative management style. In between the two extreme spectrums are other management styles as explained in the following section. Autocratic Management Style The basic definition of the autocratic style of management indicates that managers who practice such have little or no regard about employees working under them. As such, the manager takes a dictatorial approach of leadership by making all decisions, and expecting the employees to abide by the rules unquestionably. According to Nebel and Sterns (1977, p. 69), the autocratic manager fits the theory X leadership style as advanced by McGregor, since he/she operates on the believe that employees working under him/her are passive to organisational needs and therefore need to be motivated and directed if they are to be of any use to the organisation. While some people argue the autocratic management style has no place in the 21st century society, Lee-Ross (2005, p. 254) notes, “dominant management styles in the hospitality industry are notoriously autocratic and unsupportive of workers”. Specifically, Lee-Ross observes that the hospitality industry is attracting talent from the international community, but managers do little to be sensitive towards different cultures represented in the workforce. The autocratic leadership style is cited as one of the main contributors of high labour turnover in the industry since employees whose culture is not respected or considered experience low motivation levels in the workplace. Raguž (2007, p. 59) term the autocratic management style as exploitative and authoritative. Accordingly, the managers impose decisions on their subordinates, and although motivation is not lacking in the organisation, it is often characterised by threats. It is also worth noting that autocratic managers assume extensive responsibility over the achievements of different milestones in the workplace. As such, they assume the role of driving their subordinates towards attaining set organisational objectives, without giving them (the subordinates) any credit for milestones attained. In such a scenario, Raguž (2007, p. 58) observes that the communication is often top-to-bottom, with little or no chance given to subordinates to communicate their opinions or responses to the managers. Additionally, subordinates working under the autocratic manager are not given much room to work as a team. Somer, Cain and Jeffrey (2011) observe that the autocratic style of leadership is most prevalent in small establishments often employing no more than 20 employees. In such establishments, the manager can ‘rule’ over every employee through direct and personal control over them. In larger workplaces however, the autocratic manager would not have the capacity to interact with every employee personally. As such, Somer, Cain and Jeffrey (2011, p. 336) observes that managers in large hospitality organisation are unlikely to adopt such a management style. Democratic management style The democratic style of management is also prevalent in the hospitality industry. In such an arrangement, the manager has complete trust in the subordinates to accomplish organisation targets or objectives. As such, the manager gives employees working under him the mandate to make decisions and accomplish workplace duties. The assumption behind such flexibility in the workplace is that goals need to be rationally conceived, and hence the management practices needs to be structured in a manner that would enhance the likelihood of the organisation attaining the same goals (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). According to Raguž (2007, p. 58), managers who adopt the democratic style motivate their subordinates through empowerment and rewards. Consequently, the employees feel responsible for the attainment of organisational goals. It is worth noting that the democratic managers also encourage employees working under them to communicate more and embrace team spirit. Consequently, workplaces led to democratic managers are often characterised by work teams, and extensive communication permeating all hierarchies in the organisation. The democratic style differs from the laissez faire style of leadership because the former does not use any rewards or empowerment to motivate employees. In addition, the democratic manager makes it clear that though employees have a liberal environment to make decisions, the gains can be quickly pulled back if their performance is not impressive enough. How does the democratic style of management affect skills, knowledge and attitudes in the workplace? One may ask. Well, according to Gursoy et al. (2008, p. 449) the democratic management approach motivate workers towards set objectives; leads them towards effective and efficient performance; and inspires them towards committing and aligning themselves to organisational goals. As such, democratic managers know that employees are more productive when they well motivated. Notably, such a perception may lead managers to treat their subordinates as [just] another resource necessary in attaining the company objectives. Gursoy et al. (2008, p. 449) criticise the democratic management approach for failing to acknowledge the need for employees to “be treated as human with feelings, aspirations, personal goals and priorities in life, the need for self-fulfilment and satisfaction, and the potential for development”. By failing to acknowledge the identified needs in the employees, the democratic manager arguably overlooks some of the significant considerations that affect how the service quality or customer care that employees give to the clients who visit the hospitality establishments. The democratic style of management can be time consuming especially when fats decision-making is needed As such, managers who wish to attain enhanced ease and speed in decision-making do not fully embrace the democratic style (Ogbeide & Harrington, 2011, p. 720). Persuasive management style Managers in the hospitality industry use the persuasive style of management must first interpret the situation in their respective organisations. Secondly, such managers must understand that their subordinates are most likely to take, and finally, the managers must be able to strongly urge or convince their subordinates handle the situation in the manner that they (managers) are convinced is best. According to Somers, Cain and Jeffrey (2011), a persuasive manager is similar to an autocratic manager since the decision he or she takes is final. However, instead of imposing the decision on the subordinates like the autocratic manager does, the persuasive manager tries to convince employees that the decision is in their best interest. The persuasive style of management in the hospitality industry or anywhere else has a centralised system of authority. Additionally, the styles works best where specific tasks to be attained are identified. Like the autocratic management style, the persuasive management style has a strict top-down communication model which acts as a channel to pass values, beliefs, ideas, and objectives from the manager to his/her subordinates. The persuasive style of leadership affects the attitudes, skills and knowledge of employees in different ways. According to Somers Cain and Jeffrey (2011), employees know exactly what they have to attain using their skills. Additionally, they are aware that the decision-making role lies squarely on the manager. As such, they only accomplish what the manager has commanded and convinced them. Notably however, employees may feel alienated since the manager does not seek their opinions or input. Additionally, the management overlooks employees’ initiatives or commitment, and this can lead to low motivation and lack of job satisfaction. Consequently, an organisation where such a management style is practiced may witness high rates of staff turnover. Although there are no statics to back this up, trends in the hospitality industry are indicative that the persuasive style of management is prevalent in most organisations. In such scenarios, the manager decides what is best for an organisation, and then communicates the same to the subordinates. In an attempt to indicate the management’s consideration for the employees, the manager outlines why approach is best situated for the organisation and for the employees. Consultative Management Style Just like others, the consultative style of management is also present in the hospitality industry. The basic definition of the consultative management style implies that the manager seeks advice and opinions from his/her subordinates regarding job matters. However, the final decision-making role lies with him/her. In the same manner, the burden of attaining organisational goal lies with the manager although the lower-level employees assume some level of responsibility too. According to Raguž (2007, p. 58), the consultative manager has considerable, but incomplete trust in his/her employees. As such, the subordinates are partially empowered and rewarded for their contribution towards set organisational goals. The partial empowerment makes a high proportion of the employees take up responsibility for attaining set organisational goals. Raguž (2007, p. 58) further notes that there is significant horizontal and vertical communication, and consequently, the consultative manager is able to foster moderate team work among employees working under his/her supervision. In places where the consultative style of management is used, the manager is also a team member. As such, Somers, Cain and Jeffrey (2011, p. 317) observes that this can also be viewed as a hands-on, being-there or participative style of management. In such a scenario, the manager not only has a personal first-hand work experience, but he/she refrains from making decisions until he/she is satisfied about what works and what does not. Accordingly, such a manager attains credibility with employees working under his/her guidance. However, the hands-on approach has its own shortcomings. Such include the fact that the style is tiring, stressful and exhausting for the manager. This in turn limits his/her capabilities to consider other duties that may need his/her attention objectively. As opposed to being an observer of how things are being done, the consultative manager is part of the process, and this means that his/her objectivity towards accomplished tasks is greatly compromised. How does the consultative management style affect skills, knowledge and attitudes? Well, Ogbeide and Harrington (2011, p. 720) are among scholars who hold the opinion that consultative and participative managers foster an environment where staff members are allowed to utilise their skill and knowledge the best way they can as long as this is done for purposes of attaining organisational goals. The impact of such a management style on staff attitudes is perhaps best evident in Nebel and Stearns (1977, p. 69) assertion that participative managers change their subordinates views of work-related tasks by involving them in decision-making. Consequently, the subordinates are motivated towards attaining set goals since they perceive themselves as part of the organisation. This fits within the theory Y leadership style as advanced by McGregor, where the manager believes that his/her subordinates “already possess motivation and will seek out responsibility” (Nebel & Stearns, 1977, p. 69). Communication in organisations that utilise the consultative management style is both vertical and horizontal since managers seek the employees’ input, and the employees provide feedback to the managers. According to Somer, Cain and Jeffrey (2011, p. 108), the consultative style may sometimes impact negatively on employees’ attitudes especially when their opinions or considerations are overlooked by the management. Laissez Faire management style The laissez faire style is a laid-back type of management, which is common among managers who prefer not to make any decisions. Instead, they pass almost all the decision-making roles to their subordinates. In such an environment, the manager in a hospitality establishment has complete trust in his/her subordinates. As such, he/she empowers them to make decisions as they may deem fit. Consequently, lower-level employees feel responsible for achieving organisational goals. For such to happen however, there needs to be extensive vertical and horizontal communication. Horizontal communication breeds cooperation and teamwork amongst employees working under the same manager. At best however, the laissez-faire manager is defined as an inactive leader who is unwilling to motivate employees neither by rewards nor by empowerment. Considering the liberal nature of the laissez faire style of leadership, it is worth noting that employees have the necessary freedom to use their skills and knowledge as much as they deem necessary for the attainment of organisational goals. However, it is also noteworthy that employees can develop a laid-back attitude just as their manager. As such, the laissez faire management style can end up leading to a situation where the employees do not care much about meeting set targets, a trait which they learn from the manager. According to Mester, Visser, Roodt and Kellerman (2003, p. 72), employees can interpret the inactive nature of the laissez-faire manager as a lack of concern in matters that affect the productivity or outcomes in an organisation. Consequently, their attitudes and behaviours towards job commitment, satisfaction, involvement and citizenship behaviour may be affected negatively. The strategies industries or organisations are doing to train and develop future managers With studies showing that closer proximity to the management gives employees a sense of belonging and consequently affects their job performance, modern organisations in the hospitality industry now realise the need to train and develop managers who are willing to use management styles that fit different organisation scenarios appropriately. Most specifically, there is wider realisation that none of the management styles identified earlier in this report is strictly wrong or right; rather, their appropriateness may differ depending on environmental factors facing an organisation. The fact that human resource is different from other resources in an organisation is not lost on players in the hospitality industry. As such, Gursoy et al. (2008, p. 449) notes that hospitality companies like the Hilton, Marriott, Ritz Carlton and others now realise the importance of adopting value-added and resource-based policies when handling their employees. Such policies include creating a work environment where employees can have satisfactory work experiences, good relationships with their workmates and superiors, and a fair reward system that takes into account the contribution that individual employees have made towards the organisation. Erktulu (2008, p. 708) on the other hand observes that players are now realising that the management style adopted in their establishments determine the attitude and motivation levels that employees have towards their respective duties. As such, players in the hospitality industry are increasingly training managers who appreciate the need to motivate and inspire the lower-level employees working under them. Erktulu (2008, p. 709) observe that managers are viewed as leaders in their respective jobs and are hence in charge of influencing their subordinates towards optimal workplace performance. As such, they need to adopt managing styles that not only motivate, but also inspire employees. Specifically, managers need to adopt a style that sufficiently pays attention to the employees’ needs for personal growth and achievement. The management style also needs to create a supportive environment by recognising individual employee differences, desires, concerns and opinions among other things. Notably however, and despite the fact that players in the hospitality industry share similarities such as guests and competition, unique internal and external environments may raise the need for managers to adopt different styles of management. Consequently, players in the industry realise the need to train managers about the need of observing individual situations and using the management style that is most likely to give optimal results for the hospitality service consumers, the hospitality investors and the employees. Training future managers to adopt the best managerial philosophy is also another thing that hospitality establishment owners are doing. According to Somers, Cain and Jeffrey (2011, p. 334), most managers take up a specific management style owing to their experiences in the hospitality industry before becoming managers. Managers who were treated badly as ordinary employees can either copy the same precedent or change it. However, such should not be the case since managers are supposed to be professionals capable of rising beyond their personal experiences and adopting best practices in the industry. Training such managers regarding how to handle employees appropriately in order to attain the greatest productivity levels no doubt help trainers to moderate personal influences. According to (Ryan, 1998) some managers have biases that are acquired from personal influences and experiences. However, such can be wiped out using appropriate training. In a bid to adopt to the global environment, and in response to the need for managers who can work in such an environment, Brookes and Becket (2011, p. 241) note that institutions of higher learning are increasingly training managers to meet requirements of the global organisations. Most especially, the institutions are ‘internationalising’ courses for the hospitality managers, who should ideally have inter-cultural competencies. But how exactly do such institutions do that? One may ask. Well, the institutions prepare graduates for the real world by focusing on three core elements. The elements include: gaining an understanding of different cultures present in the global market place; developing intercultural sensibility and an appreciation of different cultures; and gaining skills necessary in leveraging “the knowledge and understanding gained to interact, communicate and work effectively outside one’s environment” (Brookes & Becket, 2011, p. 243, cited from Hunter et al., 2006, p. 277). If Lucas’s (2004, p. 56) categorisation of culture into occupational, national and organisational levels is anything to go by, then the trainers intent on developing future managers must inculcate skills, attitudes and principles that will help the managers overcome negative aspects of culture, while embracing the positive aspects of the same. Organisational culture is best described as how people in a specific organisation handle matters. According to Lucas (2004, p. 57), the organisational culture often captures the identity of the organisation. However, not all aspects of such a culture are necessarily right. As such, managers should be trained to lead in a manner that encourages employees against continuing with negative aspects of the organisational culture, while embracing newer and better aspects. Lucas (2004, p. 63) further notes that since recruiting and training staff is an expensive undertaking that each player in the hospitality industry must do, managers for the future should be equipped with human resource management skills during training. Specifically, Lucas observes that managers need to be trained on how best to secure employee commitment. Trainers need to recognise the exact leadership styles that would produce maximum results when used by managers in the hospitality industry. But as Nebel and Stearns (1977, p. 69) observes, different situations require different leadership styles. What is most obvious, however, is that managers are responsible for giving effective leadership to their subordinates. As such, training needs to focus on imparting future managers with skills and knowledge that will make them effective leaders, who are capable of handling their subordinates in a considerate manner. The results of managers failing to effectively manage human capital is all too evident in a 2006 report, which indicated that staff turnover in the hospitality industry had increased from 30.1 percent in 2004/2005, to 53 percent in 2005/2006 (Ryan, 2006). The high staff turnover was blamed on the inability of the hospitality industry to treat its employees favourably when compared to other sectors of the economy. Ryan (2006) reports that despite the hospitality industry investing millions of dollars in staff training, other industries are easily plucking the trained employees by assuring them that they will be treated better in their new places of work. This serves to indicate that future managers need to be considerate about the needs and wants of their subordinates. For example, Ryan (2006) observes that consulting with staff members about how best to organise their shifts in order to ensure consistency, can work a long way into making them feel appreciated. Overall, it is widely accepted that for effective management to occur in either the hospitality industry or anywhere else, management styles must interact with management skills and management roles. Somers, Cain and Jeffrey (2011) identify management roles as planning, organising, leading and controlling. Considering that, human capital is among the key resources that managers need to relate well with in order to attain organisational objectives; trainers need to impart potential managers with the human resource management skills. Additionally, Somers, Cain and Jeffrey argue that an effective manager has to be equally effective in leadership. This means that those training future managers need to emphasize the need for future managers to gain intelligence an knowledge, communication skills, self-confidence, social maturity and interpersonal qualities. The latter include “visionary skills ability to inspire and establish trust while retaining humility in their achievement” (Somers, Cain and Jeffrey, 2011, p. 102). Conclusion The fact there is no single right or wrong way to manage people is greatly emphasised in literature. For example, Somers, Cain and Jeffrey (2011, p. 105) cite Bill Gates autocratic style of management in Microsoft, and Warren Buffet’s democratic approach of management and argues that both men have managed to lead their respective organisations to great success. As such, contemporary schools or training programs aiming at equipping future managers with the skills and knowledge necessary to lead future organisations effectively must be communicate such truths to the prospective future managers. Most importantly, all future managers must be well versed with the advantages and disadvantages of each management style. They also need to know that the management styles can be used in different situations where specific results are sought. In the hospitality industry, human resources are of special importance since the delivery of services to clients needs trained and well-motivated employees. Unfortunately, the high staff turnover indicates that hospitality managers are yet to make use of management styles that resonate well with the needs, wants and preferences of their employees. As such, training for the future needs to focus on equipping managers with the skills and knowledge needed to be better managers in order to stop the high staff turnover, and consequently reduce on the amount of resources wasted each time an employee resigns and a replacement has to be recruited and trained. References Brookes, M. & Becket, N (2011) , ‘Internationalising hospitality management degree programmes,’ International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 241-260. Erkutlu, H (2008), ‘The impact of transformational leadership on organisational and leadership effectiveness,’ Journal of Management development, vol. 28, no.7, pp. 708-726. Gursoy, D., Maier, T. A., & Chi, C. G (2008), ‘Generational differences: an examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce,’ International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 27, pp. 448-458. Hunter, B., White, G. & Godby, J (2006), ‘What does it mean to be globally competent?’Journal of Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 267-85. Lee-Ross, D (2005), ‘Perceived job characteristics and internal work motivation,’ Journal of Management Development, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 253-266. Lucas, R (2004), Employment relations in the hospitality and tourism industries, New York, Routledge. Mester, C., Visser, D., Roodt, G., & Kellerman, R (2003), Leadership style and its relation to employee attitudes and behaviour, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 72-82. Nebel, E.C & Stearns, G. K (1977), ‘Leadership in the hospitality industry,’ Cornell University Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 69-76 (abstract), viewed August 26, 2011 Ogbeide, G, A. & Harrington, R. J (2011), ‘The relationship among participative management style, strategy implementation success, and financial performance in the foodservice industry,’ International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 719-738. Raguž, I, V (2007), ‘The interdependence between characteristics and leadership style of managers in the hospitality industry in Burbrovnik-Neretva county: empirical research,’ Management, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 57-68. Ryan, R (1998), Managing to compete? Employment, work and labour relations in the hospitality industry in New Zealand, PhD Thesis, pp. 1-396. Ryan, R (2006), ‘Action needed to reduce high turnover,’ Hospitality Magazine, viewed August 26, 2011< http://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/article/Action-needed-to-reduce-high-turnover/235037.aspx> Somers, G., Cain, J., & Jeffrey, M (2011), Essential VCE business management units 1 and Amp; 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., McKelvey, B ( 2007),’ Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 18, pp. 298–318. Read More