Case Study – The Imperial Hotel, London

Problem 6: Back of house staff (Housekeeping, Kitchen, Maintenance) – poor

operating and control procedures in place with stock being regularly pilfered and
evidence of staff not meeting basic Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) resulting in
unusually high operating costs

1. INTRODUCTION
Operational dysfunctionalities, poor customer services and high operating costs
are common problems which organizations face when they fail to adapt to inner and
outer changing factors. The following report has the purpose to analyse Problem 6 and
integrate it in the whole context of the Imperial Hotel case study by providing a viable
solution that may be used by the new General Manager.
1.1. Hospitality - The Core of the Business
Hospitality as a business creates wealth for the shareholders by satisfying
guests. Hospitality is a word derived from the Latin “hospitare” that is translated as
“receive as a guest”. From this simple definition results that the services offered implies
a distinct relationship that is establish between the provider and the receiver. Being
categorized as guest and not customer, the relationship becomes more sensitive and
the business goes beyond simple price and value report and affects the staff and the
guest at a more intimate level. Thus, the Human Management in this activity has a
direct and rapid impact of the quality of services and the satisfaction of guests.

1.2. The Causes and Effects of Problem 6

Problem 6 is generated by:
 the dysfunctionalities produced by high staff turnover (Problem 2)
resulting in the lack of homogeneity and employees unware the
company’s values;
 a negative work culture amongst the staff with high levels of sick leave
and poor attendance (Problem 3), which is a factor that undermines the
efforts to create a team spirit among the employees;
 Ineffective leadership and management by previous Heads of
Department and supervisory staff including poor monitoring and control
procedures (Problem 4) that generates poor operating and control
procedures.
Problem 6 generates dysfunctionalities for front of house staff, Problem 5 and Poor
guest satisfaction (Problem 1).

1
 2. THE ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM 6
2.2. Market Positioning of the Hotel
Peter Farnsworth should adapt his management style to the London business
activity. Therefore, he must acknowledge the environment of Imperial Hotel that affects
its performance. There are three key perspective: Macro-Environment, Micro-
Environment and the Internal Environment. The External Environment of the Business
can be audited by using Michael Porters’ Five Forces method (Porter, 1980).
2.2.1. Threat of New Entrants. The threat of new entrants comes mainly from
International competitors as high capital costs constitutes a barrier for new entrants.
The Imperial Hotel has an optimum size to establish a dominant position in the area.
2.2.2. Threats of Substitute Products. This threat has a minor importance as
technology development does not affect the business. Still there are special situation,
like periods of economic crisis when business guests may change accommodation
habits. Substitute products may threat Imperial Hotel activity temporary and can range
from staying in motels to staying with the relatives.
2.2.3. Bargaining Power of Suppliers. Kotler (1998:761) observed that “there
is a great demand for enhanced global information and booking capabilities in the
hospitality industry”, therefore the suppliers became more aware of their position and
have started to produce specialized products thus giving them bargaining power. In the
Hotel Industry, an important role is played by the suppliers of labour and trained
personnel which is in great demand.
2.2.4. Bargaining Power of Buyers. This may be a threat in certain situation
as: oversupply or when buyers concentrate as a group (tour operators, conventions
organizers). In general, guests as a group are rather fragmented hence this has a low
impact.
2.2.5. Competition. Rivalry among important players is differentiated by: the
capacity (when competitors increase the room numbers and may disrupt the supply and
demand balance), product differentiation (ranging from low rate hotels to 5 Star hotels),
image of the brand, fixed costs, room occupancy. Therefore, competition would be
strong especially when there is oversupply.

2.3. The Core Reasons of Problem 6

The core reason of the Problem 6 stems from the inhomogeneity of the staff
combined with their lack of adherence to the Imperial Hotel organizational values. I will
further analyse the evidence of this statement using information available in the case
study.
2.3.1. High Staff Turnover (80% of the staff leaving within a year). This leads to
situations whereas the employees are not being trained in a reasonable time due to the
urgency for covering the leaving staff. To prevent this issue, the manager must attract
and retain staff to key supervisory positions and to offer pay packages and bonuses that

2
encourage the loyalty for the company. Also, benchmarking the pay scales against the
competitors and continuously training them should be considered.
2.3.2. Negative Work Culture Amongst the Staff. Stock being regularly pilfered
and the evidence of staff not meeting Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) resulting
in unusually high operating costs is due to a negative work culture. The new Manager
must establish an organizational citizenship behaviour that will allow him to instil the
values of the company to the employees. Organ (1988) defines Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour as the autonomous behaviours that can enhance organization
effectiveness but are not initiated by formal reward systems.
2.3.3. Ineffective leadership and management by Heads of Department and
supervisory. One of the major problem of the hospitality industry is that workers’
salaries are under the level at which they can afford the services they are providing;
therefore, they may be considered as the internal guests. Hence, the managers must
have a leading attitude that both their internal and external guests be satisfied (Lewis et
al,2002, cited in Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 2008:136).
2.3.4. Unethical workplace environment. The lack of cooperation between
departments is a proof that the team spirit is not present due to unhealthy work
environment. The Manager must redesign the workplace environment and through a
moral leadership to create an ethical climate (Peterson et al, 2002, cited in Human
Performance, 2017).

3. THE MANAGERIAL APPROACH

Peter Farnsworth should consider Taylor’s 5 Principles (1911) for achieving
maximum prosperity for employers and employees:
1. Use scientific methods to determine ‘best way’ to do things
2. Select the best person (physical and mental)
3. Train, teach and develop employees according to prescribed methods
4. Provide appropriate financial incentives
5. Planning and Organizing all the activities and departments
The Interpersonal Role defined by Mintzberg (1973) as: Figurehead, Leader,
Liaison, is the most appropriate for this situation. Being at a stage where he must form
new teams he should not ignore the immediate tasks and the development of
individuals. Therefore, he should aim for an optimal balance between Task, Team and
Individual according to Jon Adair’s Functional Leadership Theory (1988).

3
 Because of this, he should adapt his decision to each situation. Hersey &
Blanchard, 1969, underline this aspect as the Situational Approach in which: “Leaders
match their style to the competence and commitment of subordinates.” This helps the
manager to create a communication link with employees regardless of their level.
Kanter (1979), concludes that “managers can increase their power by delegating some
of it to subordinates”. This will help him to maximize his efforts with the power of many.
The Manager can favour a Participative Style where it is important that the
subordinates accept the decisions. The 12-month deadline favours also the use of the
Directive style, when urgent and important decisions must be made (Boddy, 2014).
Peter Farnsworth may use the situational approach principle as a Management
Style and adapt his decisions to every situation. He should focus on completing goals
by dictating tasks to be accomplished (Autocratic); he will rely on rules and regulation
when standard procedure must be applied (Bureaucratic); should be concerned of
coaching the teams (Democratic) and he may delegate authority when employees
become self-motivated (Laissez-Faire) (Walker, 2012).
Because change creates discomfort and resistance, Peter Farnsworth can use
Schein’s elaboration of Lewin’s Model (Cameron and Green, 2012:62):

STAGE ONE: Unfreezing

 Disconfirmation
 Creation of survival anxiety or guilt
 Creation of psychological safety to overcome learning anxiety
STAGE TWO – Learning new Concepts

 Imitation of and identification with role models

 Scanning for solutions and trial-and-error learning
STAGE THREE – Refreezing – Internalizing new Concepts

 Incorporation into self-concept and meanings

 Incorporation into ongoing relationships.

4
 His decisions will affect the status quo of the organization; therefore Peter
Farnsworth must consider Boddy’s (2014) statement: “Perception of power is only
effective if the target of an influence attempt recognizes the power source as legitimate
and acceptable.”

Regarding Human Resources, he should target a new ethical leadership

management. In their research about Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Feng-Hsia
Kao & Bor-Shiuan Cheng (2017) have discovered that there are two types of employees
in the hospitality business:
1. Idealistic - who tend to follow moral universal rules.
2. Relativistic – who reject moral universal rules and think more about their
personal benefit from an action. They are more likely to be service
saboteur.
Therefore, Idealistic personalities are desirable individuals because they are more
service-oriented. Also, a moral leadership and ethical climate has a positive impact on
staff’s organizational citizenship behaviour and is less likely to generate service
sabotage.

(Human Performance, 2017:274)

5
 4. THE MANAGEMENT AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL
Given the fact that Imperial Hotel is running at 65% rate in the company’s
benchmark grading system, I consider that Peter Farnsworth should be on top of the
management organization chart so he can have direct control over all departments.

(Rutherford &O’Fallon, 2007:78)

He should exercise his power of authority by controlling the departments directly

so he can improve the gap between expectation and outcome as presented here:

6
 As we can see from this data, regarding Problem 6, the efficiency of room service
is below expectation but the guests are also negatively influenced by the attitude of the
staff.
His 12-month plan should include strict procedures that will help him to control and
measure the performance. This can be done by analysing the results in each
department through the report provided by the five directors of the department above
mentioned.

7
 (Walker 2012:44)

The Housekeeping department coordinates with: front office, production /kitchen,

food and beverage services, security and maintenances, finance. The following model
of organization is suitable for a 500 rooms hotel.

(Rutherford &O’Fallon, 2007:179)

The Executive Housekeeper must control and provide the following functions:

 Room cleaning
 Bed making,
 Pest control, Key control, interior decoration,
 Laundry services.
One housekeeper shift consists of 8-hour and will cover 14 rooms with an average
of 30 minutes each. The housekeeping department coordinates with the kitchen

8
regarding the provision of linen and uniforms and depends on maintenance to assure
the room services.
The tool to assess housekeeping services is the gap analysis between outcomes
and expectation of the guests.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGESTIONS

As shown in chapter “2.3. The Core Reasons of Problem 6”, the root of the
problem stems from the operational dysfunctionalities and the misconduct of the
employees. The cause and effect must be separated but addressed simultaneously.
Studies conducted about employee’s behaviours (Feng-Hsia Kao & Bor-Shiuan Cheng,
2017), have revealed that deviant behaviours are the most responsible for the inability
of organizations to reach their goals (Bennett & Robinson, 2000, cited in, Human
Performance, 2017).
Therefore, my proposal to Peter Farnsworth would be a Behavioural Management
approach. Mayo states that the “Moral of workers can be affected by style of
management”. Heads of Department and Supervisors should take specialized human
resource programs to learn how to inspire more rather than just command. (Parboteeah,
Seriki, & Hoegl, 2014; Richard, 1997). The supervisors must show moral leadership in
line with the organizations’ values which will build a proper climate that will inspire the
employee to adhere to the ethical principles (Feng-Hsia Kao & Bor-Shiuan Cheng,
2017).
The General Manager’s actions must be shaped and delivered in a manner which
positively influence the staff. The Manager should sustain his power sources and take
every opportunity to enhance them (Boddy 2014). Reinforcing the Companies value and
bringing in control Standard Operating Procedures will make the supervisor aware of
their duties. Creating a team spirit amongst the staff may be facilitated by setting

9
common targets for all departments with a bonus scheme that is defined by the data
provided by the Guest Satisfaction Tracking System.

In house training courses will select the people that really want to enhance their
abilities. In this way mediocre people can improve, good workers will stand out and
draggers will be unveiled.
A new recruitment policy should be considered, as Peter Farnsworth suggested.
The process of hiring should be a continuous program that will have role of keeping only
the best staff and replacing the ones who not comply with the requirements. Also, an
inhouse psychological screening may be performed to screen out relativists and hire
idealists instead to ensure that employees care about guest’s welfare and will follow
service rules.
The tools for Measuring the Performance of his action should be based on: Market
share, Guests satisfaction and Benchmarking.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Adair J., John Eric Adair (1988) The Action Centred Leader ed. 2. Industrial
Society,
 Boddy, D. (2014) Management: An Introduction. (5th Ed). Harlow: Pearson
Education.
 Cameron E., M. Green, (2012) Making sense of change management 3 rd edition.
Kogan Page: London
 Feng-Hsia Kao & Bor-Shiuan Cheng (2017) Proservice or antiservice employee
behaviours: A multilevel ethics perspective, Human Performance, vol. 30, no. 5, 272-
290, https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2017.1399130
 Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of Organizational
Behaviour – Utilizing Human Resources. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
 Kanter R.M. (1979), Power Failure in Management circuits, Harvard Business
Review vol 57, no 4,(July-August 1979) pp 65-75
 Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Brown, L. and Adam, S. (1998) Marketing. Fourth
edition, Sydney: Prentice Hall
 Mintzberg, H. (1973) The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.
Management Library.
 Organ, D. W. (1988) Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good solider
syndrome. Lexington: Books Press.
 Porter, M. E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries
and Competitors. New York: The Free Press.
 Rutherford D.G. & O’Fallon M.G. (2007) Hotel management and operations
edited by Denney G., Ivar Haglund, and Michael J - 4th ed. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.
 Sheila A. Scott-Halsell, Shane C. Blum & Lynn Huffman (2008) A Study of
Emotional Intelligence. Levels in Hospitality Industry Professionals, Journal of Human
Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 7:2, 135-152, Available at:

10
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15332840802156873, (Accessed
14.04.18)
 Taylor F.W. (1911) The Principle of Scientific Management. W.W. Norton &
Company Inc., Available at https://wwnorton.com/college/history/america-essential-
learning/docs/FWTaylor-Scientific_Mgmt-1911.pdf, (Accessed 14.04.2018)
 Walker, J. (2012) Supervision in the hospitality industry (7th Ed). New Jersey:
Wiley.

Appendix 1

11
12