FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE HOTEL IN HOTEL INDUSTRIES

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE HOTEL IN HOTEL INDUSTRIES

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Problem

An organizations long term success will depend on how it sustains the deliverance of high quality services and products (Owen, Mundy, Guild and Gulid, 2011). However, despite the fact that sustaining high performance is a competence that is learnable, it is a significant concern that many organizations are still unable to sustain this high performance. There are three main reasons underlying this concern. First, the organization’s vision and strategy are not well supported by the organizational processes and systems as a result thereof, the organization focuses and measures issues which are wrong or rather irrelevant. Second, not having a clear understanding of the marketplace in which the organization is to compete by the senior management. Should this be the case, then the mission, vision and strategies of the organization become inappropriate. Finally, the misalignment of the behavior required to effectively implement the strategy of the business with the marketplace requirements and customer. This is so true for employee behavior or management (Kaliprasad, 2006).

As noted by Willcoxson (2000), the two high performance approaches include a humanistic framework and a rational process framework. In the former, the organization usually empowers its people, trust them and effectively connects with the community at large through involving the stakeholders who are external to the organization. Teamwork is also a strong attribute of the humanistic framework approach. While in the latter framework, organization usually are flexible enough to maintain values which are core while adjusting its output to meet new market conditions or rather new market demands. Such organizations are also capable of interpreting the business environment in which they are in and also have the ability to predict and act upon new business opportunities that might arise in the long run. This responsiveness to the systems and infrastructure, design and deployment, employee behavior and management and market place creates the culture of the organization. It is also the set of joint principles and experiences that fundamentally define an organization‟s identity and eventually guiding its behavior (Owen, Mundy, Guild and Gulid, 2011).

According to Kaliprasad (2006), a high performing organization has a culture where every part of the organization shares in elements that characterize the organization. Having a strong culture means that there is no need to dispute certain issues as everybody knows how to get the correct things done. By default, a culture that is developed will preserve what is tried and verified. When an organization culture aligns itself with an appropriate strategy that is well developed, the net result is a stronger culture and therefore a high-performing organization. This setup calls for reinforcement of existing culture by the leaders through encouraging, modeling and rewarding behaviors to the employees. According to Schein (1992), leadership and culture are two sides of the same coin. Leaders are responsible for creating and changing cultures, while the managers live inside them. Moreover, organizations with a strong company culture recognizes heroes whose actions and activities exemplify the corporation's joint viewpoint and apprehensions. Such organizations consider building an identity which is common; this enables members of the organization to comprehend what is required of them because there is a well-unstated sense of expectation and informal rules (Kaliprasad, 2006).

Cameron and Pierce (1996) said that all organizations use promotion, benefits and pay to give assurance to those employees who perform better. Management of the companies frequently anticipates depending on the responsibility and the power of such workers and these expectations are usually different from company to company. According to Shahzad, Bashir and Ramay (2008), there is a direct link between employee performance and compensation practices.

Further, systems to measure the performance of organizations (PMS) are one of the most important topics discussed in the field of business management and they are on the agenda of many organizations (Neely, 1999). Their importance emerged from the assumption that a performance measurement system is an essential tool that enables a company to achieve and control its preferred goals and objectives. Furthermore, such procedures usually permit managers to balance short-term and long-term performance, growth and control as well as opportunities and threats (Simons, 2000). For these reasons, several practitioners and researchers have devoted many years of study pertaining to this subject. Pertinent fields such as, marketing, operations management, accounting, organizational behavior and business strategy have all discussed and contributed to this field at length (Neely, 1999; Marr and Schiuma, 2003).

On another note, the current situation in the hotel industry is characterized by increased competition and consequently demands effective operational decision-making processes based on sufficient information on performance. As a consequence, the different services that usually play a vital role in hotels ought to be well analyzed and similarly their performance ought to be measured too. This is so true especially for the front-office services such as the direct customer relationship management and so is the back-office services, such as the facility management, which take place without direct interaction with the customer but are of the same importance (Gomez, Yasin and Lisboa, 2008). In any instance, there is an increased need for management tools and performance measurement that aid the assessment of the success of organizational objectives and the development of organizational strategies (Cruz, 2007).

To measure the performance of hotel organizations, traditional measures such as financial statements have been valued as an important control tool (Brander Brown and Atkinson, 2001). In these traditional measures, the tangible resources are usually well detailed since they meet the standards such as the accurate determination of historical costs and the flow of benefits to the company (Zambon, 2002). Considering the constraints and weaknesses of the traditional performance measurement systems, studies have been turning their focus towards developing integrated methods that would capture the non-financial facets of performance. Such, the balanced PMS has been thought to gain a broad and multi-dimensional outlook of the organization‟s performance (Ghalayini and Noble, 1996; Mills, Wilcox, Neely and Platts, 2000). Examples of integrated systems for measuring performance are the performance pyramid system (Cross and Lynch, 1989), PMS in the service industry (PMSSI) (Fitzgerald, Johnston, Brignall, Silvestro and Voss, 1991), the performance prism (Neely, Adams and Crowe, 2001) and others. One of the most popular incorporated systems is the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), which was developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992).

According to Maritz (1995); and Bass and Avolio (1997) leadership is the most significant factor for examining the performance of employees. For the organization to be outstanding one, it needs to have an outstanding leadership that provides a model for growing organizations. Jones and George (2000) stated that, leaders become efficient when they influence their subordinates by effectively achieving the organizational objectives. According to Bass and Avolio (1997), leadership is the most important aspect for determining the organizational performance.

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE HOTEL IN HOTEL INDUSTRIES

Chapters: 1 - 5
Delivery: Email

Number of Pages: 75

Price: 3000 NGN

In Stock

Buy the Complete Material Now