Conceptual model for analysing management development in the hospitality industry: A UK perspective

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Conceptual model for analysing management development in the hospitality industry: A UK perspective Sandra Watson Management and Law, Napier University, Craiglockhart Campus, Edinburgh EH14 1 DJ, UK

Abstract This paper presents a conceptual, contingent model of hospitality management development (MD). Having explored the dimensions and relationships in the model, it is then applied to the UK hospitality industry through analysing the nature of the hospitality industry for potential influences on MD and evaluating research into its practice. The embryonic model is presented as a vehicle to enhance understanding of the complex influences and contexts of hospitality MD and to distinguish distinctive characteristics of MD in the hospitality industry. r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Conceptual contingent model: Hospitality management development

1. Introduction The aim of this paper is to present an embryonic, contingent conceptual model for researching and analysing management development (MD) in the hospitality industry. While the topic of MD appears to be well researched, analysis of scholarly papers and texts reveals a lack of agreement on what academically or practically constitutes MD. There is little agreement on the boundary and scope of MD (Cullen and Turnbull, 2005; Doyle, 2004; Garavan et al., 1999), divergent views on its purpose and goals (Clarke, 1999; Woodall and Winstanley, 1998), disagreement over who owns MD (Mabey, 2002; Marsick and Watkins, 1997), and the role of managers in the process (Sadler-Smith, 2006). In addition, there has been much criticism of MD research literature regarding its limited scope and focus on discrete activities, and a lack of attention paid to the underlying issues influencing MD (Mumford, 1993; Storey et al., 1997). Garavan et al. (1999) contend that conventional views on what constitutes MD have taken too narrow a perspective, hindering the development of both theory and practice. They call for investigations of the underlying issues of MD, including Tel.: +44 131 455 4309; fax: +44 131 455 4369.

E-mail address: [email protected] 0278-4319/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.01.002

the role of managers, their development needs, and organisational culture and contexts. Although some attempts have been made in the generic MD literature to synthesise work (see Cullen and Turnbull, 2005; Mabey, 2002), within hospitality literatures little integration of works on MD scope and content can be located (Brotherton and Watson, 2000). There is some evidence of research into aspects of MD such as managerial roles (Baum, 1990; Watson and McCraken, 2002), education (Litteljohn and Watson, 2004; Morrison and O’Mahony, 2003), practices (Teare and O’Hern, 2000), careers (Jameson and Holden, 2000; Ladkin, 2000) and hospitality contexts (Jones, 2004; Slattery, 2002), but there has been no attempt to amalgamate the various facets of MD to enhance understanding of what constitutes and influences hospitality MD (HMD) practice. The literature on HMD is diverse in scope and dispersed, being derived from different disciplinary roots and spread across hospitality, tourism and business publications, resulting in a lack of clear theoretical or conceptual understanding of HMD. The combined service characteristics of intangibility, perishability, heterogeneity and inseparability of production and consumption (Zeithaml et al., 1985) are cited as distinguishing features of the hospitality industry, resulting in greater contact with both staff and guests in managing the delivery and consumption of hospitality services (Jones, 2004). There are

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425

many studies of hospitality management claiming uniqueness and differentiation in terms of its contexts, skills and roles (Baum, 2006; Lashley, 2000; Wood, 1994). The evolution of hospitality management education as a distinct field of study, suggests that hospitality managers have distinct educational development needs. However, there has been little academic work exploring whether other aspects of the development of managers in the hospitality industry are different. For example, is the training provided to hospitality managers different in either content or delivery to that offered to other managers? Are there differences in how development needs are identified and evaluated in hospitality organisations? and what roles do hospitality managers play in their own development? Are just some of the questions that could distinguish HMD from MD in other industries, sectors or professions. It is not the intention in this paper to specifically answer these questions, but they help articulate potential differences in MD approaches and procedures. The key research question framing this paper is what influences the content and approach to developing hospitality managers? In attempting to address this question, the author presents a conceptual model of HMD that can be used to research and analyse how managers are developed in the hospitality industry. The next section of this paper presents a contingent perspective of MD as an appropriate lens for exploring HMD, followed by an explanation of the methodological approach used to develop the conceptual model. The model is presented as a vehicle to order research, and explore practice into MD in the hospitality industry. In this paper, illustrations and discussions pertaining to the UK hospitality industry are used as examples to illustrate how the model can be applied to a particular context. The paper concludes with discussion on the value of the model, limitations in the approach and future research suggestions.

2. A contingent perspective of MD As indicated above, much research into MD has been criticised for failing to take a holistic view and not addressing underlying issues (Mumford, 1993; Storey, 1989). This author promotes a contingent perspective of MD that views this as a concept that is shaped by its internal and external contexts (Doyle, 2004; Stewart, 1999). Doyle (2004) presents MD as an open system which accommodates both the functional complexities of managerial roles and the diverse needs of individual managers, as presented in Fig. 1. Doyle’s (2004) work sets his framework of MD within both organisation and wider external contexts. From this systems perspective, MD is viewed as both a process and a system, with inputs being transformed by the process of development into outputs. MD also interacts with organisational and environmental factors, and integrates with other subsystems, processes and procedures within the organisation. Indeed, many academic studies focusing on MD in practice at an

415

Fig. 1. An open system of management development. Source: Doyle (2004: 369).

organisational level highlight the contextual nature of MD (Garavan et al., 1999; Mabey, 2002). In support of this view, Wexley and Baldwin (1996) argue that MD is multi-faceted, that there is no one best way of doing MD, and it is contingent on managerial roles, individual needs and abilities, and organisational context. Doyle (2000) argues that the relationship between the corporate environment and a range of organisational systems inhibits or constrains the effectiveness of MD. He demonstrates causal factors that undermine the efficacy of MD, including lack of clarity regarding its ownership, priority and link with the company’s strategic objectives, values, attitudes and credibility. He criticises the focus in MD practice on the process of ‘doing’ training, arguing that it is often piecemeal and fragmented, consisting of off-the-shelf initiatives that may be largely irrelevant to the actual organisational and managerial contexts. He considers that more research should be undertaken on contextual complexities, including meeting the needs of managers from diverse employer backgrounds, for example, multi-national companies and the professions. In attempting to clarify whether there are differences in the ways in which hospitality managers are developed, the author proposes that a conceptual framework, encompassing the principles of a contingent perspective, can frame this discussion and assist in the identification of distinguishing features of HMD. This also provides a vehicle to assess industry and organisational influences on MD processes and procedure in a holistic manner. The model builds on the work of Doyle (2004) by articulating the hospitality industry as a distinct contextual domain that influences approaches to and content of HMD. The following section explains the approach taken to develop this model, prior to presenting and discussing the dimensions of the model.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 416

S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425

3. Methodological overview In seeking to develop a model for analysing HMD the author refers to Dubin’s (1978) concept of theory building. This approach allows the construction of a model derived from conceptually and logically connected ideas. Dubin’s theory building concept can be divided into two phases, namely, the theoretical model and the empirical research stage. This paper concentrates on the development stage of the theoretical model through devising a framework, identifying relevant theories and concepts, and highlighting how the units or building blocks fit together. This enables an integrated view of HMD to emerge that identifies its diversity and complexity, in essence an inductive philosophy is adopted (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). There are various approaches that can be deployed in theory building, covering grounded theory research, case study, meta-analysis of both qualitative and quantitative research data (Lynham, 2000). To order the various materials referenced, meta-analysis of both MD and hospitality literatures was the key research approach used. The literature review was conducted through electronic and library searches using the following terms: MD, management learning, hospitality management, HMD, hospitality management learning, hospitality management education and training, and hospitality managerial skills. This literature search went back 25 years to capture some of the seminal works in this field of study. This generated over 150 articles, five key texts and over 25 chapters, predominantly from UK publications, encompassing work conducted in the USA and Australia. This meta-analysis revealed a distinction between MD and management learning, a focus on attempts to define MD and issues around its operation in practice. However, much of this literature was published in the late 1980s, when there was a generic interest in the understanding of MD as evidenced by comparative research reports (Constable and McCormick, 1987; Handy, 1987). It appears that more recently, hospitality academic interest in this area of study has diminished, although work does appear on managerial skills and competencies (Brophy and Kiely, 2002; Watson et al., 2004), career management (Jameson and Holden, 2000; Ladkin, 2000), and nature and delivery of education (Teare and Neil, 2002, Teare and O’Hern, 2000). In addition, industry reports and websites for professional associations were referenced which provided more current information concerning MD practices. In analysing the literatures, the author themed these into key constituents of MD: identifying needs including managerial skills, development of managers including education, learning and training, and assessing development processes and outputs. Organisational influencing dimensions and external factors influencing MD were also used to order research papers and reports. These themes were derived from the contingent perspective of MD driving the focus of this work, necessitating the adoption of a broad perspective.

This thematic analysis provided the opportunity to collate disparate literatures and build an understanding of the extent of influences on and practices of HMD. 4. Developing the conceptual model The development of the model, involved identifying its core constituents or dimensions and exploration of its boundaries and their characteristics, informed by analysis of pertinent literatures in this field of study. 4.1. Core dimensions of MD Dubin (1978) indicates that the researcher has flexibility in determining the units (dimensions) of the theory that are intended to describe the phenomena. This author draws on the principles of the systematic training cycle, namely identifying training needs, designing training solutions implementing training and evaluating effectiveness as key stages within MD (Pedlar et al., 1989). The primary units of the MD process in the model that are considered as being central are identifying development needs, MD activities and evaluating development outcomes. 4.1.1. Identifying development needs Many academic writers include identifying the training and development needs of managers as a key process within MD (Mumford, 1993; Woodall and Winstanley, 1998). Boydell (1983) conceptualises a framework for identifying needs at three interrelated levels, the organisation, the job or occupation and the individual. This framework is widely applied and advocated as an appropriate way to categorise training needs. Despite criticism of the way in which the principles of performance appraisals are often implemented, it is still widely used as a means to assess individual needs. Other means of assessing individual needs include assessment/development centres that measure an individual manager’s ability against agreed criteria and the use of informal means including observation and feedback on performance. Some commentators contend that self-assessment is a discrete approach with self-observation and self-analysis as mechanisms within this, whilst others see this as being integrated into other techniques of performance appraisal and assessment centres (Reid et al., 2004). However, the current focus on personal development planning is raising the profile of self-assessment as a way of identifying MD needs (Sadler-Smith, 2006). At an organisational level development needs can be identified through a process of auditing (Woodall and Winstanley, 1998). This enables the inputs, processes and outputs of MD to be evaluated in relation to specified purposes associated with improving performance, learning or behaviour. At an occupational level, the use of managerial competencies to frame the skills needed for levels and occupations has become a popular practice, from which to assess development needs (Hamlin, 2002).

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425

4.1.2. MD activities Wexley and Baldwin (1996) consider that MD encompasses management education, management training and work-based experiences. Definitional differences between the terms of training and education focus on the nature of activities and their purposes, with education being viewed as being general and developmental, and training as vocational and specific (Garavan et al., 1999). Woodall and Winstanley (1998) identify a blurring of the boundaries between formal and informal development and education, with these often occurring concurrently. In his model, Doyle (2004) distinguishes between formal and informal MD processes, but notes that the distinctions between these are becoming more blurred, with a focus on individuals having to adopt learning for life ideology. There is a vast range of training and learning methods available to MD providers and managers that can be categorised in various ways. These can be classified on the basis of where they are located, whether on or off the job, whether formal or informal. Stewart (1999) categorises methods based on the purpose being related to either managerial behaviour or progression, and whether the focus is on the individual or organisation needs. For example, coaching can be classified as having an individual focus associated with behaviour, whereas mentoring and secondments are related to career progression. In-house courses could be classified as meeting organisational needs, with the purpose of either changing behaviour or progression. Other explicit forms of MD include role-plays, planned experiences, secondments, job rotation and external courses. Informal methods encompass learning from experience, mentoring, exchanges, projects and taking on extra responsibilities. In addition, there is a movement within many professional management associations, to encourage individuals to record their learning and develop learning plans, resulting in the formalisation of informal learning, which further blurs the boundaries between formal and informal development methods (Sadler-Smith, 2006). As well as focusing on how managers learn, attention is now being given to the environmental supports available to enhance manager centred learning. These include the organisational culture, interpersonal and organisational frameworks and processes (Woodall and Winstanley, 1998). Personal development plans and logs and learning contracts are forwarded as tools to help individuals to manage their learning, placing greater emphasis on individuals taking more responsibility for their development (Sadler-Smith, 2006). 4.1.3. Evaluating development outcomes The evaluation of MD is important, as its outcomes influence both individual and organisational performance and capability. In addition, the ability to demonstrate the effects of MD can raise its profile within an organisation. However, its evaluation is often criticised as being under-developed in both research and practice (Garavan et al., 1999; Mabey, 2002; Sadler-Smith, 2006).

417

A frequently used way of measuring MD in practice is to focus on quantitative measures including the average number of days of formal and informal training received by managers, the amount of money spent on MD within an organisation, its possession of an MD policy and its commitment to external management standards and qualifications (Mabey, 2002). However, this reliance on quantitative measurements can result in a failure to measure the effectiveness of MD. This applies to both personal and organisational learning, focusing on measuring inputs, activities and immediate outcomes, rather than longer-term benefits. Ashton et al. (1975) surmise that research and operational work on analysing MD involves three levels of evaluation: managers’ reactions to training, its effect on management performance and organisational assessment of MD systems. Although the literature promotes the need for evaluation, the absence of a framework or theoretical model makes the articulation of causal relationships between MD and organisational success difficult. Garavan et al. (1999) in reviewing the literature on MD, cite the work of Smith (1993) who identifies problems with evaluation as, experimental control, integration of methods and maintaining objectivity. However, the contextual nature of the concept of MD makes the use of a scientific, single objective generic formulaic approach to evaluation inappropriate. Indeed, Stewart (1999) contends that the realist functionalist paradigm of many measurement techniques makes them unsuitable for evaluating the outcomes of MD. Garavan et al. (1999) advocate that evaluation should adopt a fluid, holistic, contextual approach that integrates internal and external dimensions of MD. This would encourage emphasis on behavioural outcomes relative to both organisation context and individual needs. The intention of the above commentary is to provide the rationale for these dimensions as the integral components of the theoretical framework. Fig. 2 presents these as MD processes with an indication of the relationship between these dimensions. However, as articulated previously a contingent perspective locates MD processes within various contexts. The following paragraphs articulate these contexts and their characteristics. 4.2. Establishing the boundaries of hospitality MD Determining the boundaries of a theoretical framework of HMD requires the identification of the domain or multiple domains in which the HMD is expected to operate (Dubin, 1978). In viewing HMD from a contingent

Fig. 2. Dimensions/units of management development.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 418

S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425

perspective four important domains that bound HMD can be identified as the domain of the MD process, the domain of HMD systems, the domain of hospitality organisation and the domain of contextual hospitality environments. All of these boundaries are open indicating that the system constantly exchanges information and resources with each exterior domain. 4.2.1. Domain of process There is little consensus amongst academics on the scope and boundaries of MD. Indeed, there is little agreement on what activities are actually included in the term MD. Processes included can encompass selection of managers to be developed, succession and career planning, and the evaluation of outcomes from development activities. Woodall and Winstanley (1998) and Mumford (1993) see these as within the scope of MD, whilst Doyle (2004) presents selection, succession and career planning as human resource systems which influence MD and are influenced by it. Doyle’s view is supported by Mabey (2002) who, in seeking to develop a model to analyse MD practices, referred to these as HRM contexts. He concludes from a review of literature that MD is likely to be given more priority when succession planning, a fast track career development programme and career structures are in place. The author supports Doyle’s and Mabey’s contentions that these HR activities are inextricably linked but are not key constituents of MD processes. From an academic/theoretical stance, their inclusion pushes the boundaries of MD into the sphere of HRM and away from HRD, whereas the author locates MD within the boundaries of an HRD academic base. Therefore, the general synthesised process of developing managers, as presented in Fig. 2, is decide on development needs, select and deliver education, training and development activities, and evaluate outcomes of MD. In reviewing literature on HMD, there was no clear delineation into what constitutes MD processes. In a similar vein to the generic literature some authors include selection (D’Annunzio-Green, 1997), career development (Ladkin, 2000) and performance management (Brotherton and Watson, 2000) within this, whilst others focus on the training and development dimensions (Watson and Litteljohn, 1997). In terms of the way in which these processes are practiced further research is called for to establish distinctions between hospitality management practice and other industries. There is some evidence that hospitality management education is different (Airey and Tribe, 2000) and that there has been an emphasis on operational skills development, particularly in food and beverage (Ladkin, 2000). Less clear are the methods and delivery of MD activities, the role that managers play in their own development, how needs are assessed and evaluation is conducted. 4.2.2. Domain of MD System From a systems perspective, MD is viewed as both a process and a system, with inputs being transformed by the

process of development into outputs. There is also an articulation of its interaction with organisational and environmental factors, and integration with other subsystems, processes and procedures (Garavan et al., 1999; Mabey, 2002). MD is much more than the process of developing managers as it uses inputs from other organisational systems like selection and career planning from human resource management and coaching, mentoring and training from human resource development. Therefore, it is shaped by other systems, but also the outputs from MD can influence systems and processes, for example, succession planning, organisational planning and organisational capabilities. The contention here is that the nature of the relationship impacts on systems and processes. Brotherton and Watson (2000, 2001) in exploring the relationship between MD processes with organisational and individual performance, report a positive relationship when a shared understanding and organisational priority is given to MD. However, the hospitality industry is not renowned for sophisticated HR systems or strong career planning, impacting on the MD processes. In addition, the organisational contexts influence both MD processes and supporting systems. 4.2.3. Domain of hospitality organisational context Understanding organisational contextual influences on the MD systems, can add further depth to this field of study. Within this, the supporting HR systems, culture, values and priorities impact on the approach to MD (Doyle, 2004). In addition, the understanding of MD purposes, its ownership and scope are important factors (Garavan et al., 1999). Although much of the organisational studies literature focuses on MD as a process that happens to managers, there is a shift of focus to the individual managers. Woodall and Winstanley (1998) identify a shift from passive learner focused development to facilitating the learning of managers, focusing attention on researching how managers learn. There is some research on organisational influences addressing structural and functional concerns with less attention being given to understanding the relationships between cultural values, beliefs and MD practices (Brotherton and Watson, 2001). The extent to which companies prioritise MD also receives little attention from hospitality researchers, although in practice there is some evidence that MD is given priority in times of financial success, but given less priority in times of economic recession (Baum, 2006). Research examining HR practices in the hospitality industry have reported these as largely lacking in sophistication (Brown and Crossman, 2000; Kelliher and Johnson, 1997; Price, 1994). Although Hoque (1999) argues that there is an increased level of HRM practices within large UK hotels, and Kelliher and Johnson (1997) report some change, the over-arching evidence from research into the management of employees is that it is typically ad hoc and reactive (Brown and Crossman, 2000). This could be due to the latitude that hospitality managers

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425

have in determining work conditions and arrangements, even when formalised procedures are in place. In examining hospitality cultural issues, Wood (1994) points to three pertinent cultural features, namely, informal rewards, individualism and managerial autonomy, as characterising the hospitality industry. Some other authors highlight the social, supportive, collegiate environment (Kyriakidou and Gore, 2005). In contrast, other writers present insularity, exploitation and isolation, as features of the hospitality industry organisations (Gilbert and Guerrier, 1997; Wood, 1994). 4.2.4. Domain of contextual hospitality environments With regard to HMD, the main contextual environmental boundaries are presented as hospitality industry characteristics and macrocontexts. Within the framework, the author distinguishes structural and distinguishing features of hospitality, as a separate domain from macrolevel environments. The hospitality industry is depicted as being distinct, with industry-specific professional bodies and associations, and a separate educational base. In academia, hospitality is forwarded as a discrete field of study (Lashley and Morrison, 2000). Therefore, articulating this as a separate domain appears to be logical and necessary to understand industry contextual influences on MD. 4.2.4.1. Hospitality industry domain. Key features of the industry, namely, geographical spread, diversity and range of organisation types influence both organisational contexts and MD practices. In addition, structural industry contexts reveal distinct approaches between large corporate chains and SMEs. This is highlighted by the continued dominance of chains throughout the range of hospitality businesses (Slattery, 2002). However, at the same time, SMEs, is a growing employment sector for hospitality graduates (Jameson and Holden, 2000). In addition, the role of professional bodies and industry-based organisation play a major role in shaping the development of managers. Whilst it would appear that there have been some drives to enhance the quality of hospitality managers, by professional associations, these have not been sustained (Watson, 2006). 4.2.4.2. Macroenvironment domain. The recruitment and retention of managers in the hospitality industry has been poor, with limited career structures, low pay and unsociable hours (Rossiter, 2005). This is exacerbated by high management labour turnover, estimated to be twice the national average (People1st, 2005) caused by students and graduates working in the industry leaving in large numbers to use their skills in other service industries (Baum, 2006). It appears that industry structure and characteristics may limit an organisations’ ability to develop hospitality managers. External forces including social, technological, economic and environmental factors act as boundaries for MD.

419

External factors include political activities and institutional frameworks, including regulatory and legal concerns influencing training and development approaches in organisations (Ashton and Felstead, 2000) and competitive shifts (Antonacopoulou, 1999). Changes in contextual environments are the source of uncertainty and can impact on how organisations are managed and the skills required by managers. The political view of the importance of development and training can raise the profile of MD as both an integral business activity and a requirement for personal growth. Government approaches to training and education influence attitudes to development and opportunities for development. For example, the role of hospitality education in MD in producing hospitality graduates is changing, as a result of funding restrictions, increased student numbers and uncertainty over appropriate content of hospitality education (Litteljohn and Watson, 2004). Therefore, HMD will be influenced by the nature of these educational outputs. Social factors influence the demand for development opportunities to meet changing skills and knowledge needs and impact on availability and willingness to work in hospitality management (Watson and McCraken, 2002). Technological advances impact on both content and delivery of development activities (Teare and O’Hern, 2000). Finally, legislative and environmental factors can impact on the content of development programmes (Watson and Litteljohn, 1997). 4.3. Integration of the components of the HMD model Fig. 3 provides a diagrammatical overview of the conceptual model illustrating how the various components of the framework come together. The conceptual model reflects the contingent nature of MD. It integrates the components of MD and positions these within the operating boundaries of the MD system and organisational domain. The outer frame reflects the macroenvironment that influences HMD. The key environmental impacts are social, economic, technological, legislative and political. These can be seen to influence the characteristics of the hospitality industry. Key features of the industry include its

Fig. 3. Conceptual model for analysing hospitality management development.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 420

S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425

structure, geographical spread, diversity and range of organisations. Also aligned with hospitality industry issues are influences on MD from strategic groups. These include the professional associations, educational bodies and government associations that provide a strategic political voice. In addition, the image of the industry and management labour turnover impinge on MD practices. The model (Fig. 3) provides a comprehensive overview of the influences and constituents of HMD, derived from the literature review. It forms the basis for understanding the complex issues influencing HMD. However, it cannot be classified as a theory. Firstly, it is conceptual and unsubstantiated through any empirical research. Secondly, it does not articulate specific rules, laws or hypothesis for testing, although this would be the next stage in developing a theory. This framework can be viewed as embryonic, dynamic and fluid. It is a starting point, rather than an end point in contributing to understanding HMD. The following section uses the model to explore UK HMD practices and contexts to demonstrate its application. 5. MD in the UK hospitality industry This section discusses key influences on, and dimensions of HMD in the UK, through analysing the literature and research findings on the external macrocontexts, industry characteristics, organisational environments and MD processes. 5.1. External macroenvironment Despite strategic government led involvement in training, the industry is still perceived, by academics and potential new recruits as having limited, continuous opportunities for training and development (Wisdom, 2005). Government involvement in promoting industry level training and development can be traced to the establishment of the Hotel and Catering Industrial Training Board (HCITB), as a result of the enactment of the Industrial Training Act in 1964 (Reid et al., 2004). Having gone through various business reinventions it has recently emerged as People1st, the government sponsored, Sector Skills Council for the hospitality industry, in May 2004. People1st’s aim is to enable employers within the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism sector to improve their profitability, staff retention and appeal by delivering world-class productivity and customer service. Its remit is to encourage learning of a high standard in the industry and to enhance the uptake and interest of organisations in government initiatives, like modern apprenticeships, annual training awards and national training targets. The recent government drive to increase the number of young people continuing to full time higher education (50% of 18 year olds) has markedly increased the supply

of hospitality graduates. Jameson and Holden (2000) estimated an annual output of 2000–3000 graduates from UK hospitality management programmes. However, with uncertain economic conditions, organisational downsizing, delayering and outsourcing, these graduates are less likely than their predecessors to obtain traditional graduate positions (Hawkins and Winter, 1996). This is leading to graduates being ‘employed in sub-degree level occupations, illustrating the growing gap between the value of degrees and their market value in real transactional situations’ (Deer, 2004, p. 210). 5.2. Industry characteristics and structures Within the UK, the hospitality industry employs over 1.9 m people and generates 4% of the UK’s GDP (Litteljohn and Watson, 2004). There are over 180,000 establishments, in the UK hospitality industry, 76% of which employ less than 10 people (People1st, 2005). A characteristic of the industry is the diversity of organisational types, their size, ownership and geographical spread, resulting in differing operating systems and a lack of coherency within managerial practices (Slattery, 2002). The hospitality industry is very diverse, encompassing large chains/multi-national companies, plus a proliferation of SMEs. In addition, although synergy is found in vertical and horizontal ownership in hospitality, resulting in operators running businesses in more than one sector of the industry, different organisational contexts require different managerial skills. For example, Slattery (2002) argues for the ability to manage portfolios at corporate level and an understanding of supply-chain management, as a result of the continued dominance of corporate chains, stressing the importance of the corporate context. Within the SME sector the informal approach to MD has traditionally placed responsibility for development with individual managers. Historically, hospitality professional bodies and associations in the UK have been disjointed, lacking the ability individually to influence government in relation to either funding or educational direction. The presence of a range of professional and trade associations each with their own agenda, but very often with overlapping interests, adds confusion to the industry’s ability to influence internally and externally. Indeed there is no unified voice on what differentiates hospitality managers from other managers and what MD should encompass (Watson, 2006). The role of hospitality education in MD in producing hospitality graduates is changing, with funding restrictions, increased student numbers and uncertainty over its content (Litteljohn and Watson, 2004). Connor and Pollard (1996) argue that graduates face a competitive, less predictable labour market, with fewer places on graduate training schemes, as many organisations are no longer providing them. This research highlights a mismatch between industry’s expectations of the skills of graduates

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425

and the actual output from educational establishments, and the impact on development practices for new recruits to the industry. As educational providers offer different programmes, graduates come into management positions with different skills and knowledge, which may not equip them for taking on a managerial role without further training and development (Raybould and Wilkins, 2005). This can result in new managers leaving the industry unless appropriate development opportunities are available to them (Baum, 2006). The industry image refers to features of long work, poor pay, limited career opportunities and high turnover, which can influence HMD opportunities (Wood, 1994). The view of hospitality as a career choice is still hampered by poor perceptions of its conditions of employment and career opportunities resulting in extra challenges for MD to ensure the quality and quantity of managers (Baum, 2006; Rossiter, 2005). 5.3. Organisational context The limited literature on HMD presents it as an organisationally driven process (Brophy and Kiely, 2002; Watson and Brotherton, 1996). There is a prevalent assumption underpinning research into HMD that its purpose is to improve the performance of the organisation, even when this is not explicitly stated. In addition, the operational nature of the managerial roles and the business focus on immediate concerns rather than long-term development needs, influence the delivery of MD and its perceived importance in the organisation and to individuals. Indeed, Wood (1994) highlights the operational, reactive and active nature of hospitality management, presenting it as less systematic and more unpredictable than non-hospitality management. Also, as indicated by Baum (2006), MD appears to be given limited priority particularly in times of economic recession. Although there is some mention of individuals having to take more responsibility for development (Watson and Litteljohn, 1997), there is a dearth of literature addressing ownership issues of MD. There is also limited clarification on the scope and boundaries of MD. There is a focus on career issues within HMD (Jameson and Holden, 2000; Ladkin, 2000) coupled with concerns about the educational input to MD (Morrison and O’Mahony, 2003). In addition, while there is some debate about hospitality industry culture and values, there is limited research into the impact of supporting culture and values on MD (Brotherton and Watson, 2001). In investigating the relationship between HRM and employee commitment in UK hotels, McGunnigie and Jameson (2000) report a lack of sophisticated selection and recruitment approaches, but strong training and development systems. In concluding their research, they question the extent to which there is genuine support for the rhetoric of HRM in the UK hotel industry.

421

5.4. MD process 5.4.1. Identification Although at an industry level, managerial competences and competencies are used to establish skills set, less is known about how these are used within companies or by the individual managers (Watson et al., 2004). The manner in which individual needs are identified has received little attention in the research. Some mention of the use of assessment centres and performance appraisal as formal means of identifying development needs can be found (Brownell, 2005; D’Annunzio-Green, 1997). There is also a lack of research on how organisation level development needs are analysed although Robert (1995) refers to the use of audits, the analysis of strategic plans, customer feedback and business reviews as prescriptive approaches available to the industry. 5.4.2. Delivery Historically, HMD has taken an ad hoc, fragmented, piecemeal approach with development being seen as something that only occurred early on in a manager’s career (Watson, 2006; Wood, 1994). Indeed, the demise of many graduate MD programmes in hospitality due to financial resource constraints in the early 1990s may have embedded this ad hoc, piecemeal approach further. This argument is further fuelled by the importance of the SME sector in the industry, where MD is less formalised (Jameson and Holden, 2000). Watson and Litteljohn (1997) differentiate between tactical and strategic level managers placing different demands on the MD practices each group requires. In addition, with the flattening of organisational structures greater emphasis is placed on managers taking responsibility for their own development (Watson, 1991). Within the SME sector, the informal approach to MD has traditionally placed responsibility for development with individual managers. However, little research into the use of personal plans and logs appears to have been conducted. In recent years, there has been some research addressing the use of technology in developing managers, particularly in relation to workplace learning (Hudspith and Ingram, 2002; Winch and Ingram, 2002). Certainly there is evidence that the education of hospitality managers is seen as distinct from other managers (Lashley, 2000). Airey and Tribe (2000) present hospitality management education as multi-disciplinary, utilising knowledge from generic management areas including operations, strategy, human resources, finance, marketing and information management, demonstrating a commitment to meeting industry needs through practical skills development, industrial placements and teaching applied hospitality management skills. However, UK educational institutions are being forced to cut costs and seek ways to streamline their operations resulting in less attention being given to sector-specific professional development aspects of the curriculum, such

ARTICLE IN PRESS 422

S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425

as food and beverage related practical modules (Baum, 2006; Ladkin, 2000). There is some concern amongst hospitality academics that this is leading to a loss of identity, with hospitality becoming subsumed within general management education, making the curriculum less applicable to industry’s needs, putting pressure on industry to provide its own practical vocational training for new graduates (Harper et al., 2005). In addition, Jameson and Holden (2000) highlight the recurring debate between education and industry concerning the perceived mismatch between hospitality graduates’ knowledge and capabilities and industry needs. The challenge appears to lie in finding a balance between vocational and reflective perspectives, enabling students to develop a critique of the wider world of action relating to hospitality management, while also developing the skills and knowledge needed to put critical ideas into practice (Airey and Tribe, 2000). Although postgraduate qualifications in hospitality management have been available in the UK for over 25 years, little academic attention has been given to analysing their approaches, content or impact on HMD. Litteljohn and Morrison (1997) in reviewing hospitality management education in the UK for the Council for Hospitality Management Education report that there were fewer than 1000 postgraduate students studying hospitality related programmes in the UK. Part-time study opportunities which link the educational aspects of management to business needs are obscuring the boundaries between ‘education’ and ‘development’. Co-operative ventures between education providers and industry and the use of the concept of a corporate university as the umbrella for delivery of hospitality education programmes are evidenced throughout the industry (Adams and Waddle, 2002; Teare and Neil, 2002). In a similar vein, Sigala and Baum (2003) highlight the importance of strategic alliances in delivering quality education. One of the characteristics of hospitality management is the centrality of food and beverage skills and knowledge (Ladkin, 2000). Ladkin found that gaining experience in food and beverage is advisable when following a career to hotel general manager. In support of this, Connolly and McGing (2006), researching industry’s appreciation of graduates in Irish hotels, report a ‘strong preference to hire people with strong practical skills’ (p. 54). However, Ladkin (2000) also reports that there is an increasing emphasis on managerial skills, evidenced by management training and education in generic business skills. This view is supported by Harper et al. (2005), researching hotel general manager careers, who highlight a consensus by managers on the need to adopt a business rather than an operational perspective. In addition, Raybould and Wilkins (2005) in summarising the literature on hospitality skills, contend that increased competition and complexity in the industry has reduced the importance of technical and operation skills, in favour of leadership, corporate and strategic skills.

Despite a rhetorical emphasis on continuous professional development, fewer hierarchical development opportunities, and the demise of graduate training programs, little substantive research on the issue of individual responsibility for development, or the use of personal plans and logs could be found. 5.4.3. Evaluation There is limited research on the evaluation of MD in the hospitality industry, although Hudspith and Ingram (2002) highlight the importance of evaluation of MD at regular intervals during and after learning. Adams and Waddle (2002) explore how the evaluation of MD is used to demonstrate its value to the individual manager and the organisation, through analysis of both hard and soft benefits of MD delivered via a virtual university. Although some work has been carried out on the evaluation of hospitality management education throughout the last 25 years, much of this work refers to students and industry’s expectations of education and focuses on evaluating graduate careers (Garavan et al., 1999; Jameson and Holden, 2000). 6. Discussion The above commentary addresses ways in which contexts influence HMD. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 At the macrolevel these are presented as government approach to training and education. At a hospitality industry contextual level, key influences are forwarded as lack of coherent strategic voice, poor image, high management turnover, diverse range of businesses, wide geographical spread of organisations and a proliferation of SMEs. These external contextual influences impact on the nature of HMD practices. In addition, organisational contextual influences are presented as organisational cultures, values, and management priorities and the supporting HR systems impact on companies approach to MD. In addition, an understanding of MD purposes, its priority and scope are important factors in shaping HMD. Although there is

Fig. 4. Model of hospitality management development applied to the UK.

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425

limited research into these aspects of the hospitality industry, little attention is given to the manner in which these influence HMD. In terms of the MD system, the three major components of identifying development needs, development activities and evaluation are presented as core activities of MD. Research into these components of development, including identifying development needs, the role played by individual managers in learning, and the evaluation of development outcomes for both organisations and individuals is limited. The research into HMD in the UK reports an emphasis on early career development and experiential learning, sporadic delivery of development opportunities and individual involvement in development. While the skills and competences of hospitality managers are purported to be different to managers in other industries, it is unclear whether methods and procedures to identify needs, delivery of development and assessment of their development are indeed different. Reports and research on hospitality managers’ careers have traditionally emphasised the importance of food and beverage experience, highlighting an emphasis on experiential, ad hoc development as distinguishing features of HMD. Although this framework can provide a vehicle to undertake comprehensive overview of the influences and constituents of HMD, the above commentary is limited. There is a lack of current literature on HMD. More empirical research, from a range of philosophical and theoretical perspectives, on the dimensions and influences on HMD could enhance understanding in this field of study. 7. Conclusion The aim of this paper is to present a model for researching and understanding influences and dimensions of HMD. It addresses the question what influences the content and approach to developing hospitality managers? Through analysing a range of literatures, characteristics of the hospitality industry, the nature of hospitality management and organisational factors are presented as influences on HMD practices. A contingent model is presented as being a useful tool to explore MD from a holistic perspective. However, it is clear that there is a lack of current research into HMD practices which limits understanding of differences between HMD and MD in other industries. The paper contributes to understanding the complexities of HMD in two ways. Firstly, it provides a vehicle to integrate aspects of HMD into a coherent framework, addressing the criticism that researchers focus on discrete aspects that fail to build a coherent picture of this concept. Secondly, it provides a contingent conceptual model that provides opportunities for greater understanding of distinctive features of HMD. Finally, the paper presents key influences on HMD as potential differentiators on MD in the UK hospitality industry. At an industry level these

423

include diversity of businesses, poor image, lack of career prospects, and lack of a strategic political voice, and at organisational level these are presented as limited HR systems, focus on business needs and lack of priority given to MD. While identification and evaluation methods may not be different, the differentiation in education provision and a reliance on experiential learning are potential distinguishing features of HMD. Less clear but worthy of further investigation includes research into ownership of MD and the role that individual managers play in their development, and the changing nature of managerial skills. As indicated in the above commentary, this conceptual model is embryonic, being devised from a diverse range of literatures. Empirical research into HMD practices is suggested that can test this model and enable further dimensions and or influences to emerge. The model could also be applied to different sectoral contexts or international settings to explore and compare distinct features of the development of managers. References Adams, D., Waddle, C., 2002. Evaluating the return from management development programmes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14 (1), 14–20. Airey, D., Tribe, J., 2000. Education for hospitality. In: Lashley, C., Morrison, A. (Eds.), In Search of Hospitality Theoretical Perspectives and Debates. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Antonacopoulou, E., 1999. Training does not imply learning: the individual perspective. International Journal of Training and Development 3 (1), 14–32. Ashton, D., Felstead, A., 2000. Tracing the link: organisational structures and skill demands. Human Resource Management Journal 10 (3), 5–21. Ashton, D., Easterby-Smith, M., Irvine, C., 1975. Management Development: Theory and Practice. MCB Monographs, Bradford. Baum, T., 1990. Competencies for hotel managers: industry’s expectations of education. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 2 (4), 13–16. Baum, T., 2006. Human Resource Management for Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure: An International Perspective. Thomson Learning, London. Boydell, T.H., 1983. A Guide to the Identification of Training Needs, second ed. British Association for Commercial and Industrial Education, London. Brophy, M., Kiely, T., 2002. Competencies: a new sector analysis. Journal of European Industrial Training 26 (2–4), 165–176. Brotherton, R., Watson, S., 2000. Shared priorities and the management development process: a case study of Bass Taverns. Tourism and Hospitality Research 2 (2), 103–117. Brotherton, R., Watson, S., 2001. Licensed house manager skills/ competences and the management development process in Bass Taverns. Human Resource Development International 4 (4), 521–542. Brown, D., Crossman, A., 2000. Employer strategies in the face of a national minimum wage: an analysis of the hotel sector. Industrial Relations Journal 31, 3206–3219. Brownell, J., 2005. Predicting leadership the assessment center’s extended role. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17 (1), 7–21. Clarke, M., 1999. Management Development as a game of meaningless outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal 9 (2), 38–50. Connolly, P., McGing, G., 2006. Graduate education and hospitality management in Ireland. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18 (1), 50–59.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 424

S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425

Connor, H., Pollard, E., 1996. What do Graduates Really Do? Brighton. Institute of Employment Studies. Constable, J., McCormick, R., 1987. The Making of British Managers. CBI/BMI, London. Cullen, J., Turnbull, S., 2005. A meta-review of the management development literature. Human Resource Development Review 4 (3), 335–355. D’Annunzio-Green, N., 1997. Developing international managers in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 9 (5/6), 199–208. Deer, C., 2004. The expansion of higher education: economic necessity or hyperinflation? In: Hayward, G., James, S. (Eds.), Balancing the Skills Equation. Key Issues and Challenges for Policy and Practice. Policy Press, Bristol. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2005. Handbook of Qualitative Research, third ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Dubin, R., 1978. Theory Building, revised ed. Free Press, Macmillan, New York. Doyle, M., 2000. Management development in an era of radical change: evolving a relational perspective. Journal of Management Development 19, 7579–7601. Doyle, M., 2004. Management development. In: Beardwell, I., Holden, L., Claydon, T. (Eds.), Human Resource Management a Contemporary Approach, fourth ed. Prentice-Hall, London. Garavan, T.N., Barnicle, B., O’Suilleabhain, M., 1999. Management development: contemporary trends, issues and strategies. Journal of European Industrial Training 23 (4/5), 191–207. Gilbert, D., Guerrier, Y., 1997. UK managers past and present. Service Industries Journal 17 (1), 133–154. Hamlin, B., 2002. In support of evidence-based management and researchinformed HRD through HRD professional partnerships: an empirical and comparative study. Human Resource Development International 5 (4), 467–491l. Handy, C., 1987. The Making of Managers: A Report on Management Education, Training and Development in the USA, Germany, France and the UK. Manpower Services Commission, British Institute of Management, National Economic Development Office, London. Harper, S., Brown, C., Wilson, I., 2005. Qualifications: a fast-track to hotel general manager? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17 (1), 51–64. Hawkins, P., Winter, J., 1996. The self-reliant graduate and the SME. Education and Training 38 (4), 3–9. Hoque, K., 1999. Human resource management and performance in the UK hotel industry. British Journal of Industry Relations 37 (3), 419–443. Hudspith, D., Ingram, H., 2002. Delivering management development through action learning. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14 (7), 368–374. Jameson, S.M., Holden, R., 2000. Graduateness—who cares? Graduate identity in small hospitality firms. Education and Training 42 (4/5), 264–271. Jones, P., 2004. Finding the hospitality industry? Or finding hospitality schools of thought? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 3 (1), 33–45. Kelliher, C., Johnson, K., 1997. Personnel Management in hotels—an update: a move to human resource management. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3 (4), 321–331. Kyriakidou, O., Gore, J., 2005. Learning by example. Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 (3), 192–206. Ladkin, A., 2000. Vocational education and food and beverage experience: issues for career development. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 12 (4), 226–233. Lashley, C., 2000. Towards a theoretical understanding. In: Lashley, C., Morrison, A. (Eds.), In Search of Hospitality. Theoretical Perspectives and Debates. Butterworth-Heinemann. Lashley, C., Morrison, A. (Eds.), 2000. In Search of Hospitality. Theoretical Perspectives and Debates. Butterworth-Heinemann. Litteljohn, D., Morrison, J., 1997. Hospitality Management Education Report. Council for Hospitality Management Education.

Litteljohn, D., Watson, S., 2004. Developing graduate managers for hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 16 (7), 408–414. Lynham, S., 2000. Theory building in the human resource development. Profession Human Resource Development Quarterly 11 (2), 159–178. Mabey, C., 2002. Mapping management development practice. Journal of Management Studies 39 (8), 1139–1160. Marsick, V., Watkins, K., 1997. Lessons from informal and incidental Learning. In: Burgoyne, J., Reynolds, M. (Eds.), Management Learning Integrating Perspectives in Theory and Practice. Sage, London. McGunnigie, P., Jameson, S.M., 2000. HRM in UK hotels: a focus on commitment. Employee Relations 22 (4), 403–422. Morrison, A., O’Mahony, D., 2003. The liberation of hospitality management education. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 15 (1), 38–44. Mumford, A., 1993. Management Development; Strategies for Action. Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Pedlar, M., Boydell, T., Burgoyne, J., 1989. Towards the learning company. Management Education & Development 20 (1), 1–8. People1st. 2005. Recruitment and retention survey. 13/07/2006. /www. people1st.co.ukS. Price, L., 1994. Poor personnel practice in the hospitality industry—does it matter? Human Resource Management Journal 4 (4), 4–62. Raybould, M., Wilkins, H., 2005. Over qualified and under experienced turning graduates into hospitality managers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17 (3), 203–216. Reid, M.A., Barrington, H., Brown, M., 2004. Human Resource Development-Beyond Training Interventions. CIPD, London. Robert, J., 1995. Human Resource Practice in the Hospitality Industry. Hodder & Saughton, London. Rossiter, P., 2005. Mind the gap! Hospitality, May. Sadler-Smith, E., 2006. Learning and Development for Managers. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Sigala, M., Baum, T., 2003. Trends and issues in tourism and hospitality higher education: visioning the future. Tourism and Hospitality Research 4 (4), 363–367. Slattery, P., 2002. Finding the hospitality industry? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 1 (1), 19–28. Smith, A., 1993. Evaluation and effectiveness. Journal of Management Development 12 (1), 20–33. Stewart, J., 1999. Management development. In: Leopold, J., Harrison, L., Watson, T. (Eds.), Strategic Human Resourcing. Financial Times Pitman, London. Storey, J., 1989. Management development: a literature review and implications for future research—Part 1. Personnel Review 18 (6), 3–19. Storey, J., Mabey, C., Thomson, A., 1997. What a difference a decade makes. People Management, June. Teare, R., Neil, J., 2002. Fast-forward to accredited corporate learning? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14 (7), 342–348. Teare, R., O’Hern, J., 2000. Challenges for service leaders: setting the agenda for the virtual learning organization. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 12 (2), 97–106. Watson, S., 1991. From a la carte to cafeteria style management development. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 3 (4), 36–42. Watson, S., 2006. Hospitality management development: understanding the contextual issues. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Napier University, UK. Watson, S., Brotherton, B., 1996. Hospitality management: minimising conflict-maximising potential. Management Development Review 9 (4), 13–22. Watson, S., Litteljohn, D., 1997. Management development: a hierarchical perspective. In: BAM Conference Proceedings, British Academy of Management, London. Watson, S., McCraken, M., 2002. No attraction in strategic thinking. International Journal of Tourism Research 4 (5), 367–378.

ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Watson / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 414–425 Watson, S., McCracken, M., Hughes, M., 2004. Scottish visitor attractions: managerial competence requirements. Journal of European Industrial Training 28 (1), 39–66. Wexley, K.N., Baldwin, T.T., 1996. Management development. Journal of Management 12 (2), 277–294. Winch, A., Ingram, H., 2002. Re-defining the focus of workplace learning. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14, 361–367.

425

Wisdom, B., 2005. A word to the wise. Hospitality 12–15. Wood, R.C., 1994. Organizational Behaviour for Hospitality Management. Butterworth, Heineman, London. Woodall, J., Winstanley, D., 1998. Management Development Strategy And Practice. Blackwell Business, Oxford. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L., 1985. Problems and strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing 49, 33–46.