A qualitative research study on perceptions held by Hong Kong hotel financial controllers in decision-making roles

Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65 — 81

A qualitative research study on perceptions held by Hong Kong hotel financial controllers in decision-making roles Duncan Gibson Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract This empirical study investigated perceptions of involvement in decision-making held by hotel financial controllers that fall outside their primary responsibility simply to be a supplier of financial information. The research reviewed empirical studies on the work of hotel financial controllers, specifically in respect of the expansion of their role. Drawing on Mintzberg’s work on managerial roles, a qualitative approach to the investigation of these perceptions was taken involving the content analysis of transcribed interviews in 18 international hotels in Hong Kong. The research found that in the control phase of the operating budgetary process, unit hotel financial controllers held little perception in involvement in disturbance-handling roles (after Mintzberg) that were not directly related to their primary responsibility to report performance. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Hotels; Financial controller; Decision-making; Qualitative research; Budgets

1. Introduction It is evident that there are a number of constraints in the various functional specialisms in a firm that may well influence the extent to which a manager can expect to engage in roles that do not conform to his/her primary role. A main constraint will be the everyday tasks that the functional specialist will be expected to perform as a result of the historical influences that have shaped their role in business generally and in the particular industry in which the functional specialist works. Involvement in roles that are not regarded as primary responsibilities may depend on the superior’s expectations of that functional specialist, and the peer reaction to the specialist becoming involved in activities that are not primary responsibilities of that specialist. A superior’s expectations and the peer reactions might be expected to be conditioned by the organizational structure and climate that prevails. In S0278—4319/98/$19.00 ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 02 7 8— 4 31 9 ( 98 ) 0 00 0 9— 7

66

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

addition, the perception that the specialist holds, as to his/her expected role, will play a critical part.

2. Perceptions held of the roles of unit financial controllers Willson and Colford (1991) comment on frequent requests to the journal ‘‘Financial Executive’’ from those in the profession, for the clarification of the job of financial controller. They conclude that the probable reason for so many requests is a result of the controller wearing different hats. In summarising people’s general expectations of the work that a controller performs, they suggest that the controller is thought of simply as the chief accountant who supervises and maintains the formal corporate financial records. Hamilton-Harding (1990), Kotchian (1970) and others cite studies that identify the different perceptions of the controller’s role held by the organization, the people who work within the organization, and those people outside the organization. Role ambiguities and role conflict have arisen with respect to the reporting structure of the controller that remains a point of controversy and differing opinion to the present day. In brief, the question of whether the controller should be responsible to the corporate financial executive and work for the general manager, or whether the controller should be responsible to the general manager, working under the laid down policies and methods prescribed by the corporate financial executive, has remained unresolved. Above all, there seems no clearly defined boundaries to the controller’s role in business. The scope of the job is not confined to the basic accounting, reporting and control functions, although these outputs are regarded as universally applicable to controllers. It seems that controllers are not averse to expanding their sphere of influence, which could be interpreted as a reluctance on the part of controllers to regard their role as purely that of supplying information. With developments in Information Technology, financial controllers might seem to have been offered the opportunity to be released from mundane and repetitive tasks to expand their activities into decision-making within the firm. Davenport (1993) contends that developments in IT have opened the doors to more effective work practices and Crescenzi and Kocher (1984) comment on the impact that IT has had on the role within the company of the financial controller. It is evident that IT has eased considerably the role of the controller to supply information and in some areas of business has caused organizational dilemmas, which has not affected controllers uniformly. However, the job of controller seems to contain, irrespective of the influence of IT, inherent role ambiguity. The literature reveals a contradictory picture of the expectations of those people who work in the organization to the roles played by controllers. Runk and Loretta (1989) as shown in their findings of surveys and consultancies, state that chief executive officers expect their controllers to apply their financial expertise and resources to business decision making. Although management still requires a sound control and reporting framework, controllers should not limit their activities to accumulating, recording and reporting financial information. Sathe (1982) looks

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

67

beyond the basic function of ensuring the correctness of financial reports, at the further responsibility to help the management team in the decision-making process. He sees incompatibility with the regulatory responsibilities of the controller with the necessity to satisfy management’s needs, creating role ambiguity, with the controller as either independent of the management or involved with the management. Pipkin (1989:22) summarizes the company presidents’ and chief executive officers’ expectations of controllers from his researches as follows; ‘‘In fact, just what do company presidents think about the controller’s role? Usually they say something like: look after the assets, ensure good internal control, publish the financials accurately and on time, avoid surprises, and, by all means — be a good team player. It may sound familiar, but it doesn’t sound as if the president accepts you as an integral part of the decision-making process.’’ Contradictory views are held on whether the onus should be on the controller’s peer manager to expect and demand advice, or whether the controllers should take it upon themselves to give advice. Runk and Loretta acknowledge that: many controllers in some industries have not grown beyond their traditional roles to provide essential decision support services. There is little consistent evidence to conclude that superiors and peers universally expect and welcome the controller giving as much emphasis to decision-making roles, as to supplying information. What is evident arising out of the literature is that the particular industry and its traditions and developments has a critical influence on the behaviour of its managers. The hotel industry can be no exception. A review of empirical studies now follows, in order to identify research relevant to the expansion of the hotel financial controller’s role, and to determine whether circumstances exist that might preclude involvement on the part of controllers, to participate in decision-making roles.

3. Participation in decision-making by hotel financial controllers There have been very few published empirical studies of hotel controllers. In the main, these studies have been ‘‘profile’’ surveys on the work that controllers do. Two linked studies in 1984 and 1990, by Geller and Schmidgall (1984) and Geller, et al. Schmidgall (1990) and one by Tse (1989) surveyed controllers in the USA. Burgess (1994) carried out a similar survey in the UK, as did Tsui (1993) in Hong Kong. Burgess (1996) compared controllers’ work activities in USA, UK and Hong Kong, drawing together the findings of the above-mentioned studies. Moore and Stefanelli (1989) in the USA looked at the perceptions of controllers in participating in decision-making roles, researching the extent to which controllers in large independent hotels and small chains and their superiors and peers believed that they should be involved in representative strategic, accounting/assessment and non-financial decisions. A section of Tsui’s study replicated Moore and Stefanelli’s survey. One section of Geller and Schmidgall’s (1984) study was an investigation into the status of controllers. They attempted to determine a controllers’ role on the management team, by asking those surveyed whether they were members of their properties’

68

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

executive, compensation or planning committees. In the 1984 survey, the results revealed a high incidence of membership in the executive committee (82%) but a low incidence in the compensation committee (23%) and the planning committee (41%). In the second of the two studies, some six years later, they were able to report a marked increase in the incidence of membership in the compensation and planning committees (75% and 94%). The first study revealed that accounting, reporting and control were the main areas of concentration and found that all controllers did basically the same kind of work irrespective of the property. No evidence was presented that seemed to preclude a wider involvement. The follow-up study showed that the picture of the controller’s job had remained substantially unaltered; certainly no barriers to involvement had been introduced. Indeed, the controller’s sphere of influence had actually increased with additional responsibility of the computing function (EDP). Burgess investigated over the period 1990—1993 the past and current roles of financial controllers, together with their education and training needs for the future; needs based on predictions as to the controller’s future role. She found that controllers had become much more influential in operations, acting as advisors to other members of the management team in the effective running of their departments. She did not identify any discernible barriers to a controller’s involvement. In her comparison of the work of controllers in the USA, UK, and Hong Kong, she found that controllers performed essentially the same tasks. Moore and Stefanelli surveyed a limited number of hotels (26) in ‘‘states west of the plains’’ in the USA. They used the format of a five-point Likert scale, on a response scale of one (no involvement) to five (greatly involved) on the basis of a list of activities from the Financial Executives’ Institute. Tsui replicated this study using the same list of activities. Involvement was defined as the extent of perception in participation in decision-making issues, however, the type of decisionmaking was not specified. Responses were analysed by the calculation of means and standard deviations. Moore and Stefanelli’s conclusions to their study were that controllers perceived themselves as somewhat more involved in decision-making then was perceived by superiors and peers, especially in the area of strategic and non-financial decisions. Hotel financial controllers saw a more involved role, while peers especially were apt to relegate them to complying to regulatory aspects. Their study also showed an absence of barriers to a controller’s involvement in the hotel environment. In the section in her study on perceptions, Tsui found controllers to have perceived themselves as having a ‘‘relatively great involvement’’ in accounting/assessment and financial decisions, and a ‘‘medium’’ involvement in strategic/non-financial decisions. She concluded that the scope of the controller was being widened to become an integral part of the business decision-making process. These empirical studies have added greatly to the knowledge concerning what controllers do, and in part have suggested that controllers hold perceptions of an expanded role. There seems no evidence arising out of these studies that conditions in hotels preclude involvement in participation in decision-making for financial controllers.

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

69

4. Considerations for the research design Decision-making involves a number of roles for the manager of quite differing character. Mintzberg (1973), in his seminal work on managerial roles, distinguishes decision-making from interpersonal and informational roles. He sub-divides these roles; decision-making into entrepreneurial, resource allocation, negotiation, and disturbance-handling; interpersonal into liaison, leader and figurehead; informational into disseminator, monitor and spokesman. Mintzberg’s theory of managerial roles has been used as the basis for much empirical work in the hotel industry into managerial effectiveness. Indeed, Dann (1990) has attributed Mintzberg as a key influence in his attempt to integrate studies conducted in the hospitality field with those in other industries. The research question became clearer upon consideration of these various managerial roles: what might be the perceptions of hotel controllers in participating in disturbance-handling roles, in contrast to their perceptions in liaison and dissemination roles? Features of Mintzberg’s research design in his work on managerial roles were helpful in searching for an appropriate research strategy. He identified the questionnaire and interview as valid methods of inquiry in revealing a manager’s perceptions of his/her own job. Of particular reference was the attention that he paid to the problems of the respondent being influenced by the researcher, the disguising of the true nature of the research and the issue of corroboration. A key feature of Moore and Stefanelli’s study, although not taken up by Tsui, had been the aspect of corroboration; a controller’s perceptions of participation had been compared with peers’ and superiors’ perceptions of a controller’ participation. Support for Mintzberg’s concerns are found in the literature concerning the design of studies in the social sciences. Webb (1978) comments that an understanding of social behaviour is obtained, without alerting the subject to the nature of an investigation. Potter and Wetherell (1992) mention that social perceptions and self-presentation play a role in the modification of behaviour, depending on the social context and the perceived status of the individuals. The incidence of ‘‘impression management’’ results in the considerations of ‘‘face saving’’ and creating a good impression. Whyte (1982) confirms the desire to please as a main factor and stresses that the best informants are those who are involved in the ‘‘significant event’’ and that the major way to correct such distortions present in the accounts of informants, is by comparing that informant’s account with another informant or informants (corroboration). The matter of the ‘‘significant event’’ is one that is alluded to by Moore and Stefanelli (1989:5) in their concluding comments to their study: ‘‘Hypothesis I [There is less agreement about involvement in strategic and nonfinancial decisions than accounting and assessment decisions], was not strongly supported. Since the questionnaire could not include and weigh all possible strategic, assessment or non-financial decisions, it is difficult to affirm the hypothesis with any degree of certainty although the proposition is intuitively reasonable.’’

70

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

Research then concentrated on finding an activity that was a ‘‘significant event’’ to the respondent controller, around which to focus the investigation. 4.1. Operating budgets — a *significant event+ for the controller The importance of operational budgets in the hotel environment is well documented in the literature, and there is much evidence that the controller plays a significant role. Support for Medlik’s (1980) contention on the relevance and importance of operating budgets to hotel executives has been shown in the findings of empirical studies from Kosturakis and Eyster (1979), Schmidgall and Ninemeier (1986, 1987, 1989), Pickup (1985), Rusth (1990), Eder and Umbreit (1989), Damitio and Schmidgall (1991) and Schmidgall, et al. (1996). These studies have been done for the most part in the USA. The controller’s involvement in operating budgets has been periodically reported upon. For example, Kostinakos and Eyster surveyed the operating budget practices of small hotel companies and found controllers at the unit level held a key involvement in preparing and controlling the budget. In the UK, Pickup concluded from his case study of budgetary control in lodging units, that the way forward pointed to the traditional controller’s role as shifting to one that was more integrated, with a closer relationship with line management. Schmidgall and Ninemeier (1987) surveyed hotel chains, where they found that chains took immediate action on rectifying poor variances, but apart from identifying the unit level as key, they did not reveal the individuals who would take that action. More recent published evidence from empirical studies of the hotel controller’s involvement comes from Schmidgall, Borchgrevink and Zahl-Begnum, who compared practices in the USA with that in Scandinavia. In the process of reviewing the literature into budgeting, it became apparent that the general manager of the hotel plays a key role in operating budgetary control, and would be the relevant corroborating authority for perceptions of a controllers’ participation. However, questions on the issue at hand remained unanswered; a controller is involved in the operating budgets and it is clearly a significant event, but where does his/her role stop? Does it stop at preparation and reporting (liaison and dissemination), or being involved in the taking of corrective action (disturbancehandling)? Do controllers think they have a role to play in taking action where adverse variances have occurred between budgeted and actual performances in the main departments of the hotel? Do the general managers expect controllers to play a role in liaison, dissemination and disturbance-handling? Is, in fact, the operating budgetary control process a ‘‘significant event’’ for the hotel unit financial controller in Hong Kong? 4.2. Preliminary studies The results of empirical studies on hotel controllers and their involvement in operating budgets were obtained mainly in the USA. Although a part of Tsui’s study in Hong Kong had revealed a degree of involvement in operating budgets, which Burgess (1996) had commented upon, the importance of the operating budget process

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

71

to the controller in the Hong Kong hotel context [the ‘‘involvement in the significant event’’] needed confirmation. This confirmation was achieved by means of two studies involving separate methodologies; one using a questionnaire survey method of an explicit character (quantitative) with junior hotel management and the other using personal construct theory (qualitative method) with a number of controllers who were excluded from the study proper. Then, through a series of interviews with hotel executives, (but excluding the subject group of hotel controllers and general managers) and this author’s own work within the industry, two procedures [or ‘‘steps’’] comprising the control phase of the operating budget process were identified. From these interviews, it became clear that from a controller’s involvement perspective, there were two distinct steps in the control phase. Within each of these steps, specific activities could be identified, that might necessitate the controller playing a liaison, dissemination or disturbancehandling role, as follows: Step 1: Reporting phase. It was universally agreed that the controllers were concerned with the production and distribution of the ‘‘month-end’’ reports showing performance against budget (liaison). A need often arose to explain how the figures presented in the reports had been arrived at (dissemination) and that, if the figures showed a poorer performance actually achieved than budgeted, department heads would tend to complain as to the accuracy of the report (disturbance-handling). Often, figures might often not come on time to the controller from departments, causing the deadline for the reports to be threatened (disturbance-handling). Step 2: Corrective action phase. Less of a consensus was forthcoming, as to whether the controller felt the need to get involved in pointing out problem areas and suggesting reasons for the poor performance and ways performance might be improved (liaison and dissemination). Possible problem areas identified were with those department heads who had no proposals for improvement to make, and that, despite proposed action steps agreed upon, no action had been taken by department heads (disturbance-handling).

5. The research method Such considerations suggested the interview, in preference to questionnaires, as the most appropriate method in eliciting data. A key concern mitigating against the use of questionnaires was the issue of corroboration and thus the need to obtain independently, data from the controller and his/her general manager. The risk of collaboration between the individuals was felt to be high with questionnaires; in addition, there was a need not to alert the controller to the nature of the investigation and thus avert the issue of ‘‘talking up’’. The analysis of the content of interviews necessitates the adoption of qualitative research methods. However, many researchers are uneasy with qualitative techniques and doubt the reasonableness of this approach. Miles and Huberman (1984) and Lincoln and Guba (1985) amongst others, discuss these concerns but contend that the

72

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

constructed truth and relevancy of qualitative analysis are judged by credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. They maintain that these four concepts have roles analogous to internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity in quantitative studies. Each of these aspects is now discussed. 5.1. Credibility (internal validity) Criticisms of qualitative research are often centred on the apparent subjective way that data are collected. Henderson (1991) stresses that some direction need be initially set, which may be termed a ‘‘guiding hypothesis’’. Qualitative researchers are more interested in process, however, it is important to explain how certain conclusions were reached. The concept of ‘‘repetitive redundancy’’ in data collected, corroboration and triangulation increase internal validity; the more that the researcher can report the same occurrence, the greater the confidence in the final conclusions. In this study the following ‘‘guiding hypothesis’’ was constructed, which served to focus the investigation: that the hotel financial controller has lower expectations of participation in the disturbance-handling role than in liaison and dissemination roles in the control phase of the operating budgetary control process. 5.2. Transferability (external validity) One of the main objectives of all research is that the findings from the research are able to be generalised to some degree beyond the immediate situations. Thus, units studied need to be representative of the units to which results might be generalised. Although differing views exist whether the qualitative researcher should attempt generalisation, Lincoln and Guba consider that one of the most useful ways to view external validity is to consider the findings as working hypotheses that can be transferable to other situations depending on the degree of ‘‘fittingness’’ between two contexts. In this study, care was taken to build in as much homogeneity as practically possible; the same work activity and to include in the population only hotels of the same category (international hotels) and size ('200 rooms). A degree of homogeneity was achieved in the profile of the controllers, in that, at the time of study, all were local Hong Kong Chinese. 5.3. Dependability (reliability) Henderson contends that the research needs to have an ‘‘audit trail’’, describing how she/he came to the conclusions made and that another person ought to be able to follow that trail and obtain the same conclusions. Essentially, the argument here is one of ensuring a systematic and consistent approach throughout the investigation. In this study, the final method used to achieve consistent and systematic responses arose out of experimentation and pilot testing. This was achieved by respondents in the study proper being given a short preamble and a guidance sheet for their note taking

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

73

purposes, before considering their responses which were taped and subsequently transcribed. The interview style thus evolved to a ‘‘semi-structured’’ basis on ‘‘teacher/pupil exchange’’ principles (Coulthard, Montgomery and Brazil, 1981) to ensure necessary consistency. 5.4. Confirmability (objectivity) Lincoln and Guba maintain that no researcher can be totally objective, but the data collected can be objective. Thus, corroboration and consistency combine to ensure that the data collected is factual and confirmable. The attitude taken towards the number and choice of subject (the sample) is critical. Babbie (1983) maintains that in qualitative research, the test of an adequate sample is that interviews made are representative of all possible interviews that could have been conducted. As Glaser and Strauss (1967) elaborate, the researcher decides when to quit on the basis of ‘‘theoretical saturation’’. Saturation is reached with simultaneous data gathering and analysis and it occurs when the researcher realises that the data collected are repetitive and no new information is being found. In this study all international hotels over 200 rooms were available for interview (population "67) and invited to participate. However, the hotels that formed the sample were those where both controller and general manager were willing to participate within an acceptable time frame for the fieldwork (three months). As the incumbents of hotels meeting this criteria responded to the invitation, so the interviews were carried out and results analysed. After a dozen hotels a pattern of repetition in the responses had been established, however, a further six hotels were able to be included within the time frame set. Thus, the guiding hypothesis, the identification of the ‘‘significant event’’ and the considerations as discussed above combined to form the final research design. 5.5. Operationalization To ensure the necessary attention to the corroboration of a controller’s response, it was decided to carry out three investigations with each hotel as detailed below: f Controller’s perceptions of participating in liaison, dissemination and disturbancehandling roles in the control phase of the operating budgetary process. f Controllers’ perceptions on the expectations held by their general manager of the controller’s participation in liaison, dissemination and disturbance-handling roles in the control phase of the operating budgetary process. f General manager’s perceptions of the controller’s participation in liaison, dissemination and disturbance-handling roles in the control phase of the operating budgetary process. In order for the controller at the outset to be unaware of the real purpose of the research, the true objectives of the study, as one of wishing to identify the expectations of controllers was not revealed. The study was called ‘‘an investigation into operating budget control processes in hotels’’. [Clearly, the focus of the study would be revealed in the second interview, but not in a directly overt way.]

74

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

6. The study proper 6.1. Fieldwork Two interviews were carried out with each controller, one immediately following the other. An interview with the general manager followed at a later date. First interview with the controller: The controller was asked to identify for each of the two steps of the control phase identified above, members of the executive committee of the hotel (EXCOM) who they would expect to be involved in the roles of liaison, dissemination and disturbance-handling. Second interview with the controller: The controller was asked to comment on perceptions that he/she felt the general manager held towards his/her involvement in each of the steps and roles. Interview with the general manager: The controller’s general manager was asked for his/her perception of expectations of the controller in each of the steps and roles. The study yielded 54 transcribed interviews comprising a total of 18 international hotels; that is, two interviews with each hotel’s controller and one with the general manager of that hotel. Thus, for each hotel there were three interviews. 6.2. Analysis Once transcribed, the contents of the interview were ready for analysis. Content analysis takes an implicit approach to data gathering. Holsti (1969), Krippendorff (1977), and Andren (1981), debated, some years ago, issues of reliability in discourse analysis in general and content analysis in particular. A summary of views concluded that, no matter what may be the differing opinions on the issue there remained: ‘‘2 the concrete criterion of reliability in content analysis, that results must be epistemically independent; ‘‘regardless of who does the analysis, the same data should be secured’’ (Andren, 1981:54).’’ O’Sullivan (1994) describes content analysis as the analysis of frequencies in manifest content of messages using the identification and counting of key units of content as the basis of its method. It stresses the objectivity and repeatability of its methods, and uses the empiricism of its data to define itself in contrast to more interpretive methods of studying content. Others such as Judd, et al. (1991), describe content analysis as similar to the definition of systematic observation of natural behaviour. The technique requires objectivity in coding categories to ensure three things; reliability; systematic application of these coding systems across a representative sample of material to control observer bias; and consistency in theoretical aims so that the findings can be related to some relevant variable. The process of the analysis of content, therefore, developed from summarizing the responses through to the making of inferences and hence categorization. To illustrate this process, and to make sense of the table in the findings section to come, a complete set of three interviews of one hotel is shown below, followed by a description of the summaries, inferences and categories that derived from the data.

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

75

Both controller and general manager (in separate interviews on separate days) made detailed notes and then so to speak ‘‘read them over’’. Much time was therefore saved in transcription for this hotel, as both were concise and to the point. 6.2.1. First interview with the controller The transcript read as follows: [the original text, with the occasional error in English has been left unaltered. Names have been changed to job functions at the EXCOM level]. Step 1 The Controller will collect information and figures from the Department Heads and sub-department heads. A computerized print out report together with a simple memorandum, explaining the result are distributed to the management and all Department Heads. The Controller has the responsibility to explain all the figures given on the report to the GM to make him fully understand the figures so that he can deal with the owning company and the owner, if they have any doubts regarding the hotel’s performance. However, when there are any adverse variances the GM and EXCOM members will usually bring it out to the Department Heads concerned. The GM always asserts his comments and reasons on the adverse variances, and seldom discuss or investigate the reason why it occurred. Therefore, an exciting discussion or argument are often happening between them. If the Department Heads disagree with the figures on the report, they will discuss with the Controller. The Controller will listen to the Department Heads in a cooperative way and re-evaluate the figures again. When the department cannot provide the figures to the Controller in time, the Controller will push the Head to submit the figures as soon as they can and no more delay will be allowed. Step 2 After analyzing the variances, each department has to prepare a report for the superior to explain the reasons for the variances and proposes action to take. Therefore, a formal meeting will be held by the Department Head within the department. The General Manager and EXCOM members will point out the variances that they think which is unacceptable to each Department Head and further action is needed to diminish its adverse variance. If the Department Heads have no proposals to make after the meeting, the GM and EXCOM will force the Department Heads to prepare the proposal for approval, otherwise they will have to follow the instruction from the GM. If there is no further action, the GM refuse to know the reason and will push the EXCOM members to make sure everything is in progress. A lengthy discussion between the EXCOM and the Department Heads is then carried out. The EXCOM members will work together with the Department Heads to find out how to start the action and the constrain which hinder the action taken.

76

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

In each step there are four possible outcomes to this controller’s perception of his involvement in liaison, dissemination and disturbance-handling roles. These outcomes are the categories, which are derived from summary and inference. The first possible outcome is that the controller does not mention himself. In step 2 the controller does not mention himself in any of the role activities. Thus, it might be inferred from this summary that this controller has no perception of involvement. The second possibility is that this controller mentions himself, in what might be termed a ‘‘positive way’’. Such is the case for all role activities in step 1. Thus, it might be inferred that this controller perceives himself to be involved. The third possibility is that the controller mentions himself, in what might be termed a ‘‘negative way’’. Such is not the case here. Were there to be such an occurrence, then the inference might be made that there is no perception of involvement. The fourth possibility is that despite the instructions and use of guidance sheets, the controller might stray off the point and talk, in what might be termed, a ‘‘non-specific way’’. Such is not the case here. Were there to be such an occurrence, no inferences could be made. Thus, all the data can be brought into the analysis to form the four categories relevant to perceived participation: a ‘‘non-mention’’; a ‘‘positive’’; a ‘‘negative’’ and a ‘‘non-specific’’. 6.2.2. Second interview with the controller These ‘‘follow on’’ interviews with the controller were always of shorter duration. In many cases much time was spent explaining exactly what was required; the perceptions that the controller feels the general manager has towards his/her (the controller’s) involvement. This concept proved difficult in some cases, leading to ‘‘non-specific’’ responses by a few of the respondents. Step 1 As I am directly employed by the owning company, I am situated in a very embarrassing situation. I think the GM does not trust me at all, as he is always afraid I will report what I know to the Chief Financial Officer and he will get into trouble. So he expects me to only do what he delegates me to do such as contact Department heads to collect figures and data from them, to make sure figures are accurate and ready in time, to prepare the variance report and then keep everything [off?]-handed. Step 2 He does not expect me to involve in variance analysis and find out its causes and reasons, as it may disclose some operation and management problems which he is not willing to let the owner know. Therefore, I have to keep myself very low profile and minimize the involvement in management decision making. If any conflict has occurred between Department Heads and GM regarding the variance, I think the General manager expects me not to involve in the conflict and handle directly by him and the EXCOM members.

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

77

In this second interview with the controller, the context of the question gives the possibility of three categories only: a ‘‘positive’’, a ‘‘negative’’ and a ‘‘non-specific’’. In step 2, there is an explicit ‘‘negative’’ perception from this controller for all of the role activities. In step 1, it might be inferred that there is a ‘‘positive’’ perception for the liaison and dissemination role activities, but a ‘‘negative’’ perception for disturbancehandling. 6.2.3. Interview with the general manager Step 1 The Controller will produce the actual against the budget every four weeks. He doesn’t need to make any justification on the figure provided, besides I will be the one who has to explain, these figures to the owner. Therefore, I expect the Controller only need to consolidate the figures. However, if there is any adverse variance, I expect the Department Heads to give me the reason and explanation directly. If the figures are not ready in time, I expect the Controller will push all Department Heads to hand in the figures in time. Step 2 When I want to examine the variances, I would expect the Department Heads to work out a report for action and report it directly to me. The Controller has no need to be involved in this variance analysis. I will point out all the variances and what action should be taken. I will push the Department Heads to carry out a meeting with their staff to find out the action to be taken. If no proposal is made, I will push the Department Heads directly; there is no involvement required from the Controller. In this case, In step 1, the general manager has given a ‘‘positive’’ perception to expectations of his controller’s involvement in liaison and dissemination. However, in disturbance-handling the picture is mixed; ‘‘positive’’ for getting the figures out, but ‘‘negative’’ for advising on variances. On balance, therefore, the inference is a ‘‘negative’’ one. In step 2, the position is clearer; a ‘‘negative’’ inference in all role activities. In this way, the contents of each of the 54 transcripts were summarized, inferences made and categorised. 6.3. Findings The findings from the analysis described above is shown in Table 1. To each step there are the three role activities, abbreviated as follows: LIA. for Liaison: DIS. for Dissemination: DH. for Disturbance Handling. The categories (at the head of each column) are abbreviated thus: f NM [the controller Not Mentioning himself/herself (applies only to the first interview].

78

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

Table 1 Summary of the results of all hotel interviews Step

LIA. DIS. DH.

f f f

1 2 1 2 1 2

First interview with the controller

Second interview with the controller

Interview with the general manager

NM

Y

N

NS

Y

N

NS

Y

N

NS

0 7 0 7 7 13

18 11 18 11 11 5

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

15 14 15 14 10 5

0 2 0 2 4 12

3 2 3 2 4 1

17 13 17 14 12 6

0 4 0 3 5 12

1 1 1 1 1 0

Y [Yes, the ‘‘positive’’ perception of involvement.] N [ No, the ‘‘negative’’ perception of involvement.] NS [ Non Specific; where the respondent has strayed off the topic.]

6.4. Summary of findings These findings are now summarised by role activity and step. In particular, the extent of corroboration present in the data is identified. ¸iaison [LIA.]. In step 1 in the first interview, each controller mentioned that he/she expected to be involved in the production and distribution of the ‘‘month end’’ reports showing the performance for that month against the budget (Y"18). Such sentiments expressed seemed to have a large degree of corroboration in both the second interviews with the controllers (Y"15:NS"3) and in the interviews with the general managers (Y"17:NS"1). In step 2, in the first interview, just under half of the controllers (NM"7) perceived no expectation of involvement despite their perception, in the second interview, that their general managers expected them to get involved (Y "14). There was a large degree of corroboration from the general managers with this perception (Y"13). Dissemination [DIS.]. In step 1, controllers in their first interview perceived themselves to be the person to explain how the figures on the reports have been arrived at (Y"18). There was a large degree of corroboration from the general managers (Y"17:NS"1) and from the controllers (Y"15:NS"3). In step 2, in the first interview, just under half of the controllers (NM"7) perceived no expectation of involvement despite their perception, in the second interview, that their general managers expected them to get involved (Y"14). There was, a large degree of corroboration from the general managers with this perception (Y"14). Disturbance handling [DH.]. In step 1, in the first interview, over half of the controllers (Y"11) perceived an expectation of involvement in chasing up department heads to get figures in time and problems associated with this objective. There

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

79

was a large degree of corroboration with this perception from the second interview with the controllers (Y"10) and from the general managers (Y"12). In step 2, in the first interview, about two-thirds of the controllers perceived no involvement in the taking of corrective action to rectify poor performance (NM"13). There was a large degree of corroboration with this perception from the controllers in their second interviews (N"12) and from the general managers (N"12).

7. Conclusion The extent of corroboration found gives a degree of confidence in the data to support the assertion that, on the basis of this study on 18 hotels, relatively few controllers in the control phase of operating budgetary process, perceive themselves as being involved in a wider set of roles than that of supplying information in the form of reports. They themselves do not seem to expect, neither are they expected by their general managers, to become involved in roles other than the traditionally prescribed one; that of reporting. In this study, there seems to be some support for the guiding hypothesis; that controllers perceive themselves as participating more in role activities concerning liaison and dissemination than in disturbance-handling. It appears that the interpersonal and informational roles are perceived as more relevant by controllers than decision-making. However, in step 1, the reporting phase, controllers seem to accept the need to ‘‘handle disturbances’’ if reports are to be distributed on time, in contrast to the need to take department heads to task for poor performance (in step 2, the corrective action phase). It may seem that the controllers have a clear perception of the distinction between decision ‘‘support’’ and decision ‘‘taking’’. Clearly, the controller perceives getting the reports out in time as a primary responsibility; however, decision ‘‘support’’ activities such as pointing out problem areas, suggesting reasons for poor performance and the way it might be improved are not perceived as part of his/her job. Some evidence is present in the data to suggest a degree of role conflict, as controllers seem aware that their general managers have expectations of the controller in this area of decision ‘‘support’’. It would seem reasonable to suggest that a controller wishing to expand his/her role into involvement with decision-making might feel that this would be a welcome initiative, given that his/her involvement has the blessing of the general manager. That controllers do not seize this opportunity may be the most telling indication of their deep felt reluctance to depart from traditionally accepted roles. It seems evident from these findings that where controllers might be expected to participate in taking corrective action, that neither controllers nor general managers hold such expectations. This paper has reported on the extent of perceptions in decision-making held by hotel unit financial controllers. There would seem scope for investigating the reasons why controllers hold these perceptions. There would seem to be many factors that form these perceptions; factors to do with differences in national culture, corporate

80

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

culture, role conflict and power, influence and personalities of controllers themselves, general managers, owners, head office personnel and peer managers. Clearly, more research into the relative importance of these factors is required. This study has concentrated on one aspect of decision-making; that of disturbancehandling in operational issues. Clearly, there are other decision-making roles that Mintzberg identified; such as entrepreneurial, negotiating, and resource allocation which may well reveal more positive perceptions of involvement in decisionmaking on the part of the hotel controller than on the specific issue of disturbancehandling.

References Andren, G., 1981. Reliability and content analysis. In: Rosengren, K. (Ed.), Advances in Content Analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Babbie, E., 1983. The Practice of Social Research, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA. Burgess, C.L., 1994. The education and training needs of the hotel financial controller, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 6(5), 9—13. Burgess, C.L., 1996. A profile of the hotel financial controller in the United Kingdom, United States and Hong Kong. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 15(1), 19—28. Coulthard, M., Montgomery, M., Brazil, D., 1981. Developing a description of spoken discourse, In: Coulthard, M., Montgomery, M. (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Analysis. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., UK. Crescenzi, A.D., Kocher, J., 1984. Management support systems: opportunity for controllers. Management Accounting, 2, 34—37. Damitio, J.W., Schmidgall, R.S., 1991. A comparison of hospitality executives’, educators’ and students’ views on the importance of accounting skills. International Journal of Hospitality Management 10(3), 219—228. Dann, D., 1990. The nature of managerial work in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 9(4) 319—334. Davenport, T.H., 1993. Process Innovation — Re-Engineering Work through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Eder, R.W., Umbreit, W.T., 1989. Measures of managerial effectiveness in the hotel industry. Hospitality Research Journal 13(3), 333—341. Geller, A., Schmidgall, R., 1984. The hotel controller: more than a bookkeeper. Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly 25(2), 16—22. Geller, A., Ilvento, C., Schmidgall, R., 1990. The hotel controller: revisited. Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly 38(7) 91—97. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Pub. Co., New York. Hamilton-Harding, R., 1990. The Comptroller of the ‘90s’. Business Quarterly (Canada) 54(4), 86—90. Henderson, K., 1991. Dimensions of Choice: A Qualitative Approach to Recreation. Parks and Leisure Research, State College: Venture. Holsti, O.R., 1969. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA Judd, C.M., Smith, E.R., Kidder, L.H., 1991. Research Methods in Social Relations, 6th Ed., Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College, USA. Kosturakis, J.G., Eyster, J.J., 1979. Operational budgeting in small hotel companies. Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly 19(4), 80—84. Kotchian, A., 1970. An overview. In: Vancil, R.F. (Ed.), Financial Executive’s Handbook. Dow Jones-Irwin Inc., New York.

D. Gibson/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 65—81

81

Krippendorff, K., 1977. Validity in content analysis. Philadelphia: Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania. Lincoln, Y., Guba, E., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Medlik, S., 1980. The Business of Hotels. Heinemann, London. Mintzberg, H., 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. Harper and Row, New York. Miles, M., Huberman, M., 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills CA. Moore, R. Stefanelli, J., 1989. Power and the Hotel Controller’s Role. Hospitality Education and Research Journal 13, 1—12. O’Sullivan, T. et al., 1994. Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies, 2nd Ed. Routledge, England. Pickup, I., 1985. Budgetary control within the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 4(4), 149—155. Pipkin, A., 1989. The 21st century controller. Management Accounting (US) 2, 21—25. Potter, J., Wetherell, M., 1992. Discourse and social Psychology — Beyond Attitude and Behaviour. Sage Publications, London, UK. Runk, R.C., Loretta, R.G., 1989. Controllers on the firing line. Management Accounting 11, 38—42. Sathe, V., 1982. Controller involvement in Management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NY. Rusth, D.B., 1990. Hotel budgeting in a multinational environment: results of a pilot study, Hospitality Research Journal 14(2), 217—222. Schmidgall, R., Ninemeier, J., 1986. Food-service budgeting: how the chains do it. Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly 26(4), 51—57. Schmidgall, R., Ninemeier, J., 1987. Budgeting in hotel chains: coordination and control, Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly 28(1), 79—84. Schmidgall, R., Ninemeier, J., 1989. Budgeting practice in lodging and food service chains: an analysis and comparison. International Journal of Hospitality Management 8(1), 35—41. Schmidgall, R.S., Borchgrevink, C.P., Zahl-Begnum, O.H., 1996. Operations budgeting practices of lodging firms in the United States and Scandinavia. International Journal of Hospitality Management 15(2), 189—203. Tse, E., 1989. A profile of the IAHA Member. Bottomline, October/November, 42—53. Tsui Mei-Ting, 1993. A study of hotel controllers in Hong Kong. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Webb, E.J., 1978. Unconventionality, triangulation and inference. In: Denzin, N.K. (Ed.), Sociological methods: A Source Book, 2nd ed., Chicago: Alcline 322—328. Whyte, W.F., 1982. Interviewing in field research. In: Burgess, R.G. (Ed.), Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. Allen and Unwin, London, UK. Willson, J., Colford, J., 1991. The new controller — with five redefined chores. Financial Executive, March/April, 22—27.