- Email: [email protected]
Can hospitality researchers contribute to the strategic management literature?1
Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
Discussion paper
Can hospitality researchers contribute to the strategic management literature?1 Fevzi Okumus* School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Mugla University, Mugla 48000, Turkey
Abstract This paper discusses whether hospitality researchers can contribute to the mainstream strategy literature. Recently, hospitality scholars recommended that research studies in our field should make a contribution to the mainstream. However, a critical review of the literature in both fields reveals that there is not only a big gap between the mainstream strategy literature and the strategic hospitality management literature but also this gap is getting bigger and there seems to be no an easy solution to overcome this problem. Given the existing quantity and quality of the research outputs in our field, contribution to the mainstream by hospitality researchers appears to be a challenging task. However, a number of key suggestions to achieve this aim can be proposed which are given and discussed in this paper. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Strategic management; Hospitality management; Strategy; Research
1. Introduction In a number of recent papers reviewing the strategic management literature in the hospitality management field it is recommended that research outputs in the strategic hospitality management field should contribute to the strategic management field by providing new insights into the mainstream theories from the hospitality industry (Edgar and Taylor, 1996; Olsen and Roper, 1998). In the numerous academic forums including CHRIE and CHME research conferences, academics and researchers are also reminded and required that their conference papers should contribute to the *Tel.: +90-252-212-4002; fax: +90-252-212-4005. E-mail address: okumus [email protected] (F. Okumus). 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 10th Annual Hospitality Research Conference (CHME2001), South Bank University, London 19–20 April. 0278-4319/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 7 8 - 4 3 1 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 3 3 - 0
106
F. Okumus / Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
strategy literature. One can strongly support this ambitious suggestion believing that this is feasible and every research study in the strategic hospitality management field should aim for this. However, when critically assessing the current level of the strategy literature in the hospitality field, it emerges that there are a number of reasons that make it very difficult to accomplish this suggestion. This paper, therefore, aims to discuss whether and how hospitality researchers can really contribute to the mainstream strategic management literature. It starts by reviewing the quantity and quality of strategic management literature in the hospitality and business fields. It then identifies those reasons that make it difficult for hospitality researchers to contribute to the strategic management literature. The paper finally concludes by offering several key suggestions concerning how to overcome those impediments.
2. Assessing the strategy literature in both fields Depending upon different strategic viewpoints in the strategic management field, there are various understandings of what strategy means. For example, strategy is considered as a plan to achieve ‘coherence’ between the company’s internal resources and the external environment (Ansoff, 1994). Alternatively, strategy is perceived as a complex, dynamic and learning process, where companies can make mistakes and learn from them (De Geus, 1988). Finally, strategy is also seen as a stretch where company’s resources and abilities are allocated to specific areas and these resources are forced to match the necessary requirements (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989). In the strategic hospitality management field, leading authors such as Michael Olsen, Richard Teare and their colleagues tend to see strategy as a plan and in their writings they strongly emphasize the importance of achieving the ‘fit’ between the organisations’ external and internal environments. They call this the ‘co-alignment principle’. Leading strategy scholars such as Mintzberg et al. (1998) and Stacey (2000) object to this principle and argue that the external environment has become very dynamic and complex and therefore, it is almost impossible for organisations to achieve and maintain this coherence. These leading strategic management scholars thus state that recommending organisations to achieve this is not possible in complex and dynamic working environments. Building on the above discussion, strategy scholars have identified different views as to what strategic management is and how strategies should be formulated and implemented. For example, Mintzberg et al. (1998) identify ten, Johnson and Scholes (1999) seven and Whittington (1993) four views. Starting from the oldest to the newest one, some of these views are the classical planning, emergent, cultural, contingency, configurational and the complexity views. When critically reviewing the strategic hospitality management literature, there are no different views as to what strategic management is in the hospitality industry. The one dominant view appears to be the classical planning approach. This may mean that undergraduate and postgraduate students in the hospitality management schools are not adequately informed about different strategic management views which have emerged in the
F. Okumus / Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
107
mainstream. It also appears that hospitality researchers apply strategic management concepts directly to hospitality firms and none of them has provided research findings which indicate that there are any particular differences between the strategic management in hospitality firms and in any other types of firms. Strategic management has four main phases: analysis, formulation, implementation and evaluation. Strategy scholars state that these are overlapping phases and therefore should not be considered alone if the process is understood well. In the hospitality management field, most studies see strategic management as a linear process starting from the analysis, formulation, implementation and evaluation of results. As stated by Whitehill (1996), recent research studies in the mainstream concentrate on strategic learning, managing strategic change, strategy implementation, core competencies, complexities and dynamics of the strategy process and managing international operations. On the other hand, as noted by Olsen and Roper (1998), in the hospitality management field, most research studies mainly focus on environmental scanning and the strategy-structure relationship in hospitality organisations. It appears that research studies in the mainstream investigate issues related to the last two phases or investigate strategy process as a whole, while research studies in the hospitality field focus on the first two phases of strategic management. It is known that in the mainstream these areas received much attention in the 1970s and 1980s (Whitehill, 1996). In short, there are different research priorities in both fields and interestingly, hospitality researchers appear to follow key research areas and issues in the mainstream almost two decades later than their counterparts in the strategic management field. To sum up, the above discussion implies that the existing strategic management literature in the hospitality management field is far behind the mainstream literature. Several reasons may explain this and they are identified and discussed below.
3. Difficulties in contributing to the mainstream literature Although there is no reliable statistical evidence about the number of hospitality and business schools worldwide it is known that there are fewer hospitality schools and researchers worldwide than business schools and strategy researchers. Given this it can be claimed that there are more academics and researchers working on strategic management in business schools then strategy researchers in hospitality schools. If we are to list the leading scholars in both fields, for example, in the strategic management field, then we can have a long list, whereas in the hospitality management field there are not more than five or six academics actively researching issues related to strategic management in hospitality organisations. Securing funding and resources is the key to being able to carry out research. Academics in business schools, particularly those from well-established research universities, may have more chance to gain the necessary funds and resources for research not only from their universities but also from other research institutions and commercial organisations. Most hospitality schools are institutions specialising in
108
F. Okumus / Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
teaching rather than research, where academics have limited funding and support for research. Academics from business schools, particularly from established universities, are expected to be involved in research much more than the academics in hospitality schools. It is also known that many leading business schools have also established centres under different names such as strategy, strategic management, corporate management, strategic change, and business re-engineering centre which do both research and consultancy work together. Researchers both in the mainstream and the hospitality management field need to use organisations as their natural labs, and view managers and workers as their subjects. For researchers in the mainstream, the number of potential participant companies for research is much higher than for hospitality specialists. Researchers in the latter institutions can only collect data from hospitality organisations, whereas researchers from business schools can undertake research in all organisations including hospitality firms. In addition, it appears that for strategy researchers from well-known Universities their chances of facilitating access and funds for research is much higher than for researchers from a hospitality school. Academic journals and books are important vehicles to disseminate research findings about strategic management and its applications in organisations. In the mainstream there are several management journals specifically focusing on strategic management such as ‘Strategic Management Journal, Long Range Planning and Academy of Management Review, whereas in the hospitality management field there are only a few management journals disseminating research findings related to marketing, finance, strategic management and other areas. In addition, although mainstream researchers can publish their research findings related to hospitality organisations in hospitality management journals, very few hospitality academics appear to have disseminated their research findings in leading strategic management journals. In terms of strategic management texts, in the mainstream one can produce a long list of strategic management books and every year the number of the books get higher. In the hospitality management field, there are only a few textbooks on strategic management in hospitality firms. However, as stated by Okumus and Roper (1999) these texts appear to apply the implications of the traditional planning view to the hospitality industry and they therefore do not seem to take the knowledge of strategic management any further or differentiate hospitality industry perspectives from general ones. When the background and national origin of strategic management researchers are considered, both in the mainstream and hospitality management field, it is evident that most of them are from Anglo-Saxon countries. More specifically, they are mainly from the USA and the UK. In the mainstream, there have been researchers or research studies reflecting different cultural backgrounds such as French and Japanese (Itami, 1987). However, in the strategic hospitality management field, most researchers are either from or educated in the USA and/ or the UK. Moreover, most of the research studies are undertaken in hospitality organisations in the USA and the UK and very few research studies provide indepth explanation about how hospitality firms in other countries are strategically managed.
F. Okumus / Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
109
4. Concluding thoughts and recommendations This paper has sought to discuss whether and how hospitality researchers can contribute to the mainstream strategic management literature given the existing quantity and quality of the research outputs in the hospitality field. Based on the discussion throughout this paper, several key conclusions can be drawn. First, this review does not support the claim made by Olsen and Roper (1998, p. 119) that the strategy literature in the hospitality management field ‘is hardly embryonic’. In fact, it is still in its embryonic stage and moreover, the review reveals that strategic management literature in the hospitality management field is in trouble. This is because there is not only a big gap between the mainstream strategy literature and the strategic hospitality management literature, but also this gap is getting bigger and there seems to be no easy solution to overcome this problem. It is because compared to business schools and strategy researchers in them, there are fewer hospitality schools and researchers worldwide. Moreover hospitality researchers have less funding for research than the researchers in well-established business schools. To conclude, although it is desirable, contribution to the mainstream by hospitality researchers does not seem to be an easy task given the number of reasons discussed throughout this paper. However, a number of suggestions can perhaps be proposed to overcome the above problems. First, hospitality schools can seek close collaboration for research with leading commercial hospitality organisations. Second, hospitality schools may seek further collaboration and perhaps integration with the well-established business schools that can assist hospitality researchers to undertake multidisciplinary research projects with strategy researchers. Third, hospitality scholars should submit more strategic management papers to mainstream conferences and journals. This could enhance the quality of the research output from the hospitality field. A further suggestion is that hospitality researchers from different cultural backgrounds should undertake research studies together. Finally, again researchers from different cultural backgrounds can carry out research not only in hospitality organisations originated or based in the USA and the UK but also in organisations originated and based in other countries.
References Ansoff, H.I., 1994. Comment on Henry Mintzberg’s rethinking strategic planning. Long Range Planning 27 (3), 31–32. De Geus, A.P., 1988. Planning as learning, Harvard Business Review 70–74. Edgar, D., Taylor, S., 1996. Strategic management research in hospitality: from slipstream to mainstream? Proceedings of the Fifth Annual CHME Research Conference, Nottingham, UK, 10–11 April, pp. 264–278. Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K., 1989. Strategic intent, Harvard Business Review 63–76. Itami, H., 1987. Mobilising Invisible Assets. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., 1999. Exploring Corporate Strategy, Text and Cases. London, Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., Lampel, J., 1998. Strategy Safari. Prentice Hall, London. Okumus, F., Roper, A., 1999. A review of disparate approaches to strategy implementation in hospitality firms. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 23 (1), 20–38.
110
F. Okumus / Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
Olsen, M.D., Roper, A., 1998. Research in strategic management in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 17 (Special Issue), 111–124. Stacey, R.D., 2000. Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, 3rd Edition. Pitman Publishing, London. Whitehill, M., 1996. Strategy foresight: the future of strategy research. Long Range Planning 29 (2), 249–254. Whittington, R., 1993. What is Strategy and Does it Matter? Routledge, London.
Fevzi Okumus is an assistant professor at the School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Mugla University, Turkey. He teaches strategic hospitality management and research methodology. He is currently engaged in a study investigating competitive advantage of resort hotels in Mugla province, Turkey.
Discussion paper
Can hospitality researchers contribute to the strategic management literature?1 Fevzi Okumus* School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Mugla University, Mugla 48000, Turkey
Abstract This paper discusses whether hospitality researchers can contribute to the mainstream strategy literature. Recently, hospitality scholars recommended that research studies in our field should make a contribution to the mainstream. However, a critical review of the literature in both fields reveals that there is not only a big gap between the mainstream strategy literature and the strategic hospitality management literature but also this gap is getting bigger and there seems to be no an easy solution to overcome this problem. Given the existing quantity and quality of the research outputs in our field, contribution to the mainstream by hospitality researchers appears to be a challenging task. However, a number of key suggestions to achieve this aim can be proposed which are given and discussed in this paper. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Strategic management; Hospitality management; Strategy; Research
1. Introduction In a number of recent papers reviewing the strategic management literature in the hospitality management field it is recommended that research outputs in the strategic hospitality management field should contribute to the strategic management field by providing new insights into the mainstream theories from the hospitality industry (Edgar and Taylor, 1996; Olsen and Roper, 1998). In the numerous academic forums including CHRIE and CHME research conferences, academics and researchers are also reminded and required that their conference papers should contribute to the *Tel.: +90-252-212-4002; fax: +90-252-212-4005. E-mail address: okumus [email protected] (F. Okumus). 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 10th Annual Hospitality Research Conference (CHME2001), South Bank University, London 19–20 April. 0278-4319/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 7 8 - 4 3 1 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 3 3 - 0
106
F. Okumus / Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
strategy literature. One can strongly support this ambitious suggestion believing that this is feasible and every research study in the strategic hospitality management field should aim for this. However, when critically assessing the current level of the strategy literature in the hospitality field, it emerges that there are a number of reasons that make it very difficult to accomplish this suggestion. This paper, therefore, aims to discuss whether and how hospitality researchers can really contribute to the mainstream strategic management literature. It starts by reviewing the quantity and quality of strategic management literature in the hospitality and business fields. It then identifies those reasons that make it difficult for hospitality researchers to contribute to the strategic management literature. The paper finally concludes by offering several key suggestions concerning how to overcome those impediments.
2. Assessing the strategy literature in both fields Depending upon different strategic viewpoints in the strategic management field, there are various understandings of what strategy means. For example, strategy is considered as a plan to achieve ‘coherence’ between the company’s internal resources and the external environment (Ansoff, 1994). Alternatively, strategy is perceived as a complex, dynamic and learning process, where companies can make mistakes and learn from them (De Geus, 1988). Finally, strategy is also seen as a stretch where company’s resources and abilities are allocated to specific areas and these resources are forced to match the necessary requirements (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989). In the strategic hospitality management field, leading authors such as Michael Olsen, Richard Teare and their colleagues tend to see strategy as a plan and in their writings they strongly emphasize the importance of achieving the ‘fit’ between the organisations’ external and internal environments. They call this the ‘co-alignment principle’. Leading strategy scholars such as Mintzberg et al. (1998) and Stacey (2000) object to this principle and argue that the external environment has become very dynamic and complex and therefore, it is almost impossible for organisations to achieve and maintain this coherence. These leading strategic management scholars thus state that recommending organisations to achieve this is not possible in complex and dynamic working environments. Building on the above discussion, strategy scholars have identified different views as to what strategic management is and how strategies should be formulated and implemented. For example, Mintzberg et al. (1998) identify ten, Johnson and Scholes (1999) seven and Whittington (1993) four views. Starting from the oldest to the newest one, some of these views are the classical planning, emergent, cultural, contingency, configurational and the complexity views. When critically reviewing the strategic hospitality management literature, there are no different views as to what strategic management is in the hospitality industry. The one dominant view appears to be the classical planning approach. This may mean that undergraduate and postgraduate students in the hospitality management schools are not adequately informed about different strategic management views which have emerged in the
F. Okumus / Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
107
mainstream. It also appears that hospitality researchers apply strategic management concepts directly to hospitality firms and none of them has provided research findings which indicate that there are any particular differences between the strategic management in hospitality firms and in any other types of firms. Strategic management has four main phases: analysis, formulation, implementation and evaluation. Strategy scholars state that these are overlapping phases and therefore should not be considered alone if the process is understood well. In the hospitality management field, most studies see strategic management as a linear process starting from the analysis, formulation, implementation and evaluation of results. As stated by Whitehill (1996), recent research studies in the mainstream concentrate on strategic learning, managing strategic change, strategy implementation, core competencies, complexities and dynamics of the strategy process and managing international operations. On the other hand, as noted by Olsen and Roper (1998), in the hospitality management field, most research studies mainly focus on environmental scanning and the strategy-structure relationship in hospitality organisations. It appears that research studies in the mainstream investigate issues related to the last two phases or investigate strategy process as a whole, while research studies in the hospitality field focus on the first two phases of strategic management. It is known that in the mainstream these areas received much attention in the 1970s and 1980s (Whitehill, 1996). In short, there are different research priorities in both fields and interestingly, hospitality researchers appear to follow key research areas and issues in the mainstream almost two decades later than their counterparts in the strategic management field. To sum up, the above discussion implies that the existing strategic management literature in the hospitality management field is far behind the mainstream literature. Several reasons may explain this and they are identified and discussed below.
3. Difficulties in contributing to the mainstream literature Although there is no reliable statistical evidence about the number of hospitality and business schools worldwide it is known that there are fewer hospitality schools and researchers worldwide than business schools and strategy researchers. Given this it can be claimed that there are more academics and researchers working on strategic management in business schools then strategy researchers in hospitality schools. If we are to list the leading scholars in both fields, for example, in the strategic management field, then we can have a long list, whereas in the hospitality management field there are not more than five or six academics actively researching issues related to strategic management in hospitality organisations. Securing funding and resources is the key to being able to carry out research. Academics in business schools, particularly those from well-established research universities, may have more chance to gain the necessary funds and resources for research not only from their universities but also from other research institutions and commercial organisations. Most hospitality schools are institutions specialising in
108
F. Okumus / Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
teaching rather than research, where academics have limited funding and support for research. Academics from business schools, particularly from established universities, are expected to be involved in research much more than the academics in hospitality schools. It is also known that many leading business schools have also established centres under different names such as strategy, strategic management, corporate management, strategic change, and business re-engineering centre which do both research and consultancy work together. Researchers both in the mainstream and the hospitality management field need to use organisations as their natural labs, and view managers and workers as their subjects. For researchers in the mainstream, the number of potential participant companies for research is much higher than for hospitality specialists. Researchers in the latter institutions can only collect data from hospitality organisations, whereas researchers from business schools can undertake research in all organisations including hospitality firms. In addition, it appears that for strategy researchers from well-known Universities their chances of facilitating access and funds for research is much higher than for researchers from a hospitality school. Academic journals and books are important vehicles to disseminate research findings about strategic management and its applications in organisations. In the mainstream there are several management journals specifically focusing on strategic management such as ‘Strategic Management Journal, Long Range Planning and Academy of Management Review, whereas in the hospitality management field there are only a few management journals disseminating research findings related to marketing, finance, strategic management and other areas. In addition, although mainstream researchers can publish their research findings related to hospitality organisations in hospitality management journals, very few hospitality academics appear to have disseminated their research findings in leading strategic management journals. In terms of strategic management texts, in the mainstream one can produce a long list of strategic management books and every year the number of the books get higher. In the hospitality management field, there are only a few textbooks on strategic management in hospitality firms. However, as stated by Okumus and Roper (1999) these texts appear to apply the implications of the traditional planning view to the hospitality industry and they therefore do not seem to take the knowledge of strategic management any further or differentiate hospitality industry perspectives from general ones. When the background and national origin of strategic management researchers are considered, both in the mainstream and hospitality management field, it is evident that most of them are from Anglo-Saxon countries. More specifically, they are mainly from the USA and the UK. In the mainstream, there have been researchers or research studies reflecting different cultural backgrounds such as French and Japanese (Itami, 1987). However, in the strategic hospitality management field, most researchers are either from or educated in the USA and/ or the UK. Moreover, most of the research studies are undertaken in hospitality organisations in the USA and the UK and very few research studies provide indepth explanation about how hospitality firms in other countries are strategically managed.
F. Okumus / Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
109
4. Concluding thoughts and recommendations This paper has sought to discuss whether and how hospitality researchers can contribute to the mainstream strategic management literature given the existing quantity and quality of the research outputs in the hospitality field. Based on the discussion throughout this paper, several key conclusions can be drawn. First, this review does not support the claim made by Olsen and Roper (1998, p. 119) that the strategy literature in the hospitality management field ‘is hardly embryonic’. In fact, it is still in its embryonic stage and moreover, the review reveals that strategic management literature in the hospitality management field is in trouble. This is because there is not only a big gap between the mainstream strategy literature and the strategic hospitality management literature, but also this gap is getting bigger and there seems to be no easy solution to overcome this problem. It is because compared to business schools and strategy researchers in them, there are fewer hospitality schools and researchers worldwide. Moreover hospitality researchers have less funding for research than the researchers in well-established business schools. To conclude, although it is desirable, contribution to the mainstream by hospitality researchers does not seem to be an easy task given the number of reasons discussed throughout this paper. However, a number of suggestions can perhaps be proposed to overcome the above problems. First, hospitality schools can seek close collaboration for research with leading commercial hospitality organisations. Second, hospitality schools may seek further collaboration and perhaps integration with the well-established business schools that can assist hospitality researchers to undertake multidisciplinary research projects with strategy researchers. Third, hospitality scholars should submit more strategic management papers to mainstream conferences and journals. This could enhance the quality of the research output from the hospitality field. A further suggestion is that hospitality researchers from different cultural backgrounds should undertake research studies together. Finally, again researchers from different cultural backgrounds can carry out research not only in hospitality organisations originated or based in the USA and the UK but also in organisations originated and based in other countries.
References Ansoff, H.I., 1994. Comment on Henry Mintzberg’s rethinking strategic planning. Long Range Planning 27 (3), 31–32. De Geus, A.P., 1988. Planning as learning, Harvard Business Review 70–74. Edgar, D., Taylor, S., 1996. Strategic management research in hospitality: from slipstream to mainstream? Proceedings of the Fifth Annual CHME Research Conference, Nottingham, UK, 10–11 April, pp. 264–278. Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K., 1989. Strategic intent, Harvard Business Review 63–76. Itami, H., 1987. Mobilising Invisible Assets. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., 1999. Exploring Corporate Strategy, Text and Cases. London, Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., Lampel, J., 1998. Strategy Safari. Prentice Hall, London. Okumus, F., Roper, A., 1999. A review of disparate approaches to strategy implementation in hospitality firms. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 23 (1), 20–38.
110
F. Okumus / Hospitality Management 21 (2002) 105–110
Olsen, M.D., Roper, A., 1998. Research in strategic management in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 17 (Special Issue), 111–124. Stacey, R.D., 2000. Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, 3rd Edition. Pitman Publishing, London. Whitehill, M., 1996. Strategy foresight: the future of strategy research. Long Range Planning 29 (2), 249–254. Whittington, R., 1993. What is Strategy and Does it Matter? Routledge, London.
Fevzi Okumus is an assistant professor at the School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Mugla University, Turkey. He teaches strategic hospitality management and research methodology. He is currently engaged in a study investigating competitive advantage of resort hotels in Mugla province, Turkey.